« السابقةمتابعة »
preaching of the gospel, and baptizing, common to them and other ministers,) to ordain a succession of the meet administrators of his church. Thus they were, would be, must be, succeeded. Neither could the church otherwise have subsisted. No Christian can denie this, all binding upon a necessitie of apostolical succession, though differing in the qualitie and degree of their successors.
Or have the works of Bishop Beveridge been consigned to oblivion, and must we soil our fingers with learned dust before we can find out, in his obsolete pages, some testimony in favour of this despised doctrine? If he is not too old to touch, the editor may find in his first sermon on Matt. xxviii. 20, as strong assertions of the apostolic succession as any to be found in the tracts of Dr. Pusey, or the recent sermon of Mr. Crosthwaite. Let me ask, again, is Law's controversy with Hoadley a thing of such remote antiquity that few have heard of it ? and is there no mention there of this exploded doctrine, and no arguments used to prove its truth against the cavils of the Socinian school ? Fortunately this work is not now in black letter, for there was a reprint of it in 1835, and there may easily be found in it some plain assertions on the subject (see pp. 12, 128). But surely we cannot suppose but that the editor of the “ Dublin Record” must have read these, and many other treatises on the same subject. If he has not, where is his modesty in taking on himself the office of a theological critic? If he has, where is his candour in accusing such men as Dr. Pusey and Mr. Crosthwaite with “ grubbing up from their forgotten dust, and launching on the world in all their pristine absurdity,” opinions which he knows have been held by the most pious and learned divines of our church ?
There is, however, one argument used by the “ Dublin Record” to disprove the doctrine of the apostolic succession, on which, if we may judge from the note of admiration affixed, great stress is laid :—"The apostolic succession is derived through popish priests !" It is needless here to enter into this discussion, or to shew, as has been done so frequently and so ably, that the Christian ministry is no more invalidated by the corrupt channel through which it has been transmitted, than the Levitical priesthood was vitiated by its having also passed through unworthy hands. But perhaps it may not be amiss to hint to the editor, that when he uses this argument he approaches nearer than he thinks to one of the worst principles of popery-viz., that the ordinance of God is affected by the intention of the ministering priest; for if it be asserted that a bishop cannot ordain another to the office because he himself may be erroneous in doctrine, or vicious in life,that is, because he is not in a fit state and disposition of mind,-what is this but to contradict the twenty-sixth article of our church, and to give countenance to the doctrine of the papists, that the effect of Christ's ordinance is taken away by a want of a due intuition on the part of the minister ?
But to conclude, (for I fear that I have too long trespassed on your pages,) it is a grievous thing to see a doctrine, once held sacred in the church, now so commonly and so scornfully repudiated by those who have a zeal for God. Before, however, we are persuaded to join in its rejection, there is one inquiry, necessarily of right with
Vol. XII.- Dec. 1837.
every religious mind, which ought to be previously made : “How are we to know the ministers of Christ ?”* Very important duties are owing to them, and therefore it is of the utmost consequence that we should know who they are. Our Lord Jesus Christ is too gracious to his church, I feel assured, to leave it without the means of ascertaining this,—to leave this point undecided, and to refuse to accredit his ministers in some outward visible way. By their lineal descent from Aaron, he marked out those who were his priests under the former dispensation ; and may we not conclude that he has, in a manner equally plain and palpable, distinguished his ministers under the new covenant? If we admit this, and I see not how it can be denied, we must admit what is directly inculcated in scripture, the doctrine of the apostolic succession ; for there is no other external mark of a Christian minister, except his having derived his orders by a direct unbroken line from the first father of the church-the apostles of Christ. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
MR. BIDDULPH'S REPLY TO THE REVIEW OF HIS BOOK.
Sir,—In the number of your Magazine for the present month, you have honoured my little volume on “ Baptismal Regeneration” by a short notice of its contents; and I feel obliged to your reviewer for the credit he has given me with respect to purity of intention, and I am quite willing to make a like concession to him.
“ The line of argument” which I have adopted may be, as he asserts, “weak;" but after carefully reading your critique, I am not convinced that you have proved it to be so. The “ shadow," which you say I have been combating, still appears, in my apprehension of it, to be substance, and that of a very portentous character. Your reviewer says, that I consider the question to be, whether regeneration is ever separated from baptism.” This is, indeed, the question; and surely it has nothing to do with “the fulfilment of the conditions of the covenant on the part of man." The baptized person is, or is not, necessarily, and at once, regenerated by a right administration of the ordinance of baptism. If the spiritual regeneration of a baptized infant be suspended on the fulfilment of "conditions” in his after-life, there is an end of the controversy, and that in my favour. It would be easy to prove most satisfactorily, that the “ Tracts for the Times,” and the tract on the list of the Christian Knowledge Society to which your reviewer refers, do maintain that baptism and regeneration are inseparable the one from the other. I should suppose that no one who has read these Tracts would deny it. Were it not that the proof would occupy too much room in your pages, I would offer it to your notice.
Your reviewer complains of a defect of definition. Now, I really
The readers of the British Magazine cannot but feel indebted to one of your correspondents, for the manner in which this subject was discussed in a late number. This you
thought that I had precluded the possibility of such a complaint at the very commencement ofmy Dialogues, and had said even more than was necessary on this subject. I introduced a definition, from which there can be no appeal among churchmen – viz., that regeneration, the inward and spiritual grace of this sacrament, is,“ a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness. This definition I have kept in view throughout every page of my little volume, and have again and again repeated it.
Your reviewer allows that it is “ a fair principle that the language of our baptismal service must be interpreted by the other writings of Cranmer and the other reformers.” I have shewn that their “ other writings" are opposed to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, as that doctrine is maintained in the “ Tracts for the Times." have not controverted, because you could not disprove it.
You have asserted, that the doctrine held by Hooker in one passage of his invaluable work, is not contradicted by my extract of another passage; but this you do not prove by comparing the two together. It appears to me, that no language can be more determinate than that which I have produced." All receive not the grace of God which
“ receive the sacraments of his grace." This is the substance of the doctrine for which I contend. I want nothing more than this to be conceded. Why has not your reviewer grappled with the extracts from our great Jewell?
On your criticism respecting the word owlouevovs, (Acts, ii. 47,) I ask, Does the present participle-passive imply any futurition ? Does not the phrase, tous OwCouevoic, in 1 Cor. i. 18, describe persons who were, in some sense, already « saved”? See also the sense of the same present participle-passive in Rev. xxi. 244, where, I apprehend, that all futurition is plainly excluded. Schleusner, on the word owów, explains the present participle-passive by “veris Christianis;" and true Christians are doubtless saved both from the guilt and power of sin.
You advert to the case of Cornelius as misrepresented by the author of the “ Dialogues.” You ask, “ Did Cornelius know the doctrine of the cross when he was justified ?" The reply to this question is easy -Cornelius had the same means of grace in a possession of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, and of learning from thence the necessity and typical intent of animal sacrifice, which was afforded to the patriarchs, to Simeon and Anna, and other pious Jews, before the advent of our Lord and the publication of the gospel; and that these means were available to justification you will not deny. That Cornelius possessed such means may surely be inferred, (not only from the prophetic scriptures, which connect justification with the knowledge of The JUST ONE, who was expected to come and bear the penalty of the law, and to fulfil its precept, such as Isa. liii. 11,) but also from St. Peter's appeal to him and his friends—“That word, I say, ye know." See the preceding verse, Acts, x. 36, 37. If St. Paul's statement concerning Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 15) relate to the scriptures of the Old Testament, as I believe it does, the question is settled that those scriptures were and are “ able to make men wise
unto salvation, through faith, which is in Christ Jesus.” The language of our 7th Article is decisive—“Both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man, being both God and man."
I can assure you, Sir, that I have no love for “the din of controversy," and should not have written a line on this or any other controverted subject could I have satisfied myself in a state of silence, when what I considered to be vital truth was brought into dispute.
I have, I believe, noticed all the objections to my “ Dialogues" to which you have adverted. Whether those objections be valid, or not, I must leave others to judge.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Thos. T. BIDDULPA.* Bristol, Oct. 19th, 1837.
* Mr. Biddulph is rather hard upon the poor British Magazine. His publishers, (Messrs. Seeley and Burnside,) send many of the books which they publish in order to be reviewed, and would feel aggrieved if no notice was taken of them. If a reviewer happens to think a book weak in argument, and wrong in its results, he is bound modestly and fairly to express his conviction, but in a work like this, it is impossible to enter into a regular set refutation of the whole volume. Mr. Biddulph says, that the reviewer has not proved his book to be weak in argument. Now, nothing offends writers more than a mere general sweeping assertion of dissent from them, and therefore in this instance some of those points were mildly noticed on which the reviewer thought Mr. Biddulph prominently in error. More than this could not be done in a page or two, and, as it was, more space was given to it than it seemed to deserve. However, Mr. B. immediately replies by a letter, as long as the review itself. This is inconvenient and unreasonable, but to a person of Mr. Biddulph's advanced age it would be hard to refuse a hearing. It must be understood, that the case is quite different where any misrepresentation of facts, or misstatement of opinions, is charged on a review. There common candour requires the admission of any answer, as well as of any explanation of facts, in reply to any accusation, as, in the present number, Mr. Hough's explanation of his mistake about Dr. Wiseman. In the present instance, the chief gravamen is a difference between an author and a reviewer about the merits of the argument in a book written by one of the parties.
The reviewer's opinion is almost entirely unaltered by the author's reply. A few of his reasons will be given below.
1. As to the separation of regeneration from baptism. The reviewer acknowledges his language would have been more correct had he said, that its benefits were lost by non-fulfilment of after-conditions in infant-baptism.
2. As to a defect of definition. Is not Mr. Biddulph's definition one to which both parties will subscribe in words, but differ on the meaning conveyed by those words?
3. The interpretation of the liturgy. The reviewer allows it to be a fair mode of interpreting doubtful passages, or of defining the meaning in which terms are used. But why does not Mr. Biddulph grapple with the extracts from the baptismal ser vice, and say what they do mean, if they do not assert regeneration in baptism? There it stands, whether we like it or not, naked and undisguised.
4. Mr. Biddulph undertakes to prove the doctrine of the reformers opposed to baptismal regeneration, but surely he will consider the following passages, among others, from the Homilies and Archbishop Cranmer worthy of some attention.
“ We must trust only in God's mercy, and that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour, Christ Jesus, the Son of God, ovce offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God's grace and remission, as well of our original sin IN BAPTISM, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again."- Second Part of the Homily of Salvation. “ Now you shall hear the office and duty of a Christian man unto God, what we ought, on our part, to render unto God again for his great mercy and goodness. Our office is not to pass
ON THE EMBER WEEKS AS SEASONS OF ORDINATION. MR. EDITOR,—The recital of the collects for the Ember days has very properly been observed by many members of the ministry with a zeal and attention which had long been remiss. The subject is of great moment, and in referring to it I shall not violate confidence if I
the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly, after that we are BAPTIZED, OR JUSTIFIED.”—Third Part of the Homily of Salvation. Both the above Homilies are ascribed to CRANMER. See also the passages quoted by Bishop BETHELL, p. 88.
“As in baptism we must think, that as the priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly, and washeth him with water, so must we think that God putteth to his hand inwardly, and washeth the infant with his Holy Spirit. And, moreover, that Christ himself cometh down upon the child, and apparelleth him with his ownself.” - Cranmer's Answer to Gardiner, p. 393; Legh Richmond's Fathers of the English Church, vol. iii., p. 638.
The following is from Lancelot Ridley, (not the bishop and martyr):
“ In that the Apostle saith, that Christ“ hath cleansed his church in the fountain of water, by the word,' he sheweth plainly, that baptism is a mean whereby Christ taketh away original sin, and maketh all them that be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, according to Christ's institution, to be cleansed from all the sin of Adain......... Except a man be born again, of the Holy Ghost, and of water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' To be born again of the Holy Ghost and of water, is to be christened, as Paul sheweth to Titus (Tit. üi.), where baptism is called the fountain of regeneration, and of renewing of the Holy Ghost.”—-Ridley's Commentary on the Ephesians ; Ibid., vol. ii., pp. 135, 136.
5. Mr. Biddulph appeals to Jewell and Hooker, but to the latter most unfortunately, it seems to the reviewer. Many quotations maintain the doctrine, whereas, one passage, (which seems to refer almost entirely to adult baptism and the Lord's-supper,) maintains that grace is separable from the sacrament. Who denies it, when the right dispositions, in the case of adults, are wanting? See Hooker, book v., chap. Ixii., 16; chap. IX., \ 3. As to Bishop Jewell, the following quotation is recommended to notice :
“Baptism, therefore, is our regeneration, or new birth, whereby we are born anew in Christ, and are made the sons of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven, it is a sacrament of the remission of sins, and of that washing which we have in the blood of Christ......... For this cause are infants baptized, because they are born in sin, and cannot become spiritual but by this new birth of the water and the Spirit.”- Treatise on the Sacrament, fol., 1609, pp. 262–265.
6. The case of Cornelius the reviewer will not entirely insist upon. He only suggested whether it did not militate against other doctrines, if his opponents insisted upon it so strongly. It would occupy far too much space to discuss it here; it is therefore left to the reader's judgment.
7. As to owSouevos, is it not acknowledged that ow wv properly means one saving, and not having saved ; and owSouevos, means one being saved, not huving been saved? Is there any futurition in this ?
The reviewer now takes his leave of Mr. Biddulph with hearty good will and good wishes, only reminding him, that a slight notice of his work was not meant as a full refutation of it, and assuring him, that his respect for Mr. Biddulph's age and character alone would have prevented him from speaking more strongly, as he must have done had he entered on a full answer to this book. He also recommends Bishop Bethell's book to Mr. B., and to every one desirous of understanding this point.
The editor will add one word relative to this matter. He begs to remind his readers how constantly this Magazine has endeavoured to avoid, where it is possible to do so without compromising principles, such topics as good men in the church are apt to see in a somewhat different light. But sometimes when a book is sent for review, it is absolutely necessary to speak upon them; and if opinions are expressed neither unkindly nor dogmatically, no one can complain. He leaves it to the reader to judge whether there was anything objectionable in the notice, and begs that it may be read with Mr. Biddulph's own book.