페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

of the soul :" but that the "change of mind-the renewal of the soul-are no part of baptismal regeneration; they are distinct in themselves, and take place at different times."

Here, certainly, we very widely disagree, for--first, There are here two distinct and separate regenerations taught, differing both in nature and time; the one consisting in the "renewal of the soul;" the other of the inestimable privileges" of the Gospel :"-secondly, This would sever a new nature, including faith and repentance, from pardon of sin and eternal life, and would make each regeneration useless without the other; or else a baptised person might have eternal life, without a new heart, and an unbaptised person might perish with it!! It would seem, indeed, that the opinion of every person who separates, as Bishop Bethell also does, holiness of nature from regeneration, must be involved in the same inconvenience. So dangerous is it to separate what God has united!

Some appear to describe regeneration as a certain latent kind of seed in the soul, which may afterwards be brought into a real change of nature, but which is not considered to be such at its commencement. And others speak of it as "some special gracious effect," which is not easily defined, but which is still intended to be understood in a sense, not inclusive of a holy change of nature.

There are two essential objections in the way of such an application of the term Regeneration. The one is, what we have just been proving, that the interpretation is not the right one. The other is this: their interpretation will not remove the difficulty which its adoption is expressly intended to obviate. For, either these interpretations are intended to meet and to embrace the church language, or they are not. If they are not, it is very manifest that no end is answered by them; they are perfectly useless. If they are intended to meet it, how do they answer the design? This seminal kind of grace, laid up for the acceptance and use of the mind " as the faculties ripen," whether it apply to infants or adults, does not appear to be considered as any real regeneration now. How, then, can the church doctrine of " Regeneration" be satisfied by it? It is clearly inadequate and nugatory.

[ocr errors]

It is contended by another, who has many advocates, * Bishop Hopkins.

that though it be manifestly proved, that spiritual regeneration, as taught by our church, is a moral change of the heart and affections into the image of God-and thus the idea which confines regeneration to baptism cannot be supported-yet, there may be a "two-fold" doctrine of regeneration taught in our offices, somewhat differently modified, perhaps, from the one just noticed. And that this must be admitted, in order to explain how the church connects regeneration with baptism, and yet teaches a spiritual regeneration, which does not always take place at baptism. A sentiment thus authorised, and not unfrequently adopted among men of piety and intelligence, should not be lightly regarded; and therefore we will submit it to a careful examination.

This prelate (with whom another* also appears to unite) says, "There are two ways of dedication to God;-the one external by men ;-the other wrought by God himself, by the operation of the Holy Ghost." p. 417.

[ocr errors]

He further adds, that, "as there is this two-fold dedication and separation, so there is also a two-fold sanctification-there is an external, relative, or ecclesiastical sanctification-there is an internal, real, and spiritual sanctification. Reference is made to the baptismal offices: there he says, respecting infants (but we must not forget that the same is said in the office respecting adults), "They are regenerated as they are incorporated into the church of Christ." Again, "Infants therefore are in baptism regenerated by the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Spirit of God appoints this ordinance to receive them into the visible church, which is the regenerate part and state of the world."+ p. 426. And he says further, that "Baptism is the immediate means of our external and relative sanctification to God.-By this holy sacrament, all that are partakers of it are dedicated and separated to him." p. 418.

Respecting this TWO-FOLD sanctification, the one external

* Bishop Pearson.

+ Though generally true, the author's language here is not universally applicable. "The visible church," though it embrace the chief number, is not correctly identical with the "regenerate part of the world." In this mistake, which perhaps is not uncommon, we shall hereafter perceive, a great deal of the confusion and error on the subject of Baptismal regeneration take their origin.

and relative, effected by men-the other internal and spiritual, wrought by God himself; we would observe, that it appears to us both inexpedient and mischievous. Suppose that a relative regeneration, which necessarily takes place at baptism, were admitted, we cannot perceive its utility; it would neither explain the Scriptures referred to by this prelate, nor the doctrine of our church. If spiritual regeneration be not described in baptism, where is it to be found? And if found or possessed at baptism, how is a relative one also needed? If both are effected or assumed at baptism, what purpose do they serve? There appears to be no use or necessity for two regenerations, unless one is viewed as the handmaid or representative of the other. We conceive that this two-fold dedication will in no sort answer the purposes intended by its adoption:

I. It does not accord with the sanctification and separation of man, as required by the Scriptures and by our church.

We are ready to admit the use of these terms, in their application to external and relative ideas; such as the temple, priests, vessels, vestments, the sacramental elements, and the water of baptism, &c.-and that this dedication is not necessarily any more than "external" or relative."

66

We, however, greatly object to the idea, that when a rational soul is devoted to God, it should be supposed to be only relative. We are satisfied that there is no evidence for this in the Scriptures, or in our Church documents. Material things can only admit of an external dedication. But man can set apart his heart, mind, and affections, to holy purposes. Therefore, God requires these in his law and covenant. This claim, therefore, is admitted as well as pledged and sealed in baptism. Still when men are thus dedicated to God, it is real, not relative devotedness. An office may be called holy, because of its connexion with God and divine things; and persons or things may be called holy which are devoted to such offices. But in baptism, there is no dedication to an office. In that ordinance the person is devoted directly to God-baptism itself is the office or means by which this is effected; but the direct end and ultimate design is devotedness to God; the relation, if any relationship be

really formed, is to Him. There is nothing intermediate or official in this dedication. This, however, is not relative but real sanctification. It is not a relation of alliance but of likeness and conformity-a correspondence of the heart with God.

This idea of separation or sanctification is manifestly taught us by our Saviour, when he says, "for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth.' This implied, in our Lord, "a separation" from the habits of the world, from sin and sinful propensities, and from all compliance with Satan's devices. His conduct under his temptation evidently shews us, that he declined, in all their inviting forms, "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life." This "sanctification," moreover, included a perfect "dedication" of soul and body to the love, service, and will of God. Therefore they," his disciples, being "sanctified through the truth," must do the same :-they were "baptised into his death," his life, his example.

"

Baptism signifies no less, and it demands no more. The baptismal office requires of every person introduced into the church of God and devoted to his service, that he "renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil,”—that he "believe in God and serve him," and that he “ follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and be made like unto him" in all "virtue and godliness of living." These are the essential requirements and design of baptism. If these be complied with, it implies real sanctification: the true, primary and direct aim of baptism, which is the union of the soul with God, is attained. If, however, no change of mind is produced, what is there which can be called sanctification? What is there of a relative nature which has taken place? The relation, which is alone pretended to be sought, is the connexion of the mind with God; this is the only primary and great design-the only profession-the only object. If, then, this relation be genuine, the sanctification is real; the soul is in union and alliance with its Saviour: it bears His sacred image as a child bears the likeness of its parent. To speak then of a person as relatively sanctified to God, under a profession, the only object of which is real sanctification-consisting in the union and likeness of the soul to Him-to speak of a relative sanctification taking place when this relation of

the mind to God does not take place, seems clearly imaginary, and is putting the shadow for the substance and the image for the reality.

We know it is further supposed, that a relation to the church is likewise aimed at; and that this dedication being performed by man, is the "external" and ecclesiastical sanctification and regeneration contended for. To this we reply, that we must not puzzle the inquiry by confounding things that differ: either this dedication means a dedication to God-or to the church, or to both. If to God, or both to the church and God, our previous observations will here apply. If to the church alone, we would then remark

1. That this is confessing that our church, by all she says about the holiness and purity, which we have proved to belong to her doctrine of regeneration, only means this relative sanctification; or, that by this ecclesiastical sanctification which is contended for, the church doctrine of regeneration is not meant. But, if so, the whole point is given up. For the sole question is, what does the church mean by her doctrine of regeneration? The answer, therefore, if it is intended to be an answer, must be—she means this relative or ecclesiastical regeneration. Then it will follow

2. That whatever is said of, and connected with, the church doctrine of regeneration must be true, of all those who are incorporated into the church, and thereby relatively regenerated in baptism. This is manifest. For the church language respecting baptism and regeneration, is expressly intended to be accounted for by this very interpretation. If this be allowed, then they who are incorporated into the church by baptism, must be not only relatively but spiritually "regenerate,"-must be washed and sanctified" by the Holy Ghost," must be " regenerated" by God's "Holy Spirit," and made "his children by adoption and grace,"-must have undergone "a death unto sin and a new-birth unto righteousness;"-yea, must have received "remission of all their sins, and been made heirs of his everlasting kingdom." All this, and whatever else is connected with the regeneration described by our church, must be predicated of every person who is baptised and thus incorporated into the church.-As, however, the above consequences necessarily result from our substi

« 이전계속 »