THE LAVER OF REGENERATION." 379 expressed;"* the Episcopal Divines answered, "Seeing that God's Sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth not ponere obicem, put any bar against them, which children cannot do, we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit; and the denial of it tends to Anabaptism and the contempt of this Holy Sacrament, as nothing worthy, nor material, whether it be administered to children or no."+ PHILLPOTTS, BISHOP OF EXETER.-1842. Vide Pars. 27-36, in Chap. XII.; and Pars. 82—154, in Chap. X. COPLESTON, BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.-1842. Vide Pars, 58-60, in Chap. X. BLOMFIELD, BISHOP OF LONDON.-1842. 21. I have already observed, that in the interpretation of the Articles which relate more immediately to Doctrine, our surest guide is the Liturgy. It may safely be pronounced of any explanation of an Article, which cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the Offices for public worship, that it is not the Doctrine of the Church. The opinion, for instance, which denies Baptismal Regeneration, might possibly, though not without great difficulty, be reconciled with the language of the Twenty-seventh Article: but by no stretch of ingenuity, nor latitude of explanation, can it be brought to agree with the plain, unqualified language of the Offices for Baptism and Confirmation.‡ 22. 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 good faith, can deny, that, in some sense or other, Baptism is indeed the laver of Regeneration. Vide also Pars. 23, 24, in Chap. XIII.; and 75, in Chap. XXIII. * Grand Debate, p. 20; Cardwell, p. 325. + Grand Debate, p. 132; Cardwell, p. 356. Nor can it be made to agree with the language of the Ninth Article. The English Article says, "There is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized;" the Latin is "renatis et credentibus." 7 See note on Par. 12, of his Lordship's Charge in Chap. XXI. Also extract from BISHOP RYDER'S Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry; note 364, supra.-ED. 1, Where is ". any Clergyman" to be found who would think of controverting the BISHOP OF LONDON'S position that" in some sense or other"—(the italics are not his Lordships,) O'BRIEN, BISHOP OF OSSORY, FERNS, AND LEIGHLIN.-1842. BAGOT, BISHOP OF OXFORD.-1842. Vide Par. 46, in Chap. XXIII. PEARSON, DEAN OF SALISBURY.-1842. Vide Par. 39, in Chap. XII. -Baptism is indeed the laver of Regeneration.'" Still the "question" remains, and "may properly be raised, as to the sense in which the term Regeneration" is to be used. Upon this point the Larger Catechism of Da. NowELL, Dean of St. Paul's, which, as it is well known, received the sanction of Convocation, may be regarded as no mean authority; "M. What is the secret and spiritual grace? "S. Forgiveness of sins and Regeneration; both which we have by the death and resurrection of Christ; of which we have this Sacrament as a seal and pledge. "M, Shew me the effect of Baptism yet more plainly. "S. Since by nature we are the children of wrath, and not of the Church and Household of God; we are by Baptism received into the Church, and assured that we are now the children of God, and joined and grafted into the body of Christ, and become his members, and grow into one body with Him." To this testimony I will only add that of a more recent work, "Questions illustrating the Catechism of the Church of England," by the REV. JOHN SINCLAIR, CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, and now, by his Lordship's appointment, ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX. The following extracts are from pp. 48-50 of the edition of this Tract recently published by The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge "By whom was Baptism used as a religious ordinance before Christ? By the Jews. For what purpose? For admitting into their Church converts from Heathenism. What metaphor did they employ to express the baptized person's change of condition? They spoke of him as being born again or regenerate.-Shew that Christ, when he adopted the Jewish ordinance into the Christian System, employed the same form of speech calling Baptism a New Birth ?-John iii. 5.-And that the same form of speech was used by St. Paul? He terms Baptism the washing of Regeneration, Tit. iii. 5; see also Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12. "What is Renovation? The change of heart from sin to holiness, which gives us fitness for the Kingdom of God.-In what respect does Renovation differ from Regeneration? Regeneration is a change with respect to privilege or capacity; Renovation is a change of character.-Which of the Apostles mentions them as distinct things? Tit. iii. 5.-In the case of grown persons, does Renovation go before or follow after Baptism? It ought partly to go before, and partly to follow after; for Repentance and Faith should be begun before Baptism, and brought afterwards to maturity.--And in the case of infants? It follows after. Did the Primitive Christians consider Regeneration as the effect of Baptism? Did the first Reformers? They all speak of Baptism as a seal, and pledge, and channel of Regeneration."-ED. CHAPTER XV. SIN AFTER BAPTISM. WILSON, BISHOP OF CALCUTTA.-1838. PHILLPOTTS, BISHOP OF EXETER.-1839. 58. Still more do I lament to read in one of the "Tracts," which, in the main, is worthy of the highest estimation,-I mean "Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism,"-much of what is there said of the effects of sin after Baptism: for instance, that if, "after having been then washed, once for all, in Christ's blood, we again sin, there is no more such complete ablution in this life." (Tract 67, p. 63.) No restoration "to the same state of undisturbed security, in which God had by Baptism placed us."-Tract 67, p. 58. 59. These, and passages like these, however they may be explained, tend to rob the Gospel of the blessed Jesus of much of that assurance of the riches of the goodness and mercy of God in Christ, which is its peculiar message, its glad tidings of great joy. "Come unto me all that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Our Church teaches us to apply this blessed promise to those who are "heavy laden" with sins committed after Baptism. 60. Surely, too, they tend to rob Baptism itself of its full and genuine efficacy,-of that which our Church expresses, when it says, that God "hath vouchsafed to regenerate us by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath given unto us forgiveness of all our Sins," not of those only which were committed before Baptism, but also of all the Sins we ever shall or may commit, on the conditions (I need not add) of that Covenant, into which we were then admitted, Repentance and Faith. 61. Nor may we forget the tendency of such language to encourage the pernicious and perilous habit of distinguishing between such sins as may destroy our state of grace, and such as we may think still leave that state secure.9 Let it never be absent from our minds, that every wilful sin is deadly-and let us beware of hardening our own hearts, and corrupting the hearts of our brethren -by whispering to ourselves or them which sin is more or less deadly than others. That which we may deem the least will be deadly enough, if unrepented, to work our perdition :-those which we deem the most deadly will, if repented, have been thoroughly washed away in the Blood of our Redeemer. PEARSON, DEAN OF SALISBURY.—1839. Vide Par. 8, in Chap. VI.; and Par. 18, in Chap. XXVI. 9 I take the following from Mr. WARD's reprint of Mr. RICHARDS' “most audacious" Catechism, referred to in note 3, p. 96, supra. "How is actual sin divided? Into deadly sin, and sin not deadly.-Has our Church sanctioned such a distinction ? Yes; in two different places she uses the phrase deadly sin,' which plainly implies that all sin is not deadly.-What do you mean by the word deadly? I mean a sin which destroys the Grace of God, which is the supernatural life of the soul, and so puts us at once out of his favour; a sin in which, if we die without repentance, we shall be everlastingly punished, deliberate and wilful sins then deadly? No; they are not all deadly. -Are all -Will any number of such (lesser) sins put together make up a deadly sin? If we go on allowing ourselves in them, without scruple, they will quite certainly lead us into deadly sin and moreover, the absence of an intention to conquer them, one by one, is a deadly sin, under the head of sloth." pp. 15, 16. : The sentiments of Dr. PUSEY (whose "Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism" are spoken of by the BISHOP OF EXETER as being "in the main worthy of the highest admiration,") are thus referred to by BISHOP M'ILVAINE, in his Oxford Divinity, pp. 519, 520. "The following passage from Dr. PUSEY contains a most painful shewing of the impossibility of distinguishing between sins venial and mortal, and the consequent necessity of every baptized person, either concluding that he has committed mortal sin since his Baptism, and has thus lost Justification, or else of being in a state of uncertainty, which cannot but destroy all confidence of peace with God. ‘A question' (says Dr. Pusey) 'will probably occur to many; What is that grievous sin after Baptism which involves the falling from grace? what the distinction between lesser and greater -VENIAL and MORTAL sins? or if MORTAL sins be "sins against the decalogue," as St. Augustine says, are they only the highest degrees of those sins, or are they the lower also? This question, as it is a very distressing one, I would gladly answer if I could, or dared. But, as with regard to the sin against the Holy Ghost, so here also, Scripture is silent. I certainly, much as I have laboured, have not yet been able to decide any thing. Perhaps it is therefore concealed, lest men's anxiety to hold onward to the avoiding of all sin should wax cold. But now, since the degree of ' VENIAL iniquity,' (venial iniquity!!) if persevered in, is unknown, the eagerness to make progress by more instant continuance in prayer is quickened, and the carefulness to make holy friends of the mammon of unrighteousness is not despised.' "Some who were disposed to go to a considerable length with the school of Dr. Pusey, have been aroused into indignant opposition by these and kindred perversions and abominations. Of this class is the writer of Letters on the Kingdom of Heaven, &c.,' who asks, Where is the minister of Christ in London, Birmingham, or Manchester, whom such a doctrine, heartily and inwardly entertained, would not drive to madness? He is sent to preach the Gospel. What Gospel? Of all the thousands whom he addresses, he cannot venture to believe that there are ten who, in Dr. Pusey's sense, retain their Baptismal purity. All he can do, therefore, is to tell wretched creatures, who spend eighteen hours out of the twenty-four in close factories and bitter toil, corrupting and being corrupted, that if they spend the remaining six in prayer, he need not add fasting-they may possibly be saved. How can we insult God and torment man with such mockery!'"Letters on the Kingdom of Heaven, &c., vol. i.-ED. LONGLEY, BISHOP OF RIPON.-1841. 6. In descending to particulars upon Doctrinal points, it cannot, I should think, but excite surprise and deep regret that the effect of Sin after Baptism should have been placed by them in so gloomy and cheerless a light, unwarranted, as we believe, either by Holy Scripture, or by the authority of our Church. Did she really teach, that if we sin again after Baptism, there is no more such complete absolution in this life as was then imparted, and we could then never attain to the same state of undisturbed security in which God had thus placed us: if she sanctioned the conclusion, that the penitent and believing sinner had no promised security for the fullest and freest pardon through the atoning blood of Christ, not only for his original sin, but also for all his actual sins committed subsequent to Baptism, how could she have bid her Ministers open the daily service of the Church with a declaration that if we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? What comfort could it bring to the offender to be told that all his inherited corruption is washed away, and his original guilt pardoned through the merits of his Saviour, if he is at the same time to be reminded that there is no full security against the wrath of God for his numberless transgressions in after life? or how can the Priest venture to pronounce that God pardoneth and absolveth all that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel,-how speak of Almighty God as so putting away the sins of those who truly repent, that He remembereth them no more, if the pardon of sin after Baptism stands upon a different footing from that committed before? if the promise of God is not equally sure and certain as regards both? Surely, my Reverend Brethren, if the faithfulness and justice of God are both, as the Holy Scripture declares, pledged for the forgiveness of all the penitent believer's unrighteousness, without distinction, his security for the pardon of the one must be as great as that for the otherand this is exactly in accordance with the Doctrine laid down in our Homily on Repentance, wherein it is said, " Although we do, after we be once come to God, and grafted in his Son Jesus Christ, fall into great sins; yet if we rise again by repentance, and with a full purpose of amendment of life, do flee unto the mercy of God, taking sure hold thereupon, through faith in his Son Jesus Christ, there is 1 His Lordship refers to DR. PUSEY'S "Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism," Tract 67, pp. 53-58. See also Tract 79, on Purgatory:-"We hold that after Baptism there is no plenary pardon of sins in this life to the sinner, HOWEVER PENITENT, such as in Baptism was once vouchsafed to him." From these premises the author of the Tract-writing "on Purgatory," and "against (?) Romanism," is not unnaturally led to the following conclusion ;-"If for sins committed after Baptism we have not yet received a simple and unconditional absolution, surely penitents from this time up to the day of judgment may be considered in that double state of which the Romanists speak, their persons accepted, but certain sins uncancelled," pp. 6, 7.—ED. |