Page images
PDF
EPUB

He does not attest this opinion to be the universally-received doctrine of the Church from the beginning: therefore, in all humility, I may here venture to express my dissent from this great Luminary of the Western Church; though I fully embrace his Scriptural tenet, which indeed is the tenet of all the other early Lights of the Church Catholic, that Baptism and Spiritual Regeneration are NOT inseparable. Doubtless an infant is incapable of what the Schoolmen would call Formal Faith: but, if he be capable of inheriting the taint of original sin, I do not perceive, why he may not be equally capable of receiving, juxta modum recipientis, that prevenient grace, which may so correct original sin as to make him a worthy recipient of Baptism.

II. I have raised this discussion on the explanation contained in the letter, with which Mr. Gresley favoured me: it is time now to return to the original publication.

1. Here, at the very first blush, it is impossible not perceive, that the explanation in the letter completely nullifies the verbal argument in the pamphlet.

(1.) The argument in the pamphlet is professedly built upon the WORDS of the Office for Infant Baptism.

Every time that the minister uses this Office, argues Mr. Gresley, he expressly declares, in so many WORDS, that the baptised infant is regenerated. Now the Office is used in the baptism of EVERY infant without exception. Therefore EVERY baptised infant is declared by the officiating minister to be regenerated. Hence the plain result is that, unless the officiating minister believes EVERY baptised infant to be regenerated, his declaration to that effect stamps him with deliberate dishonesty. (p. 16—19.)

(2.) Mr. Gresley's argument, I trust, is not weakened by my exhibition of it in the condensed form of a syllogism. But let us now mark what results from the explanation in his letter.

The pamphlet totally pretermits all reference to the Office for Adult Baptism. Yet the PHRASEOLOGY of the two is precisely the same. Consequently, if Mr. Gresley's argument be valid in the one case, it must be equally valid in the other case. see, then, how it will run.

Let us

Every time that the minister uses the Office for Adult Baptism, he expressly declares, in so many wORDS, that the baptized adult is regenerated. Now the Office is used in the baptism of EVERY adult without exception. Therefore EVERY baptised adult is declared by the officiating minister to be regenerated. Hence the plain result is that, unless the officiating minister believes EVERY baptised adult to be regenerated, his declaration to that effect stamps him with deliberate dishonesty.

[blocks in formation]

No replies Mr. Gresley, as he explains himself in his letter. My broad general position, that A Denial of Spiritual Regeneration ALWAYS taking place at Baptism constitutes a dishonest act of heresy in every English Clergyman must be understood cum grano salis. There are cases, where Spiritual Regeneration does NOT take place in adult baptism, though it is a dishonest heretical pravity to make the same assertion respecting infant baptism.

[ocr errors]

I quite agree with you, retorts some one of Mr. Gresley's incorrigible Evangelicals or Puritans," in regard to the NOT UNIVERSAL Occurrence of Regeneration in adult baptism. But, since your argument is built altogether upon WORDS, and since verbally I am required to make the very same declaration in each Office alike, I do not exactly see, how a verbal declaration, which constitutes me a dishonest heretic in the use of the one Office, should leave me a very orthodox Christian in my exactly parallel use of the other Office. If, as Mr. Gresley rules the matter, I am compelled, by the VERBAL PHRASEOLOGY of the first Office, to deem ALL baptised infants regenerated: then am I equally compelled, by the exactly parallel VERBAL PHRASEOLOGY of the second Office, to deem ALL baptised adults regenerated, and that without a single exception. In short, if the verbal argument proves me to be dishonest, which Mr. Gresley declares to be the case both in the pamphlet and in the letter: it will equally prove Mr. Gresley himself to be dishonest. So that the very singular result from the gentleman's verbal argument will be, that we both alike must be deemed either honest or dishonest, precisely as the verbal argument is inconclusive or conclusive.

Mr. Gresley considers it "one of the most astounding facts in "religious controversy, that ministers of the Church of England "should, Sunday after Sunday, use this Service, should baptise "infants brought to them, and then call on the congregation to

join with them in thanking God for that it hath pleased him to "regenerate each child: and yet hold the opinion, either that the "child has not been regenerated at all, or that his regeneration is "hypothetical!!" (p. 19.) The double interjection is Mr. Gresley's own but, when we add to his statement that he himself does the very same whenever he baptises an adult, we indisputably ought to triple the expressive mark of intense astonishment!!! In the case of adults, whenever he has occasion to use the Office for Adult Baptism, he himself, in his own proper person exemplifies and enlarges this "most astounding fact," by adopting that very hypothetical construction of its PHRASEOLOGY, which two of our Articles indeed require us to adopt, but of which, like England's Elizabeth versus Parma and Spain, he thinks foul scorn, when a

luckless "Evangelical or Puritan " claims to use it in the exactly parallel case of the LANGUAGE employed in the Office for Adult Baptism !!!

2. Unless I greatly mistake, the truth of the whole matter is this. The explanation in his letter was an afterthought.

His zeal against "the Evangelical or Puritan Party" led him to quote against them the LANGUAGE of the Baptismal Office for Infants. Here he fondly thought he had them on the hip. But, unfortunately, he did not look forward to the consequences of his principle: the principle, to wit, that The Office in question, by demonstrating the UNIVERSAL concomitance of Regeneration upon Baptism, convicts all English Clergymen, who deny such UNIVERSAL concomitance, of rank heresy and atrocious dishonesty. A plain question from myself led him to pause and consider the consequences of his rapidly-adopted principle. This produced, in his letter, a qualifying explanation, which will be vainly sought-for in either of his pamphlets. But the explanation, being an afterthought, would not fit in to the original charge of dishonesty. Hence, when applied to the broad unqualified principle laid down in the pamphlets, it produced well nigh as much confusion, as Discord managed to produce in the Paynim camp of King Agramant.

3. Under the influence of the same want of looking both before him and behind him, as old Homer speaks, he adduces from the Publications of the very valuable Parker Society, sundry quotations from Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and others of our earlier reformers, for the express purpose of demonstrating that "modern Evange"lical or Puritan Doctrine is a manifest departure from the Doc"trine of the Fathers of the English Reformation." 1

To superficial readers, such as I more than suspect the bulk of our unfledged Tractarians to be, his quotations, though in truth nihil ad rem, may perhaps look very promising: but, in the genuine spirit of his Party, wherein it fatally resembles Popery, Mr. Gresley entirely suppresses the explanations, which the Fathers of the English Reformation give of such passages as he has adduced from them. Speaking of individuals who all have clearly been baptised, and some in their infancy, they unequivocally intimate: that, in various instances, spiritual Regeneration may NOT have taken place at their baptism. As my object is, not merely to expose the acrimonious crudities of Mr. Gresley, but to exhibit the view which my mother the Church of England really takes of Baptismal Regeneration, I shall make no apology for my introduction of the following extracts.

Second Statement, pp. 28-34.

(1.) CRANMER.

"In Baptism, those that come feignedly, and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with the sacramental water, but "both be NOT washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with "Christ." 1

"The washing outwardly in water is not a vain token, but "teacheth such a washing as God worketh inwardly in them that "DULY RECEIVE the same.'

2

"The wonder is not, how God worketh in the outward visible 66 sacrament: but his marvellous work is in the wORTHY RE"CEIVERS of the sacraments." 3

[ocr errors]

"In the administration of the sacraments, as well of the Lord's Holy Supper as of Baptism, God worketh wonderfully, by his omnipotent power, in the TRUE RECEIVERS, not in the out"ward visible signs.'

[ocr errors]

(2.) RIDLEY.

"4

"Every sacrament hath grace annexed to it instrumentally. "But there is diverse understanding of the word hath. For the "sacrament hath not grace included in it: but, to those that "RECEIVE IT WELL, it is turned to grace. After that manner, "the water in Baptism hath grace promised: and, by that grace, "the Holy Spirit is given; not that grace is included in water, but "that grace cometh by water." 5

(3.) LATIMER.

"Preaching is God's instrument, whereby he worketh faith in "our hearts. Our Saviour saith to Nicodeme: Except a man "be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. But HOW "cometh this Regeneration? By hearing and believing the word "of God. For so saith St. Peter: We are born anew, not of mortal "seed, but of immortal, by the word of God." 6

(4.) COVERDALE.

"The outward enjoying of the sacraments, of itself alone, doth "" NOT reconcile us with God: but, if they be used WITH FAITH, then, as St. Peter saith, through faith doth God purify the heart." (5.) HOOPER.

"As the promise of God is received by faith, so must the 86 sacraments be also: and where faith is not, NO SACRAMENT

[ocr errors][merged small]

"Of how many baptisms doth the Holy Scripture make mention? "Of two. Which are they? The baptism of water, and the

1 Works, Parker edit.

3 Ibid. p. 121.

Ibid. vol. i. p. 471.

p.

221.

4 Ibid. p. 524.
7 Ibid. p. 80.

2 Ibid. Jenkyn's edit. vol. iii. p. 49.

5 Ibid. Parker edit. p. 240.

s Works, Parker edit. p. 135.

"baptism of the Spirit. What is it to be baptised with the Holy "Ghost? To be regenerate, to be born anew, to be made of "earthly heavenly, of carnal spiritual, of the bond-slaves of the "devil the sons of God, of the inhabitants of this wretched world "the citizens of that glorious and heavenly kingdom. Is this baptism of the Spirit necessary unto everlasting salvation? So "necessary, that, without it, the baptism of water profiteth nothing. "As, in the Old Testament, the circumcision of the flesh profited "the Jews nothing at all without the circumcision of the Spirit: "so likewise, in the New Testament, the baptism of the water "availeth nothing without the baptism of the Spirit.—What did it "profit Simon Magus that he was baptised with water, not being "also, through his hypocrisy, baptised with the Holy Ghost? "Verily, nothing at all. They that are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. If any man have not the Spirit of "Christ, he belongeth not unto God. The wicked and the un"faithful have the element of the sacrament, which is water: but "the godly and the faithful have both the sacrament, and also the "virtue and strength of the sacrament, which is the Holy Ghost."1 It is perfectly true, that, in the course of his argument, Dr. Becon speaks of wicked men " falling from the grace which they received in their baptism, and losing the Holy Ghost wherewith they were renewed in the fountain of Regeneration." 2 But this, in no wise contradicts what he had previously said. Some receive grace in baptism, and afterward fall away: others, who are unworthy recipients of the sacrament, never, according to his account wherein he agrees with all our reformers, receive grace at all.

[ocr errors]

66

4. Mr. Gresley may perhaps say that these passages mainly refer to adults who have received baptism unworthily.

:

Probably they do so, but still without any specified exception of infants and the statement of Latimer, to say nothing of that of Becon, plainly speaks of persons, who had been baptised in their infancy, but who had not hitherto been regenerated; for, with St. Peter, he makes the QUOMODO to be, not the reception of baptism, but the mighty efficacy of the word of God.

And, with this, as we might naturally expect, accords the authorised language of our Church.

In two of her Collects, she teaches us to pray for the true Circumcision of the Spirit and for the creating and making in us of new and contrite hearts. In other words, she teaches us, though

1 Ibid. pp. 202, 203.

2 Ibid. p. 206.

3 Collects for the Circumcision and Ash-Wednesday. In the Table of Collects attached to our old Prayer-Books, that for Christmas-day also is said to be a prayer for Regeneration.

« PreviousContinue »