Here, in particular, an opposition of sentiments appears upon a vital point, in which the Holy Ghost, in the very nature of things, can only take one side.
But they want the tradition, and therefore they must have it. It supports superstitions, which Scripture will not. And the difficulty of explaining ignota per ignotiora aggravates the importance of a present priesthood to explain both, as may seem good to them, without the possibility of popular private judgment being exercised on their interpretations and conclusions.
c. Again; their doctrine of mystery in religion, putting, (by a strange mutation,) the most obvious things for the deepest, is made particularly to produce a comparative silence respecting the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is remarkable that they should choose for the example of this mysterious reserve, the very subject concerning which the Apostle St. Paul declares to the Corinthians, “I am determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified:” “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord:” “We preach Christ crucified!” [15a] But then, their Christ crucified, by a painful perversion, is shown to be self-crucified; tears, and penances, and mortifications constituting their substitution for sin, (atonement I cannot call it;) while Christ is kept back, chiefly for mere sacramental exhibition. [15b]
That glorious name of Jesus, “the Lord our righteousness,” they almost veil from our sight, as far as His obedience to the law for us is concerned; and His sole justification, wrought for us, they actually displace by another thing. The Lutheran doctrine upon the subject, which is that of our eleventh Article, is called radically and fundamentally monstrous, immoral, heretical, and antichristian. [16a] And justification, instead of being by the works and deserving of Christ accounted unto us, and received by faith, is said to consist in the “habitation of Christ in us,” or “of God the FATHER, and the WORD incarnate, through the Holy Ghost:” “the Spirit’s work, not Christ’s:” “an imparting of righteousness;” [16b] “not imputation merely, but the act of God imparting His divine presence to the soul through baptism, and so making us temples of the Holy Ghost.” [16c] But something also is said about our being able to “obey unto justification,” [16d] in opposition to Luther; which intimates clearly that human works, resulting from this indwelling, are to be the substantial justifying material; and faith is to be the first of those works. For when they refer to the Article, asserting that “we are justified by faith only,” they say, “Faith, as being the beginning of perfect or justifying righteousness, is taken for what it tends towards, or ultimately will be. It is said by anticipation to be that which it promises; just as one might pay a labourer his hire, before he began his work.” [16e] And thus, their Christ justifying seems to be made much like their Christ crucified in us; self imitating Christ in another part of His work. A more complete removal of the Saviour out of His place in the great work of redemption, with a specious introduction of the Holy Ghost to aid in the removal, that man may do the work of his own justification, it is not easy to conceive. Whether this be right or not, judge ye. But that the Holy Ghost should testify both to this justification, and to that which is by faith only in the righteousness of Christ, which is the justification of the Protestant Reformers and their Evangelical descendants, it is clearly impossible to suppose.
d. The Holy Ghost himself, and all that religion which consists in spiritual experience, are expressly removed from full and ordinary teaching,—the glory and excellency of them being consigned to reverential reserve! [17]
The new birth of the soul by the Spirit, (except as in baptism,) the fruits of the Spirit in holiness, the comfort of the Spirit, the witness of the Spirit, the seal, the earnest, the fellowship, the indwelling, the anointing of the Holy Spirit,—His work as a Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Christ, and the deep things of God,—a Spirit of intercession, a Spirit of adoption, a Spirit of glory, and all other subjects of Christian experience, are to be said little about,—while it is the very fear of others that they should grieve and dishonour this glorious Person in the ever-blessed Trinity by not fully declaring them. They are deeply impressed by the fact that His work is equally essential to their salvation with that of Jesus Himself, and full of consolation and delight. And some perhaps may be the more intent upon preaching all that ever appertains to Him from a spirit of holy jealousy, knowing that it is a subject in which so many of us halt.
And what is their substitute? Mere morality with some: devotions, fastings, and almsgiving, with our brethren who are more in earnest; all busy in suspending fruits upon the evil tree, to make it good; instead of “first looking to the Spirit of God to make the tree good, that his fruit may be good also.” [18]
e. The sacraments are a subject in which the difference and the controversy exhibit remarkably strong characteristics. Our Anglo-catholics, it is evident, use the very term sacrament as if the spiritual grace signified thereby constituted the substantial meaning of the term: but our twenty-ninth Article shows at once that our Reformers applied it to the outward sign; “The sign OR sacrament of so great a thing:” and they there apply the term to the bread and wine, in contra-distinction to the body and blood of Christ. In the twenty-fifth Article the sense is carried out, and the term is applied to the ceremony, still having reference to that, which is ordained of God indeed, but perceived by the outward senses. And these are essential matters: for there is no sacrament, by the same article, where there is no visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. Baptism is called a sign of regeneration, whereby they that receive it rightly are, as by a significant process or instrument, not regenerated, but visibly “grafted into the church,” as already regenerated; [19] and “have the promises of forgiveness and adoption,” not then first brought home to their souls, but “visibly signed and sealed” to them;—“faith,” not first imparted, but “stirred up”—and “grace,” not first given, but “increased, by virtue of prayer to God.”
And if the Liturgy and Catechism speak of the inward and spiritual grace signified as part of the sacrament, or seem to say that the sacrament of baptism, as much as that of the Lord’s Supper, is a mean of receiving that particular grace which is signified,—they should be explained so as to harmonize with the Articles, which do already harmonize with Holy Scripture. It is a part, not as tied to the Form in time and place, but as the distinct reality, on which all the value of the formal representation is founded, and which therefore should always be steadily eyed in it. [20]
It is evident that our twenty-seventh Article contemplated, in the body of it, the baptism of adults, spiritually born. And though our ritual prefers to pray for the Holy Spirit, that they may then surely have His regenerating grace, to presuming on the previous certainty of its experience; yet the certain answer to this prayer is assuredly taken for granted as the ceremony proceeds; inasmuch as the acts of living souls are forthwith required of the subjects before they are baptized; namely, that they can speak spiritually, and deliver “the answer of a good conscience before God” in the exercise of repentance and faith, and the avowal of them. And so it is observable, that though our form of infant baptism prefers to implore regeneration then, to presuming certainly that the infant is regenerated ere he comes, yet the fact is presumed to be granted previously to the answers being made; for they are the answers of a new-born soul. Charity afterwards hopeth all things, though often disappointed. And thus our church uniformly goes upon the apostolic rule, given in answer to the question, “What doth hinder me to be baptized?” viz., “If thou believest with all thine heart, (which is the fruit of regenerating grace, [22a]) thou mayest.” A heart, even in infants, that would show faith, if organs served, is presumed to be; for “except they be born again, they cannot see the kingdom of God.” [22b] The law has no exception.