in character and literature. We need not say that Oxfordism, with all its train, will but aggravate the evil. Nay, Oxfordism, in the last analysis, is little else than another type of the same disease, poetry in stead of holiness.

We must have a learned but yet a logical, vigorous, and bold philos ophy, which shall be true to man and true to God; which shall do justice to the problems that are committed to her for solution, and which shall argue and demonstrate rather than dogmatize and sneer. We dare to affirm that to philosophy is committed a most important position, in vindicating the truth from prevailing error. No man can doubt it, who traces the influence of a false but seductive system in the volume of Mr. Parker.

We must also have a scheme of interpretation which shall do justice the most complete to the Bible, as written by man, while yet it shall vindicate its dignity and authority as revealed from God. The truly lib. eral mind sickens at the amount of nonsense that has been written vaguely about the Bible, under the name of spiritual interpretation. It is stunned and confused amid the Babel-like confusion and the wordy wars of modern exegetes, and is lost in the labyrinthine cane-brake of their long drawn speculations. It starves on the vapid nihilities of a frigid and soulless neology. It looks for a true and consistent historic interpretation, which shall bring out the parts of the Bible each in relation to its own time, and shall show the wisdom and condescension, the providence and skill which they testify of him who revealed them.

Such a vindication of historical Christianity and of progressive revelation, we hesitate not to say, is one of the grandest wants of the age, and may well be one of its proudest achievements.

It was our original design to add to the considerations already given, a view of the relation of Mr. Parker's opinions to the fundamental principles of the Unitarian system, with some remarks upon the posi tion he holds in that denomination. We regard this as one of the most important topics suggested by the volume, and we intended to have given to it, an important share of our notice. But this article is al ready long enough; and the topic which remains untouched is too large to be fairly disposed of in a closing paragraph. In a future number, we shall probably pay our respects again to the apostle of "Absolute Religion." The appearance of such a teacher, the publication of such a book, in the name of Christianity, at the metropolis of New Eng land, is a phenomenon, which, if justly explained and resolved into its elements, can not but teach us some important lessons. Merely to argue against the Discourse concern. ing Religion-merely to refute its fallacies ever so completely, is com paratively a small matter. How came the book to be written, published, read, admired? How came Mr. Parker to be what he is? These are questions which no philosophical mind, Unitarian or Trinitarian, Lib eral or Evangelical, can avoid ask ing. The right answer to such questions will give the lessons which ought to be learned from the phenomenon before us.

THE doctrine of baptismal regeneration, may be traced to an early origin in the Christian church; as early as about the middle of the second century. This fact is much relied on, as evidence of its truth. But it might be adduced for this purpose, with more plausibility, if it were not notorious that even at that early period, other great corruptions had crept into the church. How this doctrine first came to be believed, we may not perhaps, at this late period, be able to determine. Dr. Doddridge accounts for it in the following manner: "In the earliest ages of the church, persons were generally baptized, as soon as they were converted to the cordial belief of Christianity, and therefore, the time of their conversion, and that of their baptism, might naturally enough be spoken of as one; and as this was a period when they did, as it were, come into a new world, it is no wonder that the action by which they testified a change so lately made, should be put for that change itself. In a word, a man by baptism, solemnly professed himself a Christian; and as it was generally the first overt act by which his believing the gospel could be publicly and generally known, and was also supposed to be very near the time of his inward conversion, they dated his regeneration, that is, his happy change, as that word used to signify even among the heathen, from that

time."

with the thing signified, and to speak of regeneration and baptism as one and the same thing. The doctrine of transubstantiation may be traced to a similar origin. The bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, gradually came to be regarded as the real body and blood of Christ, of which they are only symbols.

A false interpretation of certain passages of Scripture, particularly John iii, 5, and Titus iii, 5, also had much influence in giving currency to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. That some of the early fathers should have mistaken the meaning of these texts, is no more wonderful, than that they should have fallen into other egregious mistakes in interpreting the Scriptures.

When we find Barnabas, one of the apostolic fathers, maintaining that Abraham and his one hundred and eighteen trained servants, signify Jesus and his cross; when we find Origen mentioning that in the account given of the destruction of the Hebrew male children in Egypt, and the deliverance of Moses, Pharaoh is the devil, Pharaoh's daughter is the church, the midwives are the Old and New Testaments, and the male and female, children are the animal and rational faculties of the soul, and Moses is the law; that the three hundred foxes caught by Sampson, are teachers of heresy ; and that the phrase used by the Apostle, "saved so as by fire," teaches that all the saints after the resurrection from the dead, will be purified by flames, and have the dross of sin burnt off by literal fire; when we find Jerome interpreting the controversy between the two women who came to Solomon, as a representation of the Jewish synagogue and the Christian church contending about the child Jesus-when we find

these facts, and a multitude of others like them, illustrating the exegetical wisdom of the three first centuries, we need not be surprised to find that the fathers have fallen into the mistake of supposing, that our Savior, when he said, John iii, 5, "Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of heaven," did teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

But although the word, regeneration, in the writings of the ancient fathers, after the middle of the second century, is generally used to signify baptism or something inseparably connected with baptism, it is not used in this sense, so invariably as some have seemed to imagine. Clemens Alexandrinus uses the word, in one instance at least, to denote a change of character by true repentance. Speaking of a Speaking of a penitent female, he says, "that being born again by conversion, or a change in her temper and behavior, she has the regeneration of life." Chrysostom and Augustine, although they frequently used the language current in their day, admitted that many who were outwardly baptized, were not baptized virtually and spiritually by the Holy Ghost.

As true religion declined, a superstitious observance of outward rites and ceremonies, usurped the place of vital godliness; and the idea of regeneration, as an inward spiritual change of character, became almost entirely lost. For many centuries, no other regeneration was ever thought of by the great mass of Christian professors, but that which was supposed to take place in baptism. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is still maintained, as it ever has been, by the whole Romish church. It is also maintained by the high church party in the church of England, and in the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States. By the evangelical party in that communion, it is entirely dis

carded. But they meet with great embarrassment, in being obliged to make use of a liturgy, which seems most explicitly to contradict their belief. The high church party strenuously insist that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is a doctrine of the church-clearly taught in the Prayer-book; and if the language of the Prayer-book is to be understood in its most obvious meaning, they certainly have the right of the argument; while it is equally certain, that their opponents have the evidence of Scripture on their side. The English liturgy, it is well known, was compiled from the Romish; and by persons whose eyes were not fully opened to all the corruptions of Popery. It is not surprising, therefore, that it should contain some things which ought to have been excluded. Of these, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is one.

The language of the baptismal service is very explicit. The minis ter, after the baptism of an infant, is directed to say, "Seeing now dearly beloved, that this child is regene rate, and grafted into the body of Christ's church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these bene fits," &c. . . . . "We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regene rate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child, by adoption, and to incorporate him into thine own church."

At the baptism of adults, the minister is directed to say, "Mercifully look upon these thy servants; wash them, and sanctify them with the Holy Ghost; that they being deliv ered from thy wrath, may be receiv ed into the ark of Christ's church." Again, "Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons, that they may be born again, and be made heirs of everlasting salvation, through our Lord Jesus Christ." After baptism, the minister is directed to say, "Seeing now, dearly beloved, that these per

In the church catechism, which all are required to learn before they offer themselves for confirmation, are the following questions and answers. Ques. What is your name? Ans. N. or M. Ques. Who gave you that name? Ans. My sponsors in baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." Such is the teaching of the Prayer-book, which all the ministers of the Episcopal church are obliged to use. While, therefore, we rejoice that there are many evangelical and pious ministers in that church, who adopt scriptural views on the subject of regeneration, we can not but regard them as objects of pity, that they are obliged to make use of formularies so utterly at variance with their doctrinal belief. In order to reconcile their principles and practice, they are under the necessity of resorting to the most unnatural interpretation of the language of the Prayer-book.

Nearly thirty years ago, there was a protracted controversy on this subject, in England, between the high church party and the evangelical. The questions in dispute, were two. 1. Is the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, a doctrine of the Bible? 2. Is it a doctrine of the the church? In the opinion of candid and distinguished judges, the result of this controversy, was victory and defeat, to both parties alike. On the first question, the evangelical party were triumphant. On the second, the high church party were equally so. Thanks be to God, that Vol. II.

51

in the discussion of this subject we have but one question to settle, viz. What is the testimony of the Scriptures? In the following remarks, we propose,

First, To attempt to ascertain what the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is, as maintained by high church Episcopalians, in England and in this country; and

Second, To show that the doctrine, so far from receiving any support from the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, is utterly opposed to the genius of Christianity, and the explicit declarations of the word of God.

What then is the doctrine of baptismal regeneration?

There has been some doubt in the minds of many as to the precise sense in which this doctrine is held by its advocates; and it is not certain that it is held by all in exactly the same sense. Of this we may perhaps be able to judge, by bringing together and comparing the statements of different individuals. Bishop Brownell of Connecticut, in his late charge to his clergy, thus states the doctrine.

"The true economy of the Christian dren of wrath. It takes them from this religion, regards men as by nature chilstate, which is called in Scripture the 'kingdom of Satan,' and transfers them

by baptism into the family, household, and kingdom of the Savior-where they are called children of God,' 'members

of Christ,' and 'heirs of the kingdom of heaven.' From adults, repentance and faith are required as qualifications for baptism; and from infants there is required a subsequent repentance and faith, which stands in the nature of a debt, and which they are bound to discharge when they come to years of discretion. After baptism, the person is regarded as in a state of covenant relationship with God; becomes entitled to the aids of his Holy Spirit, and through the instrumentalities ward in the nurture and admonition of provided in the church, is daily set for

the Lord. THIS CHANGE OF STATE, EF

FECTED IN BAPTISM, IS CALLED IN SCRIP

TURE, AND IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE BAPTISMAL OFFICE, REGENERATION.

p. 21.

"Let them be assured, that those who

are sacramentally baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, become by that act, (not in name only but in deed and in truth,) 'members of Christ,' children of God," and heirs of the kingdom of heaven; that by the renunciation of the dominion of Satan, and their adoption into the kingdom of Christ, they are restored to a state of favor with God, and brought within the sphere of the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. And this is not to be regarded as a mere temporary act, but as an initiation into an abiding state. On this ground the Apostles exhorted their baptized converts to count themselves 'dead unto sin, and alive unto God.'' p. 31.

Bishop Hobart says—

"In the sacrament of baptism, we are taken from the world, where we had no title to the favor of God, and placed in a state of salvation in the Christian church." -Sermon on Confirmation, p. 26.

Again, "Into this church, the body which derives life, strength, and salvation, from Christ its head, baptism was instituted as the sacred rite of admission. In this regenerating ordinance, fallen man is born again from a state of condemnation to a state of grace."—Companion for the Altar, p. 186.

Again," Wherever the gospel is promulgated, the only mode through which we can be admitted into covenant with God, the only mode through which we can obtain a title to those blessings and privileges which Christ has purchased for his mystical body, the church, is the sacrament of baptism."-Ib. p. 189.

Tomline, Bishop of Lincoln, in his refutation of Calvinism, says: "The word regeneration is in Scripture solely and exclusively applied to the one immediate effect of baptism, once administered; and is never used as sy nonymous to the repentance or reformation of a Christian; or to express any operation of the Holy Ghost upon the human mind subsequent to baptism."—2d edition,

p. 86.

"Neither Scripture nor the writings of our church authorize us to call upon those who have been baptized, whether in their infancy or at a mature age, to regenerate themselves, or to expect regeneration through the workings of the Holy Ghost." -p. 92.

Dr. Mant, a distinguished advocate of this doctrine, whose writings occasioned the controversy in the church of England, to which we have

already alluded, says, (as quoted by the Christ. Obser. Vol. XV, p. 70,)

"To the proselyte from heathenism to the Jewish faith, baptism had been a death to his natural incapacities, and a new birth to the civil privileges of a Jew. To him who should be admitted to a profession of the Christian faith, and who should be born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,' it was a death unto sin, and a new birth unto those spiritual privileges which should accompany his deliverance from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." ***Baptism is a new birth, by which we enter into a new world, the new crea tion, the blessings and spiritualities of the kingdom. From this time forward, we have a new principle put into us, the spirit of grace, which besides our soul and body, is a principle of action." *** "The doctrine of regeneration by bap tism is most clearly asserted by her, (the church.) She supposes, not merely that all real Christians are regenerated by God's Holy Spirit, by which I understand all those who live a Christian life, but that those also are so regenerated, to whom baptism is rightly administered, notwithstanding by their future conduct they may forfeit the privileges of their new birth."***"If the work of regeneration is not effected by baptism, it is impossible for any sober man to say when and by what means it is." ** "Sanctification and purity, unspotted and unblemished holiness, are attributed to the church of Christ as the effect of the washing of water."***"All Christians, all persons who have been baptized, are indiscriminately said to have been regenerated.”

Several inquiries are suggested by the foregoing statements.

1. Do these writers mean that baptism itself is regeneration? or that regeneration is effected by bap tism? or that it is an invariable concomitant of baptism? Bishop Brownell says, "This change of state effected in baptism, is calledregeneration." According to him, therefore, regeneration is effected in baptism. By what agency, we are not informed. Bishop Hobart calls baptism a "regenerating ordinance;" which seems to imply that in his view, baptism produces the change. But he says also, "In this regenerating ordinance, fallen man is born again," &c. This language,