THE LATE CONFERENCE OF THE BISHOPS IN SYDNEY. To the Editor of the New Zealnnder.

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

THE LATE CONFERENCE OF THE BISHOPS IN SYDNEY. To the Editor of the New Zealnnder.

Sir,—TJie quotations in my previous letter I trust fully justified mv assertion lhat the doctrine of Baptismil Regeneration, so far from being merely '• the dogmatical interpretation of a few tractanans, or of a ■mall section of the English Church," has been at al! times that of the vast majority of the Chinch's teachers, and that the insinuation that to those who hold it " the told of the Pope " is " a more congenial" one than the English Church, is «o far from beins we 1 founded that this doctrine was held firmly by almost all the leading reformers, and was embodied in the confessions of faith of most (if not all) of the reformed bodiei. I fear, however, that there are tome who hold with the Bishop of Melbourne and the " Member of the Church of England," who will not he convinced of the truth of my statement by any number of quotations, however cleuily the doctrine in question may be set forth in them ; for it is ab«olutcly impossible to find any form of word* which will moredutinctly declare " that all infnnts do in baptiim receive the gi»ce of regeneration," than those which are used in the baptismal office* of the Chinch of England. I have never met wilh a di&seuler who hud ihe slightest doubt that this doctrine is fully recognised and declared in these offices ; and I am well assured that (his is also the opinion of at least five-sixths of the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ot the Church <»f England. The well known Mr. Bapti»t Noel has published to the world that while « minister or the Church he hail tried very hard to convince himself that these services did not affirm the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, but that at length he found it a vain attempt, the language being too plain to admit of any but one interpretation ; and I have myself heard clergymen, whose opinion! coincided with those of the Bishop oi Melbourne, confess that they had often telt very uncomfortable while using the offices for the Baptism of Infants. Your correspondent, " A Member of the Ch'irch of Englurul,"|| .claims for his view of the Church's | doctrine that " It is more confounable to the common J tease of man." Let us sre whether thi« is the cai«. In the service for the public baptism of infants the Church by her ministers (-let-lares, in the words of our Lord that "None can eiKr into (he Kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerated and bom unew ot water and the Holy Gho^t," exhorts to prayer lor this grace, and then prayi that this infant •' coming to thy

Holy Baptism may receive iemis-.ion of his sins by j Bpirituil regeneration." « Give thy Holy Spiut to this infant that he may bo born again and he made an htir of everlasting salvation." After ihe baptism of the cliild the Minister say* " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child it id-enmited. . . Let us give thauks to Almighty God tor these benefiti," and then addresses the God "of tiuth in these wordi, «' We yip'd Thee hearty thanks tnost merciful Father, that it hath pleased ihce to regenerate thh in/ant with Thy Holy Spirit, &c." When the infant lias been baptised privately (and in which case there having: been no spomois, no joom i> left for the notion that the effect of baptism dupeuds on the faith or unbelief of the spoi^rrs) and the child is afterwards brought to the Church. i:ie clergyman is diiroted, if he did not himself buptizs the <lvld, to enquire whether the child was baptize 1 by a lawful minister, with water and in the uutne ot thi i i ily Trinity, and il he finds that all things were done us they ought lo be done, he shall suy, " / certify you t;,<it in thh case all ia well done and in due order concerning the baptism of this child ; who being born in original sini, and in Ihe wrath of God, is now by the Invcr of Regeneration in Bap f ism. received into the number (if the chihhcn oj God, and heirs oj ever* I tatting life." The Chinch also in her catechism, [ teaches cvpiy baptized child to hay, " In my baptism, | wherein 1 wts made a member of Christ, a child of j God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven." The Bw hop ot M Ibounu* a,iul your correspondent, " A Mfitibur of the Church of England, 1 ' say, however, that the Chuu-h in al tins is only using "the language nt tduli ,\nd liojk, and i-. not to bo understood as derlaiing positively a fart, whu h it cannot cert,iinly know." With (.11 deference to the Bishop's high statijii, I must ask what does lie mem by •' the language o( faith and hope ?" Holy Scripture, tells us that " Faith is the evidence of things not seen," whjch surely means that it makes unseen things aa certain to the mind as if they were seen — that it is in place of sight; and [lope as certainly has nothing to do with the p&st or present, but is the expectation of future good, and that no doubtful thing but " the anchor of the soul, sure and steadfast." The Bishop, however, appears to use these words as if faith and hope were synonymous with doubt and uncertainty— a. peradventure, at the utmost, otherwise what can be the meaning ot the abseiuon (hat wh-n the Church, declaies " That il hath pleased God to regenerate this infant" she is usn» r the language of faith and hope, but is not l< declaring positively a fact" ? And in it '♦ the language ot fauh and hope," aud not the declarat*on of a fact that is put into the mouth of every child who is taught to say th.it "in his bapfiiin he was made a member of Christ, and child of Gou"' ? If it be so no language can be too severe to use in condemnation of such >i solemn mockery. The Bishop of Melbourne fuither sajs that " Repentance and faith are required of thoie who come to be baptised, but the Church is silent as to the fitness or unfitness of an infant, who is incapable of lepentnnce and faith, for receivin" regenoiation in baptism." Silent! If she is silent on this point, sue has cm-ii'ily never spoken on «ny one. She declares at the. reception of every child who 1h« been privately baptised, that the infant has been " by the layer of regestjra./'on teceived into the number of the children of God, &c : for our Saviour doth not deny His grace and mercy to such infants." Asain, .befoie tho public baptism of every infant, *>l>e .suy*, " Ueloved ye hear in this Gospel the words of our Saviour Chiist, that lie commanded the children to be brought unto Hun ; how He blamed those that would h»ve Kept them from Him ; bow He exorteth all men to follow their iniiocencij Doubt ye not therefore, but i earnestly believe that H<s will l«Lo.v.s»e favourably rrccive this infutit, tlut He will embiace him with the arms of H s ninny ; that Ilf will i^ive him the blessing of eternal life and make him partaker of tlis kingdom." Is this silence ? She siiys, fuither, "Seeing now that this child is by baptism regenerate.'' Is this silence ? Again sue teaches every child to say that in hii baptism he ivat made a child of God, &t." Is this silence ? If this i* to be silent as to " the fitness ot infints to receive regeneration in baptism," ' h w can she s^eak ? But the Bishop of Melbourne further say?, in his statement which •' A Member of the Church of England" tli inks " so conformable to the common senMJ of man," that (although wfatita are incapable of faith, and repentance, and a.U'ough the Church has theiefore been silent as lo their fitness for receiving regeneration in baptiim) " children who have been baptised art. to be taught to repard God as their Father" (although they may be, and, accoiding to his theory, most piobably lire no children of His); "To trust Him as having been, sanctified by His Spirit," although no one "can certainly know" that in doing; so he is not teaching the poor child to believe a he L But there is yet something; more extraorclmaiy be- L hind ; for the Bishop after all expresses his " willing disposition" to carry on the work of cluintian education in ihe firm belief tL.it infants dv receive in bap* tism " the grace of regeneration," and this while he declares that '«our own personal t.iili> and repentance are the mi!, sure evidence of our being God's children," and that " the Chmch is Aliens na to the fitness or unfitneds of infants to receive regeneration in baptism !" I trust I may safely a<k, Is this " conform" able to the common sense of man" ? Bat if, as the Bishop of Meloourne states, the Church tvs been silent on this pome, Air. Gorham, the chafup.ou of those who inleipret the Church's formularies in this " now nalmal" way, has spoken out plainly enough. He distinctly sta es, answer No. 15, ♦' Our Church holds, and I hoid, that no spiritual grace is conveyed <n b<i,)tism, rxrept to worthy recipients, and as infants aie by nature unworthy rcceioeis being bom in s>m and children ot wialh, they cannot receive any benefit fro n baptism except there ihall have been a uieveunmt act of &race to maku them worthy." And again, answer 19, "If such, infants die before they commit actual sin, the Church holds, and I hold, that they are undoubtedly saved, and thacfire they must h.we bctfn regenerated, by an act of jirace prevenient to their baptism ; in order to make them worthy recipLnls of that sucrament." Thus Mr. Gorham declares tlut the Church holds and he holds, that no infant is regr-nvrated in baptism, for that in older f o receive uny benefit from "the sacrament of regenei ution" they must have been pievioush/ regenerated (to make them worthy of it. Is tlvs " conformable to the common sense of man," or if th« Church did indeed hold with the Bi-hop of Melbourne and Mr. Gorham, would her language in her bapiismnl services aud catechism be tontormable to common honesty? Tho answer to this I thiuk I also may '• ia)ely leave to the decision of iho majoiity of your readers." Tliere are other obiervatioi< I would havo mad', but that 1 fcae I have alr« » ■ ■ made 100 great a demand on the hunted spsce on can affoid to give correspondents. Should the " jiutuber of the Church of En^luud" think proper to reply to my Ic'.ters, I shall be glad to ha»e an oppoUututy ol returning to liic subject;. I remain, \ours vety respectfully, A I/AY Mem mill or viik Anuhcis Ciurucii. 27Ui Jamuiy, 185 1.