of the necessity of faith in the receiver before baptism could be spiritually profitable. She knew that it was not neces candidly, not captiously, confess that we do not distinctly collect Mr. Garbett's views of "Sacramental grace;" for, though some of the statements which we shall quote seem explicit, and all that could be wished, there are shadings-off elsewhere, which render parts of them obscure. "The earliest religious truth which the Church directly instils into the minds of children, and binds up with their first consciousness, is not merely God's love, but specifically the redemption through Christ's blood, which constitutes them the children of God by adoption and grace. The two ideas of God's favour and that sacrifice are inseparable in her view of the matter-nor can the slightest prayer be offered up, nor the smallest act of Christian faith be presented to God's acceptance, without it." "The washing which is mystically applied to the soul in the laver of regeneration, is no other than the atoning blood shed upon the cross for us, and in which the robes of the saints in heaven are washed! Not a merely outward washing therefore, when received by faith actual or representative, but such an one as is efficacious for the soul, and renders it, by the virtue of Him who redeemed it, of such a purity as the eyes of God may look upon with complacency. We are buried moreover with Him in figure, in the same introductory rite, unto death-that same death unto sin which the sacrifice upon the cross represents, and which the power that issues from it makes possible unto them that believe. "The old fathers saw very' vividly this inseparable connection between the sacrifice and baptism, which, with the eucharistical interpretation of John vi. will account for the early practice, called apostolical, of administering the eucharist to infants at the time of their baptism." The same statement is applicable to holy baptism as to the eucharist, and upon the same principles. The efficacy of both is dependent on that faith which incorporates us with the Redeemer, and secures to the visible sign the accompanying energy of the promised grace." "The ancient Church had every reason to suppose that the outward sign was certainly accompanied by the inward grace; and that the baptism of the water and the Spirit went hand in hand, fulfilling our Lord's injunction and solemn promise to His Church. There can be no doubt at all therefore that she was perfectly scriptural in her apprehension sarily the power of God to the soul, in deed and in truth, even when administered by the companions of the Apostles, or the Apostles themselves-and the case of Simon Magus remained in her ante-baptismal instructions for centuries, as a warning of the separability of the outward sign from the inward grace. "But this becomes of infinitely greater importance, in the final issue of the baptismal rite and its relation to the spiritual condition of Christians, when the baptisni of infants, by the natural growth of the Church, has become almost universally the only baptism which is practised in later ages. It ought never to be lost sight of, that we usually apply to it, without reserve, all those modes of expression which were originally descriptive of adult baptism, with all its accompanying conditions, not of an anticipated or vicarious faith and repentance, but of a real personal faith and repentance in the person of the recipient. But surely the baptism of infants is not the true type of baptism, or the ultimate form of the rite the true type is the baptism of adults, as practised in the primitive Church, with the spiritual conditions antecedent to the rite, or synchronizing with its administration. This is of vital importance to the question, and its omission leads to endless misconception and erroneous views. For the true conclusion, on adopting the adult baptism as the perfect type, will be this-that the Divine gift conferred on the infant will be the same, so far as the capacity of a being insensible and incapable either of actual faith or actual repentance, enables him to receive it-and no further-nor in any other sense than this. The regeneration of the infant differs from the regeneration of the adult quite as broadly, as the mere rudiments of the sensitive and intellectual life are distinguished from the developed intellect and muscular energies of the full grown man. "But since there is in the infant no positive impediment to the reception of Divine grace-the seeds of spiritual life may be implanted therein, and we firmly believe with the Church from the beginning, that they are so, to expand, or to be dried up and withered hereafter, as it may be; and by solemn covenant not only is the original curse removed, but all necessary aids are secured by the Saviour, into whose arms the infant is placed by the faith of believing parents or the charity of the Church. But there is no attachment of a new nature, as the church of Rome holds, for the old nature remains-no spiritual renovation, the fulness of the new birth, secured to after times, save conditionally-contingent on the actual faith and actual repentance, which must be personally exercised by all for themselves, as the growth of their faculties renders them capable of it--but which, with a view to their future condition, the Church can only charitably hope and presume, while she consecrates them, and admits them, under God, into the visible Church." "This doctrine [the doctrine of justification by faith as set forth by the Reformers] destroyed, from its foundation, the whole system of sacramental justification ex opere operato, so full of awful abuses, and, in its consequences on Christian life and practice, so fatal to the salvation of souls-and it destroyed it, not yed it, not by the effects of a mere tumultuous and unreasoning license, but by demonstrative conclusions from unquestionable principles. It left indeed to the holy sacraments of Christ's institution the place which he had given them, and which they held in the Apostolic Church system-they were means and instruments of grace-seals and pledges of love-occasions of a more intimate union and communion, than any thing else offered, with their reconciled God-not merely monumental of Christ's love, but effectuators of grace, and, generally speaking, indispensable to salvation. But, if we are justified by faith-faith must be, on our part, the condition of a due reception of them-faith must give them animation, love give them heavenly dispositions, and harmonize the reception of grace with the proper activity of the soul. Faith, therefore, and not the sacraments, being the instrument of justification-wherever that and true repent ance were, there, on the solemn declarations of Holy Writ, was pardon assured. This threw open at once the door of reconciliation with God, to the width of his own promises; to post-baptismal sins, where the sacramental hypothesis, from the first, denied any assurance of forgiveness-where the Church tormented the offender with something but one degree removed from despair, and by placing, in this point, the operations of the Divine grace beyond her own ritual control, had accumulated an awful power in the hands of her ministers, by this very abnegation; till, at last, the sacrament of penance and the accompanying absolution became an indispensable corrective to an intolerable grievance, which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear. And, when we consider what is practically the case, that few, very few indeed, among us all, perhaps none, are in a condition to claim the benefits of the baptismal formula, by an undeviating observance of its covenant, and by the preservation of the baptismal robe in its first purity; it should be a matter of endless rejoicing, that, by justification by faith only, the word of God rescues us from a condition so fearful, and gives us the mercies of Christ instead of those of men." We must now pass on to the concluding discourse, a considerable portion of which we could quote with much pleasure; though here also, as before, the large concessions to the Tractarians appear to us to prevent what is true and excellent standing out distinctly and in just pre-eminence. argument is as follows. First, our Church had for the most part sunk into a state of somnolency; but The "The evangelical clergy restored the Gospel, when its vital truths were buried under a cumbrous pedantry, and its supernatural influences degenerated into a formal morality; they reconciled the Church to the nation, and the nation to the Church, and so they saved both." So far Mr. Garbett considers was well; but then comes a drawback: to "All was not done; the mission to rouse and to awaken had been gloriously accomplished-there remained to order and to train. Even the main Gospel truths, in the absence of which religion is dead, and in which alone lay the power to regenerate the Church and nation, in some instances wore thoughtful men not a catholic but a sectarian aspect, from the lack of other truths, or at least from the lack of a systematic statement of other truths, with which, in a harmonious subordination, but an indissoluble connection, the word of God has bound them. The truths were there-there, essentially and by necessary inference; but they had no avowed place. The Fathers were utterly unstudied; the true relation, or the relation at all of the Church of England to primitive antiquity, was forgotten; the records of ecclesiastical history, as a whole, unconsulted, and Church order overmuch and unwisely despised." Next we hear of the merits of the Tractarian writings in supplying these alleged defects; and most exalted compliments does Mr. Garbett lavish upon these far-famed publications; only-for there comes another but they went too far. "For, as they proceeded they assumed a more serious aspect; from touching on acknowledged defects in the existing system, they embraced, in turn, every topic of theological investigation, and every point of faith and practice. Many views, at first obscure, were clearly developed; sympathies strange, till now, to all but a small section of English theologians, were openly avowed; and a full-grown system of ecclesiastical polity at length announced, the establishment of which would be incompatible with the existence of the Church of England, as at present constituted; or the existence of a Church in any form which should prominently avow anti Romanist elements." as Thus, then, Mr. Garbett arrives at his conclusion, that the Tractarian system is unscriptural, antiAnglican, Romanistic in its tendencies, and injurious to the souls of men. As we agree with him in this result, it may seem unnecessary and ungracious to examine the links of his argument; but we must say, in passing, that we entirely dissent from two of his intervening statements. We deny that what he calls, for distinctionsake, and with approbation, "The evangelical clergy," are not much attached to "church order," and as anti-sectarian, as their brethren of what is called the orthodox school. It is unjust to represent them as violating the rites or discipline of the Church; nay, if invidious comparisons must be made, our fixed belief is, that after the first irregularities which naturally sprang up with a great religious movement had died away, most of what are called the "evangelical clergy" became even more strict and punctilious than the majority of their "orthodox" brethren. We entirely dissent from the statement that "Being intent only on the spiritualities of the Gospel, and their power over men's souls-dwelling, intensely and exclusively, on the inward processes of the spiritual life, and on the experience vouchsafed to every devout disciple who of the truth of the Gospel which is will do God's will-men had learned to throw completely into the background the outward forms of the Church, and even the visible ordinances of Christ Himself." The Tractarians and their allies have reiterated this statement again and again, in order to disparage evangelical doctrine, and to facilitate the introduction of a Romanistic "sacramental religion" in place of the true Gospel system; but we deny the correctness of the averment. There are, it is true, even now a few " evangelical clergyman" who may be faulty in this respect; just as there are many making no pretensions to " evangelicalism," who are guilty of great ecclesiastical laxities; but such exceptions prove nothing either way. Again, the evangelical irregularities of the last century were few and venial, compared with the more serious antichurch doings of a large body of Feathers'-tavern divines, who called themselves "orthodox-clergymen," but who wished to obliterate the doctrinal Articles of the Anglican church, especially that of "justification by faith," and to substitute neologian, rationalistic, or perhaps Socinian dogmas in their place. their place. The "evangelical clergy," as they are called, wished to restore the neglected spiritualities of the Gospel" to their right and paramount position; but they were not so "intent only" on them as to neglect means to ends, or to forget that Christ has appointed "visible ordinances" in his church. They were even stigmatised as "Methodists" expressly because of their attention to "visible ordinances ;" and in particular to the more frequent administration of the Lord's Supper, which they succeeded-with much reproach-in causing to be extensively celebrated, at least once a month, instead of only three or four times a year, as was customary in the great majority of our parishes. And then with regard to the propositions and practices of the Tractarians, instead of beginning well, and only running off the right road as the machine acquired. a too rapid motion, we maintain that they set out on a wrong road from the beginning; that which in their writings was new is not true, and what was true is not new; and that in reviving an internecine war about Fathers, tradition, altars, vestments, candles, and we know not what, they have not made those who have embraced their notions better Anglican Churchmen, while they have caused great peril of the Gospel of Christ for the salvation of the souls of men being overlayed by the dross and tinsel of Papal superstition. But on these points we cannot write more strongly than Mr. Garbett himself in effect does, even when sweetening his censures by mixing them up with all that he can devise of a softening and apologetic character; as for example: "The system is Romanism; not partially, but essentially; not yet Romanism, indeed, as historical recollections have expressed it, or as the conclusions of reason have demonstrated it to be; not Romanism in all its palpable and revolting incongruities to the heart and understanding. But-Romanism, as it has, in all ages, represented itself to the young and to the devout-Romanism, as it is, when purified by elevated feelings, and minds originally trained in Scripture truth-Romanism, as it combines with itself all that is grand and beautiful in art, specious in reason, and seductive in sentimentRomanism, which may be safe, in those scripturally trained minds, who have presented it to themselves, and to the world in this beautiful shape- but Romanism, still perverting the truth of the Gospel while it decorates it-Romanism, which though it looks paternally and benignly in the amiable spirits of its present advocates, involves principles ever fatal to human liberty and progression-Romanism, with the esta CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 66. blishment of whose theory the Articles of the Church of England cannot co exist, and whose unseen and unavowed operations in practice will paralyze her spiritual power, and destroy the Church of Christ, by substituting human forms for her Prophet, Priest, and King.” To the same effect Mr. Garbett adds: "All these allowances (in favour of Tractarianism) must be made; but they will not alter the present case; the system under discussion has not in view the mere inculcation of Christian holiness, but to shift the whole question to a new base, and to reverse the relative position of faith and works, as cause and effect; to put faith on the same and no more; and to transfer the justifooting as any other grace or duty, fying power, solely, to works or inward holiness. And it is partly from the necessities produced by this assumed relation of faith and works, and partly from other causes, that springs the incompatibility between this system and the Church of England, on the relation of Scripture and tradition." "The inevitable result of such a principle is precisely that which the system itself loudly proclaims for our adoption: we must not speak of the ordinances of God, but the ordinances of the Church; we are not to look up to Christ, but to the Church; the Church, by the Divinity resident in her, is the beginning, middle, and end of man's salvation upon earth. And each man's minister is to him the representative, and the sole depositary, of this infallible truth; for such a claim is useless, unless the commission confers it upon all whom it consecrates. You may call it the Church, but it is in truth the Priest." "Let this theory of Church authority be joined on to the dogmas of tradition, and justification by inherent holiness; and not only have we Romanism, in its doctrinal spirit, but the very form of it developed, and outwardly expressed; nothing is wanting to the perfection of the hierarchy, but that central and visible supremacy-that recognized one-which crowns and consolidates the Romish scheme. And even this will follow by clear deduction from the principles already admitted; and, if it did not follow logically, yet its establishment would be secured by the force of theological and historical prepossession. In all these points, tradition, justification, and the ministry, it was always a delusion to speak of a via media; thoughtful men were right, when, even in the cautious forms in 3 B which they were originally propounded, they discerned, from afar, that ultimate Romanism, the introduction of which into the bosom of the Church of England seemed to most men an idle dream-an impossibility." Such are Mr. Garbett's conclusions; and they are the weightier, because the writer has given the Tractarian system too much of vantage ground in the discussion. If we may seem to have been vacil lating-perhaps inconsistent - in our approvals and disapprovals of his book, it is because we have been careful to distinguish between what appeared to us excellent, and some things which we thought doubtful. The result, however, is a large balance of gratitude to Mr. Garbett, for his able, learned, and valuable publication. LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF LORD TEIGNMOUTH. Memoir of the Life and Correspondence of John Lord Teignmouth. By his Son, LORD TEIGNMOUTH. 2 Vols. 8vo. 1843. SPEEDILY after the death of our revered friend the late Lord Teignmouth, we drew up, and inserted in our volume for 1834, a memoir of that excellent and much-esteemed nobleman; which, with a few additions, was prefixed to his life of Sir William Jones, in the edition circulated by the Christian Knowledge Committee of Literature. We are glad at length to have a full account of his Lordship's life and correspondence, from the pen of his much-esteemed son, the worthy successor to his title. The first volume exhibits his earlier days, and his career in India; the second, the latter portion of his life, from the commencement of the present century to his lamented decease. Both parts are replete with interesting matter. We know so well the impatience of most persons at being held by the button to listen to a reviewer's prefacings, when they might be more agreeably employed in proceeding to the culled portions of a biographical narrative, that we will at once proceed to our intended extracts. For our opinions and remarks upon Lord Teignmouth's life and character, we refer to the memoir in our Volume for 1834; but for those who do not find it convenient to turn back to that paper, we add the following facts and dates, which may suffice to string together our purposed extracts. John Shore, the representative of the ancient family of that name, of Derby, was born in London in the year 1751. His father died when he was a child; and he and his brother were educated under the eye of their mother, till they went to Harrow School. His brother became a clergyman; and John proceeded to India as a Writer. He passed through a gradation of important offices, and in 1785 returned to England. Here he married Miss Cornish, of Teignmouth; but, shortly after his marriage, he was urged by the Directors of the East India Company, to go back as a member of the Supreme Council at Calcutta; and at length consented, both for public reasons and in order to provide for his family, though at the severe sacrifice of being separated from Mrs. Shore, whose health did not allow of her accompanying him. In 1789, having completed the chief official business upon which he was intent, for the permanent settlement of the Indian revenues, he again returned home; but in 1792 he was forced back to India by Mr. Pitt and his colleagues, as Governor-General, and with the |