The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-11-08
THE BISHOPS ON BAPTISMAL
REGENERATION.

NATURALIZATION
The declaration of the Bishops of the Episcopal
Church that the word "regenerate' in their bap-
tismal service does not determine moral
change in the recipient of the ordinance, seems
to be very far from giving quiet. When it was
published there was gratifed feeling among many
in other Christian communions, supposing upon
hasty view that the declaration committed the
Bishops completely against the whole mass OF error
protected by that word. Others saw at once that
it was only one of those lodges which even good
men will sometimes resort to when they lind them
selves in dilemma. In saying this we do not
mean to say these Bishops meant to practice de-
ception They felt that they must do something
The petition of nine of their own number, and the
extensive petitions from others in their commuu-
ion to get from the Convention a canon allowing
to troubled cousciences the use Of another word in
the baptsma service, demanded some action.
We have seen the result It's effect is what might
have been anticipated. The Episcopalian Low
Church, holds decided language. 1t says:
The general drift and weight of the Couven.
ton was favorable TO the views of the advanced
men in doctrine and ritual. The canon or ritual,
as will be seen when we come to report 1t next
week, was not passed by the House OF Deputies.
The vote was close, but they were not able to place
any limit to the usages which are getting more and
more extensively In vogue.
We remember that the conservative High and
Low Churchmen prophesied that Rtuasm would
be exploded, expunged, and baDished at the Gen
eral Convention. The Ecclesiastical politicians
agreed to bear down upon the Romanizers and the
Revisionists, and were confident both would be
emphatically crushed But we think they must
have their eyes open to the real extent, progress
and influence which the Tractarian, Sacramento,
rian, and Sacerdotal system has made and has ex-
crted in our communion. With all their united
forces, they were unable to pass any canon against
that system. They found many of their partizans
coming very near the Rtuasts in sentiment, and
actually voting in their favor. For non.action was
all the advanced catholic" aimed at; all they
engineered for; all they promised to their followers.
They said they wanted no changes, no canons, no
pronunciamentos; all they asked was to be let
alone. And if three years have suthced to accumu-
late so much power and influence as to thwart and
foil the house of Bishops and to prevent legisla-
ton, legal or political, against them, they must
feel encouraged to proceed till the evil leaven has
leavened the whole mass of our Church. The
friends and advocates Of the system have lost
neither men nor MEANS and have endured fierce,
we'll sustained and skiful assaults on their lines
They still hold the position, and have not had their
citadel stormed and carried.
The resolution to leave to the "paternal counsel
and advice Of the Bishops to secure the suppression
Of all that IS irregular and unSeen,iy and to pro
mote greater uniformity IN the public ,corsltjp of
the Church and IN the administration of the ordl.
nance of Baptism and the Lords Supper, will not
have much effect on the evils complained Of For
it is we'll known that some of them are fayorers of
Ritualism and its chief promoters. The prospect
is that many of them will be brought over to that
side, or rather advanced on that side little further
More will be induced to be neutral, more to be
hopeful and charitable, and courteous towards the
erroneous system Hence we shall not be disap-
pointed in finding their organs jubilant their
success. They will gather up the wounded, bury
the dead, and strengthen the bulwarks of their
position, while the sapping and mining goes on.
They will have the Prayer-boOk intact, skillfully
and perfectly adapted to their Sacramentarian sys
tenn, unframed by the Declaration, unaffected
by any alteration in text or explanation in form,
arrangement, or rubric, and why should they not
be pleased and encouraged
1t is perfectly evident from the well known pub.
ished views of some of these very Bishops signing
this declaration, as well as the views Of standard
tiers in their Church that theg do not intend by
this declaration to deny that spiritual change is
wrought upon the child in baptism. One of the
Bishops in this Convention, as we understand
gives this same view. AT another time We propose
to examine little this delusive distinction they
draw between spiritual and moral change. At
present we are giving information as to the way in
which this declaration is received in their own
Church. The EpiScopalian says: 1T has quoted
the consciences' Of neither High Churchmen nor
Low Churchmen, and in some pulpits there has
been thus early no backwardness in PRONUNCIATION
of the fact.
The Church Weekly, the organ of the Ritualsts,
speaks very plainly:
THE House of Bishops having undertaken to
give definition, we beg to ask Of them what
miner, for instance, would say il he submitted an
ore, unknown to him, to an analytical chemist, and
should be told, by way of answer, that it was not
IRON? How much wiser would the miner be?-
And how much wiser, how much more satisfied,
are our LOw.Church brethren after the Episcopal
definition to which we refer?
There is no law, either earthly or Divine, to
compel our Venerable Fathers to define either this
or that doctrine. 1t remains with them to deter
mine the occasion which calls for Definition But,
having once undertaken solemn conviction,
we presume, of the greatness Of the emergency
to depart so far from their usual habit as to make
DeunlOn, all Iuelr SOuS III lilG rdl6u, all OnuICu-
men interested in the reputation of our Bishops as
theologians, and as men of ordinary courage, had
the right to expect that these, our Right Reverend
Fathers, would put forth Definition which should
be a Definition. Bnt alasl the House of Bishops
have put forth Definition which is no Definition
They pretend to define, and yet they do not define
There is not Churchman, however ignorant Of
theology, who does not laugh in his sleeve at this
pseudo Definition. -