HIGH-CHURCH THEORY

OF

BAPTISM.

PHILADELPHIA:

T. K. & P. G. COLLIN S.

STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON & CO.

HIGH-CHURCH THEORY OF BAPTISM.

FOUR Sermons by the Rev. George Stanley Faber, "On the doctrine of Regeneration according to Scripture and the Church of England," have recently been republished by the Messrs. Biddle of Philadelphia.

The object of Mr. Faber in these discourses is to define the position of the Church of England on the great doctrine in question, and to refute the argument of Dr., afterward Bishop Mant, in favour of the inseparability of baptism and spiritual regenera

tion.

Dr. Mant's tracts were first issued in the year 1815, by the "Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge." The view taken of this doctrine in these tracts was so extreme, so inconsistent with the former publications of this Society, as to produce a long and very animated discussion, which brought forth many of the ablest writers of the Church of England. In the year 1816, Mr. Faber entered into this controversy, and published his celebrated sermons. His able and intelligible argument was so convincing to the great body of the English church, that the friends of Dr. Mant were compelled to abandon their ground and publicly renounce their favorite theory. Dr. Mant himself, however, never denied that he taught the doctrine which it was the aim of Mr. Faber's argument to counteract, and which his (Dr. Mant's) opponents attributed to him.* This took place in the year 1816. In 1853, these sermons were republished in this country, for the purpose of doing the same work in America which they so effectually performed in England. This has been to a great extent accomplished. The un

* Even the case of Simon Magus, Dr. Mant insisted upon, as did Dr. Pusey after him, as a necessary case of regeneration-followed by an immediate falling into sin.

3

prejudiced readers of Mr. Faber's argument are convinced of the unscriptural character of the opinion that baptism and regeneration are inseparable; but certain newspapers, belonging to the ultra church party, now deny that it is actually held by any in the church.

The REGISTER, a church paper in Philadelphia, the CHURCH JOURNAL in New York, and the GOSPEL MESSENGER of Western New York, make use of almost the same language which was adopted by the friends of Bishop Mant in 1816.

The editor of the former appears to be much distressed that Mr. Faber's sermons should have been disturbed at this late day, and says they "are aimed against a theory of baptism which, if we "could believe that any one actually held it, we should be among "the first to condemn."*

The Gospel Messenger replies to Mr. Faber's argument by calling it very hard names,-"gross unfairness," "outrageous misrepresentations," "wholesale slanders," &c. And the Church Journal says, "Faber adopts a definition of regeneration which sound "churchmen have never been willing to receive." That sound churchmen have never been willing to receive it there cannot be

*We commend the following language, from the Register, to those who distinguish between a desire to know the truth, and a determination to maintain opinions at the expense of even propriety. The prototype of this language may be found in the Irish Romanist journals and speeches, when the "Irish Church Missions" sent their "feathered seeds" in the same manner to the homes of the papists. May God grant this "seed" the like abundant harvest ! "They [Mr. Faber's sermons] have been sent to us,-but by whom we cannot say, for they are re-issued under no responsible name, free, gratis, and for "nothing.' We learn on inquiry, that most of our clerical friends have been "equally favoured; so that in all probability similar 'feathered seeds' are now on "the wings of every wind, destined (if thirty-seven years have not exhausted "their vitality) to swell the harvest of strife in many quarters of the Union.

"Now the first question that arises, with regard to such gratuities, is, where "do they come from? Who sends them,-who edits them,-who stands respon"sible for them,-above all, who pays for their free circulation? By what right "or title, and at whose instigation, do they thus invade the quiet of a private "house? It is seldom we receive such presents of any thing useful. Apothe"caries do not give us their drugs, grocers do not favour us with gratuitous tea "or sugar. If we receive a package from a bookseller, we expect as a matter "of course to find some token that we have ordered it, or at least that it is some"thing worth ordering; or if there is any thing unwelcome or mischievous within, "we know where the blame lies, and where is the remedy. In the case of a cer"tain sort of pamphlet, however, we have no such protection. Whether we "want them or not, they find their way to our doors. The postman, who brings us a letter from a friend, presents us with one of these missives. The servant "girl, when she sweeps the steps, finds another thrust under the door. Believ"ing as we do, that bad divinity is, from its lightness and cheapness, more easily "circulated, and goes abroad further than good, we cannot but regard the gra"tuitous distribution of loosely written tracts as a most portentous evil.”

the shadow of a doubt; but that churchmen of the Puseyite school advocate it, and that High-Churchmen intentionally or ignorantly give it their influence, the following pages will fully prove.

These extreme views of baptism, certain parties in the church have been industriously inculcating for many years past. Inculcating them in the pulpit, in the newspaper and periodical press, in novels, tales, and tracts, in the Sunday-school and in Sundayschool literature,-in fact in every possible manner they have taught that spiritual regeneration is the consequence of the administration of baptism.

This has been their darling theory; this has been their favorite doctrine; this has been their starting-point in religion; their all and in all; and upon this their whole system of theology rests. But this doctrine, like others of the same kind, will not bear the light of day, it cannot stand the test of God's holy. word, and the consequence is now that Mr. Faber has again driven them to their legitimate position, and they have reason to fear the effect of his argument upon the minds of practical, common-sense men-that they deny ever having been the advocates of such a system. Mr. Faber is ridiculed. He is accused of "erecting a man of straw and "then knocking it down." He is charged with "caricaturing the "doctrine of baptism." His sermons are stigmatized as "a bitter "controversial pamphlet," and his arguments are compared to "Canada thistles, which are noxious weeds and grow apace." Any one at all acquainted with the life and character of Mr. Faber, must be struck with the perfect absurdity of a position which maintains Mr. F. to have been so ignorant of the subject in controversy as not to know the nature of the error he was combating. He perfectly understood Bishop Mant's views. His sermons were aimed at those views. The aim was perfect, and the shot told. The republication of these sermons was directed at the same opinions now and for a long time past pressed upon the Church by Tractarians, and too hastily admitted by High-Churchmen; and judging from the excitement of their newspapers, it is very evident that the advocates of these semi-Romish sentiments are touched upon a vital spot! Is it the essential character of error thus to prevaricate and shift its ground? Or has the vague