The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-04-02 00:00:00

CORRESPONDENCE,

A QUERUI

LOUS CHURCHMAN,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL ,STANDARD.
Stn,—Will you allow me, through the medium of your
excellent paper, to notice a letter which has appeared in
one of your Saturday contemporaries, coming professedly
from a person who attends a church in the town, where
things are not carried on in accordance with his superior
tastes. The letter referred to is written in a most self-
sufficient style, and sets out with a statement of some of
the author's opinions respecting preaching and clergymen,
when he condescends to mention two examples which
have given him satisfaction, though I fear he can have
profited very little under their ministry ; and from the de-

scription of epistle with which he has favoured the public,
it would be difficult to suppose him at all a like]
to appreciate the sermons of either of those pious
men. lie then goes on to complain that his pa,
regularly in his place, but that it is occupied by

'v person
od able

permanent

or occasional substitutes, of whom he speaks in terms
which must, lam sure, excite regret in a Christian, and
aversion in any one possessed of the feelings of a gentle-
In consequence of this, he says, the congregation
t":- • -nd

are neir departure, and the church is becoming
deserted. The last assertion is not only unfounded, but
is quite opposed to the true state of the case ; for the pre-
sent congregation bears no comparison with that which

used to assemble in times gone by, and is now unques-
tionably one of the best, in point of numbers, in the
town. This also must in some measure furnish a refuta-
tion to his other remarks ; for if the occasional ministry,
of which they have had so much, had been such as he de-
scribes, it hardly seems consistent that other matters should
be in the condition in which they are. But this sense of
grievance is clearly suggested by nothing but his own bad
humour; and I must protest against such conceited and
ill-natured individuals being permitted the use of a news-
paper to throw out their personal remarks respecting those
who can have done nothing to merit public censure.
When; however, this liberty has been granted, it is only
just that others should be allowed to vindicate the parties
who are thus assailed ; and it is on this ground, that I re-
quest the favour of your inserting this letter, if convenient,
in your next publication.—l am, sir, &c.,
ONE WHO ADMIRES DECENCY.

THE " SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN
KNOWLEDGE" IN 1816 ON BAPTISMAL
REGENERATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sir,—l note in your paper of Tuesday last a very unac-
countable use made of a document which was originally
communicated to a " High Church" 'publication, the
London Guardian, of the 13th instant, to corroborate, if
further corroboration were needed, the position of those
who maintain that the Church of England inculcates, and
imposes upon her members the doctrine of Regeneration in
Holy Baptism, or rather to comfort the minds of those
disturbed by the present judgment of the Privy Council.
I shall not transcribe the remarks which accompanied the
document, but merely the document itself.

"Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
Bartlett's Buildings, Tuesday, Mat/ 14, 1816.
"At a general meeting, very numerously attended—
" Present,
Charles, Lord Bishop of Canterbury,
William, Lord Bishop of London, &c. &c.,
"His Grace, the Archbishop, in. the
_Chair.
- .

"The Lord Bishop of London repohed that the Committee of
Revision had several times met on the matter referred to them
by the Board on the 20th February ult., and that they had una-
nimously concurred in framing the following report thereupon
to the Board, viz.

" Your Coinmittee having received the direction of the Board
to examine the books and tracts on the Society's catalogue, in
order to ascertain whether there be any inconsistency or con-
tradiction therein, particularly on the doctrine of regeneration,
and to make a report thereon to the Board, have proceeded
carefully to examine the same as far as the doctrine of regene-
ration, and do report that there is nothing to impeach the con-
sistency of the tracts or involve them in contradiction with each
other on the point of doctrine; although in some instances the
term regeneration is used, sometimes strictly and properly, as
applied in our liturgical offices to the grace conveyed in the
Sacrament of Baptism, and at other times in a larger and
laxer sense by different and even occasionally by the same
authors."

" Agreed that the thanks of the society be returned to the
Lord Bishop of London, and the rest of the committee of revi-
sion, for their satisfactory repprt now before the board."
Amongst those immediately concerned in the above were the
two last Archbishops of Canterbury and Bishop Van Mildert.

The document is so far conclusive. To what? The
" ambiguity " of the formularies ? Nay, but to their—
what Archbishop Sumner calls —" positive doctrine."
The sense of the baptismal services is so certain and so
unambiguous that they contain the strict and proper ap-
plication of the term under review. That term " regene-
ration" is used by many in two senses. The strict appli-
cation of it is to the new birth, to a certain, distinctive,
independent act of God, which—like the natural birth—
can take place but once, and takes place in baptism. The
later application of it is to the growth of the spiritual life,
the progressive course of sanctification in the renewed
soul. But, just as birth and growth differ from each other,
so does the strict meaning of the term regeneration differ
from the " larger and laser " application of it. St. Paul
invariably distinguishes between the two. " buried with
Him by baptism," that " we also should walk in newness
of life," and in countless other passages of his epistles.
But I forget myself. I am not :addressing you for the
purpose of distinguishing between these two applications,
or commenting upon the Bishops' doing so. It is not
necessary to prove that one is the proper, The other the
improper use of the term, the document answers for itself,
and fearing to trespass on your space, I conclude with re-
marking, that it is conclusive for that which originally
prompted its publication in the Guardian newspaper, and
destructive of that which subsequently prompted its
mat-appropriation.
I think I may confidently trust that you will find room
for this correction of so remarkable and dangerous a mis-
representation, I am, yours, obediently,
D. R.

n: doubtlessverthieless
28th March, 1850.
writer,eald
You will not suppose that I impute any. intention to
terms,
misrepresent ; that misrepresentation I believe was ori-
ginal l m
araddoena in th ,baunt,d i
imputable to an ignorance. in the use of theological
extremely unfortunate., and perhaps too hasty in leaping'
to a conclusion, especially seein
pardonable
political
Hr
seeing whence the document
itself was borrowed.

Lord John Russell is to arrive in Manchester to-day,
on a visit to Sir B. Heywood, to ascertain the state of
things in the manufacturing districts.
On Friday, two young men and two women were enjoy—
ing a pleasure excursion on the Mersey, near Warckattp.%
when the boat upset, and the females and a maligivErei
drowned. 3
into A man named William Wright threw himself fle
canal, at Deansgate, Manchester, on Tuesday, at the.spot
where his wife was drowned between three ~ivist; fc!iw.
mouths since. He was rescued.