« הקודםהמשך »
allow them to be called Deutero-Canonical. He consents, to the Xth article, which relates to freewill, provided that by the word power be understood what school-divines call potentia prorima, or a direct and immediate power, since, without a remote power of doing good works, sin could not be imputed.
With respect to the XIth article, which contains the doctrine of justification, he thus expresses the sentiments of his brethren : “ We do not deny that “ it is by faith alone that we are justified, but we “ maintain that faith, charity, and good works, are
necessary to salvation; and this is acknowleged in “ the following article 8.
Concerning the XIIIth article, he observes, “ that “ there will be no dispute, since many divines of “ both communions embrace the doctrine contained “in that article,” (viz. that works done before the grace of Christ are not pleasing to God, and have the nature of sin). He indeed thinks“ it very “ harsh to say, that all those actions are sinful which “ have not the grace of Christ for their source;” but he considers this rather as a matter of theological discussion than as a term of fraternal communion h.
On the XIVth article, relating to works of supererogation (undoubtedly one of the most absurd and pernicious doctrines of the Romish church), he observes, " that works of supererogation mean only “ works conducive to salvation, which are not mat“ ters of strict precept, but of counsel only; that the “ word, being new, may be rejected, provided it be s owned that the faithful do some such works.”
He makes no objections to the XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIIIth articles.
8 The original words arę: 'Fide solâ in Christum nos justi• ficari, quod articulo XImo exponitur, non inficiamur; sed fide, • charitate, et adjunctis bonis operibus, quæ omninò necessaria sunt ad salutem, ut articulo sequenti agnoscitur.'
hDe articulo XIIImo nulla lis erit, cum multi theologi in eâdem versentur sententiâ. Durius videtur id dici, eas omnes actiones quæ ex gratiâ Christi non fiunt, esse peccata. Nolim tamen de hâc re disceptari, nisi inter theologos.
His observation on the XIXth is, that to the definition of the church, the words, under lawful pastors, ought to be added; and that though all particular churches, even that of Rome, may err, it is needless to say this in a confession of faith.
He consents to the decision of the XXth article, which refuses to the church the power of ordaining any thing that is contrary to the word of God; but he says, it must be taken for granted, that the church will never do this in matters which overturn essential points of faith, or, to use his own words, quæ fidei substantiam evertant.'
It is in consequence of this notion that he remarks on the XXIst article, that general councils, received by the universal church, cannot err; and that, though particular councils may, yet every private man has not a right to reject what he thinks contrary to Scripture.
As to the important points of controversy contained in the XXIId article, he endeavours to mince matters as nicely as he can, to see if he can make the cable pass through the eye of the needle ; and for this purpose observes, that souls must be purged, i. e. purified from all defilement of sin, before they are admitted to celestial bliss; that the church of Rome does not affirm this to be done by fire; that indul. gences are only relaxations or remissions of temporal penalties in this life; that the Roman catholics do not worship the cross, or relics, or images, or even saints before their images, but only pay them an external respect, which is not of a religious nature; and that even the external demonstration of respect is a matter of indifference, which may be laid aside or retained without harm.
He approves the XXIIId article ; and does not pretend to dispute about the XXIVth, which ordains the celebration of divine worship in the vulgar tongue. He, indeed, excuses the Latin and Greek churches for preserving their ancient languages; but, as great care has been taken that every thing
be understood by translations, he allows, that divine service may be performed in the vulgar tongue, where that is customary.
Under the XXVth article he insists that the five Romish sacraments be acknowleged as such, whether instituted immediately by Christ or not.
He approves the XXVIth and XXVIIth articles ; and he proposes expressing the part of the XXVIIIth that relates to Transubstantiation (which term he is willing to omit entirely), in the following manner: “ That the bread and wine are really changed into “ the body and blood of Christ, which last are truly « and really received by all, though none but the “ faithful partake of any benefit from them.” This extends also to the XXIXth article.
With regard to the XXXth, he is for mutual toleration, and would have the receiving of the communion in both kinds held indifferent, and liberty left to each church to preserve, or change, or dispense with its customs on certain occasions.
He is less inclined to concessions on the XXXIst article, and maintains that the sacrifice of Christ is not only commemorated, but continued, in the eua charist, and that every communicant offers him along with, the priest.
He is not a warm stickler for the celibacy of the clergy, but consents so far to the XXXIId article, as to allow that priests may marry, where the laws of the church do not prohibit it.
In the XXXIIId and XXXIVth articles, he acquiesces without exception.
He suspends his judgement with respect to the XXXVth, as he never perused the homilies mentioned therein.
As to the XXXVIth, he would not have the English ordinations pronounced null, though some of them, perhaps, are so; but thinks that, if an union be made, the English clergy ought to be continued in their offices and benefices, either by right or indulgence, sive ex jure, sive ex indulgentia ecclesiæ,'
He admits the XXXVIIth, so far as relates to the authority of the civil power; denies all temporal and all immediate spiritual jurisdiction of the pope ; but alleges, that, by virtue of his primacy, which moderate (he ought to have said immoderate) Churchof-England-men do not deny, he is bound to see that the true faith be maintained ; that the canons be observed every where ; and, when any thing is done in violation of either, to provide the remedies prescribed for such disorders by the canon laws, “ se
cundum leges canonicas, ut malum resarciatur, procurare.' As to the rest, he is of opinion, that every church ought to enjoy its own liberties and privileges, which the pope has no right to infringe. He declares against going too far (the expression is vague, but the man probably meant well) in the punishment of heretics, against admitting the iniquišition into France, and against war without a just cause.
The XXXVIIIth and XXXIXth articles he approves. Moreover, in the discipline and worship of the church of England, he sees nothing amiss and thinks no attempts should be made to discover or prove by whose fault the schism was begun. He farther observes, “ that an union between the
English and French bishops and clergy may be
completed, or at least advanced, without consulta “ ing the Roman pontiff, who may be informed of “the union as soon as it is accomplished, and may “ be desired to consent to it; that, if he consents to
it, thé affair will then be finished ; and that, even “ without his consent, the union shall be valid ; that, “ in case he attempts to terrify by his threats, it will " then be expedient to appeal to a general council." He concludes by observing, “ that this arduous mat
il Unio fieri potest aut saltem promoveri, inconsulto pontifice, qui, factâ unione, de eâ admonebitur, ac suppliciter rogabitur, ut velit ei consentire. Si consentiat, jam peracta res erit: sin • abnuat, nihilominus valebit hæc unio. Et si minas intentet, • ád concilium generale appellabitur.!
“ ter must first be discussed between a few; and, if “ there be reason to hope that the bishops, on both “ sides, will agree about the terms of the designed
union, that then application must be made to the “ civil power, to advance and confirm the work,” to which he wishes all success.
It is from the effect which these proposals and terms made upon archbishop Wake, that it will be most natural to form a notion of his sentiments with respect to the church of Rome. It appears evident, from several passages in the writings and letters of this eminent prelate, that he was persuaded that a reformation in the church of Rome could only, be made gradually ; that it was not probable that they would renounce all their follies at once; but that, if they should once begin to make concessions, this would set in motion the work of reformation, which, in all likelihood, would receive new accessions of vigor, and go on until a happy change should be effected. This way of thinking might have led the archbishop to give an indulgent reception to these proposals of Du-Pin, which contained some concessions, and might be an introduction to more. And yet we find that he rejected this piece, as insufficient to serve as a basis, or ground-work, to the desired union. On receiving the piece, he immediately perceived that he had not sufficient ground for carrying on this negotiation, without previously consulting his brethren, and obtaining a permission from the king for this purpose. Beside this, he was resolved not to submit either to the direction of Dr. Du-Pin, or to that of the Sorbonne, in relation to what was to be retained, or what was to be given up, in the doctrine and discipline of the two churches ; nor to treat with the church of Rome upon any other footing, than that of a perfect equality in point of authority and power. He declared more especially, that he would never comply with the proposals made in Du-Pin's Commonitorium, of which I have now given the contents; observing that, though he was