In matters of revelation, we should keep strictly to our record. We have no right to meddle with any thing beyond it, nor to indulge in idle, perhaps impious, suppositions on either side, which we can never verify, and which are therefore impertinent, even if they are innocent. The Church bears evidence to the truth which she has received, and has no right to extend her enquiries, nor to give her judgment, beyond the limits to which by a direct revelation she is restricted. The Church of England has admirably marked her modesty and her moderation in this as in every other respect. She gives conditional assurance, and indicates her delegated judgment with respect to those that are within; but them that are without God judgeth (1 Cor. v. 19.). They are beyond the reach of her jurisdiction and prerogative. Perhaps we would all do well (even those who talk with so much assurance, and who claim so extensive an experience of spiritual influence,) to follow the example of our venerable mother. She assures us, that "it is certain by God's word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." Why, we have heard it often asked, does she limit God's mercy? She does not limit his mercy, which she testifies to be infinite and over all his works. Why then does she not extend her assurance to all children thus dying? Because the revelation has not been committed to her, and she were not a faithful witness, were she to amuse us with assertions and conclusions, however important and interesting we might be disposed to deem them, beyond the written record of which she is the keeper. The Confession of Faith, compiled by the rebel divines of Westminster, and adopted as the confession of the Kirk of Scotland, enforces a much higher estimation of the sacrament of baptism than now obtains in that country; but it will, notwithstanding, particularly gratify our opponents here, inasmuch as it determines with decision that point, which they deem so important, and with which our own Church, as totally unauthorised, presumes not to meddle. "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." Conf. of Faith, ch. xxviii. 5. In spite of this great and grave authority, we respect, as becomes us, the modesty, and admire, as it merits, the mode ration of our venerable Church, and, after her example, we think ourselves entitled to narrow the subject matter of the present dispute, by rejecting all unauthorised speculations and inferences, ferences, and by confining our consideration to the terms of the Gospel and to the condition of those to whom these terms are distinctly offered. Secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed, belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deut. xxix. 29.) Christianity is more likely to be spoiled than benefited, through philosophy and vain deceit, (Col. ii. 8.) and we are not without suspicion, that some of the principles and positions which we are combating, are derived from this delu sive source, and are enforced, not by spiritual influence, but by carnal devices. Mr. Scott says, p. 5. "It is well known, that, in early times, strong language came into use, in the Christian Church, concerning baptism, and the blessings connected with it. On what principles it was thus used may hereafter, in some degree, appear. It is likewise well known, that the Church of England has seen good to retain a portion [say all that is essential] of this language, particularly by speaking of every one whom she has admitted to baptism, as born again and regenerated by God's Holy Spirit." This fact, however Mr. S. may choose to explain it, is in some degree" important, and is altogether unquestionable. It was called the sacrament of absolution and indulgence; and accordingly in the Nicene Creed we acknowledge one bap tism for the remission of sins." It was also called the gift the grace, the unction, the illumination,-the garment of immortality-the laver of regeneration, the regeneration of the soul,-the water of life, the Divine fountain, the seal or character-the renewal,-the sanctification, and whatever else is precious or honourable. See particularly Bingham's Works, vol. i. book xi. ch. 1, &c. Hey's Norrisian Lectures, vol. iv. p. 279, and Wall's History of Infant Baptism, Preface. This "strong language" has descended to us from the earliest times, appears to be taken from Scripture, and is certainly adopted in all its essential parts by the Church of England. This adoption is so certain and so unpleasant to the partizan skirmishers, that even Mr. Simeon, a distinguished division general of the corps, acknowledges" that a SLIGHT alteration, in two or three instances, would be an improvement, since it would take off a burthen from many minds, and supersede the necessity of LABOURED explanations." The most common gifts, graces, or blessings, connected with the notion of baptism in the ancient Church, were regeneration and the remission of sins; and that this connection is preserved by the Church of England is unquestionable. Her words may perhaps bear a different meaning, if men will condescend to twist positive expressions by gratuitous assumptions and artful hypotheses; hypotheses; but that this is their natural import is certain; nor can we conceive any good reason for opposing this connection, which most certainly was not unintentional, through the medium of laboured explanations. The word regeneration was in common use among the Jews, and had an appropriate meaning when it was first used by our Saviour in his conversation with Nicodemus, John iii. 3, 5. ""Tis abundantly evident (says Wall, Infant Baptism, Introduction, p. lviii.) that the common phrase of the Jews was to call the baptism of a proselyte, his regeneration or new birth; and the Christians did in all ancient times continue the use of this name for baptism." See also Waterland's Sermon and references, new edition, p. 3. Mr. Biddulph, idly or ignorantly, doubts whether "the words of our Lord to Nicodemus have any reference whatever to the ordinance of baptism." He then concedes the point so far as to express his belief" that our great Teacher therein alluded, by anticipation, to that sacrament which he intended to ordain in his Church." Biddulph, p. 8. Now we believe that the word was used in reference to the ceremony with which Nicodemus was acquainted, and that it was intended to indicate to him a similar and a superior institution, about to be established in the Christian Church. There would have been no wonder whatever, nor any cause of censure, in the strange misapprehension of Nicodemus, unless the word had a reference to its common use among the Jews. Our Saviour was doubtless indicating, or preparing for, the introduction of something new; but it was in language, and through the medium of analogy, which a master of Israel ought to have understood. Mr. Scott, p. 27, &c. admits that the expression "alludes to baptism, though by anticipation, since that sacrament was not yet ordained; and I conceive (he adds) the same language might, without impropriety, have been used, had the appointment of baptism never been intended." This gentleman goes cn, in the usual stile of his corps, to shew of what little consequence water baptism is. He does this indeed under the notion of exalting the Spirit, and he professes to preserve his reverence for both, though he expressly attributes a less necessary efficacy to the former;" as we should do, were we disposed rashly, and even with all the proper provisos and professions in like cases used, to put asunder what Christ hath joined together." But is this union of Christ's appointment, and is it essential? Mr. Scott, p. 31, &c. endeavours to throw some doubt upon the subject, by objecting to us the passage, "He shali baptize you with the Holy Ghost and WITH FIRE." Mr. Biddulph, p. 9, quotes the same text, and adds Saurin's explanation, i. e. " with spiritual fire;" intimating that baptism baptism is not sufficient, but " that a greater change must take place in us than that which water makes on the surface of our bodies." It were sufficient to remark, that water baptism has been continued from the apostolic age to the present, and that the universal practice of the Church is the best commentary on the sense of Scripture, and on the import and necessity of this ordinance. With respect to the Baptism by fire, we have no such example to guide us in our enquiries whether it means "the cloven tongues like as of fire;" (for though Mr. S. peremptorily rejects this conclusion, it is by no means unlikely ;) or martyrdom, (which Origen was wont to speak of under the name of Baptism by fire. See Bingham, 1, 432.) it is certainly of little moment for us to determine, or the means of determination would have been more easy. But it is really a pity, while these men were new furbishing this old objection, and probably at the very time that they were in earnest search of ser viceable authorities, that they did not happen to light upon, or that they were pleased to overlook, the remarkable passage of Hooker, which they will find in our last Number, p. 123, and to which we again entreat, with little hope of advantage we confess, their most serious attention. Hooker is an invaluable aud inimitable author, when the party even by a little artifice can quote him to their purpose; but he is no better than Dr. Waterland and Dr. Mant, when, as is frequently the case, his sound sense and stubborn reasoning are found to be altogether unserviceable. We will not presume to question the sincerity of Messrs. S. B. and Co. but we may be permitted calmly to combat their opinions, and seriously to lament the nature and the consequences of their zeal. Their zeal, for what they call spiritual regeneration, seems to surround them with a mist so impervious, that they cannot perceive, what is so obvious to all who are beyond their circle, that they are really labouring to undermine the most sacred institutions of the Gospel, institutions essentially necessary not only to preserve the form, but to secure the substance. Mr. Simeon declares, in terms which might be very tolerable in the mouth of a Socinian or a Deist, but which, to say the least, are very unbecoming, if not scandalous, in the mouth of a Minister of the Church of England, that regeneration cannot be the same with baptism, since "baptism is an outward work of man upon the body, regenera. tion is an inward work of God upon the soul." Skeleton Sermons, vol. i. p. 369. This is sufficiently bold; but so far it is fair and honest; for it is the necessary result and the legitimate consequence of the principles of those men who distinguish regeneration from baptism. If the consequence were also just and true, we should have no hesitation in adding to it, that bap-, tism ought in no wise to be retained in the Church; for a ceremony more useless, more insignificant, and we will add, more absurd and even blasphemous than baptism would then be, we think cannot be imagined. The fatal error into which these men have fallen, (for it is an error which would not have been tolerated in the better days of the Church,) is founded, we are convinced, in philosophy and vain deceit. Not that we consider Mr. Simeon, or Mr. Scott, or Mr. Biddulph, or any of those whom they lead or follow, as profound philosophers; but we certainly consider them as with held from perceiving the truth, by false reasoning and carnal devices. Nay more, however harsh it may appear, we are seriously convinced that the principle, upon which they argue, carried to its legitimate length, will land them in absolute infidelity. These are very grave remarks, and we do not hazard them rashly. The Gospel is a spiritual institution, and its ob ject is in the highest degree moral and pure and holy. The blessed Redeemer, knowing perfectly what is in man, adapted the heavenly system to the constitution of his creatures. Man without redemption is nothing. But even redemption, though it is an unmerited gratuity, implies means by which its immediate consequences may be applied and its ultimate blessings secured. The Redeemer established the new covenant with the sacrifice of himself, and instructed his followers in the means by which the influence of the Holy Spirit which he thus purchased should be applied to the relief of our necessities and to the ultimate elevation and permanent happiness of our nature, As the ordinary means of grace and the necessary seals of the new covenant, he instituted the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Lord's supper. Regeneration, the remission of sin, and the promise of the Holy Spirit,are intimately, we will even add, are essentially connected with baptism in Scripture, in the testimony, writings, and practice, of the ancient Church, and in the creeds, articles, homilies, and practice, of the Church of England. Respecting this connection there would probably never have been any dispute, had men been content with the plain practical principles of the Gospel, and had they not attempted to be wise beyond what is written. Forsooth, they cannot imagine how grace should be attached to an outward ordinance, to an outward work of man, observe, upon the body. Then they are further persuaded that grace must be conferred before baptism, even when it is rightly received; and this grace can be nothing but regeneration, therefore, in effect, regeneration is independent of baptism. We have to add enquiries into predestination, resembling the fatalism of Pagan antiquity on the one hand, and the necessitarian theory of modern philosophy on 8 the |
