principle that the exception proves the rule, only makes the more evident the fundamental identity of the Churches. For while the elder community boldly maintains that the intention of the priest himself, of what creed or character soever he may be, is essential to the reception of benefit from the ordinances of Christ, the Anglican Church feels it necessary to lay down the principle, that, inasmuch as the wicked have sometimes the chief authority in administering the Sacraments, the effect of Christ's ordinance is not taken away by their wickedness, and that the Sacraments are still effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although ministered by evil men.' The comfort which this declaration must have afforded to multitudes of pious but ill-informed members of the Anglican Church is altogether incalculable. But what must we think of the discipline of a Church which deems such a consolation necessary? And what must we think of its doctrine if it is thought requisite to protest, as in a dubious and exceptional case, that the wickedness of faithless hirelings appointed by men more abandoned than themselves, does not obstruct the flow of Christ's mercy to his people?

It would have been altogether superfluous to introduce the above negation, had not the Anglican Church still further borrowed from that of Rome the doctrine of sacramental efficacy, and bound it indissolubly to that of apostolical succession. The design of this antichristian and absurd fiction, as utterly unknown to Scripture as the Suttee or the sale of advowsons, must be patent to the most superficial thinker, while its direful effects will never be fathomed by the profoundest student of history and religion.

The subdued, but yet arch-enemy of the Christian religion, certainly never achieved a greater masterpiece of policy, than when he instigated a conclave of nominal priests to decree that practice by which the unconscious world of infants were made the nominal members of the Christian Church, under auspices which they were hereafter taught to believe conferred, through sacerdotal influence, the indefeasible gifts of the Spirit, and privileges of the kingdom, of God. The loftiest ecclesiastical ambition could desire no higher prerogative than this. In the absence of all the graces of the Spirit, alike from the endowers and the endowed, His preternatural gifts were authoritatively taught to have been transmitted from the one to the other, and a holy Church was nominally formed of all that were born of women. Every baptized person thus owed to the priest a commenced salvation; and to the same mystic influence all were taught to confess themselves indebted for all the social advantages and the most sacred relationships of life. Their confirmation and their

marriage, the legitimacy and the salvability of their children, their comfort in sickness, the forgiveness of their sins, their final dismission to heaven, and the declarative blessing of the Church upon their mortal remains, all this they were taught to owe to an individual who might be religious or profane, virtuous or vicious, an atheist or a believer, provided he constituted a link in that magic chain, by which a whole priesthood was fabulously connected with the great Source of spiritual life. Let this idea pervade, and even rankle in the bosom of every reader. For this is not the error of a dark antiquity, nor the heresy of Papal Christendom. It daily lives and operates in our midst. This foul conspiracy against the religion of the Cross, is not one framed in secret, and sanctified with orgies that shun the light. It affronts the reason and the religious feeling of the present generation, and protrudes its impertinent claims on the Government under which we live. Senatus hæc intelligit. Consul videt. Hic tamen vivit. Vivit? Immo vero etiam in Senatum venit.

And here, lest it should be thought impossible that this mystery of iniquity should still work, though intimated by the inspired pen of the Apostle of the Gentiles, we beg to remind our readers that in order to save it as a part of the orthodox creed, the doubt is now thrown, not upon the efficacy of the ordinance of baptism, but upon the nature of regeneration itself. Hence, in the recent charge of the Bishop of London, we find the following language:

A question may properly be raised as to the sense in which the term regeneration was used in the early Church and by our own Reformers; but that regeneration does actually take place in baptism is most undoubtedly the doctrine of the English Church; and I do not understand how any clergyman who uses the office for baptism, which he has bound himself to use, and which he cannot alter nor mutilate without a breach of God's faith, can deny that, in some sense or other, baptism is indeed "the laver of regeneration."

'It was argued by Mr. Gorham's counsel that the "Book of Common Prayer" is to be considered simply as a guide to devotion, not as defining any doctrine; but it appears to me to be a perfectly inadmissible supposition, that, in a solemn act of devotion, and especially in the celebration of a sacrament, any point of doctrine should be embodied as a certain and acknowledged truth about which the Church entertains any doubt. This would surely be nothing short of addressing the Author of Truth in the language of falsehood. On the contrary, the assumption of a doctrine as true, in a prescribed form of prayer or thanksgiving to God, is, in fact, the most solemn and positive assertion of that doctrine which can possibly be made.

The precise nature and extent of the spiritual change which takes place in baptism the Church has no further defined than by the general assertion that it is a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness,

and that every person rightly baptized is made thereby a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. This change is otherwise expressed by the single word "regeneration."

I suppose that few amongst us will be found to deny that all who receive baptism worthily are, in some sense of the term, therein regenerated. The Church declares in very general and positive language of all who, having been duly baptized, are afterwards brought to be confirmed, that Almighty God has vouchsafed to regenerate them by water and the Holy Ghost, and has given them forgiveness of all their sins. But this declaration, it is said, is to be restricted to such as have received baptism worthily; and this raises the question whether all infants may receive baptism worthily. What is the obex or bar which in any case disqualifies an infant for the reception of that sacrament? Actual sin it cannot be. Original sin, or inherited sinfulness of nature, is the only bar which can be imagined. But to remedy the consequences of this original sin is the very object of baptism. It is therefore so far from being a bar to the reception of that sacrament that it is the very reason for its administration.'

We confess that we cannot read such statements as these without astonishment. To save the ridiculous Popish figment of sacramental efficacy, the bishop is willing to throw into the billows of doubt and discussion the fundamental doctrine of regeneration itself! Indeed, we have no hesitation in declaring our conviction, that if the Bishop of London's charge be conceded as the premises, every essential doctrine of Popery may be established by the fairest deduction. Nor are we less surprised at the total ignorance of religious truth, and the want of sympathy with the wery elements of the Christian religion, which is exhibited throughout this charge. We quote the following words in illustration of our meaning: It has been well observed that the supposition of prevenient grace in the case of infants only shifts the difficulty one step backward; for if infants be not qualified to receive baptismal grace, how can they be qualified to receive prevenient grace? If their being born in sin unfits them for the one, so must it for the other. Can two grosser errors be imagined than are involved in this sentence-the one in the term 'baptismal grace,' and the other in the notion that the direct intention of the Divine Being to bestow spiritual blessing may be absolutely frustrated by certain conditions of the individual which disqualify him for its reception.

After laying down in such unqualified terms the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the Bishop of London, somewhat to our surprise, goes about to clear his views from all correspondence with what, in the Romish Church, is called the opus operatum :—

'I cannot do better,' he says, 'than quote the words of the present learned Bishop of Bangor, to show what the real difference is, in this respect, between the two churches:-"That baptism is the ordinary

means through which God bestows the grace of regeneration, is a doctrine common to our own Church, and to the Church of Rome. But the point on which our divines insisted, in opposition to the teaching and decrees of that Church, was, that this grace is not communicated to or contained in the element, and from thence transferred to the soul of the recipient: that the outward sign is only instrumental, and the Holy Spirit the efficient cause of regeneration; that it is not the water, but the blood of Christ with which our sins are washed away. That the object of faith in the sacrament of baptism is not any virtue contained in the water, but the promise of God in Christ."'

We must confess our inability to perceive the distinction which the bishop desires to establish. The Romish Church is, we believe, as far as the Protestant Church, from believing that the regeneration is produced by the mere element of water, per se; it only considers that the blessing has been divinely connected with its sacramental use. Besides, in the various services of the Anglican Church the element itself is by no means regarded with the indifference which the above language would seem to intimate. Hence we find a prayer to this effect:'Sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin;' and in the office for the public reception of infants who have been privately baptized, the officiating minister is enjoined to use the following form:- Because some things essential to this sacrament may happen to be omitted through fear or haste in such times of extremity, therefore I demand further of you with what matter was this child baptized? With what words was this child baptized?' And on receiving satisfactory replies to these questions he further declares :-'I certify you, that in this case all is well done, and according unto due order, concerning the baptizing of this child, who being born in original sin and in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of regeneration in baptism, received into the number of the children of God and heirs of everlasting life.' We repeat, that between all this and the opus operatum of the Romish priest, we can perceive none but a nominal distinction.

The degree in which the two rival hierarchies approximate in the maintenance of this fundamental heresy of sacramental efficacy, will scarcely be credited by those who have not kept pace with modern theological controversy. It is high time that the public mind should be disabused upon this subject, and brought acquainted with the fact, that the very essence of Popery is constantly taught by a vast majority of the Anglican clergy. This has been most ably and seasonably effected by Mr. Brock, in the two discourses which are now before us. We subjoin a few passages illustrative of this, judiciously selected by Mr. Brock from the Oxford Tracts, Nos. 67 and 76.

Our participation of the incarnation, and of the relation of sonship to God, is imparted through baptism, and is not imparted without it." Baptism is sin-remitting, sanctifying, and life-giving. Thereby we are justified; and not only accounted righteous, but positively made righteous in the sight of God.'

Not merely is the righteousness of Christ imparted to the baptized, but they are indeed in Christ, by an actual, real, spiritual origin from him, as real and actual as in their origin from Adam.'

At the time of baptism a new nature is divinely communicated, and gracious privileges are especially vouchsafed, in such measure, that those who are clothed with this white garment may, through God's help, keep their baptism pure and undefiled for the remainder of their lives, never committing any wilful sin.'

6

Complaining of the institution of the English bishopric of Jerusalem, Dr. Pusey writes:-" It is a sin, and it will lead to the commission of yet greater sin, if any clergyman of the Anglican Church shall attempt to convert, or shall pretend to convert, a person who has been duly baptized into the Greek church. They are already converted and in a state of grace. . . . The Church speaks first and chiefly to persons baptized in infancy, and she is out of her place in converting, or endeavouring to convert, in a Christian country."

on

So in the preface to Tract 67, we read :—

The pardon of baptism is free, full, universal, without any service our part. The pardon for those who have forfeited their first pardon is slow, gradual, partial; to be humbly waited for, to be secured by humiliation, voluntary affliction, prayer, self-denying bountifulness, and the like. The penitent must regard himself as beginning an irksome and distasteful course, and he must be content to wear the galling chain of doubt, until God shall see it healthful for him to be gradually relieved."

Sins before baptism were freely forgiven, but sins after baptism are purged away by affliction, yea, through the iron furnace of repentance, and the ancient medicine of bitter suffering.'

Again, in Tract 74, we find the power of the priest, in connexion with the administration of the sacraments, described in the following terms:

The power of the ministry of God translateth out of darkness into glory; it giveth daily the Holy Ghost; it hath to dispose of that flesh which was given for the life of the world, and that blood which was poured out to redeem souls. When it poureth malediction upon the heads of the wicked, they perish; when it revoketh the same, they revive.

This requires both a diffused knowledge and great application, to know the qualifications of particular men, and the nature and degrees and sincerity of their repentance, in order to give them a satisfactory answer to their demands, and to grant or refuse them the several sorts of absolution, as we think proper, upon an impartial view of their state and condition. . . . A discretionary power is lodged in the priesthood of dispensing the sacraments and of granting to the penitent, and