as the matter of law, has been too unequivocally manifested. Be it so, then, that upon the Establishment, as an establishment, the absurdity, the inconsistency, the impiety of the Ritual, as interpreted by Dr. Mant, should rest. Will "The Church" admit of this distinction in vindication of herself, and consent to escape in the immaterial form of an abstraction, from the awful responsibility which attaches to her legislators?

There is another consideration which renders it still more difficult to admit of the hypothetical explanations of the Catechism and offices of the Establishment. At no period in the history of the Christian Church, has there prevailed a disposition to undervalue the external ordinances of religion. Among the many corruptions which even in apostolic times crept into Christian societies, producing a departure from the "simplicity which is "in Christ," we do not find that an indifference to the forms of

external profession was ever enumerated. The apprehension of a very contrary danger, suggested the solemn cautions, the pathetic remonstrances, with which the Sacred Epistles abound, addressed to those who had put on the profession of Christianity. If the literal interpretation' of the great Apostle's language is in any case such as cannot be supported, it is when he seems to treat as nothing all outward privileges, all ritual duties, in his anxiety to secure the intelligent reception of the religion of Christ as a spiritual reality. Had the language of the Church erred in this respect, had it insisted too exclusively on the claims of religion on the heart, we might have allowed of hypothetical explanations, for they would not have involved a contradiction of the literal import. There would have been at least no very fatal danger of misinterpreting it. But what has been, under every form in which Christianity has been established, the grand practical evil to be supremely deprecated? What, but that fatal compromise of ritual obedience for moral holiness, which nullifies the very end of religion? The Jew trusted that his descent, or that circumcision, could save him; and so obstinately did he cherish this proud reliance, that when he had embraced Christianity, it excited the fears of an Apostle, that he had bestowed his labour in vain. The Papist believes that the Sacraments and the Absolution are to save him: though such advocates as Butler and Eustace, have their hypothetical explanations ready, to palliate the language of even the Romish Church. And is the language of the heart in a Protestant country, different? Is there no danger of a self-righteous adherence to the forms of a Reformed Church? of a reliance upon an external communion with that Church, and a participation in its Sacraments? How fearful is the number of those who live and die under such a delusion! Regenerated' in baptism, confirmed afterwards by the imposition of Episcopal hands, absolved in their

6

death-sickness from all their sins, they at last receive the Sacrament as their supposed passport, and are buried insure and ⚫ certain hope of the resurrection unto eternal life,' without having exhibited any evidence of the Christian character. These are cases of daily occurrence, such as must be contemplated as necessarily arising out of the present state of human nature. The framers of the offices and Catechism must have known this; and either they must have believed, as Dr. Mant, Bishop Tomline, and the Romish Church, believe, that Sacraments have a justifying, a sanctifying, and a saving efficacy, or they did deliberately adopt language worse than inapplicable to the majority of a nation at that time but partially rescued from the dominion of popery language literally false, and indefensible but on hypothesis: language calculated awfully to mislead the souls of men, the charge of which the Established Church took upon herself as her exclusive prerogative. For knowing this, the compilers of the Catechism taught every child to believe and to declare, that in baptism he is made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.' And what has been the practical consequence which has so extensively resulted from this use of the language of the Ritual and of the Catechism, enforced by the sentiments of by far the greater part of the Established clergy, till within these last fifty years? That which Mr. Bugg allows to be the natural and necessary consequence of Dr. Mant's opinions: The utter destruction of the necessity of any vital religion, or any Christian morality whatever.' This, Mr. B. owns, would afford Dissenters so far a 'ground of justification.' We accept it as such it is one of the principal reasons of Dissent.

But, once more: If the literal interpretation of the language in the Baptismal service, were to be, for argument sake, given up, what is that lower definition of baptismal regeneration,' that figurative or hypothetical sense, in which the words can be supported? The subject of Baptismal Regeneration, is an infant, incapable of faith; a passive subject of the change supposed to be wrought in baptism, by which he becomes the child of God and the heir of eternal life. Does the Regeneration conveyed by baptism rightly administered,' relate, on this supposition, to the infant's character, or to his state? If to the former, the change effected, whatever it be, must be absolute and necessary by reason of a physical efficiency in the means, and consequently inseparable from Baptism. If it relate to a change of state, how can the present benefit, as defined by the Church of England, be suspended on conditions to be afterwards performed by the unconscious subject of that benefit? The question respects not the reality, but the nature, of the efficacy of the sacrament. A Sacrament partakes of the nature of a covenant: it

has necessarily a relation to the antecedent promise of God, of which it forms the ratification and seal. But, by what promise in the Divine word is the belief supported, that every baptized person, whether an infant or an adult, becomes, in consequence of his admission into the visible Church, a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven?' What supposed conditions can justify this language? Take it literally or figuratively, absolutely or hypothetically, this description of the effects of Baptism, is equally contrary to reason and to Scripture: but, nevertheless, Dr. Mant is right in this respect;it is the doctrine of the Church of England.

It cannot be wondered at, that the publication of Dr. Mant's Two Tracts," by the Bartlett's Buildings Society, which has furnished occasion for the present controversy, should begin to be lamented as a most impolitic measure. It has furnished at least one reason for not subscribing to that Society in preference to the Bible Society. Nor will the schism to which it has led, in the former of these Societies, be very easily healed. The proud, inveterate jealousy which the AntiBiblical faction have manifested towards the Evangelical clergy, in the various publications that have appeared on the subject, sufficiently illustrate the motives which have led them to oppose the circulation of the Bible only.' It is not to be forgotten, that the opposition to the Bible Society rests with the abettors of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, and the ridiculers of Methodistic conversion.' It is, in fact, the last convulsive struggle of Popery within a Protestant Church. In the proud attitude of authority, she has taken her stand on the offices of that Church, and smiles in defiance.

The sentiments of the Church of England with regard to BAPTISM, deserve however, apart from the present controversy, to receive further attention, as throwing considerable light on the general use which has been made of the word Regeneration, in reference to an initiation into the visible Church. Did the controversy indeed rest upon the use of a single word, as Mr. Cunningham, in his "Conciliatory Suggestions," seems to imagine, it would not surely be very difficult to heal the schism; but the fact, as we have sufficiently shewn, is widely different. Calvin remarks, with his usual sagacity, 'I have found, by long and frequent experience, that those who pertinaciously contend against words, cherish some latent poison: so that it were better, designedly to provoke their resentment, than to use obscure language for the sake of obtaining their favour.' Institutes. B. 1. C. 13.

'SACRAMENTS,' as Hooker remarks, by reason of their mixt nature, are more diversely interpreted and disputed of, than any other parts of religion besides.' In what their mixed nature

consists, this learned and pious, and every thing but judicious, apologist for the Church of England, proceeds to state. He is very angry at those who hold, that the use of the Holy Sacra'ments,' is no other than to teach the mind by other senses,

that which the word doth teach by hearing; arguing from the incapacity of infants to receive instructions, that the Sacraments would in that case be in respect to them a mere superfluity. After enumerating the great store of properties' which attach to them, he concludes that their chief eflicacy consists in their being constituted, First, as marks whereby to know when God doth impart the vital or saving Grace of Christ unto all who are capable thereof, and secondly, as means con'ditional which God requireth in them unto whom he imparteth 'Grace.'

In these vague terms, which might with equal appropriateness be referred to any other of the ordinances of religion, for in this sense, prayer may be termed a Sacrament, the Author appears to think he has given a satisfactory explanation of the nature of the Holy Sacraments. Accordingly, he proceeds at once to assert their necessity, and to vindicate on this point the doctrine and the practice of the Church. In arguing for their necessity, however, the pious divine lies evidently under considerable difficulty, in steering clear of the Popish dogmas, without appearing to innovate on the doctrine of the Church. There prevails throughout this part of his treatise a singular embarrassment, often amounting to the necessity of guarding his assertions by sognething like contradiction. And he is always glad to escape from the unsteady ground of controversy, in order to give full play to the ardour of his intellect in expatiating upon themes more congenial with his sublime piety. In one passage he tells us, admirably, That Sacraments contain in themselves no vital force or efficacy; they are not physical but moral instruments of salvation, duties of service and worship; which unless we perform as the Author of Grace requireth, they are unprofitable. For all receive not the Grace of God which receive the Sacraments of his Grace.'-They serve, he adds, as 'moral instruments, the use whereof is in our own hands, the effect in His; for the use, we have his express commandment; for the effect, his conditional promise.' Thus far one might imagine the learned writer was quoting the very words of some old Nonconformist divine. But he proceeds to affirm, in language less intelligible, that where the Signs and Sacraments of his Grace are not either through contempt unreceived, or received with contempt, we are not to doubt, but that they really give what they promise, and are what they signify. For, as he afterwards explains himself, they are indeed and in verity means effectual, whereby God when we take the Sacraments, delivereth into our hands that

Grace available unto eternal life, which Grace the Sacraments represent or signify.' The extent in which these words are to be taken, is more clearly shewn in the subsequent sentences, which describe the effect of the Sacraments as a real participation of Christ.

It is by no means our object to prove, by these extracts, what is the doctrine of the Church of England respecting Baptism; that question, as we have already shewn, can be decided only by the declarations of her own Ritual. But they will serve to shew, that it is not the mere application of the term Regeneration to Baptism, or to the supposed effect of Baptism, which constitutes the real subject of controversy: it is rather the notion, which has been almost universally held in the Church, of a certain mystical, indefinite efficacy or Grace,' residing in the sacramental element, when attended with the word which expresseth what is done by the element,' which, in some sense, or other, (for there might be formed a graduated scale of opinions on this point, from rank popery down to the sentiments of Mr. Scott,) is available to salvation.

6

The way in which these notions have originated, appears to be this: The Scriptures declare that "Except a man be born "again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the "kingdom of God." Hooker, Book V. § 59. That is to say, according to the exposition of almost all the ancient divines, Except a man be regenerated by water,-or, at least, baptized as well as regenerated, he cannot be saved. This axiom being once admitted on the supposed authority of Scripture, the Fathers were naturally led with anxiety to explore, first, what constitutes effectual baptism; and, secondly, why baptism was made by our Lord himself a condition of salvation.

Hooker lays it down as an infallible rule in expositions of Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst.' He will not admit of the possibility of a doubt as to the literal meaning of the passage on which the whole of his assertions and reasonings are founded. The non-institution of Christian Baptism at the time of our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus,' as adverted to by Mr. Biddulph, (p. 9.) never seems to have occurred to the learned author of the "Ecclesiastical Polity," or to any of the Greek or Latin Fathers for whom he manifests so unbounded a deference. Our Lord's words, according to their views, were less designed to teach the necessity of a radical change of heart, than to inculcate obedience to a positive institute not then ordained in the Christian Church. Bishop Hopkins, we believe, is one of the earliest episcopal writers, who contend for a different construction of the passage*. The judgement of antiquity certainly

* See Scott on the Effect of Baptism. p. 33.