ing and to lead the Beginner imperceptibly to an acquaintance with the principal Rules of that useful Art. By John George Wood, F.S.A. Lecturer on Perspective. Royal 4to. 11. 1s. bds.

A Treatise on the Coal Mines of Durham and Northumberland, contain ing accounts of the Explosions from Fire-damp which have occurred therein for the last Twenty Years; their Causes, and the means proposed for their Remedy. By J. HJH. Holmes, Esq. F. A.S. With illustrative plates. 8vo. 10s. 6d. boards.

ECLECTIC REVIEW,

FOR SEPTEMBER, 1816.

Art. I. The Christian Observer, July, 1816. ARTICLE: Review of Considerations on the Doctrine of Baptism. Reprinted from the Eclectic Review.

HAD

AD we entered upon the discussion of the topics involved in the present controversy respecting Baptismal Regeneration, with either the views or the feelings of partisans, we should have derived gratification only from the perusal of this captious and feeble rejoinder to our "Considerations." When an opponent resorts to misrepresentation and irrelevant invective, in the hope of neutralizing the arguments he finds himself incompetent to overthrow, it affords presumptive evidence of the weakness of his cause, and at the same time indicates a consciousness of that weakness. It is not possible, indeed, to account for the bitter animosity which "The Chris"tian Observer" has for some years manifested towards us and our predecessors in the management of our REVIEW, on any supposition creditable to the motives or the intentions of its Conductors. Nor should we have thought it worth while to deviate in the present instance from the line of conduct to which the Eclectic Review adhered under former attacks, had not the subject been of a nature which forbids us to rest satisfied with the petty triumph of polemical success, since the interests, not of a party, but of truth and Godliness, are involved in the discussion.

We must first recall to the minds of our readers, in as few words as possible, the real state of the present question, the agitation of which has led to these lengthened discussions. It is sufficiently known, that two Sermons originally preached by the Rev. Dr. Mant, before the University of Oxford, were subsequently printed in a cheap form, and circulated by the Bartlett's Buildings Society, under the title of "Two Tracts "intended to convey right notions respecting Regeneration, "and Conversion." In the first of these Tracts, Dr. Mant contends that Baptism is the vehicle of Regeneration, and that Regeneration is inseparable from Baptism; and he adduces quotations from the Services of the Church of England, VOL. VI. N. S.

S

to shew that this doctrine is taught by the unequivocal language of her Ritual. The publications of the Rev. Messrs. Biddulph, Scott, and Bugg, are directed to shew, that Dr. Mant's notions are anti-scriptural, and that they are not chargeable on the Offices of the Church of England.

On inspecting these publications, it was obvious that discussions respecting the first of these points, were, strictly speaking, irrelevant. This remark has been since made by a writer no less interested than Dr. Mant's opponents, in reconciling the language of the Church with the doctrines of Scripture. The question at issue lies within a small compass; it is simply this: What is the doctrine taught by the Church of England? To ascertain this, nothing more seemed requisite, than to refer to the plain grammatical meaning of the language of the Prayer Book, in those very Offices which relate to the sacrament of Baptism. But before we proceeded to this examination, we remarked, as Dr. Laurence has since done, how singular it appears, that, as to a plain question of fact, there should exist any such controversy. The Church of England is not so many hundred years old, that her history, or the history of her formularies, is become involved in obscurity; and yet we never heard that the fact was represented before as doubtful, either by Conformists or by Nonconformists. Dr. Mant is so unguarded', as the Christian Observer terms it, as to refer to the exceptions made on this very point to the Book of Common Prayer by the ejected Ministers, as collateral proof of his assertion; and we could not but refer to the same evidence in proof that the notions respecting Baptismal Regeneration, to which the Church demands an unfeigned assent and consent, have formed one of the standing reasons for Nonconformity. The question does not, most assuredly, rest upon testimony. The English language, in which the forms of the Church are extant, has undergone no material change since the era of their composition; and we are therefore as competent to decide upon the meaning of the words used, as the Compilers themselves were. This Christian Observer however imagines, that' enlightened criticism' (a phrase which is so unfortunate as to provoke his sneer) is as necessary and as legitimate a means of interpreting compositions written in our mother tongue, not three centuries ago, and designed for popular use, as of ascertaining the true import of Scripture phraseology. He affects not to see why the literal meaning of the Greek text of the New Testament should be subjected to a mode of interpretation, which is denied in determining the literal meaning of the English Prayer Book. For instance: it has been a question among expositors of eminent learning and piety, whether Our Lord, in his conversation with Nicodemus, specifi

จ

cally referred to the Ordinance of Baptism. We shewed that the Ancients understood the passage as literally connecting salvation with a rite subsequently instituted; and we remarked that Bishop Hopkins was one of the earliest episcopal writers who contended for a different construction of the passage. Our shrewd opponent lays hold of this difference of opinion, to prove that the same latitude of interpretation is due to the language of the Ritual; that similar doubts may be entertained as to the meaning of its Compilers; and that the same 'methods are to be taken to prove the Church consistent with 'herself,' which are employed to vindicate the consistency of infallible truth! We suspect that the phrase enlightened 'criticism,' has led our angry friend into this logical absurdity From the sneer it excited one would be led to imagine, that he associated with the words, the idea of the modern Socinian method of interpretation; and though we regret that he misunderstood us, we concede that by that mode of criticism, the literal meaning of the Baptismal Service may be reconciled with Scripture: - only we would take the liberty of recommending an improved version.

But to return to our statement. Although the question of the meaning of words does not rest upon testimony, we may adduce evidence in illustration of the intention of those who employed them, This task Dr. Laurence has in a great measure spared us, by his elaborate investigation of the real sentiments of the Compilers of the Liturgy, which he shews were in favour of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. He, too, is so unguarded, as to refer to the objections of the Nonconformists, as expressed in particular at the Savoy Conference. Our Christian Observer labours very hard to invalidate their testimony In the first place, as he informs us, many of 'them were exceedingly inveterate against an episcopal form of church government; and many of them could not endure any liturgy at all: therefore, either they could not tell why they preferred the sacrifice of every worldly interest to conformity, and were reduced to invent as an excuse for their conduct, a reason that did not exist; or, if they could tell, they are not to be believed! Again: The followers of the 'late ruler of France,' are not in a favourable situation for candidly interpreting the present acts of the French Govern'ment our Observer probably is thinking of the persecutions in the South of France, which of course none but the followers of Bonaparte give credit to--and the West Indian 'party' are in a situation equally unfavourable for deciding upon the merits of the Slave Registry Bill:' therefore (ingenious parallel!) the Nonconformists of Charles the Second's time, whom this writer designates as the revolutionary party,' were

6

،