Volume 1 is available at: http://www.amazon.com/
Volume 2 is available at: http://www.amazon.com/
It appears to not be available online.
“The second, which was essential to the renewal of the church, was represented by Cranmer, and consisted particularly in re-establishing the authority of holy Scripture. Wolsey did not fall alone, nor did Cranmer rise alone: each of these two men carried with him the system he represented. The fabric of the Roman traditions fell with the first; the foundations of the holy Scriptures were laid by the second; and yet, while we render all justice to the sincerity of the Cambridge doctor, we must not be blind to his weaknesses, his subservience, and even a certain degree of negligence, which, by allowing parasitical plant to shoot up here and there, permitted them to spread over the living rock of God’s Word. Not in this movement, then, was found the Reformation with all its energy and all it purity” [emphasis added].
Laud would seethe with fury at Mr. D'Aubigne, although he was substantially inferior to Mr. D'Aubigne as a scholar, exegete and historian. 19th century Tractarians did their level best to keep D'Aubigne from a lecture in England.
The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) believed, albeit so modestly if not ineffectively, that "Romanist germs" or "seeds" lay within the Anglican soil. Corrections were needed; the REC corrections appeared ham-fisted; they failed to embrace the Reformed Confessions. But this conviction was their's: Roman-seeds in Anglican soil. Misters Riches and Sutton drove it downwards inside of upwards. They became what the REC once feared.
The Tractarians, the 2.0ers, are testimonies to that. The REC itself--these days--has yielded to the 2.0ers and they know it, but will not admit it. I suspect D'Aubigne would be bad-mouthed by the REC neo-Tractarians although, insofar as one can see from any publications, "they have not a single one" on a level of D'Aubigne's scholarship or publications. "Not a single one."
Pg. 476:
“The father of this church in England was not Henry VIII. When the king cast into prison or gave to the flames men like Hitton, Bennet, Patmore, Petit, Bayfield, Bilney, and many others, he was not the `the father of the Reformation of England,’ as some have so falsely asserted; he was its executioner.”
“The church of England was foredoomed to be in its renovation a church of martyrs; and the truth father of this church is our Father which is in heaven.”
No comments:
Post a Comment