ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

suppose the minister refuses to baptize it or suppose no individuals can be found to act the part of sponsors can that child be regenerated? If it can, then the doctrine of baptis mal regeneration is not true. If it can not, then it does depend on the will of man whether that child shall be regenerated, "the positive institution and promises of Christ" notwithstanding.

5. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration virtually sets aside the great doctrine of justification by faith, the doctrine which Luther called "articulus stantis, vel cadentis ecclesiæ," and which has ever been regarded by Protestants, as a fundamental doctrine of the Gospel.

[ocr errors]

Bishop Brownell says, "The true economy of the Christian religion, regards men as by nature the children of wrath." And how are they delivered from this state of condemnation, and brought into a state of favor with God? He tells us, "It takes them from this state, which is called in Scripture, the kingdom of Satan,' and transfers them by baptism into the family, household, and kingdom of the Savior."-"After baptism, the person is regarded as in a state of covenant-relationship with God." Bishop Hobart says, "In this regenerating ordinance, fallen man is born again from a state of condemnation to a state of grace." According to these divines, therefore, it is by baptism that sinners are brought from a state of condemnation to a state of favor with God. They are justified not by faith, but by baptism. No matter how sincerely they may believe in Christ, they are still in a state of condemnation, till they are taken from this state by baptism. Bishop Hobart says expressly, "Repentance, faith, and obedience, will not of themselves be effectual to our salvation. We may sincerely repent of our sins, we may heartily believe the Gospel, we may walk in

the paths of holy obedience, but until we enter into covenant with God by baptism, and ratifying our vows of allegiance at the holy sacrament of the supper, commemorate the mysterious sacrifice of Christ, we can not assert any claim to salva. tion."

But what is the testimony of the Scriptures on this subject. The Apostle Paul says, Rom. iii, 21-26, "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, be ing witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them who believe; for there is no differ ence; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God:-being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." We are here taught, that the only meritorious ground of the sinner's justification is the righteousness of Christ; and that it is by faith in Christ, that the sinner is justified. "The true econ. omy of the Christian religion," ac cording to this Apostle is, that men are transferred from "the kingdom of Satan," into "the family, household, and kingdom of the Savior," not by baptism, but by faith. The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, is "unto all and upon all them who BELIEVE." The moment the sinner truly be lieves in Christ, whether he has been baptized or not, he is delivered from condemnation, and is in a state of favor with God. This idea is abun dantly taught in the Scriptures. Acts x, 43, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth on him,

[ocr errors]

shall receive remission of sins.” Eph. ii, 8, "By grace are ye saved, through faith," not through baptism. Luke vii, 50, "And he said unto the woman, thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace." See also Luke xxiii, 42. When did the Lord ever say, Go in peace, thy baptism hath saved thee? John iii, 14, 15, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life." See also ver. 16, 18, 36. John vi, 35, 40; xi, 25, 26. Rom. i, 16, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Rom. x, 4, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Compare these declarations with that of Bishop Hobart, given in the extract above.

We see from these texts, (and many others of similar import might be added,) the importance which the Scriptures attach to faith. It is that which unites the soul to Christ, and brings it into a state of favor with God. We are assured in the most explicit manner, and in a great multitude of instances, that all true believers, (not excepting those who are unbaptized,) are justified-in other words, are in a state of favor with God, and have a "covenanted title to salvation." To maintain, therefore, that men are taken from a state of condemnation by baptism, and made by that act, "in deed and in truth," "members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven," is to subvert "in deed and in truth," one of the most important doctrines of the Gospel.

6. If baptism is regeneration, then circumcision was regeneration, under the ancient dispensation. But is circumcision ever thus spoken of in the Scriptures? Are we any where taught, that those who were by nature children of wrath,

were taken from this state, and transferred by circumcision, "into the family, household, and kingdom of the Savior?" Observe what the Apostle Paul says on this subject, Rom. iv, 6-11, "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works; saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness, then, upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned unto Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised." Here we are assured, that the blessing of pardon under the ancient dispensation, was bestowed upon all true believers, whether they had been circumcised or not; for even Abraham himself was justified by faith before he was circumcised. So under the Christian dispensation, this blessedness, cometh not upon the baptized only, but upon the unbaptized also, if they are true believers in Christ.

7. If baptism is essential to regeneration, it will follow, that no unbaptized person can be the subject of evangelical love, faith or obedience. It is written, 1 John iv, 7, "Every one that loveth, is born of God." Again, 1 John v, 1, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." Again, 1 John ii, 29, "Every one that doeth righteousness is born of him."

The argument on this point stands thus.

Every one that loveth is born of God; but no unbaptized person is born of God; therefore, no unbaptized person loveth.

Again, Whosoever believeth that

יי

Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; but no unbaptized person is born of God; therefore, no unbaptized person believeth that Jesus is the Christ.

Again, Every one that doeth right eousness is born of him, (God); but no unbaptized person is born of God; therefore, no unbaptized person doeth righteousness.

And is it so? Must a person be baptized before he can love, or believe, or do righteousness? Does not Bishop Brownell say, that " from adults, repentance and faith are required as qualifications for baptism?" Does not Bishop Hobart plainly intimate that persons may "sincerely repent of their sins, heartily believe the Gospel, and walk in the paths of holy obedience," while unbaptized? If these things are so, it is evident from the texts above quoted, that persons may be regenerated while unbaptized. Indeed from adults, regeneration is required as a qualification for baptism. Besides, was not the dying thief a believer? Was not Cornelius a devout man, and one that

feared God, and one that had receiv ed the Holy Ghost, previous to his baptism? Did not the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, receive the word with joy, and, of course, believe, before they were baptized? But the case of the eunuch is decisive. "The eunuch said, see here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Mayest what? Mayest be baptized, i. e. regenerated, according to the doctrine under examination. But "whoso ever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." If then the eunuch did believe with all his heart, he was already regenerated; yet this was required as the condi tion on which he was entitled to receive baptism. The ordinance of baptism, therefore, is not regeneration, nor has it any necessary connection with regeneration. On the contrary, no adult person possesses the requisite qualification for bap tism, till he has been already regenerated.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH.*

A THOROUGH knowledge of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church is daily becoming more important to every evangelical minister, and in fact to the whole Chris

The Council of Trent: comprising an account of the proceedings of that Assembly; and illustrating the spirit and tendency of Popery. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication. 1841.

A Synopsis of the Moral Theology of Peter Dens, as prepared for the use of Romish Seminaries and Students of Theology. Translated from the Latin of the Mechlin edition of 1838, by Joseph F. Berg, formerly Professor of Latin and Greek in Marshall College. Third edition. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1842.

Symbolism: or Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences between Catholics and

tian world. We had almost said that it is indispensable to the faithful discharge of the duties of the ministry in that great conflict be tween truth and error which God has cast upon our times. A know. ledge of these doctrines will enable us to understand the Gospel better, and to appreciate more highly its simple truths; it will qualify us to contend against some of the most

Protestants as evidenced by their symbolical writings; by John Adam Moehler, D. D., Dean of Wurzburg, and late Professor of Theology at the University of Munich. Translated from the German by James Burton Robertson, Esq., trans lator of Schlegel's Philosophy of His tory. New York, published by Edward Dunigan, No. 151 Fulton St. 1844.

fatal errors which have ever enslaved the human mind, and will assist us in our endeavors to release those who, under these delusions, have been "all their lifetime subject to bondage."

It is but just to Roman Catholics themselves, that we should careful ly investigate their system of belief before we oppose it. Nothing is gained in any controversy by misrepresenting the views of an opponent; but in that controversy in which all evangelical Protestants have enlisted simultaneously against the Roman Catholic system, a controversy about the very foundations of our faith-the cause of truth, the cause of the Bible, the cause of the world's salvation, demands that the natures of these conflicting systems and the differences between them, should be fairly represented, and universally made known.

It is with this view that we now proceed to lay before our readers an outline of the Roman Catholic system of faith. We shall endeavor to present it with so much accuracy and fidelity as to entitle it to the confidence of those who can not have access to the authorities from which it is derived. We hope, indeed, to exhibit this system with so much fairness that even Romanists may apprehend the precise doctrinal differences between themselves and Protestants, and see wherein they have departed from the true faith. With the church of Rome as she appears in history we have no concern; we are to look at her simply as she appears in her symbols of faith, and in her standard authors. In these will be found much that is sound and scriptural, mingled, however, with much that is opposed both to Scripture and common sense. At times the two are so closely interwoven as to give much perplexity to the unpracticed

[blocks in formation]

authorities on which we rely in the following statements. The first and most important of these is the Council of Trent. This council, among Roman Catholics, is the high court of appeal in matters of faith. Its decrees are decisive. It is referred to by all standard Roman Catholic writers as the highest authority known to their church. It was the last ecumenical or general council, though some Romanists have disputed its title to the name.* A general council is one to which the bishops of the whole world are summoned, (though it is not necessary that they should all assemble,) and over which the Pope himself presides, either in person or by his legates. The right of convoking a general council, or presiding over it, of approving its measures, and of continuing or dissolving it, belongs exclusively to the Pope as the head of the church; and no synod can have the authority of a general council without his sanction. There have been eighteen approved general councils since the time of the Apostles; but there is much diversity of opinion among Roman Catholic authors as to which councils are entitled to the name 66 general," and some slight variation in respect to the whole number. That general councils approved by the supreme pontiff, can not err in defining matters of faith and practice, is an established article of faith; so that they are at once regarded as heretics who presume to call in question any thing decreed by such councils; whence St. Gregory (lib. i, epis. 24) says, that "he received and venerated the first four coun

"The council of Trent comprised 186 Italians, 35 Spaniards, 27 Frenchmen, 6 Germans, 6 Greeks, 3 Portuguese, 3 IIlyricans, 3 Irishmen, 2 Flemings, 2 Hungarians, 2 Poles, 1 Moravian, I Croatian, and 1 Englishman; nor were there always 50 prelates in attendance, or even 30, at each session."-Blair's Letters on the Revival of Popery, Let. 16.

The council of Trent was summoned by a bull of Paul III. The necessity of convening a general council had been repeatedly urged upon the pontiffs from the days of Leo X. The flagrant corruptions of the church demanded reformation; the bishops longed for an opportunity to assert their rights, in opposition to the encroachments of the monastic orders, which were under the control of the Pope and furthered his aggrandizement; the political powers of Europe looked to a general council as the means of allaying excitement and healing dissension throughout their dominions, as well as of restraining ecclesiastical usurpation; while the rapid spread of the Reformation called either for a compromise with its leaders, or for vigorous measures to suppress it.

cils, just as the books of the holy had embraced Luther's opinions, degospel."* sired the council with condition that therein all might be decided and governed by the Scripture, all the Pope's constitutions and school learning being excluded; for so they as sured themselves, not only to defend their own doctrine, but also that only theirs should be approved. But a council that should proceed as the use was eight hundred years before, they would not, and would be understood that they referred not themselves to that censure. And Martin was used to say, that in Worms he was too faint-hearted, and that he was so well assured of his doctrine, that it being divine, he would not submit so much as to the judgment of angels; yea, that with it he was to judge all, both men and angels. The princes and other governors of the countries regarded not much what the council might determine concerning doctrines, but desired it might be such a one as might reduce the priests and friars to their beginning, hoping that by that means the regalities and tem poral jurisdictions would return to them, which in such abundance and plenty were passed into the ecclesiastical order. And therefore they said that it was in vain to call a council where the bishops and other prelates only should have a deliberative voice, because they ought to be reformed, and it was necessary that others should have the charge thereof, who could not be deceived by their proper interests, nor constrained to resolve against the common good of Christendom. The meaner sort, though they had not much knowledge of the affairs of the world, desired that the ecclesiastical authority might be moderated, and the poor people not burdened with so many exactions, under pretense of tithes, alms, and indulgences, nor oppressed by the bishops' officials under color of cor rections and sentences. The court of Rome, the most principal part,

66

When Leo issued his bull giving validity to indulgences, (Nov. 9, 1518,) Luther, "seeing clearly that from Rome and from the Pope, he could look for nothing but condemnation," set forth an appeal to a general council; but though his appeal went throughout all Germany, and was read by many and esteemed reasonable," Leo was too wary to grant the bold reformer such a public opportunity of vindicating his opinions. Nevertheless "Leo's bull extinguished not the fire that was kindled in those parts." The diversity of interests claiming the attention of a general council, and of motives actuating those who urged its convocation, as set forth by Father Paul,† strikingly exhibits the ecclesiastical condition of Europe in the beginning of the sixteenth century. "First those that

* Dens, Tractatus de Ecclesia, tom. 2, Nos. 86-90. The superiority of the Pope to a general council is a disputed point, but the prevailing doctrine is that which Dens lays down.

History of Council of Trent, lib. i,

Бес. 50.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »