the latter, to exclude infants in future from the Church, we think it was their undoubted intention and practice to administer the ordinance of baptism to every age. But admitting there was a doubt on this subject, judging only from Scripture, how are we to decide the case? By ascertaining the practice of the primitive Church. And here we shall find the result completely in favour of infant baptism. So universal was the practice of the primitive Church on this point, that St. Augustin and Pelagius both declare "they had never heard and never read of any, even in the most heretical churches, who denied baptism to infants."* We therefore conclude that agreement on this point is essential to Christian unity. Baptism is the door by which we enter the Christian Church. It is the only way by which we can become members of this Church. If, therefore, we exclude infants from baptism, we exclude them from the Church, and to the Church of God are his most precious promises given.†

Again, unity demands that we retain the sacrament of the holy euchar ist. This and baptism are the only sacraments of the Christian religion. The eucharist was instituted by our Saviour just before his passion, and his command then was, "do this in remembrance of me." Baptism was instituted between his resurrection and ascension. His direction to the Apostles then was,

66

go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And both these ordinances were universally observed by the Christian Church for many centuries, and are still retained by nearly the whole of the Christian world.

The unity of the Church further requires, that it preserve the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, in the

• See Wall on Baptism.

We say not that exclusion from the Church excludes from salvation. On the contrary, we believe that all infants will be saved. But the inference to be drawn

from what has been said, is that we are bound to observe all the ordinances of God, and if parents neglect to bring their children to baptism, the fault and the punishment will lie upon the parents.

ministry. Tracing the history of the Church back from the period of the reformation to the first century, we find these three orders always in being. The most learned of the advocates for parity, or but one order in the ministry, admit that three orders existed in the early part of the second century, but contend that there was but one order previous to that time.* Now that at a period of the Church, when she was perhaps purer than she has been at any time since, when the fires of constant persecution had nearly purged away all her dross, so great and important a change as that from parity to imparity should take place; that the whole Christian world should unite in establishing a different and superior order in the ministry; that they should all agree to take from the presbyters the power of ordaining, and confer it upon a new officer whom they styled Bishop; and that the presbyters should submit to the relinquishment of a privilege they had previously enjoyed, and which they must have believed they acquired from the Apostles; that such a change should take place at such a period, is certainly a very strange supposition. But admitting that the change took place, would there not be the most complete evidence of the fact in the writers of that period? Would the presbyters resign a power they had hitherto possessed, and which they must have believed to be a sacred deposit made by the Apostles, without a struggle? And with the example and precepts of the Saviour fresh in their memories, would any one of them have dared to assume a power superior to what the others enjoyed, if it was contrary to Divine appointment? Impossible. The alarm-bell would at once have been rung throughout all Christendom, and those who should have dared to attempt such an innovation, would have been stigmatized as heretics, and as such expelled from the Church. But do we find that such was the case? Do we find that any convulsions agitated the Church in consequence of the alleged change? No. If it was made, it

* Blondel, a learned Presbyterian, dates the rise of Episcopacy at 140 of the Chris

tian æra.

was all effected with a stillness equal to the sleep of death. Not a murmur, not a whisper was heard.* But, say the advocates of parity, produce a single command from Scripture, in which it is said in so many words, that there must be three orders in the ministry. To this we reply, produce a command in so many words, that we must baptize infants, that we must keep the first instead of the seventh day of the week, as the Christian sabbath, and that we must admit females to the communion. The true way of determining questions of this kind, as has been observed, is to appeal to the practice of the Apostles and primitive Christians. We think we can show from Scripture, that there were originally three orders in the ministry. The point is disputed by the advocates for one order. To settle the question, we appeal to the practice of the Apostles, and their companions and successors. What can be fairer? What rule of decision in the case more certain? It was morally impossible that the disciples of the Apostles, many of whom suffered martyrdom in the cause of Christ, should differ in so material a point as this from their masters. Here then we rest the question. But as a last resort, we are asked, is the appointment of three orders so unalterably binding that it must never be changed?

We reply, if you may lawfully change this, you may with the same propriety change any other ordinance or appointment of the Christian religion; for what stands upon a better foundation than the ministry? And thus you would unsettle, and, in fact, destroy the Christian Church. What is the bond of union which keeps the various denominations of Christians together? The ordinances, rites, and doctrines of their own particular society, which they are taught to venerate, or do naturally venerate as of divine origin. But propagate the doctrine

* The advocates of parity produce the testimony of St. Jerome to prove that a change in the ministry was effected in the early ages. This position has been triumphantly overturned both by Dr. Bow. den and Bishop Hobart.

that all these things are of uncertain origin, and that they may lawfully be changed, and the whole Christian world would soon be torn by number. less sects. Each different sect would establish rites peculiar to itself. This would lead to the belief that every thing of an external character apper taining to the Church, was of no real utility. And if such is the fact, why preserve the ministry, or any of the ordinances of the Christian religion? All would in time be abolished. And whe can believe, that without some supernatural interposition of the Almighty, Christianity would long preserve her existence in the world, stripped of all her marks as a visible society-depriv ed of her ministry and sacraments? No. The ministry above all things is essential to the existence of the Church, and consequently of Christianity. Out, Lord chose twelve Apostles to preach his Gospel. He breathed on them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. The Apostles selected others to be their assistants, and their successors when they should be called from their labours. Of these we find some possessing exclusively the power of ordaining, others the power of preaching and adminis tering the sacraments, and others the privilege of baptizing and preaching, but yet inferior to the second grade, în not having the right to administer the holy communion, nor to perform other acts belonging to the presbyter's of fice. And from that time to this, have these three distinct orders been in being.

We therefore think ourselves justifiable in including a ministry which consists of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons among the things essential to the unity of the Church.

There are a few other points in which all Churches should unite, such as the setting apart the first day of the week, and sanctifying it by prayer and the public reading and exposition of the Scriptures. But as these are of a nature hardly to admit of difference of sentiment, I shall pass them over, and proceed to the consideration of those things that are not essential to unity.

The Country Clergyman.

For the Christian Journal.

Conversations of a Minister with a Parishioner, on Baptismal Regeneration.

CONVERSATION 1st.

Parishioner. I have waited on you, Sir, in order to speak to you on a subject, which has become lately much discoursed of that of regeneration, said to be attached to baptism. You are reported to be a believer in the doctrine; and, indeed, I have perceived it in some of your sermons. The matter being new to me, I hope I am applying to the proper quarter for information.

Minister. Not only so, I thank you for the opportunity afforded to me. It too often happens, that this is neglected by a member of a congregation. A pastor cannot know the states of mind of the various members of his flock; and it is the duty of those who may be oppressed by any doubt or difficulty, to give him an opportunity of bringing relief. You are right in the supposition that I occasionally introduce the point in question with you; having been in the practice of doing so throughout my ministry. But I wonder at its being with you a novelty. You were taught your Catechism in your infancy: and although you may have been too young for a minute attention to its contents, yet there might have been, subsequently, various occurrences which presented it to your contemplation. In the beginning of that instrument, there was put into your mouth the acknowledgment that in baptism you were " made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." What is the being so made but regeneration? since you were not such by

nature.

Parishioner. The words are familiar to me; but I have not been aware of the interpretation which you now give to them. I am not prepared to say what the Church may have intended: but be this as it may, I cannot believe that the throwing of water on the face of an infant, can cause its regeneration; which is the construction given to your doctrine.

Minister. This is a position not
VOL. VI.

made by me, nor by any one else, so far as I am informed.

Parishioner. Does not what you say amount to it?

Minister. No; and I illustrate the distinction thus. A grants an estate to B.

The deed is properly drawn, but there is no seal to it. If B's interest should be hereafter jeoparded by the neglect, it would be irrelevant to contend, that a piece of wax has no necessary connexion with the sense of the deed, and with the intention of the person who conveyed. On the contrary, if the seal should be affixed, to say that B's title began at the fixing of the seal, would not be an undervaluing of any other attribute of the transaction. My doctrine is, that regenerating baptism is by water and by the Spirit: by water, appointed by the Divine Ordainer as an accompanyment of the transac→ tion; and by the Spirit, of whose promised aids the other is a sign answering to the seal in the comparison.

Parishioner. Do you think, then, that there passes a moral change on the soul of the infant, in this ordinance of our holy religion?

Minister. I have no such thought; and the contrary is evident on its identity of character, before and after the transaction. Were I to think otherwise, the mother and the nurse would be the proper persons to set me right. But I consider the powers of the human soul as the same in saints and sinners. Those powers are good or bad, according to the direction given to them respectively. In order that it may be to the ends of holiness, grace is stipulated in baptism. Without the improvement of it, the said powers will be directed to sin, any further than as this may be prevented by prudential considerations, having nothing of a moral character to recommend them.

Parishioner. Your statement implies, that no change in succeeding life is obligatory on the child.

Minister. I do not find in Scripture any requisition of change; unless it should be from a state of sin, resolveable into personal agency of the child become adult.

Parishioner. Does it not follow, that the child, as it progresses to matu

10

rity, is under no further obligation than to lead a life externally decorous; perhaps observing the forms of devotion, and no more?

Minister. On the contrary, under my view of the subject, more than under the opposite, there is given force to the obligations laid on the agent, by promises made in his person and for his benefit.

are

Parishioner. And yet some positive that the other is an evil, which grows out of your construction.

Minister. Which is the truth of the Gospel, not liable to abuse? From St. Paul's doctrine of grace, some inferred-"let us continue in sin, that grace may abound." Your opinion, be it true or false, has been applied, and I think consistently, to the neglect of the religious education of children; until, by conversion, they have become of the Lord's people. Some have even contended, that it is incongruous in them to put up a prayer.

Parishioner. The deniers of bap tismal regeneration do nevertheless hold it to be a great privilege of the children of Christian parents, that by their being brought within the visible Church, salvation is placed within their offer.

Minister. The offer of it is also made to the children of a Jew, and to those of any professed and unbaptized infidel.

Parishioner. But in the other case, there will probably be religious instruction: although from neglect, or possibly from the cause you have mentioned, it may be wanting in some cases.

Minister. The child of the Jew, or that of the other professed infidel, may happen to come within the gospel sound. But a case more to my purpose, is that of a family of a denier of infant baptism; who, if he be religious, will give such instruction to his children, as shall tend to make them children of God. He will inform them of the of fers of grace, of which they may avail themselves by conversion.

Parishioner. I have never considered the point, in its relation to the deniers of infant baptism; but am sorry at being told, that your opinion seems to be the same as is held by the Roman

Catholics in a favourite doctrine of theirs, to which they give the name of "Opus operatum."

Minister. You have been grossly misinformed, in this matter also. That doctrine has been much discussed between them and the Protestants; so,as that there being a wide difference between us is perfectly understood. Their opinion is, that baptism impresses on the soul of the child a character or physical quality, supernatural and spiritual, and carrying with it a divine virtue. I do not pretend to make this intelligible; not understanding it myself; any further than to perceive that it is fruitful of superstition, and may be applied to the discouragement of inquiry in ripening years. It is wide of the sense, which I annex to baptismal regeneration; and there is nothing of the kind in any of the institutions of our Church.

Parishioner. Still, you consider the Church as affirming regeneration in baptism; and I am told, that the idea is attached alike to that of adults as to that of infants: so that if a man submits to baptism in hypocrisy, and without a particle of faith or of repentance, he is a regenerate man.

Minister. Here again there is a confounding of an obvious distinction. Such a man possesses the rights of a regenerate person, so far as Church privileges are in question; or in other words, he is regenerate in the eye of the Church, until the detection of his hypocrisy and his expulsion from the communion. In the mean time, he is abominable in the sight of God; and by being baptized, has added to all his other sins. If, through grace, he should come to a better mind, and be sincere in his profession, there is no need of his again submitting to the outward sign: as in the case of a man who has taken an oath of allegiance, while he is a traitor in his heart; if he should see his error and become a good citizen or subject, there will be no need to repeat his oath, which was binding when he had no sense of the obligation.

Parishioner. I am rejoiced, that in this case you do not consider baptism and regeneration as the same.

Minister. I do not consider them

as the same in any case. But this language is put into our mouths, by the advocates of the other side of the question. Water, the outward and visible sign, with the Holy Spirit, the inward and spiritual grace, are to be contemplated, the former as ordained, and the fatter as communicated, on the part of God. Regeneration is their joint effect, on our persons and our condition. So, in the other sacrament, bread and wine, the outward and visible sign with the body and the blood of Christ spiritually considered, being the inward and spiritual grace, are distinct from "the strengthening and refreshing of our souls," which is the benefit we receive thereby. If baptism has been called regeneration, by any person whose authority ought to have weight; it must have been in some such way as to show, that the cause is substituted for the effect: a species of metaphor, not uncommon on any subject.

Parishioner. I confess to you, that I have considered the doctrine as pregnant with consequences, which you have shown not to belong to it. But this does not amount to proof of the doctrine. It does not even prove, that the doctrine is held by our Church; although there is an appearance of this which had not before occurred to me, in the passages cited by you from the Catechism. I wish to have a conversation with you on this branch of the subject; but shall not be prepared for it, until I shall have reperused the institutions of the Church, so far as they relate to the present point.

Minister. I shall be glad to see you again, with a view to your further satisfaction. In the mean time, I entreat you carefully to look at the sense of the Church, as delivered in her articles and in her services: not without prayer to "the Father of Lights," for his holy guidance. But I cannot part from you without remarking, concerning the consequences from which you acknowledge the doctrine to have been cleared, that it is a symptom of the soundness of an opinion, when the deniers of it, as is perseveringly done in this case, put it in terms unequivocally rejected on the other side. That you did so in the beginning, was the effect of misinforma

tion: and that you acknowledge the irrelevancy, is owing to your candour. I hope that the same spirit will be manifested, in our future intercourse on the subject. Especially let it be remembered, that if I should be supposed to affirm, either of a baptized child advancing to maturity, that a religion of forms will be sufficient for him; or, of an adult submitting to baptism after a sinful life, any effect without conversion of the heart; I reject the imputation. You will have a right, if it be your opinion, to deduce it as an inference which I have not the ingenuity to perceive: but to represent it as my opinion, would be unfair. W. W.

(To be continued.)

For the Christian Journal.

John Calvin's Explanation of Titus, chapter iii. verse 5-" By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."*

"I do not doubt but that the Apostle at least alludes to baptism; nay, I readily allow the place to be expounded of baptism: not that salvation consists in the external symbol of water; but because baptism seals unto us the salvation obtained of Christ. Paul is treating of the exhibition of the grace of God, which we have said is connected with faith. As however one part of revelation may consist in baptism, so far as it is destined for confirming our faith, the Apostle very properly makes mention of it. Moreover, as baptism is as an entrance into the Church, and a symbol of our ingrafting into Christ, it is very properly introduced by St. Paul when he wished to show how the grace of God appears in us: for the context is, 'God hath saved us by his mercy;' of which salvation he has given a symbol and pledget in baptism; adoptingt us into his Church; and engraft

* Commentarii J. Calvini in omnes Pauli

Apostoli Epistolas, Geneva, 1565.

† Church Catechism. "A pledge to assure us thereof;" i, e. of grace.

+ Common Prayer, public baptism of infants. "We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy Church."