Original Correspondence. To the Editor of the New Zealander.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 501, 1 February 1851, Page 3

Original Correspondence. To the Editor of the New Zealander.

Sir, — Your correspondent •' A Lny Member of the Anglican Church "' understands the controversial faculty of the Tractnriai> School. Its lorte is evasion, its argument, a^s»»rtion, and its essence obscurity. Misinterpret, mystify, insinuate schism or something worse, and shake in terru/cm an overwhelming avalanche of selections from Holy Father* and Reformed Divines,—and you will soo.i attain proficiency.— My reply will be short and, I hope, more to the point. As your correspondent is at a loss to understand the first part of my former letter, 1 will try to explain it, although 1 despair of putting it into plainer English words. I contrasted the two different interpretations of the five Bishopi, and the Bishop of Melbourne, of the doctrine of the Church of England on Baptismal Regeneration. TUe five Bishops believed the doctrine of our Church to be that all infants do hy baptism receive regeneration, and do not recognise any unfitneis in infanti disqualifying them from receiving that grace. The Bishop of Melbourne says the Church cannot be utideritood as declaring positively a fact which it cannot know, the regeneration of every baptised infant, and that she is silent as to the fitness or unntucss of an infant, who is incapable of repentance and faith, (the essential conditions of receiving Baptism rightly) for being regenerate in baptism,—and that the words she use* in her Baptismal Services arc merely the language of faith and hope. I stated this latter interpretation to be, in my belief, more conformable, than the former one, to the Word of God, and to the common seme of man, 1 tee no reason to withdraw or alter that ttatement. Your cortespon'Jent, however, though »low enough in comprehending Uie meaning of my words, has been very quick in giving them another meaning which, conveniently for his argument, was quite untenable. He wished to make me altogether deny Baptismal Grace. —l do no such thing.—l hold with the 27th Article of our Cnuich, that Baptism is a sign of Regeneration vrlicreby " they that icceive Baptism rii/itlif are crafted into the Church." I believe the pioj>T micrHi'f'Htion of " receiving Bnptimi lightly" 111 1 be contf-Hicu in the wordi of Christ and his Ajjostlds " llj v.ho believes- and is baptized," " Repent and he baptized." I only impugn the doctrine which dogmatically asserts that infants (and they ure infants up to the age at which they can properly receive confirmation) are capable of repentance and faith, or, in other woids, always rightly receive Baptism, and bccoii« regenerate. I used the word " liberal (a word held in distnste by the High Church) in the sense in which I use it now when I call Christianity Ihe most liberal religion in the world, —a religion which contains a broad and perfect code of morally und taith, and abhors the wordy cavils and anogant assumption of individuals. For the evil results of bigotry in its worst form you hate only to turn to that modern curse of Christendom, the Bibhop i>f Exeter. In his recent letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and in his Protest, you may re ognise intolerance, animosity, and uncharitable sentiments less disgraceful io ft benighted Heathen than to one who I suppose calls himself a Regenerate Christian Divine. I remain, Sir, &c, &c , A MUMBfR. OF THE CIIUKCH OF EnGLA.NO. January 25, 1851.