The Press. — London, England, 1856-06-21 00:00:00

594 used ?—one which betokens a restoration to the condition of our first parents before the Full, but in no way implies the impossibility of subsequent sin, any more than the holiness of Adam and Eve prevented them from dis obedience. Yet was not the holiness of Adam and Eve something more than a capacity for holi ness ? Both Hooker and Bishop Bethel bear witness to the meaning of the word. In their language, baptism is " the door of our actual " entrance into God's house, the first begin " ning of life ;" and baptised infants are " those " whom God hath called unto the first begin " flings of eternal life, and presented b.t the " well-spring of new birth, wherein original " sin is purged." Mr. Motley's line of argu ment, then, is this,—that regeneration is always used in Scripture as equivalent to actual holiness, and that persons in a state of actual holiness cannot commit sin ; but, as baptised persons can and do commit sin, they cannot of necessity be regenerate, and that consequently the High Church doctrine of baptismal regeneration is founded on error. The reply to that may be, that the terms of Scripture on which he relies to establish his definition, while undoubtedly going far be yond a mere capacity fur holiness, do never theless nowhere go so far as to imply a state of holiness greater than that possessed by Adam and, Eve when in a state of innocence ; and that, just as they committed sin, so may regenerate persons commit it. The parable of the talents and the ten virgins, and of the leaven in the meal—St. Paul's exhortation to " stir up the gift that is in us "—his exhorta tions to the saints " to be renewed daily " the collect for Christmas-day, "that we being " regenerate, may be renewed daily "—the prayer in the baptismal service, which, after taanking God that it " hath pleased Him to •• regenerate this infant," goes on nevertheless to pray for his final salvation—all point with sufficient distinctness to one interpretation of the term regenerate. One of the strongest passages in favour of Mr. Motley's own view is that from St. John 1 Ep. iii. 9, " Whatever " is born of God doth not commit sin, for his " seed rernaineth in him ; and he cannot sin, " because he is burn of God." But here the Greek words for " Whatever is born " are, Ira; 0 ryMip.4o; ; the perfect tense, " what " ever• has been and still is born "—that is, in whom the seed still remains. So the present Bishop of Liacoln,—" Whosoever having been " born again continues in that state, and there " fore not only was but is a child of God, cannot " sin wilfully and habitually" (" Witness of the Spirit," p. 196) To the other• passages of St. John quoted by Mr. Moziey may be op posed Heb. x. 26-27, vi. 4-6, Peter 2 Ep. ii. 20-22, Matt. xii. 4345. We have said enough to show that in his discussion of the word regenerate Mr. Mozley has scarcely evinced as much can• dour or as much logic as we had a right to expect from so eminent and able a theologian. We pass on to his remarks on infant baptism. At page 128 Mr. Mozley writes:— Infant baptism has grown up so completely to be the general rule, to which adult baptism is the exception, that we are apt popularly to regard the institution as primarily a al in the drat instance connected with infants, and only secondarily with adults. But the doctrine of baptism is the very converse of this, the institution being in truth primarily designed for adults, and only secondarily for infants. By baptism being primarily designed for adults, I mean that adults alone are in thenseire4 fit subjects of baptism. Repentance and faith are plainly laid down in Scripture as the necessary conditions of baptism. Adults can in themselves fulfil these conditions. and therefore adults can be in themselves tit subjects of baptism. But infants cannot in themselves fulfil these conditions, and therefore are not in themselves tit subjects of baptism They are only made such by the faith and repentance of other persons being accepted as a substitute for their own, that is, by allowing other persons to stand in their place, s ).far as these conditions are concerned, and expressly aecounting and regarding them so far as if they were those other persons. To assert that because " infants cannot in `' themselves fulfil these conditions, they are not in themselves fit subjects of baptism," is just the same as to say that human beings must of n cessity be made wicked before they can be nude good—to impugn the position occupied by the elder brother of the prodigal son, or by the ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance. If baptism is the washing away of original sin, infants are fit recipients THE PRESS. of it. We must consider that of course all the first converts to Christianity were adults, and that naturally therefore Scripture language on the subject of baptism would take its colour from this circumstance In adults the for giving of original sin and the pardon of actual offences would be united in the ceremony of baptism. But we must consider that a bap tised infant now, and a baptised adult then, are on precisely the same footing as regards their salvation—each is cleansed of whatever sin he was tainted with, and before any further sin is committed may be called holy, in the sense of pure and spotless—which is surely something more than possessing a mere capa city for goodness. There is furthermore great inconsistency in Mr. Mozley's language when, fearful of deny ing the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, he says, p. 130, " infants certainly are regenerate " after baptism ;" and then, " we cannot assert "of adults that they are regenerate." Let us remember what Mr. Mozley himself means by regeneration—the receipt of a gift of holiness which can never he lost. Infants, then, he says, certainly do receive this boon, which it is impossible to lose afterwards; and then adds, in the same breath, that when they be come adults they do lose it. Surely those who abandon the old Church theory, and turn the language of the Catechism into a mere mockery, should look closely after their own arguments, and not suffer any desire to recon cile irreconcileable dogmas to lead them into such unsatisfactory reasoning as this. The History of Gustavus Adolphus, and of the Thirty Years' War, up to the King's Death. By B. Chapman, M A., Vicar of Letherhead. London: Longmans. THERE is a wide difference in the qualifica tions required by a writer of contemporaneous history, and one who seeks to reproduce before our minds the picture of a past age. Accuracy in facts, and a lucid simplicity of style, are almost all that the former need possess to produce a work which future generations will accept as a classic. But the latter must have far mole than this. He must have all the qualities but the manual skill of the historical painter—strong imagination, a talent for grouping, a quick eye for the picturesque, and a command of fervid and striking language. Or, if he has not these, he must have some thing to compensate for their absence—some original theory to propound, or some novel discoveries to exhibit. It is no great dispa ragement to a writer to say that he does not possess those qualities, for scarcely one in a century does ; yet without them he is not likely to produce a standard work, though he may compose a pleasing narrative. The subject of Mr. Chapman is a really fine one. The last efforts of Protestantism in Germany appa rently crashed. Frederick of Bohemia and his beautiful wife, the object of homage to so many gallant spirits of the day, exiles from their kingdom. Christian of Denmark, and his brave Scotch mercenaries, worsted at length in the cruelly unequal struggle, and reduced to inactivity by the Treaty of Lubeck, which compelled him to dismiss all the foreign troops in his service. Most of the great soldiers of fortune who had upheld the cause of the Protestants vanished from the scene ; the Duke of Saxe Weimar, Christian Duke of Brunswick, and that extraordinary man Ernest Count Mansfeldt, the Montreal of the period, who always wore Elizabeth's glove on his helmet, and died in 1626, before he was thirty years of age, in a hovel in Dal matia. France and England looking quietly on, though from very different motives—the one merely waiting till the combatants were exhausted to step in at the last and reap all the fruits of the contest, the other steadily ad hering to the policy of non-interference which distinguished the Stuart dynasty ; while the last, spark of religious liberty bad been wellnigh trodden out under the hoofs of Tilly's Cu rassiers—wheu suddenly from the shores of the Baltic the youthful Swedish hero burst down upon the Papal armies, confounded the greatest generals of the age, and before he was thirty-seven had stemmed that formidable spiritual reaction, and changed the history of Europe. SATURDAY, Such is the character and such the events which Mr. Chapman has undertaken to deli neate. The whole career of Gustavus Adol phus, from his acct ssion to his death, is one of the romances of history, arid would afford an admirable theme to any of the class of poetical historians—such, for instance, as the lamented author of " The Memoirs of Prince Rupert," who has set an example of this sort of writing not easy to be followed. But to this class of writers Mr. Chapman has no affinity. His work is a. highly respectable production, and, had it been the first of its kind, so as to fill up an acknowledged vacancy iu history, might have been esteemed a valuable contribution to lite rature. Mr. Chapman seems to have applied himself to the regular sources of information with commendable industry, and to have com posed his narrative in a laudable spirit of moderation. He exhibits also at times no in conside►able political sagacity. He does not add to the reproaches usually heaped upon James I. for not assisting his son-in-law Frederick, whose imprudence in accepting the Crown of Bohemia he considers almost a sufficient justification of James's conduct:— Oa the 25th of October he was crowned at Prague, with a haste founded perhaps upon his disputable title, and with a costly expenditure which in the circumstances of the moment could ill be spared. If the Protestant►sm o • the young King had been less sectarian in its character, and had he, supported by the Protestant powers of Europe, been able in one great battle to crush the troops first sent against him, the close of his reign might not have fur nished so dismal a contrast to the splendour with which it was inaugurated. Bat some of the Protestant powers could not, and others would not help him. The Prince of Orange would have gladly come to his assistance, but the twelve years' truce with Spain was drawing to a close, and he had to husband his strength for a fresh encounter. Gustavus Adolphus could do no more than testify his good will and sympathy by a small gift of guns, and an attempt to engage the co-operation of the Elector of Brandenburg. The Kings of Denmark and England discountenanced the step which Frederick had taken, and refused him the title of king. In vain the zealous Anbot, Archbishop of Can terbury, urged the King of England to follow where God led, and avowed his conviction that the Bohemians had just cause to reject " that proud and bloody man " Ferdi nand. James professed publicly that he was not suffi ciently versed in the laws and constitution of Bohemia to decide a question so delicate : " Quis me fecit judicem ?" Privately he advised his son•in-law to renounce a throne to which he had no right. Nearer home the Imperial free cities shrunk from the expense and danger of a quarrel with Ferdinand: the Elector of Saxony took an open part against the new king ; the Evangelical Union, after a faint hesitation, abandoned him at his utmost need. This is rather a favorable speclmen of Mr. Chapman's style, which is often too dif fuse. Nor do we see in what respect he has improved on his predecessor, liarte, on whose literary merit Lord Chesterfield, though he made him tutor to his son, passed so severe a censure. The book has small pre• tensions to excellence purely on its own merits, and any claim to be considered the life, par excellence, of' the great Swedish Prince, is wholly inadmissible. The Danes and the Swedes. By Cl - arles Henry Scott. Landon: Longmans. Ora notice of Mr. Scott's book has st )od over until the subject hits partly lost its interest. It is not, however, a work which calls for any lengthened criticism. Its principal defects are in style. Mr. Scott has not the fluent pen or volatile fancy required by a writer of this class of travels. But he is a candid and sensible observer, and, wherever he gets upon subjects adapted to his powers, he is worth attention. His account of Sunday in Copenhagen, and the reflections to which it gives rise upon the difference of Sunday in London, is noteworthy : The Danes appear to be pretty regular church-goers, that is, comparatively with other continental nations ; but in Copenhagen the duty is principally confined to attend ing the morning service. On a tine Sunday afternoon, nearly the whole population may be seen flocking to the suburbs, all intent on enjoying the time which this day affords them of relaxation from their weekly labour. It is then that the tea-gardens are crammed to repletion with the honest "townfolk ; " it is then that the Tivoli-gardens attract the greatest numbers; then when the "merry-go round" attains its extreme velocity, and the carriages descend the "Russian mountain " in quickest succession. It is really quite refreshing to see the contei tment of these good people, and to observe how well pier sed they are with such simple pastimes; and while watching their quiet enjoyment, one doubts the wisdom of deo lying a nation of all innocent amu•ement, on the only day when the hard-working classes can find leisure for recreation without pecaniwy loss, and consequent depmation to their families. Nor could we help contrasting the respect• 1