Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

APPENDIX A.

I FEEL deeply grieved to be compelled to differ from the great body of the Evangelical clergy and laity of the Church of England, and others out of it, in the use of the term "baptismal regeneration." It is always a misfortune when the use of an ambiguous word is made the test of orthodoxy; and such I conceive to be the case with the term referred to. I do not say that there is not much in the baptismal controversy beyond verbal distinction; but I do think that the use of a phrase which has, within a recent period, changed its meaning, and which is by one party used in its old signification, and by the other in its new, has embroiled the discussion of the question, and led to much misunderstanding on both sides. I would with much diffidence crave a consideration of the following views on the subject.

The term "regeneration" is used but twice in the whole of the Bible, and that twice is in the New Testament. It first occurs in Matthew xix., 28: "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And again, in Titus iii., 5: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Now there can be no question but that in this latter verse the word is applied strictly to the outward part in baptism, the inward part being added immediately afterwards, "and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost." It is, however, highly probable that the word has the same signification in both places, and we will enquire briefly what that appears to be.

Commentators are very much divided in their opinions as to whether the phrase "in the regeneration," should be pointed off so as to be taken with what precedes or what succeeds it. My own opinion

g

inclines to the former, and I would read, "Ye, which have followed me in the regeneration," i.e., in the present new state of things-in the gospel dispensation. The word would then be nearly equivalent with the term "Christian," in common use among ourselves, as referring to the economy under which we live. Most persons who read the words with those which precede them give them this interpretation, which appears to me both natural and apposite.

And would not such appear to be the sense of the word in the Epistle to Titus? There were baptisms of various characters and significance. The Jews had long practised a baptism; John had introduced another, and Jesus Christ yet another. When, therefore, the apostle is alluding to baptism, he may not unnaturally be supposed to distinguish Christian baptism by the term "the washing of regeneration," affixing to it the "inward part or thing signified,"—" the renewing of the Holy Ghost." In this view of the matter, the word under consideration will have the same meaning in both cases where it is used, and will distinguish the Christian dispensation from the Jewish, which preceded it.

But whatever view be taken of the exact meaning of the word, there can be no difference of opinion as to its application. It is used by the apostle with undoubted reference to the application of the outward sign in baptism; and in refusing to use the term "baptismal regeneration," because the phrase, perhaps, is abused, I cannot but think that the Evangelical portion of the Church place themselves in a false position. There is no one point in which they put such power into the hands of their Popish and other assailants to damage them withal, as by this refusal. First of all they forsake the phraseology of St. Paul, who applies the word regeneration to water baptism; secondly, they turn their back upon all the divines, ancient and modern, who have written upon the subject, (with the exception of some of the Puritan divines without, and still fewer within the Church, during the last 150 years); and, lastly, they seem to me to be compelled to repudiate the language used by their own Church. Each of these is a very serious evil; but in combination, they form a heavy artillery, which is used with no sparing hand against the essential truths which are prominently put forward by that school of theologians.

This evil appears to me to have arisen from a change which has but recently taken place in the use of the word "regeneration." This was formerly used by all divines as little more than a synonyme for baptism. Nati et renati meant, even in the mouths of such men as Bishop Davenant, born and baptised. It is, moreover, evident that

the holy and faithful men, who encountered the fearful responsibility of reforming the English Church in the sixteenth century, used it in the same sense. Their existing writings, as well as our own public formularies, shew this. Now, however, the word is used as a synonyme with "conversion." This, in all probability, has arisen from confounding the "born again" in the third of John with "regeneration;" for, however close the verbal relationship may seem in the two cases, I believe it is nothing more than in seeming. It is indeed a pity that the particle avw0ev in St. John should ever have been in that passage rendered by the word "again." Its primary signification of "from above" would have suited better, and it is so rendered lower down in the same chapter (v. 31), where "again" could have no place. The question of Nicodemus, How can a man be born when he is old; can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (v. 4,) does not at all set aside this remark, because as a birth was spoken of by our Lord, it was impossible but that it must be a second one, even if Nicodemus had not entertained the gross idea of the meaning of Jesus which he did.

[ocr errors]

The term "baptismal regeneration," as used by the Apostle Paul, by the early Fathers, and by the Church of England and her divines, means no more than brought into the outer Church by baptism, and put into a salvable state. It does not express the absolute condition of the individual as saved or lost, but his relative state. For as we are brought into the world by nature "children of wrath," damnable, but not damned; so we are hereby made "children of grace," salvable, but not saved. When more than this is said, it assumes that the inward part has accompanied the outward, of which we are no judges as to the nature or extent. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit."-(John iii., 8.) It is not for us to fix the time at which the "Spirit is given to every one to profit withal," though we may conclude, from the appointment of baptism and its reference to the Spirit, that it is commonly bestowed in the ordinance. Yet we know that it is sometimes given before, as in the case of Cornelius: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?"—(Acts x., 47.) And not always in baptism; for, after Simon Magus had been baptized, Peter told him, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." (Acts viii., 21.) Who, then, will be bold to dogmatize, when it is manifest, from the inspired records, what we might well have con

cluded, even without the knowledge of these cases, that God is not tied to any ordinances, not even to those of his own appointing?

It has long appeared to me, that the doctrine of the Trinity is intimately connected with the doctrine of the sacraments, and that the Three Persons and their offices are intended to be kept constantly before man's view by visible representations. That this was the case in the old Testament dispensation, is, I think, manifest enough, and any one who doubts it, or indeed who has not considered the subject, would do well to consult a small unpretending volume of the London Tract Society, entitled "The Philosophy of Salvation," a reprint of the work of an American (I believe a solicitor), which proves that the Mosaic economy was one of pictorial representation.

But as there are only two sacraments, "How," it may be asked, "can they represent the three divine persons of revelation ?" The answer is this: the Father, the Creator, needs no other sacrament than his works. A man's own existence, as well as that of every thing around, proves, every moment of his conscious being, the existence of an all-powerful, all-wise, creative agent. This is well put by the Apostle Paul, when he says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the visible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead."-(Rom. i., 19, 20.) What need, then, can there be any further to represent creative agency, when every created thing is a sacrament of it?

Such, however, is not the case with the work of redemption or of sanctification. There is nothing in nature to represent them, and the economy of grace has supplied that wherein nature was lacking. "Do this in remembrance of me," was the command to continue a sensible embodiment of the great work of a Saviour. The institution of the Lord's Supper is intended for perpetuating, and calculated to perpetuate, the recollection of the great sacrifice (which is as unknown to physical nature, as it is above and beyond man's innate ideas), as was the celebration of the paschal feast, to prevent the deliverance in Egypt from lapsing from the memory. There was no necessary connection between bread and wine and the Lord's body and blood, and it was only the appointment which made them a sacrament. The answer of the Church of England to the question, "Why was the sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained?" is both scriptural, and in accordance with the nature of things true: "For the continual remembrance of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby."

« ÖncekiDevam »