Images de page
PDF
ePub

seriously compromise the University. In the second year after Mr. Stokes' unsuccessful attempt to impose a Roman Calendar on the world with the sanction of the University, and his College deeming him not a suitable person to be admitted to Deacon's orders in the Church of England, Mr. Stokes avowed himself a Roman Catholic! A brother of this gentleman followed him in his secession. E. FORTESCUE WELLS. JOHN MORRIS was placed under the tuition of the Rev. Mr. Alford, Vicar of Wymeswold, in 1843, and continued under Mr. Alford's tuition till October, 1845. Mr. Morris was decidedly what is termed of a religious ascetic caste, so much so that he was constantly the object of ridicule among his fellow-pupils, and commonly styled by them “Old Father Morris;" his age at this time was between eighteen and twenty. In the papal controversy which ensued on Mr. Morris's declaration of himself as a Roman Catholic, great stress was laid on his having frequently visited and attended the services of the Monastery of St. Bernard, in Chainwood Forest. HENRY MILLS, was a member of the Cambridge Camden Society. W. HUTCHINSON, was a member of the Cambridge Camden Society. GEORGE RENORDEN KINGDON, B.A., was a member of the Cambridge Camden Society. J. BODLEY, M.A,, lately Curate to the Rev. Mr. Burrows, of Archbishop Tenison's Chapel, Regent Street, who, notwithstanding his toleration of Romanistic teaching of Mr. Bodley, has, it is said, just been appointed by Bishop Blomfield to succeed Mr. Dodsworth, at Christ Church! Such are the guarantees for fidelity by which the laity of the Church are secured against false teachers! C. W. CAVENDISH, M.A., Rector of Little Castleton, Rutland, was a member of the Cambridge Camden Society. R. A. JOASTONE, M.A. T. W. MARSHALL, M.A., Vicar of Swallowcliffe. He repudiates the orders which he received in the English Church, and accounts himself a layman. He is now T. W. Marshall, Esq., Inspector of Roman Catholic Schools, under the authority of the Privy Council on Education! Was formerly a contributor to the English Review, and a defender of the “English Episcopacy," in its pages. B.J. BUTLAND. JOSEPH SIMPSON, B.A., was a member of the Cambridge Camden Society. A distinguished scholar, and at College attained a First Class in the Classical Tripos; yet his reasoning powers were feeble. It was after his degree he became a member of the Church of Rome. VISCOUNT FIELDING, M.A. His intimate relations, up to a recent date with the Tractarians. The part he took in the public proceedings, after the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in the Gorham case,-his instantaneous rush to Rome,-are of recent occurrence. Lord and Lady Fielding were substantially Romanists some time before their secession. Let it be remembered that it was only for want of a little electioneering tact that Viscount Fielding was not elected to represent the University of Cambridge --the Tractarian electors not being so well drilled as their brethren at Oxford. The noble Viscount should now be sitting by the side of the Right Hon. E. Gladstone, flanked by the Hon. Sidney Herbert and Mr. R. Palmer, the fluent Tractarian member for Plymouth. W. LEWTHWAITE, M.A., Perpetual Curate of Clifford, Yorkshire. Was closely associated with the Catholic clergy at Leeds, and recently seceded with five others. JOHN RODWELL, M.A. Made his open declaration in the Papal city. Perhaps the judicial blindness which characterizes so many of the Anglo-Catholics is principally attributable to them having visited Catholic countries. Of these are the perverts Allies, Wynne, Faber, Manning, and a very considerable number of seceders. Romish priests have been repelled into infidelity by a near inspection of the hideous corruption of the Papal court, It remained for graduates of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities to be captivated by the meritricious gauds and theatrical pomp of "the Mother of Harlots."

ST. JOHN'S.-JAMES BOONE Rowe. Was a member of the Cambridge Camden Society. John BERRY WALFORD. F. A. PALEY, M.A. An active member of the Cambridge Camden Society, and did much to extend its influence. Mr. Paley is a person of refined taste, and an eminent Greek scholar, as is proved by his edition of Eschylius. His reasoning powers yet appear to be of a lower order, as shown by his mathematical attempt at Honors—his performances having been deemed not only below the merit of the wooden spoon, but even so worthless as not even to entitle him to his degree. J.C. MACKINSON. Was sent out by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel to Sydney. The Rev. Emerst Hawkins, of Oxford University, and Secretary of the Propagation Society, is an active member of the Oxford party, which through the committee, and also by indirect influence upon the Colonial Office, has given quite a Romish colouring to the Church in the Colonies. A. J. HANMER. Did not obtain a degree, but was ordained by Bishop Phillpots (who was a member of the Cambridge Camden Society.) AMBROSE STEWARD, M.A. T. PRIGGETT. J. RODGERS, late Curate to Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds.

PETERHOUSE, OR ST. PETER'S.-ROBERT SUFFIELD. Did not reside long enough to proceeủ to a degree; and believed to be a member of a Roman Catholic family. E. HORNE, M.A. Was a member of the Cambridge Camden Society, and late Incumbent of St. Lawrence, Southampton; value #148; in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. HENRY BEDFORD, M.A., late Curate to the Rev. W. Scott, of Hoxton, Secretary of the London Church Union, and reputed editor of the Christian Remembrancer, a Tractarian periodical.

CLARE HALL.-A. CHIROL, B.A., Curate to the Rev. W. Bennett, M.A., late of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge. Upon his secession, Mr. Chirol was reproached with much severity, if not bitterness, by Mr. Bennett. After vacillating between the two churches for some time he went over to the Church of Rome, taking with him members of his own family and several friends.

GONVILLE AND CAIUS.-J. H. JEBRARD, M.A., and D.C.L. of Dublin, late Fellow, was Senior Optime in 1828, and in the First Class of the Classical Tripos; and is now Public Classical Examiner in the University of London. Mr. Jerrard held High Church notions, which generally accompany very Low Gospel views.

CORPUS CHRISTI.-HENRY BACCHUS, M.A. W. Wells, M.A., late Curate to the Rev. Cecil Wray, of Liverpool.

QUEENS.—John BURTON, M.A. FRANCIS JOHN LAING, B.A. W.D. WACKERBARTH, B.A. Previous to his going over to the Church of Rome, in 1841, while a curate at Lichfield, he printed and circulated “A Letter to the Future Prime Minister,” in which he maintained there was no difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; and recommended the Prime Minister to introduce measures that would tend to restore unity to the Catholic Church. His words are—“I maintain that the Acts of Parliament which stand in the way of our re-union with Rome are high treason against God, and must be henceforth hlotted from the statute book.” And he concludes his letter with—“But, sir, if you are prepared to lead the State to doing what is its positive duty, a re-union may easily be accomplished, whereby a great, mischievous, and very sinful schism would be abolished, and Ireland effectually pacified and permanently united to England!”

ST. CATHERINE'S HALL-Thomas MINSTER, M.A., Vicar of St. Saviour's, Leeds, and the leader of the late secession in that town. St. Saviour's Church

was built nine years ago, and has been an outpost of the Oxford Romanists, from which desertions to Rome and the Scotch Episcopal Church have been constant. Tlie patrons of the Church are-Rev. C. Marriott, Dean of Oriel College, a decided, resolute, and active “Anglo-Catholic;" Dr. Pusey, and the Rev. R. Ward; the last named long an active Tractarian, but now openly reconciled to Rome. J. M. JEPHSON, M.A. Officiated at Leeds as Curate to Dr. Hook (who was a member of the Cambridge Camden Society,) his name being at the time in the Catholic Directory as one converted and reconciled to Rome. B. H. BBRKS, M.A.

EMANUEL.-EDWARD HEALEY THOMPSON, A1.A., Curate of Ramsgate.

APPENDIX C.

(Page cxl.) "It might be perhaps supposed, that Dr. Halley, clearly perceiving the untenable nature of the old Puritan argument for infant baptism, WHICH RESTRICTS ITS ADMINISTRATION TO THE CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS, which regards them as thereby admitted into the catholic church, yet excludes them from all the privileges of that communion, would, in consequence, abandon the defence of infant baptism altogether, and maintain the restriction of the rite exclusively to those, whether of elder or younger years, who can make for themselves a credible profession of faith, and thus establish a claim to church membership. Nothing of the kind, however, has occurred. Those of the Congregational persuasion who are convinced that Dr. Owen's and Dr. Wardlaw's argument is built on a quicksand, and not less pernicious in its influence than fallacious in its reasoning, having fallen back, in order to maintain the practice of infant baptism, upon one of the most remarkable inventions recorded in the annals of modern theology. They have started the notion, not only in opposition to the party of Dr. Wardlaw, but in opposition to the voice of all churches and all ages--that baptism is the designation of the catechumens, NOT THE SYMBOL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.' Baptism henceforth is no longer to be regarded as a sign of church membership, as the work of a Christian, or as a seal of righteousness, but simply as a visible indi. cation that the person baptized is to be instructed to the knowledge of Christianity. Accordingly, Dr. Halley ADVOCATES AND PRACTICES THE BAPTISM OF ALL INFANTS AND CHILDREN INDISCRIMINATELY, whose connections render it in any way PROBABLE that they will become LEARNERS of the truths of the Gospel. By baptism they are NOT IN ANY MANNER RECEIVED INTO THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH CATHOLICOR LOCAL, but simply pointed out as THE OBJECTS of redeeming mercy, and THE PROPER SUBJECTS of religious instruction. Dr. H. takes his stand upon the commission given, 'to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them,' and since he understands the term disciples to signify excluding any idea of PRACTICAL OBEDIENCE, he proceeds to maintain that wherever there is a LEARNER there is a person to be baptized. Every person whose sentiment on holy baptism has been in any measure formed from a knowledge from the lofty conceptions of the sacredness of the ordinance prevalent in the first ages of the church, and of the unwavering uniformity with which baptism was then and ever afterwards considered AS THE SIGN OF ADMISSION INTO THE DIVINE FELLOWSHIP OF THE FAITHFUL, will not easily resist the temptation to exclaim loudly against THIS DISSENTING NOVELTY, as something approaching very nearly to a profanation of the sacrament.”—Edward White's "Three Infants' Baptism,&c., pp. 29 and 30.

" The one fatal objection taken to the theory of Dr. Hulley on the nature of baptisai is, that it is impossible to reconcile it with the language of the New Testament. The terms of the commission, if truly ambiguous, (which many cumpetent persons doubt,) must be interpreted by the aid of the other scriptures of the New Testament. We must learn from other testimonies whether the persons whom Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize were the nations at large, or disciples only, in the sense of PROFESSEDLY OBEDIENT BELIEVERS, among the nations. Dr. Halley is obliged by his theory to maintain that every instance of baptism met with in the apostolic history is the case of a 'learner' of the doctrine of Christ, not the case of a professed believer, as such, and not the case of a person introduced thereby into the fellowship of the church universal or local. The very first example of baptism occurring in the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles, seems to offer evidence sufficient to explode the new doctrine—that baptism is not the symbol of the members of the Christian church.' At the close of Peter's address on the day of Pentecost, the assembled multitude exclaimed, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' For the promise (of the Holy Ghost, just before cited from the prophet Joel,‘your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,' &c.,) is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord ou God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying Save yourselves from this untoward generation. THEN THEY THAT GLADLY RECEIVED HIS WORD WERE BAPTIZED ; and the same day there were ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. And THEY continued steadfastly in the Aposties' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.'”

A review of what the writer considers the erroneous views of Dr. Halley are shewn in the following propositions:

“1.-The exhortation to be baptized was preceded, not by a recommendation to become learners of the doctrine, but by a demand for repentance. “Repent and be baptized. On Dr. Haliey's theory, it should rather have been 'Be baptized AS LEARNERS, and THEN REPENT.' Peter exhorted no man to be baptized who did not FIRST PROFESS REPENTANCE AND FAITH in the name of Jesus Christ.'

“ 2.- The baptism proposed was 'for the remission of sins.' This cannot now be well understood, and could not on the day of Pentecost be well understood in any other way than that baptism was to be administered to the recipient as a sign of pardon for the past, if he truly repented and truly believed. A. baptism of repentance for the remission of sins' was not exactly the rite to be administered to half-careless auditors, much less to their unconscious infant offspring. Language such as that used by Peter concerning baptism, ir addressed to a miscellaneous crowd of impenitent persons, exhorted to be baptized in that character, could have been productive of NOTAING BUT THE MOST DANGEROUS SELF-DELUSION ON THE PART OF THE RECIPIENTS.

“ On my

“3.-The promise of the Holy Ghost' made to the baptized' is another india cation that the baptized persons were supposed to be penitents and believers. Assuredly the gift of the Holy Spirit was restricted to the church. SERVANTS and my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit.'— Acts ii , 18. NO PROMISE was made of conferring the Holy Ghost On A MIXED CROWD OF UNCONVERTED CATECHUMENS, SIMPLY OCCUPIED IN LEARNING' CHRisTIANITY. Those who received the promised gift received it AS BELIEVERS. * These sigus shall follow them THAT BELIEVE.'-Mark xvi., 17. But here it is

[ocr errors]

promised to be baptized. Therefore, the baptized were believers and professed penitents. Baptism was THE SIGN OF THEIR ADMISSION INTO THE FAMILY OF GOD. “ 4.—Every subsequent indication points to the same conclusion,

« Then THEY THAT GLADLY RECEIVED HIS WORD were baptized.' What was the word which they received ? It was noT SOME ABSTRACT SPECULATION, but the practical message of the Gospel. Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' Those who gladly received this word MUST HAVE BEEN, IN THE MAIN, TRUE PENITENTS, AND MUST ALL HAVE BEEX PROFESSED BELIEVERS AND PROFESSED SERVANTS OF GOD, AND, AS SUCH, SUITABLE MEMBERS FOR THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH. Of whom can the church consist, if not of such ?

“5.-The persons thus baptized were added to them. Added to whom? Clearly to the company of the Apostles, to the one hundred and twenty who met in the upper room, the nucleus of the catholic church. Are Dr. Halley's baptized

catechumens' ADDED to the Christians in Manchester? Assuredly pot. But the three thousand baptized on the feast of Pentecost WERE added to the apostolic church.

“6.—When thus 'baptized' and 'added,' they gave every indication of being SOMETHING BETTER THAN SPECULATIVE 'LEARNERS' of Christianity.

• They continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine AND FELLOWSHIP, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.' And so potent was the influence of divine grace upon their souls that, being freed from the burden of guilt by 'the remission of sins,' they overflowed in love one toward another, and .parted their possessions and goods to all men, as every man had need. They continued daily in the temple, and, breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.' If baptism were rot intended to be regarded as the sign of admission into the church, and as the proper privilege only of those who profess repentance and faith, it seems difficult to imagine a narrative, placed in the forefront of the Apostolic history, better calculated to deceive all subsequent generations of mankind. But, indeed, the statements of the Apostles, not less than every recorded example of baptism in the scripture, are in entire conformity with the narrative of the day of Pentecost."--Edward White's "Three Infant Baptisms,” &c.

p. 34.

APPENDIX D.

(Page cxlii.)
SHERIDAN KNOWLES versus CARDINAL WISEMAN.

Mr. Sheridan Knowles thus writes upon baptism :-“In your exposition of the sacrament of baptism-you say, ' The soul can be cleansed from sin, and placed in a state of grace before God, by the Bare action of water, applied, with certain words to the body.' This doctrine, like sundry others of your church, is the genuine monstrous offspring of priestcraft, acting under the influence of strong delusion.' You profess to found this dogma upon the words of Christ, in His interview with Nicodemus–Unless a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;' of which words you favour us with the following antiscriptural interpretation—' This is manifestly an explanation of the doctrine, teach

« PrécédentContinuer »