Page images
PDF
EPUB

register, and thus brought under official notice, and recorded as the property of the state. See a number of curious questions proposed and resolved, concerning the names imposed in baptism, in the Politica Ecclesiastice of the learned Gisbertus Voetius. Tom. I. p. 714-724.

(NOTE B.)

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

This unscriptural and pernicious doctrine is not confined to the Roman Catholics, in whose system it may without impropriety be said to be indigenous; but is also frequently found in the pulpits and manuals of some Protestants, in the midst of whose general principles, it ought to be regarded as a poisonous exotic.

I. The doctrine referred to, as held by some Protestants, in its most objectionable form, appears to be this:that the spiritual change which the Scriptures designate by the term regeneration, is always attendant upon, and effected by, the rite of baptism, when duly administered; that, on the one hand, every person, infant or adult, who has been baptized by an authorized minister, is a regenerated person; and that, on the other, every person who has not been baptized, however deep or mature his penitence and faith, is still unregenerate. In short, the position is, that the inward grace of regeneration always accompanies the outward sign of baptism; that they are inseparable; that the one cannot exist without the other; that he who has been thus regenerated, if he die without falling from grace, is certainly saved; that baptism is essential to salvation; and that to call by the name of regeneration any moral change, from the love of sin to the love of holiness, which takes place either before or after baptism, is unscriptural and absurd. This, as I understand them, is the doctrine maintained by Bishop Tomline, Bishop Marsh, Bishop Mant, and a number of other writers, of equal conspicuity, in the church of England, and by not a few divines of the Protestant Episcopal church in our own country.

This doctrine, I apprehend, is contrary to Scripture; contrary to experience; contrary to the declared opinion of the most wise, pious, and venerated divines even of the Episcopal denomination; and adapted to generate the most danger

ous errors with regard to Christian character, and the Gospel plan of salvation.

1. It is contrary to Scripture. Without regeneration, the Scriptures declare, it is impossible to enter into the kingdom of heaven. But the penitent malefactor on the cross undoubtedly entered into the kingdom of heaven, if we are to credit our Lord's express declaration. Yet this penitent, believing malefactor was never baptized, therefore he was regenerated without baptism; and of course, regeneration and baptism are not inseparably connected. Again, Simon Magus received the outward and visible ordinance of baptism, with unquestionable regularity, by an authorized administrator; yet who will venture to say, that he received the "inward and invisible grace" signified and represented in that ordinance? He was evidently from the beginning a hypocrite, and remained, after baptism, as before" in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." Therefore the outward and sensible sign, and the inward and invisible grace are not in all cases, or necessarily, connected. Again; it is evident that the apostle Paul, Lydia, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailor, &c. "believed with the heart,” and were, consequently, brought into a state of acceptance with God before they were baptized, But we are told (John i. 12, 13,) that as many as believe have been "born of God," and made the "sons of God." Of course, regeneration may take place, in the case of adults, ought to take place, and in these cases, did take place, before baptism; and, consequently, is not the same thing with baptism, or inseparably connected with that rite. Once more; we are assured in Scripture, that he who is born of God, or regenerated, doth not commit sin, (that is, deliberately or habitually,) for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God;" and farther, that " every one that loveth is born of God' and knoweth God;" and that "whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." But can it be said that this character belongs to all who are baptized? Or, that none who are unbaptized manifest that they possess it? Surely no one in his senses will venture to make the assertion. Therefore a man may be "born of God" before he is baptized, and, consequently, the administration of the outward ordinance, and that work of the Holy Spirit, called in the word of God regeneration, are not always connected.

[ocr errors]

2. The doctrine before us is as contrary to experience as it is to Scripture. "It is asserted," says an eminent divine of the church of England, now living-"It is asserted, that

the spiritual change of heart called regeneration invariably takes place in the precise article of baptism. If this assertion be well founded, the spiritual change in question will invariably take place in every adult at the identical moment when he is baptized; that is to say, at the very instant when the hand of the priest brings his body in contact with the baptismal water; at that precise instant, his understanding begins to be illuminated, his will to be reformed, and his affections to be purified. Hitherto he has walked in darkness; but now, to use the scriptural phrase, he has passed from darkness to light. Hitherto he has been wrapped in a death-like sleep of trespasses and sins; but now he awakes, and rises from the dead, Christ himself giving him life. Hitherto he has been a chaos of vice, and ignorance, and spiritual confusion; the natural man receiving not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: but now he is created after God in righteousness and true holiness; being in Christ he is a new creature;' having become spiritual, the things of the Spirit of God are no longer foolishness to him; he knows them because they are spiritually discerned. Such are the emphatic terms in which regeneration is described by the inspired writers. What we have to do, therefore, I apprehend, is forthwith to inquire, whether every baptized adult, without a single exception, is invariably found to declare, that, in the precise article of baptism, his soul experienced a change analogous to that which is so unequivocally set forth in the above mentioned texts of Scripture.' 99* We need not dwell long on the inquiry. The fact is notoriously not so. Nor does it diminish the difficulty, in admitting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, to say, as the Arminian advocates of this doctrine invariably do say, that those who are once regenerated may fall from grace, and manifest a most unhallowed temper This is not the question. The question is, does experience evince, that every subject of baptism, who has reached an age capable of manifesting the Christian character, does, at the moment of receiving the baptismal water, show that he is the subject of that regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, by which "old things are passed away, and all things become new in the Lord ?" No one who has a particle of intelligence or candour can imagine that any such fact exists; but if it do not, then the doctrine under consideration falls of course. 3. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to

300

Faber's Sermons, Vol. I. p. 145, 146.

the declared opinion of the most pious, judicious, and venerable Protestant divines, including those of the very highest authority in the church of England. Nothing can be more certain than that the mass of the English reformers distinctly taught that baptism is a sign only of regeneration, and that the thing signified might or might not accompany the administration of the outward ordinance, according as it was received worthily or otherwise. In support of this assertion, the most explicit quotations might be presented from the writings of those distinguished martyrs and prelates, Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and Hooper; and after them from the writings of the eminent bishops, Jewell, Davenant, Hall, Usher, Reynolds, Leighton, Hopkins, Tillotson, Beveridge, Burnet, Secker, and a host of other divines of the English church, of whose elevated character it would be little less than an insult to any intelligent reader to attempt to offer testimony. All these men declare in the most solemn manner, against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in the sense which we are now considering. Indeed, I cannot call to mind a single writer of that church, from the time of Archbishop Cranmer to the present hour, who had the least claim to the character of an evangelical man, who did not repudiate the doctrine which I am now opposing; and not a few of them denounce it as Popish, and adapted to subvert the whole system of vital and spiritual religion.

4. The last argument which I shall urge against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, is, that it is adapted to generate the most fatal errors with regard to the Gospel plan of salvation.

So far as this doctrine is believed, its native tendency is, to beget a superstitious and unwarranted reliance on an external ordinance; to lower our estimate of that inward spiritual sanctification which constitutes the essence of the Christian character; in fact, to supersede the necessity of that spiritual change of heart, of which the Scriptures speak so much, and for which the most holy and eminent servants of Christ have, in all ages, contended. The truth is, the doctrine now under consideration is the very same in substance, with the doctrine of the opus operatum of the Papists, which all evangelical Protestants have been opposing for more than three hundred years, as a mischievous delusion. Accordingly, the Popish character and fatal tendency of this error have been unreservedly acknowledged by many bishops, and other pious divines of the church of England, as well as by many of the same denomination in this country.

Further; if regeneration, which is the commencement of holiness in the soul, is always communicated in baptism, then it follows, as, indeed, those who entertain this doctrine distinctly avow,-that baptism invariably places its subject in a state of salvation; so that every baptized person who dies immediately after the administration of this sacrament, is infallibly sure of entering the kingdom of heaven. If this doctrine were fully believed, would not every thinking, anxious parent refrain from having his child baptized in infancy, and reserve the ordinance for an hour of extremity, such as the approach of death, that it might serve as an unfailing passport to glory? Would it not be wise in every adult who may be brought to a knowledge of the Saviour, from Paganism, or from the world, to put off his baptism to the last hour of his life, that he might be sure of departing in safety? This is well known to have been one of the actual corruptions of the fourth century, growing out of the very error which I am now opposing. "It was the custom of many," says Dr. Mosheim," in that century, to put off their baptism till the last hour; that thus immediately after receiving by this rite the remission of their sins, they might ascend pure and spotless to the mansions of life and immortality." This is no far-fetched or strange conceit. It is the native fruit of the doctrine before us. Nay, if we suppose this pernicious theory to take full possession of the mind, would it not be natural that a tender parent should anxiously desire his child to die immediately after baptism; or even, in a desperate case, to compass its death, as infallibly for its eternal benefit? And, on the same principle, might we not pray for the death of every adult, immediately after he had received baptism, believing that then "to die would certainly be gain?" In fine, I see not, if the doctrine be true, that a regenerating and saving efficacy attends every regular baptism—I see not how we can avoid the conclusion, that every Pagan, whether child or adult, that can be seized by force, and however thoughtless, reluctant or profane, made to submit to the rite of baptism, is thereby infallibly made "a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven ?"

These consequences, which appear to me demonstrably to flow from the theory in question, afford sufficient evidence that it is an unscriptural and pernicious error, even if no other means of refutation could be found.

It is not forgotten that language which seems, at first view, to countenance the doctrine which I am opposing, is found in some of the early Fathers. Some of them employ terms

« PreviousContinue »