The scripture doctrine concerning the sacraments and the points connected therewith
None
«3 CL •<5r cc i? _Q. : « o — «*^. IE I r->» ha CL • ^ ^^ ^> fc ^ j5 $ 1 fc <u o C w O bfl rv o 3 fc £ b>3 <* M <*j ^ *s& « CO "& ft 5 <§ o £ Si 1 ■♦-' c a ■ t» 0) CL S~01S THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/scripturedoctrinOOw THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS AND THE POINTS CONNECTED THEREWITH. BY EICHAED TYHATELY, D.D. ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. LONDON: JOHN W. PARKER AND SON, WEST STRAND. 1857. LONDON OAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, OUANDOS STREET. ^CE. rFHIS Tract contains the substance, in an abridged form, of two Charges, treating, respectively, of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Both are, now, nearly, if not entirely, out of print. And publications have appeared, professedly in answer to what I have there said, but containing utter misrepresenta- tions of it, either from inattention, or from sophistical design. I have thought it due therefore to those who wish to know the truth, to put it in their power to form a fair judgment. As it was not my design to bring for- ward any novel views, but to set forth, as plainly as possible, and to support by Scripture-proofs, what I conceive to be the teaching of our Church and of its most VI PREFACE. approved Ministers, I have taken the liberty of quoting largely from the Writ- ings of some well-known Divines. Not that our Church is — as a Church — respon- sible for what is said by individual mem- bers of it ; or that either it, or they, have any claim to infallibility. But some degree of deference is certainly due to the judgments of those who are generally regarded as pious and sound Divines ; especially when treating of matters con- cerning which there have been recent con- troversies, when what they have said was written long before those controversies had arisen. Even those who may not agree with them, and with me, will at least see that there is no novelty in the doctrines maintained. And, in referring to our Formularies, I have considered not only the deference due to such men as our Eeformers, but also the obligation lying on Ministers and other members of the Church, to interpret its words fairly, as long as they remain in PREFACE. Vll connexion with it, and to abstain from torturing its language into a non-natural sense, at variance with the manifest and known intention of the authors. And most especially should those who the most vehemently denounce persons of an oppo- site party for this disingenuous procedure, set an example themselves (which unhap- pily many of them have not done) of fair- ness of interpretation, and honest con- formity to the decisions of the Church. To Scripture, however, the ultimate appeal must be made, as the only infallible guide ; and I have endeavoured in this Tract to put forward, as plainly as pos- sible, what appears to me a most important principle in the interpretation of Scripture : namely, not to be satisfied with any sense whatever that the words can be brought to bear, but to seek for that in which they were originally designed and believed to be understood. In interpreting the Sacred Writers, generally, and not least in deciding whether Vlll PREFACE. some passage is to be taken literally, or figuratively, it is evidently of the first importance to look to the meaning which the expression appears to have con- veyed, at the time, to the persons addressed. This will not always be what might appear to us, in a distant Age and Country, the most obvious sense. But whatever sense the words conveyed to the hearers, we may fairly presume to be the true one, unless some correction was furnished (either immediately or afterwards) of any mistake into which they might have fallen. For we can hardly suppose that the inspired Writers were not aware in what sense they would be understood by those they addressed, or that they would knowingly leave them in error, at least on any point of practical importance. When, for instance, our Lord spoke of Lazarus " sleeping," He was understood at the moment to be speaking literally; and He thereupon explained Himself. On the other hand, when He spoke of his PREFACE. IX own " death and resurrection/' the Disci- ples thought He must be speaking figu- ratively, because the literal fulfilment of his words was utterly at variance with all their expectations. But the event shortly after removed their mistake. Again, when Jesus spoke of " rebuilding this Temple in three days," some may have understood Him at the time to be speaking of the literal Temple : but we find that his Disciples, after the resurrection, had learned the right meaning of his words. So, also, the prophecy of his "coming in his kingdom,'' before the end of the existing generation, seems to have been understood by many as relating to the end of the World : and this belief seems to be alluded to by the Apostle Paul, in his second epistle to the Thessa- lonians. But this misapprehension would cure itself, by the mere circumstance of men's seeing that the World did not come to an end. In all cases, then, we may consider that X PREFACE. there is a strong presumption, where nothing appears to the contrary, that the sense in which a passage of Scripture, relating to any important matter, was under- stood at the time, is the true sense of it. CONTENTS. Part £ ON BAPTISM. PAGE § i. Verbal Controversy 3 2. Points of agreement between those at va- riance in expression 9 3. Points of disagreement, not verbal ... 12 4. Archbishop Sumner's opinions on these points 16 5. Probable origin of the rejection of the Sacra- ments 21 6. Practice of the Apostles 31 7. How the Apostles must have been under- stood by J ewish converts 35 8. Analogy of the Mosaic Law 40 9. Language of our Reformers 45 10. Confirmation, the sequel to one Sacrament and the introduction to the other ... 54 Note. — Extracts from Bishop Ryder, Mr. Simeon, and Archbishop Sumner 58 Part HE. ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. § 1. Deficient attendance at the Lord's Table . 71 2. SuperstitiousnotionsrespectingtheEucharist 73 3. Neglect by Protestants of a known duty . 79 4. Erroneous views respecting the Eucharist to be met by appeal to Scripture . . . 8r Xll CONTENTS. PAGE § 5. Alleged miracle of transubstantiation, a contrast to those recorded in Scripture . 85 6. Eight principle of interpretation of Scripture 87 7. Test of literal or figurative interpretation . 90 8. Errors concerning the Eucharist, not sprung from erroneous interpretation of Scripture 92 9. Reaction in favour of blind acquiescence in groundless claims 95 10. Ambiguity of the word " mystery" . . . 102 11. Sacrificial character of the Death of Christ, indicated by the Eucharist 105 12. Attempts to explain away the doctrine of the Atonement 108 13. Danger of rash attempts at explanation . .111 14. Faith shown by contented ignorance of divine mysteries 115 15. Abraham's faith to be imitated . . . .118 16. Practical faith, in reference to the Eucharist 123 17. Natural and Positive Duties 125 18. Groundless scruples 128 19. Connexion of Confirmation with the Eucharist 133 PAET I. ON BAPTISM. ON BAPTISM. § i. It is not my design to enter on a full discussion of all cZtrovery. the questions that have so long agitated the Church, on the subject of Begeneration, and those connected with that. But there is one circumstance per- taining to them which it is most im- portant to point out, and to insist on : which is, that among many persons (I do not say all) who are, in language, very much opposed to each other on this subject, the opposition is much greater in appearance than in reality. They are engaged, without being aware of it, in a controversy chiefly, if not alto- gether, verbal. Now it must be regarded by all who have anything of a genuine christian spirit, as a most desirable object to obviate as far as possible all unnecessary dissen- b2 4 ON BAPTISM. sion among Christians, and to bring to a mutual good understanding, as nearly as can be done without compromise of truth, all " who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." For, besides the immediate evils to those who are themselves engaged in any controversy, there is this additional danger also to the christian People generally, that many of them may be disposed to say " Here are questions which are declared by all to be of vital importance, yet on which the most learned Divines are not agreed. If men apparently pious, and of far greater knowledge and ability than ours, find so much difficulty in agreeing as to the sense of Scripture on points which they regard as of vital importance, what is, to them, a difficulty must be to us an impossibility; and Scripture can therefore contain no Revelation, properly so called; or at least no revelation to the mass of mankind." And the result of these reflections will often be, that some will betake themselves to some supposed infallible Church, or other guide, to whose dictates they will implicitly resign them- ON BAPTISM. 5 selves; while others will be, by the same course, led into infidelity.* They see that there is no infallible, and universally accessible, guide on earth ; and moreover, that if there were, it could not possibly be ascertained, by men incompetent (by sup- position) to exercise their private judg- ment, and who consequently could never have any good reason for trusting their judgment to decide rightly that most difficult question, — who is the appointed guide? and they consequently reject the belief of any divine revelation all. It is doubly important therefore to point out — where this can be done with truth — how far difficulties and disputes may have been created, or aggravated, by Theologians themselves ; either from their seeking to explain more than God has thought fit to reveal, f or from interpret- ing Scripture according to the technical phraseology of some theological school, or from overlooking variations in the senses * See Sermon on the Search after Infallibility, and Lessons on Religious Worship, L. VI. f See Sermon on the " Shepherds at Bethlehem/' and also Lessons on Religious Worship, L. VII. C) U.N BAPTISM. in which several words are employed, and thus introducing undetected verbal con- troversy, and consequent confusion of thought. The terms " regenerate" and " regenera- tion" [or New-birth] are commonly em- ployed (as I have remarked in a Work which has been now for many years wrell known to the Public) in different senses by different persons.* " Regeneration" denotes, in the language of some, merely that admission to christian privileges and advantages which is the necessary pre- liminary to a christian life. Others employ the term to signify the condition into which a man is brought by that use of those advantages and privileges which constitutes a decided christian character. And " regenerate," accordingly, is applied by those persons respectively, to condi- tions as widely different as that of a new- born infant, and that of a fully-formed adult. Without attempting to enter on a minute discussion of all the modifications * Logic, Appendix: Article, " Eegencration." ON BAPTISM. 7 of meaning that have ever been attached to these words, we may at least recognize the actual employment of them in the two widely-different senses just mentioned. And not only by different persons, but sometimes even by the same, these words (as well as several others) will be found to be occasionally used with different signifi- cations. Undesignedly, and unconsciously, a person will sometimes, even at a short interval, slide from one meaning to another, of some of the expressions he is em- ploying. Now whatever may be the importance of adhering to the most correct use of any term, and whichever may be, in this case, the more correct, it is surely the first point — the first in order, and the first also in importance — to perceive distinctly the ambiguity that does actually exist, and to keep clear of the many injurious misappre- hensions which may arise from attri- buting to those who use a term in one sense, conclusions which depend on its being taken in a different sense. For example, a person may be exposed to a groundless imputation of leading 8 ON BAPTISM. men into a vain and dangerous reliance on baptismal privileges, and of teaching them that all who have been duly baptized are in a safe state ; when perhaps in fact he may have never said or implied any such thing, but may have merely been employ- ing the word " regenerate" according 'to what he regards as the most scriptural usage ; and then, has had imputed to him inferences which would have followed if he had employed that word in quite another sense. And perhaps it may turn out on calm investigation, that such a person, and some who had been at first dis- posed very strongly to censure him, do not in reality disagree to any considerable extent, as to the substance of the doctrines they maintain. I have seen something like the above imputation thrown out in a Work which several years ago obtained considerable popularity. It was professedly a descrip- tion (veiled under a slight tale) of various prevailing religious opinions and modes of conduct : and some of the pictures drawn were both striking and just. But among others, a careless clergyman is ON BAPTISM. 9 introduced deprecating any anxiety felt by any of his people as to their spiritual state, and saying that " of course all Christians will be saved ; and whoever is baptized is a Christian." Now I feel certain, from long experience and atten- tive observation, that there is no ground whatever for the imputation here conveyed. I mean, that it is not true (as is evidently designed to be implied) that there exists any party, school, or class of men, among our Clergy, — even the worst of them — - who teach such a doctrine. Yet it is probable that the representation was not a designed calumny, but was merely an "idle word," originating in a misconcep- tion such as I have been alluding to, as the result of a hasty and inconsiderate interpretation of another's expressions, and of rash inferences therefrom. § 2 . Let any one then but Points of . t t j i • • • aqreement consider— and this is an m- {etweenthose quiry well-becoming those who at variance ill • i • 'i n i inexpression. would cherish a spirit ol cnris- t tian charity — how much there may be of agreement, and that, on the most essential b3 10 ON BAPTISM. practical points, between men who, at the first glance might appear widely opposed, and who perhaps are inclined to think hardly of each other. Two persons accustomed to employ, respectively, the word " regeneration" in the different senses just alluded to, may agree in reverencing the Rite of Baptism, and in administering it according to the same rules: both may be also accustomed to warn men against placing an indolent confidence in Grospel-privileges, and to teach them that to have been enrolled as members of Christ's Church is an advan- tage for the use of which we are respon- sible, and which will but increase the condemnation of such as do not " walk worthy of their vocation." Both may teach that (in the words of our 16th Article) "after we have received the Holy Grhost, we may depart from grace given and fall into sin ; and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives."* * Some Divines of the present day (professedly of our Cliureh) express doubts, nearly, if not completely, amounting to a denial of the doctrine of this Article ; teaching that sins committed after Baptism are either ON BAPTISM. 11 And they may agree in teaching that " God desire th not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live ; and in exhorting every one who does live a careless, an irreligious, or a vicious life, to repent, and seek divine mercy through Christ, and strength to accomplish a thorough reforma- tion : though, in many instances, to the same sort of change which the one of these instructors would call "regenera- tion" or "new-birth," the other might apply the terms " conversion," " revival," "renewal," &c. Both might agree in teaching that a holy life is the test of totally unpardonable, or are to be atoned for by- Penance. Should such views prevail, they may be expected to lead first to a rejection of infant baptism, and afterwards to the practice (not unfrequent in the early Church) of deferring Baptism to the death-bed. It would be thought by many a cruelty to place a person without Ms own consent, and in unconscious infancy, in a situation, so far, much more disadvan- tageous than that of those brought up Pagans, that if he did ever — suppose, at the age of fifteen, cr twenty- fall into any sin, he must remain for the rest of his life — perhaps for above half a century — deprived of all hope, or at least of all confident hope, of restoration to the divine favour ; shut out from all that cheering prospect which, if his baptism in infancy had been omitted, might have lain before him. 12 ON BAPTISM. effectual, profitable regeneration, and in exhorting all men to lead sucli a life. On this — the important practical point, — they would not differ at all. Now if this be so, it cannot but be desirable that men should be at least guarded against supposing themselves (through the influence of the language they employ) to be more at variance than they really are. And it is accordingly a point of christian duty, when any such occasion arises, to point out the danger of such an error, and thus to promote recon- cilement, or at least mitigate hostility, between those engaged in any controversy. * § 3. But though some are disagree- liable to be engaged (in reference ment not t0 these points) in a controversy chiefly verbal, there are others, as was above hinted, between whom an apparently similar controversy will be found to turn on a real opposition of doctrine. Those who hold that (1) of persons duly admitted into the visible Church by bap- tism, some are, by an absolute eternal ON BAPTISM. 13 divine decree, secured in all the benefits of Christ's redemption, and others, totally excluded therefrom by the same decree, and moreover (2) that this is a truth set forth in Scripture as an essential point of faith;* these, and the parties opposed to them, must, of course, differ, not in words only, but in the matter of their teaching. * These two points — (1) the existence of such decrees, and (2) the teaching of them as an essential part of the Gospel-revelation — are quite distinct, though often con- founded together. Calvin, and many others, both before and after his time, maintained both. And it is utterly improper that any should be called, either by themselves, or by others, " Calvinists," who dissent from any part of what Calvin himself insisted on as a necessary portion of his theory. " Many," says he, " as if wishing to remove "odium from God, while they admit election, yet deny rejprohation ; but in this they speak ignorantly and childishly ; since election itself could not be main- tained except as contrasted with reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts as children, for salvation. Those therefore whom He passes by, He condemns ; and that, for no cause whatever, except that He chuses to exclude them from the inheritance which He predestinates for his children." And again, shortly after, he says, " Whence comes it that so many nations, with their infant children, should be sentenced irre- mediably to eternal death, by the fall of Adam, except that such was God's will?" * * * " The Decree is, I confess, a horrible one," &c. — Calvin, Inst. L. iii. c. xxiii. §7. 11 ON BAPTISM. Taking Regeneration to imply (as is generally agreed) some kind and degree of benefit — some spiritual gift, or at least offer of a gift — they of course deny the term " regenerate " to be at all applicable to those Christians whom they consider as excluded by the decree of Omnipotence from all spiritual benefit whatever of .Bap- tism. And the Visible Church, into which members are through this Kite admitted, they must regard as a community not pos- sessing any spiritual endowments what- ever ; these being, by divine decree, reserved for certain individuals arbitrarily selected from the rest. Of those who maintain — or at least in their teaching imply — the predestinarian views now alluded to, a considerable por- tion belong to the Sect which altogether rejects Infant-baptism. And in this T cannot but admit that they are perfectly consistent. Regarding the Rite of Baptism as " an outward and visible Sign of an inward spiritual grace " they deem it not allowable, I apprehend, to "put asunder what God has joined together;" and therefore confine the administration of this ON BAPTISM. 15 sign to those respecting whom there is some presumption at least, of their being admitted to a participation in the tiling signified — the divine grace ; which grace, they hold, is, by an eternal absolute decree, bestowed on one portion of those profess- ing Christianity, and denied to the rest. And to which of the two classes any indi- vidual infant belongs, there cannot possibly be any ground for even the slightest con- jecture. In the case of an Adult they can have, it is supposed, (just as in the case of the other Sacrament, the Lord's Supper) — if not a complete and certain knowledge whether he belongs to the Class of the Elect or the Non-elect, — at least some indication from his professions and his conduct ; indications which an infant, of course, cannot afford. And they accord- ingly consider, I apprehend, that Baptism administered to infants cannot be a Sign of Eegeneration, since. there cannot be even any presumption of its being accompanied by any spiritual advantage at all. And certainly it must be admitted that according at least to the ordinary use of 1() ON BAPTISM. language, a Sign of anything is understood to be such, from its being regularly accom- panied by that thing of which it is a sign, or at least, by some reasonable presump- tion of its presence. When, for instance, we speak of a certain dress or badge being a sign of a man's belonging to a certain Begiment, or Order of Knighthood, or the like, we understand that it is to be some- thing peculiarly belonging to them, and serving to distinguish them from others. If a dress, or badge, were worn indif- ferently by an indefinite number of per- sons, some belonging to this Regiment or Order, and some not, we should consider that it had ceased to be a sign at all, hav- ing no longer any signification. It is on these grounds, I conceive, that many of those who hold that doctrine of absolute decrees I have been alluding to, adhere to, or have joined, the communion of those calling themselves, and commonly called, Baptists. Archbishop $ 4. In reference to the sub- opmiZson Ject here treated of, I take the these points, liberty of extracting a passage from a Work which has been for many ON BAPTISM. 17 years well known, and highly esteemed, by the Public. " Another practical evil of the doctrine of special grace, is the necessity which it implies of some test of God's favour, and of the reconcilement of Christians to Him, beyond and subsequent to the covenant of baptism. St. Paul, it has been seen, insists upon the necessity of regeneration: he declares that ' the natural man receiveth not the things of God, neither can know them : he calls the heathen nations ' chil- dren of wrath' and ' sinners of the Gen- tiles : he speaks of the ' old man as being corrupt according to the deceitful lusts :' in short^he expresses, under a variety of terms/" the assertion of our Saviour, that ' except a man be born again, of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- dom of God.' John iii. 3. " With equal clearness he intimates, that the Christians he addresses were thus regenerate : as having ' put of the old man with its deeds ;' and having become the ' temple of the Holy Ghost' and ' the * Bom. ii. 6, &c. 18 O.N BAPTISM. members of Christ;4 as having the ' spiritual circumcision, and being hurled with Christ in baptism;1 Bom. vi. 3; Col. ii. 12; as having ' received the spirit of adoption' Bom. viii. 15 ; and as 'being washed, sanctified, and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God/ To the Galatians, ' bewitched,' as lie says they were, ' that they should not obey the truth,' he still writes, ' Ye are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.' For, as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.1 Gal. iii. 26. These addresses and exhortations are founded on the principle that the disciples, by their dedication to God in baptism, bad been brought into a state of reconcile- ment with Him, had been admitted to privileges which the Apostle calls on them to improve. On the authority of this example, and of the undeniable prac- tice of the first ages of Christianity, our Church considers Baptism as conveying regeneration, instructing us to pray, before baptism, that the infant ' may be born again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation ;' and to return thanks, after ON BAPTISM. 19 baptism, ' that it hath pleased God to re- generate the infant with his Holy Spirit, and receive him for his own child b}^ adoption.' " But, on the contrary, if there is a distinction between special and common grace, and none are regenerate but those who receive special grace, and those only receive it who are elect ; baptism is evi- dently no sign of regeneration, since so many after baptism live profane and unholy lives, and perish in their sins. Therefore, the preacher of special grace must, con- sistently with his own principles, lead his hearers to look for some new conversion, and expect some sensible regeneration. This brings him to use language in the highest degree perplexing to an ordinary hearer. To take an example from the same writer, whose only fault is the inconsistency to which he is reduced by his attachment to the system of election : ' The best duties of unregenerate men are no better in God's account and acceptance, than abo- mination. There is nothing that such men do, in the whole course of their lives, but at the last day it will be found in God's register-book, among the catalogue 20 ON BAPTISM. of their sins. This man hath prayed so often, and heard so often ; made so many prayers, and heard so many sermons, and done many good works ; but yet, all this while, he was in an unconverted estate : these, therefore, are set down in God's day-book in black * and they are registered among those sins that he must give an account for : not for the substance of the actions themselves, but because they come from rotten principles, that defile the best actions which he can perform.'* " Suppose this language addressed now, as it was originally, to a congregation dedicated to Christ in baptism. What would be the feelings of a plain under- standing, or a timid conscience, unable to unravel the windings of these secret tilings, on learning that the sinfulness or innocency of actions does not depend upon their being permitted or forbidden in the revealed law, but on the doer being in a regenerate or unregenerate state at the time when he performs them ? How is this fact of regencracy, upon which no less * Hopkins on the Neiv Birth. ON BAPTISM. 21 than eternity depends, to be discovered ? The Apostle enumerates the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit ; but his test is insufficient, for the two lists are here mixed and confounded. The hearers appeal to the Church, an authorized inter- preter of Scripture. The Church acquaints them, that they were themselves regene- rated, and made the children of grace, by the benefit of baptism ; while the preacher evidently treats them as if it were pos- sible they might be still unregenerate."* § 5. It seems not unlikely that the same cause which had J^inofthe probably led to the rejection of rejection infant baptism, contributed also °{t e r bacraments. to the formation of that Sect which rejects the Sacraments altogether. At the time when that Sect arose, a very large proportion of christian ministers, while they were administering to infants a Eite which they spoke of as a sign of Regeneration, (or New-birth,) at the same time taught — at least, were understood as * Sumner's Apostolical Preaching. 22 ON BAPTISM. teaching — that there is no intelligible connexion whatever between the sign and the thing signified, nor any real benefit attached to the Bite. The new-birth they taught their people to hope for at some future indefinite time. And they taught them to believe, as a part of the christian revelation, that, of infants brought to bap- tism, an uncertain, indefinite number of individuals — undisiinguishable at that time from the rest — are, by the divine decree, totally and finally excluded from all share in the benefits of Christ's redemption. Now, men accustomed to see and hear all this, would be not unlikely to listen with favour to those who declared — professedly by divine inspiration — that "water-baptism," as they call it, is an empty and superstitious ceremony, origi- nating in a misapprehension of our Lord's meaning ; of which meaning they — gifted with the same inspiration as his Apostles — are commissioned to be interpreters. And when one Sacrament had been thus explained away, the rejection of the other also, according to a similar kind of reason- ing, would follow of course. ON BAPTISM. 23 And, after all, this rejection was but the carrying ont of a principle of procedure which had been long before sanctioned by others. It had been long before decided that, at the Eucharist, one of the appointed symbols might safely be omitted, and that the perfect spiritual participation by the Communicants in the benefit of the Sacra- ment is not thereby at all impaired. To dispense with the other symbol also, and likewise with the symbol of the other Sacrament, and then to call this a spiritual celebration of the Sacraments, was only taking a step further in the same direction. In truth, the abolition of the Sacraments, by explaining away as figurative, words of our Lord which were undoubtedly under- stood by his hearers at the time literally ; or, again, the literal interpretation of his words, "this is my bod}r," which must have been understood at the time figuratively, (for the Apostles could not have supposed that at the Last Supper He was holding in his hands his own literal body;) or the addi- tion of fresh Sacraments not instituted by Him or his Apostles : or a departure from the mode He appointed of celebrating the ~ I ON BAPTISM. Eucharist, by the withholding of the cup, — all these, and any other similar liberties taken with Scripture, stand on the same ground, and are equally justifiable, or equally unjustifiable. If certain indivi- duals, or Councils, or other Bodies of men, are really inspired messengers from Heaven, "moved by the Spirit " to declare with in- fallible certainty the Will of the Lord, then their words are to be received and obe}^ed with the same deference as those of Peter or Paul. And if they announce any change in the divine dispensations, or give any new interpretation of any part of Scrip- ture, we are bound to acquiesce, even as the Jews were required to do in that great " mystery of the Gospel," the opening of the Kingdom of Heaven to Gentiles. It is God who speaks by their mouths ; and he who has established any ordinance has evidently the power to abrogate or alter it. And when persons who make such a claim (or admit it in their leaders) profess to take Scripture for their guide, they must be understood to mean that it is their guide only in the sense attached to it by the persons thus divinely com mis- ON BAPTISM. 25 sioned, and in those points only wherein no additional or different revelation has been made through these persons. When there has, the later revelation, of course, supersedes the earlier. Nor does it make any real difference whether something be added to the Bible, claiming equal divine authority, or whether merely an alleged infallible interpretation be given of what is already written. For an interpretation coming from any Church or person divinely commissioned, and speaking " as the Spirit moveth," and thence authorized to declare (which is exactly an equivalent expression) " thus saith the Lord" is of the same authority with Scripture itself, and must be impli- citly received, however at variance with the sense which any ordinary reader would, of himself, attach to the words. And those who completely surrender their own judg- ment to any supposed infallible interpreter are, in fact, taking him — not Scripture — for their guide. It is most important, — when the ex- pression is used of " referring to Scripture as the infallible standard/' and requiring 20 ON BAPTISM. assent to such points of faitli only as can be thence proved, to settle clearly in the outset, the important question " proved to whom ?" If any man, or Body of men refer us to Scripture, as the sole authoritative standard, meaning that we are not to be called on to believe anything as a neces- sary point of faith, on their word, but only on our oio7i conviction that it is scriptural, then, t\\Qj place our faith on the basis, not of human authority, but of divine. But if they call on us, as a point of conscience, to receive whatever is proved to their satis- faction from Scripture, even though it may appear to us unscriptural, then, instead of releasing us from the usurped authority of Man taking the place of God, they are placing on us two burdens instead of one. " You require us," we might reply, " to believe, first, that whatever you teach is true; and, secondly, besides this, to believe also, that it is a truth contained in Scri/j- ture ; and we are to take your word for both!" When, therefore, any such claim is set up, we are authorized and bound to require " the signs of an Apostle." One who ON BAPTISM. ."27 supports his opinions by argument, is at least entitled to a hearing, however wide those opinions may be from what are generally held, But it is not so with those who claim assent on the ground of having received a revelation from the infallible Spirit of God. Professed am- bassadors from Heaven should be called on to show their credentials — the mira- culous powers which alone can prove their inspiration — on pain of being convicted of profane presumption in daring to " say, thus saith the Lord, when the Lord hath not spoken." There are some persons, however, who bewilder themselves and others, by con- founding together the two senses of the word inspiration. In one sense, every- thing that is true, and that is good, in the Christian, may be said to be from the " inspiration of the Holy Spirit," which we pray for to " cleanse the thoughts of our hearts;"* since, "without Me," says our Lord, " ye can do nothing." But this inspiration is what can only be known by Communion Service. C ^ 28 ON BAPTISM. its fruits, to be judged of by comparing our life and doctrine with Scripture. When, on the other hand, we speak of the Apostles as " inspired writers," wre understand by that, that they had received a communication from Heaven of the in- fallible truth of which they themselves and all others could be assured. It is probable, again, that many persons deceive both others and themselves by confusing together in their minds diffe- rences of degree, and differences of amount; and thence imagining (what a little calm reflection must show to be impossible, and, indeed, unintelligible) that there may be different degrees of what is properly and strictly termed inspiration : that is, the miraculous influence under which we con- ceive anything that we call " an inspired Work" to have been written. The existence or non-existence of this inspiration is a question of fact ; and though there may be different degrees of evidence for the ex- istence of a fact, it is plain that one fact cannot be, itself, more or less a fact than another. Inspiration may extend either to the ON BAPTISM. 29 very words uttered, or merely to the sub- ject-matter of them, or merely to a certain portion of the matter ; — to all, for instance, that pertains to religious truth, so as to afford a complete exemption from doc- trinal error — though not, to matters of Geography, Natural Philosophy, &c. But in every case we understand that to what- ever points the inspiration does extend, in these it secures infallibility ; and infalli- bility manifestly cannot admit of degrees. When we are speaking of the instructive, the eloquent, the entertaining, &c, we may call one discourse tolerably well- written, another rather better written, and a third better still. Each of them is what it is, in a different degree from the others. But we could not with propriety speak of one discourse as being " some- what inspired," another, as " rather more inspired," and again, another, as " a good deal inspired." If any one is distinctly commissioned to deliver a message from Heaven, in any one instance, with infallible proof to him- self and to others, that it is such, he is as truly inspired, and his revelation as much 30 ON BAPTISM. a revelation, as if lie had had revealed to him a hundred times a greater quantity of superhuman knowledge. That one mes- sage is as much God's Word as any part of Scripture. Even so Paul, who " spoke with tongues more than all" the disciples he was addressing,* had not more that miraculous gift (though he had the gift of more tongues) than any one of them who had been supernaturally taught a single foreign language. If a man has ascertained, and can prove, that he has had, either in words, or merely in substance, a revelation (properly so- called) of some doctrine, or again, an in- fallible divine assurance of safety from religious errors, he is to be listened to — in reference to those points to which the in- spiration extends — as speaking with divine authority. But on the other hand, if he has no infallible proofs to give of having received a divine communication, then, though most or all of what he says may be, in fact, perfectly true, he has no right to use such an expression as " thus saith the Lord !" or "the Spirit moveth me to * 1 Cor. xiv. 1 8. ON BAPTISM. 31 Scry so and so." He ought rather to say — what a pious and humble preacher must mean — I hope and trust that what I am setting forth is sound and useful doctrine; and so far as it is so, it must be the gift of Him " from whom all good things do proceed ;" but hoio far it is so, both you and I must judge as well as we can, by a careful reference to Holy Scripture, with a full consciousness of our own fallibility. § 6. Our safest and most • #v'1/7 of? OP fir humbly pious course is, m any the ApostJles^ practical question, to endeavour to ascertain, in the first instance, what was the practice of the Apostles ; and to adhere to that, whenever we find that the rules or customs they sanctioned were not of a merely local or temporary character, but were equally suited to our own Age and Country. And not only is respect due to their practices, but these practices will often throw light on their doctrine ; since whatever belief, on any point, seems natu- rally to be implied in what they were accustomed to do, may be presumed to have been their belief. And we ought 82 ON BAPTISM. surely rather to put ourselves under their teaching, where it is to be had, than to adopt and act upon the inferences drawn from any theological theory of our own. Now with respect to the question of infant-baptism, though there is not in Scripture any express injunction or pro- hibition relating to it, any one who in- quires with an unbiassed mind may arrive, I think, at a complete moral certainty as to what was the practice of the Apostles and other primitive Christians. For several years, we should remember, they were all Jews. And even after the Gentiles had begun to be engrafted into the Church, the Gospel was still, in each place, preached first in the Jewish Syna- gogue ; and the greatest part of the most eminent teachers were of that nation. 