1. And first we may remark, that the connexion is of such a character as
to lead the Apostles when addressing their converts to assume the
spiritual gift to have been received wherever the outward sacrament had
been administered. The language of St. Paul to the Corinthians may
illustrate what we mean. He is addressing a body of professing
Christians, of persons baptized in the name of Jesus, and he assumes
without the least caution or qualification that they were really what
they professed to be, true, devoted, regenerate believers. “Unto the
church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ
Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the
name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” (1 Cor. i. 2.) So
also, as baptism was the visible act of union, he assumes that the Holy
Spirit had been pleased to accompany it, and that they had been really
united to their Lord; as, for example, when he says “By one Spirit are ye
all baptized into one body.” The same remark may be made of almost every
passage in which mention is made to believers of their baptism. The
Apostles gave free scope to their affectionate and hopeful interest; they
addressed professors on the assumption that they were in fact what they
were in profession; that they had received the gift of which they had
received the sign and seal.
2. But secondly we may remark, that in the doctrinal statements of the
Word of God the spiritual grace is proved to be separable from the
outward sign.
As there are some passages where baptized believers are addressed, so
there are others in which the doctrines of the gospel are defined and
taught. The former correspond to the Liturgy, the latter to the Articles
of our Church. It is very important to observe this distinction; for in
the different classes of passages different modes of expression must be
expected. Of course the whole of sacred Scripture, being inspired by the
same Spirit, speaks the same truth; but it is one of the perfections of
the Bible that it conveys truth in every form both of statement and
application. We are bound, therefore, to study these various forms; and
without doing so, we can never hope either to receive or convey the mind
of God. Now it is obvious we should naturally look for the principle of
assumption in that class of passages in which our baptismal privileges
are made the subject of personal appeal. If regeneration were not
assumed, the appeal would be altogether powerless. If the writer were to
pause to fence in his argument, and check himself by his expository
cautions, the whole address would be stripped of force and interest.
When St. Paul, _e.g._, with an overflowing heart, writes to the
Colossians, “Put on therefore as the elect of God, holy and beloved,
bowels of mercies, &c.,” he cannot stop to caution them against
presumption, or to point out the necessary signs of their election. Just
so in addressing baptized persons, he appeals to them as regenerate
without destroying the force of his address by cautions as to the nature
of regeneration. Such cautions are given in the doctrinal passages of
the Scriptures. To these, therefore, we must turn for exact and
dogmatical statements of Christian truth. Now, as in the hortatory
addresses of the Apostles, regeneration is invariably assumed until sad
facts prove the contrary; so in the doctrinal statements of the Bible
invariable grace is no less explicitly denied.
(1.) In such passages it is laid down as a general law of God’s kingdom
that no outward ordinances whatever can invariably convey divine grace.
It is our privilege, as believers, to expect His presence while in the
way of His judgments we wait for His blessing; but “God is a Spirit and
they that worship must worship Him in spirit and in truth,” nor are we
anywhere warranted in asserting that any act on man’s part is invariably
accompanied with any gift on God’s part. He does not bind His gifts to
our actions, even if those actions be hallowed by His own authority.
Only examine his language respecting all His appointed ordinances.
_Circumcision_. “He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is
that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which
is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit,
and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Rom. ii.
28, 29.)
_Sacrifice_. Great blessings were attached to sacrifices, but not
invariably; for “The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much
more when he bringeth it with a wicked mind.” (Prov. xxi. 27.)
_Prayer_. We know the rich promises attached by God to prayer; but
prayer itself may be powerless; for “He that turneth away his ear from
hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” (Prov. xxviii.
9.)
_Preaching_. There is scarcely any ordinance to which such language is
applied as is used of preaching. It is “the power of God” (1 Cor. i.
18); the channel by which “faith cometh” (Rom x. 17); an instrument of
the new birth (1 Peter i. 23, 25); and nothing less than a means of
salvation to the hearer (1 Tim. iv. 16). Yet we must not argue even from
this that the personal benefit is invariable; for “The preaching of the
cross is to them that perish foolishness.” (1 Cor. i. 18.)
But are not the two _sacraments_ an exception? Certainly not that of the
Lord’s Supper. The blessing connected with this sacrament is the highest
and choicest of which the Christian soul is capable, even the communion
of the body and blood of Christ our Saviour. But this is not invariably
given, for in some cases the communion is a curse and not a blessing.
“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” (1 Cor. xi. 29.)
We should gather, therefore, from the harmony of God’s dealings, that the
spiritual grace was not invariably attached to the outward sign in
Baptism. We find that under every dispensation He attached certain moral
conditions, such as faith and repentance, which were pre-requisites, to
any special grace conveyed by His ordinances. If Baptism be an exception
to this general law we should expect to find some statement to this
effect in sacred Scripture. If there be any deviation from God’s wonted
principles of religious government we should naturally expect to find the
deviation explicitly taught. We might reasonably look for some
dogmatical passage in which it is declared that every baptized person is
invariably made one with Christ. But it we look in vain for such a
passage. There are texts in which the connexion is assumed, but we may
safely assert that there is not one single passage in which, as a matter
of doctrine, invariability is either taught or proved. If, however, it
be an exception to the general law, it must be so from one of two causes.
Either there must be something peculiar in its nature as a sacrament,
which makes the connexion sacramentally invariable without reference to
moral character, or there must be something in the moral character of the
recipient which invariably insures the blessing.
That there is nothing peculiar in its nature as a sacrament is amply
proved by the language of St. Peter. “The like figure whereunto baptism
doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience towards God), by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet iii. 21). A certain character is here asserted to
be needful in the recipient: the blessing is not given unless there be
the answer of a good conscience towards God; and there is no sacramental
peculiarity which excepts Baptism from the general law, and attaches the
gift invariably to the sign.
It is argued, however, that infants oppose no obstacle to the operation
of Divine grace, and, therefore that in their case the moral character of
the recipient invariably insures the blessing. We are not about to
discuss this question, for it is not amongst “the things that are
written.” There is not a word upon the subject in the Scriptures, and,
therefore, we can only expect to be perplexed and led astray when we
attempt to define and to determine. This, only, we would remark—that
there is no argument drawn from the moral innocence of infants to prove
their invariable regeneration, which would not equally prove that Esau
was as much a child of God as Jacob. They were born on the same day, and
of the same parents; they were circumcised by the same persons under the
same circumstances, and we leave it to those who believe God’s gifts to
become invariable through the moral innocence of infants to explain the
words of God himself, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom.
ix. 13.)
(2.) Again, In all the doctrinal passages of Scripture the new birth is
said to be invariably accompanied by holiness of personal character.
Only refer to the first epistle of St. John, “Whosoever is born of God
doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and
the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of
God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1 John iii. 9, 10.)
“Everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth
not, knoweth not God; for God is love.” (1 John iv. 7, 8.) “Whatsoever
is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1 John v. 4.) “We know that
whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God
keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” (1 John v. 18.)
There are some acknowledged difficulties in these passages; but we make a
fearless appeal to any unprejudiced mind: do they not teach beyond the
possibility of controversy that the man without faith and without love is
not born of God, and that we have no scriptural warrant for calling those
regenerate who grow up in sin, who spend their strength in sin, and who
go to the grave with the curse of unrepented sin upon their heads?
(3.) The practice of the Apostles accords with these doctrinal
statements. They always assumed regeneration in baptized professors
until sad facts proved the contrary; but there was a limit to this
assumption. And when these sad facts occurred, they declared in language
the most explicit that such characters were not regenerate by God.
The language of St. Peter to Simon Magus in Acts viii, 21, is not
addressed to him as to a regenerate man in a state of inconsistency; but
to an unregenerate man in a state of false profession. In one sense
Simon had believed. Like the devils he had been convinced, but he had no
union with his Saviour either before his baptism or after it; and though
on the principle of assumption the inspired Apostle had sanctioned his
baptism on his profession, on the principle of Christian truth he
pronounced him reprobate on the manifestation of his sin. “Thou hast
neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the
sight of God.”
The language of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians is of the same
character. In 2 Cor. xiii, 5, he says, “Examine yourselves, whether ye
be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how
that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” The word here
rendered “reprobate” is the word which would be applied to false coinage
when tested and found wanting. Those, therefore, who were not in the
faith were regarded by St. Paul not as regenerate persons who were
inconsistent, but as base metal; persons who bore the outward sign of
Christianity, but who were not really regenerate, and were, therefore,
enjoying no real union with the Lord Jesus.
Just so St. John wrote of those who had apostatized from the faith. (1
John ii, 19.) “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if
they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they
went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
In these words there are three things carefully to be observed. First:
The persons alluded to must have been baptized professors, who at one
time had been in fellowship with the Apostles, for it is quite impossible
to suppose them unbaptized at the time when they were “with us,” _i.e._
in union and communion with the Church. Secondly: These persons had
broken off from this communion, and were openly antichristian in their
principles. Thirdly: St. John explains their conduct upon the principle
that they had never been what they had professed to be, and describes
their desertion of the truth as a manifestation of their real, though
previously hidden, character. On the principle of assumption they had
been received into the fellowship of the Church of God; but they were
condemned as reprobates as soon as sad facts made manifest the falsehood
of their profession. We should not fear to rest the whole question of
invariable regeneration in baptism upon this one single text. It is
impossible to suppose them unbaptized, and with the inspired Word before
us it is equally impossible to regard them as regenerate.
While, therefore, in their hortatory addresses the inspired Apostles
always assumed the gift to have been imparted whenever the sacrament had
been received, in their doctrinal statements of Divine truth they taught
plainly that baptized unbelievers are not to be regarded as regenerate,
and that in accordance with the general law of God’s kingdom the outward
sign of Baptism may be unaccompanied by the inward gift.
We proceed, then, to our next subject of inquiry, namely, the teaching of
the Church of England.
As Churchmen we cannot fail to be most deeply interested in the truth and
consistency of our Church’s system; and when we see it attacked on the
one hand, and misapplied on the other, it is truly refreshing to the
spirit to be able to bring it fearlessly to the test of God’s unerring
word. By the Bible, then, let us boldly try the