gross actual sins, is sufficient for the obtaining of heaven, without those hard and inexplicable notions of regeneration. I shall therefore endeavour to convince you of the indispensable necessity that there is of being born again; that so, when you are persuaded of it, you may give no rest unto yourselves, nor unto God, till he cause his Spirit, which is that wind that bloweth where it listeth, to breathe spiritual life into you, without which it is impossible that you should inherit eternal life," PP

302,303

We cannot dismiss this subject without another observation. Do the persons who appeal with such confidence to all the distinguished writers of our church, as believers in the necessarily regenerating effects of baptism, recollect that many of them were avowedly Calvinists ? Is it possible that Whitgift, for example, or Usher, could hold, the doctrine, without the abandonment of their peculiar creed? For, in that case, since they held also the doctrine of final perseverance, they must also have maintained that every baptized person would finally enter into the kingdom of heaven. The view given by Usher of his own sentiments, as cited by Mr. Faber, must have corresponded with that of his Calvinistic brethren, His words

arecadady 19uite

"But what say you of infants bap tized that are born in the c church: doth the inward grace in their baptism always attend upon the outward sign? The answer is, Surely no: the sacra ment of baptism is effectual in infants, only to those and to all those who belong

*Bishop Hopkins's Works, p. 535. +"Her discipline," says Bishop Horsley, speaking of the Church of England, 66 has been approved it has been submitted to: it has been in former times most ably and zealously defended by the highest supra-lapsarian Calvinists. Such was the great Usher such was Whitgift such were many more burn ing and shining lights of our church in her early days, when she shook off the papal tyranny, long since gone to the resting place of the spirits of the just."

unto the election of grace. Which thing, though, we, in the judgment of charity, do judge of every particular infant; yet we have no ground to judge so of all in general; or, if we should judge so, yet it is not any judgment of certainty; we may be mistaken.'" pp. 293, 294.

We allude to the Calvinistic opinions of Usher only to show that as a Calvinist he must, in comhave rejected the doctrine which mon with his Calvinistic brethren, is now imputed by some individuals to all our old divines.

In his manner of treating the whole subject, Mr. Faber, it will be observed, proceeds upon general grounds: he enters upon the examination of a doctrine, without any marked reference to the individuals by whom it is supported, and in the spirit of sober investigation. A more inoffensive course could hardly be pursued: but it must needs be that offences will come; and the Dean of Chichester is much offended.

In a letter addressed to Mr. Faber, and entitled "An Apology for the Ministers of the Church of England, who hold the doctrine of baptismal regeneration," he expresses his feelings like a person who has very serious ground of complaint. His pamphlet carries with it many marks of haste ;* and to this haste we are probably to attribute the very singular language in which the Dean has permitted himself to indulge. We are not ignorant how prone controversialists are, above all men, to forget the decencies and civilities which should especially prevail among Christian scholars and we are disposed to make every allowance for haste and precipitation: but candour itself must have its limits; and if we do not dwell upon this subject in those terms of reprobation which it certainly deserves, it is because we are convinced that the reflections of the author himself

In p. 5, he speaks of performing qualifications. In p.29, of wading through an instance, &c.

must have long since suggested all that we would say. The "Apology" was followed by a Reply from Mr. Faber and this again by expostulatory remarks from the Dean. Mr. Faber, in his reply, had commented, not without some portion of due severity, upon the temper and manner of his opponent: the Dean throws back the charge; and his "remarks" most certainly do not convey any very striking proofs of alteration or amendment. How injurious, even to the best minds, is the spirit of controversy a slow The chief reason for our introducing the mention of these pamphlets is, to recommend that of Mr. Faber as a very lucid and masterly treatise, în e support of his own statements, and to notice the sins gular fact of the Dean's disavowal, on the part of himself and the cler gy, of Dr. Mant's doctrine. In his Apology he declares, that the inseparability of baptism and regeneration is a doctrine falsely ascribed to the clergy: he is confident that no minister of our church ever did or bever could really assert it he intimates that it is a foolish

་ ་

T

Dr. Mant's Lecture, if it had contained the opinions which Mr. Faber ascribes to it.

cod grisd to aí si af tut g

All who have at heart the real in terests of the church, cannot but rejdice

to the explicit disavowal, by such high

which, by Dr. Mant, and its adoption authority, of a doctrine, the revival of by the Society in Bartlett's Buildings, we, in common with many wise and good men, c ,contemplated with so much alarm, Were we then alarmed on slight grounds? Is it true, that in attributing papistical sentiments to Dr. Mant, and the promulgation of such unwise and the venerable society, we misrepresented both? Let the reader judge. Dr. Mant's tract, published by the Society, is still in existence, and it contains

Ang passages: stgiriy

thereby » viz.

conferred

grace IS by baptism, p. 8. Baptism is a new birth, by which we enter into the new world, the new creation, the blessings and spiritualities forward we have a of the kingdom," "From this time put into us, the Spirit of Grace, new principle besides our soul and body, is a principle of action." p:969

If the work of regeneration is not effected by baptism, it is almost impossible for any sober

challenges Mr. Faber, if this opinion can can be collected on principles of fair interpretation, from the writings of as minister of the Church of England, to name the book of the author, with a great deal more in the same strain. Mr. Faber, thus challenged, names the celebrated tracts of Dr. Mant, as adopted and accredited by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge; and which, on account of this very principle, had given rise to so many pamphlets, and to so much discussion. And what then does the Dean? He avers, that the doctrine of inseparability is not held by that gentleman! He considers it as a mere invention

P. 25.

St. Paul, in writing to the Romans, "confirms an opinion presently to be insisted on, that no other than baptismal regeneration is possible in this world." P.32 etusiai lo voy yaa Jaứn tuaj 120

"Does not the language of the Aposthe warrant the conclusion that we are born anew in baptism, and in baptism exclusively." p. 33.

3

3

This piece of intelligence must appear not a little extraordinary to many members of that institution, and to the author of the tracts; but it is no part of our business to mediate between the parties; we only wish to observe, that this doctrine of inseparability, which was supposed to have been virtually carried by vote in a great Society, is now, with perhaps one single exception, universally abandoned it is disclaimed on all sides, and we trust that it will never be revived.

To return from this digression, Mr. Faber passes on, in the next sermon, to consider the nature of baptisın. His text is the commission of Christ to his disciples: (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.) Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;

mischievous sentiment. That sentiment is now disclaimed on his behalf, and on

the behalf of the Society, by the Dean of Chichester. We rejoice in the disclaimer, and are content to submit to the imputation of being so much less acute than that gentleman, as not to have penetrated as he has done into the real meaning of Dr. Mant. Indeed, we are even now incapable, to our shame be it spoken, of discovering wherein we either misconceived or misrepresented Dr. Mant's meaning. And yet it is plain from the Dean's pamphlet that we must have done both. We trust, however, that Dr. Mant and the Society will adopt the only effectual means of obviating similar misconceptions and misrepresentations in future, by suppressing the tract which has occasioned them, and which, if it continue to be circulated, will infallibly occasion them again. For, unless the English language should undergo some strange alterations, we do not see how the passages we have cited above can be understood in any other sense, by plain and unlettered laics, than that which we have (doubtless ignorantly) affixed to them.

and lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.

By viewing this passage conjointly with the corresponding passage of St. Mark, our author arranges his observations under two general heads: the first, respecting the order of conduct which Christ presented to his Evangelists, and the place which he assigns to baptism, when beheld by the side of faith: and the second, relating to the object of this symbolical rite, and the nature of those privileges by which it is accompanied.

Under the first division of his subject he shows, that the Evangelists were to commence their labours, by preaching Christ crucified; by convincing the world that Jesus was the true Messiah, "anointed of God with a fulness of grace, and of the Spirit without measure, and sent to be the Saviour and Redeemer of the world." If any person were convinced by their preaching, and desirous to receive Christ as his Saviour, they were forthwith to baptize him in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He was thus, on the presumption that he was a real convert, although hitherto very imperfectly instructed in the great mysteries of the Gospel, to be admitted formally

a member of the church of Christ. The supposed convert might perhaps be hypocritical; but if Christ did not repel the traitor Judas from baptism, (and it must be presumed that Judas was baptized as well as the rest of the Apostles,) neither could his disciples repel any who came with apparent seriousness rite. Hence, many unworthy persons to solicit a participation in the were admitted to baptism:-such as Ananias and Sapphira, Demas and Simon Magus, Hymeneus and Philetus; and many became outward members of the Christian community, who derived no saving benefit from the Christian ordinance.

After the supposed convert had been initiated into the visible communion of believers, he was to be further instructed in all things which a Christian ought to know and believe, to his soul's health. The leading and essential doctrines of the Gospel were to be completely developed to him; so that any subsequent defect or apostacy could not be charged upon his ignorance either of the tenets or the precepts of Christianity.

Now, it is evident, that whatever benefits might result from believing in Christ, and from submitting to him in all his offices, those benefits would not be enjoyed by the persons who did not believe, and who did not thus submit to him. Mr. Faber illustrates the point, by enlarging upon the imagined case of a sick man. If the person have no belief in the skill of his physician, be will not apply to him for a remedy. This unbelief, therefore, leads to practical consequences, which may terminate in his death: and thus the opposite principles of faith and unbelief, in reference to Christ, the Physician of the soul, inevitably produce two such opposite states of mind, and two such opposite lines of conduct, that the practical believer is brought to final happiness, and the practical unbeliever to final misery. making this declaration, our Lord points out the radical difference between faith and baptism he shows faith to be so essential that a man cannot be saved without it: but though he commands that every believer should be baptized, yet he carefully refrains from intimating, that without baptism no man can be saved. His words are, He that believeth and is baptizedsh all be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. The omission of the baptismal rite, if a man have real faith, and do not omit the rite from a contemptuous neglect of Christ's commandment, (a sin of which no true believer can be guilty) CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 186.

:

In

been so prevalent both among Jews and Gentiles, and connected with some ideas of a mystic renovation in both, long before the coming of our Lord. This ancient rite Christ adopted; and, exalting it into a sacrament, put it into the place, not of Jewish proselytish baptism, but of the divinely ordained rite of circumcision. Circumcision, then, being in effect and substance the same as baptism, if we would ascertain the nature and privileges of the latter, we must ascertain the nature and privileges of the former.

We can do little more than state the result of Mr. Faber's scriptural and logical discussion. The conclusion at which he arrives is this; that Christian baptism may be viewed as the door of entrance into God's visible house, the church: that hence it becomes the special mark or badge of a professing Christian; and that it likewise admits us into all the privileges enjoyed by the members of the church. So that it is not only an outward badge of our Christian profession, but an efficacious mean of grace, and a pledge to assure us of its reception, if we do not voluntarily shut ourselves out from God's covenant, and declare ourselves unworthy of its benefits.

3 F

"Such a modification of the doctrine, that it is a mean and a pledge, is evidently required both by experience and common sense. So far as matter of fact is concerned, we do not find that baptism is a mean and a pledge of grace to all who receive it: nor is it agreeable either to right reason or to the general analogy of nature, that it should be so. Baptism acts not as a charm: it imposes upon no one an invincible necessity of holiness. It is a mean of God's grace only so far as we avail ourselves of the privileges to which it entitles us: it is a pledge of our receiving it, only so far as we take those intermediate steps upon which God has suspended its communication. A brave army is a powerful mean of victory: but, if it be ill supplied and worse conducted, no victory will be obtained. The delivering of a turf may be the pledge of a large estate: but if the estate be never claimed, or if all right to it be forfeited by treason, the receiver of the turf will derive no benefit from the most regularly and authentically witnessed reception of it. Just so is it with baptism: as a precept, it is positive; as a mean and a pledge of receiving Divine grace, it is conditional. The whole analogy of nature cannot be violated to drive men to heaven, nor yet in some cabalistical manner to convey them thither. Baptism, though in a modified sense of the words both a mean and a pledge, can no more in itself secure an admission into the presence of God, than the fabulous efficacy attributed by monkish superstition to the cloak and scapulary of St. Francis. We must do our parts in the Christian covenant, just as we must plough and sow the ground with an eye to a future plentiful harvest; and, if we thus act, we shall then find, that baptism is both a mean and a pledge of grace." pp. 385-387.

As baptism is a federal admission into the church of Christ, it follows that a baptism into what is not the church of Christ, is no baptism at all. If a person be baptized into a society which rejects the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, he may indeed be washed with water; but the rite is just as invalid as if he were baptized into the religion of Mahomet.

The sermon concludes with a few remarks upon infant baptism, and upon the form requisite for the efficacious administration of the rite. We shall finish our account by an extract concerning the former of these questions.

"The manifest identity of circumcision and baptism, even to say nothing of the universal practice of the church in all ages, seems abundantly to determine the question of infant baptism.

"As circumcision under the law is the avowed symbol of regeneration, and as baptism under the Gospel is likewise the avowed symbol of regeneration; circumcision and baptism are evidently two outward sacramental signs of exactly the same import. But, if they be signs of the same spiritual grace, they must to all effective purposes be mutually the same with each other: for a sign being altogether arbitrary, if it had pleased God to shadow out regeneration by a hundred different signs, all those hundred signs would still constitute but a single sacrament.

"Such then being the case, as God judged children under the law to be fully capable of entering into covenant with him by circumcision on the eighth day, man can have no right to pronounce children under the Gospel incapable of entering into covenant with him by baptism. Every argument against infant baptism, derived from the necessary want of active faith on the part of children, will be equally cogent against infant circumcision; for faith was so much the grand principle of the Law as well as of the Gospel, that the pious patriarch of the Israelites is specially decorated with the title of 'the father of the faithful.' But God has decided the question in the matter of circumcision. Therefore, circumcision being effectively the same as baptism, he has equally decided it in the matter of baptism. Hence, in every age and in every country, with the sole exception of a modern innovating sect, pædobaptism has invariably been adopted: and hence the Church of England well determines, that the baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the

institution of Christ."""*

399.

Art. XXVII.

pp. 397