XVI

BLOMFIELD ON CONVOCATION

333

large a measure, and the bill was thrown out by 84 to 51. It would have had no better fortune if it had reached the Commons, for the temper of the time was more than usually anti-clerical.

Blomfield's

letter.

The Bishop of London, at a later date (November 1850), explained his position by going at length into the whole question he stated Gorham's doctrine to be that infants are not regenerated in and by baptism, but that if they are regenerated, it is by an act of prevenient grace, so that they come to baptism already regenerated; a doctrine directly contradicting the words of the Catechism, and destroying the nature of a sacrament. His belief was that the true defence of the Church was to be found in the Liturgy rather than the Articles. He considered that there was no necessity for synodical action on the part of the bishops, still less was there any excuse for individual secession to Rome; partly because the judgment was no act of the Church, though it affected the Church; partly because it did not deny or even call in question the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, though it allowed too great latitude of explanation. 'I hold,' he wrote, 'that until the Church's articles and formularies are altered by the authority of Convocation or of some synod equivalent to Convocation, her character as a teacher of truth remains unchanged; and that nothing short of a formal act of the Church, itself repudiating what it has hitherto asserted as truth, can warrant a man in quitting its communion.' He also said, but guardedly, as was his custom, that Convocation, though not perfect nor infallible, ought to be allowed freedom of speech, and would speak with more His opinion weight if laymen were admitted to its counsels. 'I on Ĉonwould not be understood to express an opinion unfavourable to the removal of those restrictions which hinder the Church from deliberating . . . on doctrine and discipline.' The Court deduced, from some questionable instances of published opinions of divines in former times, which had been suffered to pass without censure, the conclusion that a clergyman might lawfully call in question in his writings and teaching the certainty, or even the possibility, of any knowledge of the truth or falsehood of that which, as often as he baptized

vocation.

an infant, was positively and unconditionally affirmed in the words put into his mouth by the Church.' A synodical decision was needed, to clear away misunderstandings.

Manning's

The High Church party had now done all that was in their power, short of secession, and had been courageously led by Manning. For himself, Manning felt that the secession, situation had become intolerable, and on April 6, 1851. 1851, he was received with James Hope (afterwards Hope Scott) into the Church of Rome. Manning's position in the Church of England had been next to that of the first three tractarian leaders. He had a high reputation for sanctity; as a preacher he was surpassed by none but Newman; he was a bold controversialist, an accomplished speaker, and a good man of business. He had the faults as well as the merits of the priestly type: he was ambitious, because he commanded; an actor, but sincere; a convinced rhetorician; clear in his ends, not always scrupulous in his means; a powerful administrator and ruler, one whose place must always be in the front rank; a character so complex as to baffle analysis. So conspicuous a desertion caused much dismay in the Church, but in the event strengthened the hands of Keble and Pusey.

The conclusion of the whole controversy was to establish by a decision, protested against by the High Church party, but approved by Evangelicals and Latitudinarians, and valid in law, the position that a clergyman holding Calvinistic or uncertain doctrine on the subject of baptismal regeneration was not on that ground to be excluded from the ministry of the Church of England; and, like other judgments coming from the same quarter, it tended to enlarge the interpretation of the terms of subscription. It has been called by some the charter of religious freedom, by others a soul-destroying judgment. It extended the bounds of comprehension; it did nothing to settle the principles of comprehension.

NOTE ON BAPTISM

The doctrine of baptism includes: (1) God's intention, i.e. His purpose in electing certain persons to eternal life, an abstruse and greatly controverted subject, upon which the Church of England abstains from strict definition; (2) God's action, whether by means of sacraments or other

XVI

NOTE ON BAPTISM

335

wise, concerning which the Church of England maintains the efficacy of sacraments, but does not formally deny that grace may be given by other means, repentance and faith being present; (3) the question whether sacramental grace is given instrumentally, by and at the moment of the act, or in consequence of an act of prevenient grace rendering the receiver worthy, i.e. whether sacramental grace in baptism is given absolutely or conditionally.

The biblical record is that the baptism of St. Peter's disciples at Jerusalem, and Philip's at Samaria, was followed by the gift of the Spirit, whereas in the case of Cornelius the sacrament succeeded the gift. St. Paul also was baptized; the language of St. John iii. 5, Rom. vi. 3, 4, I Pet. iii. 21 admits of more than one interpretation.

According to the doctrine of the Church of England, three effects of baptism are affirmed: remission of the guilt of original sin, admission to the Christian community, and a title to future spiritual benefits.

The word Regeneration, which came so prominently forward in this controversy, was used, like many theological terms, both in a biblical and in an ecclesiastical or traditional sense. To dogmatise as to the biblical sense of the new birth would be to assume the question at issue, since all Christian confessions of faith are based upon the words of the Bible; the ecclesiastical or patristic, i.e. historical sense, is never dissociated from baptism, and is often a synonym for baptism. To these we may add the meaning frequently assigned to the word in and after the Reformation period, as synonymous with conversion, or the rise after a lapse. Since these three types of thought, the biblical, the traditional, and the neo-biblical were all present in the minds of the adapters and framers of the Anglican Services and other formularies, it is difficult to assign exclusive meanings to the terms used; and a legal interpretation according to strict and consistent definitions is not properly applicable to language loose in expression and rather technical than exact.

From a historical point of view it must be observed that :

(1) The question of baptism had not become controversial in a high degree at the time when the Baptismal Service was drawn up, the form of which differs only slightly from that in which it was fixed in 1661. In making such alterations as were made, recourse was had to Archbishop Hermann's Consultations, based upon Luther, Bucer, and Melanchthon, all of whom held Catholic doctrine on the question, following Augustine, and Cranmer and Ridley agreed with them, and determined to retain the sacramental language. 'The model,' says Bishop Browne in his book on the Articles, on which [the English] Baptismal Services were formed was not Calvinistic nor Zwinglian, but Lutheran. The parts of the more

ancient services which were deemed superstitious, such as chrism and exorcism, were omitted. But the doctrine involved is evidently the same as that held by Luther and Melanchthon, who... followed and symbolised with St. Augustine.'

(2) On the other hand, since the Prayer Book, as we have it, is in a large degree the work of Cranmer, it was modified by later influences, and especially by the views of Zwingle and his followers, with whom Cranmer came to associate himself, and whose anti-sacramentarian doctrine

and dislike of opus operatum and 'magic' were strongly expressed in the reign of Edward VI. It is worthy of remark, as was noticed by Arthur Perceval, that the language of the Article of 1552 is more ambiguous than that of 1536, and that in those eventful sixteen years Calvinism had begun to take root in the English Church, so that many clergy who would not have subscribed the earlier article could subscribe the later.

(3) The Calvinistic ideas of grace given to the elect and not to the non-elect do not come into the history of the Prayer Book, though they have largely affected its interpretation since. Had it been otherwise, the formularies would have been altered to deny or affirm Calvinistic doctrine.

There can be little doubt that the Anglican baptismal formularies were drawn up in a Catholic sense; nor, on the other hand, is it doubtful that a non-sacramentarian sense was read into them by the Puritans or ultraProtestants of the times of Edward VI. and later, and was not condemned by authority.

The point at issue is clear. One party holds that grace is given to infants in and by baptism, whereby original sin is forgiven, and (by the same act) regeneration is conferred. This view points in the direction of grace ex opere operato. The other party holds that all sacramental efficacy depends on the worthy reception of sacraments. In the case of baptism, in order that an infant may receive it worthily, a prevenient grace is necessary. We cannot affirm that this grace, without which baptism is inoperative, is granted in the case of every infant baptized; and the declarations to that effect in the Prayer Book are to be understood as the language of charity and hope, not as dogmatically exact. This view tends to make sacraments merely a seal or symbol, not a necessary means. The Church of England holds the former doctrine, but it is not certain that she excludes the latter.

AUTHORITIES.-Tracts for the Times, Nos. 67-69 (on Baptism, by Pusey); Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter. Full Report, etc., 1850; Bishop Browne, Exposition of the Articles. BIOGRAPHIES: Pusey, Keble, Gladstone, etc., as before; H. E. Manning, by E. S. Purcell; Bishop Blomfield, by A. Blomfield. Brodrick and Fremantle, A Collection of Judgments, etc.; Brooke, Privy Council Judgments; Strange, The Bennett Judgment; Denison, Notes of my Life.

CHAPTER XVII

THE PAPAL AGGRESSION

IN 1839 Pope Gregory XVI. increased the number of VicarsApostolic in England from four to eight. A Roman Catholic revival was in progress there, as the Court of Rome Papal well knew; and to present Catholicism in a dignified vicariates in England. form and to clear away the squalor with which the Roman Church had been encumbered during three centuries of persecution or contempt was a step towards fuller recognition and wider influence. Time has shown that this was a prudent policy. The Roman Church now holds its head high in England. Sixty years ago it was hated as an enemy to true religion, or despised as obscure and uneducated. But the times were changing; the Romantic movement had its religious side, and when Scott's magic glass had shown a reflection of the Middle Ages, such Roman Catholics as Augustus Welby Pugin, the architect, and Kenelm Digby, the author of The Broad Stone of Honour, counted for more than was known at the time. The stir of life and intellectual interest which accompanied the Romantic movement was felt in Roman Catholic circles, and Oscott, the seminary near Birmingham, became a centre of intellectual activity. 'Oxford,' says Mr. Purcell, in his Life of Cardinal Manning, 'perhaps helped Oscott, and encouraged it; but Oscott had begun of itself.' Nicholas Wiseman, the head of Oscott, was more cosmopolitan than most of his brethren; he had spent much of his life at Rome, he was a learned divine, a linguist and an orientalist of high reputation, and in culture and attainments of every kind the superior of those whom he was called upon to rule.