124

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

have but the semblance, and not the substance of vital piety amongst them! Can any thing be more preposterous-any set of opinions lead to more uncharitableness and schism? Impossible.

But in opposition to these several views, as entertained by Dr. Blomfield, Dr. Pusey, Mr. Newman, and others, it were easy to present the scriptural sentiments of some of the early bishops of the church at or near the time of the glorious Reformation. Hear Bishop Hooper's words:

66

Although Baptism be a sacrament to be received, and honourably used of all men, yet it sanctifieth no man; and such as do attribute the remission of sins to the external sign, DO OFFEND." Hear Bishop Jewell:—" Verily, to ascribe felicity, or the remission of sins, (which is the inward work of the Holy Ghost) unto any manner of outward action whatsoever, is A SUPERSTITIOUS, A GROSS, AND JEWISH ERROR." Above all, turn from bishops, of whatever party, and hear the Bible, and let every true Protestant implicitly and reverently bow to its heavenly authority. Hear St. Paul, who says, kingdom of God is not meat and drink: but "the righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision,

INDEFENSIBLE FROM SCRIPTURE.

125

which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God." Now if these scriptures just quoted, and many others of a like character which might quickly be adduced, do not, at one fell swoop, hurl down into the lowest dust the whole flimsy fabric of pretended sacramental efficacy, we know not what can, or what will. For all theological opinions must be established or exploded by scripture. Justly, then, does the clerical author of a work entitled "Scripture and Common Sense on the Doctrines of Regeneration and Baptism," say"We appeal, then, to the New Testament, and to that ONLY, as interpreted by common sense, in the fear of GOD; for we refuse to be tried any where but at this judgment seat of Christ, where we ought to stand. If any clergyman or layman will be so kind as to convict me of error, I will renounce it. But then he must produce, from the New Testament, proof that God has promised REGENERATION to infant christians; or that, without promise, he hath in fact bestowed it upon them; and that not upon all, but even to ONE child of man. Let them, I repeat, prove infant regeneration in ONE instance, and I will admit it in ALL. I confidently assert that no such proof can be

126

A SERVILE SUPERSTITION,

adduced, and therefore I disbelieve it as antiscriptural doctrine, and dare publicly express my contempt of it as A SERVILE SUPERSTITION." The same bold and faithful advocate of pure protestant truth then adds:-" Fully convinced that Baptism never was designed to convey regeneration, and has no such promise, I confidently conclude NO MORTAL EVER WAS SO REGENERATED. The expectation, therefore, I treat as universally vain and fallacious. I believe it was the great leading error which first essentially corrupted christian truth, and probably will be the last to be generally banished from the Church [of England.] It strikes at every thing vital in christianity, subverts the covenant of promise, makes faith and truth of no effect, supersedes the genuine work of the Spirit, vacates the necessity of conversion and repentance to decent moralists, carnalizes religion, substitutes the form of godliness for the power of it—and HAS DESTROYED, I BELIEVE, (says the Rev. Melville Horne, late of St. Stephen's, Salford,) MORE SOULS than any one single error which has been branded on the black list of heresy." Acceding, as we most heartily do, to all and every declaration here made by the above bold and earnest contender for the faith, we would most solemnly and affectionately warn all Pro

AND SOUL-DESTROYING HERESY.

127

testants from listening, for a single moment, to the preachers of the soul-destroying doctrines of baptismal regeneration and sacramental efficacy, so sophistically and zealously propagated in this day of abounding error and ill-disguised popery by Puseyistic priests and prelates in the Church of England.*

Besides these several and peculiarly heretical views, there is much more of advancing error and popish practice which might be glanced at, if space would allow. Do we not see in many of the churches in populous districts, and even in some retired rural situations, a mass of tawdry,

* As illustrative of the blind and misguided solicitude of this party, it may be stated that an incumbent of a populous parish in London has, in a large placard, been exhorting parents, as they value their own souls," to bring their children "to the blessed waters of redemption”— meaning the baptismal font-and not to trust merely to their legal registration, as "that will not do so well as Baptism"!! Another clergyman says, 66 Baptism may be called the womb of the Church, to bring forth children to God"!! with many other similar and singular sentiments. And a minister of Cavendish Square, London, has just published a Prayer Book, on one side Latin, and on the other English, and each paragraph beginning with a red letter, just in the manner of the Romish massbook; whilst in his church there is an altar fitted up quite in the style of splendour exhibited in the popish places of worship!

128

POPISH PRACTICES REVIVED.

foolish, popish mummery-a childish and increasing love for ancient and unscriptural rites and ceremonies? Many practices which had fallen into proper desuetude are now being industriously revived and forms and ceremonies, which had their origin in the ignorance and popery of ancient times, are now being zealously pleaded for, and their observance even rigidly and punctiliously attended to by many individuals. Are not hundreds of the clergy mimicking the practices of popish priests, in turning their backs upon their congregations, and looking towards what is most foolishly and popishly called "the altar," whilst saying some parts of the prayers, and amidst which, in many cases, they are at heart lingering more after the Romish mass-book than approving of the book of Common Prayer? Has not also the Bishop of London publicly given in his approval of wax tapers being allowed to be placed on the communion table, and "of doing obeisance on entering and leaving churches and chancels ?" And what mean those stone and wooden crosses -aye, and in some few instances, even crucifixes too! and gilded candlesticks and flaming candles which are to be seen in the same professedly protestant places of episcopal worship? And what are those garlands and flowers for, which have recently been seen decorating cer