1 1 i L I B R R Y Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. BX 5149 .B2 G6 () Goode, William, 1801-1868. SJ The doctrine of the Church 1 i 1 1 of England as to the Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/doctrineofchurchOOgood_0 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS TO THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM IN THE CASE OF INFANTS. Wiitl) an Hppeutiiv, CONTAINING THE BAPTISMAL SERVICES OF LUTHER AND THE NUREMBERG AND COLOGNE LITURGIES. BY WILLIAM GOODE, M.A., P.S.A. RECTOR OF ALLHALLOWS THE GREAT AND LESS, LONDON. LONDON : J. HATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY. 1850. LONDON ? PRINTED BY C. F. HODGSON, 1, GOUGH SQUARE, FLEET STREET. PEEEACE TO THE EIEST EDITION. I AM unwilling to enlarge a work, which has already ex- tended beyond the limits originally contemplated, by adding here anything more than a very few prefatory remarks ex- planatory of its object ; which is, to point out what doctrine the Church of England requires to be held by her ministers on the subject of the effects of Baptism in the case of Infants. And the first question that occurs in such an investigation is, whether, among all the various shades of view that have been entertained on this point, she has selected one, to the exclu- sion of all others, to which she requires their assent; or, whether she has only adopted one class of views within which their doctrine is to be found. It will appear, on a careful examination of the authorities on which the determination of this question rests, that the latter is the case. And this is what we might, a priori, have expected. That different shades of doctrine on this point, within certain limits, should be left open to us, is to my mind creditable to her character as a Scriptural Church not seek- ing to bind her ministers to certain exact and precise deter- minations on such points, going beyond the declarations of Holy Scripture. The contrary course she leaves to the Church of the Council of Trent, and an infallible Pope. They who are willing to take their faith from the dicta of one or more Italian Bishops, may be satisfied to swear by any particular view which their oracle offers them : and if the last contra- dict the first, and the middle are consistent with neither ; and the divines respectively contemporary with the first, iv PREFACE. middle^ and last, are equally at variance with each other, and among themselves, their followers in the present age may, perhaps, be contented to accept the solution of these per- plexities that has lately been offered them in the theory of development,^^ a system which will smooth all difficulties and set at rest all doubts. The Church of England, rejecting all but the written word of God as the authority for her faith, lays down her deductions from the express declarations of that sacred word, on the great truths of Christianity and the disputed points of faith on which the Church has at various times been agitated with controversies, as the rule by which she expects her children to be guided. But where Scripture is silent, or appeared to her open to different views, there she is equally so. She receives even the three Creeds, only because she believes they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.^^ She is not therefore likely to require of her members the belief of what she does not suppose may be similarly proved. So far as she has definitely spoken, there all who have sub- scribed her Formularies and minister in her communion are bound, so long as they remain in her service, to abide by and maintain her determinations. Rather should I say, they are found in her communion because they conscientiously believe her determinations to be right. There are vital and fundamental points on which she has spoken definitely and expressly, so as to forbid the slightest deviation from one precise line to the right hand or to the left. There are important points, such as that discussed in the follow- ing work, on which she has laid down certain limits on both sides, Quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum. That those limits have been transgressed, fearfully transgressed, by some among us, I should be the last to deny. The follow- ing pages may perhaps tend to show, by whom they have been transgressed; and such transgression I should be the last to justify. The great point in dispute in our Church at the present time, is briefly this. Whether the full baptismal blessing is, in the PREFACE. V case of infants, under all circumstances, invariably and univer- sally bestowed ; whether, in fact, God has pledged himself, whenever an infant is baptized, apart from all consideration of every other circumstance except the mere act of baptism, to give that child, in the act, the full blessing of spiritual rege- neration. And though, in prosecuting the inquiry, what is the doc- trine of our Church upon the subject, it has been necessary to show the theological school to which our Reformers and early Divines were attached, in order more fully to illustrate the meaning of the Formularies they drew up, the determination of the doctrine of our Church on the question at issue does not depend upon our connecting the theology of our Church with one particular system. Men of very different schools among us have agreed in taking the negative view on the point in contro- versy. But certainly when the theology of our early divines is taken into account in the matter, the statement that the uni- versal and unconditional, efficacy of baptism in the case of infants is the doctrine of our Church, is one which carries its own condemnation on the face of it. The contrast between such a doctrine and the theological system of our early divines, reduces it to an absurdity. In the face of the testimonies produced in the following work, I am at a loss to understand what ground there is left for the maintenance of such an assertion. I have shown, that the testimony of our Archbishops, Bishops, and the Divinity Professors of our Universities, at and for a long period after the Reformation, is wholly opposed to the notion of spiritual regeneration being always conferred upon infants in their baptism, and that they were followed at a later period by divines who, though of a different school, agreed with them On the main point of the controversy ; — I have shown that the Services of our Prayer Book upon which the assertion that this is the doctrine of our Church is almost wholly rested, were submitted to the judgment of Peter Martyr and Bucer, whose sentiments were notoriously opposed to such a doctrine, and that they fully approved of them, with exceptions no way touching the point now in question ; I have shown that Bucer himself drew up Services of a precisely similar kind to our own, and I vi PREFACE. from which our own are confessed to have been '^freely borrowed/' when holding sentiments which render it necessary for those Services to be interpreted on the hypothetical principle ; — I have shown that the earliest (and those publicly authorized) Expo- sitions of our xlrticles and Catechism support the same view ; — I ask_, then, what remains wanting for the establishment of a complete and perfect proof, that this doctrine is not the doctrine of our Church, but, on the contrary, is opposed to it ? And I cannot help remarking, how completely the case before us proves the unfitness of Liturgical forms to answer the pur- pose of a dogmatical standard of faith ; and the errors and absurdities which men might fall into when deducing doctrine, inferentially, from devotional phrases occurring in a Book of Prayer. It remains only for me to remark, that the following work has been written and passed through the press, not merely within a much shorter period than I could have wished to have given to it, but amidst the pressure of numerous other engage- ments. The circumstances of the times, however, forbade delay. And I make the remark, not as pleading guilty to any ill-consi- dered statements, or hasty conclusions, or the citation of autho- rities which will not stand the most searching scrutiny, (so far as my imperfect powers qualify me for the task undertaken) — on the contrary, the work is the result of much previous labour, undertaken in the hope of being prepared for the vindication of truth when the fitting occasion presented itself — but from the feeling that I have scarcely had the opportunity to do the sub- ject full justice. As it is, I present it to the reader in the humble hope that it may tend to clear the real character of the doctrine of our Church on the subject discussed ; and thus remove the misapprehensions, and refute the misrepresentations, that are current respecting it. And I pray the great Head of the Church that His blessing may rest upon it just so far as it is calculated to promote tlie cause of truth. 31, Charterhouse Square, March 21, 1849. W. GOODE. vii PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. The kindness with which the former Edition of this Work has been received^ and the early call for another Edition, render it unnecessary for the Author to offer more than a very few remarks in this place. He desires, however, to express his thankfulness at the reception given to the Work, as it encourages him to hope that it may be of use, with God^s blessing, for the promotion of the cause of truth, and the manifestation of the true doctrine of the Church ofEngland,on the momentous subject ofwhichit treats. Late events in our Church have given the long-standing con- troversy among us on this point a more than ordinary degree of importance. The attempt has been made to force upon the Church, as a standard of faith, an interpretation of her Services which would place them in direct antagonism to the doctrine of the very men who drew them up, and to eject from her ministry all who hold a different \^ew. It was quite time, therefore, that the claims of such an interpretation should be fully investigated, and the true doctrine of our Church set forth and proved. To do this, is the object of the following Work. And while it fully investigates the important and conclusive internal evidence afforded on the subject by our Formularies themselves, the Author has more especially directed his attention to what may be called the historical part of the argument. Nothing can more fully show the weakness of the claim set up by those who call themselves High Churchmen^' among us, to the exclusive admissibility of their interpretation of our Book of Common Prayer, than the fact of its contrariety to the doctrine of our Reformers and early divines. To say nothing of the sentiments of those who drew up the Prayer Book of Edward VI., the noto- rious facts that the compilers of the Elizabethan Prayer Book (which, with a few alterations not affecting the present question, is that now in use) were, of what is called the " Calvinistic^' School, and that the Primate who first issued and earnestly pressed the Canon for subscription to the Prayer Book was a High " Calvinist^^ (Archbishop AATiitgift), ought to silence forever the assertion that a Calvinist cannot consistently subscribe to that Book. And if a Calvinist" can without difficulty subscribe to it, then certainly it does not assert that spiritual regeneration is the universal and unconditional effect of Baptism in all infants. viii PREFACE. And here lies the importance of the historical argument in elucidating the meaning of our Formularies. We do not point to the " Calvinism " of our early divines as showing that a Calvinistic interpretation must be given to our Formularies, or as identifying a denial of the " High Church'^ doctrine as to the effects of Baptism with Calvinistic views, — for Arminians are found equally denying it, — but we adduce the fact of the Cal- vinistic'' doctrine of those to whom we are indebted for our For- mularies as irrefragable evidence against the attempt made to fix upon those Formularies an exclusive interpretation, framed by men of a directly opposite school. Apart from any consideration of the peculiar circumstances under which the subject is now discussed in our Church, it is impossible to overrate its importance as connected with sound views of doctrine on other points. False views as to the effects of Baptism in the case of infants introduce confusion and error into the whole system of doctrine connected with them. If it is supposed that the Clergy can dispense God's grace and the best blessing of the Gospel Covenant to anybody they please in infancy^ there is an end to all sound theology. The doctrines of the neces- sity of God's gift of prevenient grace, and justification by faith, as laid down in our 10th and 11th Articles, are almost nullified. And the whole scheme of doctrine embraced, partakes of the con- sequences of this primary false principle on which it is built. One effect however may result from the present controversy, and the consequence be of great benefit, if it please God, to the inte- rests of truth in our Church, namely, that the minds of men will be more drawn to the importance of sound and clear views on this subject. The present Edition of this Work has been carefully revised throughout. I must add, however, that I have certainly found no reason at present, from any remarks made on the Work, to withdraw or alter a single position, argument or authority, ad- vanced in it. ■ A few additional remarks and authorities will be found interspersed here and there ; and a translation has been given of the Latin quotations. The latter forms the major part of the matter added. It remains only for the Author again to commend it to the Divine blessing. AV. GOODE. 31, Charter House Square, Dec. 7, 1849. TABLE OF COXTEXTS. CHAPTER I. page Preliminary Remarks 1 — 2() CHAPTER II. On the views of some of the earlier Scholastic Divines 27 — 37 CHAPTER III. Ox the School of Theology to which our Re- formers AND EARLY DiVINES BELONGED . . 38 — 142 CHAPTER lY. On the doctrine of the Confessions of the Foreign Protestant Churches and Divines respecting the effects of Baptism ..... 143 — 1()1 CHAPTER V. The doctrine of ^Iartin Bucer and Peter Martyr, (who were placed by Archbishop Cranmer, at the commencement of the reign of Edward vi., as the first Regius Professors of Divinity at Cambridge and Oxford,) on the subject of the effects of Infant Baptism ..... liVl — 178 § 1. The doctrine of Martin Bucer .... 162 — 174 § 2. The doctrine of Peter Martyr . . . 174—178 TABLE OF CONTENTS. page CHAPTER VI. On the character of the Works issued by public authority in the latter part of the reign of Henry VIII., and their doctrine on the subject OF THE EFFECTS OF BaPTISM IN InFANTS . . . 1 7^^ — 207 CHAPTER VII. The DOCTRINE OF our leading Reformers and Di- vines DURING THE REIGNS OF EdwARD VI. AND Elizabeth, and the earlier part of that of James I., on the subject of the effects of Baptism in Infants 208—389 During the reign of Edward VI . : — Testimonies of Catechism of 1553 (p. 209) ; — Abp. Cranmer (211);— Bp. Ridley (225) ;— Bp. Latimer (226) Bp. Hooper (227);— John Bradford (231);— Archdeacon Philpot (238);— Bp. Coverdale (239) ;— Thomas Becon (240);— Dean Turner (242) ;— Lancelot Ridley (243) ;— John Olde (243);— Roger Hutchinson (244) ;— Short Catechism, -1550 (245). . . 209—246 DvHng the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. — Testimonies of Works having public sanction : —Bishop Jewell's Apology, &c. (p. 246); — Dean Nowell's Catechism (254);~Bullinger's Decads (262) 246—274 Testimonies of the Archbishops of Canterbm-y and York, and the Regius and Margaret Professors of Divinity at Cam- bridge and Oxford:— Abp. Whitgift (275) ;— Abp. Sandys (278);— Bp. R. Abbot (278);— Bp. J. Prideaux (285);— Bp. ' Westfaling (287) ;— Dr. Calf hill (291) ;— Dr. Benefield (291); — Dr. Whitaker (293);— Bp. Davenant (300) . . . 274—308 Testimonies of various other Bishops Bp. Geste (308) ;— Bp. Alley (310);— Bp. Cooper (311):— Bp. Babington (315); —Bp. Bridges (319) ;— Bp. W. Barlow (322);— Bp. L. An- drews (326);— Bp. Parry (330) ;— Bp. Lake (330) ;— Bp. Carleton (334) ; Bp. Downame (338) ;— Abp. Usher (342) ;— Bp. Bedell (349) 308-356 TABLE OF CONTENTS. xi page Testimoaies of learned Divines and Laymen : — Dr. W. Haddon (356);-Dr. R. Some (359);-Dr. Prime (364j;— Dr Fulke (366) ;—R. Hooker (368); -Dr. A. Willet (372); — T. Rogers (380) ;— Dr. Sparke (383) ; —Lord Chancellor Bacon (385) 356-389 CHAPTER VIII. The doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles, and THE Book of Homilies, on the subject of this Work § 1. The doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles § 2. The doctrine of the Book of Homilies CHAPTER IX. The doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer on the subject of this Work ..... § 1. Examination of the Baptismal Services for infants, and proof of the principle on which they are constructed, by a comparison of them with the other Services in the Book of Common Prayer ........ § 2. The judgment of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, upon our Baptismal Services for infants .... § 3. Luther's Service for Infant Baptism expressed in similar terms to ours, and understood by him in the hypothetical sense § 4. The meaning of the Baptismal Service demonstrated by a comparison of it with a similar Formulary, drawn up by Bucer himself, in a Liturgy from which our own Office is ad- mitted to be " freely borrowed " ..... CHAPTER X. The doctrine of the Catechism on the subject OF this Work 457 — 476 CHAPTER XI. On the Savoy Conference, and the subsequent review and re-establishment of the Book of 390—412 390_406 406-412 413—456 413—428 428—432 432-435 435—456 xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. page Common Prayer by Convocation and Parlia- ment IN 1662 4/7 — 482 Testimonies from our Divines since the Restora- tion, CHIEFLY of the ArMINIAN ScHOOL, ON THE SUBJECT of this Work ; and concluding remarks 483 — 528 Testimonies from Bp. W. Nicolson (p. 485) ; Bp. Jeremy Taylor (486) ; Bp. Hopkins (488) ; Bp. Pearson (492) ; Dean Durel (494); Dr. W. Falkner (497); Bp. Burnet (500); Abp. Tillotson(502); Abp. Sharp (503); Bp. John Williams (503); W. Burkitt (504); Dr. T. Bray (505); Bp. T. Wilson (507) ; Bp. Beveridge (507); Joseph Bingham (512); Bp. Bradford (514;; Chancellor Stebbing (516) ; Thomas Stackhouse (518) ; Abp. Seeker (519); Bp.Edm. Law (521); Bp. Horsley (522j ; Bp. Barrington (523) 485—523 Concluding Remarks 523 — 528 CHAPTER XII. APPENDIX. No. 1. Luther's Form for the Baptism of Infants, according to the second edition published by him in German in 1524, and trans- lated and published in Latin in 1526 .... 529—532 No. 2. The Order and Form of Baptism (including the Prefatory Remarks on the subject of Baptism) inserted in the Branden- burg and Nuremberg Liturgy of 1533 .... 533-542 No. 3. The Forms and Orders for Baptism and Confirmation, with the accompanying observations, drawn up and inserted by Bucer, in the Liturgical work published in 1543, by Herman, Archbishop of Cologne ....... 542—566 Addenda, &c. 566 ad fin. DOCTRINE OE THE CHUECH OE ENGLAND AS TO THE EEEECTS OE BAPTISM IN INFANTS. CHAPTER I. PLELIMINARY REMARKS. The remarks contained in the following pages are intention- ally confined to the discussion of the question^ What is the doc- trine of the Church of England as to the effects of baptism in the case of infants ? In treating this subject, I shall argue it quite independently of- the further question, — AVhether the XXXIX Articles are, or are not, the supreme standard of faith and test of orthodoxy for the ministers of our Church in those points treated of in them, — and shall endeavour to show the sense of our Formularies, both from internal testimony, and as illustrated by the writings of our divines from the period of their construction. Before I proceed, however, to the regular discussion of the subject, I would offer a few preliminary remarks tending to illus- trate the real character of the question, and to show how far a definite and certain solution of it is to be expected. It appears to me that erroneous views are often entertained on this point. The matter is frequently spoken of as if the Church of England must of necessity have laid down, and had in fact laid down, a certain definite precise view upon this subject, and peremptorily enjoined it upon all her ministers for their acceptance and belief. In my humble apprehension such a notion is entirely opposed to fact, and also to the well-known principles upon which our Re- formers were guided in drawing up the Formularies of our Church. As our Reformers have not bound us to one precise B 2 human system of theology, so they have not, in my belief, tied us to one precise view of the subject we are now about to discuss, and the parties who are the loudest in clamouring for the esta- blishment of their view as the exclusive doctrine of our Church, are probably the farthest from the doctrine of our Reformers ; even to the transgression of the limits which they certainly did not intend to be overstepped. The way in which some parties are in the habit of putting for- ward their view on this subject as precisely and definitely the exclusive view of the Church of England, to be held by all her ministers on the pain of incurring the charge of dishonesty and being driven with disgrace from her communion, forcibly re- minds one of the tone assumed by one of their late leaders when advocating his system as the doctrine of the Fathers. In his opinion (and he, we were told, was one of the most learned theo- logians and patristical scholars in our Church, if not supreme among them) there was no room for argument on the subject. That his system was established as the truth by the Catholic consent of all the Fathers, was " an obvious fact about which in impartial minds there could not be any doubt. But somehow or other, in the course of a very few years, the "obvious fact^^ was found out to be a delusion; the produce of a one-sided interpretation of a few passages from certain authors favourable to the doctrine which had engaged his affections. And so this very learned pa- tristical scholar, who was to have enlightened all England by show- ing them how "everybody always everywhere,^^ for many centuries from the first foundation of the Christian Church, had maintained "Church principles,^^ was cut short in his course by the awkward " fact that he had made a great mistake, and that there was no such consent. But alas ! " Church principles " were too precious to be abandoned, and therefore (wisely upon his view of the subject) he adopted the principles that come nearest to them, and in some points appear to approximate very closely to them ; and passed over to a party where the trouble of further doubt, argument, or research, is rendered wholly unnecessary, and an infallible determination bids every scruple cease and every tongue be silent. * See Newman's Lectures on Romanism and Popular Protestantism, p«ssiw. 3 I will not anticipate such a result from an endeavour to prove that the statements of certain parties as to the doctrine of our Church on the subject we are now considering^ are as idle and groundless as Mr. Newman's claims for his " obvious fact." But the assertions seem to me so remarkably similar in character and origin, that the remembrance of the one came forcibly into my mind when about to offer some remarks on the other. Now, as I have already intimated, it appears to me, after long and anxious consideration of the question here proposed for dis- cussion, that all which oui* Church has done upon this question is, to lay down certain limits on both sides, ^^ithin which the views of her ministers are to be confined. At the beginning of the Reformation in Germany, several of the Continental Reformers, offended ^vith the grossly corrupt doc- trine of the Church of Rome on the subject, maintained (or at least used language which seemed to imply) that the Sacraments were mere signs, not ha's^ing any peculiarly promised gift of grace attached to them, even in the case of the most worthy recipients. This view seems rather implied, even by Melancthon, in the earliest edition of his " Loci Theologici,^' published in 1521, under the title of " Hypotyposes Theologicse,"* a work which underwent very great alterations in subsequent years at the hands of its author, partly in this point, and more especially in some others. But Luther, apparently from the very first, took a higher \'iew of the value of the Sacraments in the case of faithful recipients. And the language of Melancthon (though to the last cautious and guarded) soon became similar to his on the subject. The difference of language, however, between Luther and some of his friends on one side, and Bucer and others of the Reformers on the other, upon this point, was one of the subjects of discussion in a Conference held between Luther, Melancthon, and others, as representatives of one party, and Bucer, Musculus, and others, as representatives of the other, at Wittemberg in 1536, in which, after mutual explanations, the parties present came to a full understanding on the point, and each side agreed to withdraw expressions tending to the undue exaltation or de- * The Chapter on the Sacraments is entitled " De Signis." The original edition is of great rarity, but it has been reprinted in Von der Hardt, Hist. Liter. Reform., and lately republished separately in Germanv. B 2 4 preciation of the Sacrament of Baptism. An account of this Con- ference is to be found in Bucer^s " Scripta Anglicana/^* And in the same year Bucer published a new edition of his Commen- taries on the Gospels, containing a " retractation " of some pas- sages on Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which had appeared in his previous edition of 1 530. f The concessions made by Bucer and his party upon this occasion were not altogether grateful to the whole Protestant body ; but the ground taken in this Con- ference upon the subject, certainly became the prevailing view among the Continental Reformers, especially in their public Confessions. I purpose hereafter to revert to it. Now, upon this point, as we might expect, our Church has spoken decidedly. In her 27th Article she declares, (and re- quires her clergy to maintain,) that ^' Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened ; but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth," — and that not an empty, but efficacious sign — " whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church, &c Faith is confirmed; and grace increased hy virtue of prayer unto God." Our Church thus repudiates the doctrine of those who hold baptism to be a 77iere sign, and pro- nounces that a certain definite gift and blessing are attached to it in those that rightly receive it. Here, then, is the limit on one side. But on the other side, there were those, namely, the Ro- manists, who maintained that baptism conferred grace upon all to whom it w^as given, even ex opere operato, that is, from the performance of the act ; in case there was no direct obstacle op- posed to its reception by the party baptized. So it was laid down in the Council of Trent. " If any one shall maintain, that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they represent, or that they do not confer the grace itself upon those who do not place an obstacle in the way ; as if they were only external signs of a grace or righteous- ness received through faith, and certain marks of Christian pro- * Biiceri Scripta Anglicana. Basil. 1577, fol. pp. 648—669. t Buceri in Sacra Quatuor Evangelia Enarrationes. Basil. 1536. fol. pp. 42-45; and 483—487 : 566, 567- 5 fession, by which, in the sight of men, the faithful are distinguished from the unfaithful, let him be anathema."* " If any one shall maintain, that grace is not conferred by the Sa- craments of the New Law themselves from the work performed, but that faith in the divine promise is alone sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema."! These statements are drawn up in the style too common among the Romanists. Their own views are first stated^ and then contrasted with a misrepresentation of those of their oppo- nents. What we are concerned with, however, is the statement of their own doctrine ; and this is, clearly, that the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operate on all who do not place an im- pediment in the way. The nature of this " impediment has been variously stated, and the Council has certainly left it doubtful w^hat in their view was its precise character. But in whatever way the words may be explained, they are clearly con- trary to the doctrine of our Church, as expressed in the 25th Article. In such only as ivorthihj receive the same [i. e. the Sacraments], they have a wholesome effect or operation. But they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul saith.^' And in the corresponding Article of 1552, the very phrase, ex opere ope7'ato,\\as expressly repudiated in strong language of disapprobation, the clause running thus : — " And in such only, as worthily receive the same, they have an wholesome effect and operation, and yet not that of the work wrought, as some men speak, which word, as it is strange and unknown to Holy Sa^ipture, so it engender eth no godly, hut a very superstitious sense.X But they that receive the Sacraments unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.^" * Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novae legis non coiitinere gratiam quam significant; aut gratiam ipsam non i^onentibus obicein non conferre j quasi signa tantum externa sint acceptae per fidem gratiae, vel justitiae, et notae quaedam Christianae professionis, quibus apud homines disceruuntur fideles ab infidelibus; anathema sit. (Sess. vii. Can. 6. Ed. Streituolf, Getting. 1838, vol. 1. p. 39.) t Si quis dixerit, per ipsa novae legis sacramenta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam, sed solam fidem diviuae promissionis ad gratiam consc- quendam sufficere ; anathema sit." (lb. Can. 8. Ed. Streitwolf, Gotting. 1838, vol. 1. p. 39.) X Idque non ex opere (ut quidam loquuntur) o])erato, quae vox ut peregrina est et sacris literis ignota, sic parit sensum minime pium, sed admodum superstitiosum. (Ed. Cardwell.) 0 In the revision in 1562, the whole Article was re- cast, and the words in italics omitted ; no doubt as unnecessary, for as Bishop Burnet says in his Commentary on the Article, " In all this diversity there is no real difference ; for the virtue of the Sacraments being put in the worthy receiving, excludes the doctrine of Opus operatum as formally as if it had expressly been condemned/^ And certainly those engaged in the revision of the Articles in 1562, were little likely to take a view more favourable to the Romish doctrine in this or in any other point, than those that drew up the Articles of 1552. One of them, the author of the Apology, Bishop Jewell, may be allowed to speak for all. " We say,'^ (he remarks in his Apology, a work the high authority of which the Bishop of Exeter acknowledges,) " that the Sacraments of Christ, without faith, do not once profit those that he alive, a great deal less do they profit those that be dead.^^ (Ch. 15, div. 2. In Def. of Apology, in his Works, p. 282. ed. 1611.) And in his "Reply to Harding's Answer '' to his Ser- mon, he expressly opposes the Roman doctrine of Opus operatum, as maintained in the eighth Canon of the seventh Session of the Council of Trent (above cited), and other passages in Romish writers. (Works, Reply, p. 437, &c.) The same doctrine is also clearly maintained in the 26th, 28th, and 29th Articles. In the first of these, where it is stated that " the grace of God's gifts " is not " diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them." In the 28th and 29th, where it is stated that "to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive " the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the bread is " a partaking of the Body of Christ," and the wine " a partaking of the Blood of Christ," while the " wicked " in receiving are " in no wise partakers of Christ." Here, then, is a distinct limit laid down by our Church on the doctrine of the Sacraments on the Romish side, drawing a clear line of separation between us and Rome on the subject. And here I feel bound to remark, that the Bishop of Exeter, in his recent Charge, has clearly and expressly transgressed this limit. He has there ventured to state, (1 quote from the third edition) that " at the time when the Articles were first compiled, in 1552, and even ten years afterwards, when they assumed their 7 present form, the point on which of all others there was the least of difference either between us, or even the German Pro- testants, and Rome, was the doctrine of Baptism." (p. 10.) And that " by the Sacraments ex opere operatq grace is conferred, may be affirmed, if it be understood, that it is God who worketh by them." (p. 11, note.) And that on the subject of Baptism "we are agreed" with Rome. (p. 11.) It is difficult to conceive, how such a statement could have been ventured upon, but by one whose station seemed likely to protect him from being called to account for it. The very Articles of 1553, to which his Lordship here refers as favouring his views, repudiate in express terms (as we have just seen) the doctrine he has laid down, stating (in opposition to the Canon of the Council of Trent, passed in 1547), that the Sacraments have not tlieir effect ex opere operato, and denouncing the phrase as " engendering no godly but a very superstitious sense." And the same is the meaning of the Article as it now stands ; for, essentially, it remains the same ; nor will the Bishop, I suppose, himself assert, that any real difference was intended on this point by the divines who revised the Article in 1562. Equally unfortunate is his Lordship^s reference to Jewell in defence of the doctrine he has here advanced ; for, as we have just seen, Jewell expressly repudiates it. I shall notice his Lordship's extracts from Jewell, when I come to consider JewelFs testimony more at length. But I would here remark, that the Bishop^s mistake with respect to his testimony has arisen pre- cisely in the same way as his mistake (now acknowledged in the second and subsequent editions of his Charge), with respect to the Confessions of the Reformed Churches. He has deduced from Jewell's general statements of the effect of the Sacraments, when their full end and purpose are answered, the unwarranted inference, that he asserts that such effects are always produced, whenever they are administered. By this mode of reasoning he has (as I pointed out in my " Vindication," in reply to his Charge) adduced as an unanswerable proof that Dean NowelPs Catechism supports his view, a passage taken from Calvin. And by a similar process he might convert every author who ever held that the Sacraments, when worthily received, were accom- panied by a gift of grace suitable to their character, into a de- 8 fender of his views. In a word, he confounds the doctrine of the efficacy of the Sacraments as held by the Reformers, subject to the condition of the suitability and worthiness of the recipient, in the eye of God, with the opus operatum doctrine of the Ro- manists, in which the grace of God is so tied to the administra- tion of the Sacraments, that where the one is, there must of necessity be the other. The great difference between the two, may be seen at once by a reference to two authors, whom the Bishop himself will, I sup- pose, admit to be far enough from holding his view. Thus the learned W. Whitaker (whose testimony I shall con- sider at large hereafter) says, — What, therefore, do we say ? Do we take away all grace from the Sacraments ? Far be it from us ; although they [the Romanists] misrepresent us as so doing. For we say that they are most effica- cious instruments of the Holy Spirit, and are also instrumental causes of grace : and this they also say j but we say it in one sense, they in another.*'^ So also even Perkins,— " Of the efficacy of the Sacraments. 1 . We teach and believe that the Sacraments are signs to represent Christ with his benefits unto us. 2. We teach further, that the Sacraments are indeed in- struments whereby God offereth and giveth the foresaid benefits unto us. Thus far we consent with the Roman Church." (Reformed Catholic, Pt. 19. Wks. 1616. Vol. 1. p. 610.) His Lordship may see from these passages, that the language which he seems to think conclusive in favour of his views, is freely used by authors who are entirely opposed to it. It has not the meaning he wishes to derive from it. We hold as much as the Bishop does the value and efficacy of baptism as God's ordinance, and have no difficulty in using cor- responding language respecting it. But we speak of the ordi- nance as it is when received by one upon whom God pleases to bestow his blessing in it. And be it remembered, that all general * Quid ergo nos dicimus ? omnenme a sacramentis gratiam removeraus ? absit etsi ilU quidera de nobis sic meutiuntur. Dicimus enim esse effi- caeissima organa Spiritus Sancti, et esse causas etiam instrumentales gratiae : et hoc ilh etiam dicuut ; sed ahter ilH, aliter nos. (Whitak. Prselect. de Sacram. Franeof. 1624, 4to., p. 62.) 9 statements as to the efficacy of baptism, apply as much to the case of adults as to that of infants. And as in the case of adults, such language is used only on the hypothesis that they come to baptism ^vith a right mind, in faith and re43entance ; so in the case of infants, we have no right to suppose that all are equally acceptable in the sight of God. But, to return to our subject, we see from the remarks made above, that our Church has clearly laid down a limit on each side of the question as to the effects of baptism. And beyond this she certainly has not gone in her Articles. AVTiether her other Formularies narrow these limits, is a question which shall be discussed hereafter ; when I shall also reply to the attempt made to strain some of the XXXIX Articles to a ^^High Church'' and Popish sense. But I notice the fact (as I must be permitted for the present to assume it to be) here, in order to point attention to the cir- cumstance, that between these limits there are various shades of doctrine, especially as it respects the case of infant-baptism, which have, probably, from the first, been more or less main- tained in our Church. And I think it will conduce to a clear understanding of the nature and difficulties of the subject with many readers, if I make here a few observations on the various views that have prevailed among us on the point. No man sitting down calmly and impartially to examine the matter, can fail to see, that there are many complex and difficult questions to be determined, in pronouncing upon the effects of infant-baptism, on which oui* Church has given no decision, and on which our divines have been obviously divided in opinion, and which ma- terially affect the judgment to be given. Nor is this surprising, when we consider how careful our Church has been of tying up her members beyond the doctrines clearly laid down in the word of God ; and that Holy Scripture has nowhere expressly and nominatim determined the precise effects of infant baptism. It must be carefully remembered, that as the doctrine of infant baptism is deduced inferentially, and by analogical reasoning, from statements of Scripture applying more expressly to the case of adult baptism, so the doctrine of the effects of infant bap- tism can be obtained only in the same way. Now as we deduce 10 without difficulty^ in one case, the fact, that baptism is to be ad- ministered j so, in the other, we, with equal certainty, deduce the fact, that there is, under corresponding circumstances, a bless- ing given to the child similar to that given to the adult. But the question is (and here lies the difficulty), what these corres- ponding circumstances are. In the case of an adult, our Church distinctly requires the ex- istence of faith and repentance in the party coming to baptism ; and maintains that in such only as worthily receive the Sacra- ments, they have a wholesome effect or operation. (Art. 25, 26, and 27.) In adults, therefore, certain qualifications are indis- pensably required, in order to their being made partakers of the full baptismal blessing. But, in proceeding from their case to that of an infant, it is obvious, that we have got one of a very different kind to deal with, but still one in which we must reason by analogy, from the former, as to the grounds upon which baptism is administered, and the effects produced by it. For the declarations of Holy Scripture on this subject had more especial reference, in their first application, to the case of adults. It is unnecessary here to enter upon the question of the title of infants, as infants, to baptism, because that is fully granted on both sides. But it is an important inquiry, to what infants that title belongs. For not all, even in the sight of man, can be con- sidered as fit subjects for that holy rite. JVhat infants are proper subjects for baptism ? Are the chil- dren of infidels fit subjects ? Will it be said that if we went into heathen countries and baptized by force or stealth the chil- dren of the heathen, such baptism would certainly be attended with the gift of regenerating grace ? If baptism is followed by such a salutary effect, even ex opere operato, this cannot be de- nied. But will any one gravely maintain that this is the doc- trine of our Church ? It is not indeed anywhere (as far as I remember) distinctly laid down in any of the Formularies of the Church, that the children of infidels are not admissible to bap- tism. But is it not clearly implied ? so implied, that baptism administered to them is not warranted by our Church ? Sup- posing a case where by force or stealth an infant of heathen 11 parents was brought, even with the required sureties, for baptism, would any minister of our Church feel justified in performing the rite ? What does Jewell's Apology — a very high, though not legally binding authority — say respecting baptism ? " We say that Baptism is a Sacrament of the remission of sins, and of that washing which we have in the blood of Christ ; and that no person which will profess Christ's name, ought to be restrained or kept back therefrom — no, not the very babes of Christians ; forasmuch as they be born in sin, and do pertain unto the people of God.^' (Ch. ii. div. 3, Works, p. 216.) The administration of the Sacrament is here clearly limited to the babes of " Chris- tians," and they are to be baptized on the ground that they ^'per- tain unto the people of God.'' The same doctrine is clearly laid down in Nowell's Catechism, where it is said, " Cum infantes nostros vim et quasi suhstantiam Baptismi communem nobiscum habere certum sit, illis injuria fieret, si signum, quod veritate est inferius, ipsis negaretur .... Itaque sequissimum est, ut par- vulis nostris Di\dn3e gratise, atque salutis fidelium semini promissce hseredes se esse, Baptismo, impresso quasi sigillo, testatum fiat." The authority of these works confessedly stands so high, that it is hardly necessary to give fui'ther references on the subject. The same ground, however, (I will just remark) is taken by Bishop Beveridge in his Exposition of the 27th Article. In fact, the argument from Scriptui'e for infant baptism is founded very much upon texts which apply only to the children of Christians. Thus the chief Scriptm'al ground on which it is placed is the text, " The promise is unto you and your children." (Acts ii. 39.) And one of its best supports is St. PauFs state- ment, that the children of a believing parent are in a certain sense "holy." (1 Cor. \-ii. 14.) Here, then, we have at once (if the question respecting the baptism of children of infidels is determined in the negative) an important element in our determination of the question of the efi*ects of infant baptism. We see the necessity of inquiring whether the child is the ofi'spring of parents who are at least professedly Christians. If not, we are not entitled to expect a salutary efiect from the ordinance. Our Service for Infant Bap- tism, therefore, is drawn up on the hypothesis that the infant is 12 the child of at least one (really, or at any rate nominally) be- lieving parent. Hence, the principle of the hypothetical interpretation of the Service must be admitted. As it is supposed, in the Service for Adult Baptism, that those who come to be baptized come truly possessed of the qualifications of faith and repentance, so it is supposed, in that for Infant Baptism, that the infants brought are at least the children of one professedly Christian parent. But having proceeded thus far, it is obvious that another question arises. If we are not entitled to reckon upon a salu- tary efi'ect in baptism in the case of the infant of infidel parents, are we entitled to do so in the case of the infant of mere nominal believers ? Those who come as believers, must, indeed, be treated by man as real believers, (unless the falsehood of the profession be patent and canonically provable) ; but will He who searcheth the hearts act as if they were so ? Baptism must be administered by us to their children as to the children of real believers, but have we any right to affirm that those children will be dealt with by God as the children of real believers, when their parents are destitute of genuine faith ? God may, doubtless, give his bless- ing ; but is not the recognised title to baptism really, though not apparently, wanting ? Here is a question not decided by the Church, and which probably admits of argument. But it is at least reasonable to think, that our Church, administering bap- tism on the grounds stated by Jewell and Nowell, administers it on the supposition that the professed belief is a reality ; and consequently that her Service is constructed on this hypothesis. Here therefore we have at least a probable reason for extending the hypothesis on which the Service is constructed. But we have further to enquire, whether there is any Scrip- tural ground for supposing, that all infants of even a truly be- lieving parent, must necessarily receive the full baptismal bless- ing when brought to the font. The answer must be that there is not. And consequently we must further consider, in what cases we have reason to expect that blessing, and thus extend somewhat further the hypothesis on which the thanksgiving in the Service is offered for that blessing. Here again there is of course some variety of opinion. 13 Many might be inclined to think, that all infants of a true believer receive in baptism a spiritual blessing, so far that it is to them a seal of the remission of original sin, and therefore that, as infants, they may be said to be regenerated by it. The faith of the parent is to the infant, as an infant, and so far as concerns original sin, mercifully reckoned by God as im- putable to the infant, and on the strength of this it is baptized, faith and baptism together (as in the case of adults) perfecting the work of infantine regeneration. And (whether this view is preferred or not), I know not why any one should quarrel with the term infantine regeneration^ in this sense, more than with the Apostolic term infantine holiness used in a similar sense. All the objections that could be raised from Scripture against the one, might (barring the passage of the Apostle just referred to) be raised against the other. If we can justly call the chil- dren of every true believer holy, we can as justly, after they have received the seal of the covenant in baptism, call them regenerate. And the Service for Infant Baptism would then be used pre- cisely in the same sense as that for Adult Baptism must be used to make it consistent with the 25th Article. But then comes a further question as to what this regenera- tion is, and whether one who may have been rightly called re- generate as an infant is therefore to be so considered as an adult. Clearly not ; because, by the word of God, personal faith is essential to the regeneration of an adult. The child, in passing from an infantine state to a state of responsibility, goes through a complete change of condition. And this is the view of the Bishop of Exeter's own referee, Dr. Jackson. His Lordship has triumphantly adduced Dr. Jackson, (Charge, p. 20), as maintaining his own doctrine, be- cause he affirms the universal regeneration of the infants brought to baptism ; that is (be it remembered) the infants of those who profess to be true believers. But his Lordship has here merely caught up a few words (apparently taken at second hand from some quarter where he found the quotation, for no reference is given*) from an author of whose real doctrine he is wholly ignorant. For Dr. Jackson expressly says, — * The passage occurs in his Work on the Creed, Book xi. c. 1 7, Works iii. 4/1. 14 The same measure of regeneration which sufficeth children, or infants dying- before they come to the use of reason, will not suffice such as attain to the use of reason or years of discretion." (Works, iii. 100.) This view was also advocated by the learned Bishop Davenant, as I shall show elsewhere. Now I pass no judgment upon this view^ but I notice it as one clearly maintainable in oui* Church, and defended moreover by one to whom the Bishop of Exeter himself refers as a theologian of the highest order among us. The expressions of many of our divines seem to me strongly to favour this view, though they have not so distinctly expressed it as Dr. Jackson. But I must add, that no man has any right to stretch the Rubric as to the undoubted salvation of all baptized infants dying in their infancy, so as to include any other than the infants of professing Christians. Children are baptized in our Church as the children of believers, as our early di\ines constantly affirm ; and therefore all statements on the subject of their baptism must be interpreted on that supposition. And further, it is clearly open to us to maintain, that such a profession must be a reality, to obtain any blessing from God. Man must indeed treat it as a reality, but God is not to be thus mocked. Others, however, have not been satisfied, that such a distinction can properly be drawn between infant regeneration and adult re- generation ; and (still within the limits prescribed by our Church) they have adopted other views, of which the three prin- cipal appear to me to be the following. The first is this. — That the efficaciousness of baptism in infants depends upon previous election by God to salvation ; those inclined to Calvin- istic views, holding such election to be a free act of sovereign mercy ; and those inclined to Arminian views, holding it to pro- ceed from foreseen faith and holiness.* * This mode of interpreting the Baptismal Service may be adopted by the Arminian as well as the Calvinist ; for the difference between the two does not concern the existence of such a thing as divine election and predesti- nation, but the cause of them ; the former holding it to be the effect of foreseen faith in the predestinated, the latter the effect of a mere gra- tuitous act of sovereign divine mercy, ultimately producing faith. True, the Arminian holds, that the same degree of grace is given to all ; while the Calvinist holds, that more is given to some than to others. But botli 15 In such cases, it is held, that baptism, as God^s ordinance, is effectual to the incorporation of the baptized into the true Church — the true Body of Christ. The pardon of original sin is sealed to the child of a believer, and the infant becomes truly a member of Christ's Body, and therefore may truly be called regenerate. Such a child may, when an adult, display for a time little or no evidence of his membership ; and as long as this is the case, instead of telling him that he is certainly rege- nerate, because baptized, we must warn him that there is every reason to fear that he is unregenerate, and uninterested in the blessings of the Covenant ; and it is by such exhortations that we may hope to be instrumental, in God's hand, in the accomplish- ment of that internal change which is to be effected in him. And in the absence of any evidence to the contrary (as must be the case with infants), it is held, that we are bound in the judgment of charity to regard the infant brought for baptism as one so elected to salvation. The second view is of a somewhat similar nature, but irrespec- tive of any consideration of the doctrine of Election. It is this : — That as in adults the efficaciousness of baptism depends upon the party coming to that ordinance in the spirit of true faith and repentance, so in infants (excepting the case of those who die in their infancy, where such qualifications are not required) the efficaciousness of baptism depends upon the prevision by God of future faith and repentance in the child at a subsequent period of life. This view seems clearly implied in those words of Bishop Hooper, where he says, — " Thus be the infants examined con- cerning repentance and faith, before they be baptized with water, at the contemplation of the which faith God purgeth the soul.''^ In such cases, it may fairly be held, that the guilt of original sin being removed from the child baptized, as the child of a be- these views of the Arminian, are compatible with the notion, that grace and regeneration are not always and necessarily bestowed in baptism. He is not, by his views as an Arminian, shut up to the conclusion that, even where the Divine prescience foresees, that the grace given will be always and permanently rejected, yet, nevertheless, the grace of regeneration must necessarily be bestowed in the rite of baptism. He may legitimately take the view, that where a good use of the grace given is foreseen, it may be always bestowed at baptism ; while in the case of others, equal grace may be given at some period of their lives, but not necessarily at baptism. * Declaration of Christ and His Office. Early Writings. P. S. Ed. p. 74. 16 liever, (the vicarious faith of the parent uniting with baptism to produce this result) it is^ in contemplation of its subsequent faith and repentance, then promised for it, made a member of the true Church of Christ, and so regenerate. This subject has often been illustrated, and I think happily^ by the consideration of the case of the purchase of an estate upon certain conditions. Let us suppose an adult purchasing an estate for a thousand pounds. The seal is affixed to the covenant, when the condition of purchase, the payment of a thousand pounds, is fulfilled. And when the covenant is signed and sealed, and not before, the party purchasing becomes possessed of the estate, and all the privileges and titles it confers. But suppose an estate purchased by trustees for a minor, on the condition (promised by them as far as they are able to make a promise for him) that when he comes of age he shall pay a thousand pounds, and that so long as that sum remains unpaid it shall not be enjoyed by him. By what name shall we call the interest he has in it while a minor ? Can we say that the estate is his ? Clearly, in a sense, we may do so. But it is only in a sense, only hypothetically ; man knows not whether the agree- ment made is of any value to the child or not. And in the eye of one who foresees all things, such a covenant, if the terms should never be fulfilled by the child, is from the first a nullity. Now in the case of baptism, the conditions for the reception of its grace are faith and repentance, and the worthiness of the party, even in the case of infants, (supposing them afterwards to reach a responsible age) depends upon the ultimate fulfilment of these conditions. I do not enter now into the discussion, whether the performance of those conditions requires a sovereign and peculiar act of divine grace. That is another question. But what is maintained is, that there is a personal worthiness or suit- ability required in the infant, corresponding to that required in an adult, in order that baptism should seal up to him the gift of regeneration. If faith and repentance are foreseen, the covenant made in baptism is valid and effectual in the eye of God. It may fairly be held, that the child is made a real member of the true Church of Christ, and more or less therefore a partaker of the Spirit. 17 This, then, is another view of the case, which may fairly be taken, within the before-mentioned limits. Difficulties may be started respecting it, and so they may to every view of the sub- ject that can be taken. And, no doubt, there will be, to the end of time, a difference of opinion respecting it. But there is also a third view, which is this, — That as faith and repentance are required in the adult, so they are requisite, in proportion, to the infant, for the reception in baptism of the full blessing of that ordinance ; and consequently that there must have been a prevenient act of grace, a " pre-received grace,^' as our learned Bishop W. Barlow expresses it. Some have described this as truly and properly /az'M; others, as the seed or principle of faith. And it is important to observe, that this was maintained by Luther, who says that infants are brought to baptism " in this hope and persuasion, that they certainly believe.'^* This doctrine has not been perpetuated among his followers, who have, in fact, in more than one point, deserted the views of the great leader after whom they are called. But Luther's doctrine it certainly was; and we shall find hereafter that this fact will enable us to obtain an important illustration of the meaning of our Baptismal Service. And I find him fol- lowed by one at least of our earliest divines, namely, Lancelot Ridley, made by Cranmer, in 1551, one of the six preachers at Canterbury. Others, as future extracts will shew, prefer adopt- ing the notion of a seed, or principle, or habit of faith, having been implanted in the heart. Where this gift, then, of divine grace (namely, the possession of faith, or at least a spiritual bias of the mind which may be called a seed or principle of faith) has been bestowed, there (as in the similar case of adults) baptism is efficacious for the fulfil- ment of its best end and purpose. All these views are clearly admissible within the limits pre- scribed by our Church. And all these, we shall find hereafter, have been held by some of our best divines. But I must add, that to keep within these limits is of the utmost importance ; to guard, on the one side, against any con- * Hac spe atque animo, quod certb credant. — (Catechismus Major.) C 18 tempt or neglect of Christ^s own ordinance ; and, on the other, against the arrogant pretensions of a self-exalting priesthood to confer, on whom they please, gifts which our blessed Lord gives according to his own will ; through the instrumentality, indeed, generally of his ministers, but only when, and in whom, he pleases to work through them. The great (I had almost said fatal) mistake which those who maintain what are called High Church views among us have made on this and other kindred subjects, appears to me to be this, — that they suppose, that because they are ministers of Christ, and that certain ministrations were appointed for cer- tain ends, therefore those ministrations must always be effectual to the accomplishment of those ends. Now it is true that Christ works by them, and works by certain ministrations the ends intended to be fulfilled by them ; but only when, and in what cases. He pleases. They are instruments for fulfilling the purposes of His will. Out of every hundred individuals to whom they preach, there may be very few in whose hearts the Spirit works by them. Out of every hundred to whom they administer the Sacraments, there may be very few to whom they minister more than an outward rite or ceremony. But with this, some will not be satisfied. No, say they,— I have been made a minister af Christ, and thus had power given me to dispense, whenever I please, spiritual influence by the administration of the Sacraments. And the very logical mode of arguing by which this is supported, is, that being duly or- dained, their administration of the Sacraments is valid, and that Scripture tells us, that the Sacraments were appointed for such and such ends ; and, of course, uses language respecting them appropriate to their proper character and purposes. They that are baptized have put on Christ, says the Apostle. Therefore, says the Bishop of Exeter, whoever are baptized by me have put on Christ. Most logical conclusion ! Let us take another case of such reasoning. They that are instituted and inducted into a living, have obtained legal possession of that living. There- fore, whoever are instituted and inducted to a living by the proper authorities for performing such acts, even though it may turn out that they were never ordained, have obtained legal 19 possession of that living. The fallacy lies in arguing from a general statement, where conditions are tacitly implied, to par- ticular cases in which those conditions are not fullilled. In all these views that we have mentioned, it must be ob- served, there is one governing principle, namely, that the doctrine of the effects of infant baptism must correspond (according to the analogy of the two cases) with that of the effects of adult baptism. That infants should enjoy in baptism the full blessing of that holy ordinance, it is necessary that there should be some- thing in their state or circumstances corresponding with that which is required in adults for the attainment of that blessing. And it is the complete preeterition of all consideration of the necessity of qualifications in infants for enjoying that blessing, that is (as it appears to me) the grand cause of the mistakes made by many among us, both as to the doctrine itself now in question, and as to the meaning of the language of our divines on the subject of Baptism. "When general statements are found in our divines pointing out the value and excellent effects of baptism, they claim them at once as maintaining their view that all infants are spiritually regenerated in baptism. But when we ask, whether they mean, that baptism produces these effects in all cases, they are compelled to reply, Nc, in the case of adults we must suppose that these statements were intended onty to apply to those adults who have faith and repentance. Why then, I ask, are we not to suppose a similar and analogous limitation implied in the case of infants ? And the only answer is, because they choose to think that all infants are alike, or that they adopt the notion (utterly unsanctioned by om* Chm*ch) that all receive the grace of baptism who do not oppose the obstacle of mortal sin. But this reply is e^ddently insufficient. It proceeds upon a mere private notion of their own. It is a mere baseless fiction, utterly unsupported by a shred of Scrip- tural testimony, or the evidence of any document of authority in our Church. And the requirement by our Church of sponsors who shall, previous to the baptism of the child, promise, in its name, faith and repentance when it reaches the age of responsibility, (bap- tism being administered, to those likely to reach that age, only on condition of such promise being made) shows that it sanc- c2 20 tions no sucli notion. Faitli and repentance being necessary pre-requisites to the worthy reception of baptism in adults, our Church has deemed it right, that, even in the case of infants, a pledge of the future existence of these dispositions shall, as far as possible, be given ; evidently showing that baptism is admi- nistered only in the anticipation of the subsequent exercise of these dispositions. True ; the validity of the Sacrament does not depend upon these promises being made ; for as Bishop Jewell says, " Whether one, or two, or three, or more, be god- fathers, or witnesses of the baptism, it maketh nothing to the virtue of the Sacrament ; they are no part thereof ; without these baptism is whole and perfect. . .Christ left no order for the use of these things, neither did by his word or example require them.^^* But, nevertheless, the requirement shows the sense of our Church as to the necessity of subsequent faith and repentance on the part of the child, if it lives to years of responsibility, in order that its baptism may be of any service to it ; and that if it could be foreseen, that such faith and repentance would not be exercised by it (as it is by God, where such is the case) baptism ivould not be given to it ; for it is given on this condition and understanding. And it is exceedingly important to observe this, because nothing is easier than to bring forward a host of passages from our divines, extolling the effects and value of baptism ; and they who tacitly assume that all infants are worthy recipients, though they neither have, nor ever will have, any good motions or feel- ings in them, at once apply all that is said, to the case of every infant baptized, and produce such passages as proofs of what their authors supposed all infants to receive in baptism. So completely has the Bishop of Exeter allowed himsplf to be misled by such passages, as to quote Calvinistic Confessions of Faith as maintaining his doctrine, — affording an irrefragable proof, how completely we may misrepresent the authors of such statements, by interpreting them as favouring such a doctrine. It may be said, perhaps, that the child is baptized as the child of Christian parents, and brought by Christian sponsors, and that this constitutes its worthiness for the blessing of the rite. * Treatise of the Sacraments, p. 267, Works, 1611, fol. 21 But this is a mere unwarranted assumption. These are re- quisites to the qualification of the child for baptism. And these are all the qualifications that man can demand ; and we know^ that among those thus brought, are some at least who will enjoy the full baptismal blessing. But it does not follow, that these are all the qualifications that God requires, or that he will look with equal favom* upon all who are thus brought, even where it is foreknown to him that the party to the day of his death will remain faithless and impenitent. All the infants of the Israelites were to be circumcised ; but circumcision was not to all of them what it was to Abraham, or even to Isaac and Jacob. It is most important to recollect, that all events, past, present, and future, are simultaneously present to the Divine mind. God is omni- present in all time, as well as in all space. And, I must add, that beyond these considerations touching the state of the infant, our Chm-ch clearly teaches us the neces- sity of prayer to any well-grounded anticipation of obtaining the Divine blessing in the rite of baptism, as much as in any other ordinance ; not, indeed, to the validity of the external rite, as a rite, but to our looking for the presence and blessing of God in it. God may, indeed, be mercifully present to the child in it, but we have no right to assume that such be the case. This is so clearly laid do-^Ti in the 27th Ai-ticle, that by no fair interpretation of the words can it be got rid of. That xlrticle tells us, that in this ordinance Faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God,'' {vi invocationis divmce). The words, no doubt, apply more immediately to the case of adult baptism, but also, it must be admitted, in their due proportion and analog}^, to that of infant baptism. And the Article is sup- ported in this, as I shall show hereafter, by a work drawn up at the same time under Cranmer's eye and supervision, called the "Reformatio Legum.^' There is another point, also, which it is of the greatest im- portance to observe in connexion with this subject. And that is, ivhat the full baptismal blessing is. For it might be sup- posed, from the language used by some parties on this subject, that not even the slightest interest in the favour of God, or any spiritual change, can be enjoyed till the moment of baptism. A more luiscriptural notion could not be entertained. In all cases^ 22 baptism is connected with regeneration only as tlie formal sign- ing and sealing of the deed is connected with the completion of a purchase. This follows necessarily from the fact^ that faith and repentance are required (either in person or by promise) from all who come to baptism^ and that in Holy Scripture these are described as essential characteristics of regeneration. Con- sequently^ in adults^ the internal work of regeneration must be at least commenced before parties can properly receive baptism ; and^ in infants^ it must either be commenced, or foreseen by God certainly to follow. But baptism is the formal act of incorporation into Christ^ s body, the Church ; not merely the visible Church, but (when God acts in the ordinance) the true Church, the mystical body of Christ. And therefore it may justly be said, that, where it is efficacious, there we are regenerated by it. For whereas, before, we were only the children of Adam, and so of wrath ; we are hereby made children of grace, members of Christ. But it must be remembered, that as in the natural birth there was life previously ; so in the spiritual new birth, life, a living principle of faith, must have been implanted to make the birth by baptism effisctual to the production of a being spiritually alive. And Holy Scripture, clearly, often speaks of the implantation of this principle of spiritual life as the act of regeneration, inasmuch as it is the most important part of the work of spiritual new-birth.* While it also speaks of that new -birth as connected with bap- tism, but evidently in the sense just mentioned. And if this easy distinction is kept in view, all the passages of Holy Scrip- ture on the subject harmonize fully with one another. It is also to be borne in mind, that as spiritual regeneration is thus connected with baptism, which is its sign and seal, there is a sense in which all that are baptized may be called by man regenerate ; not as having beyond doubt received spiritual rege- neration, but as having received the Sacrament of Regeneration, and thus being sacramentally regenerate ; and the Sacrament also is called by the name of that of which it is a sign. Thus Augustine says, — " For if Sacraments had not a certain likeness of those things * See John i. 12, i:^ ; E])li. iv. 24; James i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 23 ; 1 John iii. 9 ; V. 1 and 4. 23 of which they are Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all. But from this similarity for the most part they receive the names even of the things themselves. As therefore in a certain way the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of faith is faith."* And elsewhere ; " Inasmuch as we say that he was baptized in Christ, we admit that he has put on Christ ; and if we admit this we admit that he is regenerate. . . . But men put on Christ, sometimes as far as the re- ception of the sacrament goes, sometimes beyond that even to the sanctification of the life : and the first of these may be common both to the good and the evil, but the other is peculiar to the good and the pious. "t I ought however to remark, before I bring this chapter to a conclusion, that there is one other \dew (and a veiy common one among us, in more modern times) on this subject, which I have not yet noticed ; namely, that which maintains, that baptism, as the act of incorporation into the \isible Church, may properly be described as conferring regeneration, as being an introduction into a new state, bringing new duties, responsibilities, privileges and blessings, and consequently that all may in this sense be said to be regenerated in baptism. It is held by those who maintain this view, that it may or may not be accompanied with the gift of spiritual regeneration, but that as the introduction into a new ecclesiastical state, it may properly be said to be a regenerating ordinance. Hence has arisen the distinction be- tween baptismal and spiritual regeneration. And, no doubt, the * Si enim sacramenta quaudam sirailitudinem earum rerura, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacrainenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiiint. Sicut ergo secundum quemdam modum sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Chiisti est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. (Epist. ad Bon if. Ep. 98, Op. ed. Ben. tom. 2, col. 267.) t Quia in Christo dicimus baptizatura, fatemur eum Christum in- duisse ; et si hoc fatemur, regeneratum fatemur Induunt autera homines Christum, aliquando usque ad sacramenti perceptiouem, aliquando et usque ad vitse sanctificationem : atque illiul j)rimum et bonis et malis potest esse commune, hoc autem alterum proprium est bonorum et piorum. (De Bapt. contr. Ponat. lib. I. c. xi. ; lib. V. c. xxiv. ; Op. ed. Ben. tom. 9, fol. 88, and 157.) 24 word regeneration may bC;, in itself, fairly and correctly used in this sense; but it seems to me to be alienating it from its Scriptural sense to do so. This view may be connected with various theological systems, and according to the system adopted will be the explanation given as to the precise state of the bap- tized infant ; but into that it is unnecessary here to enter. Writers holding this view, therefore, understand the regenera- tion spoken of in the Baptismal Service as being always con- ferred, but as not necessarily implying more than what they would call baptismal regeneration. I am unable, I confess, to view the language of the Service in this light. It appears to me that regeneration, in the full Scriptural sense of the word, as implying incorporation into the true Church and Body of Christ, is prayed for, and that the thanksgiving is for the presumed bestowal of the blessing asked. 1 should be very sorry, however, to assert, that such a view cannot be honestly and legally maintained in our Church. And of course the testimony of those who have held it as the doctrine of our Church, is a strong witness against the correct- ness, or, at least, Anglican character, of such extremely opposite views as those of the Bishop of Exeter. It has been held by a large number of our more modern divines ; and consequently, while they have adopted the affirmative and not the hypothetical principle of interpretation in the Baptismal Service, they have nevertheless earnestly advocated the necessity of regeneration, in the full Scriptural sense of the spiritual new-birth, for those who, though baptized in infancy, have not exhibited the marks of spiritual regeneration. It must be recollected, therefore, that there are two views ad- vocated among our divines on this subject, (namely, that men- tioned above as held by Dr. Jackson, and the one just referred to) in which, though the language of the Service is interpreted affi^rmatively, yet it is with a meaning entirely different from that affixed to it by the Bishop of Exeter ; and one which leaves the question, — in what cases spiritual regeneration in the highest sense is conferred on infants in baptism, — quite open. For any clear understanding of the testimony of our divines on this matter, it is quite essential that we bear in mind the existence of these different views among them. Otherwise we 25 may quotCj as authorities for a particular doctrine, statements which were far from being intended to bear the meaning we at- tribute to them. Thus, for instance, the Bishop of Exeter has quoted from Dr. Jackson a passage nearly identical in words with his own statements, but which Dr. Jackson intended to be understood in a very different sense. And my great object in offering these preliminary remarks is, to point out the different views that may be, and have been, en- tertained on the subject, within the limits our Church seems to prescribe ; in order both to shew the reader the various aspects under which it may be viewed, and to prevent a misconception of the meaning of testimonies to be hereafter adduced. The moderation of our Reformers induced them to leave points on which Scripture has not spoken explicitly, open, within Scriptural limits, to a difference of view. And accordingly there has been from the first some variety of sentiment among our divines on this subject. That there were any, however, who em- braced such views as those advocated by the Bishop of Exeter and the modern High Church school, until about the times of Mountagu and Laud, in the latter part of the reign of James I., I have yet to learn. And for the way in which our Formu- laries w^ere originally understood, (and consequently for the in- terpretation which has at least the best claim upon our accept- ance), we must go to the testimonies we find in the works of our Reformers and early divines, particularly of those who were in- strumental in establishing those Formularies upon their present basis. And here we shall find ourselves in a school of theology very different from that which has long held the supremacy among us. This fact it is essential to realize, if we would arrive at any correct conclusion as to their doctrine on the matter .before us. And therefore I shall devote an early chapter to the elucidation of this point. The views held on the subject of Baptism have always been intimately connected with, and corresponding to, those held on the subject of the nature of the Church. Now on the latter point, there have been two leading views into which the opinions of our divines have been divided. One of which is this, — That the nominal Church consists of two dis- tinct portions, one consisting of those who will ultimately be 26 saved,, the other of all those who will ultimately perish ; of which the former correspond to the wheat^ and the latter to the chaff, in the Scripture parable. And, following out the view of the subject which this parable and other similar desr;riptions of the Church in Scripture seem to give, the maintainers of this doc- trine hold, that those sown as wheat by our Lord never become chaff; that those who are once truly united to his mystical body, the true Church, never perish. In connexion with this view, it is held, that the full baptismal blessing can be enjoyed by those only who are adopted by Christ as wheat — as true members of his mystical body. The other view is this ; — That there is no such distinction between the members of the nominal Church, but that all who are baptized are alike regarded by Christ as members of his body, and equally partakers of the influences of his Spirit. In connexion with this view, baptism is regarded as, in all cases, equally, the formal act of incorporation into the true body of Christ, bringing the baptized into the possession of all the spiritual influences vouchsafed by Christ even to those who will ultimately be saved. It is Jield that as baptism is the ordinance by which the party baptized promises faith and obedience, so in it God bestows the gifts of the Holy Spirit, unites to Christ^s Church, and promises final salvation on the fulfilment of certain conditions, in the case of every infant, without any reference to any purpose of his own will, or any previous work of his on the heart, or any future faith and repentance in the child. Of these two views the works of our Reformers clearly show that they maintained the former, and therefore, whatever minor variations are traceable in their doctrine on the subject of Bap- tism, the modern ''High Church^' notion of all the baptized, receiving indiscriminately the full baptismal blessing was opposed by them all. It seems to be forgotten by those who would limit our For- mularies to such a sense, that our early divines made common cause with the Continental Reformers, particularly (and indeed, in Queen Elizabeth^s time, exclusively) with those of the " Re- formed (that is, more or less, Calvinistic) Churches. And the leading divines of those Churches were the great authorities, of later times, quoted by them in their works. 27 CHAPTER II. ON THE VIEWS OF SOME OF THE EARLIER SCHOLASTIC DIVINES. Before I proceed to those testimonies which are of authority in onr Church in determining the question under discussiouj it may be worth while to point out to the reader the fact^ that the doctrine of some of our High Church'^ divines of the present day is much less consistent with a sound Protestant view of the subject than even that of some of the earlier scholastic divines. Peter Lombard^ the Master of the Sentences, the Father of the Scholastic dinnes, might be read by them ^^th advantage on this point. In referring however to those authors, I must carefully guard myself against the supposition, that I attribute to them any weight in determining the doctrine of our Protestant Church. And the reference which is now being made to them by the Tractarian party, in support of their errors, I regard as a delu- sion,— nay more, as an unwarrantable attempt to mislead the public mind, by sending it to som'ces of information of a corrupt character, and opposed to the doctrines of om- Church. A writer of this school has recently ventured to maintain that " the language of our Forms can only be understood by reference — not to the Reformers, but — to the theology of the Schools/' And passages are given by writers of this Party, from the Scho- lastic di\ines, as if they had a species of authority among us. Perhaps a Roman Catholic author will be a better authority with such writers than a Protestant, to show them their mistake. I will therefore give them an extract from Sanders's work De Schismate Anglicano." 28 In his account of the Reformation under Edward VI. under the head " The Scholastic Doctrine exploded/^ Doctrina scho- lastica explosa/^) he says, — " All the books of those masters who have taught theology and the other sciences with power and judgment, they hurl out of the hands of students, and almost from the Libraries, inasmuch as they know that by their sound doctrine and methodical treatment of the subject, the popular frauds of the heretics are without difficulty per- ceived and dispelled ; Lombard, Aquinas, Scotus, and the other most learned Scholastics, they accuse of barbarism, ignorance of the Scrip- tures, and various errors, and inveigh as much as they can against their memory."* This extract may suffice to show how much weight was allowed to the Scholastic divines by our Reformers. f And so early as 1536^ Archbishop Cranmer used the following language respecting them publicly in Convocation : — " To determine anything, especially in a Synod, without warrant from the Scriptures, was not becoming the character of a Bishop. That the nicety and jargon of the School divines was more proper for hoys in the University than divines in such a solemn assembly .''X But it may not be without its use to refer to Peter Lombard on this occasion, because we certainly may derive from his state- ments on the point now in question an a fortiori argument as to the doctrine of our Church. The Master of the Sentences, no doubt, holds, that all the infants of Christians receive in baptism remission of their sins. But on the question, " AVhether grace is given to infants in baptism by which they may profit in riper years,^^ he says, — It is often also asked, whether grace is given to infants in bap- * Libros omnes eorum magistrorum qui vi et ratione Theologiara csete- rasque discipliftas tradiderunt, quia istoram solida doctrina et methodica institutione hsereticorurn populares fraudes iion difficulter cerni et dispelli sciebant, e sfudiosorum manibus et fere e bibliothecis excntiunt ; Lorabardi, Aquinatis, Scoti, caeterorumque doctissimorum scliolasticorum nomina de burbarie, Scripturorum ignoratione, et varia deceptione traducunt, rnemo- rinmque quantum possunt damnant, &c. (Ed. Col. Agripp. 1610, p. 233.) t In the above remarks, I am not, of course, denying, that some illus- trations of the meaning of phrases used by our Reformers may be gathered from the works of the Scholastic divines, but only that our Reformers at- tributed any weight to their writings as exponents of the Christian faith. I Collier's Eccl. Hist. ii. 121. 29 tism, by which, when they have the opportunity of using their free will, they may have a good inclination of the will and run well. For with respect to adults who receive the Sacrament worthily, it is not doubted, but that they have received influencing and co-operating grace .... But respecting infants who have not arrived at the use of their reason, there is a question, whether in baptism they have received grace by which, when they come to riper years, they maybe able to will and work what is good. It appears that they have not received it ; inasmuch as that grace is love and faith which prepares and aids the will. And who will say that they have received faith and love } But if they have not received grace by which they may be able to do good works when they have grown up, therefore the grace given in baptism is not sufficient for them in this state [i. e. as adults], nor can they now be good through it, but need the addition of other grace." Such was the view -taken even by the Father of the Scholastic divines. Without entering into the question whether he may not have overstated the matter in denying that such grace is ever given, one thing is quite clear, namely, his opposition to such view^s as those of the Bishop of Exeter. In fairness to his Lordship, however, I will add, that he admits that, — Some think that influencing and co-operating grace is given to all infants in baptism, so far as concerns the bestowaly not the use of it, so that, when they have grown up, they may obtain the use from the gift, unless through their free will they extinguish the use of the gift by sinning.*" * Si parvulis datur in baptismo gratia qua possunt in majori cetate proji- cere. Solet etiam quaeri, si parvulis in baptismo datur gratia qua cum tempus habuerint utendi libero arbitrio possint bene velle et currere ? De adultis enim qui digne recipiunt sacramentum non ambigitur, quin gratiam operantem et co-operantem perceperint ; quae in vacuum eis eedit si per liberum arbitrium post mortaliter deliquerint ; qui merito peccati gratiam appositam perdunt. Unde dicuntur contumeliam Spiritui Sancto facere et ipsum a se fiigare. De parvulis vero qui noudum ratione utuntur quaestio est, an in ba])tismo recipiunt gratiam qua ad majorem venientes aetatem possint velle et operari bonum ? Videtur quod non receperint ; quia gratia ilia charitas est et fides quae voluntatem praeparat et adjuvat. Sed quis dixerit eos accepisse fidem et cliaritatem? Si vero gratiam non receperint qua bene operari possunt cum fuerint adulti, non ergo sufficit eis in hoc statu gratia in baptismo data ; nee per illam possunt modo boni esse, nisi alia addatur ; quae si non additur, non est ex eorum culpa quia justificati sunt a peccato. Quidara putaut gratiam operantem et co-ope- rantem cunctis parvulis in baptismo dari in munere non in usu, ut cum ad majorem venerint aetatem ex munere sortiantur usum nisi per liberum arbitrium usum muneris extinguant peccando : et ita ex culpa eorum est non ex defectu gratiae quod mali fiunt ; quia ex Dei munere valentes habere usum bonum, per liberum arbitrium renuerunt, et usum pravum elegerunt. (Petr. Lombard. Sentent. lib. 4, dist. 4, fol. 82. Ed. Paris, 1510. 12rao.) 30 Nor had Peter Lombard any notion of that inseparable and exclusive connexion between the sign and the thing signified which our modern High Churchmen so strenuously contend for. For he says : — " If it is asked of what thing that baptism is a Sacrament, which is given to one already justified, we reply, that it is both a Sacrament of that thing which has preceded it, that is, of the remission bestowed before through faith, ^mdi of the remission of temporal punishment, or of the sin, if any, that is committed in the meantime, and of the renewal and all the grace there granted. For it is a sign of every thing of which it is a cause. Nor must you be surprised, that the thing soinetimes precedes the Sacrament, since sometimes also it follows long after, as in the case of those who come hypocritically, to whom, when afterwards they shall have repented, baptism will begin to be of use; in whom baptism was the Sacrament of this sanctifica- tion which they have on repentance. But if they should never repent, nor depart from their hypocrisy, of what thing would the baptism received by them be a Sacrament ? It may be replied, — of that thing which would be there if their wickedness did not prevent it.''* And very similarly, in one place, speaks even Thomas Aquinas. " Adults," he says, " believing before on Christ, are incorporated into him mentally, but afterwards when they are baptised, are incor - porated into him in a manner corporally, to wit through the visible Sacrament, without the intention to partake of which they would not have been even mentally incorporated."! The following passages also are well worth notice, in further illustration of Peter Lombard^ s views on this subject : — * Si quseritur cujus rei baptismus ille sit Sacramentum qui datur jam justo ; dicimus Sacramentum esse et rei quae praecessit, id est, remissionis ante per fidem datse, et remissionis temporahs pcense sive peccati si habetur quod interim committitur, et novitatis ac omnis gratise ibi praestitsc. Omnis etenim rei signum est, cujus causa est. Nec mireris rem ahquando praecedere Sacramentum, cum ahquando etiam longe post sequatur ; ut in ilUs qui ficte accedunt, quibus cum postea pcenituerint incipiet baptismus prodesse; in quibus fuit baptismus Sacramentum hujus sanctificationis quara poeuitendo habent. Sed si nunquam pceniterent, nec a figniento reccderent, cujus rei Sacramentum esset baptismus ab ilhs susceptus? Potest dici rei quae ibi fieret si non eorum enormitas impediret. (Petr. Lombard. Sentent. hb. 4. dist. 4. G. fol. 82.) t Adulti prius credentes in Christum sunt ei incorporati mentaUter ; sed postmodum cum baptizantur, incorporantur ei quodammodo corporahter, scihcet per visibile Sacramentum, sine cujus proposito nec mentahter incorporari potuissent. (AauiN. Summ. Theolog. part 3. q. 69. Art. 5. p. 177. ed. Paris. 1631. fol.) 31 " De jicte accedentibus. Qui vero sine fide vel ficte accedunt, Sacramentam non rem suscipiunt. Unde Hieronymus (super Ezech. xvi.). Sunt lavacra gentiliura hsereticorum, sed non lavant ad salutem. In Ecclesia etiam, qui non plena fide accipiunt baptisma, non Spiritum sed aquam suscipiuiit. Augustinus etiam ait (super Ps. 83.), Judaeis omnibus communia erant Sacramenta, sed non communis omnibus erat gratia quae est virtus Sacramentorum ; ita et nunc communis est baptismus omnibus baptizatis, sed non virtus baptismi, id est, ipsa gratia. Item, (De poenit.) omnis qui jam suae voluntatis arbiter constitutus est, cum accedit ad Sacramentum fidelium, nisi pceniteat eum veteris vitae, novam non potest inchoare. Ab hac poenitentia cum baptizantur soli parvuli immunes sunt. His aliisque testimoniis apte ostenditur adultis sine fide et poenitentia vera in baptismo non conferri gratiam remissionis ; quia nec parvulis sine fide aliena, qui propriam habere nequeunt, datur in baptismo remissio. Si quis ergo ficte accedit, non habens veram cordis contritionem, Sacra- mentum sine re accipit." (Petr. Lombard. Sentent. lib. 4. dist. 4 B. fol. 79.) " Quomodo intelligatur illud, Qmtquot in Christo baptizati estis Christum iaduistis. Quaeritur ergo quomodo illud accipiatur, Quotquot in Christo, baptizati estis, Christum induistis ? Potest dici quod qui in Christo, id est, in Christi conformitate baptizantur, scilicet, ut moriantur vetustati peccati, sicut Christus vetustati pcenae, induunt Christum quem per gratiam inhabitantem habent. Potest et aliter solvi. Duobus enim modis Christum induere dicimur, vel assump- tione sacramenti, vel rei perceptione. Unde Augustinus (De bapt. contra Don.), Induunt homines Christum aliquando usque ad sacra- menti perceptionem, aliquando usque ad vitse sanctificationem : atque illud primum bonis et malis potest esse commune, hoc autem est proprium bonorum et piorum. Oranes ergo qui in Christi nomine baptizantur, Christum induunt vel secundum sacramenti perceptionem, vel secundum vitae sanctificationem. (Petr. Lombard. Sentent. lib. 4. dist. 4. C. fol. 79, 80.) " Quod vero invisibilis sanctificatio sine visibili sacramento qui- busdam insit, aperte Augustinus tradit super Levit. (q. 88), dicens invisibilem sanctificationem quibusdam affuisse et profuisse sine visibilibus sacramentis ; visibilem vero sanctificationem quae fit sacra- mento visibili sine invisibili posse adesse ; non posse prodesse. Nec tamen visibile sacramentum ideo contemnendum est, quia contemptor ejus invisibiliter sanctificari non potest. Hinc Cornelius et qui cum eo erant, jam Spiritu sanctificati baptizati sunt. . . Solet etiam quaeri de illis qui jam sanctificati Spiritu cum fide et charitate ad baptismum accedunt quis [quid] ei [eis] conferat baptismus. Nihil enim eis 32 videtur prsestare, cum per fidem et contritionem jam remissis peccatis justijicati sunt. Ad quod sane dici potest, eos quidem per fidem et contritionem justificatos, id est a macula peccati purgatos, et a debito etemae pcenae absolutos, tamen adhuc teneri satisfactione teraporali qua poenitentes ligantur in ecclesia. Cum autem baptismum per- cipiunt, et a peccatis, si quae interim post conversionem contraxerunt, raundantur, et ab exteriori sanctificatione [satisfactionej absolvuntur, et adjutrix gratia omn 'mpje virtus in eo augetur, ut vere novus homo tunc dici possit. Fomes quoque peccati in eo magis debilitatur. . . . Multum ergo confert baptismus etiam jam per Jidem justijicato, quia accedens ad baptismum quasi ramus a columba portatur in arcam. Ante intus erat judicio Dei, sed nunc etiam judicio Ecclesiae intus est." (lb. ib. lib. 4. dist. 4: E. F. fol. 81, 82.) These passages appear to me well worth the attention of some among us. It will be recollected that they were written by Peter Lombard, about the middle of the 12th century. And the doctrine that sanctifying grace was always conferred upon infants in baptism, did not become a ruled doctrine in the Church of Rome till the Council of Vienne in 1311, and was then only laid down as the more probable opinion. For in a letter of Pope Innocent IV. in 1250, afterwards inserted in the Canon Law, it is distinctly recognized as an open question, whether grace is or is not conferred upon infants in baptism, in the following words, " lUud vero quod opponentes inducunt, fidem aut charitatem, aliasque virtutes parvulis, utpote non consentientibus, non infundi, a plerisque non conceditur absolute, cum propter hoc inter doctores theologos qusestio referatur, aliis asserentibus, per virtutem baptismi parvulis quidem culpam remitti, sed gratiam non conferri ; nonnullis dicentibus, dimitti peccatum et virtutes infundi habentibus illas, quoad habitum, non quoad usum, donee perveniant \_al. pervenerint] ad setatem adultam."* And the words in which Pope Clement V. determined the point in the Council of Vienne in 1311 (also inserted in the Canon Law), are these, — ** Verum quia, quantum ad effectum baptismi in parvuhs, reperi- untur doctores quidam theologi opiniones contrarias habuisse : quibusdam ex ipsis dicentibus, per virtutem baptismi parvulis quidem * Decret. Gregov. lil). 3, tit. 42, Corp. Jur. Can. Col. Munat. 1/83, vol. ii., col. 521. 33 culpam remitti, sed gratiam non conferri : aliis e contra asserentibus quod et culpa eisdem in baptismo remittitur, et virtutes ac informans gratia infunduntur, quoad habitum, etsi non pro illo tempore quoad usum : nos autera attendentes generalem efficaciam mortis Christi, (quae per baptisma applicatur pariter omnibus baptizatis) opinionem secundam (quae dicit, tam parvulis quam adultis conferri in baptismo informantem gratiam et virtutes) tanquam probabiliorem, et dictis Sanctorum ac Doctorum modernorum Theologice magis consonant ac concordem, sacro approbante Concilio, duximus eligendam."* These passages,, theu, clearly show the difference of opinion that prevailed, and was freely allowed to prevail, even in the middle ages, on the question whether anything more was bestow- ed upon infants in baptism than the remission of original sin. That they- might call this regeneration, I freely admit ; but the most objectionable part of the doctrine of our modern " High Church^^ divines is, that the regeneration which (in their view) takes place in all infants at baptism, includes those gifts of grace that give spiritual life to the soul. Now we see fi*om the above extracts, that so little was this doctrine recognised by a large proportion even of the Middle Age divines (inclined surely to take a sufficiently high view of the power of the Priesthood and the virtue of the Sacraments), that they denied that those gifts were conferred at all upon infants. And it was not till some time after the age of the Master of the Sentences that the notion arose of sacramental grace being always conferred, fi'om the mere performance of the act {ex opere operato), upon all who did not put the impediment of mortal sin {ponentes obicem mortalis peccati) in the w^ay of the effects of the Sacraments. And so monstrous and unscriptural is this view of the ex opere operato salutary effect of the Sacra- ments, that many of the Romanists themselves have endeavoured to explain away the words, so as to give them a sense very dif- ferent from what they were ordinarily understood to imply. As for instance, the divines of Cologne, in their Antididagma" against the " Deliberatio'^ of Archbishop Herman, who en- deavour to explain the words as referring only to the validity of the sacramental act on the part of the priest as God's minister, * Corp. Jur. Can. ; Clement, lib. 1. tit. 1. Ed. ead. Vol. ii. col. 194. D 34 in contradistinction to the opus operantis, or work of the priest personally.* But the phrase^ as ordinarily used among the later Scholastic divines and Romanists, is evidently intended to mean more than this. And, explain the words as they will, the remark of the Article of 1552 on them is most just ; that as the phrase " is strange and unknown to Holy Scripture, so it engendereth no godly, but a very superstitious, seme.'' (Art. 26 of 1552.) And so are the following remarks of Bucer, in his reply to the " An- tididagma.^^ " De opere operate. Cap. 101. " Hoc loco dicunt adversarii, scholasticis doctoribus inciviliter et malitiose affingi, quasi docuerint opus sacerdotis in missa valere coram Deo ex opere operate, sine bono motuutentis, sineque opere operantis, hoc est, etiamsi nec sacerdos nec populus suum opus, hoc est veram fidem adjungat. " Responsio, " Hanc erroneam seductoriaraque doctrinam Christiani nemini adscribunt, nisi qui ultro se illi adjungit. Quoniara vero experientia compertum est, multa millia sacerdotum quotidie contra ordinationem et institutionem Domini missas facere, aliosque homines eas audire, quos ambos propria vita cenvincit, quod omni poenitentia ac fide vacui sint, quandoquidem in manifestis et excommunicatiene dignis flagitiis sceleribusque contra conscientiam haerent, negari non potest errorem istum in nimis magna hominum parte sat altas radices egisse, quas necdum adversarii evellere tentant, quin potius omnibus iis, quae ad conservatiouem istius abominationis faciunt, face patrocinantur. Alioqui verum est, S. Coenam juxta institutionem Christi admi- nistratam, per se bonum ac salutiferum opus esse omnibus qui ea rite utuntur : etiam si sacerdos omni fide destitutus sit, mode populus sine propria culpa id ignoret. Consimilis ratio est etiam de ceeteris ministeriis ecclesiasticis, mandatis ab ipso Domino, in quibus omnibus solum opus operatum, hoc est opus juxta verbum et mandatum Domini peractum, atque idcirco opus ipsius Domini, quamvis per ministrum externe absolutum, utile ac salutiferum est fidelibus : siquidem illud tanquam opus Domini vera fide recipiarit et usurpent : nihilque obest illis opus operantis ministri, licet impurum sit, hoc est, non quidem vera fide, sed tamen alioquin juxta institutionem * Antididagma, seu Christianse et Catholicse Relig. per Canon. Metro]). Eecles. Colon, propugnatio. fol. 71. Ed. Colon. 1544. fol. 35 Jesu Christi a ministro perfectam. Omnis enim gratia in sacra- mentis nullo modo ex opere operantis ministri, sed ex opere operate Christi, quod ibi juxta verbum et mandatum illius praebetur, proftcis- citur. Nihilominus tamen opus operantis sumentis et sacris Christi utentis quoque accedere oportet,hocest, indubitatam fidem in Christum et promissiones ejus, quae opus Christi apprehendit, eoque fruitur. Non quod fides aliquid ex se nobis promereatur, vel ad opus meritum- que Christi nonnihil ponderis praeterea adferat, sed quod opus meri- tumque Christi apprehendat. " Quod si voluerimus ad hunc modum ista verba intelHgere, nihil controversiae in se habent. Verum loquendum est juxta vulgarem consuetudinem, et ad captum hominum, quo Veritas omnibus per- spicue patefieri, et a meudacio proprie discemi queat : quo et men- dacium homines rehnquere, et veritati firmiter adhserere possint. Neque Hcet in Ecclesia Christi ejusmodi horrendis abominationibus fucatis sermonibus patrocinari, quo facihus rudioribus hominibus tan- quam insignes cultus supponantur, vel ipsi in tahbus abominationibus confirmentur. Jam vero nimis, proh dolor, manifestum est, quomodo homines apud missam opere operato non Christi Domini, sed sacer- dotis fidant : idque non eo modo quo instituit Dominus, et ipsius opus esset : sed quemadmodum jamdudum contra ordinationem Domini depravatum, opusque Antichristi factum est. Adhsec quo- modo nihil curent opus operantis, vel ministri, utrum fideliter id peragat, vel sumentis, qui tamen judicium sibi sumit, quando sine proprio opere operantis, hoc est, opere verse fidei suae, opus operatum, quamvis juxta mandatum et institutionem Domini peractum, usurpat, vel ejus se participem reddit." (Buceri Constans Defensio, &c. Genev. 1613. 4to, pp. 317, 318.) I shall not, however, detain the reader longer upon the subject of this chapter, except to remark, that there is one other point on which the \*iews of many of the Romanists and Scholastic divines were sounder than those which have lately been received among us. It was with gi-eat regret that I found Mv. Maskell advocating the notion of the elements in the Sacraments convey- ing the grace given. The remark occurs in connection with the following complaint respecting Hooker. " Of the grace [i. e. of the Sacraments], only need we inquire further into what this gi'eat di\dne understood by it : and I may pass on to that the more readily, as his remarks seem scarcely enough to reach to the full extent of Catholic teaching, with regard to the ' element ' and ' the word.' " And in what does the reader suppose that d2 36 it falls short of "Catholic teaching Mr. Maskell shall state it in his own words. " For, in the eucharist, for example, ' the word^ has more effect than simply to express what is done by the element, inasmuch as it endues the element with its mysterious power ; making, in conjunction with the other essential rites, the bread to be the Body and the wine to be the Blood of our Blessed Lord. So in Baptism : ' the element ' not alone shadoweth and signifieth, but conveyeth grace.'' (On Baptism, pp. 23, 24.) Here is an error against which, beyond doubt, our Reformers with one voice, and in the strongest terms, protested ; an error moreover which many of the most celebrated divines of Rome itself, — almost all the Scholastic divines, — repudiated. I say this on the authority of one of Rome's most able divines, Estius ; who observes, — " Alii vero neque proprie dictam, id est, physicam instrumenti rationem in sacramentis agnoscunt, neque virtutem aliquam creatam eis inesse putant, qua gratiae effectum operentur ; sed dicunt hactenus tantum sacramenta esse efficacia gratiae signa, quia divina vh-tus sacra- mentis ad producendum gratiae effectum certo et infallibiliter ex Christi promissione assistit, ut videlicet habeant rationem causae sine qua non, vel potius causae instrumentalis generaiiter dictse, — instru- mentum morale vocant. Hanc opinionem tradunt Scotus, Henricus a Gandavo, Bonaventura, Durandus, Alexander de Ales, et aliiplerique." And he adds that this opinion " fuisse et esse inter scholas- ticos doctores communem sententiam, quemadmodum testatur Bonaventura ad Distinctionem ult. libri 3. Sentent., et confitetur Dominicus Sotus in prsesentem Distinctionem, dicens eam esse omnium fere doctorum etiam neotericorum. qusest. 3. art. 1 et 4.'^ And he remarks, that the Council of Trent has, worded its statements so as to avoid a determination of this question * I have purposely abstained, in this work, from discussing the question of the doctrine of the Fathers on the subject ; not from any unwillingness to enter upon the inquiry, but on the ground that the doctrine of our Reformers and early divines, to whom we are ind(;bted for our Formularies of faith and worship, must * Estius, Comment, in Libr. Sentent. Lib. 4, dist. 1. 4. 5. \m. 6, 7. Ed. Neap. 1720, Vol. 2. 37 be judged of by their own writings. I will, however, just point the attention of the reader to one passage from a Father often quoted on the subject, (Augustine), as showing that while he uses the word " regeneration" to describe the effects of baptism in all infants, he does not suppose a spiritual regeneration to take place which gives a principle of spiritual life to change the bias of the heart. " Sicat ergo in Abraham praecessit fidei justitia, et accessit cir- cumcisio signaculum justitise fidei : ita in Cornelio praecessit sancti- ficatio spiritalis in done Spiritus Sancti, et accessit sacramentum re- generationis in lavacro baptismi. Et sicut in Isaac, qui octavo su^ nativitatis die circumcisus est, prsecessit signaculani justitiae fidei, et, quoniam patris fidem imitatus est, secuta est in crescejite ipsa justitia, cujus signaculum in infante prsecesserat : ita in baptizatis infantibus prsecedit regenerationis sacramentum; et 5/ Christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequetur etiam in corde conversio cujus mysterium prsecessit in corpore. Et sicut in illo latrone quod ex baptismi sacramento defuerat complevit Omnipotentis benignitas, quia non superbia vei contemtu sed necessitate defuerat : sic in infantibus qui baptizati moriuntur, eadem gratia Omnipotentis implere credenda est, quod non ex impia voluntate, sed ex setatis indigentia, nec corde credere ad justitiam possunt, nec ore confiteri ad salutem. Ideo ciim alii pro eis respondent, ut impleatur erga eos celebratio sacramenti, valet utique ad eorum consecrationem, quia ipsi respondere non possunt. .... Quibus rebus omnibus ostenditur, aliud esse sacramentum bap- tismi, aliud conversionem cordis, sed salutem hominis ex utroque compleri." (Aug. De Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 5. cc. 24, 2.5. IX. 140, 141, ed. Bened.) 38 CHAPTER III. ON THE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY TO AVHICH OUR REFORMERS AND EARLY DIVINES BELONGED. The difference of meaning attached to the same theological terms and expressions^ by men of different schools of theology, renders it of great importance, in an inquiry like the present, to know the prevailing tone of theology among those whose views on any particular point we are endeavouring to ascertain. It may be useful, therefore, if, before I proceed further, I endeavour to throw some light upon the question, What was the prevailing bias of the theology of our Reformers and early divines, espe- cially respecting the Church, Predestination, and some kindred topics; the views entertained on those points having manifestly an important influence upon the subject of the effects of infant baptism. This is the more necessary, from the circumstance of attempts having frequently been made, since the prevailing tone of doctrine in our Church became changed, and the writings of oiu* early divines (with very few exceptions) disregarded and often almost unknown, of representing their general views of doctrine as very different from what they were in reality. From the paucity of the remains of our early theological literature of the Reformed school, this was no difficult task. But times are now changed in this respect. The conflict which the true successors of the Reformers have had to maintain, even for toleration in our Church, has led to an extensive republication of the works of our Reformation divines. And we have already some indi- cations that more just views on the subject are beginning to pre- vail even among those who are attached to that Laudcan school of theology that succeeded the school of our Reformers, as we 39 may judge from the extract given in my recent reply to the Bishop of Exeter^s Charge.* I would premise, however, that while I adduce the following testimonies as showing the prevailing bias of the theology of our Church at the time spoken of, I by no means wish to imply that the Articles and Formularies of our Church were formed upon a Procrustean principle of reducing the views of all to the precise standard of that prevailing bias. Our Reformers were men of far too much Christian charity to adopt such a principle. But the object which I have in view is simply this, to prove, by showing the general tone and character of the theology of our early divines of the Reformed school, what modern school among us approaches the nearest to their standard, and consequently to the intended meaning of the Formularies they drew up. My con- viction is, that I might take much higher ground than this, but with this I am contented. And though the discussion has only a general bearing upon the subject more immediately before us, yet its indirect evidence respecting it will be admitted, by all those who know how much any one^s doctrine upon the point in question may be judged by the system of theology to which he is attached, to be of very great force. In fact, if it shall ap- pear (and I believe it to be undeniable), that their doctrine was, in the most important points, what is now called Calvinistic," there is, or ought to be, an end to the controversy as to the in- terpretation they intended to be given to our Formularies, both as it respects baptism and several other points. When we speak of the theology of our Reformers, we can hardly consider anything previous to the time of Edward VI., (until which period the Reformation can scarcely be said to have been established) as entitled to much weight in elucidating its character. But 1 will go back a little way into the reign of Henry VIII. in order to show what was even then the doctrine of our leading Reformers on the subject of the present chapter. And I begin with the " Institution of a Christian Man,^^ pub- lished in 1537, with the sanction of the great body of the Bishops and Clergy ; in the drawing up of w^hich Archbishop Cranmer * See " Vindication of the Defence of the XXXIX Articles," pp. 4, 6. Also a remarkable article that appeared in 1842 in the British Critic, No. Ixiv'. pp. 300 et seq., from which I shall presently give some extracts. 40 had the principal hand. Amidst much that is objectionable and thoroughly Popish^ and that was in a few years entirely discarded by the Archbishop, (so that no inference in favour of any Popish doctrine contained therein being subsequently maintained by him_, can be legitimately drawn from it) there is also much of a decidedly Protestant character, standing out in very remarkable contrast with the nominal Protestantism of modern High Churchmen/^ I allude more particularly to that remarkable portion of it called the Interpretation of the Creed, in which the views that ought to be entertained by a Christian man on each Article are expressed by a large paraphrase. I would call the attention of the reader to the following extracts.* I take the passages as they come, begging the reader to observe particularly the views of Cranmer and his party, even at that time, on the nature of the true Church of Christ as distinguished from the nominal Church, and on the appropriating character of true faith. From the paraphrase of the first Article. " I believe also and profess, that he is my very God, my Lord, and my Father, and that I am his servant and his own son, by adoption and grace, and the right inheritor of his kingdom." (p. 31.) From the paraphrase of the second Article. " I believe also and profess, that Jesu Christ is not only Jesus, and Lord to all men that believe in him, but also that he is my Jesus, my God and my Lord. For whereas of my nature I was born in sin, &c I believe, I say, that I being in this case, Jesu Christ, by suffering of most painful and shameful death upon the cross, &c hath now pacified his Father's indignation towards me, and hath reconciled me again into his favour, and that he iiath loosed and delivered me from the yoke and tyranny of death, of the devil, and of sin, and hath made me so free from them, that they shall not finally hurt or annoy me ; and that he hath poured out plentifully his Holy Spirit and his graces upon me, specially faith, to illumine and direct my reason and judgment, and c/i«n7y to direct my will and aff"ections towards God, whereby 1 am so per- fectly restored to the light and knowledge of God, to the spiritual * They are taken from the edition in " Formularies of Faith put forth by authority during the reign of Henry VIII. Oxf. Ib25," 8vo. This book was published by the late Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of Oxford. 41 fear and dread of God, and unto the love of him and mine neighbour, that with his grace I am now ready to obey, and able to fulfil and accomplish his will and commandments. Besides all this, he hath brought and delivered me from darkness and blindness to light, from death to life, and from sin to justice, and he hath taken me into his protection, and made me as his own peculiar possession, and he hath planted and grafted me into his own body, and made me a member of the same,