Page images
PDF
EPUB

Thee will I sing; and sing that Pow'r divine,
By which the sun and stars and planets shine;
And wheeling round the world, obey thy nod,
And joyful own an ever-present God.

Thou guid'st, with steady hand and mighty force,
The forked lightnings in their fiery course;
When Nature looks aghast, and trembling stands,
Waiting in solemn silence, thy commands.
But thou art wise in all;-when thunders roll
In awful majesty from pole to pole;

And when the lamps of night and orb of day
In order move along their noiseless way,
All that inhabit heav'n, and earth, and sea,
Think, speak, and act, as they're impell'd by thee;
Save when the wicked violate thy laws,

Their own corrupt desires, the guilty cause.

Thou mak'st the frowning face of Nature smile,
And crown'st with beauty things deform'd and vile;
All jarring elements of good and ill,

Touch'd by thy plastic hand, obey thy will;
And heav'nly wisdom, great beyond control,
Into one glorious system forms the whole.

But wretched men, by vice and folly led,
Who ne'er in search of happiness have sped;
With ears obstructed and averted eyes,
Th' eternal Law of Reason dare despise :
Which, had they kept it with obedient will,

Had bless'd their days, and screen'd their lives from ill.
But, ah! ill-fated men, they onward rush,

And ev'ry virtuous feeling madly crush.
Some pant for fame, by wild ambition fir'd,
Some grasp at wealth, by love of gold inspir’d.
Others in brutal sloth dream time away;

And some to pleasures give the night and day;-
Pleasures of sense, which disappoint and cloy,
And rob the aching heart of ev'ry joy.

But, mighty Jove, thou bounteous Lord of all,

Father of gods and men, on thee I call.

Though clouds and darkness gird thy dazzling throne,

And by thy voice of thunder thou art known,

Let thy paternal eye with pity see

The sons of folly wand'ring far from thee.
On their benighted eyes thy knowledge pour,
That they may stray in error's path no more.
Does heav'nly wisdom o'er the world preside?
Let the same wisdom all their footsteps guide.

Thus honour'd, we thy nobler honour raise,
For man was form'd for thy unceasing praise :
And blest are gods and men, who ever sing
The Universal Law of their eternal King.

A SEPTUAGENARIAN.

REVIEWS.

Baptismal Regeneration opposed, both by the Word of God, and the Standards of the Church of England. By the Rev. Capel Molyneux, B.A., Minister of Trinity Episcopal Chapel, Woolwich. 12mo. London: Seeley & Co.

Lectures on the Baptismal Regeneration Controversy, delivered at Woolwich. By the Rev. Charles Stovel. 12mo. London: Houlston & Stoneman.

THESE two works agree in several particulars. They had their origin in the same town, they refer to the same subject, they resulted from the same efforts to maintain the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; and they both contain a refutation, more or less conclusive, of this superstitious tenet. But they differ greatly in other respects. The former is intended to prove that the church of England does not teach baptismal regeneration; and the latter is designed to show, that Congregational and other Pædo-baptist churches virtually do teach it. The one author stands forward to vindicate the church to which he belongs from a charge which most of its members acknowledge, and in which, indeed, they glory; while the other seeks to criminate his brethren of other Christian societies, by charging them with errors and practices which they have uniformly, both by word and deed, repudiated and opposed.

It appears that Mr. Molyneux has been very rudely assailed, by some anonymous writers, on the ground of alleged inconsistency, because, being a clergyman of the church of England, he yet opposed the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. In this publication he seeks to show, in the first place, that this doctrine is opposed to the Bible; and, in the second place, that it is also opposed to the doctrinal standards of his church. The first portion of his argument, although not in every respect satisfactory, is yet conclusive; but the second is, we think, entirely the reverse. His reasoning, on this point, may be easily described. He shows that the church of England requires faith as the condition for the baptism of adults; and that, according to its Articles, we are regenerated by faith. Hence he infers, that the Church requires regeneration before baptism, and administers the rite because the blessing denoted by it, is supposed to be already received. This view of adult baptism is then transferred to infant baptism; and we are told that infants are regarded, by the church of England, as believers, as persons possessing faith in Christ, and who are regenerated by faith; and to them, also, baptism is administered as the sign of a regeneration which has already taken place. Now we

cannot but regard this reasoning as very feeble, and the conclusion to which it leads, as little worse than the tenet for which it is substituted. It is not, and we think it cannot be, shown, that the faith which, according to the church of England, is the pre-requisite to baptism, is the faith which secures salvation; nor that the efficacy attributed to faith, is assigned to it apart from the use of sacraments, and other means. But unless both these points were established, the conclusion could not be maintained. And if it were proved, that in one place the church taught that a man is regenerated by faith, this would not show that it did not teach in another place, that he is regenerated by baptism. But, waiving these objections, what is the conclusion which Mr. M. brings forward, as the real doctrine of his church? It is nothing less than this; that infant children brought to the font, possess, before their baptism, saving faith, and are regenerated by their faith. But has it not occurred to Mr. M., that the doctrine which he so strongly condemns, is unscriptural and injurious, not because it refers a blessing which is really enjoyed to an instrumentality which does not produce it, but because it declares that the blessing is possessed where it does not exist, and thus often occasions a fatal delusion. If a man were to imagine that he was regenerated by faith in infancy, he would not be in a better condition, than if he supposed that he was regenerated by baptism in infancy. Mr. M.'s representation secures a kind of doctrinal harmony, which he highly values, but which appears to us absolutely worthless, since it is apparent only, and not real—in words, and not things. And this is its only advantage. Its tendencies, so far as we can see, are precisely the same, if the teaching of the church is believed; and it is even more unreasonable and unscriptural. It not only states that a child is regenerated when there is no evidence of its regeneration, but it also declares that an infant has faith in Christ, when there is no evidence of its faith. And this is styled the judgment of charity! When it is admitted that no evidence of faith can be given-when its existence is inconceivablewhen, in the greater number of instances, the subsequent life disproves such statements,—still the church of England, according to Mr. M., does declare, in the judgment of her charity, all infants brought to receive the Christian rite, to be believers-to be regenerated by their faith and most solemnly gives them baptism, as the sign that they are regenerated! That many members and ministers of the church of England do not hold the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, we are most happy to admit, though we cannot but lament that they should lend their influence to support a system by which it is maintained; and that, to vindicate themselves, they are obliged to adopt modes of reasoning, which only prove the uselessness of all creeds and articles, and which tend to lessen confidence in men's professions, even when their integrity cannot be impeached.

Mr. Stovel's lectures cannot be so readily described, being of greater magnitude, and less remarkable for clearness of style and arrangement. The contest between Mr. M. and his opponents, having excited much attention to the subject of baptism, and the one party failing to prove that baptismal regeneration was not the doctrine of the church of England, and the other, that it was the doctrine of the Bible; it was deemed expedient by some to bring a new combatant on the field. Mr. Stovel obeyed the call addressed to him, and delivered these lectures, which have since been published. Though the primary object of the course was to disprove baptismal regeneration, yet it is evident that the principal object was to disprove infant baptism. The author seems to have regarded the former as an easy task; and the grand achievement to which he bends his energies, is the proof that infant baptism always is associated with this error, or with others that differ from it merely in name. Now, though some may deem it a proof that the method of a controversialist is a good one, if an opponent finds fault with it, yet we must declare our conviction, that in thus combining matters which are essentially different, Mr. S. has greatly erred; and that much of the confusion which prevails throughout the lectures, results from the adoption of this plan. If Mr. S. had set distinctly and separately before his mind the proposition, that baptismal regeneration, or errors equally injurious, are taught by our ministers, and believed by our congregations, he would have seen the necessity of supporting this proposition by arguments very different from those which he has introduced for this end, into the discussion of another subject.

:

The first lecture is introductory after some reference to the immediate occasion of the lectures, Mr. S. proceeds to state, that his controversy is not with the church of England only, but with all pædo-baptist churches. With a frequency and vehemence of assertion, which, to some minds, will have the force of proof, and compensate for the absence of evidence, he declares that all who practise infant baptism are alike. "Baptismal regeneration" he says, "is only one form in which the error is stated. Where these words are rejected with abhorrence, benefits are ascribed to infant baptism, which are quite unscriptural, and the supposition of which, has almost the same moral effect upon mankind. With some it is a seal of the covenant; with others it is an introduction into the visible church." p. 21. He describes all pædobaptists as parties "near akin;" and styles the opposition of any to the errors of others "most unnaturally flagitious." p. 24. "The error of Rome," he says, "is exactly the same with that of the Tract"It is coincident with that of the Assembly of Divines, and multitudes of dissenting pædo-baptists." p. 25. Again, p. 26, "Now this surly expression will afford you an instance of that indignant and guilty anger, with which these several associates in error resent their

[blocks in formation]

detection in bad society. They call the church of Rome by foul names, such as Babylon, and the Great Whore, and so forth; and by possibility she may deserve these appellations. But why, then, should they drink of the cup which has been filled with her abominations, and loiter about the threshold of her gates?" Then follows a low illustration, which we will not inflict on our readers. A little farther on, we are informed that there are dissenting pædo-baptists, "who burst with spleen when spoken of as participating in Tractarianism; and yet, by the benefits they ascribe to infant and promiscuous baptism, convey the very same principle into their own institutions. They do not seem to me to be dishonest, but rather victims of their own reasonings and neglect of Scripture; for thus, as though self-deceived, each falls into the error that he condemns. This, then, is the state of the question: for it matters very little in what form the poison may be administered: it will take effect in every state and every combination, in which it is or can be received; and if it have but time and scope for action, the least particle will prove fatal to the best interests of mankind." p. 30. "It is with all, therefore, that we have to do." p. 31. With most exemplary candour, he says, p. 32, "Let others take advantage of artifice if they please; we will rather court and seek that of simple, direct, and open-hearted integrity." With a compassion for which we cannot be sufficiently grateful, he admonishes us most solemnly, and tells us that words, which we might have regarded as hasty expressions, have all been considerately penned. "It is on this account, my brethren, because it is for your life, and that of your offspring, that this duty was undertaken; and, in performing it, the feelings have been chained so much to a written document, that greater calmness and clearness of expression might render the reasoning more distinct and conclusive." Having thus stated his question, and described the parties who are implicated in his charge, he dilates on the importance of the subject. He informs us, that, in his judg ment, no deception can be more gross, or more injurious to the species," than that which he has described as the common error of those who practise infant baptism; and that, thereby, "the professed agency of mercy would be reduced to contempt." He warns us that "there is no severity which the authors of such a delusion might not expect from the recoil of injured, oppressed, and insulted humanity," p. 35. The infidelity of France, the apostacy of Talleyrand, the impious hypocrisy of unbelieving priests, are all attributed to this same delusion. Parents are said not to pray for the conversion of their children, and not to teach them the necessity of regeneration, because of infant baptism. All the worst consequences that result from the worst forms in which the tenet of baptismal regeneration has been held, are collected, and then the author quietly remarks, “The question relates, you perceive, to all such benefits as are and have been

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »