testible proof derived from Holy Scripture, of this extraordinary change. It will probably be said, with a contemptuous sneer, This is only a cavil of proud reason, which calls for proof, when humble faith would meekly and implicitly submit. We will meekly submit to the lively oracles of God, but not to the uninspired traditions of men. From the traditions of men, the ecclesiastical authority of the primitive church, we candidly admit our opponents have the best, though not the whole of the argument; but on this subject we maintain, Scripture and tradition, the apostles and their successors, Christ and the early church are manifestly at variance. Although some will blame us for making the admission, yet as far as we can understand the testimony of the fathers, notwithstanding several inconsistencies and some apparent exceptions, the full and rapid stream of ecclesiastical authority from a very early source runs strong in favour of the theory of baptismal regeneration. The defenders of the second and third hypotheses admit, that as the virtue of baptism may be repelled by mortal sin, so it may be subsequently lost by aggravated criminality. It follows that as baptism is the only means of regeneration, those who have lost this grace of God must be in an awful condition, if indeed it be possible to renew them again to repentance. There are, indeed, two other baptisms by which, it is admitted, the lapsed may possibly be recovered the one, the baptism in the profusion of the bitter tears of penitence; to what extent required, in what manner sufficient, no mortal can explain, as of this painful recovery of the fallen none can even speak with confidence; and the other the baptism in the blood of martyrdom, which is generally admitted, in the words of Tertullian, to be the baptism which both stands in the place of the laver when it has not been received, and restores it when it is lost.'-pp. 217-219.

The fourth hypothesis is the one usually adopted by the evangelical clergy, in opposition to the Tractarians, and it is supposed to afford a sufficient explanation or solution of the difficult language of the formulary. This theory, however, the defence of which is undertaken by Mr. Faber, is shown to be too weak for the language of the baptismal service: Dr. Halley, therefore, says, I have a right to attribute it (the doctrine in question) to every man who thanks God, immediately after baptism, that the 'child is regenerate, because I cannot suppose that, with these 'words on his lips, in a solemn religious service, he believes the 'child is not regenerate.' The theory that makes the rite altogether doubtful in its effects, which resolves its efficacy, as Mr. Faber's exposition does, into the sovereignty of God, saying that "regeneration may, according to the divine pleasure, take place either before baptism, or in baptism, or after baptism,' is, in fact, no doctrine of baptismal regeneration; and yet Mr. Faber says, I never yet happened to meet with an English clergyman who had either succeeded in persuading himself, or had ever attempted to persuade himself, that his church did not consider the grace

of regeneration to be conveyed in baptism.' Such confusion and inconsistency is, at least, avoided by the bolder theory of the Tractarians. They fall back upon the obvious sense of the formulary and the authority of the ancient church; to men of their own church this position is formidable-it can be carried only by the artillery of Holy Scripture. While Dr. Halley shows that, of the two parties, the evangelical and the Tractarian, the latter is the more consistent both with themselves and with church authorities, he yet bends the main strength of his argument against their representation of the doctrine. Thus, he meets Dr. Pusey upon the chosen text of Scripture, which he had considered a sufficient vindication of the regenerative theory.

The first text, and that which is cited with most confidence is, 'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This passage therefore demands our careful consideration, not only because much reliance is placed upon it in this controversy, but especially because, if we can ascertain its meaning, we shall have the key to most of the other passages which are usually adduced upon this subject.

To be born of water, I readily admit, for reasons which have been adduced in a preceding lecture, is to be baptized; but the inquiry is, does it prove the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in the ordinary sense of that expression? If it do not, no other passage can, for its meaning when ascertained will guide us in our interpretation of other passages, as we shall see when we have to examine them.

The leading question, the inquiry on which the sense of the passage depends, is, Are we to consider the birth by water and the birth by the Spirit as two distinct operations, or as two parts of the same operation? Is the person born of water necessarily and at the same time born of the Spirit, or may he be only born of water, and fail of being born of the Spirit? The words of themselves assuredly do not prove the inseparable union of the two things. In a corresponding passage, where no figurative terms are employed, he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,' no one supposes that faith and baptism mean the same thing, nor would any one think of proving from the words, that they are so inseparably united, that faith cannot originate before baptism, or that baptism cannot be administered without instantaneously producing faith.

Tractarians say that the words, 'of water,' are intended to teach us that our Lord is not to be understood as insisting only upon a spiritual and internal influence; and on the other hand the words, 'of the Spirit,' that he is not to be understood as restricting the new birth to any outward change of state or relation, however great may be its privileges. (See Tract for the Times, No. 67.) We fully agree with them, for we also maintain, that to be born of water is not a spiritual change, and that to be born of the Spirit is not an external change.

But why should the external and the spiritual be united in one operation? Why may not the birth of water precede or follow the birth of the Spirit? Faith and baptism are, as we have seen, placed in apposition in the words of our Lord, and yet are they distinct in their nature, as I imagine a Tractarian, or even a Romanist, will not maintain, that an infant, when baptized, believes on Him of whom it has never heard. Should it be said the infant believes by its sponsors, we reply, with as much countenance from Scripture it may be said, it is regenerated in its sponsors. And even then the argument remains, if faith and baptism are distinct operations though classed together by our Lord, so may the birth of water, or baptism, and the birth of the Spirit, or regeneration, be distinct operations, as they must have been, according to the opinion of all writers, in the instance of Nicodemus, if he had been at that time baptized. Or even if the appeal must be made from common sense to ecclesiastical tradition, the Fathers distinguish faith from baptism. Thus says Justin Martyr, Those who are persuaded and believe what we teach to be true, are led by us to a place where there is water, and after the manner of the new birth by which we also were new-born, are they new-born; for they are baptized in water.' And again, Tertullian says, 'Be it that in past times salvation was through faith alone, when faith was enlarged by the belief in his nativity, passion, and resurrection, there was added the seal of baptism, the clothing as it were of faith.' By the same rule of interpretation why should not the birth of water and the birth of the Spirit denote two distinct operations, and not one indivisible birth?

'To be born again, in Jewish phraseology, is to become a son of Abraham, and so to have a new father. To be born again, in Christian phraseology, is to become a son of God, and to have a new Father in heaven. Of this new birth, baptism is the visible sign, regeneration the internal reality. But if it can be clearly and incontrovertibly proved, not only from the evangelical history, but even from the concessions of our opponents, that the two phrases, as they were addressed specifically to Nicodemus, and as they must have been understood in his time, could not have designated one simultaneous operation, but must have described two distinct and separate things, there is an end of the exposition, which binds together in this verse baptism and regeneration, and consequently of the pile of tottering argument erected up on this sandy foundation. Of this passage, be it remembered, Dr. Pusey says, 'I would gladly rest the whole question of baptismal regeneration on this one consideration.' (Tracts for the Times, No. 67, p. 41.) I rejoin, so would I. Let us examine it.

Dr. Pusey says, as we have seen, and all the Tractarians say with him, as the Roman catholics said long before them, and the Fathers still earlier, a long catena of authorities containing every important name which can be deciphered in the fading characters of tradition, that there was no such thing in the world as baptismal regeneration until the Spirit, the chief blessing of redemption, was freely given by the ascended Saviour. There was, therefore, no such thing as baptismal regeneration when our Lord conversed with Nicodemus-no

possibility on that night, nor for some time afterwards, of any man in this sense being born of water and of the Spirit. While 'from the days of John the kingdom of heaven was preached, and all men pressed into it,' at that very time, when there was no baptismal regeneration, and yet many were pressing into the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said, Verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus might surely have entered into the kingdom of God; many did press into the kingdom of God, but even according to our opponents, none of these acquired baptismal regeneration. The spring of living water had not then issued from the foot of the cross to fill the regenerating font; the angel of baptism had not then descended to trouble the holy waters, and impart to them their sanative virtue; the sacramental gifts were not conferred upon men; the priesthood was not consecrated; St. Peter had not been invested with the keys; the life-inspiring baptistry was not erected in the porch of the church; the initiation into the greater mysteries of the faith had not commenced. Did our Lord, then, speak to Nicodemus of what it was impossible for him or any one else to experience or understand till the day of Pentecost, the date of the great gift of baptismal regeneration? If he did, how could he say, Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? Can any one seriously expound the passage, as though it were to Nicodemus, not a declaration of what then actually was, but a dark prophecy of what was afterwards to take place? If there were no such thing as baptismal regeneration at that time, and yet if this verse declares that without it no man can enter into the kingdom of heaven, how is this conformable with the fact that many, during the ministry of our Lord, did enter into the kingdom of heaven? Either they entered that kingdom without baptismal regeneration, or else they had baptismal regeneration before the gift of the Holy Ghost was conferred upon the Church. But if either proposition be true, as one must be, this Catholic exposition of the verse, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,' is obviously and demonstrably false. . .

'To Nicodemus our Lord must have intended to convey the idea that he must be born of water and of the Spirit; not simultaneously, but by two distinct operations, because at that time the water was not imbued with the Spirit; and if this were the original meaning of the passage, with what kind of logic, or on what principle of hermeneutics, can it now be adduced as a proof of their inseparable union? . . . .

'The conclusion is inevitable-if when the baptism with water, and the baptism of the Spirit, were not united, but separate, our Lord declared, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' these words cannot now prove that baptism with water, and baptism with the Spirit, are invariably united in one operation. Yet this is the passage upon which Dr. Pusey says, and we join issue with him, he would gladly rest the whole question.' pp. 226-234.

This boasted authority for baptismal regeneration is thus hopelessly gone from the grasp of the Tractarians-and assuredly every other refuge sought in the Holy Scriptures fails them in like manner. Their sense cannot be imposed upon the inspired language. Every phrase, and every circumstance under which particular phrases were used, utterly repudiates the doctrine. It can find shelter only in the rubbish of ecclesiastical antiquity There we must leave it.

We should have been happy to extend our extracts, but our space forbids the further protraction of this article. So far as the sacraments are concerned, the Tractarians have not yet met with a more complete and sifting refutation. The work is eminently deserving a place in every theological, and, indeed, in every Christian library. Its extensive perusal cannot but prove eminently conducive to the cultivation of right views, and of the true Christian spirit. There are a few points in which we do not fully agree with the author; but these we waive for the sake of the general excellence of his work.

ART. V. The Seeress of Prevorst, being Revelations concerning the Inner-life of Man, and the Inter-diffusion of a World of Spirits in the one we inhabit. Communicated by JUSTINUS KERNER, Chief Physician at Weinsberg. From the German, by MRS. CRowe, Author of Susan Hopley,' 'Men and Women,' Aristodemus, à Tragedy,' &c. London. 12mo. pp. 338. 1845.

6

It is now many years since, enlightened and reduced to a state of rational and philosophical incredulity by the sober science of Dr. Ferrier and Dr. Hibbert, we bade a sorrowful farewell to all our faith in ghosts, that last lingering fiction of the brain.' We felt ourselves reluctantly compelled, one after another, to relinquish each strange tale, to open our eyes to the cold and dismal realities of observation and induction, and to consign all the spectres of our earliest faith to the dreamy regions of romance and fiction. Nay, we may as well confess, that with the exception of a few rare occasions, on which we happened to find ourselves alone, at unseasonable hours, in churchyards, or houses that were really known to be haunted, we had almost forgotten that there were such beings as ghosts. We had been looking at objects with microscopes, and dissecting them with scalpels and needles, and analysing them with acids and alkalies, and spirit lamps, and peeping at them through the far distance with reflecting telescopes, and, in short, as we thought, had been prying into all the holes and corners of this external world with most inquisitive eyes, and the torch of