Images de page

say, this pretended right and power of infallibly interpreting does in very truth make the interpreter king, and the king a vain shadow or cypher." ** * ** ** * "Which spirit residing in them," (viz., true Christians,) "and giving them this solid and firm discernment betwixt the testimony of God and the traditions and doctrines of men, I think I may safely and properly call the spirit of faith, as it is considered nakedly in itself, and separate from the spirit of knowledge and of wisdom. Which distinction Origen of old has taken notice of in his book against Celsus, upon that text of St. Paul, (1 Cor. xii. 89.) And truly I think the gloss is marvellously solid; viz., that the chiefest and greatest gift of the Spirit is that Divine wisdom, whereby a man is in a great measure able to comprehend the reasons and more deep philosophical grounds of the truth of the Christian mystery. The next is knowledge, suppose of antiquity, history, the comparing of prophecies, and helps of the exterior human literature, the liberal arts and languages. Third is faith, which is also comprised in the other, but is a gift which is as well general as more necessary, whose nature is such as I have described already; viz., an immediate adherence to the Word of Truth comprised in the Scripture, through the power of that Spirit that resides in sincere and well-meaning souls, that have a savoury and sensible fear of God and are ready to go where he calls them." ** *** ** "Whence we further see that this pretended infallibility of the Church in reference to the Scripture, is as well useless as false, and much as if the moon should take upon her to witness for the sun that he sends out light which every one that is not blind will necessarily see, though the moon were under the horizon. So the holy children of God, chosen and faithful, will feel and taste, clearly see and discern that the Scripture is the truth of God by that light which is in it, that correspondeth with that Spirit derived from the Father of lights, which he has liberally

shed into their hearts;-which, as I said, is the spirit of faith, and the sure portion of every member of Christ, whether they can make out things by knowledge and deep reason or no."-The Theological Works of Henry More, D.D. Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. Book ii. ch. 1. S. 2. Book ii. ch. 2. S. 18.

No. 4.

THE following extracts from vol. i. No. 38, and from vol. iii. p. 19. 21, of the Oxford Tracts, seem to indicate that the writers have some latent feelings of regret at the circumstance of prayers for the dead having been excluded from the communion service at the suggestion of foreign Reformers, who are stigmatized as ultra-Reformers, in the same manner as those, in the present day, who maintain the supremacy and sufficiency of the scriptures, are denominated ultra-Protestants. The former (viz. No. 38.) is entitled "Via Media". It consists of a dialogue between two individuals designated as "Clericus," and "Laicus." The following extract constitutes a portion of the dialogue.

"L. All, however, will allow, I suppose, that our Reformation was never completed in its details. The final judgment was not passed upon parts of the Prayer Book. There were, you know, alterations in the second edition of it published in king Edward's time; and these tended to a more Protestant doctrine than that which had first been adopted. For instance, in king Edward's first book the dead were prayed for; not, of course, as if there were a purgatory, but as if it were right to commemorate and HOLD COMMUNION WITH THE SAINTS IN PARADISE; in the second this commemoration was omitted. Again, in the first book, THE ELEMENTS OF THE LORD'S SUPPER WERE MORE DISTINCTLY OFFERED UP to God, and MORE FORMALLY CONSECRATED than in the second edition, or

at present. Had queen Mary not succeeded, perhaps the men who effected this would have gone further.

C. I believe they would; nay indeed they did at a subsequent period. They took away the liturgy altogether, and substituted a directory.

L. They? The same men?

C. Yes, the foreign party; who afterwards went by the name of Puritans. Bucer, who altered in king Edward's time, and the Puritans, who destroyed in king Charles's, both came from the same religious quarter.

L. Ought you so to speak of the foreign Reformers? To them we owe the Protestant doctrine altogether.

C. I like foreign interference, as little from Geneva, as from Rome. Geneva, at least, never converted a part of England from heathenism, nor cOULD LAY CLAIM TO PATRIARCHAL AUTHORITY OVER IT. Why could we not be let alone and suffered to reform ourselves?"


With reference to the same subject, it is observed, in speaking of a departed friend, who was the author of the 63d. Tract, (on the antiquity of the existing Liturgies) that "he carefully guarded against perplexing men's minds; he did not put the question prominently forwards; he did not blame the Reformers under Edward VI. for having yielded to the judgment of foreign ultra-Reformers, against their own previous judgment. stated the simple fact, that this prayer had been excluded, v. g. whereas it had been retained on the first putting together of our Liturgy in Edward VI's. first book, it was excluded from the second, at the instigation of Bucer and Calvin; and Bucer's alteration was adopted. The original unbiassed judgment then of our Reformers was to retain the prayer; and IT ARGUES NO TENDENCY TO POPERY, IF ANY ONE WISH THAT OUR REFORMERS HAD, IN THIS AND OTHER POINTS FOR WHICH THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY OF THE EARLY CHURCH, ADHERED TO THEIR FIRST JUDGMENT. These same Reformers

had at that time a clause in the Litany, which has since been excluded, praying against the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities; so that you could hardly accuse them of papistry."--Vol. iii. p. 19.

According to Strype, in his "Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer," the two individuals, who were consulted upon the review of the Book of Common Prayer, were, not Bucer and Calvin, but Bucer and Peter Martyr. Now, as the former was professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and the latter held the same office in the University of Oxford, at the time when the review was made, and as each had been indebted to the Archbishop for his appointment, it was very natural that they should have been consulted by him upon such an important occasion. That they were so consulted is distinctly stated by Strype; and, also, that they concurred in their opinions. He says that "Martyr agreed clearly in judgment with Bucer about the Book, as he wrote to him in a letter sent him to Cambridge, extant among Archbishop Parker's manuscripts; on the back of which letter is written, by that Archbishop's own hand, Censura libri communium precum.' In this letter Martyr told Bucer that the same things that he disapproved of, the same likewise had he (Peter Martyr) done.”—Strype's Memorials of Cranmer. Book ii. chap. xvii.

[ocr errors]

How far it is consistent with the principles of truth and justice to identify Bucer with the Puritans, must be left for the impartial judgment of the reader to decide. It should seem that a man who had been invited into this country, and patronised by Archbishop Cranmer, and who, at the time of his decease, was honoured with the friendship of three such eminent individuals as Parker, Grindal, and Sandys, each of whom subsequently became an Archbishop, ought not lightly to have been classed with those misguided fanatics who interdicted the use of the Liturgy of the Church of England. That he enjoyed this privilege, is recorded by Strype in his life of

Archbishop Parker. He therein mentions that on February 28, 1550., "Parker lost his great friend, Dr. Martin Bucer, the king's professor of Divinity in Cambridge. He, with Dr. Sandys, master of Catherine Hall, Grindal, and Bradford, fellows of Pembroke Hall, held a more particular converse and acquaintance with that great learned foreign Divine.”


The Biographer of the Archbishop afterwards gives an account of the interment of Martin Bucer. He says thatas the last respects they could pay to this their highly honoured friend deceased, both Haddon and Parker were the orators at his funeral at St. Mary's. The former, being University orator, pronounced, very moving, a Latin speech in his commendation, before that solemn assembly of the town and University that attended his funeral.” And



* 66

so he descended largely into the praises of the excellent virtues, and incomparable learning of the deceased." Strype's Life of Matthew Parker, D.D. Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 28.


This indefatigable writer in his "Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer," mentions Bucer and Martyr as being received into his house, with other learned men. "The Archbishop," he observes, "had now in his family several learned men. he sent for from beyond sea, and some in pity he entertained, being exiles for religion. Among the former sort was Martin Bucer, a man of great learning and moderation, and who bore a great part in the Reformation of Germany. While he, and the rest, abode under his roof, the Archbishop still employed them, sometimes in learned conferences and consultations held with them, sometimes in writing their judgment upon some subject in Divinity. Here Bucer wrote to the Lady Elizabeth (afterwards Queen Elizabeth) a letter bearing date the 6th of the Calends of September, commending her study in piety and learning, and exciting her to proceed therein; incited so to do, I make no doubt, by the Archbishop, whom Bucer in that letter makes mention of, and styleth

« PrécédentContinuer »