three objects: God, the giver of grace; man, the receiver of it; and, the means divinely appointed for the conveyance of it. With regard to the two first, the tract writers would profess to hold the most simple and obvious views. In fact, that God should confer, and that man should receive grace, are propositions so plain, that they need but to be stated in order to their being admitted. It is the third proposition which furnishes the arena for all this mystic writing. One of the means of grace, baptism, is selected; and to this so great a virtue is attached that it is considered absolutely to convey grace to infants in such a way and measure, that they, having no power to resist the operation of this grace, are totally renewed in their nature: the infection of sin is cured, they are regenerated, they are made new creatures.

The controversy may well deserve to be limited to this one sacrament, and to it, as administered to infants: for ordinarily speaking, the other means of grace (namely, the Lord's supper, and the preaching of the word) are used on behalf of adults, who, confessedly, by reason of their mature age, can oppose the operation of grace (obicem ponentes, bolting or blocking it out.) The question then simply reduces itself to this: Is grace so infallibly, so inseparably and so certainly attached to infant-baptism, that as sure as the child is baptized, so sure does it receive a new nature? Is the thing signified essentially bound up with the outward and visible sign of it? The tract writers say it is: we say, not. The Papists say that baptism is regeneration; so do these tracts. But not so says scripture, or the Church of England; whose language is misunderstood, or unfairly represented, when it is stated to convey this sentiment.

The proper definition of grace, as it respects the giver of it, is an

act of free, unmerited good will: the proper view of grace as it respects the receiver of it, is to be gathered from its Effects on the heart and conversation. The dignity and value of the means are to be judged of by the Scriptural proof, that they are divinely appointed. This divine appointment creates our bounden obligation to use them; but to declare of them that they are in any case, absolutely, and by the mere outward acting of them, effective, is to attribute to means that which God has no where assigned to them. Means may well be necessary as a divine institution, and yet be not only resistible, but absolutely in themselves inefficacious: so indeed they are, excepting in the cases where God himself works by his own accompanying Spirit: which Spirit is not bound to the means, though he vouchsafes to appoint and to use them.

It is here that we especially anticipate mischief to the souls of men, from the statements of the tract writers. For the doctrine of the Effects of Regeneration, as evidenced in the heart and life, is studiously kept out of view, as rationalistic. We have always considered appeals to the consciences of men, and powerful convictions produced in them of the desperate malignity of their unregenerated natures, to be among the most effectual means of bringing them to seek regeneration. In other expressions, we regard the lively and faithful preaching of the word to unconverted men, to be the appointed method of rousing those who are dead in trespasses and sins. But here, behold, interposes this soothing opinion, this false opiate to the conscience.

The man has been regenerated; and though no fruits thereof have appeared, yet he has been in a state of light, life, and salvation, ever since he was sprinkled at the font all he has to do, is to stir

:

up that gift, and he will find that he is quickened, is pardoned, is holy, is able to discern spiritual things with a mind which is already spiritual, although somewhat neglected.'

Fatal, indeed, is this notion to the multitudes who are thus thrown upon their mere natural powers, their natural conscience, their natural understanding and exertions, vainly assured that what they thus put forth is the acting of grace, the rousing of dormant (not dead) energies; the work, in fact, of the Spirit. All this results from holding that Baptism is regeneration; from holding that the means and the end are co-existent in the case of infants.

In considering what are the Effects of Regeneration, we have. been frequently assisted by the very simple threefold delineation of those effects, in the state of the enlightened understanding, the renewed will, and the sanctified affections; adding to this, the indispensable evidence of a holy life. Now according to the doctrine of the tract writers, every baptized person ought to consider himself as having received this abundant grace: if he discovers it not in himself, still he ought to believe that he has received it; and on stirring up the gift, he will find himself to have been already holy, enlightened, and spirituallyminded. A most fallacious view for unawakened, unconverted, unregenerate, nominal Christians to take! In fact, saving the outward privilege they have already partaken of in being admitted into the visible church by Baptism, they have ALL TO BEGIN ; they have to implore a grace, which AS YET THEY POSSESS NOT. We see not in what material respect this false doctrine differs from Antinomianism. Both imply that a man may be "in grace," although living habitually" in sin."

3. As to other methods by which

A

the erroneous doctrine of these Tracts of Regeneration is propounded, they are various. leading one is, the incorrect handling of Scripture. The following instance may suffice, selected from Professor Pusey's Tract.

Again, let any one consider the emblems under which baptism is pointed out in Scripture, as having been figured in the Old Testament, the flood, and the passage of the Red Sea. In modern times, neither has appeared a very obvious similitude. The symbol of the ark, as an emblem of Christ's Church, has recommended itself to us; not so the resemblance of baptism to the flood, since the flood destroyed life, baptism saves it. The apostle, however, looks upon the flood as the entrance, and the only entrance, into the ark, and, laying aside all other points of resemblance or difference, he fixes our minds upon this one subject,-by what means we were brought in thither; and since the flood was the occasion of Noah's entering the ark, and the ark was borne up by that water which destroyed those who entered not therein, he pronounces that "the few, the eight souls, were brought therein safe by water; the antitype whereof, baptism, doth also now save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry into a good conscience towards God ;" i. e. baptism, not as an outward rite, but accompanied with faith, the baptized person answering with a good conscience to the inquiry made into his faith. It was then an object with the apostle to impress upon the minds of Christians the greatness of the sacrament of baptism, by comparing it with the most wonderful displays of Almighty power which this globe had ever witnessed and the less obvious the resemblance, the more moment we must suppose there to have been in pointing out their connection; or rather we should admire God's mercy, who in the record of his dispensations so harmonized them together, that we should not be "staggered through unbelief," at the meanness of the instruments which he uses; but having seen that the Holy Spirit condescended to brood over the shapeless mass of waters, and thence to produce order and lifethat water was the means appointed for saving Noah and his sons-that Moses and Israel descended into the water of the Red Sea as into a tomb, and thence arose again, and were delivered- that water cleansed Naaman from leprosy, and the children of Israel from pollution, -we might the more readily believe that water should be consecrated by God "for the mystical washing away of sin," and connect the admonitions of his previous dis

pensations with the greatness of our present privilege.

And whoever thinks lightly of waterbaptism, if he compare his mind with that of St. Peter, will surely find himself reproved, &c. (Tract on Baptism, pp. 44, 45.)

Was it then a main object of St. Peter to extol the greatness of Baptism? That it is so with the writer of the tract, is conspicuous enough. But we hold the very opposite in the interpretation of this text. It surely challenges the mind to reflect on the nature of spiritual regeneration, as being typified by water baptism: while the notion that Baptism is regeneration, seems to be specially staved off by the qualifying clause, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience. The whole passage seems to us to place the subject of the controversy in a very clear light. Baptism is indeed extolled as a means of grace: but the effectual grace is so defined, that if that be wanting, then the Baptism is as though it were no Baptism: and the inquiry as to these effects is laid home on the conscience of

each professed Christian. We feel that to this view we are guided by St. Peter; and that thus holding it, we are not reproved' by him. His language is not simply declarative, but likewise explanatory and exclusive, designed to check the very error of this tract.

It is important to add that this passage, speaking of persons exercising conscience, cannot be considered to affirm any thing concerning the regeneration of infants by baptism it appertains to adults. Thus, nothing is gained by this text, towards the notion of the Baptismal Regeneration of Infants.

The passage in John iii. 5, is of course produced, and that, early in the tract. But in the paragraph with which the consideration of it opens, we light at once upon a passage singularly confused, both in style and argument. The writer observes,

First, then, I would remark on the fact, that whereas, confessedly, regeneration is in scripture connected with baptism, it no where is disconnected from it. Baptism is spoken of as the source of our spiritual birth, as no other cause is, save God: [here baptism is exalted as a cause,' not an instrument or means of grace:] we are not said, namely, to be regenerated by faith, or love, or prayer, or any grace which God worketh in us, but to be "born of water and the Spirit" in contrast to our birth of the flesh; to be saved by the washing of regeneration, or the new birth, in like manner as we are said to be born of God, or of incorruptible seed. Other causes are indeed mentioned as connected with our new birth, or rather that one comprehensive cause, the whole dispensation of mercy in the gospel, as, "born of seed incorruptible through the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever; "-"in Jesus Christ have I begotten you through the gospel," "of his own will begat he us by the word of truth; but no other instrument is spoken of as having the same relation to our heavenly birth as that of water. [Here baptism becomes an instrument.]— Tract on Baptism, p. 12.

The double it in the first sentence is a violation of the laws of perspicuity. What is meant by Regeneration being no where in Scripture disconnected from Baptism? What is the logic of slurring over other means of grace, especially, the preaching of the word, by the terms, 6 one comprehensive cause, the whole dispensation of mercy in the Gospel?' This is a way-but not a fair and candid way of representing water as an instrument of regeneration. The Bible plainly declares, not in generals, but specifically, that God begets, that is, regenerates souls by the word of truth: and this instrument we hold to have certainly not less to do with our heavenly birth than water.

So again, the following verse seems to be alluded to. We know that whosoever is born of God, sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 1 John v. 18. Passages of this kind are referred to with the observation that these are tests afforded, whether we are acting up to our privilege of Rege

neration.' (Page 14.) Acting up.' Truly, we regard them as tests of whether we be, or be not, regenerated. If those born of God so act; we ought to infer, conversely, that they who do not so act, are not sons of God. We have no alternative.

4. But-the Fathers! Now in touching on this almost illimitable subject, we heartily wish that we could have all the good of this class of Authors, without any of their evil.

We

But it is not the fate of the Tract Writers to produce such a result. Indeed, we much doubt whether it is a work that could, with any fairness, be accomplished to any considerable extent. may, here and there, glean out of the folios of antiquity single sentences and even whole paragraphs, sometimes long ones, which are very valuable. But after all, is it not picking and choosing? On this

account we question the force of all the quotations put together, which are given in this Tract on Baptism. Lest, however, we should seem unfair, we will extract that one which, to the Writer, appears to have been of the greatest value and beauty in this controversy.

Let us hear St. Gregory of Nazianzen commending Infant Baptism: 'Hast thou an infant ? Let not wickedness gain an opportunity against it? Let it be sanctified from a babe. Let it be hallowed by the spirit from its tenderest infancy. Fearest thou the seal of faith on account of the weakness of nature, as a fainthearted mother and of little faith? But Hannah devoted Samuel to God, yea, before he was born, and when he was born, immediately she made him a priest, and brought him up in the priestly attire, not fearing human nature, but trusting in God. Thou hast no need of Amuletsimpart to him the Trinity, that great and excellent preservative.' The thrill which these impressive words " impart to him the Trinity, (dos avtų tǹv Tpiáda) echoing to us after 1400 years, still awaken in us, may well make us admire the energy of the faith, which, infused into words more simple, a force so amazing.-(Tract on Baptism, p. 178.)

The comment of the Author is that which most of all perplexes

us: nor do the words that follow in his Tract, at all clear our view. Whose energetic faith is it, that infuses into what words this amazing force? Is it the faith of St. Gregory that infused energy into his style? This we apprehend to be the sense, but we are not quite certain whether it be. If some one had said to us, that the writer referred to the faith of the officiating minister, or of the parent, or of the church, transfusing force into the baptismal form of words(here called Imparting the Trinity'), we should have been unable to say that that was not the sense. As to the design of Gregory, it appears to have been to animate Christian parents to that faith which becomes every person who presents a little infant at the font. Prayer, the prayer of faith and hope, is far more strongly expressed in the Service of the Church of England, than in these hortatory sentences of St. Gregory: but we do not learn from either the one or the other, to consider the infant as having in baptism received a new nature.

In page 180, speaking on both Sacraments, Professor Pusey remarks concerning the opinions of the Fathers, The sign was to them so glorious, only because it was identified with that inward grace.' Identified! We should almost think this a slip of the pen, but that the argument itself is pushed to that length. The sign is the grace! Certainly the question

How many parts are there in a Sacrament?' was well nigh superfluous: the answer at least is deficient. According to this eulogy of the Fathers it ought to have been-Two; the outward and visible sign, and the inward and spiritual grace; and these two are identical. The sign and the grace are one and the same thing.'

5. Another method resorted to, in the conduct of this controversy, is an appeal to Modern Fathers.

But how many modern Fathers are there? Who calls them out, marshals them, assigns their rank, value, and authority ? As to their rank, we know that of the Forty whose paragraphs are strung together under the title of Catena Patrum, some were bishops, others were doctors, &c. But then, it should be remembered that so many bishops, doctors, and others have written and continue to write, that this species of argument has no bounds. It is a matter past all calculation how long the Catena Patrum will be by the end of another century. And are all great modern writers on one side? even if they were, yet truth is not counted by numbers.

6. Another mode of warfare (we use the term because it is a

method both aggressive and invidious) adopted by the Tract Writers is, to hold up Calvin and Socinus side by side, in printed parallel columns, in the form of extracts from their writings. Calvin and Socinus! Shall we borrow the word, Identified? No, we repudiate the very principle that led to their juxta-position. Indeed, it might provoke some person not better employed, to heap together in parallel columns, extracts from the Council of Trent on the one side, and extracts from these three volumes on the other. But as the alarm of the Revival of Popery' has already become rife in Oxford itself, we for the present postpone the further discussion of this important subject.

CONSIDERABLE interest was, a short time since, excited by the announcement that a Mr. Crosse had, by certain galvanic processes, found insects where he expected to see crystals of silica-had actually produced life by means of galvanism—and had thus, at least, suggested the idea that animal life might possibly be produced by chemical action on material substance. These intimations were, as might have been expected, hailed with great satisfaction by that class of philosophers whose scepticism in religion is usually combined with a considerable portion of credulity on other points; while the more fully informed on scientific and religious topics regarded the assertion with no small suspicion; feeling, as the late Dr. Milner used in such cases to remark, a pretty strong presentiment that there was · nonsense somewhere !' The correctness of such suspicions is now established by Mr. Murray's experiments, who has ascertained that Mr. Crosse's

Wilson. 1838.

insects are a species of mite, or of acarus, whose ova being deposited in the silica, potassa, acid, water, flannel, volcanic slag, &c. employed in the operation, were eventually hatched by the galvanic process. The sum of the whole matter, as far as Mr. Crosse's experiments are concerned, is simply this: the ova of the acarus derived from some of the sources mentioned, no doubt the water or the atmosphere, are hatched by the electricity of the galvanic battery! Mr. Crosse's production of life by galvanism is therefore an operation of the same genus as the Egyptian production of chickens by means of an oven. Philosophers must proceed a step further before they can account for a creature, without a supreme, intelligent, Almighty Creator. We think certain philosophers of real science must look back with not very pleasant feelings at the language they have incautiously used with reference to Mr. C. and his discoveries!