than the efficacy with which the Holy Spirit conveys into the heart those truths and gracious promises of which they are the symbols. The very first words of the chapter in which Calvin enters on the discussion of this subject, show us what theory he held. "Allied to the preaching of the Gospel, there is another help to our faith in the sacraments." His definitions show the same thing. A sacrament, he tells us, "is an outward symbol by which the Lord seals to our consciences the promises of his good will towards us, in order to support the weakness of our faith; and by which we in our turn testify our piety towards him, in his presence and that of angels, as well as before men.' 66 แ "How beautifully does he express the identical doctrine of all our evangelical churches! He repeats the definition in a more compendious form, by calling it "a testimony of the grace of God towards us, confirmed by an outward sign, with a scriptural attestation of our piety towards him." Referring to the definition of Augustine, which makes a sacrament a visible sign of a sacred thing," or a visible form of invisible grace," he says that his own definitions differ from that not in sense, but only in being clearer and more accurate. "For," says he, evidently referring to the idea that some invisible grace is conveyed under the visible form, "since in that brevity [of Augustine's] there is some obscurity by which many of the more ignorant are misled, I have endeavored to make the sense clearer by more words, lest any doubt should remain."* The whole course of his reasoning is in exact accordance with this definition. "A sacrament," he says, "consists of the word and the outward sign." The sign, as he explains the matter, is nothing without the word; and the word which gives Chap. xiv, sec. 1. efficacy to the sign is not a muttered formula, like an incantation, supposed to consecrate the elements, but is simply the gospel itself, the divine doctrine and promise, preach. ed to us and thus making us know the meaning of the symbol. "Sacraments, therefore, are exercises which increase and strengthen our faith in the word of God, and because we are corporeal they are exhibited under corporeal symbols, to instruct us according to our dull ca pabilities, and to lead us by the hand as so many young children. For this reason Augustin calls a sacrament, a visible word,' be cause it represents the promises of God portrayed as in a picture, and places before our eyes an image of them in which every lineament is strikingly expressed." He not only vindicates his doctrine against those who think lightly of the sacraments, but also opposes it to those who, he says, "attribute to the sacraments, I know not what latent virtues, which are nowhere represented as communicated to them by the word of God." The position of the schoolmen, that the sacraments now used in the Christian church justify, and confer grace, provided we do not obstruct their operations by any mortal sin, he denounces as "deadly and pestilent" beyond expression, and "ev idently diabolical." "The person is deceived who supposes that the sacraments confer any more upon him than that which is offered by the word of God and received by faith." "Confidence of salvation does not depend upon the participation of the sacraments, as if that constituted our justification, which we know to be laid up in Christ alone, and to be communicated to us no less by the preaching of the gospel than by the sealing of the sacraments, and that it can be completely enjoyed with out this participation." We need not multiply quotations. Let the cu + Sec. 14. * Sec. 3. † Sec. 6. rious reader turn to Calvin and read for himself. Certainly it would be very strange if Calvin holding such views of the nature of the sacraments, were to be found so selfcontradictory as to teach at the same time, and in the same connection, that identical doctrine of baptismal regeneration which he pronounces "evidently diabolical." Turn then to the chapter in which he speaks of baptism in particular, as distinguished from the other sacrament. The chapter commences with these words: Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the society of the church, in order that being incorporated into Christ we may be numbered among the children of God. Now it has been given to us by God for these ends which I have shown to be common to all sacraments; first, to promote our faith towards him, secondly, to testify our confession before men. We shall treat of both these ends of its institution in order. To begin with the first. From baptism our faith derives three advantages which require to be distinctly considered. The first is, that it is proposed to us by the Lord as a symbol and token [documentum -lesson or proof] of our purification; or (to express my meaning more fully,) it resembles a sealed diploma by which he assures us that all our sins are cancelled, effaced and obliterated, so that they will never appear in his sight, or come into his remembrance, or be imputed to us. For be commands all who believe to be baptized for the remission of their sins. Therefore, those who have imagined that baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign as a mark of their profession, have not considered that which was the principal thing in baptisin, which is, that we ought to receive it with this promise, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'" Chap. xv, sec. 1. Some passages of this section are not unfrequently quoted to show that Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration, and this in the face of his leading position, that the end of baptism, so far as any effect on us is concerned, is "to promote our faith towards God." With reference to this end, the promotion of our faith, he tells us "it is proposed to us by the Lord as a symbol and testimonial of our purification." Is baptism a symbol of our purification? Then surely we are not to forget the difference between the symbol and its signification. Is baptism a testimonial [document] of our purification? Then surely we are not to confound the document with the matter to which it testifies; the testimonial, the token, the document, does not make the thing true to which it testifies; it only commends the truth as truth, to our apprehension. Is baptism "proposed to us by the Lord, as a symbol and testimonial," that it may promote our faith towards him?" Then surely it is designed to operate upon us not magically or miraculously, nor by effecting some change of state, but simply as other symbols and testimonials operate, by the appeal which they make to the mind and heart. Does baptism “resemble a sealed diploma by which God assures us that all our sins are cancelled?" and is it accordingly "proposed to us by the Lord" for the promotion of our faith? Then baptism is not itself that forgiveness of which it testifies; nor the cause of that forgiveness. Again, what is that truth of which baptism is the symbol, the document, the sealed diploma? Is it anything else than that which the written gospel teaches, and which the preached gospel proclaims-the doctrine of forgiveness, cleansing and renovation through the mediation of Christ, and by the work of the Holy Spirit? Does baptism considered as a symbol or a document teach anything farther or more specific, than what is taught in the Scriptures or by the preaching of the gospel? If John Stiles can not find in the testimony of the gospel, and in what the Spirit of God has wrought by the word in his heart and in his life, the evidence that God has forgiven him, and purified his heart, will he find such evidence in the record of his baptism ? Does the fact that John Stiles has been baptized, prove that John Stiles has received forgiveness and expe rienced the cleansing which the gospel offers to the penitent and believing soul? We know there are those who will tell him so, but the question is, does Calvin tell him so? Those who tell John Stiles to take the record of his baptism as testimony of his personal union with Christ, tell him so not because bap. tism is an affecting symbol of forgiveness and spiritual regeneration, but because it is in their view something else, even the channel or vehicle by which forgiveness and the grace that regenerates are actually conveyed and communicated; and that is the very teaching which Calvin pronounces "plainly diabolical." plainly diabolical." In the next section to that which we have just placed under the eye of the reader, Calvin quotes from Paul, (Eph. v, 26, and Titus iii, 5,) and from Peter, (1 Pet. iii, 21,) and says: [or death to sin] in Christ, and our new life in him." After quoting the passage from Paul, (Rom. vi, 3, 4,) So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death,' &c. he says that Paul, in these words, "does not merely exhort us to an imitation of Christ, as if he had said that we are admonished by baptism that after the ex ample of his death we should die to sin, and that after the example of his resurrection we should rise to right. eousness, but he goes much farther, and teaches that by baptism Christ has made us partakers of his death, that we may be ingrafted into it." Does Calvin mean then to deduce from this passage that very doctrine of the opus operatum of this sacra ment,-the intrinsic efficacy of the baptismal ceremony, which he has so often and so earnestly denied? By no means. That of which he is speaking, is an advantage which our faith derives from baptism. And be "It was not the intention of Paul to sig- sides, his language here must be nify that our ablution and salvation are interpreted as he has told us to inter effected by the water, or that the water pret it in all such cases. Accord contains in itself the virtue to purify, re-ingly, in the very next sentence he generate and renew; nor did Peter mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts is received by this sacrament, which is sufficiently evident from the words they have used. For Paul connects together the word of life' and 'the baptism of water;' as if he had said that the news of our ablution and sanctification is brought to us by the Gospel, and by baptism this message is confirmed. And Peter, after having said that baptism doth save us,' immediately adds that it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,' which proceeds from faith. But on the contrary, baptism promises us no other Blood of Christ, which is emblematically purification than by the sprinkling of the represented by water, on account of its resemblance to washing and cleansing. Who then will say that we are cleansed by that water which clearly certifies the blood of Christ to be our true and only ablution ?" In the seventh section he proceeds to speak of the second advantage which faith derives from this sacrament. "It shows our mortification 66 says, They who receive baptism with the faith with which they ought to receive it, truly experience the ef ficacy of Christ's death in the mor tification of the flesh, and also the energy of his resurrection in the vi vification of the spirit." His mean ing is, that the gospel promises to the believer not only pardon but a gracious renovation; and that bap tism is a symbol or token, and therefore a proof, of that promise, not only as it respects the pardon, but renewing grace. Accordingly, he also as it respects the quickening and says, "Thus we are promised first the gratuitous remission of sins and imputation of righteousness; and se condly, the grace of the Holy Spirit to reform us to newness of life." These two promises are set before us in the word of the gospel; and, for the confirmation of our faith, they are set before us also in the symbolic teaching of the sacrament of baptism. 66 In the sixth section, the author, still illustrating the operation of baptism in 'promoting our faith towards God,' proceeds to the last of the three particulars in which this sacrament is designed to strengthen our faith. "It affords us," he says, certain testimony not only that we are ingrafted into the life and death of Christ, but that we are so united to Christ as to be partakers of all his benefits." Baptism in this particular, as in both the preceding, is a testimony to confirm our faith in something which the gospel promises. We can not stop here to renew the argument by which this is demonstrated. After having argued the identity of John's baptism with that instituted by Christ, he deduces from these views "the falsehood of the notion which some have long ago maintained, and which others persist in maintaining, that by baptism we are delivered and exempted from original sin, and from the corruption which has descended from Adam to all his posterity." His doctrine, in opposition to this, is, that "by baptism believers are certified that this condemnation [inherited by nature] is removed from them, since, as we said, the Lord promises us by this sign,"* &c. We find this inquiry occupying more room than we intended. One more quotation, and we have done. "This analogy or similitude is a most certain rule of sacraments; that in corporeal things we contemplate spiritual things just as if they were placed before our eyes, as it has pleased God to repre sent them to us in such figures: not that such blessings are tied up or enclosed in the sacrament, or that it has the power to impart them to us; but only because it is a sign by which the Lord testifies his will that he is determined to give us all these things: nor does it only feed our eyes with a mere show, but it conducts us to a present reality; and what it represents in a figure, it at the same time efficaciously fulfills.' Sec. 14. How does baptism, in Calvin's view, efficaciously fulfill what it represents in a figure?' By promoting our faith. By conducting us beyond the mere show to the present reality.' By leading us to 'contemplate those spiritual things' which God represents to us by the symbol. The entire efficacy of baptism, in Calvin's theory, is its efficacy, through the power of the Holy Spirit, in promoting faith,-its legitimate efficacy as a divinely appointed symbol appealing to the mind and heart. This may suffice as an illustration of the acuteness and wisdom of those who have taken it upon themselves, of late, to assert that Calvin and the reformers of his age, the Westminster Assembly and the Synod at Say. brook, all held the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It was in our minds to carry this investigation further, to show what Calvin teaches respecting the Lord's supper, and to analyze what is said on these subjects in "the standards of the dissenters," videlicet the Westminster Catechisms and Confession, the Savoy Confession, and the Confession of the Reformed Dutch Church. But the doctrine, not to say the language of these documents, is the same with Calvin's. Should we find occasion, we may pursue our readings at some future opportunity. For the present we say, Here endeth the first lesson. THE BISHOP'S ATTORNEY ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND." BISHOP BROWNELL'S Attorney, as we anticipated, has again appeared in court. We have now a pamphlet entitled, "The state of Religion in England and Germany compared." Among the many unaccountable hallucinations of this laborious but unfortunate writer, is the idea that there is some controversy between him and the New Englander, touching the state of theology and piety in Germany. Under the influence of this hallucination, he makes large quotations from various writers, English and American, to show what evils in the form of infidel opinions and corresponding laxity of practice, have been, and are still, prevalent in that country. None of our readers need be told how entirely the labor which he expends in that effort is thrown away. As for German philosophy, so far as it differs from plain New England common sense, we have almost as little respect for it as we have for the philosophy of Professor Newman, who holds that "the mystery of baptism-that mystery by which a new creature is formed by means of water and fire," is the key to Geology; that a true philosopher with a spiritualized eye," "would expect to discern in every animal and material nature the fig ure of a cross;" and that such a philosopher with a spiritualized eye as aforesaid, "would not be surprised to find that all mathematical figures are reducible to this element; or as modern anatomists have suggested, that the whole animal world is framed upon this type, a central column with lateral proces ses." And as for German theology, so called-the theology of Rationalism which despises the Scriptures, and knows nothing of the moral government of God or of redemption and forgiveness through Christ, we hold it to be from beginning to end almost as great an outrage on common sense, as the theology of those Anglican doctors who hold that in the Eucharist as administered by their authorized hands, the recip ient eats, not figuratively or sym bolically, but literally, the identical human flesh that bled upon the cross at Calvary. In matters of philology and of historical inves tigation, the German scholars, as all men know, are in advance of the world. But in philosophy they can never create a system for a free, shrewd, practical race of men like the people of these States; far less can they do it in theology. In these two departments not less than in politics, the Anglo-American peo ple, and above all others the uni versal Yankee nation, are likely to do their own thinking. In respect to the causes which have produced this prevalence of Neology in Germany, there is a dif ference between us and the learned counsel for the bishop of Connecti cut-a difference but not a controversy. He holds, and his client holds, that whatever there is to be lamented in respect to the state of religion in that country, has resulted from the want of what they call Apostolical Succession, and from the want of the Anglican Liturgy, and of Queen Elizabeth's act of uniformity. Our mode of accounting for the phenomenon, as our readers will remember, is altogether differ ent. We ascribe the wide decay of |