-

ber of the Society of Friends' might argue that the outward form of baptism is a matter of no obligation in the Church of Christan error sufficiently refuted by Matt. xxviii. 19, and the other analogous passages in the New Testament, relating either to the institution, or to the practice, of Baptism. But taking the words of our Lord in this simple form, we can have no hesitation in saying that Regeneration in its largest sense is, the being born again of water and of the Spirit: in other words, we regard the term Regeneration as having a claim to be used in reference both to water and to the Spirit conjointly-a claim founded on the adoption of that term by our Lord himself—a term not to be set aside, because it has been abused; to be guarded however by explanations, because of that abuse, which is so natural to the human mind, and which has so frequently and so largely prevailed in the church.

The main effort of those who uphold and aim at propagating the abuse alluded to, is directed to this point: namely, to the representing of Regeneration as one complex act, in which the outward sign and the inward grace, are indissolubly, and at the same time, united. This then is the error against which the strongest and plainest arguments should be adduced. We will offer two.

:

1. First, we observe concerning adults, that when they receive the grace of God, so as truly to repent, believe, and live a life of holiness, they plainly have been "born of God," "born of the Spirit," even before they are baptized and they receive waterbaptism after their Regeneration, both in order to the increase of grace, and also as a sign of their profession of the faith. Thus the two are separable, not only in idea, but in fact; for it would be trifling unpardonably with the ma

jesty of Truth, to suppose that the ground of Philip's baptizing the Eunuch with water was merely his professed faith : the narrative clearly represents him as having in a short time become a sincere and true believer in Christ; that is, in the fullest spiritual sense, a regenerated man.

In this part of our argument we cannot refrain from noticing the name of Whitby. When Baptismal Regeneration is to be advanced, his words are quoted with confidence, That our Lord here (John iii. 5.) speaks of Baptismal Regeneration, the whole Christian church from the beginning hath always taught.' But why not quote his subsequent comment on this verse? He remarks, referring to the case of adults—

Even when the Holy Ghost was actually fallen upon Cornelius and his friends, St. Peter commands them "to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus;" i. e. to be admitted to be Christ's disciples by that rite, and looks upon it as a necessary consequent upon that higher baptism.

That higher baptism!' we see then, according to the view of Whitby, that water-baptism, and the gift of the Spirit are not necessarily contemporaneous: still less is the being born of the Spirit consequent on being born of water. Well might the Tract Writers omit Whitby in their Tract No. 76. He would have proved but a broken link to them in their chain of modern fathers.

2. The other consideration, by which to oppose what may conveniently enough be called 'the synchronic theory,' is, that Regeneration is indisputably attributed to the word of God; that is, his word is represented as the means by which he works the great change in the soul of a true believ

perhaps not generally, contemporaneous. Many converts have heard and read the word thousands of times, before they were regenerated. The fact to be inferred is, that an appointed means may be used at one time, and its appointed blessing may take place at another very distant period. There is no law revealed to man, concerning the method in which the Sovereign Head of the church operates in regard to spiritual causation and effectuation. We may as soon define the connecting principle between body and spirit, as determine the precise time, the manner, or the measure in which God, either to individuals, or to collective bodies, dispenses that grace which he has promised in connection with the use of his own ordinances. He has appointed his pure word to be preached, and the sacraments to be duly ministered. We obey, and we are blessed in these fundamental institutions of his visible church; but we intrude not into his secret counsels, as to the time or manner of his blessing us.

This second argument, we apprehend, will have very little weight indeed with those who disparage the office of preaching. This we have understood to be the case with some of the followers of the Tracts. But we appeal to those who hold entire the valuable 19th Article of our Church; and we would warn our readers against those whose element is mystery, or rather mysticism; who decry argument, as being rationalistic, and substitute the sacraments alone, as if all in all, in the place of the preaching of the pure word of God, and the due ministering of the

ministration of the outward rite, and the communication of the Spirit's influence, are necessarily and absolutely contemporaneous. To say of the baptized, that they are “born of water" is scriptural; but the observation of Whitby should be remembered, that ‹ to be born of water is a phrase never used in scripture, for being born of the Spirit.'

The error of those who hold what is called Baptismal Regeneration' appears to spring from their carrying their reasonings beyond scripture: the contiguity of the two phrases, "born of water,” and "born of the Spirit," is with them, an argument for the contemporaneousness of the two: this is an error in limine.

II. We proceed to consider the conformity of the Church of England to scripture, on the subject of regeneration.

It will be thought by some that the baptismal service of our church carries the doctrine further than what we have represented to be the sense of scripture. If this be the case-if our church dogmatically expounds baptism and regeneration to be identical, or contemporaneous, then all who have bound themselves to the church of England are in conscience obliged to hold that view of the subject. But we apprehend the case to be far otherwise; and a brief analysis of the service appointed for the Ministration of Public Baptism of Infants' may serve to shew that, although that season be to pious ministers, parents, and friends, a time for both the prayer of faith, and the thanksgiving of hope, yet it is by no means to be regarded as a season for dogmatically asserting the regeneration of the bap

tized infant.

Observe, first, how in the prefatory remarks, the leading doctrines of original sin, and the necessity of baptism and regeneration are touched briefly, and in the very

language of scripture: no comment on them is given, though this, if desirable, would have been a most suitable place for stating that by baptism regeneration would be conferred. Instead of this, the company are exhorted to pray for regeneration; and in the prayer following, that great gift is prayed for in the most comprehensive, yet simple terms. In the prayer next following, there is a yet more special petition, that the right administration of baptism by the minister, and the right reception of it, and of all consequent blessings, by the infant, may go together and be contemporaneous: for so we understand the words, 'We call upon thee for this infant, that he coming to thy holy baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration.' The ground of faith, that most important element of true and acceptable prayer, is then stated in gospel-language: here, it may be considered, we find the fundamental principle on which we are encouraged to implore the greatest of all possible blessings. And what is this gospel-passage, on which our hopes are to be founded? Is it a passage declaring that baptism is regeneration? No-it is a passage declaring the unbounded good will and lovingkindness of the Redeemer towards little children. It is a portion of scripture that appeals both to the feelings and the understanding. It is not to be regarded in the light of a happy and affecting accommodation of scripture narrative. It is the sure ground of faith, in prayer; of prayer at all times, and specially of prayer at this solemn season of using Christ's own holy ordinance of baptism. And what is prayed for? Notre

generation' in the 'Tracts' sense; for in their sense of the word, regeneration may be forfeited and lost. But eternal life' is prayed for and on the strength of this evangelical exhortation, the con

gregation present renew their prayers for the true regeneration of the Spirit, and its accompanying blessing of everlasting salvation

Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may be born again, and be made an heir of everlasting salvation.'

He who prays in faith, may give thanks in hope. His thanksgiving, however, is not to be regarded as a dogmatic declaration of plenary answer to prayer; but rather as an expression of humble, and thus far, well-satisfied hope, that God has heard the prayer which man has been encouraged to offer up in faith. As we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy scripture,' (Art. 17.) so should we, after the prayer of lively faith, take lively faith, take the comfort generally that the prayer is now in course of receiving its answer, and it may be, has already received the commencement of that answer. It is thus that (after the questioning of the sponsors, and the administration of baptism) we understand the words of the thanksgiving immediately following the Lord's prayer. words are by far the strongest, seemingly, in favour of what is called baptismal regeneration; they appear to declare that the infant is now regenerated by the Holy Spirit. We should be sorry to adopt that mode of comment which is properly termed, plaining away:' but we must declare our conviction, that, without putting a strain upon it, this passage cannot be regarded as a declaratory opinion. It is rather that devout expression of joy in God, whose promises are so large, that, in intercessory prayer we are bound to ask for great things, and afterwards to rejoice in the hope that they are granted. And we ground this interpretation on a variety of considerations, which we will briefly adduce.

Those

ex

1. Because, in her Articles which was the proper place, if she had held a dogma to that effectthe Church of England does not declare baptism to be regeneration. In the former part of Article 27, it is called the sign of regeneration, a signing and sealing of promises, and an instrument of engrafting

into the church: but this instrumental' office of baptism is still restricted to the right reception of regeneration; and whether any given individual shall have rightly received baptism, will be made apparent only at the day of judgment. The clauses in the middle of that Article refer to the case of adults, inasmuch as infants (according to our catechism) cannot exercise faith. In the close of that Article, infant baptism is maintained, simply on the ground of its being most agreeable with the institution of Christ, and not as being regeneration; an opportunity is here prætermitted by our Reformers, which the tract-writers would not have failed to seize, of dogmatically asserting baptism to be regeneration.

2. If a hearty thanksgiving to God, appointed by the Liturgy of our church, is to be regarded as an assertion of a fact, then the form of thanksgiving appointed to be used after the baptism of such as are of riper years, (differing in terms only from that used in the case of infants) pronounces them also to have become sons of God, and heirs of eternal life. And yet (even according to the tractwriters) a baptized adult may have been all the while a hypocrite, and in that case his baptism is vitiated. What then becomes of the declaration that he is born again? This shews that the declaration is not a dogma; it is a thanksgiving of hope,' offered up, after the intercessory prayer of faith,' and according to the judgment of charity.'

6

In a similar way, the service for

6

the burial of the dead directs the minister and the assembled congregation of mourners, to express hearty thanks' on occasion of the removal of a brother or sister departed in the faith. This is on the supposition that the church is in a state of pure discipline; the only hypothesis on which public liturgies can be framed. But-supposing the judgment of charity to have been most scrupulously cautious, and the evidences of peace in death to have been most satisfactory-still, we ask, does this hearty thanksgiving prove that the departed actually is in glory? We say, our hope is, that our departed brother rests in Christ. So then there may be hearty thanksgiving, yea, and well-founded thanksgiving, without what would amount to dogmatical opinion.

We give another example from common life :-. -A faithful parent, anxiously watching over his children, and discerning in them, one after another, credible proofs of the true work of regeneration, may assuredly give hearty thanks that at length they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit: but his own fullest convictions on that head cannot amount to a certainty, seeing that God alone knows the hearts of those children. We consequently infer that the most fervent language of thanksgiving is not necessarily the language of doctrinal declaration.

In every thing below there is always something imperfect and most of all this is the case with our knowledge of the real state of others. Here indeed our knowledge entirely fails. As to the notion that infants "rightly receive" baptism, and consequently are regenerated thereby, because they cannot oppose an obstacle, but are passively-right recipients, it so manifestly places Baptism in the light of "a charm," as Bishop Burnet remarks, and is so clearly of a Popish character, that it needs not more words. The

Tract writers refer us to no document of the Church of England to support the opinion of the obicem non ponentes: should our readers be curious to know where the words and the doctrine are to be found, we refer them to the Council of Trent, Session vii. Canon 6.

When therefore the Church of England in her 27th Article limits the benefit of Baptism to those who "rightly receive" that Sacrament, we consider the sense to be obvious in the case of adults: while in the case of infants the "right reception " is a condition held in abeyance, and waiting for them to verify and realize it in their riper years. Inasmuch as believing parents and ministers have done all that Christ has appointed them to do, when they with faith present their infant at the font, they have a hope which they also must not only express in warm thanksgivings, but must aim at realizing and substantiating, by the Christian education of the child.

As to what may be-as some have expressed it-the grace actually attending Baptism, as we do not draw the obligation of Infant Baptism from that consideration, it is (for the present at least) superfluous to discuss the question. Our aim thus far has been simply to shew that spiritual regeneration does not necessarily attend the Sacrament, according either to Scripture or the Church of England.

III. Let us now glance at some of the passages quoted by Dr. Pusey from the early Fathers, from which we shall be enabled to see how little help-none at all, we think-the writers gain from this source, in support of their opinions.

Our limits restrict us from quoting very copiously; but we will not select partially. We present the following passages, in Dr. Pusey's Own translation, with

DECEMBER 1838.

little more than a word or two of comment from ourselves.

The following passage is from St. Augustine; quoted in the Tract on Baptism, p. 21.

Most excellently do the Punic Christians entitle Baptism itself no other than salvation, and the Sacrament of the body of Christ no other than life. Whence, except from an old, as I deem, and apostolical tradition, by which they hold it inserted into the Church of Christ, that, without Baptism, and the participation of the Lord's table, no man can arrive, either at the kingdom of God, or salvation and life eternal. This as we have said, is what Scripture testifies. For what do they who entitle Baptism salvation, hold other than what is written, "He hath saved us by the washing of regeneration : and what St. Peter saith, "The like figure whereunto Baptism doth now save you?"

This passage adds not a little of real explanation to Scripture; excepting that it appears to assert that the Sacraments are absolutely (not as our Catechism says, generally) necessary to salvation. On this subject, hear St. Augustine again, quoted page 87.

Who knows not, that in infants to be. lieve is to be baptized, not to believe is not to be baptized? Since little ones do not begin to be of Christ's sheep but by Baptism, then those, who do not receive Baptism, will perish; for they will not have eternal life, which he giveth to his sheep. Further, the ecclesiastical rule, which reckons baptized infants among the faithful, does not so judge (viz. that they are in a middle state, neither believing nor unbelieving). If then they who are baptized, on account of the virtue and celebration of so great a sacrament, (although they do not with their own mouth and heart, anything appertaining to belief or confession,) yet are accounted among believers, they to whom this sacrament is wanting, must be accounted among such as do not believe the same!

This more explicitly pronounces that Infants wanting baptism must perish. The second extract in the preceding passage is what may be called 66 technical," rather than dogmatical." Yet out of such technical expressions of the Fathers it is not difficult plausibly to deduce very absurd dogmas.

We conclude the extracts from St. Augustine with another pas

3 R