CHAPTER III.

CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS.

WHEREVER in any Church there is an "Order of Priesthood," there you are certain to find that the simple, spiritual, and beautiful ordinances of the Gospel have been more or less perverted to priestly uses, priestly power, and priestly purposes, and these have never been found to further the spiritual and sublime ends for which the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper were instituted. This, in measure, is as true of the Anglican Church as it is of the Roman. Baptismal Regeneration and Consubstantiation may have their place in the Prayer-book, but they certainly have no place in the New Testament Scriptures, as we shall see. And a large number of the priests are not content to believe and teach the doctrine of Consubstantiation, but

are bent on popularizing the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Church, and along with that most of the unscriptural errors taught and practised by the Church of Rome. Some of the

Bishops have tried to persuade us that ritualistic lawlessness is very limited in its extent, but we have only to read the Guide recently issued by the English Church Union to see that it is not so. During the last two years the churches in which the Eucharist is celebrated have increased from 474 to 613, and those in which priestly vestments are worn have risen from 1,632 to 2,026. It is surely high time to look facts in the face and deal with them as such instead of shutting our eyes to them, as the Bishops appear to have done, or to say, as they still seem inclined to do: 'Let us observe them gravely and pass on.'

Let us now consider the Sacraments, and learn what the Scriptures and the Prayer-book say regarding them.

I. BAPTISM.

1. What saith the New Testament? Said John the Baptist: 'I indeed baptize you with water

unto repentance: but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire' (Matt. iii. 11). 'When therefore the Lord knew how that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples), He left Judæa, and departed again into Galilee' (John iv. 1-3). 'Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God' (John iii. 5). 'I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. And I baptized also the house of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel' (1 Cor. i. 14-17). 'Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead' (Col. ii. 12). 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. iv. 5). 'Wherefore let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ, and press on unto perfection, not laying

again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit' (Heb. vi. 1-3).

2. What saith the Prayer-book?

"Seeing now, dearly beloved brethen, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto Him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." "We yield Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for Thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into Thy holy Church."

This is Baptismal Regeneration plainly taught. Do all the Bishops and priests accept this teaching? Some do, and others do not. What is the mental attitude of the latter towards it? This is what Dr. Ryle, the Lord Bishop of Liverpool, says in his Principles for Churchmen:

I wish to urge on many of my fellow churchmen the dangerous tendency of extravagantly high views of the efficacy of baptism. I have no wish to conceal my meaning. I refer to those churchmen who maintain that grace invariably accompanies baptism, and that all baptized persons are in baptism 'born again.' I ask such persons, in all courtesy

and brotherly kindness, to consider seriously the dangerous tendency of their views, and the consequences which logically result from them. They seem to me, and to many others, to degrade a holy ordinance appointed by Christ into a mere charm, which is to act mechanically, like a medicine acting on the body, without any movement of a man's heart or soul. Surely this is dangerous! They encourage the notion that it matters nothing in what manner or spirit people bring their children to be baptized. It signifies nothing whether they come with faith and prayer and solemn feelings, or whether they come careless, prayerless, godless, and ignorant as heathens. The effect, we are told, is always the same in all cases-the infant is born again the moment it is baptized, although it has no right to baptism at all except as the child of Christian parents. Surely this is dangerous !"

Who are the persons upon whom my Lord Bishop of Liverpool urges this dangerous tendency of extravagantly high views of the efficacy of baptism? They are those who honestly use the language of the Baptismal Service, and believe what they say when the words are uttered: "This child is regenerate." They are loyal to the teaching of the Prayer-book concerning baptism, and the fancied fact which the Church has ordained them to declare. The objection of the Bishop, strangely enough, is not to the baptismal formula itself, but to the belief that "all baptized infants