Part 2

It is evident that our twenty-seventh Article contemplated, in the body of it, the baptism of adults, spiritually born. And though our ritual prefers to _pray_ for the HOLY SPIRIT, that they may _then_ surely have His regenerating grace, to presuming on the previous certainty of its experience; yet the certain answer to this prayer is assuredly taken for granted as the ceremony proceeds; inasmuch as the acts of living souls are forthwith required of the subjects _before_ they are baptized; namely, that they can speak spiritually, and deliver “the answer of a good conscience before God” in the exercise of repentance and faith, and the avowal of them. And so it is observable, that though our form of _infant baptism_ prefers to _implore_ regeneration _then_, to presuming certainly that the infant _is_ regenerated ere he comes, yet the fact is _presumed_ to be granted _previously_ to the answers being made; for they are the answers of a new-born soul. Charity afterwards hopeth all things, though often disappointed. And thus our church uniformly goes upon the apostolic rule, given in answer to the question, “What doth hinder me to be baptized?” viz., “_If thou believest with all thine heart_, (which is the fruit of regenerating grace, {22a}) thou mayest.” A heart, even in infants, that would show faith, if organs served, is presumed to be; for “except they be born again, they cannot see the kingdom of GOD.” {22b} The law has no exception.

The terms _baptize_ and _baptism_ are used in Scripture to express the spiritual regeneration as well as the mystical. On the one hand, we hear of “the _Baptism_ of John;” “I indeed _baptize_ you with water;” “he that believeth and is _baptized_, shall be saved;” “CHRIST sent me not to _baptize_;” “there is one _baptism_;” “they were _baptized_ in the name of JESUS;” “_baptizing_ them in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST;” and many other instances, having reference only to baptism with water. On the other hand, we read, with reference to _spiritual_ baptism, “He shall _baptize you_,” saith John, concerning Jesus, “_with the HOLY GHOST_ and fire;” {23a} where water is not contemplated: “_By one SPIRIT are_ we all” “_baptized_ into one body.” {23b} “So many of us as were baptized into JESUS CHRIST, were baptized into His death. Therefore we are buried with Him by the _baptism unto death_, that like as CHRIST was raised from the dead by the glory of the FATHER, even so we also should walk in _newness of life_. Our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed;” and that we should “yield ourselves unto GOD, as those that are _alive from the dead_.” {23c} And St. Peter, speaking of the salvation of Noah through the flood, says, “The antitype, or counterpart, of which, even _baptism_, doth also now save us; not the putting away of the filth of the _flesh_,” (which is of water baptism,) “but the answer of a _good conscience_ towards GOD,” (which is of spiritual baptism,) “by the resurrection of JESUS CHRIST from the dead.” You have it {24a} also, where the apostle speaks of the Colossians as “circumcised with the circumcision made without hands,” and “_buried_ with CHRIST in _baptism_, wherein also they were _risen with Him through faith_ of the operation of GOD, and _quickened together with Him_.” {24b}

Now, whether this latter _baptism_ is, or is not, ever without the former, and the washing of the SPIRIT only synchronous, or not, with that of water; it is unquestionably evident that the two things are perfectly _distinct_, the one from the other.

Proceed, however, a step further, and observe that it is not water baptism which the HOLY oracles speak of as the mean, instrument, or channel, of spiritual baptism or regeneration, but _the Holy Scriptures themselves_ without it; and immediately the general _separation_ of the two is as clear as the distinction between them. “Of His own will,” saith St. James, “begat He us with _the word of truth_.” {24c} “Being born again,” saith St. Peter, “not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by _the word of GOD_, which liveth and abideth for ever.” “And this is the word, which by the Gospel, (not water-baptism,) is preached unto you.” {25a} And add to this, concerning the thousands of outwardly baptized sinners, the testimony of St. John, that “_whosoever is born of GOD doth not commit sin_; _in this_ the children of GOD are manifest, and the children of the devil, _whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of GOD_;” {25b} and the proof is conclusive, that in the formal baptism of these thousands upon thousands, who do so commit sin, no regeneration of GOD was ever experienced at all. The separation is clear. Men are born, without water-baptism, by the SPIRIT and the word; multitudes have it, and are never born of GOD at all. {25c}

Against all this, however, the system of the Anglo-catholics speaketh on this wise:—“The Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers declare, with united voice, that regeneration takes place at baptism. But they go farther; they tell us very definitely what regeneration is; they tell us that it is an engrafting into CHRIST; a new creation in CHRIST; and by consequence, that all the gifts of grace are actually and really imparted to us in baptism; that in short we are justified, sanctified, quickened, crucified with Christ, planted together in the likeness of His death, risen with Him by the power of His resurrection, and seated with Him in heavenly places; and that all this is effected by baptism.” {26} This is in a sermon entitled “Nehushtan, or an Attempt to break the Trifle of Brass.” And this Nehushtan is the doctrine of justification by faith; concerning which I refer you to the glory of our Articles, the eleventh; and then I close this point with the plain question, _Who_ are the true members of the Church of England; and with whom is the SPIRIT of the Holy Scriptures, the SPIRIT of the martyrs of the Reformation, the SPIRIT of the living GOD, the HOLY GHOST? He cannot be with both.

_f_. The assigning of regeneration and remission of sins to _outward_ baptism gives immediate occasion to many other errors: but to one in particular, of a very lamentable character. I mean the deplorable, and all but hopeless condition of those, who sin away their regeneration, and their plenary remission received in baptism; as innumerable multitudes are held to do. “The great majority,” say the Anglo-catholics, “die under the bond of their sins;” yet so far “under GOD’S favour,” that if they pray, and fast, and give alms, and confess, mourn, and judge, humble, afflict, and abhor themselves, they may peradventure obtain pardon somewhere, plenary pardon; though it cannot be granted them any more in this life! {27a} And that somewhere, is Purgatory, plainly avowed! {27b}

All this ministers strongly to the authority of a priesthood, in confessions, partial absolutions, and penances; {27c} but our Church (Art. 22) seems to us to say that it is plainly repugnant to the word of GOD: and so we believe. Certainly, therefore, the HOLY GHOST is not with _one_ portion of us in this matter. We know of no condition, except that of blaspheming against the HOLY GHOST, in which, “if we confess our sins, GOD is” not “faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness;” and, “if _any_ man sin, we have an advocate with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins.”

_g_. I shall not go over the same ground again, with reference to the sacrament of the holy Communion, as I have done with respect to Baptism, but state little more than that the way, in which the Anglo-catholics treat it, is precisely similar.

Spiritual communion in the body and blood of CHRIST, which we hold that believers _always may enjoy by faith_ in the living _words of CHRIST_, the Anglo-catholics bind inseparably to the sign or sacrament thereof; namely to the bread and wine, and the sacred ceremonial. _Their_ body and blood of CHRIST is the bread and wine _made so_ by their priests, and given only by their means to the people. “The sacraments,” to the exclusion of other ordinances, “are (with them) the sources of divine grace.” {28a} One is the very and only womb of regeneration itself; the other the only breast that nurses the child of GOD with the very body and blood of CHRIST. These _forms_ their clergy can handle and talk about, and they reservedly hint at the work of the SPIRIT of GOD in them: howbeit of spiritual life and spiritual communion, as things distinct from them, and much more large, and of other times and places, and means also, they profess to believe nothing. They hold the SPIRIT of GOD mostly within their own sources; and the body and blood of CHRIST quite at their own disposal. {28b}

Now, when our SAVIOUR says, “Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you,” and it is held that the _baptized_ have life, _though they have not come_ to the table of the LORD; it will needs be granted that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of CHRIST is a thing _previous_ to coming to that holy table: therefore it may be, as no doubt it is, _after_ coming thither also; of course in _other_ places and by the use of _other_ means. JESUS says, therefore, “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life:” and when He would save them from the delusive idea of eating His carnal body and blood, He tells them “it is the SPIRIT,” that is, the HOLY GHOST taking of the things of CHRIST, and showing them unto us spiritually, “_that quickeneth_,” ministereth life; and then he refers them for the means, not to any contemplated sign or sacrament, but to _His words_ attended by His SPIRIT: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In them believers have their constant food.

The very flesh of CHRIST itself, if they could have it in a literal sense, would profit them nothing; all that is effective being the “ministration of the SPIRIT.” Even in the sacrament, the WORD, thought of, and received by faith of the operation of the HOLY GHOST, is that medium by which the SPIRIT most properly conveys the SAVIOUR to the soul. The bread and wine have no more in them than the character of the most beautiful, significant sign or sacrament of so great a thing: just as the king’s letters, and not his picture, even in the most affecting transactions of his life or death, would really convey the presence of his mind and attributes to his people.

It is, however, habitually true of this sacrament, though not so of the other, that it is _A means_ (not THE means) whereby the inward and spiritual _grace signified_ is received by the faithful.

But if the same precision were used in a review of our Liturgy and Catechism, as was exercised in the framing of our Articles, we might avoid asserting anywhere, as well as in the latter, that the sacraments are means of the grace signified, without the loss of anything essential; and so we should be saved from predicating _that_ in the _definition_ of a thing, which is proved not to be universally true of it. We might be saved from seeming to affirm that we are made children of GOD _spiritually_ by formal baptism, when in fact it is only _formally_ that we are thereby made so; or by baptism are regenerate. That sacraments are _signs_ and _seals_ to the faithful of the inward and spiritual grace signified is universally true, and therefore proper in a definition of them: that they are _means_ thereof, _or pledges_, {30} is not universally true, and therefore improper in a definition, though true in part. And our conflicts upon the subject will never be put an end to until our church clearly expresses herself agreeably to the distinction and separability between things spiritual and things formal. {31a}

It does not appear that any of the principal Protestant Confessions of faith affirm the sacraments to be _means_ of _the_ special grace signified by them, except the Augsburg, which is the Lutheran. And if it is generally to this that the English articles are to be traced, the difference of the latter from the former upon this particular point can scarcely be otherwise than purposely intended. {31b}

When our Anglo-catholic brethren seem as if they would “not oppose anything existing,” {31b} or touch so much as an iota of our Anglican Confession in _verbal_ alterations, and yet hesitate not deliberately to sharpen their weapons, and at a few gashes to embowel it of its vitals; (I allude to the ninetieth Tract;) if they describe our church as “teaching with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies,” and as “incomplete in her formal doctrine and discipline,” and would totally change her Protestant character by _introductions_ from the Roman Breviary and Missal;—with all this havoc of change before us, it is a small matter to desire merely a clearer distinction between formal and spiritual things, or any other sanatory touch of like character, which would fulfil the work of the Reformation, instead of thoroughly undoing it, {32a} as _they_ design to do.

In such a process we should be casting off the last frontlet of our _ancient_ grave-clothes, and putting a crown of pure gold upon our head. Rome would have done with us for ever, and we with Rome; and our separated brethren of other communions would see the way opening for re-union to an unlimited extent.

_g_. The essentials of the OFFICE and WORK of the ministry, as propounded on either side, constitute another very material ground of difference. {32b}

We are, I suppose, agreed that the _first_ essential of the OFFICE is, that we be clearly called to it, and effectually sustained in it, by the HOLY GHOST. But when we come to the outward and visible proofs of this call and this supporting power, then we differ. The Anglo-catholics consider it essential to be ordained by bishops receiving their appointment in regular succession from the apostles; as that, without which no benefit of sacraments or other ministrations can be imparted, nor, in fact, any church exist. The Anglo-protestants, on the other hand, attach not the same importance to the apostolical succession of bishops; and will say with Melancthon, “When bishops do not teach the truth, an ordinary succession avails nothing to the church;” {33a} and they hold that the appointment of a bishop by presbyters among themselves is valid. They consider the laying on of the hands of a bishop and others of the presbytery, to be the most scriptural Ordination of presbyters, and best for their own church; {33b} yet not so essential to the being of a church but that Ordination without a bishop may be valid, and is so in other churches, and has scriptural succession in its Presbytery.

By the former, it is assumed, that the HOLY GHOST is given in ordination to all who are thus ordained, for the custody of the good deposit, the fundamentals of doctrine and practice, and all other parts of their office; and that through these ministers alone the people can derive sacramental grace; and if this ordination once be given, it is of itself the grand, essential, and sufficient proof of a true minister, and of the abiding of the HOLY GHOST, with him continually.

Now, it is true that we hold, that an evil minister, incurring even deposition by our discipline, does not necessarily prevent the communications of divine grace to the souls of men in the ministration of the word and sacraments. But we hold also that he is to be deposed, and that there is something vastly contrary to the true system of things in his being where he is; though GOD has acted with inscrutable wisdom in having suffered it. But unless ministers continually prove by all the “fruits of the SPIRIT,” that the SPIRIT of GOD is with them, their ordination does nothing for them in our esteem, but load them with extraordinary sin and guilt. It is expected, that they be “not of the world;” though it is not by monasteries that they are to go out of it; but by keeping themselves unspotted from the sins and vanities and pomps of it; while their light shines before men in doing good in it, for the glory of their heavenly FATHER. Their love of souls dictates zeal and labour and self-denial and holy co-operation. They weep and pray and wrestle with GOD for blessings on their unworthy ministrations; they reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine; they humble the proud to penitence without penance; they comfort the feeble-minded, and heal the broken-hearted, without the unhallowed domination of confessionals, or absolutions other than declarative or merely ecclesiastical; {35} and they are conscious of maintaining, (without forced explanations,) an honest consistency, in doctrine and practice, with the plain meaning of their own articles and of Holy Scripture. These and all other fruits of the SPIRIT, love, joy, peace, long-suffering gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance;—these are their essential proofs of office; without which the form of Ordination would be nothing but a heavy grief to them. It always has been, moreover, and I believe it ever would be, did circumstances lead to it, the blessedness and glory of these men to die as martyrs for their faith. The love of CHRIST would constrain them to do it joyfully. Few indeed are the clear instances of any other kind of religious persecutions unto death; while the thousands upon thousands of those who have been the _usual_ martyrs for CHRIST, have been, not of the Anglo-catholic, but of the Evangelical faith. The _Reformers_ are granted to us: the _Huguenots_, the _Waldenses_, the _Lollards_ and _Hussites_, the _Paulicians_, the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, &c., have all been of the same confession of faith and the same character. But, alas! if the likeness of the Anglo-catholic creed and practices to Popery be considered, how near are the professors of that creed most fearfully coming to the character of the accusers of the brethren, the persecutors of the saints, the very crucifiers of the LORD OF GLORY! With whom then is the HOLY GHOST to be supposed to be?

So, with respect to the essentials of ministerial WORK, they say that “the Church,” i.e. the Clergy, and _her sacraments_, are the ordained and visible means of conveying to the soul what is supernatural and unseen. {37} “The sacraments, _not_ preaching, are the sources of divine grace.” We do not disparage the sacraments; but we say that in holy Scripture preaching has the pre-eminence; preaching the Gospel of CHRIST, “the everlasting Gospel,” “the Gospel of salvation,” “the glorious Gospel of the blessed GOD.” And I am anxious that we should all feel this, understand it well, and study to be “able ministers of the New Testament.” The Anglo-catholic doctrine of the wonderful importance of sacramental grace and of the mysterious dignity and power of the priesthood in connexion with it, is a comparative nullifying of the great commission of CHRIST, “Go ye into all the world, and _preach the Gospel to every creature_; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.” CHRIST also sent the apostle Paul, “not” with a commission, “to baptize,” though he did baptize; “but to preach the Gospel.” And his triumphant argument for preaching, as the grand mean of grace, and faith, and salvation, will never be overcome. “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed; and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard; and how shall they hear _without __a preacher_; and how shall they preach except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that _preach the Gospel of peace_, _and bring glad tidings of good things_!” {38a} Of regeneration itself as produced by the special instrumentality of the word, we have already heard: and so also the remission of sins; for “be it known unto you,” says St. Paul to the people of Antioch in Pisidia, “that through this man is _preached_ unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” {38b} The Acts of the Apostles, in fact, are full of it. By the foolishness of _preaching_ it has always pleased GOD to save them that believe, incomparably more than by any other means. And forasmuch as the ministers and stewards of GOD’S mysteries “cannot,” (as our Ordination Service speaks,) “by any other means compass the doing of so weighty a work, pertaining to the salvation of man, but with _doctrine and exhortation taken out of the Holy Scriptures_, and with a life agreeable to the same,” the assiduous study and preaching of the Holy Scriptures have been the main subject of the charge given to them, from the days of Timothy to the present. With ministering “the Holy Sacraments” they have been most solemnly intrusted; but with _preaching the word CHIEFLY_: and to _this_ has the “success” of their ministry been consigned. {39a} This is that which, (as Anglo-catholic teachers affirm,) “to say the least, Scripture has never much recommended;” an assertion very much to be blamed, as very untrue. {39b}

Now they who are not sensible of the inconceivable importance of preaching, will not _seek_ the SPIRIT of preaching, neither will they _have_ Him, if they do not ask for Him to be given them. The word, to be “the power of GOD unto salvation,” must be “preached _with the HOLY GHOST_ sent down from heaven,” {39c} “not in the words of man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the SPIRIT and of power.” {39d}

I feel convinced, that after all this, my main position will be generally admitted to be extremely probable, if not certainly proved; that we cannot on both sides, have the HOLY GHOST in the ministrations I have described, though both lay claim to His presence and power in them. {39e}

* * * * *

III. I now, therefore, intreat your permission briefly to press a third position on your serious consideration, namely, _that whoever of us have Him NOT_, _they are under most FEARFUL GUILT in PRETENDING to His presence_.

We all make the pretension. We are guilty therefore, it is to be feared, on one side or the other: deeply guilty!

_a_. The guilt is that of _being false_; of lying in some things _concerning_ the HOLY GHOST, and in some things _unto_ Him, when false before His saints in whom He dwells. Are we incurring then the very guilt of Ananias and Sapphira? Let us fear their condemnation.

_b_. Our guilt is also that of _resisting_ the HOLY GHOST, in His _truth_, in His _work_, in His _people_. If we have not known the ways of GOD aright, we have erred in our hearts and hardened them,—against what the HOLY GHOST saith, “Harden not your hearts;” and hereby He is grieved: and the result is that GOD swears in His wrath, that we shall not enter into His rest. {40}