BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 
 
 REV. J. OSMOND DAKEYNE, M.A. 
 
^ PRINCETON, N. J. "^^ 
 
 Presented by Mr. Scmuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agfiezu Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 sec. 
 
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 
 
 A NOTICE 
 
 " AN EXAMINATION OF THE 
 
 CHARGE OF THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, 
 
 DELIVERED OCTOBER, 1842," 
 
 WHICH APPEARED IN THE " RECORD" NEWSPAPER. 
 
 REV. JOHN OSMOND'^DAKEYNE, M.A. 
 
 INCUMBENT OF ST. BENEDICT, LINCOLN, 
 AND DOMESTIC CHAPLAIN TO THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL COWPER. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON, 
 
 ST. Paul's church yard, 
 
 AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. 
 
 1843. 
 
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 
 
 . JOHN SINGLETON, BARON LYNDHURST, 
 
 LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF GREAT BRITAIN, 
 
 HIGH STEWARD OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 D. C. L. &c. &e. 
 
 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE, 
 
 BY HIS PERMISSION, 
 
 WITH EVERY FEELING OF ADMIRATION, 
 
 AND GRATEFUL RESPECT, 
 
 DEDICATED, 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR, 
 
Digitized by the Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/baptismalregenerOOdake 
 

 <f- 
 
 fwr^i^^"*^ 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary for me to state that the 
 following pages were written, and are published, 
 without the cognizance of the Bishop of London. 
 Indeed it would seem to savour somewhat of pre- 
 sumption in one belonging to a distant diocese to 
 reply to an " Examination " of a Charge delivered 
 by his Lordship to his own Clergy, were it not 
 that the subject-matter of that able Charge is 
 most interesting to all Churchmen, whether lay 
 or clerical ; whilst the attack — for attack, in 
 effect, it is — made upon it in the " Examination," 
 which originally appeared in the Record News- 
 paper, involves questions which affect every one 
 
who has regard unto our Zion, especially those 
 who " wait at the altar." 
 
 I did not write the following remarks with 
 any view to publication, but solely as a private 
 exercise for my own satisfaction ; being desirous 
 to institute some trial of how far I had worthily 
 and efficiently studied a subject which had for 
 some time previously occupied my serious atten- 
 tion \ Influenced, however, by the judgment of 
 one whose friendship I value most highly, and 
 whose intellectual powers, combined with great 
 classical and theological knowledge, eminently fit 
 him to be an able and sincere counsellor, I, with 
 some hesitation, lay them before the general 
 reader. 
 
 To the Bishop of London I owe ample apologies 
 for the liberty I have taken in so freely introducing 
 and canvassing his opinions. It was not probable 
 
 * I would here acknowledge the great obligations I am 
 under to (Rev. James) Brogden's " Illustrations of the Li- 
 turgy," &c. (Murray), and to the " Tracts of the Anglican 
 Fathers" (Painter). 
 
tliat his Lordship would himself reply to an 
 anonymous adversary ; he will therefore perhaps 
 pardon a very humble servant of the Church for 
 having zealously, and, I trust, truthfully, endea- 
 voured to maintain the great doctrine impugned 
 by the Reviewer, — Baptismal Regeneration. 
 
 Lincoln, January 2, 1843. 
 
" There were of the old Valentinian heretics some which had know- 
 ledge in such admiration, that to it they ascribed all, and so despised 
 the Sacraments of Christ, pretending that as ignorance had made us 
 subject to all misery, so the full redemption of the inward man and the 
 work of our restoration must needs belong unto knowledge only. They 
 draw very near unto this error who, fixing their minds on the known 
 necessity of faith, imagine that nothing but faith is necessary for the 
 attainment of all grace. Yet is it a branch of belief that Sacraments 
 are, in their place, no less required than belief itself." 
 
 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. V. 60, 
 
 " Hie scelestissimi illi provocant qupestiones. Adeo dicunt, baptismus 
 non est necessarius quibus fides satis est." 
 
 TertuU. de Baptism, c. 13. 
 
A NOTICE OF 
 
 "AN EXAMINATION, 
 
 Sj-c. Sfc. 
 
 It may be a question whether a mere Newspaper 
 Review should be deemed of such particular 
 authority as to call for any notice more formal 
 than a reply made public through the same 
 medium as that by which the objectionable arti- 
 cle may have been sent forth to the world ; but 
 when, as is the case with the article in the 
 " Record," which I purpose to consider, it is re- 
 issued as a distinct publication, and widely, and 
 in many instances gratuitously, distributed as a 
 pamphlet apart from the circulation of the journal 
 itself, its importance is much increased ; and it 
 must be viewed as a sort of manifesto or declara- 
 tion of doctrines entertained by a certain very 
 peculiar party in the Church. Without further 
 
 B 
 
])reface, therefore, I would observe, that in offer- 
 ing some notice of " An Examination of the 
 Charge of the Lord Bishop of London, delivered 
 October, 1842'," published as from the columns 
 of the " Record Newspaper," I obey the impulse 
 of a conviction, that a doctrine more unorthodox 
 and pernicious than that which is maintained in 
 this Review cannot be set forth ; and I act upon 
 a belief that I shall be able to show that all the 
 arguments by which it is supported, and the 
 assertions by which it is maintained, are untenable 
 and without recognized authority. 
 
 I pass by the Reviewer's observation upon the 
 BisJiop of London s allusions to divers ceremonies, 
 rites, &c. in the Church, which have been brought 
 so prominently forward by the Oxford Tractarians ; 
 these matters, as the Reviewer states, are but 
 " secondary and auxiliary." But I must remark, 
 that when the Reviewer sets out with saying that 
 " we are all enjoined to be ' subject one to an- 
 other, and to be clothed with humility,' " it is to 
 be lamented that he himself did not act upon so 
 beautiful an injunction, and refrain from using 
 language as applied to the Tractarians at once 
 injurious and arrogant. I would, as zealously as 
 would the Reviewer, put a strong stay upon the 
 further progress of the grave errors of that School 
 
 ^ L. and G. Seely, London. 
 
3 
 
 of Divinity ; but I would not lessen the force of 
 any reasoning against them, by saying that the 
 propounders of them have " little and supersti- 
 tious minds ;" that they " fix their minds on any 
 thing that has been little or ridiculous ;" that they 
 " palm their puerile absurdities upon us ;" that 
 " at school these fancies would be whipped out of 
 the boy which must be borne with in the child 
 grown to man's estate ;" that they discuss " imbe- 
 cile trumpery ;" that they are " insects disturbing 
 the weaker brethren with their drivelling imbe- 
 cilities ;" that they " grasp with all the energy of 
 fellow-feeling that which is insignificant or mean ;" 
 that " the labours of these infatuated men are 
 anti-English, anti-Scriptural, and pro-Popish ;" 
 that they are men " contaminated by Popish and 
 anti-Evangelical sentiment and priestly presump- 
 tion," &c, &c. I repeat that this is not the way 
 in which I desire to treat those from whose 
 opinions I conscientiously dilFer ; and, indeed, 
 were I otherwise inclined, I should find little 
 difficulty in fixing strong epithets upon the pecu- 
 liar class in the Church to which the Reviewer 
 belongs ; especially referring to their assumption 
 of superior sanctity and orthodoxy over all their 
 brethren, whilst at the same time they never 
 omit an opportunity to lessen the effect or to 
 thwart the activity of Episcopal authority. I 
 would recommend the Reviewer to study the 
 
 B 2 
 
beautiful and truly j^astoral Charge ^ of the Bishop 
 of Oxford, and, if possible, act upon the spirit of 
 Christian charity therein recommended by that 
 excellent prelate, to all who set themselves to 
 judge others. But I have graver matter in hand 
 than the wretched bandying of hard words, and to 
 that matter I proceed. It embraces the all- 
 important subjects, — Justification by Faith and 
 Baptismal Regeneration. 
 
 The Reviewer says that the Bishop of London^s 
 " exposition of what Justification is, is perfectly 
 sound and Scriptural ;" namely, that it is " the 
 being dealt with as innocent in the sight of God, 
 purchased for all by the blood of Christ." I quite 
 agree in this ; but I think that by carrying a con- 
 sideration of the subject a little further than the 
 Bishop could do conveniently in a Charge, I shall 
 make the deduction drawn by his Lordship more 
 clear; and so show that the Reviewer errs most 
 lamentably in asserting, that the manner in which 
 his Lordship " states the faith which justifies rests 
 on the sacraments," is "both most unscriptural 
 and also opposed to the teaching of our Church." 
 
 The word " Justification" was a law term, signi- 
 fying the full and entire acquittal of a party 
 accused, after a full and strict trial. In this sense 
 it is used in many important passages in Scrip- 
 
 ' Delivered May 1842. 
 
ture ; and it is of this meritorious justification St. 
 Paul affirms that it cannot be attained by man's 
 works, inasmuch as that " all have sinned, and 
 come short of the glory of God ^" But the most 
 usual signification of the words, " to be justified," 
 in the Holy Volume, is, to receive mercy, to be 
 released or absolved from the consequences of 
 former transgressions ; so that when God justifies 
 a man, it is by passing over his sins, and accepting 
 and rewarding him as a righteous person, when in 
 truth strictly he is not so. Man, considered as a 
 sinner by nature and a guilty creature, is so far 
 below his Maker, that it is impossible for him to 
 do anything either to merit His favour, as an abso- 
 lutely due reward, or to render it necessary that 
 God should, for His own advantage, show any 
 favour at all. If, therefore, God vouchsafes favour 
 to man, it cannot be as a reward, it cannot be as 
 a retainer, but it must be, and is, a matter of pure 
 and unmixed grace, Man's deservings, as a pe- 
 remptory condition, have nothing to do with it, 
 neither have his works. He is a fallen creature 
 from his birth, of himself dark and powerless ; 
 and being ever bound to obey God to the utmost 
 of his ability, it is impossible for him to do more 
 than what is his never-lessened duty ; it is there- 
 fore impossible for him to create a surplus store, 
 
 ^ Romans iii. 23. 
 
from which to make God either his equal or his 
 debtor. How then is it ? St. Paul's explanation 
 is all-sufficient, — We are "justified freely by His 
 grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus 
 Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitia- 
 tion through faith in his blood ; to declare his 
 righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
 past, through the forbearance of God*." From 
 this, it appears that St. Paul meant to declare 
 that justification is the same as " remission of sins 
 that are past ;" and it is clear that, excepting by 
 having had his sins remitted, no mortal being 
 could stand before God ; for, if He strictly enquire, 
 in His " sight shall no man living be justified ^" 
 
 Now, of this justification, arising from the gra- 
 cious mercy of God our Judge, remitting our " sins 
 that are past," — hereditary by infection of nature, 
 or actual by commission, — there are evidently two 
 sorts — primary and final. The first, primary jus- 
 tification, is when we take upon ourselves the faith 
 of Christ at our baptism ; for then our past sins 
 are pardoned, and the punishment due to them is 
 remitted. We are regenerated. But, inasmuch as 
 that we may fall off from the faith, the profession 
 of which, in the ordained sacramental way, pro- 
 cured us the blessing of the remission of sins, 
 there must be another, a more complete, a final 
 
 * Komans iii. 24, 25. '' Ps. cxliii. 2. 
 
justijication ; and this will be at the last day — the 
 great and awful day of judgment ! St. Paul, 
 when he wrote, intended most frequently to speak 
 of the two first ; viz. either meritorious justification, 
 or else that which is attained by baptism. His 
 fellow-apostle, St. James, alluded to the other, viz. 
 the final acquittal at the last day. 
 
 As to meritorious justification, St. Paul having 
 declared, that Jews and Gentiles " are all under sin, 
 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not 
 one^;" having also said, that all have "come short 
 of the glory of God;" very properly concludes that by 
 the law of faith all boasting of works is excluded ; 
 and that since, by reason of man's frailty, he cannot 
 give unsinning obedience to the law, cannot natu- 
 rally or meritoriously deserve justification, he must 
 look to something else for it. That St. Paul, in 
 many other instances of his treating of justifica- 
 tion, did not mean the final one, is manifested by 
 his S])eaking of it as a thing past. As to the 
 Corinthians — " Ye are justified in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus^" And again, alluding to himself and 
 others then alive, he said to the Romans, " Being" 
 (i. 6. having been) " justified by faith, we have" 
 (i. e. we now possess) " peace with God, through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ ^" And upon this he founded 
 their hope, tliat if thcij contimied faithful, they 
 
 •■' Romans iii. 9, 10. '1 Cor. vi. 11. * Rom. v. 1. 
 
8 
 
 would attain the final justification ; saying, " While 
 we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much 
 more then, being now" (having been) "justified by 
 his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through 
 him ^" 
 
 As to justification at baptism : — In several in- 
 stances St. Paul speaks of the former as the ac- 
 companiment or consequence of the latter. " Ye 
 are washed" (baptized) ; " ye are sanctified ; ye are 
 justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the 
 Spirit of our God'°." And to Titus, " Not by works 
 of righteousness which we have done, but ac- 
 cording to his mercy he saved us by the washing" 
 (baptism) " of regeneration and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost \" So that I think it cannot be 
 doubted that where the justification of which the 
 great Apostle speaks is not plainly referred to as 
 that which meritoriously arises (therefore not pos- 
 sible to arise) from man's innocence and deserv- 
 ings, it is the primary justification vouchsafed in 
 baptism^ when, as the Bishop of London rightly 
 expresses it, " the children of wrath are regene- 
 rated by water and the Holy Ghost, and made the 
 children of God ;" or as our Church Catechism 
 (which I suppose the Reviewer does not admit alto- 
 gether, vide infra) more emphatically says, when 
 is furnished " a death unto sin, and a new birth 
 
 ' Rom. V. 8, 9. '" 1 Cor. vi. 11. ' Titus iii. 5. 
 
unto righteousness ; for being by nature born in 
 sin and the children of wrath, we are hereby 
 made the children of grace." 
 
 But, before I press this point farther, I think it 
 better, in this place, to notice the following para- 
 graph in the 'Reviewer's " Examination," &c. : — 
 
 " When his Lordship says, ' that regeneration 
 does take place in baptism, is most undoubtedly 
 the doctrine of the English Church,' we only reply 
 that Dean Milner (whose views, we observe, he 
 quotes in another part of his charge, in support of 
 his own) ' most unquestionably' held it did not, as 
 did his brother Joseph Milner, Venn, Cecil, Scott, 
 Simeon, and a host of those men whose knowledge 
 of Scripture, and love to their Church, were equal 
 to anything we have in the present day ^" &c. 
 
 I take leave to say, with all due respect for the 
 exertions of these zealous men, that the Church of 
 England has not yet learned to consider theMilners, 
 Venn, Cecil, Scott, or Simeon, &c. as peremptorily 
 guiding chiefs and authorities in all matters of 
 doctrine, and probably never will : (The Bishop of 
 London's quotation from Dean Milner refers to a 
 matter of practice, not of doctrine, as the Remewer 
 rather disingenuously would hint :) And I am yet 
 to learn how their dissent from the generally and 
 broadly-maintained belief of the Church can be 
 
 ^ " Examination," p. 9. 
 
10 
 
 admitted to weigh in the least degree against the 
 clearly-expressed views of Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel, 
 (whom the Reviewer, very appropriately adopting 
 the Bishop of London's words ^ calls " Those holy 
 men to whom, under God, we owe our deliverance 
 from an intolerable yoke, under circumstances of 
 difficulty which we are wholly unable to appre- 
 ciate,") Latimer, Hooper, Parker, Howell, Bancrqfl, 
 Laud, Sanderso7i, the Conference in 1661, and Con- 
 vocation in 1662, The Homilies, Bramhall, Turner, 
 Jeremy Taylor, Hooker, and " a host of those men 
 whose knowledge of Scripture and love to their 
 Church were," in very truth, " equal to anything 
 we have in the present day," and whose firm and 
 agreeing declarations upon the matter of Baptismal 
 Regeneration I shall take the liberty to array against 
 the opinions of the few divines whose orthodoxy 
 has not remained altogether unquestioned, relied 
 upon by the Reviewer : and I do this with the 
 greater readiness, because the Reviewer not only 
 expresses a desire to be " bound, as a true 
 Churchman, to receive these Articles (13th, 17th, 
 27th, &c.) according to their obvious meaning, 
 which accurately comports with the theological percep- 
 tions of our Reformers, and with the truth of God *;" 
 but he also boldly offers a challenge, viz. that " if 
 we do so," (i. e. if we receive the Articles accord- 
 
 ^ " Examination," p. 8. ^ Id. p. 21. 
 
11 
 
 ing to the meaning attached to them by " our 
 Reformers," which he admits to be agreeing with 
 the " truth of God,") " we shall cease any longer to 
 hold the figment of baptismal regeneration /" 
 
 Let us look into this. The Revieiver either 
 made this assertion advisedly, thinking to gain 
 assent by its largeness rendering it a task of trouble 
 to test its accuracy ; or else he made it without re- 
 ference to the fact, deeming that its boldness would 
 secure its reception. But, whether he made it 
 advisedly or desperately, I am free to confess that 
 I never read any statement so unreservedly con- 
 trary to the real truth of the case. 
 
 Mind, the Reviewer allows that " the theologi- 
 cal perceptions of our Reformers" run with " the 
 truth of God," and by them the meaning of the 
 Articles is obviously settled. I would, then, at once 
 inquire what the " theological perceptions of our 
 Reformers" declaring " the truth of God" were 
 upon the subject of " baptismal regeneration." 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer. — " Wherefore it is very 
 necessary for us to know how we must be born 
 again, and what this second birth is, without the 
 which we cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 
 . . . . " Here we mean a second birth, which is 
 spiritual, wherein our inward man and mind is 
 renewed by the Holy Ghost, so that our hearts 
 and minds receive new desires which they had not 
 of their first birth or nativity. And the second 
 
12 
 
 birth is by the water of baptism, which Paul calleth 
 the bath of regeneration, because our sins be for- 
 given us in baptism, and the Holy Ghost is 
 poured into us as into God's beloved children, so 
 that by the power and working of the Holy Ghost 
 we be born again spiritually, and made new 
 creatures *." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " Baptism is called the bath of regeneration. 
 In baptism we be born again, and be made new 
 creatures in Christ." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " Before we were baptized we were slaves and 
 bondmen to sin, so that we neither could do that 
 good which we would have done, nor could keep 
 us from that evil which we would not have done, 
 as St. Paul complaineth of himself But when by 
 baptism the^ Holy Ghost was given to us, the 
 which did spread abroad the love of God in our 
 hearts, and did also deliver us from the bondage and 
 tyranny of sin, and gave us new strength and power 
 to wrestle against sin, and manfully to withstand 
 our ghostly enemy the devil, then after a certain 
 manner we were able to fulfil God's command- 
 ments. And this is a great change and renewing of 
 the inward man." 
 
 * Sermon " set forth " by Archbishop Cranmer, translated 
 from the Latin of Justus Jonas ; published in the " Cate- 
 chismus," a. d. 1548. 
 
13 
 
 Again : 
 
 " These new affections and spiritual motions are 
 in the souls of such as are born again by baptism, 
 but they be unknown to worldly men, and such as 
 be not led by the Spirit of God." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " Without the word of God, water is water, and 
 not baptism ; but when the word of the living God 
 is added, and joined to the water, then it is the 
 bath of regeneration and baptism water, and the 
 lively spring of eternal salvation." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " Thus ye have heard, good children, what is 
 meant by the words of baptism, by the which we 
 are born again, and made new to everlasting life. 
 Learn these things diligently, and thank God, who 
 in Christ hath called you to be partakers of so 
 large and ample benefits. And express baptism in 
 your life, and baptism shall be the greatest comfort 
 to you both in your lifetime, and also in your 
 death-bed. For by baptism we be grafted into the 
 death of Christ, wherefore sin, death, or hell, can- 
 not hurt us ; but we shall overcome all these things 
 by faith, as Christ himself overcame them : and so 
 by this new birth we shall enter into the kingdom 
 of God and life everlasting." 
 
 The above exposition of Cranmer's sentiments 
 was set forth in the same year with the first Prayer 
 
14 
 
 Book of Edward VI. ; from the office for baptism 
 in which our present office diiFers very little. But 
 later than this the Archbishop held to the same 
 doctrine. In his last work, his " Answer to Gar- 
 diner ^" he repeats it : 
 
 " For this cause Christ ordained baptism in 
 water, that as surely as we feel, see, and touch 
 water with our bodies, and be washed with water, 
 so assuredly ought we to believe, when we be bap- 
 tized, that Christ is verily present with us, and 
 that by him we be newly born again spiritually," 
 &c. &c. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " As in baptism we must think, that, as the 
 priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly, 
 and washeth him with water, so must we think 
 that God putteth to his hand inwardly, and washeth 
 the infant with his Holy Spirit ; and moreover, that 
 Christ himself cometh down upon the child, and 
 apparelleth him with his ownself ^" 
 
 Edward VL — " Catechismus Christians Di^- 
 ciVLmjE,'" anno regni 2do, a. d. 1548. " M. Quum du^^^ 
 rem nobis reprsesentat et ob oculos ponit baptis- 
 mus ? A. Nos esse per Spiritum Christi renatos et 
 mundatos a peccato," he. 
 
 BisJiop Ridley. — " When I consider that all 
 
 ' Fol. ed. A. D. 1551, p. 42. ^ Ibid. p. 444. 
 
15 
 
 tliat man doth profess in his 7-egeneration, when he 
 is received into the Holy Catholic Church of 
 Christ «,"&c. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " The bread indeed is sacramentally changed 
 into the body of Christ, as the water in Baptism is 
 sacramentally changed into the fountain of Regene- 
 ration^,^'' &c. 
 
 Bishop Latimer. — " An act that is done 
 against the law of God willingly, is a deadly sin. 
 And that man or woman that committeth such 
 an act loseth the Holy Ghost and the remission of 
 sins, and so becometh the child of the devil, being 
 before the child of God. For a regenerate man or 
 woman that belie veth ought to have dominion 
 over sin V' &c. 
 
 Bishop Jewell^ quotes and adopts the note of 
 Leo, some time Bishop of Rome ^ : — " That power 
 of the Highest and that overshadowing of the 
 Holy Ghost, which brought to pass that Mary 
 should bring forth the Saviour of the world, hath 
 
 " " A Piteous Lamentation," &e, a, d. 1556. 
 
 " Treatise on the Lord's Supper. 
 
 ' Sermons, Ed. a. d. 1584, p. 226. 
 
 ^ Bishop Jewell, by desire of Archbishop Parker, edited the 
 Articles both in Latin and English, a. d. 1571. In the 27th on 
 Baptism, he explained in the English copy the word Regene- 
 raticn, by adding, " or new birth" 
 
 ^ Serm. V. de Nat. Domini. 
 
16 
 
 also brought to pass that the water should bear 
 anew and regenerate him that believeth *." 
 
 Again, Bishop Jewell says : 
 
 " Baptism, therefore, is our regeneration, or new 
 birth, whereby we are born anew in Christ, and are 
 made the sons of God and heirs of the kingdom 
 of heaven : it is the sacrament of the remission of 
 sins, and of that washing which we have in the 
 blood of Christ For this cause in- 
 fants are baptized, because they are born in sin, 
 and cannot become spiritual, but by this new birth 
 of the water and the Spirit. They are the heirs 
 of the promise ; the covenant of God's favour is 
 made unto them." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " Such a change is made in the sacrament of 
 Baptism. Through the power of God's working, the 
 water is turned into blood. They that be washed 
 in it receive remission of sins. Their robes are 
 made clean in the blood of the Lamb. The water 
 itself is nothing. But, by the working of God's 
 Spirit, the death and merits of our Lord and 
 Saviour Christ are thereby assured to us " (not 
 merely " a sign of assurance," as the Revimoer 
 asserts). 
 
 Again : 
 
 " ' Hereof,' speaketh our Saviour, ' that which is 
 
 * Treatise on the Sacraments, 1569. 
 
17 
 
 born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born 
 of the Spirit is spirit.' And for this cause, saith 
 He, ' Except a man be born of water and of the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 GodV" 
 
 Again : 
 
 " ' Christ,' saith the Apostle, ' loved the Church, 
 and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify 
 and cleanse it by the washing of water through 
 the word ".' Again, ' According to His mercy 
 He saved us by the ivaslmig of the new birth and 
 the renewing of the Holy Ghost ^' For this 
 cause is Baptism called salvation, life, regeneration, 
 and forgiveness of sins, the power of God to resur- 
 rection," &c. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " Baptism is the covenant and mercy and pro- 
 mise of God, which cloth eth us with immortality, 
 assureth our resurrection, by which we receive 
 regeneration, forgiveness of sins, life, and salva- 
 tion." 
 
 BisJiop Hooper. — " The which two (sacraments) 
 are not void and empty signs, but full ; that is 
 to say, they are not only signs whereby something 
 is signified, but also they are such signs as do 
 exhibit and give the thing that they signify 
 indeed^" 
 
 * John iii. 5, 6. ^ Eph. v. 25,26. ' Titus iii. T). 
 " Articles upon the Creed, 58, 59. Ed. a. d. 1583. 
 
 (J 
 
18 
 
 Again : 
 
 " I believe also that Baptism is the entry of 
 the Church, a vrashing into a new birth, and a 
 renewing of the Holy Ghost, whereby we do for- 
 sake ourselves, the devil, the flesh, sin, and the 
 world. For being once rid of the old man, with 
 all his concupiscences, we are clothed with the 
 new man, which is in Jesus Christ in righteous- 
 ness and holiness, and with Him we die and are 
 buried in His death, to the end that with Christ 
 we may rise from death to the glory of the Father. 
 And even likewise, being thus new horn, we should 
 walk in newness of life," &c. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " By this Baptism we are changed and altered 
 from cJiildrcn of wrath, of sin, of the devil, and of 
 destruction, into the children of God, of grace, and 
 salvation ; thereby to be made the Lord's, heirs 
 and co-heirs with Christ of eternal life," &c. 
 
 Dr. Lancelot Ridley says, " Although God 
 of his mere mercy and goodness, without all man's 
 deserts or merits, only for Christ's sake, hath 
 washed and purged man from sin ; yet He useth 
 a mean, by the which he cleanseth men from sin, 
 which is Baptism in water, by the word of God ; 
 and so in Baptism are our sins taken away, and 
 we from sins purged, cleansed, and regenerated in 
 a new Qiian, to live an holy life according to the 
 spirit and will of God. It is not the water that 
 
19 
 
 washes us from sin, but Christ by his word and 
 his Spirit, given to us in Baptism, that washeth 
 away our sins, that we have of Adam by carnal 
 nature ^-" 
 
 Again : 
 
 " 'Except a man be born again of the Holy 
 Ghost and of water, he cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven.' To be bom again of the 
 Holy Ghost and of water, is to be christened, as 
 Paul showeth to Titus (Titus iii)." 
 
 Dean Alexander Nowell. — " M. How many 
 Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church ? 
 
 S. Two. 
 
 M. Which be they? 
 
 S. Baptism and the Holy Supper, which are 
 commonly used among all the faithful. For by 
 the one we are born again, and by the other we 
 are nourished to everlasting life. 
 
 ****** 
 
 M. What is the secret and spiritual grace ? 
 
 S. It is of two sorts ; that is, forgiveness of 
 sins, and regeneration. ... As in Baptism 
 God truly delivereth us forgiveness of sins and 
 newness of life, so do we certainly receive them. 
 For God forbid that we should think that God 
 mocketh and deceiveth us with vain figures. . . 
 . . By the force of Christ's death, our old man 
 
 " Commentary on Ephes. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 is, after a certain manner, crucified and mortified ; 
 and the corruptness of our nature is, as it were, 
 buried, that it may no more live and be strong in 
 us. And by the beneficial mean of his resurrec- 
 tion, He giveth us grace to be newly formed unto 
 a new life, to obey the righteousness of God ^" 
 
 Archbishop Bancroft ^ — Being incorporated into 
 His (Jesus Christ's) mysterious body, in your bap- 
 tism by the Holy Ghost ^" &c. 
 
 Bishop Andrews ^. — " The Scripture maketh 
 mention of a first and second death ; and from 
 them two, of a first and second resurrection. 
 Both expressly set down in one verse : " Happy 
 is he that hath his part in the first resurrection, 
 for over such the second death hath no power." 
 Understanding by the first, the death of the soul 
 by sin, and the rising thence to the life of grace 
 (in baptism) : by the second, the death of the body 
 
 * Nowell's Catechism was " approved and allowed" by the 
 Convocation of a. d. 1562, the same which agreed upon the 
 Articles. Archbishop Parker, who was chief of the Revisers 
 of the Liturgy, three years before, presided. Nowell was a 
 member of Convocation himself. 
 
 ^ Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the 
 chiefs of the Church Divines at the Hampton Court Con- 
 ference, A. D. 1604 ; and Overseer of the last translation of 
 the Bible. 
 
 ^ Sermon preached at Paul's Cross, Ed. a.d. 1588. 
 
 < Bishop of Chichester, a.d. 1605, afterwards Bishop of 
 Winchester. 
 
21 
 
 by corruption, and the rising thence to the life of 
 glory ^" 
 
 Again : 
 
 " * Remission of sins ' is an article of faith no 
 less than the ' Resurrection of the body.' For in 
 very deed, a resurrection it is ; and so it is termed 
 no less than that." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " For sure it is that there are diverse acts insti- 
 tuted by God, and executed by us, which all tend 
 to the remission of sins. In the institution of 
 Baptism there is a power to that end. * Be bap- 
 tized every one of you for the remission of sins ' 
 (saith St. Peter to three thousand at once). * Arise 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins ' (saith 
 Ananias to Saul). And, to be short, ' I believe in 
 one Baptism for the remissio7i of sins,' saith the 
 Nicene Creed." 
 
 Bishop Sanderson ^ — We are brethren by pro- 
 pagation ; and that ab utroque parente, ojnoyaarpioi 
 ofioTTUTpioi, children of the one eternal God, the 
 common Father of us all, and of the one Catholic 
 Church, the common mother of us all. And we 
 have all the same elder brother Jesus Christ, the 
 ' first-born among many brethren,' the lively image 
 
 * Sermon, March 30, a.d. 1600. 
 
 * Bishop of Lincoln, chief of the divines, and a moderator 
 at the Savoy Conference, said to have written the Preface to 
 the Prayer Book, and the General Thanksgiving. 
 
22 
 
 of his Father's person, for we are all (as many of 
 us as HAVE BEEN baptized into Christ), the children 
 of God by faith in Christ Jesus ^" 
 
 Again : 
 
 " ' Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye 
 light in the Lord ^." Our very Baptism entitled 
 us hereunto, which is the Sacrament of our initia- 
 tion whereby we put on Christ, and are made mem- 
 bers of Christ and children of God. Whence it 
 is, that in the Greek Fathers Baptism is usually 
 called (^(jjTiajxoq, that is, an enlightening, and per- 
 sons newly baptized vto^wTtarot." 
 
 The Savoy Conference between the Bishops and the 
 Puritans a.d. 1661, and the Convocation a.d. 1662. 
 — The Puritans objected to certain parts in the 
 Office for Baptism, urging their inability to allow 
 that every child that is baptized is regenerate. 
 The Bishops answered and decided: 
 
 " Seeing that God's sacraments have their 
 effects, where the receiver doth not ^ ponere obicem^ 
 put any bar against them, (which children cannot 
 do,) we may say in faith of every child, that it is 
 regenerated by God's Holy Spirit; and the 
 denial of it tends to Anabaptism ^," &c. 
 
 Again : 
 
 The Puritans also objected (I would have the 
 Reviewer mark this) to Private Baptism, as too 
 
 ' Twenty-one Sermons, folio, a.d. 1686, pp. 396 — 570. 
 
 ' Eph. V. 8. 
 
 ' Cardwell's History of the Conferences, &c. p. 356. 
 
23 
 
 decisively implying the necessity of Baptism to 
 salvation. To this the BisJiops replied : 
 
 " Since our Lord hath said ^, ' Except one be 
 born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot 
 enter into the kingdom of Heaven,' we think it fit 
 that they should be baptized in private rather than 
 
 not at all The effect of children's 
 
 baptism depends neither upon their ow7i present 
 actual faith and repentance, (which the Catechism 
 says expressly they cannot perform,) nor upon the 
 faith and repentance of their natural parents or 
 pro-parents, or of their god-fathers or god-mothers ; 
 but upon the ordinance and institution of Christ ^" 
 
 It may be remarked, that this answer is quite 
 borne out by the opinion of Augustine ^ : 
 
 " Nihil aliud credere, quam fidem habere : ac 
 per hoc cum resjDondetur parvulum credere qui 
 fidei nondum habet effectum, respondetur fidem 
 habere propter fidei sacramentum et convertere 
 se ad Deum propter conversionis sacramentum. 
 Quia et ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet 
 sacramenti. Itaque parvulum etsi nondum fides 
 ilia quae in credentium voluntate consistit tamen 
 ipsius fidei sacramentum, fidelem facit ^." 
 
 ' John iii. 5. 
 
 * Cardwell's History of the Conferences, &c. p. 357. 
 ' S. August. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. 
 
 * Vide Editor's note to " Tracts of the Anglican Fathers," 
 p. 346 of vol. on " Prayer." 
 
24 
 
 I would, moreover, remind the Reviewer, that 
 these same Piirita7is also desired, and were refused, 
 the omissio7i of the words in the Catechism, stating 
 that there are " two Sacraments only, generally 
 necessary to salvation" But upon this point I 
 shall have something to say presently. 
 
 The Homilies I might also quote from very 
 diffusely, but it is sufficient to say, that the decla- 
 ration ^ of one of them, that Baptism is " the 
 fountain of our regeneration," is sustained and 
 affirmed in all the rest, whenever the subject is 
 alluded to, and is in perfect accordance with the 
 already quoted opinions of the Authors of these 
 Homilies, viz. Cramner ^ &c. &c. 
 
 ArchbisJiop Bramhall. — "We distinguish be- 
 tween the visible sign and the invisible grace ; 
 between the exterior sacramental ablution and 
 the grace of the sacrament — that is, interior 
 regeneration. We believe that whosoever hath 
 the former hath the latter also, so that he do 
 not put a bar against the efficacy of the sacra- 
 ment by his infidelity or hypocrisy, of which 
 a child is not capable. And therefore our 
 very Liturgy doth teach, that a child baptized, 
 dying before the commission of actual sin, is un- 
 doubtedly saved. Secondly, we believe, that 
 Avithout baptismal grace, that is, regeneration, no 
 
 ' Homily on repairing Churches. 
 * Vide p. 1)8, sqq. 
 
25 
 
 man can enter into the kino^dom of God. But 
 whether God hath so tied np and bound himself 
 to his ordinances and sacraments, that he doth not 
 or cannot confer the grace of the sacraments, ex- 
 traordinarily, where it seemeth good in his eyes, 
 without the outward element, this is the question 
 between us ^" 
 
 Perhaps I may here, though somewhat out of 
 place, quote one of the Articles of Religion set 
 forth in a.d. 1536 ; viz. : 
 
 " Item, that infants must needs be christened, 
 because they be born in original sin, which sin 
 must needs be remitted, which cannot be done but 
 by the sacrament of baptism, whereby they receive 
 the Holy Ghost, which exerciseth his grace and 
 efficacy in them, and cleanseth and purifieth them 
 from sin by his most secret virtue and operation." 
 
 Dean Turner*. — It is somewhat curious that 
 the argument which this old divine opposed, and 
 which he termed the " New Learning^'' is the same 
 as that which the Reviewer says arises from " the 
 error of baptismal regeneration ^ ;" for, says the 
 Dean, " the New Learning''' (i. e. the corrupted or 
 Popish) teaches that — the lust or concupiscence 
 that remaineth in a man after baptism, the law of 
 the members, infirmity or sickness, is no sin, 
 
 ' Treatise on "Baptismal Regeneration." — Ed. 1G77. 
 " Dean of Wells, temp. Ed. VI. and Eliz. 
 ^ " Old and New Learning." 
 
26 
 
 neither venial nor mortal ; and after baptism it is 
 not original, but it is the pain of sin : nevertheless 
 it bringeth forth sin. This opinion maketh a man 
 that is baptized slow and dull to fight against the 
 flesh, for he believeth that he is all whole and in 
 safeguard." And the Dean goes on to show that 
 this was not the " Old Learning," (i. e. the same 
 as that of the Church of England,) from which no 
 such dangerous deduction can be drawn ; and 
 then emphatically lays it down, that, " before the 
 baptism of the Spirit and water, that concupiscence 
 or lust was a sin reigning, but, after the wasJiing of 
 regeneration, it is sin overcome and subdued. Of 
 its own nature, indeed, it is evil ; but a man truly 
 regenerate, and not walking after the flesh, doth 
 repress and hold down sin with the spirit of grace, 
 that it reign not, nor have the over hand, that there 
 be "no damnation unto them that be grafted in 
 Christ." (Rom. viii.) For it is not reckoned to 
 his damnation on account of the spirit that resisteth 
 the flesh ; the which thing St. Austin, in these 
 words, doth conclude : " All sin is forgiven in bap- 
 tism, not that it should not be at all, but that it 
 should not be reckoned as sin." 
 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor. — My quotations have 
 so multiplied, that I make here only one from the 
 writings of this great Divine ^° : — " In this state he" 
 
 " Treatise on " Original Sin." 
 
27 
 
 (i. e. Adam in his fallen state) " could never arrive 
 at heaven, but that was to be supplied by other 
 means ; for this made it necessary that all should 
 come to Christ, and is the great necessity for the 
 baptism of infants, that they, being admitted to 
 supernatural promises and assistances, may be lifted 
 up to a state above their nature ; not only to im- 
 prove their present good, as the Pelagians af- 
 firmed — 
 
 " ' Tam dives vero hoc donum baptismatis esse, 
 Ut parvis etiarn vitioque carentibus orani 
 Congruat, ut qui sunt geniti bene, sint meliores, 
 Naturagque bonum adjecto illustretur honore ;' 
 
 but to take off that evil state of things whither by 
 occasion of the fall of Adam they were devolved, 
 and to give them new birth^ adoption into Christ, 
 and the seeds of a new nature; so to become 
 children of God, and heirs of the promises, who 
 in their mere naturals did inherit from Adam no- 
 thing but misery, and imperfection, and death ^" 
 
 Hooker, " the Judicious," in his dissertation 
 upon " Baptism by Women," altogether proceeds 
 
 ^ So Xystus, in the verses written upon the font of Con- 
 stantino : — 
 
 ** Ccelorum regnum sperate, hoc fonte renali ; 
 Non recipit felix vita semel genitos. 
 Insons esse volens isto mundare lavacro, 
 Seu patrio premeris crimine, seu proprio." 
 
28 
 
 upon the Sacrament being one of regeneration : — 
 " How should we yjraetise iteration of baptism, 
 and yet teach that we are by baptism boim anew,^' 
 &i,c. " Delivering this blessed sacrament of rec/e- 
 neratmi ^," &c. ? 
 
 I think I have now said sufficient to show what 
 " the theological perceptions of our Reformers " 
 ■were relative to baptismal regeneration ; and as the 
 Reviewer allows, as I have before remarked, that 
 these are consonant " with the word of God," 
 I might perhaps be satisfied with calling upon him 
 and his party to fulfil their pledges, viz. to " be 
 bound as true Churchmen to receive the Articles 
 according to their obvious meaning, which accu- 
 rately comports with" the numerous and agreeing 
 explications I have given from the writings of the 
 Reviewer's " Court of Appeal," and so to retract 
 their dictum^ that upon the authority of those Re- 
 formers we should " cease any longer to hold the 
 figment of baptismal regeyieration.'"' But there are 
 many other points in the Reviewer's " Examina- 
 tion, &c.," which to my fancy are so full of error, 
 as forcibly to bring to my mind Archbishop Ban- 
 croft's catalogue of the causes why " false prophets 
 do depart from the Church ;" viz., Fi7'st, " the 
 contempt of Bishops ;" " For if," as St. Jerome saith, 
 " Bishops had not authority, there would be as 
 many schisms in the Church as there are priests \" 
 ^ Eccl. Pol. Ixii. 4. ' Ep. cont. Lucif. 
 
29 
 
 So St. Cyprian : " Whence do heretics and schisms 
 spring but of this, that Bishops, having the go- 
 vernment of the Churches in their several dio- 
 ceses, are, through the proud presumption of 
 certain contemned, and being men by God's appro- 
 bation allowed and honoured, are of unworthy 
 men judged * ?" The second is " ambition," as St. 
 Gregory speaketh ; " desire of principality ; not 
 by such as are already advanced to any honour or 
 authority, but rather by those who, accounting 
 themselves nothing inferior to any of their supe- 
 riors, do affect with greediness the like places and 
 preferments, the which, if they miss one way, they 
 labour to attain them by another." The third is 
 " self-love." " Self-love," saith Saint Augustine, 
 " did build the city of the devil ; for herein is their 
 chief vaunt and glory V' as St. Bernard saith, " to 
 hunt after commendation by singularity of know- 
 ledge^." I would therefore notice some other 
 very remarkable assertions and propositions ad- 
 vanced by the Reviewer. 
 
 In reply to the Bishop of London's remark, that 
 " in the interpretation of the Articles, the surest 
 guide is the Liturgy," the Reviewer says, that " the 
 Articles need no interpretation;" and that the 
 other offices of the Church are rather to be ex- 
 plained by them than they by the other offices of 
 
 ■* Ad Pupianum. ' De Civitat. 1. xiv. c. 28. 
 
 * Sermon in Cant. 65. 
 
30 
 
 the Church : and this the rather, as it is an Jiistorical 
 and admitted fady that at the time of the compila- 
 tion of the Liturgy there was a studied endeavour 
 with the view to induce Papists to conform, and 
 not to shock more than absolutely necessary the 
 educational prejudices of ill-instructed people, to 
 make no greater changes in the service of the 
 Church from those of the Roman Missal than truth 
 imperiously demanded." Of which " Liturgy" 
 does the Reviewer speak? He uses the word 
 compilation. Does he refer to the first " Prayer 
 Book of Edward VL?" That first Book of « Com- 
 mon Prayer" was sanctioned by authority in a. d. 
 1548, and published in a. d. 1549 ; whilst the 
 " Catechismus'" (from which I have quoted, showing 
 distinctly that it recognised and taught Baptismal 
 Regeneration) was published in a. d. 1548, whilst 
 the first Articles (forty-two in number) were pub- 
 lished in A. D. 1553 ; again (reduced to 39) in 
 A. D. 1562 ; and again, re-considered and edited by 
 Bishop Jewell, in a. d. 1571, having the exact form, 
 verbatim et literatim, which they now have. Now, 
 does the Reviewer mean that the " Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer" and the " Catechismus''' explain " the 
 Articles," or that the latter explain the former? 
 If the former rule the latter, then are " the Ar- 
 ticles" declaratory of Baptismal Regeneration, for 
 I have already shown what the Catechismus declared 
 on this point ; and it is well known that our pre- 
 5 
 
31 
 
 sent baptismal service, and that in " Edward the 
 Sixth's Prayer Book," are almost identical ^ But if 
 " the Articles" are held to make plain the former, 
 it must be because they were a later embodiment 
 of the views of the Reformers. If so, then is 
 " the Liturgy" to be taken as a complete zn^ final 
 seal and ea^positor of the whole, for it was not 
 entirely settled until later still, viz. in a. d. 1662, 
 when the " office for baptism of such as are of 
 riper years " was added, because of " the growth of 
 Anabaptism, through the licentiousness of the late 
 times." And it is worthy of remark, that " the 
 Preface" most carefully warns the reader — (and 
 this preface was written by Bishop Sanderson, 
 whose strong advocacy of the doctrine of Baptismal 
 Regeneration I have already quoted) — that of " the 
 sundry alterations proposed unto" the revisers, 
 they had " rejected all such as were of dangerous 
 consequence as secretly striking at some established 
 doctrine or laudable practice of the Church of Eng- 
 land," &c. ; one of these insidious objections, or 
 suggested alterations, so rejected, being for the 
 very express purpose of striking out the declara- 
 tion of regeneration at or by baptism ! Is the Re- 
 viewer aware that in a. d. 1552 the 22d Article 
 began, " Scholasticoriim doctrina," &c. ; whilst, in 
 A. D. 1562, it commenced, " Romancnsium doc- 
 trina," &c. ; the alteration having been made by 
 ' Vide Appendix, note [A.] 
 
32 
 
 Archbishop Parker himself to make it more strong 
 against Popery ? 
 
 Will the Reviewer maintain, in the face of this, 
 that in the revisal and settlement of the Liturgy 
 in A. D. 1 662, it is " an historical and admitted 
 fact," that Papistical leanings were to be conci- 
 liated, and " educational prejudices" tenderly 
 used? Will he point out the quantity of the Roman 
 Missal quoad Romanism, that remains in our Prayer 
 Book ? Or will he support his assertion, that " some 
 things remain in the common offices of the Church 
 not so clear or satisfactory, in relation to doc- 
 trine, as the pristine and formal exposition of the 
 faith by her chosen sons," by telling us who those 
 " chosen sons" were, if they were not the Reformers 
 whose " theological perceptions " I have already 
 given ; or where it is that they have put forth 
 " pristine and formal expositions " different to those 
 which I have quoted ; and how, and in what man- 
 ner and degree, the declarations I have cited are 
 not " clear and satisfactory " elucidations of, and 
 confirmatory of, and reflectedly confirmed by, the 
 Liturgy f 
 
 I may here, by anticipation, take notice of a 
 remark made by the Reviewer later in his " Ex- 
 amination," viz. — 
 
 " His Lordship (the Bishop of London) says, 
 * The absolute completeness of the Holy Scriptures, 
 as the source and rule of faith, I hold to be a 
 
 5 
 
33 
 
 vital doctrine of our Reformed Church.' And, 
 again, ' If we desire to prove whether the doc- 
 trine set forth in any Article be true, our single 
 test is the written word of God.' Whether this 
 absolute assertion entirely harmonizes with his 
 Lordship's reference to the Liturgy, it is not our 
 province to enquire." 
 
 Certainly it was not the Reviewer's "province 
 to enquire" into this, because enquiry will show 
 that there is entire harmony in what the Bishop 
 advances. His Lordship says that the " surest 
 guide to the interpretation of the Articles is the 
 Liturgy." That is to say, where there is reason 
 to think that, upon the face of it, an expression 
 in any Article is not so clear but that some 
 doubt may arise as to its full force, the Liturgy, 
 composed by the same divines who drew up the 
 Articles, and sanctioned by the same authority, 
 ecclesiastical as well as civil, — the Liturgy may 
 safely be referred to as capable of throwing light 
 upon the question. But with regard to "vital 
 doctrine^ whether in the Articles or in the Liturgy 
 (and the Reviewer does not dare to allege that 
 there is any contradictory doctrine in these), " Holy 
 Scriptures absolutely complete, as the source and 
 rule of faith — 'the written word of God' — are the 
 single test'' Thus, I find, let it be supposed, a 
 f>assage in the Articles not altogether plain and 
 easy to be comprehended ; I then refer to the 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 Liturgy, and thence learn what the compilers of 
 both intended. Having thus ascertained what 
 the doctrine enunciated is, I test its truth (apart 
 from the authority of either Articles or Liturgy), 
 by referring it to the " written Word of God." 
 And I fancy that, as respects the comparative 
 obligation of the Articles and the Liturgy, the 
 Reviewer will find that the oath to receive and 
 observe the 36th Canon binds him to both. 
 
 But it is needless to dwell upon this at greater 
 length, for the Reviewer admits that " in the main, 
 the entire offices of the Church support and illus- 
 trate each other." Considering that if he is not 
 himself in holy orders, many of his party are, this 
 admission is highly gracious, inasmuch as it con- 
 descends to allow that that Liturgy which they 
 have solemnly taken an oath to observe and main- 
 tain is, " in the main," not quite so contradictory 
 as some may deem it ! The Revieiver concludes 
 this sentence by saying that, " even in the matter 
 of baptismal regeneration," he is " not afraid of a 
 reference from the Article to the Baptismal ser- 
 vice." Be it so ; when I come to consider this 
 point, I will see how this confidence serves him. 
 
 The Reviewer attempts to be somewhat sharp 
 upon the Bishop of London, for appealing to " the 
 Liturgy," to show that " hy faith" means " through 
 faith ;" and then twits his Lordship with having, 
 in his " acuteness," selected " the best example 
 
35 
 
 that existed in support of his theory of the 
 Liturgy explaining the Articles." This is very 
 poor work. The Bishop probably took the exam- 
 ple from the Communion service, as the first that 
 occurred to him. But if the Reviewer insists upon 
 it, that " ' by faith' imports by means of faith, or 
 through faith," I must take leave to demur. If 
 justification is to be by means of faith, then is 
 " faith" a 2(7orA:, or a wzmtono?^.? mw^e of justifica- 
 tion. But the eleventh Article uses the words 
 *^ per fidem," not ''propter fidem ;" and St. Paul 
 uses the words " ^la ttkttewc/' " £« ttiotewc," and not 
 " Sia iriariv" Or "svEfca ttjcttewc." Faith is not the 
 means, but the condition, of justification ; it does 
 not act jieremptorily, as of merit, making u^Jit, 
 but conditionally, as of operation, rendering us 
 not unfit to receive God's mercy. And it is to be 
 observed, that the words " we are justified by faith 
 only " were in the original 1 1th Article of a. d. 
 1552, as to be interpreted "eo sensu quo in 
 Homilia de justificatione explicatur ;" and surely 
 if the Romanists were to be, as the Reviewer 
 alleges, conciliated, then was the time ; but these 
 words were reiterated and amplified by Archbishop 
 Parker, in the Articles of a. d. 1562, after the 
 reformed Liturgy had come into general use. 
 
 I now arrive at a most extraordinary and cer- 
 tainly not uncomplacent passage in the Reviewer's 
 " Examination." It is this : 
 
 D 2 
 
36 
 
 " When his Lordshiji (the Bishop of London) 
 says that a denial of baptismal regeneration could 
 only with ' great difficulty be reconciled with the 
 language of the twenty-seventh Article,' we take 
 the liberty to remind him that the difficulty with 
 other competent judges of the import of words is 
 to reconcile the dogma with the Article, which 
 seems to them scarcely possible." 
 
 I pause here to ask who these "judges" are, 
 who are more " competent " than the Reformers 
 and Compilers of our Liturgy and Articles, whose 
 opinions I have already quoted as coinciding with 
 those adopted by the Bishop of London? The 
 Milners, Venn, Cecil, Scott, Simeon f Good men, 
 doubtless, but scarcely to be set up to make nought 
 the judgment of the " cloud of witnesses " I have 
 produced. Ay, and a " cloud of witnesses," many 
 of whom sealed their faith in their blood, others 
 in exile, poverty, and misery. I have yet to learn 
 when it was that any modern " competent autho- 
 rity," who has taken an oath to adopt the Articles 
 and Liturgy, — not according to his own interpreta- 
 tion, but according to the animus imponentis, — has 
 resigned his preferments and emoluments, which 
 can only in such case be enjoyed by a wrested 
 construction of the solemn adhesion given to the 
 Episcopal authority who administered, and accord- 
 ing to his own clearly declared interpretation of 
 it, accepted, the obligation ! 
 
37 
 
 But the Reviewer continues, — " While ' the 
 plain and unqualified language of the office of 
 Baptism itself,' to which he (the Bishop) refers, 
 no more proves in their (the ' competent judges ' 
 aforesaid, but not named !) judgment that every 
 child baptized is thereby regenerated, than the 
 ' plain and unqualified language' of the office of 
 the burial of the dead, to the effect that God in 
 mercy has taken the soul of the departed to Him- 
 self, proves that every member of the Church so 
 buried, is saved. Both offices need explanation, 
 and both can be explained, so as not to admit the 
 anti-scriptural error (!) of baptismal regeneration 
 on the one hand, nor the salvation of the uncon- 
 verted or impenitent on the other." 
 
 I again repeat, that they who think the doctrine 
 of Baptismal Regeneration to be an " anti-scriptural 
 error, ^^ would act much more honestly if they 
 quitted the Church of England, rather than re- 
 main in it by a species of special pleading, which 
 wants even ingenuity to excuse its boldness. This 
 I will endeavour to show ; but I would first get 
 rid of the Reviewer''s allusion to the Burial and 
 other Services of our Church. 
 
 With respect to the Reviewer's own explanation 
 of the words — " Forasmuch as it hath pleased 
 Almighty God of his gi'eat mercy to take unto 
 himself the soul of our dear brother here de- 
 parted ;" it is prudently bald and curt enough. 
 
 D 3 -(- 
 
38 
 
 He merely says, it is " only the language of 
 Christian hope and charity;" and thence he argues 
 that the direct expressions in the baptismal service 
 are merely the same. I take it that there is 
 something more than mere " hope and charity " in 
 the declaration of the Burial Service ; (which, by 
 the way, I may observe is only a ceremonial and 
 not a sacramental service, as is the baptismal, and 
 therefore not to be equally considered with it ;) 
 that there is a direct confession of a doctrine. 
 " * The w4se man telleth us that the spirits of dying 
 men 'return to God who gave' them; that is, to 
 be disposed of according to his righteousness ; and 
 our Church in this place acknowledgeth the great 
 mercy of God, through the grace of Christ, who 
 hath now the keys of hell and death, that dying 
 persons do not forthwith go into the power of the 
 devil, who hath the power of death, but do imme- 
 diately go into the hands of the great God, and 
 our Saviour Jesus Christ, to be disposed of by him 
 according to the promises and conditions of the 
 Gospel covenant. This is that which all Chris- 
 tians must acknowdedge to flow from the great 
 mercy of God towards man ; and that this is the 
 sense intended in this place, I am induced to be- 
 lieve, because in the ancient offices of burial they 
 magnified the Divine power, whereby the unjust 
 
 ' On the Visitation and Burial Services, by William 
 Falkner, D.D. 
 
39 
 
 and tyrannous power of the devil was overcome, 
 and our Lord receiveth us unto his peculiar and 
 righteous judgment." 
 
 " The clause committing the body to the 
 ground, ' In sure and certain hope of the resur- 
 rection to eternal life ' doth so evidently express 
 the faith and hope of the ' general resurrection ' 
 wherein all Christians are concerned ; when, as it 
 followeth ' he shall change our vile bodies, which 
 shall be made like unto his glorious body,' that 
 it cannot reasonably be understood with a par- 
 ticular restrictio7i to the party deceased; but it 
 declareth that, while this object of mortality is 
 before our eyes, the faith of the resurrection to life 
 remaineth fixed in our hearts." In a word, the 
 Church teacheth and here acknowledgeth not par- 
 ticularly a resurrection of the dead individual, but 
 the resurrection of all. There is no attempt to 
 prove that every one who is buried is saved ; there 
 is no desire to make the Burial Service evidence 
 to prove it ; therefore the Reviewer^ s argument 
 from analogy falls to the ground, and the force of 
 the office for administering the Sacrament of Bap- 
 tism remains untouched by any reference to the 
 merely ceremonial service for the burial of the 
 dead. 
 
 The Reviewer next endeavours to found a simi- 
 lar argument from analogy upon the service of 
 Co7ifirmation, and upon what he strangely enough 
 
40 
 
 terms, the service of the Catechism'\ He remarks, 
 as to Confirmation^ that " in it thanks are given in 
 the most absolute and unrestricted terms to God, 
 not only that he hath ' regenerated ' the recipients 
 of the rite, but hath ' given unto them the for- 
 giveness of all their sins.' This undeniably is 
 nothing else than the language of Christian hope 
 and charity." 
 
 Novi' the words referred to by the Reviewer are 
 used before the absolute act of Confirmation takes 
 place, and therefore are not describing, and cannot 
 be taken to be descriptive of, any result of that 
 particular proceeding ; but they do refer most 
 especially to the awful response just made by the 
 catechumens, when in answer to the Bishop's 
 solemn question, " Do ye here, in the presence of 
 God and of this congregation, renew the solemn 
 promise and vow that was made in your name at 
 your baf)tism, ratifying and confirming the same in 
 your own persons, and acknowledging yourselves 
 bound to believe, and to do all those things which 
 your god-fathers and god-mothers then undertook 
 for you?" — they all and each audibly declare, 
 I do ! Then is it that the Bishop repeats the 
 doctrine enunciated at their Baptism ; viz. that 
 they have been regenerate, that they have had 
 "given unto them forgiveness of all their sins," 
 
 ' " The four Services," &c. p. 17, " Examination." 
 
41 
 
 and he prays for the strengthening of them by 
 the Holy Ghost, &c. &c. ; all this clearly refers to 
 a thing past, and not to the act of confirmation, 
 Avhich is yet to come. So that if the Service for 
 Confirmation proves any thing, it proves the con- 
 gruity of the Liturgical offices, for it anew records 
 the fact, that regeneration and forgiveness of sins 
 did, and does, take place at baptism. As to the 
 unfitness of certain recipients, who, as the Re- 
 viewer says, are, in fact, like Simon Magus, after 
 his baptism, " in the gall of bitterness and bond 
 of iniquity," and far from having the " forgiveness 
 of all their sins," they are under the curse of 
 " God's broken law," I can only say, that their reck- 
 lessness does not render unavailable the sacrament 
 of Baptism to others, any more than a suicide's 
 crime abrogates the sixth commandment ; but I 
 repeat that quoad Confirmation, the Reviewer's 
 argument again falls to the ground, for it is not 
 pretended that that Service confers regeneration or 
 remission of sins upon those who come to it. As 
 to the sitiful recipients of the Sacrament of Baj)- 
 tism, Simon Magus, &:c. I shall have something to 
 say of their case when I treat of that holy office 
 more particularly. 
 
 The Reviewer founds the same argument " in 
 principle and in spirit" upon the Catechism, which, 
 I beg to inform him, is not a service, but, as it is 
 called in the Prayer Book, " an instruction.^'' It 
 
42 
 
 neither confers a blessing, per se, nor confirms one. 
 It is declaratory of the past, instructive and horta- 
 tory for the present, and preparatory for the 
 future. It in most distinct terms teaches children, 
 that as in their Baptism, which is past, they died 
 " unto sin," and had a " new birth unto righteous- 
 ness," — in other words, as they had then become 
 regenerate, so are they urged to learn and to per- 
 form the conditions which shall fit them when 
 they come to be confirmed to endeavour them- 
 selves to perform the obligation which their sure- 
 ties aforetime undertook for them ; viz. to repent, 
 to forsake sin, and to have " faith, whereby they 
 stedfastly believe the promises of God made to 
 them in that sacrament." All this is referable to 
 a by-gone fact, viz. that the children when baptized 
 had been regenerated ; and it seems very difficult 
 to conceive how the Reviewer can see in this 
 " Instruction," or Catechism, merely an expression 
 of " Christian hope and charity." Thus, then, 
 falls his argument founded upon the Catechism, 
 the repetition of which, to which he refers, by 
 many "carelessly and profanely, amidst the usual 
 insensibility of youth," has nothing whatever to 
 do with the broad truth of the general doctrine 
 which it teaches, and which cannot be made null 
 because some profess it unworthily, any more than 
 it can be made void because the Reviewer asserts 
 that it is " false,— has no foundation in Scrip- 
 
43 
 
 ture, and is not the doctrine of our Scriptural 
 Church." 
 
 This latter point must now engage my attention, 
 and it will embrace the several matters which 
 I have hitherto deferred, — one of the chief being 
 the Reviewefs declaration, that he was " not 
 afraid of a reference from the ('27th) Article to 
 the Baptismal Service." And I would discuss this 
 first, in a general sense, ere I proceed to notice 
 some of the Reviewer's strange assertions, for they 
 are little more than assertions, relative to Infant 
 and Adult Baptism. 
 
 The Reviewer observes : 
 
 " The Bisliop (of London) says, ' Justification 
 begins in Baptism, when the Children qfiurath are 
 regenerated by water and the Holy Ghost, and 
 made the children of God. Remission of sins is 
 expressly declared to be then given, [exactly as in 
 the office of Confirmation,] and remission of sins 
 implies justification in the proper sense of the 
 word.' Now we conceive the Bishop is quite 
 mistaken in his statement, that the children are 
 brought to the font as the ' children of wrath.' 
 All others are brought to Baptism as Believers. 
 The voice of God on this subject, as given by 
 Philip to the Eunuch, is, ' If thou believest with 
 all thy heart thou mayest.' So equally in con- 
 firmation. So also in adult Baptism there is first 
 the confession of faith, and then the administra- 
 
44 
 
 tion of the sacrament. And according to this 
 principle, and no other, does our Church proceed 
 in infant Baptism." 
 
 The words between brackets, viz. " exactly as 
 in the office of confirmation," which the Reviewer 
 has quoted in such a manner as to induce a sup- 
 position that they are used by the Bishop of Lon- 
 don, are not in the Bishop's Charge at all, and are 
 an interpolation of the Reviewer ; with what mo- 
 tive I do not say. Only I feel bound to notice it, 
 because, having shown that remission of sins is 
 not expressly given in Confirmation, it might 
 appear that the Bishop of London had directly 
 asserted the contrary opinion. But granting that 
 all (children by implication through their sponsors) 
 are brought to baptism as (professing) believers, 
 they are still up to that moment the " children of 
 wrath." If they were not, — if their profession of 
 belief, which is not necessarily faith, is sufficient, — 
 of what use is the sacrament ? " It is a sign of 
 regeneration, or the new birth, added by the 
 Church^'' says the Reviewer. I had thought that 
 it was ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ; but 
 the Revieiuer, it seems, thinks otherwise ; and I 
 had also thought that our Lord did not institute 
 Baptism as a sig7i in the sense the Reviewer would 
 have the word be invariably understood, viz. as 
 a token, or registering ceremony ; but that He 
 ordained it as a signing or ratification of the deed 
 
 5 
 
45 
 
 which admitted the recipient of the favour which 
 it confers to the full acquirement of it, without 
 which signing the deed would be no deed, and 
 the beneficial consequences would stand uninsured. 
 The " water" used may indeed be the sign, but 
 the whole sacrament is the signing. The Reviewer 
 persists in many jmssages in using this word sign ' 
 merely to signify a token or ceremonial mark ^. 
 The word used in the 27th Article is " signum,'' 
 
 • I gladly make an extract from the Bishop of Exeter s 
 powerful Charge, the rather so because the Reviewer calls it, 
 " spiritually considered, so dark."' He had a reason for so 
 calling it, as thus appears : — The Bishop says (page 23), 
 
 " It is a curious coincidence, that Socinus symbolizes very 
 strikingly with ultra- Protestants, in his doctrine of Baptism ; 
 for thus he writes : — ' Vel Baptismo illi, hoc est, solemniter 
 peractae ablutioni, peccatorura remissionem nequaquam tribuit 
 Petrus (Act. ii. 38), sed totam Pcenitentise : vel si Baptismi 
 quoque ea in re rationem habuit, aut quatenus publicam nomi- 
 nis Jesu Christi professionem earn tantummodo consideravit ; 
 aut si ipsius etiam externae ablutionis omnino rationem habere 
 voluit, quod ad ipsam attinet, remissionis peccatorum nomine, 
 non ipsam remissionem vere sed remissionis declarationem, et 
 obsignationem quandam intellexit.' — Socinus de Baptismo." 
 
 ^ With reference to Chrysostom's expression, " Christ's 
 Baptism in Christ's passion," Jewell remarks, — " These are 
 not bare signs, it were blasphemy to say so." ..." The 
 grace of God doth alway work with his Sacraments ; but we 
 are taught not to seek the grace in the sign, but to assure our- 
 selves, by receiving the sign, that it is given us by the thing 
 signified." 
 
46 
 
 " per quod tanquam per instrumenUim, recte Bap- 
 tismum suscipientes Ecclesia? inseruntur, promis- 
 siones de remissione peccatorum, atque adoptione 
 nostra in filios Dei per Spiritum sanctum visibiliter 
 ohsignantiir." 
 
 But a word relative to Philip and the Ethiopian 
 queen's treasurer. Philip met him by express 
 direction of " the Spirit ^" when he was zealously 
 endeavouring to understand the Holy Scriptures. 
 He was most anxious to be taught, and he listened 
 with sincere readiness to receive his teaching, to 
 all that Philip said when he " preached unto him 
 Jesus." He himself first suggested that, as the 
 element was at hand and opportunity offered, he 
 should be baptized. " And Philip said, If thou 
 believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And 
 he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ 
 is the Son of God." Now, the question is, was 
 this eunuch at tJiis moment regenerate or not, the 
 sacrament not having been administered? The 
 Reviewer would say that he was, for he would say 
 that he had " faith, and consequently justifica- 
 tion," the registering sign being unconnected with 
 his regeneration. Now I would say, that the 
 eunuch, until he was baptized, was not regenerate ; 
 albeit his faith might be of such a nature as, if he 
 had then suddenly died, to have been accepted 
 
 ^ Acts viii. 27, et seq. 
 
47 
 
 before God. But who is the judge of this? Man! 
 Oh, no ! The confession of faith must necessarily 
 precede the administration of the Sacrament ; but 
 if the confession of faith is of itself all-sufficienU 
 how was it that Philij) deemed it necessary to 
 baptize the eunuch? He gave him " the sign," 
 says the Reviewer. Of what use was " the sign," 
 if no absolute results were to accompany its exhi- 
 bition? The sacrament of baptism is, according 
 to the Reviewer, no sacrament at all ; for if a 
 sacrament is " an outward testifying of God's good 
 will and bountifulness towards us as through 
 Christ, by a visible sign representing an invisible 
 and spiritual grace * ;" and if, I say, no " visible 
 and spiritual grace" is given by it, (and, according 
 to the Reviewer, none is given, for it exists before 
 it is administered), — then Baptism would want this 
 grand feature, and so would not be a sacrament ! 
 Does the Reviewer mean this? " If thou believest 
 with all thy heart, thou may est" be baptized, said 
 Philip to the eunuch. " Thou mayestr Thou art 
 fit, 'prepared; thou art in a condition to receive the 
 sacrament fruitfully and effectually. Still the 
 eunuch was a " child of wrath" till he did re- 
 ceive it. 
 
 Are Justification by faith and Baptismal Rege- 
 neration convertible terms ? — or rather, is Justifi- 
 
 * Nowell's Catechism. 
 
48 
 
 cation the same as Regeneration? I think not. 
 Regeneration can only occur once ; Justification 
 may be repeated. 
 
 Infants are not born in a justified state, yet they 
 have no actual sins to be accountable for. What, 
 then, is the operation of Regeneration f It is as 
 to their original sin as heirs of Adam's nature. 
 This proves that Baptismal Regeneration must be 
 of a twofold character : federal \ and moral or spi- 
 ritual. Federal regeneration, or the remission of 
 original sin, invariably takes place in baptism, 
 whether of the infant or of the adult, where there 
 is faith. In the former, this is presumed to exist ; 
 in the latter, it must actually exist, as well as be 
 professed. In the case of the infant, federal rege- 
 neration involves the other, and the child is in a 
 state of complete justification ^ and, therefore, of 
 salvation. But in the adult — he may be and is 
 federally regenerate ; but it rests between his con- 
 science and his God whether his inward pref)ara- 
 tion induces the moral and spiritual Regeneration. 
 Thus Regeneration, as I said, can only occur once, 
 but Justification may be repeated. It occurs when 
 man is released from original sin at his baptism : 
 it occurs when, from true repentance, he obtains 
 
 * Vide an admirable article, " Church of England Quar- 
 terly," No. 17. 
 
 ® " After that we are baptized or justified." — Homily on 
 Salvation. 
 
 5 
 
49 
 
 pardon of his actual sin ; and it will occur, if 
 forgiven and accepted at the final judgment. 
 
 On this point nothing can be clearer than the 
 words of Jeremy Taylor '' : 
 
 " This is the first great consideration in this 
 affair ; no man is justified in the least sense of 
 justification ; that is, when it means nothing but 
 the 'pardon of sins, but when his sin is mortified 
 and destroyed. 2. No man is actually justified but 
 he that is in some measure sanctified. For the 
 understanding and clearing of which proposition, 
 we must know, that justification, when it is attri- 
 buted to any cause, does not always signify justifi- 
 cation actual. Thus, when it is said in Scripture, 
 ' We are justified by the death of Christ,' it is but 
 the same thing as to say, ' Christ died for us ;' and 
 he rose again for us too, that we might indeed be 
 justified in due time, and by just measures and 
 dispositions. ' He died for our sins, and rose 
 again for our justification ;' that is, by his death 
 and resurrection he hath obtained this power, and 
 eflfected this mercy, that if we believe him and 
 obey, we shall be justified and made capable of all 
 the blessings of the kingdom. But that this is 
 no more but a capacity of pardon, of grace, and of 
 salvation, appears not only by God's requiring 
 obedience as a condition on our parts, but by his 
 
 ^ Sermon, " Fides formata," &c. 
 
50 
 
 expressly attributing this mercy to ns at such times 
 and in such circumstances, in which it is certain 
 and evident that we could not actually be justified; 
 for so saith the Scripture, ' We, when we were 
 enemies, were reconciled to God by the death of 
 his Son; and while we were yet sinners, Christ 
 died for us^;' that is, then was our justification 
 wrought on God's part ; that is, then he intended 
 this mercy to us ; then he resolved to show us 
 favour, to give us promises, and laws, and condi- 
 tions, and hopes, and an infallible economy of sal- 
 vation ; and when faith lays hold on this grace 
 and this justification, then we are to do the other 
 part of it ; that is, as God made it potential by 
 the death and resurrection of Christ, so we, laying 
 hold on these things by faith, and working the 
 righteousness o^ faith ; that is, performing what is 
 required on our parts ; we, I say, make it actual ; 
 and for this reason it is that the Apostle puts more 
 emphasis upon the resurrection of Christ than upon 
 his death. ' Who is he that condemneth ? It is 
 Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again ^.' 
 And affain : ' Christ was both delivered for our 
 sins, and is risen again for our justification ^ ;' im- 
 plying to us, that, as it is in the principal, so it is 
 in the correspondent. Our sins, indeed, are poten- 
 tially pardoned, when they are marked out for 
 
 * Rom. V. 8—10. " Rom. viii. 28. * Rom. iv. 25. 
 
51 
 
 death and crucifixion ; when, by resolving and fight- 
 ing against sin, we die to sin daily, and are so made 
 conformable to his death : but we must partake of 
 Christ's resurrection before this justification can be 
 actual. When we are ' dead to sin, and are risen 
 again unto righteousness;' then, as we are 'par- 
 takers of his death,' so shall we ' be partakers of 
 his resurrection,' saith St. Paul ; that is, then we are 
 truly, effectually, and indeed justified ; and till then 
 we are not." 
 
 " Now we see that justification and sanctification 
 cannot be distinguished ; but as works of art, sig- 
 nifying the various steps of progression of the same 
 course, they may be distinguished in notion and 
 speculation, but never when they are to pass on to 
 material events ; for no man is justified but he that 
 is also sanctified." . . . . " No man is justified (that 
 is, so as to signify salvation), but sanctification 
 must be precedent to it." 
 
 All this, I think, answers the question I have 
 mooted, and shows that justification and regenera- 
 tion are not actually the same thing. But, as the 
 Bishop of London well puts it, "justification ^e^2W 
 in Baptism, when the children of wrath are re- 
 generated by water and the Holy Ghost, and made 
 the children of God ; remission of sins is expressly 
 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 declared to be then given, and remission of sins 
 implies justification, in the proper sense of the 
 term" (in the 'primary sense of the term, would 
 perhaps be more correct ) ; " grace is also given, 
 and by virtue of that grace the person receiving 
 and henceforth using and improving it, continues 
 to believe in the atonement made by Jesus Christ, 
 and to seek for and realize the indwelling of the 
 Holy Ghost, to be renewed day by day unto eternal 
 life. As long as he does this he continues in a 
 state of justification ; the sins which cleave even to 
 the regenerate are forgiven, as they are repented of 
 and forsaken, and the work of sanctification goes on!"* 
 Now, after all, what is the precise meaning of 
 the expression, "to be regenerated?'''' I take it, 
 it means that the baptized person is replaced in 
 the same position, as to his nature, and disposition, 
 and purity, as that in which Adam was previous 
 to his fall ; and this in consequence and by means 
 of the atonement of Christ for Adam's sin. But 
 even before his fall, Adam, although pure, was 
 temptable ; so then the baptized, although at the 
 instant of Baptism (if worthily received) pure and 
 clean, are also temptable. Thus Adam, ere he com- 
 mitted that which induced what is called original 
 sin, was not created incapable of sinning ; so the 
 baptized, when regenerate, — i. e. their original sin 
 done away and their actual sin (in the infant, from 
 
53 
 
 there being none ^ in the adult, when faith has 
 given him the capacity to be forgiven) pardoned, — 
 are not rendered impeccable. But this does not 
 prove that they have not become regenerate, any 
 more than Adam's sin proves that he was not 
 originally without sin. Yet he was originally 
 without sin, for he was amongst the things that 
 God saw when he finally overlooked his work, and 
 found it to be " very good." I do not enter into 
 the question whether original sin was a deprivation 
 or a depi'avation ; it most assuredly was the first, 
 and I doubt not it was the second (Art. IX.) ; yet 
 whether it was the first or the second, or both, I 
 believe the fault to be cured in and at Baptismal 
 Regeneration^ when " remission of sins " is given, 
 and "justification begins." 
 
 The Reviewer observes : — 
 
 " The Bishop " (of London) " says, ' Justification 
 and its results are insej^arably connected with faith 
 in the atonement wrought by Jesus Christ.' Un- 
 questionably they are. Faith, then, in the atone- 
 ment, and consequent justification, is demanded by 
 the Church in the case of every infant ; and it is 
 only after her demand is satisfied that she ' visibly 
 signs and seals ' to the confessor the assurance 
 of the possession of so great a benefit." 
 
 ^ " Infans recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod, secundum 
 Adam, carnaliter natus, contagium mortis antiquse prima na- 
 tivitate contraxit." — S. Cyprian, lib. iii. epist. 8. 
 
 E 3 -<- 
 
54 
 
 What '■'■ henejitf'' Not faith, not justification, 
 for the Reviewer says they precede Baptism ; it 
 must be then " the sign," or signature, " of regene- 
 ration or the new birth." (Art. XXVII.) But 
 according to the Remewer''s argument, there is no 
 benefit in this, for the child is just as well off as to 
 justification, &c., and therefore salvation, as it was 
 before this " sign," and no more. What, then, is 
 the use of the signf O, says the Reviewer, it is 
 " the assurance of possession.''' 
 
 " The assurance of possession ! " Why, then, 
 possession was not assured before this, nor can it 
 be assured without it ; it follows necessarily, that 
 as this assurance cannot be given excepting by, and 
 is absolutely given by. Baptism, then is Baptism 
 the mean whereby it is given ; i. e. it is the Sacra- 
 ment of Regeneration. 
 
 Because the Bishop of London correctly says, 
 that " Justification and its results are inseparably 
 connected with faith in the atonement wrought by 
 Jesus Christ," the Reviewer, rather adroitly, fixes 
 upon the two words, "justification" and " faith," 
 leaving out all that depends upon the word " re- 
 sults.^' And yet much does depend upon that word. 
 Faith — i. e. such belief as induces a capacity to 
 receive it — precedes Baptism ; in this belief rests 
 the seed of justification, which becomes ripened by 
 Baptism ; but the residts ; what are they ? These : 
 a continuance of belief in the atonement ; — a seek- 
 
55 
 
 ing for and a realization of the indwelling of the 
 Holy Spirit; — a forgiveness of such sins as are 
 subsequently committed, if sincerely sorrowed over ; 
 — a progressive increase of the work of sanctifica- 
 tion ; — a nearer approach to the fulness of capacity 
 for final justification. Do these precede Baptism ? 
 No ; they must follow it, and so prove that the 
 regeneration which it conveys is not a perfecting of 
 a mere registration sign, nor a mere ceremonial 
 sealing oi ^ fore-worked assurance, but an absolute 
 verity, in which " the children of wrath are made 
 the children of God ;" in which, to use the words of 
 Cranmer ^, " our sins be forgiven us, as St. Peter 
 witnesseth, saying, ' Let every one of you be bap- 
 tized for the remission of sins ;' " hi which " the 
 Holy Ghost is given us, the which doth spread 
 abroad the love of God in our hearts, whereby we 
 may keep God's commandments, according to the 
 saying of St. Peter ^ ' Be baptized every one of 
 you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission 
 of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost ;' " in which we put on Christ, as St. Paul 
 teacheth, saying, " As many of you as are baptized 
 in Christ have put on Christ ;" in which, in a word, 
 deliverance is given from the kingdom of the 
 devil and from death, and life and everlasting sal- 
 vation to all them that believe these words of 
 
 ' Sermon of Baptism. ^ Acts ii. 38. 
 
56 
 
 Christ and promise of God \ " He that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved, but he that be- 
 lieveth not shall be damned." 
 
 With reference to this last charge of our Lord, 
 I would observe, that belief is evidently put as a 
 preparation for Baptism, not as a sufficiency to do 
 vi'ithout it ; and the latter clause proves that it is 
 as indispensable for the avoiding of condemnation, 
 as the former clause shows that without Baptism 
 it will not induce salvation ; and this because a 
 person cannot strictly be a believer who believes 
 not in the Gospel; and he who deems Baptism 
 non-essentialy cannot be said to believe in the Gos- 
 pel. Therefore for this reason is it that the words 
 run, " He that believetli and is baptized ; " clearly 
 showing, that although a man must be a believer in 
 order to be a worthy recipient of the Sacrament 
 of Baptism, yet that he must be baptized, or his 
 belief will be vain. Now, they are to be con- 
 demned who believe not. Unbelief cannot exist 
 unless something has been offered to be believed ; 
 so that where nothing has been offered by which 
 belief may be exercised, unbelief does not come 
 into existence : and this is the Heathen's case. 
 The unbeliever, the rejecter of the Gospel-message, 
 will be " damned ; " what, then, of the Heathen ? 
 My own conviction is, that they do not come 
 
 * Mark xvi. 16. 
 
57 
 
 under this anathema ; they do not reject Christ, for 
 they know Him not ; they are not unbelievers, or 
 rather, I should say, dishelieyers, for they have 
 nothing preached unto them to be believed. I 
 would therefore, without either hesitation or 
 anxiety, leave them to the mercy of the great God 
 of all men, firmly convinced that He will judge 
 " according to that a man hath, and not according 
 to that he hath not^" and that He will not do 
 wrong. 
 
 I have said thus much by way of notice of the 
 Reviewer's somewhat begging and insidious ques- 
 tion, " Are the Heathen not capable of salvation, 
 because they are not and cannot be baptized?" 
 although I do not see how it bears in the least 
 degree upon the subject of Regeneration, declared 
 in our Articles and Liturgy as to come upon those 
 who are worthily baptized. As to the Reviewer's 
 expression, that " it is only after her demand is 
 satisfied that the Church visibly signs and seals to 
 the confessor the assurance of the possession of so 
 great a benefit," I would remark, as once before, 
 that I was not aware that the fulness of the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism depended upon the satisfaction 
 of the Church, or that her part in the matter of 
 administering the hallowing rite was anything 
 more than agential. Without, however, dwelling 
 
 * 2 Cor. viii. 12. 
 
58 
 
 upon this point of the Remewer''s somewhat warped 
 system of theology, I would, in a word, state my 
 entire concurrence in the Bishop of London's aver- 
 ment, viz. that "justification and its results are 
 inseparably connected with faith in the atonement 
 wrought by Jesus Christ ;" and receiving the Re- 
 viewer'' s admission that justification is consequent to 
 faith — holding that such justification is primary 
 and not final, I maintain that faith gives the 
 capacity to receive the sacrament ; that this faith 
 receives the signature and seal of the Grantor of 
 the covenant in the sacrament ; that present jus- 
 tification, " inseparably connected " with the faith 
 thus made ripe, accrues hy the sacrament ; and that 
 so, Faith., sealed and accepted for the introductory 
 befitting motive, and primary Justification ratified 
 as the instant accompanying result, are in and by 
 the sacrament made available to the regeneration 
 it effects, wherein the " child of wrath " is " born 
 again," becoming the " child of God." Will the 
 Reviewer state what the absolute amount of faith is 
 \\ii^t justifies ? He cannot tell it by measure. No : 
 how therefore could the Church? for faith must 
 necessarily be of various degrees of intensity (so to 
 speak). How could the Church, supposing the 
 onus laid upon her, tell the precise condition 
 which, in every individual, should satisfy her 
 demand ? 
 
 The observations of the Reviewer, that this is 
 
59 
 
 " the principle " on which the Church proceeds to 
 administer baptism to the adult, as well as the 
 infant, and that it must have been " demonstrated" 
 (by the Reviewer), " in the judgment of every 
 candid mind :" this principle being, that there is a 
 " PREVIOUS POSSESSION of the true faith" of God's 
 elect, " inseparably connected " as that is with 
 " justification and all its benefits ;" I would notice, 
 by merely stating that, considering that nuie-tenths 
 of living Churchmen, to say nothing of the great 
 body of old divines, have very different " theolo- 
 gical perceptions " to those held by the Revieiver 
 and his party, the assumption that only they who 
 agree with him have " candid minds," is very 
 edifying ; and also that, if " all the benefits " of 
 justification are, or must be, as the Reviewer asserts, 
 possessed by the candidates prior to baptism, there 
 is no necessity to baptize them at all ! 
 
 I now take up a matter which I have purposely 
 deferred, viz. a consideration of the Twenty-seventh 
 Article, as referred to our Church's Baptismal Ser- 
 vice ; a reference, of which, be it remembered, the 
 Reviewer says he is not afraid " in the matter of 
 Baptismal Regeneration" 
 
 The Twenty -seventh Article is this : 
 
 " Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and 
 mark of difference, whereby Christian men are 
 discerned from others that be not christened, but 
 
60 
 
 it is also a sign of Regeneration or new birth\ 
 whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive 
 baptism rightly are grafted into the Church ; the 
 promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption 
 to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are 
 visibly signed and sealed ; Faith is confirmed, and 
 Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God^ 
 The baptism of young children is in anywise to be 
 retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the 
 institution of Christ." 
 
 The Reviewer says, that, in the opinion of " other 
 competent judges," this Article does not assert 
 the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration^ not even 
 when referred to the baptismal service. Nay, 
 
 ' These words, " or new birth," are not in the Latin copy 
 of 1562 or 1571 ; nor are they in the English copy called 
 " The Little Book," of 13th Eliz., the passage in this latter 
 standing " of our newe byrth," the word " regenerationis " 
 being so rendered : but in the edition by Bishop Jewell, of 
 1571, as well as in the original MS. (signed by. Archbishop 
 Parker and the other Bishops, and now in Corpus Chrisli Col- 
 lege Library, Cambridge), the phrase runs " regeneracion or 
 newe birthe." 
 
 * The Article in Latin is the same both in 1552 and 1561, 
 with the exception of the last sentence. In 1552 it ran : — 
 *' Mos ecclesiae baptizandi parvulos, et laudandus, et omnino 
 in Ecclesia retinendus." 
 
 In 1561 and 1571 (as now) it was: — " Baptismus parvu- 
 lorum omnino in Ecclesia retinendus ut qui cum Christi insti- 
 tutione op time congruat." 
 
61 
 
 further, that, in the very face of such reference, 
 " the dogma of baptismal regeneration is false, — 
 has no foundation in Scripture, and is not the 
 doctrine of our Scriptural Church ! " Truly, this 
 is setting himself as a " Sir Oracle" with most 
 admirable modesty. Now, what does the Article 
 really say, and what does the baptismal service 
 really say ? Why, as if written to meet the Re- 
 viewer's objection, that the sacrament is only a sign 
 of tJie satisfaction of the Church ; it declares that it 
 is not only so, *' not only a sign of profession,^' but 
 that it is (as intentionally and plainly amplified to 
 mean this by Parker and Jewell), " a sign of" 
 (signum per quod visibiliter obsignantur) " Rege- 
 neration or New Birth."' Now, what do we find in 
 the service? The first address made to those 
 bringing persons to be baptized is for the express 
 purpose of telling them, that since our Saviour 
 hath said, " None can enter into the kingdom of 
 God, except he be regenerate and born anew of 
 water and the Holy Ghost," prayer must be 
 made to God to grant to the recipients of the 
 rite " that thing which by nature they cannot have," 
 and which, consequently, they have not up to that 
 moment. Then comes a prayer to God that He 
 will " wash and sanctify" them, that they, " being 
 delivered " (i. e. being delivered by the means 
 about to be employed, viz. Baptism) from his 
 " wrath," (i. e. from being what they are when 
 
62 
 
 coming to the Sacrament, viz., as the Bishop of 
 London asserts, " children of wrath "), " may be 
 received," &;c. The next prayer is, that God, ac- 
 cording to his promise so to bless the sacrament, 
 will give " remission of sins by spiritual regenera- 
 tion." After declaring the example of our Lord 
 Christ, and his merciful love for infants (this is in 
 the service for such), supplication is made to God 
 to give his "holy Spirit unto them, that they may 
 he horn again, and be made heirs of everlasting sal- 
 vation." The prefatory declaration in the service 
 for adults, rehearsing the words of our Lord to 
 Nicodemus, clearly manifests the necessity for 
 being " horn again of water and of the Spirit ;" 
 and then exhorts them not to doubt, " but ear- 
 nestly believe," that, coming unto God by faith. He 
 will, in the subsequent haptism, grant " remission of 
 their sins," &c. 
 
 Then comes a prayer similar to the one in the 
 service for infants ; and I may remark, that this 
 prayer acknowledges that they have a certain know- 
 ledge and faith, because it asks that they may be 
 increased and confirmed (tallying with the Article) ; 
 but it intimates that this knowledge and this faith 
 have not i/et obtained regeneration, for it jDrays that 
 the Holy Spirit may be given, and that they may 
 be " born again." Next follows the open profes- 
 sion of this knowledge and faith alluded to. And 
 then again, as if expressly to mark that the full 
 5 
 
63 
 
 effect of the sacrament has yet to he given, invoca- 
 tion is renevred to God that He will " grant that 
 the old Adam may be so buried, that the new man 
 may be raised up in them." Lastly, the child being 
 prepared, capacitated, prayer is made that God 
 will " sanctify this water to the mystical washing 
 away of sin," and that He will " grant that these 
 persons now to be baptized therein may receive" 
 (for they have not as yet received) " the fulness 
 of" His " grace," &c. 
 
 Then comes the ceremony ; and next the pro- 
 clamation that they are by it received " into the 
 Congregation of Christ's flock ;" and the " sign of 
 the cross" is given as a "token" that the real vivi- 
 fying sign or signature has been perfected. Then, 
 and not till then, does the Church declare (" seeing 
 now that these persons are regenerate," &c.) their 
 new birth to be 3, fact which has ensued upon the 
 administration of the Sacrament, which, until the 
 administration of the Sacrament, she had only 
 prayed God that it might be. And whereas, before 
 the actual ceremony, she implores that God will 
 give this new birth, &c., immediately after the rite 
 is complete she pours forth thanks that the work 
 is done, that the baptized " are now born again 
 and made heirs of everlasting salvation ;" and she 
 concludes her agential part by entreating the 
 " Heavenly Father" that they may continue in 
 this state of (primary) justification, and so " attain 
 
64 
 
 His promises," which are of, in such case, final 
 justification at the last day, " through Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 I will now borrow the phraseology of the Re- 
 viewer, and put it to "the judgment of every can- 
 did mind" whether the declaration of the Twenty- 
 seventh Article is not borne out by the wording, 
 the construction, the spirit, and the conclusions of 
 the Baptismal Service ; and I leave it also to such 
 to decide whether the Bishop of London is right, 
 when he says, with a vast majority of the Church 
 of England, that " a denial of baptismal regenera- 
 tion can only with great difficulty be reconciled 
 with the language of the Twenty-seventh Article ;" 
 or whether the Reviewer, with his unnamed "com- 
 petent judges," is right, when he contradicts his 
 Lordship, and says that it is not possible to " re- 
 concile the dogma with the Article ;" and I put 
 this with distinct reference to the Bajdismal Ser- 
 vice, as elucidatory of the Article, to which service 
 the Reviewer is " not afraid" to appeal ! And it 
 should be especially marked that, with the excep- 
 tion of an unsustainable comparison of the Bap- 
 tismal Sacramental Service with the ceremonial 
 service of Burial of the Dead, Confirmation, and 
 Catechism ( ! ), the Reviewer enters into no ex- 
 tended examination whatsoever of its terms, con- 
 struction, or declarations ; yet he coolly sets it 
 down as a dogmatic conclusion that Bafptismal 
 
65 
 
 Regeneration is not in either " the Articles or Ser- 
 vices of our Scriptural Church !" 
 
 How then does he argue ? Thus : — First, by de- 
 nying (mind, he professes all the time to be a 
 ChuTch-of-England-vi\2i\ !) that, because there is 
 " no clear direction in Scripture to baptize in- 
 fants^ therefore " there is no statement that they 
 are made partakers of the new birth in baptism !" 
 Ere proceeding, may I ask the Reviewer whether 
 he grants the converse of his assumption? — viz. 
 that if there are indications in Scripture of Bap- 
 tism having been imparted to infants, then also is 
 there authority for saying that they are made 
 partakers of the new birth therein and thereat ? 
 
 Now I certainly am not going to enter in full 
 into the question of the propriety, and indeed 
 necessity, for Infant Baptism, or the contrary ; 
 and I again must express my astonishment at 
 being even incidentally called upon to maintain 
 the affirmative by any belonging to our " Scriptural 
 Church ;" but I will briefly notice this point. And 
 I will do so in the words of one whose opinions 
 must weigh more than any that I can offer, — 
 Bishop Jewell. 
 
 " For this cause are infants baptized, because 
 they are born in sin, and cannot become spiritual 
 but by this 7ieiv birth of the water and the Spirit." 
 (Will the Reviewer be good enough to mark this, 
 for Jewell was one of those " Reformers" whose 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 " theological perceptions" agree with " the truth of 
 God," according to the Revieiver's own admission ?) 
 . " Our Saviour giveth charge to His 
 Apostles to baptize all nations ' in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' 
 The Apostles baptized not only such as professed 
 their belief, but wJiole households. The keeper 
 of the prison ^ was baptized, with all that belonged 
 to him. So was Crispus, the Chief Ruler of the 
 Synagogue, and his household, and the household o^ 
 Stephanus. 
 
 " Infants are a part of the Church of God ; they 
 are the sheep of Christ, and belong to his flock. 
 Why should they not bear the mark of Christ ? 
 They have the promise of salvation ; why should 
 they not receive the seal whereby it is confirmed 
 unto them ? They are of the fellowship of the 
 faithful. S. Augustine saith ^"j ' Where place you 
 young children which are not yet baptized ? Verily 
 in the number of them that believe.' Why then 
 should they not be partakers of the Sacrament 
 together with the faithful^ V 
 
 But I pause here in order to refer to \hQ Reviewer's 
 second argument, which respects the reasoning from 
 circumcision " in favour of infant Baptism." This, 
 the Reviewer says, is "justly done;" but he argues, 
 
 * Acts xvi. '° De Verbis Apost. s. 1. 
 
 ' On Sacraments, chiefly concerning Baptism, fol. a. d. 1609. 
 
67 
 
 that since there is no allegation (this is his assump- 
 tion) that "those circumcised on the eighth day 
 were regenerated or born again," and that the 
 ceremony " only admitted the child to the outward 
 privileges of the ancient Church, it cannot reason- 
 ably be inferred that the rite of Baptism, — 7iot 
 commanded to he imposed on infants at all under the 
 Gospel dispensation (!) — should do more than in- 
 troduce the baptized child to the still higher out- 
 ward privileges of the Christian Church." 
 
 Quoad the mere " outward privileges of the 
 Christian Church," I doubt much whether they 
 are at all " higher," or even as high, as those of 
 the Jewish, which involved very important civil 
 distinctions besides. As to spiritual distinctions, 
 the Reviewer's whole argument is, that they may 
 be obtained, and are obtained, by faith, prior to, 
 and therefore independent of, Baptism; so they 
 cannot be amongst the "outward privileges" to 
 which he refers. 
 
 Now, upon this point, what says Dean Nowell, 
 whose " theological percef)tions " the Reviewer 
 admits to be " competent " authority ? 
 
 " As Moses and all the Prophets do testify that 
 circumcision was a sign of repentance, so doth St. 
 Paul teach that it was a sacrament of faith. Yet 
 the Jews' children, not yet by age capable of faith 
 and repentance, were nevertheless circumcised, by 
 which visible sign God showed Himself in the Old 
 
 f2 
 
68 
 
 Testament to be the Father of young children and 
 of the seed of his people. Now sith it is certain 
 that the grace of God is both more plentifully 
 poured and more clearly declared in the Gospel by 
 Christ than at that time it was in the Gospel by 
 Moses, it were a great indignity if the same grace 
 should now be thoug-ht to be either obscurer or in 
 
 any part abated This being taken away, 
 
 Christians would be defrauded of a singular com- 
 fort, which they that were in old time enjoyed ; 
 and so should our infants be more hardly dealt 
 with in the New Testament, under Christ, than 
 was dealt with the Jews' infants in the Old Testa- 
 ment, under Moses. Therefore most great reason 
 it is, that by Baptism, as by the print of a seal, it 
 be assured to our infants that they be heirs of 
 God's grace, and of the salvation promised to the 
 seed of the faithful ^." 
 
 Had the Revieiver been candid enough to tell 
 us, in a word, ay or no, whether he does or does 
 not look upon Baptism as a sacrament, I should 
 have then been better able to deal with his jingle 
 of terms about " sign of assurance," " rite of out- 
 ward privileges," &c. &c. I will now, however, 
 content myself with repeating, that all he has 
 advanced fully bears out the truth of the reply of 
 the Bishops to the Puritans (a. d. 1661) ; viz. that 
 
 * Catechism, ad. 1562. 
 
69 
 
 " the denial that infants are regenerated in Bap- 
 tism tends to anabaptism and the contempt of this 
 holy sacrament." And I would ask, how he can 
 reconcile it to his conscience to say a solemn 
 " Amen " to his frequent solemn acknowledgment 
 of " one Baptism for the remission of sins f " The 
 Reviewer'' s third argument, viz. that when we are 
 in doubt " we are directed in Scripture, and very 
 remarkably so, by our Lord, to use our senses — to 
 exercise, in determining the reality of grace, the 
 intellect with which God has blessed us," — I will 
 not dwell upon ; it is built up altogether upon the 
 fact, that the baptized bring forth frequently, in 
 after years, fruits other than those of holiness ; and 
 therefore, argues the Reviewer, there is no such 
 thing as regeneratioti. I say, I will not dwell upon 
 it, because it appears to me that our intellect ^ has 
 nothing to do with the matter, or with any matter 
 that is a thing revealed ; and as to the subsequent 
 conduct of the baptized, I will content myself with 
 again repeating the good old Latimer's words : "An 
 act that is done against the law of God is a deadly 
 sin ; and that man or woman that committeth such 
 
 ' *' We are never able to yield a reason of the spiritual 
 regeneratioti and miraculous birth that we have by Baptism. 
 The very angels that were present are not able to utter the 
 manner of that unspeakable work. They were present only 
 and saw, but they wrought nothing ; but only the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost." — Chrysostom, Horn. 
 
70 
 
 an act loseth the Holy Ghost and the remission of 
 sins, and so becometh the child of the devil, being 
 before the child of God.'"' And as to adult false 
 recipients, the herd, like Simon Magus, — to whom 
 the Reviewer twice alludes, with somewhat of com- 
 placent triumph, — I would simply advert in the 
 words of >S'^. Jerome (in Ezekiel xvi.), " They that 
 receive not Baptism with perfect faith, receive the 
 water, but the Holy Ghost they receive not ;" and I 
 would rest satisfied with asking the Reviewer if he 
 is prepared to maintain the propriety of his illus- 
 tration, by maintaining the indefectibility of grace 
 once given, only that I have at hand a passage 
 from St. Augustin'', which applies so well to the 
 Reviewer'' s argument drawn from circumcision, also 
 to this latter argument drawn from the subsequent 
 falling away of the regenerated, that I desire to 
 bring it to his notice : — 
 
 " We may fairly collect what the Sacrament of 
 Baptism avails in infants, from the circumcision of 
 the flesh which the former people (of God) re- 
 ceived, before the reception of which Abraham was 
 justified. Why was it enjoined on him, from 
 thenceforth to circumcise every male infant on the 
 eighth day, who could not as yet believe with his 
 heart, so that righteousness might be imputed to 
 him, unless because the sacrament itself, of itself, 
 
 ^ Augustin. de Baptism, contra Donat. lib. iv. c. 24, 25. 
 
71 
 
 availed much f As in Isaac, who was circumcised 
 on the eighth clay from his birth, the sign of the 
 justification by faith preceded [the thing signified], 
 and since he held the same faith with his father, 
 that justification ensued in him, as he grew up, of 
 which the sign had preceded in his infancy; so 
 also in baptized infants, the Sacrament of Regene- 
 ration {regenerationis sacramentum) precedes ; and if 
 they shall have maintained Christian piety, that 
 change of heart follows, the outward mystery of 
 which preceded. 
 
 " From which it appears, that the Sacrament 
 of Baptism is one thing, and the change of heart 
 another ; but that the salvation of man is com- 
 pleted by both. Nor, if one of these be wanting, 
 ought we to conclude that the other is deficient ; 
 because the former may be in the infant without 
 the latter, and the latter could be in the thief 
 without the former, God completing, in either case, 
 that which was not wilfully defective ; but when 
 either of them is wilfully wanting, man is involved 
 in guilt. And there may be Baptism without 
 change of heart; and the change of heart may 
 exist without the reception of Baptism ; but not 
 where Baptism is wilfully despised." 
 
 The Reviewer says that circumcision " only 
 admitted the child to outward privileges;" and 
 that it is not alleged that the circumcised obtained 
 any privilege or advantage analogous to being 
 
72 
 
 regenerated or horn again. What does he say to 
 Augustine's phrase, — " the sacrament" (of circum- 
 cision) " as a sacrament availeth much f" And 
 what does the Reviewer answer to Augustine's 
 reply (by anticipation) to his allegation that, by 
 parity of reasoning, no regeneration takes place in 
 the baptized, because (as the Reviewer asserts) no 
 spiritual privileges were given to the circumcised ; 
 viz. that " so also in baptized infants the sacra- 
 ment of regeneration precedes," &c. 
 
 The Reviewer says : " To hold otherwise,"' (i. e. 
 to hold that regeneration takes place at baptism), 
 " is to maintain that multitudes of the most striking 
 passages of Scripture are vain and delusive. It is 
 to make the word of God a dead letter, in itself a 
 woful crime ; it is to make it of none effect by our 
 tradition ; for the practice of infant baptism doth 
 mainly rest on tradition ; and, while it is a safe 
 and legitimate use of tradition to bear witness to 
 the fact, that the practice came down from the apos- 
 tolic age, and is therefore rightly maintained in the 
 Church ; it is a use of tradition identical with that 
 of the Scribes and Pharisees to found a doctrine 
 upon it nowhere found in the word of God, 
 and in so doing to take out and render practically 
 of no meaning innumerable passages of the sacred 
 record. From these scriptural facts and inferences 
 it appears indisputable that the dogma of Baptismal 
 Regeneration, as it regards children, rests not on 
 
73 
 
 scriptural authority. We assert there is no foun- 
 dation for it in the word of God ; and to raise a 
 doctrine of such infinite moment, in its essential 
 nature and vast effects, on any foundation short of 
 Scripture, is surely rash and dangerous in a high 
 degree." 
 
 I have quoted the above passage at length, will- 
 ing that the Revieiver should have the advantage 
 of a broad statement of his conclusions. To what 
 degree the^/ are " rash and dangerous," I leave my 
 reader to determine. I have endeavoured to prove 
 them, whether as respects infants or adults, to be 
 without foundation. But I have not quite done 
 with them ; and I would support myself by the 
 authority of one " whose knowledge of Scripture 
 and love to his Church were equal to anything vfe 
 have in the present day," — Isaac Barrow. What 
 does Dr. Barrow say ^ ? 
 
 " The benefits which God then signifies, and 
 (upon due terms) engageth to confer on us, are 
 these : — The purgation or absolution of us from 
 the guilt of past offences, by a free and Jiill remis- 
 sion of them ; (the which, washing by water, cleans- 
 ing from all stains, doth most appositely represent;) 
 and consequently God's being reconciled unto us ; 
 his receiving us into a state of grace and favour ; 
 his freely justifying us, that is, looking upon us, 
 
 * " On Baptism." 
 
74 
 
 or treating us as just and innocent persons, al- 
 though before we stood guilty of heinous sins, and 
 thereupon liable to grievous punishments. That 
 these benefits are conferred in Bajytism^ many 
 places of Scripture plainly show, and the primitive 
 Church, with most firm and unanimous consent, 
 did believe. " And now," said Ananias to Saul, 
 " why dost thou tarry ? Arise, and be baptized, 
 and wash away thy sins ^." And, " Repent," saith 
 St. Peter, preaching to the Jews, " and let every 
 one of you be baptized for the remission of sins ^" 
 And, " Christ," saith St. Paul again to the Ephe- 
 sians, " loved his Church, and delivered himself 
 for it, that he might sanctify it, purging it by the 
 washing of water ^ ;" ev prf^an : that is, he effec- 
 tually, in baptism, consigned to the members of 
 his Church that mercy and remission of sins which 
 he purchased and merited by his passion. And 
 again : " Such," saith he to the Corinthians, " were 
 some of you " (guilty of heinous sins) ; " but ye 
 have been washed, ye have been sanctified, ye have 
 been justified in the name of our Lord, and by the 
 Spirit of our God ^ ;" where, having been washed in 
 Christ's name, doth (in congruity with what is said 
 in other places) denote baptism in his name ; being 
 sanctified and justified, do express the first benefits 
 accompanying that baptism ; and, indeed, wherever 
 
 " Acts xxii. 16. ^ Acts ii. 38. 
 
 " Eph. V. 26. ' 1 Cor. vi. 11. 
 
75 
 
 a general remission of sins, or a full sanctification 
 or consecration and justification of men's persons 
 in God's sight, are mentioned, that remission of 
 sins, that separation or dedication unto God's service, 
 that reception unto grace which are consisted in bap- 
 tism, are, I conceive, understood; tliere being no 
 other season or occasion, wherein, ordinarily and 
 visibly, God doth exhibit those benefits^ 
 
 As respects infant baptism — that, as I have be- 
 fore observed, is not the immediate subject of 
 which I have been desirous to treat ; and perhaps 
 tlie remarks bearing upon it, which have been in- 
 cidentally made in the preceding pages, will suffice. 
 Only I recommend the Reviewer to study Tertid- 
 lians notice of the question : " Quid festinat inno- 
 cens setas ad remissionem peccatorum?" If the 
 Reviewer, however, grants the fact, and that it is 
 " rightly maintained in the Church," there can be 
 little difficulty in proving the doctrine ; for, if it is 
 proved as to the baptism of adidts, who have both 
 original and actual sin to be remitted, a fortiori, it 
 is proved as to the baptism of infants, who have only 
 the former to be forgiven. Therefore, it is the 
 general question that must be regarded ; and I 
 think that I have said sufficient to show that, if 
 " to make the word of God a dead letter " is " a 
 woful crime," (and it most assuredly is so), such 
 crime is not committed by the Bishop of London, 
 nor by any who espouse the opinions he has, and I, 
 
 5 
 
76 
 
 humbly following him, have, endeavoured to set 
 forth ; and that it is the Reviewer and his party 
 who " render practically of no meaning innumer- 
 able passages of the sacred record." But, having 
 Barrow before me, I may as well more completely 
 fortify my argument by further quotations of his 
 opinions. 
 
 " With these gifts," he says, referring to (1st) 
 the remission of sins past, and ('ind) the " gift of 
 God's Holy Spirit," — " is connected the benefit of 
 regeneration, implying our entrance into a new state 
 and course of life ; being endowed with new fa- 
 culties, dispositions, and capacities of souls ; be- 
 coming new creatures and new men, as it were, 
 * renewed after the likeness of God in righteous- 
 ness and true holiness \' This the matter and 
 action of baptism do set out ; for, as children 
 new born (for cleansing them from impurities ad- 
 herent from the womb) both among the Jews and 
 other people, were wont to be washed ' ; so are we 
 in baptism, signifying our purification from natural 
 and worldly defilements ; the mersion also in water, 
 and the emersion thence, doth figure our death to 
 the former, and receiving to a new life." 
 
 He then, after a few words relative to our inser- 
 tion by baptism into the number of God's people, 
 says : 
 
 ' Eph. iv. 22, 23, 24; Col. Hi. 10; 2 Cor. v. 17. 
 " Ezek. xvi. 4. 
 
77 
 
 " In consequence of these things, there is with 
 baptism conferred a capacity of, a title unto, an 
 assurance (under condition of persevering in faith 
 and obedience to our Lord) of eternal life and sal- 
 vation. We are therein, in St. Peter's words, 
 * regenerated unto a lively hope of an incorruptible 
 inheritance by that resurrection of Christ^,' which 
 is represented to us in this action ; and so therein 
 applied as to beget in us a title and hope to rise 
 again, in like manner, to a blissful life ; whence 
 we are said therein to rise with him, ' being,' saith 
 St. Paul, ' buried with him in baptism, wherein 
 also' we ' are risen again ^;' whence, by the two 
 great Apostles, baptism is said to save us. ' Bap- 
 tism,' saith St. Peter, the antitype of the delivery 
 in the Flood, ' doth save us ^ ;' i. e. admitteth us 
 into the Ark, putteth us into the sure way of sal- 
 vation. And * God,' saith St. Paul, ' according to 
 his mercy, saved us by the laver of regeneration ^ :' 
 and, ' He that shall believe, and shall be baptized, 
 shall be saved V is our Saviour's own word and 
 promise. Shall be saved ; that is, put into a state 
 and way of salvation : continuing in which state, 
 proceeding in which way, he assuredly shall be 
 saved ; for faith therein denoteth perseverance in 
 
 ' 1 Pet. i. 3. ' Col. ii. 12. ' 1 Pet. iii. 21. 
 
 ' Tit. iii. '). "> Mark xvi. 16. 
 
78 
 
 faith, and baptism implietli the conditions therein 
 undertaken." 
 
 Barrow concludes with the following warning, 
 which, methinks, sufficiently disposes of the Re- 
 viewef's argument inferential from Simon Magus, 
 &c. ; viz. that because they did not continue right- 
 eous, therefore the sacrament of baptism was in- 
 operative as to every body else ! 
 
 " For violating our part of the covenant and 
 stipulation then made, by apostasy in profession 
 or practice from God and goodness, we certainly 
 must forfeit those inestimable benefits which God 
 otherwise had tied himself to bestow : the pardon 
 of our sins, the favour of God, the being made 
 members of Christ; the grace, the guidance, assist- 
 ance, and comfort of the Holy Spirit ; the right 
 unto, and the hope of salvation. We, so doing, 
 shall not only simply disobey and offend God, but 
 add the highest breach of fidelity to our dis- 
 obedience, together with the most heinous ingra- 
 titude, abusing the greatest grace that could be 
 vouchsafed us. ' If we wilfully sin after we have 
 taken the acknowledgment of the truth,' saith the 
 Apostle, (meaning that solemn profession of our 
 faith in baptism,) ' we trample under foot the Son 
 of God ; we profane the blood of the covenant ; 
 we do despite unto the Spirit of grace ^ ;' and, in- 
 ' Heb. X. 26. 29. 
 
79 
 
 curring so deep guilt, we must expect suitable 
 punishment." 
 
 I will now ask the Revieiver what he thinks of 
 the following sentiments of BisJiop Racket^ ^ no 
 ordinary theologian, and who, with singular felicity, 
 calls our Book of Common Prayer " a storehouse of 
 rare divinity?" Dr. Hacket, in his discourse upon 
 " what comforts flow from the Sacrament of Bap- 
 tism," refers especially to the Liturgical Service, 
 (which the Reviewer thinks to be a very ordinary 
 matter,) and says, that by it " we are incorporated 
 into the holy corporation ;" that " we are naturalized 
 to be the citizens of the heavenly kingdom," enter- 
 ing into it "through this door of grace." He 
 alludes to the reference made in the Service to 
 Noah and his family, and exclaims, " O what a 
 privilege is it to be among those few that are 
 * received into the ark of Christ's Church,' to be 
 exempted from the common deluge, and to be the 
 faithful seed of Abraham !" And he then sums 
 up : " We may gather out of our Church office for 
 Baptism, that the everlasting benediction of hea- 
 venly washing affords two comforts, — it signifies 
 the blood of Christ to cleanse us per modicm pretii^ 
 as the price that was paid to ransom us from 
 death ; and the sanctifying of the Holy Spirit, to 
 cleanse us per modum hahitm, by his inbeing and 
 
 ' Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, a.d. 1661, ob. a.d. 1670. 
 
80 
 
 celestial infusion ; and both are put together in one 
 collect, ' that all that are baptized may receive 
 remission of sins by spiritual regeneration^ ' There 
 is no remission of sin without blood ^' says the 
 Apostle, meaning the invaluable blood of the Lamb 
 of God -. And the heavenly thing is represented 
 by the visible element of water, for there must he 
 some aptitude between the sign and the thing signified, 
 else it were not a sacrament ; that as water washetli 
 away the filth of the body, so the blood of Christ 
 delivereth our souls from the guilt and damnable- 
 ness of sin. * The blood of Christ, his Son, cleanseth 
 from all sin\' The metaphor of cleansing must 
 have respect to baptismal water. And again : ' Who 
 loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood *.' 
 Where the Scripture speaks of washing from sin, 
 it mzist be iBkenfi^om the water of Baptism, figuring 
 the virtue of Christ's blood, that in the sight of 
 his Father makes us as white as snow. The Scrip- 
 tures, indeed, strike most upon the other string, 
 and more directly, as, ' Christ loved the Church, 
 and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify 
 and cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
 word ^' ' He saved us by the washing of regene- 
 ration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost ^;' and 
 in many other places. Therefore our Liturgy falls 
 
 • Heb. ix. 22. - Id. 14. 
 
 '" 1 John i. 7. ' Rev. i. 5. 
 
 * Ephes. V. 25, 2G. ' Tit. iii. 5. 
 
81 
 
 most upon the purifying operation of the Spirit, to 
 be shadowed in the outward washing of water. . . . 
 Spiritual regeneration is that which the Gospel hath 
 set forth to be the principal correlative of Baptism. 
 O, happy is it for us to be born again by water and 
 the Holy Ghost ! Far better would it be never to 
 be born, than not to be born twice. 
 
 " Well did St. Paul put Baptism among the 
 principals and foundations of Christian doctrine ; 
 for all the weight of faith, sanctification, and mercy 
 doth lie upon it. 
 
 " The outward act of man, unless we make our- 
 selves unworthy, is certainly assisted by the in- 
 crease of God. If the good effect ensue not, the 
 sacrament doth not wa7it its virtue, but the receiver 
 marred it. 
 
 " Some will cavil, ' Infants have not faith ; and 
 God hath set forth Christ as a propitiation through 
 faith in his blood ; and he that believeth and is 
 baptized shall be saved.' " [The Reviewer will see 
 that his heterodoxy is not original.^ " I will not 
 contend about it, whether baptized infants have a 
 secret imperceptible habit of faith ; I am sure 
 there is innocency of life in them instead of faith. 
 They that are of age to come to the knowledge of 
 faith, must bring their own faith with them to tlie 
 font; but for infants, they have privilege to be in 
 church communion, by the faith of the Church 
 wherein they were born. There is another contest 
 
 G 
 
made by some, that ' Notwithstanding Baptism, 
 original sin remains in us all the days of our life.' 
 True ; the sin is not blotted out in the infant, but 
 it is blotted out of the book of God. And as actual 
 sins are pardoned for Christ's sake, yet it cannot 
 be brought about that they should never be done 
 which are done and past ; but it is enough that 
 they be not imputed. So original sin cleaves unto 
 us ; it is not cast out, for I feel it in me, but it is 
 remitted. 
 
 " By grievous and presumptuous sins we debar 
 ourselves from the comfort and sense of the cove- 
 nant for the present; yet when we repent, we 
 come not to make a new covenant with God, but to 
 beseech him to be gracious for the old covenants 
 sake. 
 
 " Repentance is not a neiv paction with God, 
 but a return to the use of the old ; a restitution, 
 as it were, of our blood, when we had been tainted 
 by committing treason against God ; that is, re-pos- 
 session of mercy endangered to be forfeited. But 
 were it a new covenant, we should have some new 
 visible sign for it ; which never was. Therefore 
 this is the very soul of mine and of every one^s bap- 
 tismal consolation, — that being once done, it seals 
 pardon for all our sins, through Christ's blood, unto 
 our life's end." 
 
 I trust that it is now apparent of how much 
 authority the Reviewer's assertion — that it is " rash 
 
83 
 
 and dangerous in a high degree " to raise this doc- 
 trine of Baptismal Regeneration — deserves to be 
 regarded. But the Reviewer is delighted with a 
 bit of special pleading upon the words, " He that 
 believeth on me hath everlasting life," asserting, that 
 " here is the inward essential principle," which I 
 grant ; but also insinuating, that the outward pro- 
 fession of such belief is the visible condition ap- 
 pointed by the " economy of grace ;" thence draw- 
 ing an inference, that because faith is made essen- 
 tial in Scripture, Bajjtism is not. Yet what do 
 the words of our Lord imply ? Can any one be 
 said to believe in Him who receives not the sacra- 
 ments He ordained? Can mere lip profession 
 serve when the appointed seal is thought nothing 
 of ? True, " He that believeth hath everlasting 
 life ; " but he that rejects that holy investiture and 
 signing, which is at, and in, and by Baptism, is not 
 a believer. As to the Reviewer's sneer, that " it is 
 now attempted to make so much of Baptism," my 
 quotations will prove that such is no " new thing." 
 I now notice what I intentionally passed by, viz. 
 the Reviewers statement of what he thinks of the 
 Sacrament of Baptism. " We do not object," 
 says he, " to Baptismal Regeneration, if by the term 
 is meant only an introduction to a new state, com- 
 municating new privileges and blessings, and in- 
 volving new responsibilities and duties." Why, 
 what else does it mean ? It is " an introduction 
 
 G 2 
 
84 
 
 to a new state," viz. of Regeneration ; it does com- 
 municate " new privileges," it makes us the chil- 
 dren of God who were heretofore the " children of 
 wrath ;" it does " communicate new blessings," for 
 it releases us of our sins ; it does involve " new 
 responsibilities and new duties," vis. that " we 
 should follow the example of our Saviour Christ, 
 and be made like unto Him, that as He died and 
 rose again for us, so should we who are baptized 
 die from sin and rise again unto righteousness, 
 continually mortifying all our evil and corrupt 
 affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and 
 godliness of living ^" I assure the Reviewer that, 
 as he desires, there is no " misconception " here. 
 
 The Reviewer's argument drawn from the 
 Twenty-seventh Article may be dismissed in few 
 words. He says that it declares that " faith is 
 confirmed," and therefore " previously existed." 
 Of course it did ; in the adult actually, in the 
 infant presumedly. And then, he says : " Grace is 
 increased; therefore grace was previously in ex- 
 ercise. And by what means are these effects pro- 
 duced ? By the administration of the sacrament ? 
 Few would have hesitated to say so — to say what 
 is true in itself, and seems, from the former part 
 of the Article, likely to follow. But our Reformers 
 appear more c2Mi\o\i'&— these effects follow in virtue 
 
 ^ Baptismal Service. 
 
85 
 
 of ' prayer unto God.' Surely anything further 
 from Baptism being identical with regeneration, 
 with that grace and faith which cleanses and saves 
 the soul, cannot well be imagined." 
 
 Nothing more unfair — I could write a stronger 
 word — than the above ever was penned. The 
 Reviewer would have it appear, that it is declared 
 in the Article that only " by prayer unto God faith 
 is confirmed and grace increased," and therefore 
 the sacrament has nothing to do with it. Now, 
 the Article says nothing of the sort. The words of 
 the Article are, " Per quod tanquam per instru- 
 mentura .... fides confirmatur, et, vi divinse invo- 
 cationis, gratia augetur." Now what is the plain 
 meaning of these words ? This — " By which," viz. 
 Baptism, " as by an instrument, faith is confirmed, 
 and, by virtue of prayer unto God, grace is in- 
 creased." " Faith is confirmed : " this is a fact, it 
 is done, it is completed. The words " prayer unto 
 God" do not refer to this operation, but to the 
 increase of grace ; for the Church of England does 
 not maintain the indefedibility of grace, and there- 
 fore rightly maintains in this Article, that the 
 " adoption to be sons of God," which takes place 
 in and at Baptism, in other words, the exhibition 
 of grace, must be sought to be increased by the 
 ordained means — " prayer unto God," without 
 which any and all must become " castaway." The 
 use the Reviewer makes of the phrase " these effects," 
 
86 
 
 mixing together the matters which the Article 
 does not mingle, is dexterous, but, to use his 
 own words, " it will not do, it will not stand." 
 For even if " prayer unto God " is to be taken to 
 refer to these effects^ it can only be referable to 
 the fact that, in the Baptismal Service, such prayer 
 is made that these effects may, as He has promised, 
 accompany the exhibition of the sacrament. 
 
 With regard to the conclusion of the Article 
 the Reviewer is very bold. He quotes it — "The 
 Baptism of young children is in any wise to be 
 retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the 
 institution of Christ ;" and then he makes his com- 
 ment — " If the Church had believed it," (the dogma 
 of Baptismal Regeneration in infants,) " it would 
 have constituted it the great and overwhelming 
 reason why children should be baptized ; and would 
 she not therefore have annunciated to this effect — 
 that the practice was ' in any wise to be retained 
 in the Church, as the divinely-appointed instru- 
 ment of imparting the new and heavenly birth to 
 them ? ' A dreadful fall indeed from this ! — ' as 
 most agreeable with the institution of Christ.' No 
 doubt of it. Moderate, sound, wholesome doctrine ; 
 but what resemblance in it to the dogma of Bap- 
 tismal Regeneration, few but a blinded and deluded 
 Papist could be expected to perceive." 
 
 This last sentence is perfect. Considering the 
 opinions of the old Reformers, whose " theological 
 
87 
 
 perceptions " I have rehearsed, and which the Re- 
 viewer allows comfort " with the truth of God," — 
 considering the subject-matter of his examination 
 — the Charge of the Bishop of London^ — consider- 
 ing that the overwhelming majority of the Church 
 of England agree with the Bishop, the attack upon 
 all of past or present time (the future, I presume, 
 is included) who hold the dogma of Baptismal Re- 
 generation, as " blinded and deluded Papists," is 
 not over indicative of the charitable temper that 
 " is not puffed up," and " is kind." But to 
 the Reviewer's argument. The Church asserts 
 that to baptize children is " most agreeable to the 
 institution of Christ." What more is required? 
 Would the Reviewer have it own that it is more 
 than most agreeable ? If Christ did appoint 
 Baptism as " the instrument of imparting the new 
 and heavenly birth " to children, as the Church of 
 England undoubtedly holds that He did, how could 
 she express herself in more explicit language than 
 by saying, that to baptize children is most agreeable 
 to, — " optirae congruat," — best satisfies, our Lord's 
 intention ? " The dogma of Baptismal Regenera- 
 tion" does not depend merely upon (although it 
 warrants) the declaration of the necessity to bap- 
 tize children, but upon the efficacy of the sacra- 
 ment itself, as declared in Holy Scriptures; as 
 enacted by our blessed Redeemer, — (" He that be- 
 lieveth and is baptized shall be saved," " Go, teach 
 
88 
 
 all nations, &c.") ; and as annunciated by the Article 
 setting forth that "they which receive Baptism 
 rightly are grafted into the Church," have signed 
 unto them " the forgiveness of sins," and the " adop- 
 tion to be the sons of God," and that to extend to 
 infants these inestimable blessings of " regeneration 
 or new birth," is " most agreeable to the institu- 
 tion of Christ ; " the withholding them — this is 
 inevitably the inference — being 7iot at all agreeable 
 to the " institution of Christ." 
 
 Thus, I trust, I have succeeded in reconciling 
 " the dogma of Baptismal Regeneration with the 
 Article ;" a denial of which, — with all due respect 
 for the Reviewer's " competent judges " I adopt 
 the words of the Bishop of London, — can " only 
 with great difficulty be reconciled Mith its lan- 
 guage." And here I should consider that I had 
 completed the task I had assigned to myself: but 
 there are still two or three points mooted by the 
 Reviewer which it would be as well not to pass 
 over unnoticed, and which I will consider ere I 
 sum up what I most conscientiously maintain to be 
 the true conclusions of the whole matter. 
 
 One of the Reviewer's paragraphs has so much 
 the appearance of being intended (what he doubt- 
 less deems it to be) a finishing and unanswerable 
 argument, that, to do him and it full justice, I 
 must transcribe it at length : 
 
 " For what purpose were the Articles written ? 
 
89 
 
 Not to settle speculative inquiries in relation to 
 the state of the Heathen, but ' for the stablishing 
 of consent touchino- true Religion' among- our- 
 selves. Is it, then, to be supposed that the Ninth 
 Article, treating of ' Original or Birth-Sin ;' the 
 Tenth, ' Of Free-will;' the Thirteenth, ' Of Works 
 before Justification ; ' and the Seventeenth, * Of 
 Predestination and Election, ' (to advert to no 
 others,) were all written with a view to others, 
 and not to ourselves ? If the figment of Baptis- 
 mal Regeneration is true, they are all a dead 
 letter as regards ourselves ; if the Reformers be- 
 lieved in it, they carefully elaborated those Articles, 
 with the full knowledge that they had no personal 
 afjplication to those for whose benefit they were 
 written. Let our readers carefully read these se- 
 veral Articles in this view, and say if it be possible 
 they could be written and promulgated by men 
 who believed that we were all regenerated and 
 born from above in baptism. Take the Thirteenth: 
 ' Works done before the grace of Christ, and the 
 inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God.' 
 But why talk in this manner? Why not say, 
 ' Works done by the Heathen are not pleasant,' &c.? 
 for all of us, on the theory of Baptismal Regenera- 
 tion, received in Baptism ' the grace of Christ, and 
 the inspiration of his Spirit.' We should be happy 
 to have this argument answered." 
 
 I shall endeavour to satisfy the Reviewer. His 
 
90 
 
 argument is, that none of the Articles to which 
 he has specially referred can apply to us, if Baptis- 
 mal Regeneration is maintained in the Twenty- 
 seventh ; and that, if the Reformers intended this 
 latter, they wrote the rest with a deliberate inten- 
 tion to deceive ! A tolerably mild charge this to 
 bring, upon his own word, against those excellent, 
 and pious, and learned men, " to whom, under 
 God, we owe our deliverance from an intolerable 
 yoke!" I have shown that all these Reformers 
 did hold and firmly maintain the doctrine which 
 the Reviewer calls a " figment ;" whether they de- 
 serve to be stamped as hypocrites, falsifiers of doc- 
 trine, deceivers of souls, swindling teachers of men 
 seeking for their salvation, (all which they must 
 have been, were the Reviewer's accusation true,) I 
 leave to candour to determine. I am bold to 
 aflfirm, that it is not only " possible" that the 
 Articles were " written and promulgated by men" 
 who believed in Baf)tismal Regeneration, but that 
 it is impossible that they could be so grossly incon- 
 sistent as to have written otherwise ; and that, in- 
 tending to maintain Baptismal Regeneration^ they 
 specifically annunciated it in the Twenty-seventh 
 Article, and, in full and perfect accord with it, 
 they set forth the other Articles " with the full 
 knowledge that they had personal application to 
 those for whose benefit they were written," The 
 Reviewer takes what he, no doubt, considers his 
 
91 
 
 strongest case in point, and challenges upon the 
 Thirteenth Article. Well, what does it say? 
 " Works done before the grace of Christ, and the 
 inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God." 
 Does the Reviewer think that these works are 
 pleasant to God ? No ; he will not say that ; but 
 he says that, because " all of lis, on the theory of 
 Baptismal Regeneration, received in baptism the 
 grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy 
 Spirit ;" therefore, the Article does not apply to us 
 at all ! but rather to the Heathen ; and, therefore, 
 that the Reformers did not maintain that "theory" 
 (fact would be better), or else were deceivers in 
 doctrine ! Now, what does the Article really 
 mean ? Why, that " works done before Baptism 
 do not deserve grace of congruity ;" i. e. man, from 
 his own unassisted powers, cannot have any claim 
 upon God's favour ! What is there in this to con- 
 tradict the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration? 
 All, contrary to the Reviewer's insinuation, are not 
 baptized; therefore all do not receive, as he assumes 
 they do, " the grace of Christ, and the inspiration 
 of his Spirit." But, in quoting the Thirteenth 
 Article, the Reviewer does not finish the sentence ; 
 he conveniently makes a full stop at a comma ! The 
 Article is, that : " Works done before the grace of 
 Christ, and the inspiration of his Holy Spirit, are 
 not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they spring not 
 of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men 
 
92 
 
 meet to receive grace, or, as the school authors 
 say, deserve grace of congruity ; yea, rather, for 
 that they are not do7ie as God hath willed and com- 
 manded them to be done, we doubt not but they 
 have the nature of sin." 
 
 What is there here to make nidi Baptismal 
 Regeneration? Before the signing and seal of 
 Baptism faith is unconfirmed, and by sacramental 
 operation unestablished — (mind, the Article was 
 written for those who have the opportunity of 
 being baptized) ; — works done by man in this con- 
 dition are not pleasing to God : but when bap- 
 tized, faith in Christ being " confirmed," of that 
 faith the works of the regenerated man spring, 
 and then, being " done as God hath willed and 
 commanded them to be done," are pleasing to 
 God ! As Irenseus says, " A man not having the 
 indwelling of the Holy Spirit through faith re- 
 mains just what he was before, flesh and blood 
 not possessing the kingdom of God^" But at 
 Baptism man does have this in-coming of the Holy 
 Spirit ; and this fact of his regeneration is the very 
 reason why after Baptism his works are of different 
 aspect in the sight of God to what they were 
 when done in either purposed independence of, 
 or stolid indifference to, the sanctifying rite. And 
 this/ad also is the very reason why the Reformers 
 
 ' Adv. Haeres. 1. v. c. 10. 
 
93 
 
 set forth the TJiirteenth Article ; for if it had not 
 been set forth at all, men would have imagined 
 that works done by the wilfully unbaptized and 
 works done by the worthily baptized were the 
 same in God's sight ; and so they would have 
 neglected altogether seeking the blessed operation 
 of the sacrament. So that, if one thing more 
 than another proves the anxiety of the Reformers 
 to maintain the excellency of Baptism as to its 
 regenerating effects, it is the existence of this 
 Thirteenth Article proclaiming the deadness of the 
 works of the unregenerated, who prefer acting 
 according to their own assumed notions of merit 
 to a faithful compliance with the will and com- 
 mandment of God ! 
 
 The Bishop of London, in his Charge, says that 
 the probable intention of those who framed the 
 Article is a good rule to determine the sense in 
 which it was originally received, " and ought still 
 to be received, where it has not been contradicted 
 nor qualified by any later authoritative declaration 
 of the Church itself." The Reviewer quite rejected 
 this rule when it was inconvenient, and a refer- 
 ence to it rendered it necessary for him to deal 
 more in investigation and less in assumption ; 
 now he finds it serve his turn to found a sophism 
 upon the Seventeenth Article ; thus : 
 
 " Now, it is an admitted fact, that our Re- 
 formers and Martyrs who framed the Articles 
 
 5 
 
94 
 
 held in theology the doctrines usually denominated 
 Calvinistie. According, then, to his Lordship's 
 decision, the Seventeenth Article ought to be read 
 by him and the Church at large in its plain Cal- 
 vinistie meaning, the other Articles ought to be 
 received according to their clear Calvinistie ten- 
 dency; and by this reading then, according to 
 ' the probable intention of those "who framed 
 them,' we are anew, by this view of the subject, 
 led away far indeed from the reception of baptis- 
 mal regeneration as the doctrine of our Church." 
 
 Now, so far from its being " an admitted fact," 
 that our Reformers held Calvinistie doctrines, 
 nothing is more clear to my humble perceptions 
 than that, as a body, they did not. And if any 
 thing could prove this, it would be the proposi- 
 tions made by the Genevan "Assembly of Di- 
 vines," A. D. 1643, for alterations in our Articles, 
 which propositions were rejected by our prelates ; 
 these propositions being for the express purpose 
 of making the Articles Calvinistie. And as to 
 the Seventeenth Article, it is notorious that Cran- 
 mer consulted and corresponded with Melancthon 
 on the subject of it. And here I would refer the 
 Reviewer to Faber''s elaborate work on " Election," 
 from which I extract the following opinion, given 
 by the mild German Reformer : 
 
 " Great is the comfort that we assuredly know 
 from the word of God that in his immense mercy, 
 
95 
 
 on account of his Son, God is always collecting 
 his Church among mankind, and that he does it 
 by the voice of the Gospel. But you will say: — 
 This comfort avails so far as my knowing that the 
 Church is securely pi^eserved for the benefit of 
 others, but perhaps that will not at all profit my- 
 self ; for how shall I know who are the elect ? 
 I answer : — To thee, also, this generic comfort is 
 profitable, because thou oughtest to know that the 
 Church is preserved for thy benefit also ; and the 
 covenant of God is eternal and immovable, that 
 thou also shouldst hear the Son, shouldst repent, 
 and shouldst believe that thou wilt be received by 
 God for the sake of the Mediator ^" 
 
 Another high authority observes, — "The indi- 
 vidual opinions of Cranmer upon the subject of 
 Predestination, probably because little known, 
 have been seldom adduced. That he thought 
 very different from Calvin, respecting Universal 
 Redemption, will perhaps be admitted. Neither 
 is it difficult to show that he further differed from 
 the Reformer of Geneva on the point of Final 
 Perseverance, but that he held the same doctrine 
 of Regeneration and Election in Christ through 
 Baptism, which is so conspicuous in the offices of 
 our Church '." 
 
 Surely the Reviewer will not say that Cranmer 
 
 - Vide pp. 369. 381. * Laurence's Notes, p. 192. 
 
96 
 
 showed his Calvinism when he said, " And so by 
 Baptism we enter into the kingdom of God, and 
 shall be saved ybr evei\ if loe continue to our lives' 
 end in the faith of Christ ?" or when he further 
 asserted, speaking of adults baptized, " All these 
 benefits we receive by faith, in the which ivho- 
 soever continueth unto the end of his life shall be 
 saved : the which God grant to us all^ f " 
 
 Nor is Latimer less explicit uf>on the same 
 points, the universality and defectibility of grace \ 
 points utterly iticompatible with the Calvinistic 
 theory/. On the first head, he adopted the follow- 
 ing unambiguous mode of expression : " The pro- 
 mises of Christ our Saviour are general, they per- 
 tain to all mankind." " Let us ever think and 
 believe that the grace and mercy of God exceed- 
 eth our sins. Also consider what Christ saith 
 with his own mouth, — ' Come unto me all ye that 
 travail and are heavy laden, and I will ease you.' 
 Mark, here he saith, ' Come all ye ! ' Wherefore 
 then should any man despair, to shut out himself 
 from these promises of Christ, which be general, 
 and pertain to the whole world ^ f " 
 
 On the second head, Latimer says, " I do not 
 put you in comfort, that if you have o?ice the 
 Spirit, ye cannot lose it. There be new spirits 
 
 ^ Sermon set forth, &c. a. d. 1548. 
 ^ See Laurence, p. 383, &c. 
 ' Sermons, ed. 1584, p. 182. 
 
97 
 
 started up now of late that say, after we liave re- 
 ceived the Spirit we cannot sin. I will make but 
 one argument. St. Paul had brought the Gala- 
 tians to the profession of the faith, and left them 
 in that state. They had received the Spirit once, 
 and they sinned again. ... If this be true, 
 we may lose the Spirit that we once possessed ^" 
 
 " We may one time be in the book, and an- 
 other time come out again, as it appeareth by 
 David, which was written in the book of life. But 
 when he sinned, he at that same time was out of 
 the book of the favour of God until he had re- 
 pented and was sorry for his faults. So we may 
 be in the book at one time, and afterward, when 
 we forget God and his word and do wickedly, we 
 come out of the book ; that is, out of Christ, who 
 is the Book ^" 
 
 I could produce many more proofs that the 
 Reviewer's assertion, that the Calvinism of the 
 Reformers is " an admitted fact," is quite unsus- 
 tainable, and that the " admitted fact" is, that their 
 opinions were the other way. I, of course, speak 
 of them as a body. I am prepared to maintain 
 that the Seventeenth Article is not Calvinistic ; but 
 that is not the question now between me and the 
 Reviewer, so I need not dwell upon it ; therefore, 
 I merely point his attention to the Sixteenth Arti- 
 
 * Sermons, ed. a.d. 1584, p. 84, * Id. p. 312. 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 cle, which not only distinguishes between sins 
 before and sins after Baptism, but expressly de- 
 clares the anti-Calvinistic doctrine, — " after we 
 have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart 
 from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace 
 of God we may arise again and amend our lives ;" 
 thus showing by anticipation the propriety of the 
 subsequent assertion in the Twenty-seventh Article, 
 that " Grace is increased by virtue of prayer unto 
 God." And I also refer him to the Homilies, 
 " written in our Englishe tounge, of Salvation, 
 Faith, and Workes, by that lyght and martyr of 
 Christes Churche, Cranmer, Archebyshoppe of 
 Canterburie ; which are buylt upon so sure a 
 foundation that no sycophant can deface them, 
 nor sophyster confute them, whyle the worlde 
 shall endure : unto whom I remytte the reader 
 desyrous of an absolute dyscourse in this matter ^" 
 The Reviewer's allusion to the Heathen I have 
 already noticed. He exclaims, that, " from our 
 darkness and slowness of heart to believe them, 
 the Articles have not issued in ' the avoiding of 
 diversities of opinion, and to the establishing of 
 consent touching true religion,' according to the 
 intention of those who framed them." Pray, whose 
 fault is this ? Certainly not that of the Bishop of 
 
 ' Woolton's (Bishop of Exeter, 1577) " Christian 
 Manuell," pub. a. d. 1576. He was nephew of Alexander 
 Nowell. 
 
99 
 
 London, and of those who agree with him in adopt- 
 ing the " theological perceptions of our Refor- 
 mers !" Is it not rather because that Archbishop 
 Bancroft's averments are still applicable? " Marry, 
 now two or three years' study is as good as twenty. 
 It is wonderful to see how some men get perfec- 
 tion. One of four or five-and-twenty years' old, if 
 you anger him, will swear he knoweth more than 
 all the ancient Fathers ; and yet in very deed they 
 are so earnest and fierce, that either we must be- 
 lieve them, or else account their boldness to be, as 
 it is, most intolerable." .... "If the Fathers 
 before mentioned," (Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer, Peter 
 Martyr, with many others, as famous men as ever 
 this land brought forth,) " dearly beloved, were 
 now alive to see these dealings therein, how every 
 boy, in a manner, doth take upon him (as though 
 he only were learned, zealous, and wise) to con- 
 troul, condemn, and to rage thus at his pleasure ; 
 sure, I suppose, they would wish at the least, as 
 Gregory Nazianzen sometimes did, seeing in his 
 days the like pride and saucy malpertness of many: 
 ' When I consider,' saith he, ' the unbridled itch 
 of tongues which reigneth at this time ; and how 
 men, by their own voices, as it were, do make 
 themselves divines, and challenge the commenda- 
 tion of learning and wisdom, whom their will alone 
 is able to make learned ; I cannot choose but wish 
 with all my heart, with the prophet Jeremiah, that 
 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 I might go and dwell in the wilderness, so that I 
 might leave the society of men, and give myself 
 only to contemplation ®.' " 
 
 The Bishop of Loiidon's statement, that "justi- 
 fication, that is, being dealt with as innocent in 
 the sight of God, is purchased for all men by the 
 blood of Christ," is stampt by the Reviewer as 
 " theologically incorrect;" for that, "on the contrary, 
 we are all the ' children of wrath,' till, through 
 grace, we believe the Gospel ; and it is only when 
 we are ' justified hj faith that we have peace with 
 God.' " 
 
 The Reviewer had before said, that the Bishop's 
 " exposition of what justification is" was " per- 
 fectly sound and scriptural :" but I let that pass. 
 He now grants the Bishop's position, which he had 
 before denied^ viz. that " we are children of 
 wrath till we believe the Gospel ;" i. e. till we re- 
 ceive Christ's injunction in his Gospel, viz. believe 
 and he baptized, for " he that believeth and is bap- 
 tized, shall be saved." Truly, it is only when we 
 are " justified by faith that we have peace with 
 God ;" but this faith does not stand, save by the 
 Sacrament ordained for its confirmation by our 
 Lord (except in such cases where it is impossible to 
 be baptized) ; for the words of Christ are not, " He 
 that believeth shall be saved, although it would be 
 
 ' Vide Sermon preached at Paul's Cross, a.d. 1588. 
 
101 
 
 as "well to be baptized ; " but, " He that believeth 
 and is baptized, shall be saved." So, then, belief, 
 which is preparatory, and baptism, which is confir- 
 matory, have accompanying fruit and dependent 
 result, viz. justifying y^f^A, which causeth us to 
 " have peace with God." When it is affirmed that 
 faith justifies, it must and can only mean a faith 
 which believes in the promises, and receives the 
 ordinances of Christ ; without which latter sealing 
 of it into vitality, it were not faith. 
 
 Thus, then, the Bishop of London rightly asserts 
 that it is an error for each individual to suppose 
 that justification is applied to himself " by a simple 
 and internal act of faith, without the intervention 
 of the sacraments ordained by Christ, and gene- 
 rally necessary for salvation." The Reviewer says 
 upon this, that he deems it his duty " to assert, in 
 the face of the Church, that this opinion is very 
 heretical indeed." No doubt, his assertion is in 
 the '^ face of the Church," and against it too! 
 He says, moreover, that " to cut in this manner 
 into the free and full declarations of Scripture of 
 mercy and salvation to every believing soul, thus 
 to confine within limits which God has not im- 
 posed, the treasures of his grace, is a very grievous 
 evil and heavy offence." 
 
 The heresy, and " grievous evil and heavy of- 
 fence," I suppose, consist, in i\\e Reviewer'' sixxdgvueni, 
 in the Bishop of London not adopting the opinions 
 
102 
 
 of the Reviewer and his " competent authorities." 
 The Bishop's declaration does not confine " the trea- 
 sures of grace" within any limits save those which 
 God has imposed. " He that believeth, and is bap- 
 tized, shall be saved." " Except ye be born again, 
 of water and of the Spirit, ye cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God," &c. &;c. But the BisJiop of 
 London is heretical ! Of a truth, he is a heretic in 
 good company ! For so, then, a heretic was Bishop 
 Jewell! who declared: "Thus much of the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism, which is the badge and cogni- 
 zance of every Christian. If any be not baptized, 
 but lacketh the mark of God's fold, we cannot discern 
 him to be one of the flock. If any take not the seal 
 of regeneration, we cannot say he is born the child of 
 God ^" So, then, a heretic was Archbishop Bravi- 
 hall ! who says : " We believe that, without bap- 
 tismal grace (that is, regeneration), no man can 
 enter into the kingdom of God ;" at the same time 
 declaring, what I willingly subscribe to, as I doubt 
 not does the Bishop of London, referring to those 
 " who are defrauded of the Sacratnent, without their 
 own defaults:" " We believe that God, who hath 
 not limited his grace to his outward ordinances," 
 (i. e. to tie himself up so as not to confer the 
 grace of the Sacrament extraordinarily, where it 
 seemeth good in his eyes, without the outward ele- 
 ment, upon such as, not of their own fault, cannot 
 
 " Treatise of the Sacraments, foL, a.d. 1609. 
 
103 
 
 come unto it,) " may, and doth many times, accord- 
 ing to his good pleasure, supply the defect of 
 others, and operate in them the grace of the 
 Sacrament by his Holy Spirit." This is just one 
 of those exceptions which prove the rule ; which 
 rule is further maintained, with reference to this 
 exception, by the Church saying that Baptism is 
 " generally necessary to salvation ;" i. e. if any, 
 not of their own default, die without Baptism, they 
 are not peremptorily excluded from salvation, to 
 which the mercy of God may introduce them. The 
 Church o^ Rome holds that such, with some excep- 
 tions, are excluded from salvation, and therefore lays 
 it down that Baptism is imiversally necessary ; con- 
 sequently it admits lay Baptism. However, this 
 point is not under notice, so I do not moot it. 
 I merely repeat that the word generally does not 
 refer to the operation of the Sacrament being 
 merely general, or to its necessity not being essen- 
 tial, but to the possibility that the unbaptized (not 
 through their own fault) may attain salvation 
 through the uncovenanted mercies of God \ 
 
 The Reviewer concludes by stating that he would 
 have examined " in detail the statement contained 
 in the following passages of the Charge of the 
 Bishop of London" but that he cannot " conve- 
 niently do so for the present." I shall be glad to 
 
 ' Vide note [D.] in Appendix. 
 
104 
 
 meet him whenever he does. The passages are 
 these : 
 
 " In this country," says his Lordship, " the 
 clergy of the National Church, and they alone, are 
 entitled to the respect and obedience of the people 
 as their lawful guides and governors in spiritual 
 things. They alone are duly commissioned to 
 preach the word of God, and to minister His Holy 
 Sacraments." And again : " It is ours to realize 
 instrumentally to those for whom Christ died, the 
 blessedness of which the Levitical priesthood ad- 
 ministered only the shadow: it is ours to graft 
 them into the body of Christ's Church ; to initiate 
 them into the sacred truths of the Gospel, to turn 
 their hearts to the ' wisdom of the just,' guiding 
 them to Him who alone can deliver them from the 
 bondage of sin ; declaring, as His ambassadors, 
 remission and assurance of pardon, and dispensing 
 to His household the spiritual food and sustenance 
 of His body and blood. To do all this, and on 
 that account to have the chief stations in that 
 household ; to be entitled to the affection and re- 
 spect of all who belong thereto." 
 
 As respects the first passage quoted, I merely 
 observe, that the Reviewer carefully leaves out the 
 Bishop's immediately succeeding sentences ; viz. 
 " But the extent and boundaries of their minis- 
 terial authority are points which admit of a consi- 
 
105 
 
 derable diversity of opinion even amongst those 
 who do not question its origin or legitimacy. If it 
 be an error leading to and partaking of the nature 
 of schism to deny or undervalue that authority, it 
 is, on the other hand, injurious to the cause of 
 truth and purity to exaggerate it, and to stretch 
 its prerogative beyond that which has the sure 
 warrant of God's word." Wherefore did the Re- 
 viewer omit all notice of this opinion ? 
 
 As to the second passage, does the Reviewer 
 deny that the office of the Clergy is to graft peo- 
 ple into the body of Christ's Church ; to turn 
 their hearts ; to guide them to Christ ; to act as 
 His ambassadors ; to minister spiritual food to 
 His household? If he does deny these things, 
 then his object and anti-CJmrch-of-Englandism are 
 apparent ; if he does not deny them, he cannot 
 deny that they who exercise such functions are 
 worthy of consideration, of affection, and respect, 
 from those over whom they are set. 
 
 But as upon this matter the Reviewer merely 
 asserts a dogmatic opinion, I have no argument to 
 combat. He calls the Bishop's statement, " high- 
 flown assumptions," " opposed to the teaching of 
 our Church, and to the ea;amples set forth in, and 
 deductions to be drawn from, Holy Writ ;" as 
 " inimicable {sic in orig.) to the substantial inte- 
 rests and true honour of the Establishment, and 
 to the peace and prosperity of Christ's Universal 
 
106 
 
 Church." He declares that " their source is in 
 the deadly errors of the Church of Rome ;" that 
 they " find a place in the Charge of his Lordship 
 as an echo of a prevailing and popular cry of the 
 day, not as a part and parcel of the truth of God ;" 
 and that, " accordingly," — i. e. because he, the 
 Reviewer, thinks so, — -" the introduction of them 
 on this solemn occasion, however viewed by men 
 contaminated by Popish and anti-Evangelical sen- 
 timent and priestly presumption, will tend to any 
 thing rather than his" (the Bishop's) " true honour, 
 either in the court of heaven or amidst the assem- 
 blage of the saints on earth." 
 
 If I may so speak with reverence, I would ex- 
 press my thankfulness that the Reviewer is not 
 the janitor of the court of heaven, nor yet the 
 orator of the assemblage of the saints on earth ; 
 at the same time, I would say that I feel some 
 surprise at his assuming to be both. The bitter 
 tone of his remarks is scarcely in keeping with 
 modest respect for authority, and the Christian- 
 like humility of pure charity. It surely would 
 have been more amiable and discreet, more gene- 
 rous and undictatorial, more canonically gentle and 
 obedient, had the Reviewer omitted this grave de- 
 claration, that they who approve of the Bishop's 
 sentiments, and, therefore, of course, the Bishop 
 himself, are " men contaminated by Popish and 
 anti-Evangelical sentiment and Priestly presump- 
 
107 
 
 Hon." But I will leave it without comment, save 
 a remark, that I regret the Remewer has made it, 
 for the world will consider it a proof of no very 
 mild disposition or Christian spirit. 
 
 I have now finished the task I assigned to my- 
 self; how, it is not for me to say. I have, how- 
 ever, relied as much as possible-upon the opinions 
 of our pious Reformers, referred to Holy Scrip- 
 tures, being conscious that any individual senti- 
 ments of my own, unsupported by ancient autho- 
 rity, would be of no greater value than are the 
 Reviewer's. He appealed, and acknowledged that 
 he was bound by the appeal, to " the theological 
 perceptions of our Reformers," as comporting 
 " with the truth of God." To that appeal I have, 
 from the writings of those Fathers, tested by the 
 Gospel declarations, endeavoured honestly to re- 
 spond; and I believe that I have succeeded in 
 showing how completely the Reviewer's arguments, 
 when brought to such a proof, are what I said I 
 would show them to be, — untenable, and without 
 recognized authority. I would, as briefly as I 
 may, sum up the whole. And, in doing so, I trust 
 I am not guilty of presumption in using, as for 
 myself, the words of Cranmer : 
 
 " I profess, and openly confess, that in all my 
 doctrine and preaching, both of the Sacraments 
 and of other my doctrine, whatsoever it be, not 
 only I mean and judge those things, as the Catho- 
 
108 
 
 lie Church and most holy Fathers of old with one 
 accord have meant and judged, but also I would 
 gladly use the same words they used, and not any 
 other words ; but to set my hand to all and singu- 
 lar their speeches, ways, phrases, and forms of 
 speech, which they do use in their treatises upon 
 the Sacraments, and to keep still their interpre- 
 tations ^" 
 
 I also fully adopt the words of King Charles I.: 
 
 " My conclusion is, that albeit I never esteemed 
 any authority equal to the Scriptures, yet I do 
 think the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and 
 the universal practice of the primitive Church, to 
 be the best and most authenticated interpreters of 
 God's word ^" 
 
 Therefore I say with Tertidlian : 
 
 ^' By Bajjtism we are cleansed from all our sins, 
 and rendered capable of attaining eternal life. By 
 it we regain that Spirit of God which Adam 
 received at his creation, and lost by his transgres- 
 sion 'r 
 
 With Clirysostom : 
 
 "I am otherwise affected than is he that be- 
 lieveth not. When he heareth of the water of 
 Baptism he thinketh it is nothing else but water ; 
 but I see, not the creature only which mine eyes 
 
 ' Appeal from the Pope to the next General Council. 
 ' Fifth Paper to Henderson the Presbyterian. 
 * Bishop Kaye's Tertullian, p. 431. 
 
109 
 
 do see, but also the cleansing^ of my soul with the 
 Holy Ghost. He thinketh that my body only is 
 washed; I believe that my soul is thereby made 
 'pure and holy \" 
 
 WithQ/n7; 
 
 " As water, thoroughly heated with fire, burnetii 
 as well as the fire, so the waters that wash him 
 that is baptized, are changed into Divine Power 
 by the working of the Holy Ghost ^" 
 
 With IrencBUs : 
 
 " Et iterum potestatem regenerationis in Deum 
 dans discipulis, dicebat iis, ' Euntes docete omnes 
 gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, 
 et Spiritus Sancti ^.' " 
 
 With Chrysostom again : 
 
 " Plain or base water worketh not in us ; but 
 when it hath received the grace of the Holy 
 Ghost, it washeth away all our sins ^" 
 
 With Augustine : 
 
 " Why doth not Christ say, now ye are clean, 
 because of the Baptism wherewith ye are washed ? 
 saving that because in the water it is the word 
 that maketh clean ^" 
 
 And with Cyprian : 
 
 " Omnes quidem qui ad divinum munus et pa- 
 
 * Horn. VII. in 1 Cor. ^ In Johan. 1. ii. c. xiii. 
 
 ' Contra Haeres. 1. iii. c. 17. § I. * Horn. XXXV. in Johan. 
 ' Tract LXXX. in John. 
 
110 
 
 trium, Baptism! sanctificatione perveniunt, hominem 
 illic veterem gratia lavacri salutaris exponunt, et 
 innovati Spiritu Sancto a sordibus contagionis 
 antiqua?, iteratd 7iatwitate piirgantiir '." 
 
 I have done. Thus, as I have set forth, do I 
 hold the great doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration 
 to be true, and no " figment." As " children of 
 wrath " we all approach the sacrament. If any 
 pass from it uncleansed, it is because " only the 
 faithful receive the fruit ; but the unbelieving, 
 refusing the promises offered them by God, shut 
 up the entry against themselves, and go away 
 empty. Yet do they not thereby make the sacra- 
 ment lose its force and nature." O, no ! Baptism 
 is indeed " the covenant and promise of God which 
 clotheth us with immortality, assureth our resur- 
 rection ; by which we receive regeneration, forgive- 
 ness of sins, life, and salvation. His word declareth 
 his love towards us ; and that word is sealed and 
 made good by Baptism. Our faith which are bap- 
 tized, and our continuance in the profession we 
 have made, establisheth us in this grace which we 
 have received ^" Yes ; " such a change is made 
 in the Sacrament of Baptism. Through the power 
 of God's word the water is turned into blood ; 
 they that be washed in it receive remission of sins ; 
 their robes be made clean in the blood of the 
 
 * De Discip. et Hab. Virg. p. 1&2. ^ Nowell's Catechism. 
 
Ill 
 
 Lamb. The water itself is nothing; but by the 
 working of God's Spirit, the death and merits of 
 our Lord and Saviour Christ are thereby assured 
 to us." 
 
 Thus do " I acknowledge one Baptism for the 
 remission of sins ; " and thus do I regard the 
 administration of the sacrament — " Ministerium 
 Baptizandi, quo Deo Renascimur ^" 
 
 ^ Augustine first Archbishop of Canterbury, apud Bede 
 Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 2. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 [A.] p. 14. 
 " differs very little." 
 
 I observe in Dr. HoUoway's "Letter addressed to the 
 Bishop of London," (which I have received too late to notice 
 in the preceding pages,) a note at page 52, to the following 
 effect : — 
 
 " The ordinance of infant baptism was administered very 
 differently from the present formulary in the reign of Edward 
 VI. and Queen Elizabeth. Considerable alterations were in- 
 troduced into that service in the reign of James, and jjerhaps 
 also in the last review of the Liturgy in the year 1661." 
 
 T will reply to this, and show how extremely at hazard the 
 assertion of the Reverend Doctor is made, — its carelessness 
 being further proved by his expression " perhaps also," for if 
 he had well considered the matter, he would have used a more 
 strict phrase, — by reprinting here the Baptismal Service from 
 "The Boke of Common Prayer," of Edward VI., published 
 in black letter, a. d. 1552. 
 
 The Priest shal aske whether the chyldren be baptized or no. 
 If they answere, no, then shall the Priest saye thus. 
 
 Dearely beloved for asmuche as all men be conceyved and 
 borne in synne, and that oure Saviour Christe sayeth none 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 can entre into the Kyngdome of God (excepte he be regene- 
 rate, and born anew of water and the holye Ghoste). I 
 beseche you to call upon God the Father, throughe our Lord 
 Jesus Christe, that of his bounteouse mercye he wyll graunt 
 to these chyldren, that thyng which by nature they cannot 
 have, that they maye be Baptysed with water and the holy 
 Ghost, and receyved into Christes holye churche, and be 
 made lyvelye merabres of the same. 
 
 Then the Priest shall saye, 
 Let us praye. 
 
 Almightie and everlastinge God, which of thy great mercy 
 diddest save Noe and his familie in the Arke from perishing 
 by water : and also dyddest safely leade the chyldren of 
 Israel thy people through the Redde Sea : figuring thereby 
 thy holy Baptisme, and by the Baptisme of thy w^el-beloved 
 sonne Jesus Christe diddeste sanctify the floud Jordane and 
 all other waters to the misticall washing awaye of sinne : we 
 beseche thee for thine infinite mercies that thou wylt merci- 
 fully loke upon these children, sanctifie them and wash them 
 with thy holy ghost, that they beyng delivered from thy 
 wrath, maye be receyved into the Arke of Christes Church, 
 and beyng stedfast in fayth, joyeful through hope and rooted 
 in charitie, maye so passe the waves of this troublesome world, 
 that finally they may come to the land of everlastinge lyfe, 
 there to reygne wyth thee worlde wythout ende : through 
 Jesus Christe our Lord. Amen. 
 
 Almightie and immortal god, the ayde of al that nede, the 
 helper of all that flee to thee for succour, the lyfe of them that 
 beleve, and the resurrection of the dead : we cal upon thee for 
 these infantes that they cominge to thy holy Baptisme maye 
 receyve remission of theyr sinnes by spiritual regeneration. 
 Receive them (O Lord) as thou hast promysed by thy wel- 
 beloved sonne saying : Aske and you shall have, seke and you 
 shal fynd, knocke and it shal be opened unto you : So geve 
 now unto us that aske. Let us that seke fynde. Open the 
 gate unto us that knock, that these infantes maye enjoye 
 
115 
 
 the everlastinge benediction of thy heavenly washinge, and 
 may come to the eternall kyngdom whiche thou hast pro- 
 mysed by Christ our Lorde. Amen. 
 
 Then shal the Priest saije : heare the rvordes of the Gospell, 
 rvrytten by Sainct Marke in the tenth Chapter. 
 
 At a certayn time they brought children to Christ that he 
 should touche them, and his disciples rebuked those that 
 brought them. But when Jesus sawe it he was displeased, 
 and sayd unto them : Suffre lyttle children to come unto me 
 and forbid them not : for to suche belongeth the kyngdom of 
 God. Verelye I say unto you : whosoever doth not receyve 
 the kingdom of God as a lyttle chylde, he shall not entre 
 therein. And when he had taken them up in hys armes, he 
 put his handes upon them and blessed them. 
 
 After the Gospel is read, the Minister shal make this brief 
 exhortation upon the woordes of the Gospell. 
 
 Frendes you hear in this Gospel the wordes of our Saviour 
 Christ, that he commaunded the children to be brought unto 
 him : how he blamed those that would have kept them from 
 him : how he exhorteth all men to folow theyr innocencie. 
 You perceyve how by his outward gesture and dede he de- 
 clared his good wyll towarde them. For he embrased them 
 in hys armes, he layde his handes upon them, and blessed 
 them : doubt not ye therefore but earnestly beleve that he 
 wyl lykewise favourably receyve these present infantes, that 
 he will embrase them wyth the armes of hys mercye, that he 
 wyll geve unto them the blessynge of eternall lyfe, and make 
 them partakers of hys everlasting kingdom. Wherefore we 
 being thus perswaded of the good will of our heavenlye father 
 towarde these infantes declared by his sonne Jesus Christe : 
 and nothing doubting but that he favourably alloweth thys 
 charitable worke of ours in bringynge these children to his 
 holy Baptisme : let us faythfully and devoutely geve thanks 
 unto him and saye, 
 
 Almightie and everlasting God, heavenly father, we geve 
 
 I 2 
 
116 
 
 thee humble thankes that thou haste vouchsafed to call us to 
 knowledge of thy grace and fayth in thee, encrease this know- 
 ledge and confirme this fayth in us evermore : Geve thy holy 
 spirite to these infantes, that they may be borne agayne, and 
 be made hey res of everlastinge salvacion, through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ : who liveth and reigneth with thee and the holy 
 spirite now and for ever. Amen. 
 
 Then the Priest shal speake unto the Godfathers and God- 
 mothers, on this tvyse. 
 
 Wel-beloved frendes, ye have brought these chyldren here 
 to bee baptized, ye have prayed that oure Lorde Jesus Christe 
 would vouchsafe to receyve them to laye his handes upon 
 them, to blesse them, to release them of theyr synnes, to geve 
 them the kyngdom of heaven and everlasting lyfe. Ye have 
 heard also that our Lord Jesus Christ hath promised in hys 
 Gospel to graunte all these thinges that ye have prayed for : 
 ■which promise he for his parte wyll moste surely kepe and 
 performe. Wherefore after thys promyse made by Christ, 
 these infantes must also faithfully for theyr parte promise by 
 you that be their sureties that they wyl forsake the devyl and 
 al his workes, and constantly beleve Goddes holy worde and 
 obediently kepe his commaundementes. 
 
 Then shall the Priest demaunde of the Godfathers and God- 
 mothers these questions folowynge : 
 
 Doest thou forsake the devyll and al his workes, the vayne 
 pompe and glory of the worlde wyth all covetouse desyres of 
 the same, the earnall desyres of the fleshe, so that thou wilt 
 not folow nor be led by them ? 
 
 Aunswere. 
 I forsake them all. 
 
 Minister. 
 
 Doest thou beleve in God the father almightye, maker of 
 heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ his only begotten 
 
 5 
 
117 
 
 Sonne our Lord, and that he was conceyved of the holy ghoste, 
 borne of the vyrgyn Mary, that he sufFred under Poncius 
 Pilate, was crucified dead and buried, that he went downe 
 into hel and also did ryse agayn the thyrd daye : that he 
 ascended into heaven and sytteth at the right hand of God the 
 father almightye, and from thence shall come agayne at the 
 ende of the worlde to judge the quycke and the dead. 
 
 And doest thou beleve in the holy ghost, the holy catho- 
 lique churche, the communion of Sainctes, the remyssion of 
 synnes, the resurrection of the fleshe, and everlastinge lyfe after 
 death ? 
 
 Aunsrvere. 
 All thys I stedfastly beleve. 
 
 Minister. 
 Wylt thou be baptysed in this fayth ? 
 
 jdunswere. 
 That is my desyre. 
 
 Then shal the Priest saye. 
 
 O Mercyful God, graunt that the olde Adam in these chyl- 
 dren may be so buried, that the newe man maye be raysed up 
 in them. Amen. 
 
 Graunt that al carnal affections may dye in them, and that 
 al thinges belonginge to the spirite may live and growe in 
 them. Amen. 
 
 Graunt that they may have power and strength to have vic- 
 torye, and to triumphe agaynste the devyll the worlde and 
 the fleshe. Amen. 
 
 Graunt that whosoever is here dedicated to thee by our 
 office and ministerie, may also be endued wyth heavenly ver- 
 tues, and everlastingly rewarded through thy mercie, O blessed 
 Lord God, who dost lyve and governe all thinges world with- 
 out ende. Amen. 
 
 Almightie everliving God, whose most dearly beloved sonne 
 Jesus Christ, for the forgeveness of our sinnes, dyd shead out 
 
118 
 
 of his most precious syde both water and bloud, and gave 
 commaundement to his disciples that they should go teache al 
 iiacions, and baptise them in the name of the father, the sonne, 
 and of the holy ghost : Regard we beseech thee the sup- 
 plicacions of thy congregacion, and graunt that all thy ser- 
 vauntes which shalbe baptised in this water may receyve the 
 fulnesse of thy grace, and ever remayne in the noumbre of thy 
 faythfull and electe chyldren, through Jesus Christ our Lorde. 
 
 Then the Priest shal take the childe in his handes, and aske 
 the name, and naming the chyld, shal dyppe it in the 
 mater, so it he discreetly and rvarely done, sayinge, 
 
 N. I baptyse thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Sonne, and of the holye Ghost. Amen. 
 
 And if the chylde he rveake, it shall svffyse to powre water 
 upon it, sayinge the foresayde wordes, 
 
 N. I baptyse thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. Amen. 
 
 Then the Prieste shall make a crosse upon the chyldes fore- 
 head, sayinge, 
 
 We receyve this childe into the congregacion of Christes 
 flocke, and doe sygne hym wyth the signe of the crosse, in 
 token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confesse the 
 fayth of Christ crucified, and manfully to fyght under hys 
 banner agaynste synne, the worlde, and the devyll, and to 
 continue Christes faythfull souldiour and servaunt unto hys 
 lyves ende. Amen. 
 
 Then shall the Priest saye. 
 
 Seynge now, derely beloved brethren, that these chyldren 
 bee regenerate and grafted into the body of Christes congrega- 
 cion : let us geve thankes unto God for these benefites, and 
 vpith one accorde make our prayers unto Almighty God, that 
 they maye leade the rest of theyre lyfe accordinge to this 
 beginninge. 
 
119 
 
 Then shal be sayde. 
 Our Father which art in heaven, &c. 
 
 Then shall the Priest saye. 
 
 We yelde thee heartie thankes, most mercyfull father, that it 
 hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy holy spirite, 
 to receyve hym for thy owne chyld by adoption, and to incor- 
 porate hym into thy holy congregacion. And humbly we be- 
 seche thee to graunt that he being dead unto sinne, and ly ving 
 unto righteousness, and being buried with Christe in his death, 
 maye crucifye the olde man, and utterly abolyshe the whole 
 body of sinne ; that as he is made partaker of the death of thy 
 Sonne, so he may be partaker of his resurrection ; so that 
 finally wyth the residue of thy holy congregacion, he may be 
 enheritour of thyne everlastinge kyngdom, through Christ our 
 Lord. Amen. 
 
 At the last ende, the Priest calling the Godfathers and God- 
 mothers together, shall saye this shorte exhortacion fo- 
 lowinge. 
 
 Forasmuche as these children have promised by you to for- 
 sake the Devyll and all his workes, to beleve in God and to 
 ferve hym ; you muste remembre that it is your partes and 
 dueties to see that these infantes be taught so soone as they shal 
 be able to learne, what a solemne vowe, promyse, and profes- 
 sion, they have made by you. And that they may knowe 
 these things the better, ye shal call upon them to heare ser- 
 mons ; and chiefly you shal provide that they may learne the 
 Crede, the Lordes prayer, and the ten Commaundements, in the 
 Englishe tongue, and all other thynges which a Christian man 
 ought to knowe and beleve to hys soules health : and that 
 these children may be vertuously brought up to leade a godly 
 and a Christian lyfe, remembrynge alwayes that Baptisme doeth 
 represent unto us oure profession, whiche is to folowe the 
 example of our saviour Christ, and to be made like unto him ; 
 that as he dyed and rose agayne for us, so shoulde we whiche 
 are baptised, dye from synne, and ryse agayne unto righteous- 
 
120 
 
 nesse, continually mortifyinge all oure evyll and corrupte 
 affections, and daylye procedinge in all vertue and godlyness 
 of lyvynge. 
 
 The Minister shall commaunde that the chyldren be brought to 
 the Bishop to be confirmed of him so sone as they can saie 
 in their vulgare tongue the articles of the fay th, the Lordes 
 prayer, and the X Commaundementes, and be further in- 
 structed in the Catechisme set forth for that purpose. 
 
 Will Dr. Holloway be pleased to point out in what respect 
 " the ordinance of Infant Baptism was administered very dif- 
 ferently from the present formulary, in the reigns of Edward 
 the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth ;" and what the " consider- 
 able alterations " are, which he asserts *' were introduced into 
 that service in the reign of James ?" Had Dr. Holloway ever 
 seen the Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth ? — for, with the 
 exception of a few immaterial verbal differences, and the sen- 
 tence, " sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of 
 sin," in the prayer immediately preceding the naming, which 
 is not in the corresponding prayer in King Edward's book, the 
 service, as it stands at present, is identical with the old one. 
 The absence of the sentence above mentioned from one parti- 
 cular prayer in King Edward's book, offers no ground for 
 argument, as it is, almost in tolidem verbis, to be found in. the 
 opening prayer. 
 
 [B.] p. 28. 
 
 " Delivering this blessed sacrament of regeneration." 
 
 ** The true necessity of baptism, a few propositions considered 
 will soon decide. All things which either are known Causes 
 or set Means, whereby any great good is usually procured, or 
 men delivered from grievous evil, the same we must needs 
 confess necessary. And if regeneration were not in this very 
 
121 
 
 sense a thing necessary to eternal life, would Christ himself 
 have taught Nicodemus, that to see the kingdom of God is 
 impossible, saving only for those men which are born from 
 above ? 
 
 " His words following in the next sentence are a proof 
 sufficient, that to our regeneration his Spirit is no less neces- 
 sary, than regeneration itself necessary unto life. 
 
 " Thirdly, unless as the Spirit is a necessary inward cause, 
 so Water were a necessary outward mean to our regeneration, 
 what construction should we give unto those words wherein 
 we are said to be new-born, and that it, vSarog, even of Water ? 
 Why ^re we taught that with water God doth purify and 
 cleanse his Church ? Wherefore do the Apostles of Christ 
 term Baptism a bath of regeneration ? What purpose had 
 they in giving men advice to receive outward baptism, and in 
 persuading them it did avail to remission of sins? " — Hooker, 
 Eccl. Polity, B. v. 60. 
 
 [C] p. 34. 
 
 " the S6th Canon binds him to both." 
 
 The 36th Canon, concerning " Subscription required of such 
 as are to be made Ministers," is this : 
 
 " No person shall hereafter be received into the Ministry, 
 nor either by institution or collation admitted to any ecclesi- 
 astical Living, nor suffered to preach, to catechize, or to be a 
 Lecturer, or Reader of Divinity in either University, or in any 
 Cathedral or Collegiate Church, city, or market- town, parish 
 church, chapel, or in any other place within this realm, except 
 he be licensed either by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop, 
 of the diocese where he is to be placed, under their hands and 
 seals, or by one of the two Universities under their seal like- 
 wise ; and except he shall first subscribe to these three Arti- 
 cles following, in such manner and sort as we have here 
 appointed. 
 
 " I. That the King's Majesty, &c. . . . [this is declaratory 
 
 K 
 
122 
 
 of acknowledgement of the power and jurisdiction of the 
 Sovereign.] 
 
 " II. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing con- 
 trary to the word of God, and that it may lawfully be used ; 
 and that he himself will use the form in the said book pre- 
 scribed, in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, 
 and none other. 
 
 " III. That he alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion 
 agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both pro- 
 vinces, and the whole Clergy, in the Convocation holden at 
 London, in the year of our Lord God one thousand five hun- 
 dred sixty and two ; and that he acknowledgeth all and every 
 the Articles therein contained, being in number nine-and- 
 thirty, besides the Ratification, to be agreeable to the word 
 of God. 
 
 " To these three Articles, whoever will subscribe, he shall, 
 for the avoiding of all ambiguities, subscribe in this order and 
 form of words, setting down both his Christian and surname, 
 viz., ' I, N. N., do willingly and ex animo subscribe to these 
 three Articles above-mentioned, and to all things that are con- 
 tained in them.' " 
 
 [D.] p. 103. 
 " the uncovenanted mercies of God." 
 
 " God binds no man to impossibilities which are not made 
 impossible by himself. When actual Baptism cannot be had, 
 the desire of Baptism is accepted for Baptism itself. As St. 
 Ambrose saith of Valentinian, that he was baptized in his de- 
 sire. Thus much is acknowledged by all Roman Catholics, 
 and may be collected out of the Council of Trent." 
 
 " Gerson, Gabriel, and Cardinal Cajetan, great doctors in 
 
123 
 
 the Roman Church, do maintain that when Baptism cannot be 
 applied to infants, the desire of their parents to have them bap- 
 tized is sufficient for their salvation." 
 
 " St. Austin did neither agree with them (the Church of 
 Rome), nor with us in this question. St. Austin is in this a 
 hard father to little infants, and innocents from actual sins, in 
 that he concludes all who die unbaptized, in hell. The Church 
 of Rome teacheth contrarily, that they are not in hell, but in 
 a certain limbus infantum. The Protestants leave them to the 
 mercy of God, and doubt not but that many of them are in 
 heaven. St. Austin saith they are certainly damned. The 
 Protestants say they may be saved. The Romanists say they 
 cannot be saved, and yet they are not damned. The Ro- 
 manists say they suffer poenam damni, but not poenam sensus ; 
 a privative, but not a positive punishment. St. Austin saith 
 they suffer both privatively and positively the very fire of hell. 
 The Protestants believe that many of them do suffer neither." 
 — From Archbishop BramhalV s " Treatise on Baptism, " 
 A.D. 1677. 
 
 The Church of Rome, indeed, gets rid of the full force of 
 the word universally, and also of the limbus infantum, by its 
 prayers and masses, the merits and intercession of the Saints, 
 purgatory, &c. &c. ; but, in the absence of appeal to these, 
 the word universally holds effective. 
 
 THE END. 
 
/ 
 
^■t- 
 
 #