REPLY OF CLERICUS ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-In my paper on Baptismal Regeneration, I certainly intended to express myself with perspicuity; and I can only say that I am sorry that Matnrns has so entirely misunderstood my meaning, and misrepresented my words. I know that he has done so unintentionally. I regard him with feelings of Christian esteem, and I respect him as one who is zealous for the cause of truth. I have no doubt but that I shall be able to convince him that he has greatly misrepresented me; and it is most probable that, in the spirit of Christian meekness, he will retract in a subsequent letter what he has now so erroneously stated with regard to my expressions. Will you permit me to explain, as clearly and briefly as I can, what I stated on this very important subject.

I divided the opinions commonly held into two classes. First, that regeneration, when applied to an infant, means the same thing as when applied to an adult.

Second, that it means something different.

The first class comprehends those who hold the doctrine of final perseverance, and therefore cannot admit the regeneration of all baptized infants, even of believing parents, in their sense of the word; and those who reject it, and therefore find no difficulty in supposing them all regenerate, in the highest sense of the word, but that many fall away. The second class comprehends, 1st. Those who believe the regeneration of an infant to be a physical change which passes upon its soul at baptism, while they allow the regeneration of an adult to be produced by moral means. Of these again, some hold the doctrine of final perseverance, and some reject it, and accordingly they are at variance as to the universality of the regeneration of infants. 2d. Those who believe that no change whatever is produced in the soul of the infant, neither physical nor moral, but apply the term simply in reference to a change of state before God, which they conceive they are warranted to do, since they think that all the privileges of their believing parents belong to that state, and are theirs by covenant, even antecedently to baptism, the external symbol of the thing signified. This I have stated to be my own view. In assigning a reason for this manner of expression in our formularies, Bishop Burnet writes:

The office for baptizing infants is in the same words with that for persons of riper age, because infants, being then in the power of their parents, are considered as in them, and as binding themselves by the vows which they make in their name." And Mr. Budd thus writes:

"Whether under the Law or under the Gospel, the blessing is given by promise, to which the sacrament was superadded, as the means, and pledge, and sign, and seal. The real blessing was, under both, appropriated by faith.' Again-"He is as vitally united by faith (to the church) as the member constitutes a part of the body."

The first class I endeavour to set aside by adducing proofs that a physical operation upon an insensible subject is not that regeneration spoken of in Scripture, as applied to an adult. The same reasoning I could not apply against any of the second class, who evade the argument by referring all that Scripture says upon the subject to the adult, and claim their physi cal operation for the insensible infant alone. I therefore meet them on other grounds, and show that they may as well hold a faith physically

produced, since the Church calls infants "faithful," as well as "regenerate," which argument would, indeed, equally apply to the first class. To those opinions Ma@nrys supposed me to subscribe, and on this supposition his whole letter proceeds. My words are, "Some have been inclined to think that a physical change passes upon the soul of an infant in baptism. On this hypothesis, however, in order to be consistent, we must also conceive a kind of faith physically produced." Now, is it not strange, that the very absurdity which I infer as a consequence from an erroneous view, should itself be fixed on me, together with an erroneous view from which it follows? I am inclined to think this extraordinary mistake of Manns arose from his reading my words, "The last view of the matter, which I humbly conceive to be the true one," as if they referred to what precedes, instead of to what follows. In this case, however, I should have written, "This last view," &c. I shall beg leave to cite two more passages from Budd, as expressing my own opinion on this subject.

"The assertion that admission into the holy Catholic Church by the external rite of baptism is the internal regeneration of heart, which evidences our union with the communion of saints, only needs a plain statement of terms to expose its fallacy." Again-"All the evils that have ever been ascribed to the doctrine of grace, must sink into insignificance, when compared with those which daily and palpably issue from the assertion of the general efficacy of baptism in all who partake of the rite."

Similarly, Bishop Burnet, speaking of this very error, "Another opinion that arose out of the former, (the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation) was the mixing the outward and inward effects of baptism; it being believed that every person that was born of the water was also born of the Spirit, and that the renewing of the Holy Ghost did always accompany! the washings of regeneration."

Ma@nrns advances two propositions, which he calls on me to disprove. I agree to them both, merely omitting the word "mystical" in the second, because the very thing for which I contend is, that the baptized seed of the believer is federally, symbolically, and mystically regenerate, though no internal change has taken place in their souls, nor are they possessed of any inherent regeneration. That the blessings of the Gospel belong to them as infants, included in their believing parents, but not as adults, dis believing the Gospel, and excluded through their own unbelief. That the Church of Christ consists not only of those who believe the Gospel, but of their infant offspring, who partake of all the privileges of believers, are ac counted as of the number of the faithful, and are spoken of accordingly, though not possessing any inherent faith themselves. And I agree with Mr. Budd, that it is in this view that Christian parents should educate their children, being persuaded also, that the consequence would be a far differ ent aspect in the adult seed of the Church from that melancholy one which is given with so much truth by Μαθητης.

My object in writing was to show how Churchmen might apply the language of our formularies to all the children of believers, without suppos ing either a moral or physical change in the souls of baptized infants, and also to draw the attention of the Church, and of Christians in general, to a subject of the highest doctrinal and practical importance to all, but espe cially to Christian parents; and I am glad that the animadversions of Maonrns will have also a tendency to produce so desirable a result. I am, Sir, yours,

CLERICUS.

T. K.'S REPLY TO MR. CARSON,

TO THE EDitor of the christiaN EXAMINER.

SIR-Mr. Carson is, in my opinion, an independent thinker, an able writer, a good man, and a useful minister of the Gospel. With such a man it is not pleasant to differ in opinion; and between him and me, I believe, there would be very few points on which a difference of judgment would be found to exist. But Mr. C.'s best friends think that there is an appearance of asperity in his style, that would be better avoided. His arguments would lose nothing of their force, if they were conveyed in language less unpleasant to the feelings of his opponent than he sometimes employs.

Mr. Carson's letter begins thus :-" Every thing alleged by T. K. with respect to the rendering of 2 Tim. iii. 16. was before me, when I proposed the common version. In translating the passage,' says T. K. our translators have supposed the article before ypaøn, and the substantive verb 1071 after it.' Our translators have supposed neither." Mr. C. himself, upon reflection, will admit that the contradiction might have been more courteously conveyed, even if it were justified in point of fact. Of this being the case, however, I entertain considerable doubt. Indeed, I think I can show that I was not wrong, when I stated the opinion so unceremoniously contradicted. Mr. C. says that before ypapn would not give the sense of the passage. I did not say it would. I only said that it was necessary to justify the present translation; and I, therefore, took it for granted that our translators, who were scholars of a high order, in rendering rara ypaon, all Scripture, did suppose that the article had, by some means, been omitted. But Mr. C. says that ruoa ǹ ypapn would mean all the Scripture. I do not see the difference between the two phrases: and if their meaning be the same, I should suppose that Mr. C. agrees with me in thinking that the present translation, as it now exists, cannot stand without supposing the presence of the definite article. Why then contradict what I said?

But I think that Mr. C. is under a mistake when he supposes that rara Ypapn should be rendered every scripture. With us Scripture has a kind of technical meaning, and only admits of application to a definite subject. It is confined in its use to a particular book, namely, that book which we hold to be divinely inspired. Tpaon had no such exclusive meaning. This word denoted, in general, a writing, and what would justify its application to the inspired volume would be the presence of the definite article. Then it would be the writing, that is, the particular writing which could not be mistaken for any other. We have no word in our language corresponding with the word ypaon, which may be applied to any piece of writing, but which, when limited by the definite article, denotes the inspired volume. If we had called this volume the book, then the word 'hook' would have served the same use in English that ypaon does in Greek. A book would have denoted any article of the kind, but the book would have denoted the inspired volume. The volume that contains the supposed inspirations of Mohammed is called the Koran, from an Arabic word which signifies to read. Koran seems to be applicable to any book, but the Koran denotes that book which is considered so superior to all other books as that no one can mistake what is meant. But Mr. Carson has produced passages which he thinks justifies our translating ypaon, without the article, Scripture. When the word occurs so very frequently

VOL. XI.

5 M

in the New Testament itself, I think it unnecessary to seek for its meaning in any other book. Now the noun ypaøn, singular or plural, occurs fiftyone times in the New Testament. This surely furnishes us with sufficient means of arriving at the true meaning of the word Of those fifty-one times that the word occurs, there are but five instances in which it occurs without the article. Έτερα γραφη λεγει, John xix. 37. Εν γραφαις ἅγιαις, Rom. i. 2. Δια τε γραφων προφετικών, Rom. xvi. 26. Πασα γραφη θεοπ νευστος, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Πασα προφητεια γραφης, 2 Pet. i. 20. There are therefore, out of fifty-one cases, forty-six in which the word occurs with the article. Let us see if we can account for the exceptions. The reason why the article is absent in the first case is quite obvious: repa ypaḍn, would not express another portion of the sacred volume, but the other por tion, as if there were but iuo, and ἑτερα ἡ γραφη would denote another sacred volume. Ev ypapais ȧyiaus is the next case :-in holy writings. Here the presence of the article does not appear to be necessary, because the epithet ayos, holy, limits the meaning, no writings being acknowledged such, except those of the one volume. The same principle may be applied to the third case, and will account for the want of the article. Ala Tε Yрadшν πроOηTIKWV:—by prophetic writings. There were none acknowledged such but those of the one book, and the term рooητoç defined what writings were referred to. The fourth case is that of the verse under discussion, and the last case is πασα προφητεια γραφης. I can give no rea son why this should not be rns ypapns-but I see that there is a variance in the manuscripts. One reads πασα γραφη προφητειας, which would give every writing of prophecy, or prophetic writing. But admitting that this remains unaccounted for, the circumstance surely cannot invalidate a conclusion, founded upon the undeniable fact, that out of fifty-one cases which occur, forty-six have the article, and in four of the cases which occur without it, the omission is accounted for. Upon the whole, then, may I not assume, that waσa ypaon, in the verse under examination should be rendered every writing, and not all scripture, and that the verse is properly rendered in the Vulgate, and in the two Syriac versions, "Every writing inspired is profitable," &c. In referring to these translations, I had no thought of comparing them, in point of authority, with the original, as Mr. Carson's observations would seem to intimate, but simply of employing them as helps, and important helps, to ascertain the meaning of a doubtful

passage.

With regard to the great question itself, the inspiration of the written word, I stated, in my former letter, that I did not intend to call in question the soundness of Mr. Carson's principles. I meant only to object to having this verse made the basis, or even the support, of that hypothesis for which he was contending; and I am still inclined to think he is under a mistake, when he says that because ypaøn denotes writing, or things written, therefore this verse determines the question of verbal inspiration. If I say, such a book is inspired, I must mean by the word book, not the paper and other component parts of the article, commercially considered, but what is written or printed upon its leaves. Yet no one would suppose that by using that expression, I meant to define the nature of inspiration. The word writings is evidently not used in opposition to thoughts, but to what is unwritten. Whatever may be the merits of the controversy about inspiration, they must, I conceive, be considered as independent of the present passage, in whatever way it is rendered. He who denies verbal inspiration, may say with truth and sincerity, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," as well as he who asserts it.

In conclusion, I beg leave to say, that whoever has not read Mr. Carson's little book on the subject of the inspiration of the Scriptures, would do well to read it. It is the production of a clear and vigorous understanding, grappling with a subject at once of the greatest importance, and of no small difficulty. If his work be more distinguished by the fortiter in re, than the suaviter in modo, it is more to be attributed, if I am not much mistaken, to a sense of the importance of what he is writing about, than from a want of Christian feeling.

REPLY TO MICAIAH ON THE UNION OF CHRISTIANS WITH HERETICS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-Micaiah boldly declares, that he will not believe any man who maintains that the union of Protestants with heretics for charitable purposes is not productive of serious mischief. Of course, I cannot expect that he will believe me, But as I have been a Roman Catholic, and ought to know something of the working and effects, both of the conduct recommended and the conduct stigmatized by Micaiah, I may at least be permitted to make a few observations on his communication which appeared your last number.

in

In the first place, what is a heretic? As far as I understand it, as used in Scripture, it signifies one who once professed the truth, but who has fallen into dangerous error, and continues in it in despite of the private and public admonitions of the Church. The Church of Rome may be called a› beretical Church, for it has apostatized from the faith, and all who know the truth are bound to "mark" it, and "decline from" it. But that Roman Catholics, as individuals, are to be treated as individuals who once knew the truth, and are to be "marked" and "declined from," in ordinary and daily intercourse, in order that the unity of the Church may be preserved, appears to me, if not the height of cruelty and uncharitableness, at least the height of absurdity. What faith have Roman Catholics, who have been educated such, apostatized from? What success would Micaiah expect, or what success would he deserve, when in coming in contact with a Roman Catholic layman or priest, and in trying to convert him, he told him that he was "the first-born of Satan?" I think it would be well to tell him of something else to tell him of a Saviour's love, a Saviour's atonement-to "catch him with guile," instead of repulsing him with Jewish austerity to display that truly genuine Protestant feeling, which loves the bodies and the souls of Roman Catholics, while it denounces their errors-and thus carefully remove those impressions of superiority and inferiority which rouse all the bristles of pride and prejudice, and rear walls of adamant between the two parties. And I will tell Micaiah, whether he believes me or not, that my own experience convinces me, that the course which he recommends would produce a diametrically opposite effect from what he anticipates; and that in refusing to co-operate with Roman Catholic clergy in works of charity, we could not take a surer method of convincing the people under their care, that Protestants, and especially Protestant clergy, are a domineering, selfish set, whose god is their belly, who would trample Catholics under their feet, and whose atrabilarious and sec