to be, provided. For this is the true guide, and of course every other is, of necessity, either false or defective. With this doctrine, accordingly, my treatise sets out*, and with a reference to one of the most penetrating of reasoners for the following most just remark, which I should have quoted at length had the case seemed less clear. "The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is of so much importance to us, and touches us so nearly, that any indifference about it argues the certain loss of all mental sensibility. All our actions and all our thoughts ought to take such different turns, accordingly as we may or may not entertain the straightness of the measure I have proposed. For though, to men without the light of revelation, a future state may have appeared ever so doubtful, we can hardly suppose that any competent reasoner on the duties or the expectations of the human race can have failed either to imagine, or to admit, the possibility of such a state. But it has been often proved that the possibility of a future state, although we know that the mere possibility would, practically, be but little attended to, yet infers, on every principle of calculation, precisely the same rules of conduct, which the full assurance of it enables us to deduce. I am, Sir, a reasonable expectation of a future Your most obedient humble servant, state, that it is impossible to stir rationally a single step, unless we keep this object in view +." Without this doctrine, indeed, there can be nothing but confusion in all specu lations both on prudence and virtue. Human life is a mere maze without it—a maze altogether with out a clue. To the question, therefore, whether the tendency of virtue to promote, on the whole, the true happines of the agent be, in the last resort, the true measure of obligation, both for those persons who believe virtue to have that tendency, and for those, also, who are so unhappy as to believe that it will, on the whole, be productive to them of unhappiness, I answer, that I regard the measure as the same, and as equally accurate, in both cases. The straightness of a rule is not altered because there may be some persons who cannot see it. I do not suppose, however, that in any region, or in any age, there ever was any man capable of moral reasoning, (and moral science addresses such persons only), who might not be competent, though only perhaps through a dim medium, to discern Human Motives, p. 2. 8. Pascal, Pensées, p. 3. JOHN PENROSE. Bracebridge, June 7, 1821. ON LAY BAPTISM. To the Editor of the Remembrancer. SIR, IN the account of Southey's Life of Wesley, given in the Quarterly Review, No. 47. this passage occurs: "We will not lay any particular stress on his (Wesley's) bigotry towards Dissenters. There have always been some few of the High Church party (though the great majority of learning and authority has been uniformly of the other side,) who have denied the validity of Baptism when administered by persons not episcopally ordained." If I understand the Reviewer rightly, he applies the word "bigot" to Wesley, because he did not allow the validity of Dissenters baptisms. He asserts that some few of the High-church party have been bigots for the same reason; and that the great majority of learning and au thority has been uniformly free from this bigotry in allowing the validity of lay baptism. I was sorry, Mr. Editor, and did not expect to see in the pages of the, Quarterly, such a passage as this. Hitherto I have been in the habit of placing full confidence in this Journai for the correctness of its state ments and facts, its general orthodoxy on such subjects, and its friendly aspect towards the Established Church. These lines, admitted certainly in an unguarded moment, as they were wholly unprovoked, and not at all necessary to the subject, have all the appearance of the wanton flourish of some low church-pen, vastly desirous of running at tilt with some antagonist. Being of sentiments not exactly similar to those of the Reviewer, you may suppose that I do not feel quite satisfied with him. What more of bigotry is there in denying the validity of Dissenters baptisms, than in admitting it? This is only calling names at best; for a man does not become a bigot, because he holds certain opinions; but because he holds them with unreasonable prejudice, and improper warmth; but this is continually done by the low-church, as well as the highchurch party, and frequently in a temper discreditable to any party: but the Reviewer attempts to fix the charge of bigotry upon the latter, not upon account of their unreasonable prejudice, but upon account of their holding certain opinions, which do not meet his approbation; which, to say no worse of it, is a vulgarism, a little beneath the Quarterly Critic. Again he says, "that there always have been some few of the high-church party, who have denied the validity of Dissenters baptism." Certes, the Reviewer is not at home here. He plainly has not been in habits of familiarity with this party, else would he not have said that "a few," but that "all" who are gene rally distinguished, by certain writ ers by this name have maintained the necessity of a Christian Minister, to make a valid sacrament and in so doing they have supported primi tive Christianity against the corrup tions of the papist, who by most protestants has hitherto been considered the bigot; but with whom it seems, the reviewer is in this case, pleased to symbolize. The Reviewer, further, asserts, that the great majority of learning and authority has been uniformly of the other side: that is, admitting with the papist, the validity of Lay baptism. If learning and authority, indeed, are to be taken in the bulk, it must be granted. The Church of Rome is very extensive, and has always had much learning to boast; she has also enjoyed in her day, very considerable authority, At home he will have all that party, (or rather, that legion of parties,) which will include not only those members of the establishment, who, upon this subject, fall in with the papists, but almost all the various religious parties and sects which separate from the Church, calling themselves protestant dissenters. All this learning, and authority, cannot be denied him. But that he will have a great majority of sound Christian scholars and learned ecclesiastical historians on the low-church side, holding the validity of lay-baptistsm, must be utterly denied. " t I have no intention of troubling you further upon the subject, than merely to enter my protest against this assertion, made with more haste and less circumspection than is usual with that respectable Journal; an assertion, which, if not corrected, will unfortunately now go forth into the world, under its sanction I would likewise apprize those readers, who like myself, have felt the fullest confidence' in its discretion and sound principles, that in this instance, it has a little forgotten itself, and, (unwittingly, no doubt,) has indirectly charged the Church of Fugland herself, with bigotry; for that our national Church holds opinions upon baptism, which the Reviewer is pleased to stigmatize as high-church bigotry, is sufficiently plain to any one, who will take the pains fairly to examine her offices, and other public documents. "The Church," says Wheatly, (one of the most learned and correct ritualists that ever lived,) "provides that none but a minister, or one duly or dained, presume to intermeddle in it (baptism,) well knowing that the persons by whom baptism is to be administered, are plainly as positive a part of the institution, as any thing else relating to that ordinance; and consequently that the power of ad. ministering it, must belong to those only whom Christ hath authorised by the institution. 'Tis true, there are some few of the primitive writers who allow laymen to baptize in case of necessity: But there are more and earlier of the Fathers who disallow that practice and upon mature deliberation of the several passages it will generally be found, that these latter, for the most part, speak the judgment of the Church, whilst the former only deliver their private opinion. If it be asked, whether baptism, when performed by an unordained person, be in the sense of our Church valid and effectual, I answer, that according to the best judgement we can form from her public acts and offices, it is not. Our Church, by prohibiting all from intermeddling in baptism, but a lawful minister, plainly hints, that when baptism is administered by any other, it conveys no benefit or advantage to the child, but only brings upon those who pretend to administer it, the guilt of usurping a sacred office, and consequently that persons so pretendedly baptized (if they live to be sensible of their state and condition,) are to apply to their lawful minister or bishop for that holy sacrament, of which they only received a profanation before."-(See Ministration of Private Baptism.) S. T. June 9th, 1821. REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. THERE is a strong presumption in favour of the truth of any doctrine, of which it can be shewn that it has been held in all places, in all ages, and by all sound members of the Catholic Church; and there is strong reason to suspect the authenticity of any doctrine, when it is possible to fix the æra, at which it began to be published in the world, and before which it was unknown. This history of doctrines forms an important argument in the controversy with the Unitarians, and in the controversy with the Church of Rome. The doctrine of the Trinity was never unknown, and the origin of REMEMBRANCER, No. 31. all the heresies which have been successively introduced in opposition to this great mystery can be satisfactorily ascertained. The errors of the Church of Rome can be traced with the same precision; they are not in the Scriptures: they are not in the writings of the primitive fathers, or in the decrees of the first councils: they are the inventions of ages and of persons of uo authority in the Church. But there is no doctrine of which the pedigree can be more clearly deduced, than that of regeneration, both as the name and the doctrine are concerned. It is not doubtful at what period the Calvinistic doctrine was first asserted, or in what order the various modifications of the doctrine have been engrafted on the original dogma of the Reformer of Geneva. Before that period it 3 G may be shewn, for a long succession to convince; and while these authoof ages, that the word regeneration rities are neglected or disputed, had one definitive meaning, and that there is occasion for the labour and the words of our Lord, John iii. 5. the learning of other writers to folhad one unvarying interpretation. low up their investigations, to give This meaning may be traced to the the air of novelty to an argument, primitive fathers, of whose opinions which is already exhausted, and thus there can be no doubt; it can be to confirm the opinions of such as shewn, by a comparison of things are settled in the faith, and to afford spiritual with spiritual, to be the new opportunities of conviction to doctrine of the Scriptures; it was such as need it. known before the Scriptures of the New Testament were written, and corresponds with the received phraseology of the Jews, who lived in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles, and who understood their words in no other sense. The Cal vinistic doctrine of regeneration is of modern date, unsupported by any ancient authority; the doctrine laid down by the Church of England, and professed by the great body of the clergy, is catholic, primitive, and apostolical. At the same time, it is no occasion of surprize, that many in our day have been misled by the constancy with which the opposite scheme of doctrine has been proposed, by the pertinacity with which it has been defended, and by the industry with which it has been forced into circulation. If scriptural and historical authorities could have decided the controversy, it would have been already decided. The investigations of Doctor Laurence have established the sense of our public formularies; Wall, in the History of Infant Baptism, has left no doubt of the doctrine of the primitive church; and Selden, Wotton, and other Hebraists, have, by their quotations from Jewish writings, determined the only sense in which the Jews could understand the term. As a summary of the doctrine, the discourse of Waterland remains unanswered, for the best reason, that it is unanswerable. There is, nevertheless, a large and numerous party in the Church, from whom these authorities have been studiously concealed, or whom they have failed The Dean of Chichester is known to have borne a considerable share in the controversy upon Regeneration, which was agitated on the pub. lication of Bishop Mant's two Sermons, under the sanction of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The Dean, however, upon the present occasion, takes but little notice of that controversy, or of the writers who were engaged in it, with the exception of Dr. Laurence; and in the General View" which he now takes "of the Doc. trine of Regeneration in Baptism," he directs his attention chiefly to the antient doctrine, the scriptural doctrine, the doctrine of the Church of England, and the doctrine of Cal. vin and his followers, exhibiting the grounds of the respective theories, and examining the objections, to which they are severally liable. In the Preface he states the intention with which he writes, and lays down the plan which he means to pursue, and to which he faithfully adheres in the course of his argument: "My intention is to take a larger and more comprehensive view of the subject than has hitherto fallen in my way. After premising some remarks (Chapter 1.) on the obvious advantages of adhering as much as possible to the strict and determinate usage of words in theological controversies and inquiries, I shall lay before my readers (Chap. 11.) a statement of the opinions of the antient Christians on the subject of Regeneration, and of the principles (Chap. III.) on which their usage of the word forth (Chap. IV.) the scriptural grounds seems to depend. After this I shall set on which this doctrine of Regeneration is founded, and (Chap. V.) examine the scriptural objections which have been taken to it. I shall then point out (Chap. VI.) the strict conformity between the views of the antient Christians and our own Church on this head of doctrine, and shall notice (Chap. VII.) the attempts which have been made to extract a different opinion from the public writings of our Chirel. Afterwards I shall enquire (Chap. VIII,) more at large into the theory of this doctrine, the principal variations (Chap. IX.) which have been made from it, and the theory (Chap. X. XI.) which has been opposed to it with the greatest confidence. In conclusion (Chap. XII.) I shall make a few remarks upon the harmony of this doctrine with the drift and principles of revealed religion, and its consistency with the internal evidence and moral tendencies of the Christian dispensation. " It will be seen, from this sketch of my intentions, that I shall be obliged to state my dissent from some opinions, which have obtained much currency and favour in our own times. But I trust that I shall do this candidly and openly, with out departing from the spirit of fair and liberal controversy. The inquiry will likewise involve some questions of moment in divinity,-I mean, the nature and procedare of the ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost, the condition to which man is reduced by the Fall, and the extent and malignity of that infection of our nature, which is usually called Original Sin." P. ix. No reasonable doubt can be enter tained, that it was appropriated to that grace, whatever may be its nature, which is bestowed on us in the sacrament of baptism; including perhaps occasionally by a common figure of speech, its proper and legitimate effects considered in conjunc. tion with it, from the beginnings of Christianity to po very distant æra of ecclesiastical history. In those few passages of the antient Christian writers, where it bears another signification, it is evidently used in a figurative and secondary manner, tó express such a change as seemed to bear some analogy to the change effected in baptism, in magnitude and importance. At the time of the Reformation, the word was commonly used in a more loose and popular way, to signify sometimes justification, sometimes conversion, or the turning from sinful courses, sometimes repentance, or that gradual change of heart. and life, which is likewise styled renova tion. Hence, in popular language, it came to signify a great aud general reformation of habits and character, and the words regenerate and unregenerate,' were substituted for the words converted and unconverted, renewed and unrenewed, righteous and wicked. But, in the hands of the systematic Calvinist, the word passed from the popular to a strict and determinate meaning, and they pronounced regeneration to be an infusion of a habit of grace, or a radical change of all the parts and faculties of the soul, taking place at the decisive moment of the effectual call. From hence the transition to a sensible change was easy and natural; and what was a theological speculation in the system of the scholastic divines, became, in the hands of less subdued and less calculating spirits, the strong hold of enthusiasm." P.7. It is of high importance to notice the assertion made in this extract, that in the few passages of the antient writers, in which the word regeneration does not mean the grace of baptism, it is used in a figurative and secondary sense. Few as these passages are, they have been frequently and confidently alleged as testimonies of the modern and popu lar signification of the word, and Dr. Bethell has usefully shewn, by the citation of some of these passages in the notes, that the secondary sense is, of necessity, implied in the context, when it is not actually expressed, and that "Passages of this kind are very rare, and so evidently rhetorical, using the words in question in an improper and metaphorical sense, that they do not at all invalidate the assertion of learned divines, that the word regeneration is constantly used by the antient Christians to signify bap tism and its effects." The conclusion of this chapter is very extraordinary, and it is neces sary to protest against a concession, altogether gratuitous, inconsistent |