The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, as it is held by many in the present day, calmly examined by the Bible and Common Prayer Book ..

£5

Q_

J5r

.;$f

«

1c

3

*

0)

■a

(0

*».,

IE

-

£Z h>

Q.

#w

*s> &

o

ta

5

"o g

a>

c

•6- O

bfl

c\

•S Eh

<t

^

l^ g

3

m

E

•3

-fc> M

ej

"K*

,2* K

CO

§■

■** Ph

S

s:

oq

Ct

J2

5

&•

-a

^

%

c

£

v*

(U

e-

10

V

CL

SCsX

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

Princeton Theological Seminary Library

http://www.archive.org/details/doctrineofbaptisOOsmit

THE DOCTRINE

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION,

AS IT IS HELD BY MANY IN THE
PRESENT DAY,

CALMLY EXAMINED

BIBLE AND COMMON PRAYER BOOK,

IN

THREE LETTERS,

BY THE

REV. HENRY. SMITH,

INCUMBENT OF TANSLET, DERBYSHIRE.

LONDON :

HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.

W- ROWBOTTOM, DERBY,

1844.

PREFACE.

In sending forth these Letters to the public, the
writer earnestly prays, that He "from whom all holy
desires, all good counsels, and all just works do proceed,"
may use them in establishing divine truth ; and he entreats
all who read them, to do the same. There is a truth con-
nected with this question, as well as with all others ; and
it should be our single aim to find out what that truth is.
It has appeared to him, that most of the publications he
has read, have had for their object rather the confirmation
of a favourite hypothesis, than the elucidation of truth ;
this being the only way to account for the fact, that much
of what the Church teaches on the subject of baptism and
regeneration is altogether overlooked. Those who advo-
cate one side, suppress the qualifications for baptism,
implied in the Articles and required in the Catechism,
taking it for granted, that they are necessary for adults
only, and supposing, that infants, being innocent, as
they say, do not need them ; and this, although neither
the Bible nor the Church has said a single word which
leads to this conclusion. They thus make an important
part of the teaching of our Church a dead letter. Those

IV. PREFACE.

who take the other side, speak as if the Sacraments were
mere rites, and not " sure witnesses, and effectual signs
of grace ;" and, explaining the baptismal services as best
they can, make regeneration to mean not an inward but
an outward work. The writer was satisfied with neither
course, and determined to investigate the question for
himself, taking the Bible and the standards of the Church
alone as his guides. Led by these, he found that the
first altogether exploded the doctrine of thg necessary
connection between infant baptism and regeneration,
which is embraced by so many in the present day ; and
that the second was in exact accordance with the first ;
which he always believed to be the case, on which side
soever the truth was. He now publishes what he con-?
siders the true doctrine of Scripture and the Common
Prayer Book on this long-debated subject; and if these
letters tend, in any measure, to clear away any of the
difficulties with which it has been encumbered, and to
throw light upon its true nature, he will be but too thank-
ful to the Giver of every good and perfect gift. He
believes the scheme here proposed is fitted to accomplish
both these purposes. It fully explains all our formularies,
without giving a forced interpretation to a single sentence;
and he asks for it a full, candid, and impartial exami-
nation: if this is given, he indulges a hope that
persons will not continue to advocate that feature, which

PREFACE. V.

leaves the Church in a labyrinth of perplexities in herself
and makes her contradict the announcements of holy writ.
They may, perhaps, have to do violence to their feelings,
and abandon long and dearly-cherished opinions and
prejudices; but nothing is too dear to give up for the
sake of truth. We should " buy the truth," whatever its
cost may be, " and sell it not." Let them consider
that whatever advantages they propose, as attached to
their scheme, belong to his also. If theirs lays the
baptized party under a solemn obligation to serve God,
his not less does the same. If, on their scheme, they are
able to address baptized persons as having a gift which
they may use to their own salvation, he, on his, can do
so too. If theirs enables them heartily to return thanks
for the regeneration of the child, so does his. If theirs
makes baptism a sacrament, his does the same. He must
be allowed to add, that his has advantages which theirs
has not. It suppresses no part of the teaching of our
Church. Her voice is fully heard and attended to, no
less when she requires conditions, than when she pro-
nounces blessings — no less when she instructs in the
Catechism, than when she commands in the services used
at baptism. It gives no license to Antinomianism, by
allowing that persons may be regenerated and yet walk as
heathens ; nor does it flatter the self-security of human
nature by saying in effect, " Peace, peace, when there is

A o

VI. PREFACE.

no peace." It does not tend to undervalue repentance
and faith by saying, they are not necessary for infants ;
but it tends to the begetting and cultivating of these
graces ; and also encourages a reverence for the ordinance
of baptism, by shewing that none must come to it without
due preparation. And let all consider that no part of the
truth, as it is in Jesus, is compromised. Not a single
iota of spiritual Christianity is relinquished ; for it proves
the Church to teach that her ministers ought to say, " ye
must be born again," to all who by their lives declare
that they are yet unacquainted with Christ as their Saviour,
and who consequently are without God and without hope
in the world.

In the first letter the reader will find the doctrine of
baptismal regeneration examined on the ground of Scrip-
ture, and in the second, on that of the Church of England.
The third letter, of a general character as to its arange-
ment, was thought necessary to substantiate the evidence
given in the two preceding ones.

Perhaps it may be well to add, that the two works
principally had in view, are Dr. Hook's Church Diction-
ary, and a pamphlet published by the Rev. R. Bathurst
Greenlaw, M.A. It is scarcely necessary to say that the
writer of these letters possesses no feeling towards either
of these gentlemen contrary to brotherly love, though he
thinks th. min great error. He prays that all the members of

PREFACE. Vll.

the Church of England, and more especially her ministers,
" may be so guided and governed«by God's good Spirit, as
to be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity
of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of
life." And if these Letters should, in any degree, promote
this object, he will never cease to say, "Not unto me,
0 Lord, not unto me, but unto thy name be the praise."

HENRY SMITH.

October 9th, 1844.

k

LETTER I

My dear Friend,

I am deeply grieved that you have embraced
a doctrine which I cannot but consider inconsistent both
with the word of God and our Church. All that you
have written, or referred me to, has failed to convince
me, that I am wrong. I am quite willing, as you
supposed, to give the reason upon which my opinion is
founded ; and I do this the more readily in the hope,
that ultimately, you will see your own, as well
as that of the books and pamphlets you recommend,
to be utterly untenable ; and will, therefore, abandon
the ground you have chosen.

Why are we friends and brothers in Christ, but to
help and watch over each other, lest there should be,
in either of us, an evil heart of unbelief, in departing
from the living God ; whether as it respects the purity
of His doctrine, the experience of His love, or the
practice of His commands. Nor, in the event of my
convincing you, will all the profit be yours. If there
is any, I must share it, as the embodying of my ideas
on paper will oblige me to review my principles, and
afresh test them by the only infallible standard of truth,
the word of God ; and in some cases, as in the present,

10 THE DOCTRINE OF

by the book which I next esteem — the Book of
Common Prayer. You must not conclude that because
our friend Brown could not answer your arguments
therefore they are unanswerable. Clever as he is, I
am not surprised, that he meets with many, who are
able to silence him in argument ; the plausibility of
which may, sometimes, perhaps for a moment, produce
a little misgiving, as to whether, after all, he is right in
his positions. It is just what I should have expected,
from such, a cautious, and self-diffident investigator of
truth as he is. He knows enough of the generalities of
the subject, young as he is in the study of Theology,
to perceive that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration,
as it is held in the present day, is inconsistent alike with
the word of God, and true Christian experience — with
his experience. Do not suffer yourself to despise an
appeal to Christian experience, as if it were vain and
futile, and proved nothing. Impartially consider
Brown's case — the case of many ! He was blessed with
parents truly pious. They tenderly brought him up in
the nurture and admonition of the Lord : and how many
prayers they offered up for him, will not be known till
the secrets of all hearts are made manifest. In them,
he had an example of Godly life ; for they were holy
in their conduct, sanctified in their tempers, and
heavenly in their conversation. They presented their
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which
was their reasonable service. And though they felt and
deplored many defects, yet I might have challenged the
most severe fault-finder to accuse them of outward sin.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 11

Truly if any one was ever trained up in the way he
should go, he was. Nor were their efforts in
vain : they could not be : we saw him moral in his
conduct, amiable in his disposition, and kind to all.
Yet did he not become convinced, that his works could
not be pleasant in the sight of God? that they had not
been done as He willed, and commanded them to be
done? and -that therefore they had the nature of sin?
Did he not see — so he has confessed — that there was
within him, the carnal mind which is enmity against
God ? that he had no real love to His name ; no delight
in communion with him, and in the way of His com-
mandments ? Could he at that time have possessed the
new nature, the essence of which is, to "love Him
because He first loved us ?" But now he is a new
creature in Christ Jesus, old things are passed away ;
behold all things are become new ! And surely while
such a change as this clothes a man with humility,
places his hopes on the merits of Christ alone, produces
in him the image of his Saviour, makes him careful to
fulfil all righteousness, and enables him to view the
glory of God as the end of all his works, he cannot be
justly charged with fanaticism, because he considers he
is thus led by the Spirit of God, and is, consequently,
a child of God. Manifestly, no less than a divine
power can produce such a change. No being can turn
the powerful tendencies of his own nature. If done at
all, it must be, by an external force, more powerful
than itself, and of a different inclination. It must be,
in a word, the work of God. " When we were dead

12 THE DOCTRINE OF

in trespasses and sins, He quickened us together with
Christ. For we are His ivorhnanshijt, created in Christ
Jesus, unto good works." Now if such a change as I
have described, ever does take place in persons who
have been baptized, and if it can be effected only by
the power of God, I have antecedent evidence, in such
cases, without going any further, to make me suspect
the truth of this doctrine, as it is stated by yourself and
many others.

I mean to go fully into the question, and in doing so
shall follow your own order, which I think is the correct
one. Let us then see,

I. What is the doctrine of God's word on this sub-
ject? and,

II. What is the judgment of the Church of England ?
You believe both teach the doctrine : I believe both
oppose it.

With 'the Bible and Common Prayer Book as my
guides, I have reconsidered the whole subject, carefully
endeavouring to put away every thing, that would
hinder me from perceiving the truth ; and my deliber-
ate opinion is, that the sound interpretation of Scripture,
according to the analogy of faith, and the consistent
exposition of the formularies of our Church, bring us to
the very opposite point to that at which you have arrived.

I have no wish in this matter but to know the truth.
It is far too serious to be treated lightly. Whether I
am, or am not reconciled to God, is a solemn question.
It concerns my everlasting welfare, and that of all others.
In pursuing the enquiry, I did not, at first, seek for

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 13

counter statements, and thus endeavour to outweigh
your side of the scale by putting arguments of greater
weight into the other ; leaving your own, without a
particular answer for each. It struck me that I had
better examine your own premises, and see if the con-
clusions drawn from them were just and fair. This
course, I think, it will be well to pursue, in putting
my thoughts together.

But let us understand each other. Your idea is, that
Regeneration is a change of nature, wrought indeed by
the Holy Spirit, but in and by baptism ; that it invari-
ably and necessarily takes place then, and at no other
time. I agree with you that regeneration, as the word
is used in the baptismal services, cannot signify a mere
admission into the outward privileges of the church. It
must there mean an internal change of heart ; but I totally
disagree with you when you say that baptism is the sole
medium of communicating it. I do not say that it can-
not be conveyed by that means ; nor that it is not some=
times so conveyed ; but I deny the necessary connection.

Before I enter upon the particular examination of
your proofs from Scripture, I wish to observe, that the
texts you produce cannot be classed with those pas-
sages whose meaning is clear and undoubted. When
I read, "All have sinned;" and "God commandeth
all men everywhere to repent;" the sense is at once
caught, and two opinions respecting them can scarcely
be entertained. But it is not so with those by which
you attempt to support the above view of baptismal
regeneration. They will bear another interpretation

14 THE DOCTRINE OF

besides that which you give them ; and that too, with
as sound criticism, and as fair exposition as yours.
Whether I might not have said fairer, and sounder,
remains to be judged ; for on this the issue of the con-
troversy depends.

I will now proceed to the examination of the texts ;
and having more than once, subscribed to an article,
which does not allow me, "so to expound one place of
Scripture that it be repugnant to another," my plan shall
be, to compare them with the context, and with other
portions, containing similar sentiments, and like forms
of expression ; thus making the Bible its own expositor.

John iii. 5. " Except a man be born again, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God." Now does Jesus here
teach the necessary connexion between infant baptism
and the regeneration of the Spirit ? It does appear
to me strange, that you, and others, can speak and
write about this text, as if there could be no question
respecting it ; and as if it must be sheer obstinacy, or
wilful prejudice, which prevents others from seeing
with yourselves. Whether baptism is included at all in
this passage is, I think, sufficiently doubtful, to pre-
vent us from asserting it too dogmatically, and glorying
in it, as in armour of defence ; lest a stronger than we
shpuld take from us that in which we trusted and expose
our weakness. The words, "and of the Spirit " may
possibly be explanatory of the phrase, " of water."
The word " /cat" does not disprove it ; for this our
Translators have in some places rendered even. We
do not however differ on this point. It seems to me

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 15

that our Lord is speaking of the birth of water, as well
as the birth of the Spirit ; for how can we conceive, that
he would discourse on the manner of entering into his
kingdom, without mentioning that very rite — a rite too
in which water is used — by which he afterwards ordered
his disciples to admit members into it. But that he
makes the inward grace necessarily consequent upon
that outward rite, is assumed, and it is my firm con-
viction, can never be proved ; and these are my reasons.*
1. It is inconsistent with the reason which renders
the new birth necessary. Without it a man cannot see

* The argument relied on to prove this necessary connection is,
that our Lord says, Except a man he born of water and of the
spirit. And one writer, to show how obvious it is that the word
" and " proves this necessary connection, playfully asks, " What
would be thought of the acumen of a critic, who, upon being told
that a vessel was wafted by the wind and tide, would argue that
persons were thereby to understand, that the vessel was wafted
to-day by the ivind without tide, and to-morrow by the tide with-
out wind ?" No doubt we should think him very silly, and that
the sooner he resigned the office of critic, the better. But what
is gained by this example, unless it is proved to be a perfect par-
allel to the words in John iii. 5 ? The argument seems to me no
more than this, The word " and" proves the connection of the
agencies in my example, made for the occasion ; and therefore it
does the same in our Lord's assertion. Let me give another
example, from Isaiah. " Butter and honey shall he eat." Now
does this prove that he ate both butter and honey at the same
time ? He may have done so ; I dare say he did ; but what I
mean to say is, that the word " and" does not prove it. The fact
is, "and," in the verse quoted from St. John, proves of itself
nothing. Whether it docs mark a necessary connection, must be
gathered from the context, and that, as is shown below by various
reasons, proves that it does not.

16 THE DOCTRINE OF

the kingdom of God. Nicodemus no doubt, imbibed
the prejudice of the Jewish nation, and thought the
kingdom of the Messiah was of an earthly nature, and
came to make further enquires respecting it.* But
Jesus tells him at once, that no man can perceive its
nature, unless he is born again. " My kingdom," says
he, is not of this world," it is spiritual, and to see it you
must have spiritual perceptions. " That which is born of
the flesh is flesh," and its faculties can be exercised only
on fleshy objects suitable to its own nature. " The
natural man, says St. Paul, receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him,
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned." " Except therefore a man be born again, he

* I have never yet seen a satisfactory reason given why Nico-
demus came to Jesus by night. The usual one, that it was shame,
is inadmissible ; for at the time he visited Jesus, no obloquy was
attached to His name. May the writer be allowed to propose the
following for the consideration of others ? The Sanhedrim must
have heard that Jesus wrought miracles, and they knew from
Isaiah that this was one mark of their Messiah, by whom they
expected to be freed from the Roman yoke. May not Nicodemus
have been sent by them to Jesus,, as he was on another occasion,
to ascertain if He really was the Messiah, and if so, to offer
their influence and assistance in establishing that kingdom which
they expected their Messiah would set up ? The Romans were
very jealous of their power, and they knew the Jews were de-
sirous of destroying it. Now, if they were to know that a mem-
ber of the Sanhedrim had held intercourse with one who had
begun to excite public attention, their apprehensions would be
excited, and this obliged them to caution and secrecy ; and there-
fore Nicodemus came by night.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 17

cannot see the kingdom of God." If then he is born
again he does see it. " He that is spiritual," the
Apostle continues, "judgeth" or discerneth "all things."
" That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," adds Christ.
It has new powers of perception. Now I would ask, do
baptized infants perceive the nature of Messiah's king-
dom ? If not, then they are not born again according
to our Lord's meaning. This argument goes upon the
supposition, that the same thing is declared in the third
verse as in the fifth, which must, I think, be allowed.

But lest you should think this a subterfuge, let us
apply the same reasoning to the fifth verse. I ask, is
it baptism simply that introduces us to the kingdom of
God? Is nothing to be joined with it? or is nothing
more included in baptism than the washing in icaterl
Is not faith required ? We shall see, by and by, that
our Church answers yes ; and so says the fifteenth verse.
" That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but
have everlasting life." Faith is as much included in the
birth of the spirit, as water in the birth of water. Now
have infants faith r From the nature of the case you
will say they have not. Exactly so ; and therefore
they are not regenerated in the sense meant by Jesus,
whatever that sense may be.

2. This new birth, whatever it is, is followed by
effects suitable to its nature. " That which is born of
the flesh is flesh." (verse 6.) Nicodemus had said,
" How can a man be born when he is old, can he enter
the second time into his mother's womb and be born r"
Jesus answers, If he could that would not help him,

b 3

18 THE DOCTRINE OF

he would be flesh still. Now St. Paul teaches us,
that " they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
Why ? " Because the carnal," or fleshy mind, " is
enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of
God, neither, indeed, can be." " For they that are
after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh." These
things, or works of the flesh are manifest, which are
these ; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,
wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,
drunkenness, revellings, and such like, (Gal. v. 19—21)
All who perform these, or any of these works are de-
clared to be in the flesh. " But that which is born of
the spirit is spirit." They who are thus changed pos-
sess a nature quite different, "They are after the spirit
and mind the things of the spirit." They " are not in
the flesh, but in the spirit, because the spirit of God
dwells in them." (Rom. viii. 5, 9.) But what are the
things of the spirit ? The answer is supplied us. "But
the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. (Gal.
v. 22, 23.) " Whosoever is born of God doth not com-
mit sin." (1 John i. 9.) All who are born of the spirit
must be of this description. I enquire, do all baptized
infants or adults in after life, answer to it? Would
that it were so ! but alas ! do not the far greater number
follow the devil and all his works, the pomps and
vanities of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of
the flesh ? If so, (and who can deny it,) are they then
regenerated ? What ! walk after the flesh and yet bev

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 19

in the spirit — bear the fruits of the flesh and at the same
time bring forth those of the spirit ! Can we serve God
and mammon ! Nay ; he that committeth sin is of the
devil. (1 John iii. 8). By their fruits ye shall know
them. (Matt. vii. 20). For a good tree bringeth not
forth corrupt fruit, neither doth a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit. For every tree is known by its own
fruit ; for of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a
bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man, out of
the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth that which
is good ; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure of
his heart, bringeth forth that which is evil ; for out of
the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (Luke
vi. 43-45).

3. Your view contradicts the assertions contained in
the eighth verse. " The wind bloweth where it listeth
and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell
whence it cometh or whither it goeth : so is every one
that is born of the spirit." Here we learn three things ;
1st That the bestowment of the Spirit is according to the
sovereign will of God. The wind is not under the
directions of man — " it bloweth ivhere it listeth." 2nd,
That the mode of its communication and operation is
secret and mysterious, " but canst not tell whence it
cometh or whither it goeth ;" and 3rd That its effects
are open, visible, and easy to be understood, — "thou
hearest the sound thereof." But if your statement of
baptismal regeneration is true, the bestowment of the
spirit, the efficient cause of the change, is under the
direction of man — of the officiating clergyman, who,

20 THE DOCTRINE OF

if he were to deny the administration of the rite, would,
thereby, withhold the communication of the spirit. If
the mode in which it is received is by baptism, it is not
secret and mysterious but plain and palpable. And as
in the very great majority of instances of infant baptism,
no corresponding effects appear, it contradicts the third
assertion also : hence your position cannot be true.

4. The surprise exhibited by our Lord at the ignor-
ance of Nicodemus is another reason against your
doctrine. "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not
these things r" This clearly implies, that he need not
have been ignorant of what Jesus taught, whatever it
was. That is, supposing you are rigid, he might have
been acquainted with baptismal regeneration. But
where might he have learnt it ? Certainly, not in the
Old Testament. It is not even pretended, I believe,
that it can be found there. Not from Christ, for this
was his first interview with him. Not from the disciples,
for they were as ignorant as he. If then this doctrine is
not to be found in the writings of the Old Testament,
and if, notwithstanding this, Nicodemus might have
been acquainted with what our Saviour meant in. the
third and fifth verses, it is perfectly cLar, that there is
no necessary connection between the new birth and
baptism.

This conclusion will appear the more just, if taken in
connection with the eleventh verse. " We speak that
we do know, and testify that we have see?i." Our Lord
preached something which had already been experienced^
it was no new thing. But had baptismal regeneration

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 21

been preached heretofore ? No. Then it was not
preached now ; for he testified only what he had before
seen ; and truly religion in its essence is the same in all
ages, although the means of its conveyance may be
different.

I have spent the longer time over this text, because it
is the one on which you principally rely ; but I hope
you now see that it by no means countenances, but on
the contrary, positively reprobates your opinion.

Titus hi. 5. "According to His mercy he saved us by
the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the
Holy Ghost." Here the enquiry is, does the Apostle
mean one thing by the "washing of regeneration," and
another by the " renewing of the Holy Ghost ?" or does
he mean one and the same thing by the two clauses ; the
latter merely explaining the former ? Some would say,
the context rather inclines to the last supposition. St.
Paul observes, they would argue, that " we are not
saved by works of righteousness, which we have done."
By works of righteousness, he obviously means, actions
which are enjoined, and which we consequently perform.
Now baptism is enjoined, therefore, in this view, it is
a work of righteousness ; and Jesus submitted to John's
baptism to fulfil all righteousness. But we are not
saved by works of righteousness, therefore, not by
baptism ; and so the washing of regeneration cannot
mean baptism. They would say too, that if different
things are meant by the two clauses, baptism is put on
a level with the renewing of the Holy Ghost, making
the one as necessary as the other. It cannot be denied

22 THE DOCTRINE OF

that the latter is absolutely and universally necessary to
salvation, for "without holiness no man shall see the
Lord ;" the former therefore must be the same. But
this contradicts our Church, which teaches that the
sacraments are only " generally necessary to salvation."

I believe, however, with all ancient and modern Com-
mentators, that baptism is meant ; but what has been
said, is enough to shew, that it is prudent not to be too
confident in our assertions, and that those who disagree
with us on this text, may have same reason on their
side. I will take part of your own interpretation and
suppose that the first clause means baptism, and the
second the purifying powers of the spirit, and observe,

1. That we have here an instance of the use of the
word regeneration, as applied to baptismal privileges.
But this admission does not benefit your cause ; for

2. It must be suck a regeneration as altogether ex-
cludes the idea of inward purification ; for what occa-
sion was there to add, " and the renewing of the Holy
Ghost," if that idea was already included in the word

II regeneration ?"

3. If what is included in the word regeneration is
distinct from the renewing of the Holy Ghost, it can-
not be proved, from this text, that when the outward
rite is administered, it is invariably and necessarily fol-
lowed by the inward regeneration of the heart. Should
you be inclined to change your mind, and hold that the
Apostle meant but one thing by the two clauses, you
will do well to consider, that in that case baptism can-
not be proved to have been even thought of when the

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 23

text was penned ; for then, the words, " washing of
regeneration," must be figurative ; and if figurative
they can be explained only by the succeeding sentence,
" and the renewing of the Holy Spirit." You will now
perceive this passage does not serve you.

Your next is, 1 Peter iii. 21. "The like figure
whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not the
putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ." I fancy you have not maturely considered
the meaning of this text, or you surely would not have
produced it ; for fatal it assuredly is to your cause.
What does the Apostle St. Peter assert ?

1. That baptism doth save us. Had nothing else
been added, you would, I acknowledge, have made
out a strong case ; but,

2. What kind of baptism is it, that, he says, saves
us? "iV<?£ the jetting away of the filth of the flesh."
Baptism, by immersion, is, no doubt, referred to,
which would, of course, take away the filth of the
flesh. It seems to me quite evident, that St. Peter
supposes it was very p>ossible to be baptized, and do no
more than put away the filth of the flesh ; or why the
implied denial of the salvation of those who go no
further ? Why make the observation at all, if the
inward grace always accompanies the outward rite ?
Perhaps there were some in his day, who bore no fruits
of the spirit, although they had been baptized. Indeed
St. Peter himself, reproved one who was of this charac-
ter, viz. Simon Magus. " Thou hast neither part nor

THE DOCTRINE OF 24

lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight
of God. For I perceive thou art in the gall of bitter-
ness and the bond of iniquity." Alas how numerous
are such at this .time. To see the lives of many pro-
fessing Christians, is enough to make rivers of water
run down our eyes, because they keep not God's law.
They have been born of water, but not of the spirit ;
they therefore fulfil the desires of the flesh and of the
mind, and are children of wrath even as others who
have not been so privileged, and indeed much more so.
It is " not the putting away the filth of the flesh " — not
submission to the rite — ' ' but the answer of a good con~
science" — inward repentance and faith. You well know
that the catechumens in ancient times were carefully
prepared for baptism, and that at the time of baptism,
they were strictly questioned concerning their faith in
Christ, their renunciation of Satan and his works, the
pomps and vanities of this wicked world, and all the
sinful lusts of the flesh. If they answered sincerely,
with a good conscience, they were saved, pardoned,
justified, and sanctified, because they possessed " re-
pentance towards God, and faith towards the Lord
Jesus Christ." That this explanation is in exact accord-
ance with the standards of our Church, I shall prove
in the proper place. Meanwhile is it not clear, that the
Apostle refers only to adults, for in such alone can the
answer of a good conscience be found. How can you,
then, with so much assurance, gather from this text, that
in all cases of infant baptism, the regeneration of the
heart by the Holy Ghost is sure to be the result. It is

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 25

not so in all adult cases even, although the profession
of faith and repentance is made ; much less can we de-
pend upon it iu those instances where there is no per-
sonal profession at all.

Acts ii. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of
you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission
of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Now observe>

1. That these words are addressed to adults, and
you cannot take a premise which applies only to them
and then draw from it a conclusion which has reference
to infants, unless you can shew there is a parallel be-
tween the two cases, which cannot be done.

2. That the promise of remission of sins and of the
gift of the Holy Ghost, is not fulfilled except on the
condition of repentance as well as baptism. As the
promise would not be fulfilled without baptism, so
neither without repentance. That there can be baptism
without repentance, St. Peter, as we have seen, takes
for granted, and the above instance — that of Simon
Magus, clearly proves. If there is the answer of a good
conscience, as already observed, no doubt he who
makes it does receive the remission of sins and the gift
of the Holy Ghost. But how does this prove, that
when infants are baptized, they are, therefore, regen-
erated and justified ? To find out similar expressions,
I took down Cruden's Concordance, and by it discover-
ed some texts on this subject which never before struck
me. In Luke i. 76, 77, it is said, that John the
Baptist was sent to give the knowledge of salvation by

26 THE DOCTRINE OF

the remission of sins. How did he do this? The
answer is found, chapter iii., verse 3. He came into
all the country about Jordan preaching the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins. The very senti-
ment, and almost the words themselves, contained in
the above address of St. Peter, to the Jews. Now do
you say, that the baptism which John preached conveyed
the remission of sins, and consequently the gift of the
Holy Ghost ? If not, why from this text maintain that
it is so in Christian baptism, when the terms used in
reference to both are the same. This does not contra-
dict the XXVII Article, for that says only that the
promises of forgiveness, &c. are then visibly signed and
sealed. Should you, however, not think so, I must
beg you to suspend your judgment till we come to
that Article.

Acts xxii. 16. " Arise and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord."
Here again, the person addressed is an adult, and more-
over he is directed to pray — to call upon the name of
the Lord. It is evident that St. Paul had both repent-
ance and faith before he was baptized ; for the Lord
had said of him, before Ananias addressed him in the
above words, " behold he prayeth.,'> He prayed too,
so as to be answered, that is clear ; and how could he
have done this without faith ? " Whatever ye shall ask
in my name, believing ye shall receive ;" are the terms
of the promise. Faith is confirmed and grace increased
by virtue of prayer unto God, says the Article on bap-
tism. Call upon the name of the Lord, says Ananias.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 27

On the passage in Eph. v. 26, I will give 'you the
note in the Bishop's Bible, published by authority in
1568. "Baptism is a token that God has consecrated
the church to Himself, and made it holy by His word,
that is, the promise of free justification in Christ."

The passage in Heb. x. 22, speaks of our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience. This implies re-
pentance and faith in the blood of Christ, which alone
can cleanse from the guilt of sin. After that it mentions
our bodies washed with pure water, but says nothing
about the certain dependance of the inward grace upon
the outward ceremony.

I have now investigated the question as far as Scrip-
ture is concerned, and in so doing, have shewn that your
texts, not only are not to be relied upon, but that they
are proofs against you. How it is they have been
pressed into this service, I cannot tell. Their connec-
tion must have been utterly disregarded, and the doctrine
you advocate brought to them and not built upon them.
They have been made to speak not their own language,
but one that has been put into their mouth. Is not this
handling the word of God deceitfully ? Can He, who
desires truth in the hidden part, approve of this ? Will
He not rather condemn it ? Let us, my friend, keep
to the law and to the testimony ; for if we do not speak
according to this rule, it is because there is no light in
us. You have, I believe, advanced all the portions of
God's word, which are usually quoted as evidences of
the truth of the doctrine I am opposing ; and if these
do not support it — and I hope it_ has been proved they

28 THE DOCTRINE OF

do not — I may fairly conclude, it is no where to be
found in the Bible, Then I say it is your plain duty to
abandon it; and I exhort jtou to do so. In my next
letter I intend to shew that it can be no more supported
by the Prayer Book than by the Bible.

When I had arrived at this point, previous to putting
my thoughts together, and was satisfied that your texts
did not favour your doctrine, it struck me that many
others might be found, absolutely inconsistent with it,
and upon searching, I met with the following.

Col. iii. 10. " And have put on the new man which is
renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that
created him." Have all the baptized put on the new
man ? Do they bear the image of God ? No ; they
walk according to the course of this world, according
to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that
now worketh in the children of disobedience. They
cannot therefore be regenerate.

2 Cor. v. 17. "If any man be in Christ he is a new
creature : old things are passed away, behold all things
are become new." Can this be said of the baptized? If
not, then they are not born of the Spirit.

1 John iii. 9, 10. "Whosoever is born of God doth
not commit sin ; for His seed remaineth in him, and he
cannot sin because he is born of God. In this the
children of God are manifest and the children of the
devil: whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God."
Do all baptized persons not commit sin — voluntary,
open, wilful sin 1 Would that we could say so ; but in
truth we cannot. Are they then notwithstanding born

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 29

of God ? No ! lie that committeth sin is of the devil.
Whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, nor known Him.
(1 John iii. 6, 8). Substitute baptism for born of God,
which is perfectly lawful, if it is identical with regen-
eration, or necessarily connected witlVit — and then hear
how it reads : Whosoever is baptized doth not commit
sin, and he cannot sin because he is baptized. Is this
true ? Plainly not. Then regeneration is not the neces-
sary result of baptism.

1 John v. 4. "For whatsoever is born of God over-
cometh the world." Is it true that baptized persons do
this? Ah, no! they love the world, and the things of
the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and
the pride of life — the love of the Father is therefore not
in them. (1 John ii. 15, 16). They cultivate the
friendship of the world, and consequently are the
enemies of God. (James iv. 4). Can they be regener-
ate ? Pray hold not a doctrine which contradicts such
plain practical portions of holy writ.

I will quote one text more from St. John (v. 18).
" We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not,
but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and
that wicked one toucheth him not." This text one of
the Homilies quotes, to prove the same point as that I
am endeavouring to establish, and I intend in the
proper place, to make several extracts from the Homi-
lies, to shew that I am not giving my own opinion only,
but that of the Church, whose doctrines I conscientiously
and heartily believe ; as I am in duty bound by my

subscription.

c 3

30 THE DOCTRINE OF

I have now both negatively and positively proved,
that your opinion is wrong. Do not say, " then no
man can ex animo subscribe to the Common Prayer
Book, if he views this as the teaching of Scripture."
Many, I know, do say so, and accuse those who see
with me, of insincerity, and little less than perjury.
Here is the rock upon which many have split. They
set out with supposing that it is undeniable, that the
Church of England holds this doctrine. They, rightly,
I think, cannot believe, that the Church of England
opposes Scripture, and so come to the conclusion that it
holds this doctrine too. If, therefore, any one de-
nounces it, he is thought not to be an honest, upright
churchman, to be on the road to Dissent, and
to belie his conscience every time he baptizes a child.
Now I enter my protest against all this, and say, in
behalf of my brethren holding similar sentiments with
my own, we yield to none in our bona fide attachment
to the church as she is. We fully preach her doctrines
and carry out her design. Our opinion, on the subject
of these Letters, shrinks not from investigation. We
are as ready to stand upon Church of England ground,
as upon Bible ground, with this view of the doctrine
in our hand. Our hearts echo to all that the Articles,
and catechism, and the services of baptism, and confir-
mation say on the subject. We have no wish to contort
any of them. We take them as they are, we take them
as a whole, and are willing to abide by them. In my
next letter I will endeavour to shew that our cause is
not so groundless according to the standards of our
beloved churchy as it is by some thought to be.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 31

LETTER II.

My dear Friexd,

I now enter upon the most difficult part of
the question ; and feeling this, I have given more than
common attention to it ; and great satisfaction do I find
in the conclusion to which I have come. You endeavour
to support your opinion by referring to the formularies
of our church. I shall proceed to examine the reasons
you produce, drawn from that source, and trust you
will be convinced that the Church of England no more
favours you than the Bible.

The first is, the definition of the Sacraments in the
XXV Article. Sacraments, ordained of Christ, be not
only badges and tokens of Christian mens' profession :
but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual
signs of God's good will towards us ; by the which he
doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken
but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.

As baptism is one of the Sacraments thus defined,
you infer that it must necessarily convey the grace of
regeneration to infants when they are baptized ; for that
otherwise it cannot be a sure witness and an effectual sign

32 THE DOCTRINE OF

of grace. But how is this proved ? Only in a way
which makes the Sacraments, and that of Baptism in
particular, an opus operatum, which is very far from
being the doctrine of the Church of England. Accord-
ing to your interpretation, the Article says, The child
is baptized, and consequently regenerated. But, hap-
pily for the cause of truth, nothing of the sort is
affirmed. Nothing whatever is said about infants, nor
are they regarded, in this Article, as the recipients of
either sacrament ; but adults only ; and in neither party
can either sacrament be effectual without the requisite
moral qualification ; and it is on this account I say,
infants are not herein regarded. I shall soon have the
proper opportunity of explaining and defending myself.
One of your authors intimates, that when we quote a
certain passage from Hooker, we cannot do it with fair-
ness and candour. Recollect, I do not say that the
Sacraments do not convey grace : I only say that they
do not convey it to unworthy x>ersons ; and by unworthy
persons, I mean those who do not come to the Sacra-
ments with those qualifications which the Catechism
demands, from "persons to be baptized," and from
" those who come to the Lord's Supper.1' I have,
therefore, great pleasure in observing, that Hooker
supports me. He says " that the manner of their
necessity to life supernatural, is not, in all respects, as
food unto natural life, because they contain in themselves
no vital force or efficacy ; they are not physical, but
moral instruments of salvation, duties of service and
worship, which unless we perform as the Author of

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 33

grace requireth, they are unprofitable. For all receive
not the grace of God, which receive the Sacraments
of his grace." I wish to say no more than this, nor
can I be content with any thing less. I am quite wil-
ling to add the observation of this author : " The
argument is, that there is an inward grace besides the
outward sign, and that therefore a Sacrament is to be
received as the Author of grace requireth."

The Sacraments are "in themselves" sure witnesses
and effectual signs of grace ; but in their application
to us, they are not so unless we exercise what the church
demands, namely, repentance and faith. Nor need we
be surprised at this, for even the perfect sacrifice of
Christ, and the mighty operations of the Spirit, are
ineffectual without our co-operation. How much more,
then, the Sacraments ! In no part of salvation — and
the sacraments are intimately connected with salvation,
generally necessary, as the Catechism has it — are we
treated as machines, but as agents, capable, by the
help of God, of joining with Him in working out our
salvation, while He works in us, to will and to do, of
His good pleasure. To view it in any other light,
would be to make the sacraments an opus operatum,
and the church inconsistent, not only with herself, but
also with the Bible, the foundation of her faith. You
seem to me altogether to mistake the meaning of the
words "witnesses" and "signs;" or at least the appli-
cation of them. You take it for granted, that no grace
exists, prior to the reception of the sign. But this is
incorrect, as I shall show. Whence did the Articles

34 THE DOCTRINE OF

derive these words ; and the figure involved in them ?
The natural answer is, from the Scriptures! Or, if
this is not admitted, I suppose it will not be contended
that the words are used in a sense opposed to them.
The words " witnesses" and " signs" refer to a con-
tract or bargain, entered into between two parties.
This, one of your authors admits. I will quote his
words, for to my mind he has beautifully expressed it.
" Perhaps we shall be excused for stating, for the advan-
tage of general readers, that in the Latin, the language
in which the Articles were originally drawn up, a word
(obsignantur) is used, which signifies, that the bargain
or contract for the forgiveness of sins, and adoption to
be the sons of God, is then and thereby concluded ;
that a mark is then set, to which on all future occasions
an appeal may be made." Many examples of this use
of the words are to be found in the Bible. God entered
into covenant with Noah ; and the rainbow, when it
was seen, was a sign that God had not forgotten His
promise. He entered into covenant with Abraham also,
and circumcision was the sign. Abraham bought a
field of Ephron, and the sons of Heth were the ivitnesses
that the condition of its transfer had been fulfilled —
that the money had been paid. Jeremiah bought a
field of Hanameel, and paid the money, and subscribed
the evidence, and sealed it, and took ivitnesses. In all
such transactions, the one party makes over certain
property, on the payment of a certain sum ; or, as in
the case of a covenant, bestows certain privileges and
blessings on the fulfilment of certain conditions. In the

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 35

Sacraments, then, we enter into a covenant with God ;
or renew it. He then and there secures to us many
saving blessings ; but he demands the fulfilment of the
conditions. If these are not forthcoming, the blessings
are not bestowed. I mean to apply this observation to
both sacraments, for both are referred to. I ask, there-
fore, does the Article teach us that the Sacraments are
sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, to be given,
and in a sense which implies that no grace has been
received till the Sacraments are administered 1 Does it
not imply grace — preparing grace, repentance, and faith,
as well as convey grace 1 And can the Sacraments per-
form the latter, unless the former exist in those that
receive them 1 Let the Article speak for itself ; and,
in addition to what has been quoted, read the last para-
graph. " And in such only as worthily receive the same
have they a wholesome effect or operation ; but they
that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves
damnation, as St. Paul saith." Three things we plainly
learn,

1. That the sacraments are sure proofs of God's
grace and good will — " they be certain sure witnesses
and effectual signs of grace and God's good will."
Among the many ways in which He shows His loving-
kindness towards us, the sacraments are the chief; and
this was one design of their institution. But further,

2. That by these sacraments He doth work invisibly
in us. Our hearts exult in this. They are not mere
rites meaning almost nothing, as I fear many esteem
them. But how does He work in us by their means ?

36 THE DOCTRINE OF

and what does He accomplish ? It follows. And doth
not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our
faith in Him. Now certainly faith must have previously
existed to be either quickened, strengthened, or con-
firmed by them when they are administered to us. I
ask — to connect it with the particular point in hand —
have infants faith to be quickened, strengthened, or
confirmed? Clearly not. Then infants are not con-
templated in this Article, and consequently it does not
prove, that when they are baptized, they are therefore
regenerated.

3. That they have not a wholesome effect or opera-
tion unless we receive them worthily. What is it to
receive them worthily ? No doubt to possess those
qualifications before mentioned, viz. repentance and
faith. I refer you to the catechism. Can these be in
infants ? No. Then they are not here included. In
adults are the sacraments effectual without them ?
Assuredly not. Then do not the sacraments necessarily
produce any saving effect in either party. On the
contrary, they that receive them unworthily purchase
to themselves damnation. The XXIX Article is to
the same purpose. The wicked and such as are void
of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly
press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the
sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no
wise partakers of Christ, but rather, to their condem-
nation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so
holy a thing. I instance also the exhortation at the
time of the communion. I speak of this Article here

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 37

in reference principally to the Lord's Supper, because
I shall presently have to notice it in reference to the
other sacrament. — But let us stop a moment, and see
what has been proved.

1. That adults only are contemplated in this Article
because they only can fulfil the conditions.

2. That even they receive no benefit, but a curse, if
they receive the sacraments unworthily.

3. That as infants cannot possess the indispensable
qualifications necessary for the worthy reception of bap-
tism, their regeneration, at that time, and by that
means, cannot be proved ; how then does this Article
serve you 1

How in consistency with this, our church defends
infant baptism, shall be considered in due time. Mean-
while I will venture to assert, that the experience of
every true penitent believer bears out the most scriptu-
ral sentiments of this Article. View it again in reference
to the Lord's Table. What are the feelings of the
humbled believer when, at that time, he pours out his
sorrowing soul, in that most devout and penitential
confession which we then use 1 — When he acknowledges
and bewails his manifold sins and wickedness, which he,
from time to time, most grievously has committed in
thought, word, and deed, against the Divine Majesty ;
and says, that the remembrance of them is grievous unto
him, and the burden intolerable 1 Is not his faith
almost ready to expire when he thus feels so acutely the
inconceivable number and unknown aggravation of his
sins 1 But Jesus Christ is evidently set forth crucified
before him. He sees the sure tokens of his Saviour's

D

38 THE DOCTRINE OF

love. He remembers, that that compassionate Saviour
Himself ordained them, and said, " do this in remem-
brance of Me ;" and he is comforted and encouraged.
He draws near, partakes of the precious emblems of his
Kedeemer's death, as " certain sure witnesses and
effectual signs of grace, and God's goodwill towards
him;" his faith is quickened, and he feeds upon Him in
his heart by faith with thanksgiving. A heavenly calm,
a sweet peace, fills his soul, and a holy reverence, his
mind. He mourns not less, nor is he less humbled ;
but he, nevertheless, rejoices in Christ his Saviour.
He has a delightful sense of his acceptance with God,
through the blood of the cross ; and his love is afresh
shed abroad in his heart. What a spur does be thus
gain to obedience ! How careful is he to follow Christ's
example, and to be holy as He is holy ! How watchful
is he, and how does he exercise himself in prayer, lest
he should loose the comfort he feels ! 0 that we could
always enjoy such blessed seasons ; always thus show
forth the Lord's death till He come ! And wherefore
not ? The promises of God are always the same, and
so is the sacrament ; but we do not always come in
repentance and faith. When, however, we do, we are
Christian churchmen indeed ; and who will say then
that it is not a sacrament in its fullest sense — not only
an outward and visible sign, but a sign too of an inward
and spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ
Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same and a
pledge to assure us thereof. The cup of blessing which
we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ?

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 39

The bread which we break, is it not tbe conirnunion of
the body of Christ ?

The XXVII Article " Of baptism," comes next under
review. "Baptism is not only a sign of profession and
mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned
from those who are not christened, but 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 the forgiveness of sins, 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." From
these words you thus argue : that if baptism is a sign
of regeneration, an effectual sign, as we learn from the
XXV Article, the latter must be conveyed by the former.
That if in baptism the promises of forgiveness and of
adoption are visibly signed and sealed, forgiveness and
adoption are always conveyed at that time. Tou will
find yourself greatly mistaken ; for on this supposition
the Article cannot be consistently explained, with either
itself or the XXV Article, (with which you acknowledge
it must be associated) or the Catechism, or the Scrip-
tures. This is saying a great deal, but I hope to make
my words good. I have already given the right key to
the consistent interpretation and will apply it here.

I. " It is a sign of regeneration or new birth." As
far as I can gather, your notion is, that when baptism
is administered, regeneration is sure to follow ; the one
is the cause, the other the effect ; one the means, the
other the end. I am deeply grieved that so many

40 THE DOCTRINE OF

represent the matter in this way. It appears to me to
make the standards of our church a mass of confusion,
and her doctrines utterly irreconcilable with each other.
You again mistake the meaning of the word "sign." A
sign is that by which any thing is shewn or manifested,
and not prefigured. You reason upon the supposition
that a sign is a representation of what shall be given
when the sign is received. The sign in the case of
baptism is an outward washing with water, and the
thing it represents is an inward purification ; and you
argue as if the latter cannot exist until the former is
received. I wish to be understood, that I do not affirm
that baptism does not convey grace when rightly received ;
but I do say that when it is so received, the word refers
to an inward purification already possessed ; though,
from the nature of the case, it cannot be called regenera-
tion, till baptism is administered. I must add, that
unless this inward purification exists before baptism it —
baptism — cannot be a sign of regeneration. By this
inward purification I mean what the catechism calls
repentance and faith. Here lies all the difference ; and
that this is the designed sense of the word, I will shew
from the Article itself, from other parts of our formu-
laries, and from the Scriptures.

1st The Article itself obliges us to this sense. ""Where-
by they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the
church." It is plain then, first, that a personmay re-
ceive baptism wrongly. If not, why restrict the blessing
of being engrafted into the church, to those who receive
it rightly 1 AVhy say rightly at all if we cannot receive

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 41

it wrongly 1 Secondly, That if he does not receive it
rightly, he is not grafted into the church. What is
this but saying that baptism does not necessarily convey
regeneration I The only way to avoid this conclusion is,
to say that a person may be regenerated and not grafted
into the church, which I suppose you will not allow.
Pray ponder this. But what is it to receive baptism
rightly ? To receive it, say some, by water in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
It cannot be, for this is baptism itself ; and the Article
says, "they that receive baptism rightly" and not they
that receive a right baptism. Indeed there is no wrong-
baptism. If it is not administered in the above way, it
is not baptism at all. To suppose otherwise, would be
to make the Article deny the privileges of baptism, to
what is not baptism. But this as a matter of course.
Such a thing required no declaration. There is no
question on that subject. What then is meant 1 The
Article intimates the answer, and the catechism gives it
in plain terms. The first says, "Faith is confirmed and
grace increased." Faith and grace, then, are already
present in the candidate for baptism, or supposed to be
present, for otherwise they could not be increased and
confirmed. One of your authors is very particular in
shewing, that the Article teaches that it is by the act
of baptism, as by an instrument, that faith is confirmed,
and that the expression " by virtue of prayer unto
God," is applied solely to the clause, "grace is in-
creased." I grant it ; but what is got by this, at least
as far as I am concerned ? As the Article is on baptism,

d3

42 THE DOCTRINE OF

it must refer to prayer used at that time ; and if so,
grace must have previously existed, in order to be
increased by virtue of prayer then offered up. But if
this is not conceded, my position is just as good ; for
he grants that faith is confirmed by the act of baptism ;
and it must, therefore, have pre-existed, and, indeed,
without it we cannot receive baptism rightly. Now, I
ask, are not grace and faith the very essence of re-
generation? As far as I can learn, this is not denied.
Then the Article must mean, that baptism is a sign of
regeneration to those who jwssess the requisite qualification
to receive it rightly. Observe, I do not say it is a sign
of regeneration to those who are already regenerated ;
that is not accurate language ; but to those who receive
it with the requisites demanded hy our Church, and in no
other case. But in connection with this, hear the Cate-
chism : " What is required of persons to be baptized ?
Repentance, whereby they forsake sin; and faith,
whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God,
made to them in that sacrament. This will be the
place in which to advert to a note of one of your au-
thors : " We think it quite consistent with Scripture to
believe that grace to a certain degree, and faith in a
certain sense, are vouchsafed before the baptism of
adults." This seems to me to be saying very little. By
grace in a " certain degree," does he mean a loio de-
gree ? I wish he had told us to what degree. And
when he says " faith in a certain sense," does he refer
to degree or quality. If to the latter, there can be but
cne faith. A spurious faith is not faith. If to the

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 43

former, then in whatever degree it exists, it is faith — ■
faint and feeble, perhaps, but it is faith. And then,
only quite consistent with Scripture to believe it. He
ought to have said " Scripture requires us to believe it,"
unless he holds that our Church requires more than the
Scriptures. The above answer, however, settles the
matter. It could scarcely be clearer. That kind of
repentance is required, by which we forsake sin; and
that kind of faith by which we steadfastly believe the
promises of God made to us in that sacrament. These
graces are true and genuine, and such as the spirit of
God alone can produce. And let me add, they are
required of all persons to be baptized. I infer from
the above note, that the Author who wrota it, thinks
the case of infants is an exception, but it cannot be so,
for this would be making two baptisms, one for adults,
and another for infants ; and we know there is but one.
As the Bible requires these qualifications and as it makes
no exception in the case of infants, our church, ac-
cording to her VI Article, has no right to make any in
their favour. Nor dees she, as the next question in the
catechism shews. " Why then are infants baptized
when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform
them ?" Now if infants were not included in the pre-
ceding answer, there could be no reason whatever to
ask such a question. Infants are admitted to baptism
on precisely the same ground as adults, that is, because
they profess repentance and faith. "Because they
promise them both (iepentance and faith) by their
sureties." You will ask here, whether I believe the

44 THE DOCTRINE OF

church pronounces the child regenerate, on condition of
what it shall bring forth at a future period ? Certainly
not ; but upon what it has already done, or, (which
comes to the same thing as far as the question is con-
cerned) professed to have done. It is important to
observe that the church, as well as Scripture, requires
repentance and faith previous to baptism in all cases.
At the expense of repetition I ask, are not repentance
and faith the essence of regeneration ? They are. And
are they required before baptism can be administered ?
Yes. Then baptism is a sign of regeneration to those
only who possess the requisite qualification. But to
bring a proof from Scripture, let me refer to that part
which, I cannot but think, supplied the language used
in the Article under consideration. We meet with the
following incidents in the life of Abraham. About a
year before the birth of Ishmael the Lord God appeared
to him, and gave him a certain promise concerning his
seed. That he should have seed, was not, according
to nature, likely to occur ; but " he believed in the
Lord and He counted it to him for righteousness."
(Gen. xv. 1--6). When Ishmael was thirteen years old,
that is about fourteen years after the Lord's appearance,
he was allowed and commanded to enter into a visible
covenant with God by means of circumcision. He
obeyed the command, and the rite became to him an
outward and visible sign, of an inward and spiritual
grace. But whether or not it was what we call a sacra-
ment, does not concern me to enquire, (though I suppose
it will not be denied,) nor is it necessary to my argu-

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 45

ment that it should be so. I refer to it as an illustration
as well as a proof, and I do it with the greater confi-
dence, because the Apostle Paul comments upon these
circumstances in this way. " We say that faith was
reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it
then reckoned ? when he was in circumcision or uncircum-
cision ? Not in circumcision, but in tmcircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had, yet
heing uncircumcised." This, for my purpose, is re-
markable language, and I beg your particular attention
to it. Circumcision was a sign to Abraham of what he
had in his possession for fourteen years, and not of what
he received by it. Now when we consider, that bap-
tism under the new dispensation has taken the place of
circumcision under the old, that our church founds all
her doctrines and statements upon the word of God, that
she teaches her members to pray for the true circum-
cision of the Spirit, and that, associated with the collect
where this petition is found, is placed for the Epistle,
that very portion of the Romans above quoted, is it not
most natural to believe that these verses supplied the
expressions of the Article under consideration ? But
whether or not, my proof is equally conclusive. We
have the use of the word sign, in a transaction which
answers as nearly as possible to our idea of a sacrament,
not in reference to what was received by that sign, but
to what was enjoyed long before it was submitted to.
I produce the Scriptural proof last here, because it is
barely possible, abstractedly speaking, that the word may

46 THE DOCTRINE OF

mean one thing in the Article and another thing there;
but having before proved my position from the Article
itself, I may well be allowed to support it by revela-
tion, and in so doing, to shew how it harmonizes with
the sentiments therein contained.

II. The Article further says, "The promises of for-
giveness of sins, and of our adoption to be the sons of
God by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed."
From these words you contend, that justification and
adoption are communicated to the infant by baptism.
"The infant," says another of your authors, "is justifi-
ed as well as sanctified at baptism." But can this be
the true construction of this language ? I think not. It
says only that the promises of these blessings are visibly
signed and sealed, not that the blessings themselves are
conveyed by baptism. I refer you again to the example
in the case of Abraham. " He believed God and it was
accounted to him for righteousness, and he received the
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the
faith which he had." St. Paul writes to the Ephesians
thus, "After that that ye believed ye were sealed with
that Holy Spirit of promise" I have already proved
that a person cannot receive baptism rightly without
faith. Now it is certain that wherever faith exists,
justification and adoption are also present ; for St. Paul
declares " that we are justified by faith without the
deeds of the law ;" and that we are the children of God
by faith in Christ Jesus." Now if we are justified by
faith only, and if faith is one of the requisites which the
church demands in order to be baptiaed, justification is

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 47

not conveyed by baptism. It is not then given, but
visibly signed and sealed ; or, as one of your authors
expresses it, " The bargain or contract for the forgive-
ness of sins and adoption to be the sons of God is then
and thereby concluded." This, he says, is the meaning
of the word obsignantur, which is used in the Latin
Article. But hear the church on this subject. She says
in her XI Article, " We are accounted righteous before
God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ by faith, and not for our own works and deserv-
ings." Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is
a most wholesome doctrine. Here is the very premise
whence I drew my conclusion, and I say again, as we
are justified by faith only, and as faith must exist
before baptism can be rightly received, and as an infant
cannot have faith, therefore the child is not justified at
baptism. Do you think, that such wise men as our
Reformers, would have said in one place that we are
justified by faith only, in another that infants cannot
perform the condition of faith, and yet teach in a third
that they are justified at baptism ? I can never believe
it. No ; they tell us it is declared, not bestowed, at
baptism ; and so are consistent with themselves and
God's word too.

Additional evidence may be gained from the XIII
Article, which says, " Works done before the grace of
Christ and inspiration of His Spirit are not pleasant to
God." I must beg you to observe that the title of this
Article is " Of Works before Justification" From these
words two things are evident. First, that infants are

48 THE DOCTRINE OF

not contemplated, for they can do no works of any kind
whatever. Secondly, that remission of sins, the grace
of Christ, and the gift of the Spirit, are not necessarily
conveyed at baptism. Here are persons grown up and
able to perform works apparently good, who have none
of them. Nothing can be plainer, than that this Article
supposes that persons may be baptized, and yet not
possess any of those blessings which you say are always
conveyed by baptism. Indeed your principle of inter-
pretation involves the church in endless difficulties and
perplexities ; and I may add that the one advocated in
these pages extricates her from the whole and shews
her to be both consistent and scriptural.
Let us see again what has been proved ?

1. That baptism is a sign of regeneration only to
those who possess a certain qualification, namely, re*
pentance and faith.

2. That as infants cannot have repentance and
faith, they cannot receive baptism rightly according to
this sense.

3. That therefore this Article does not support but
positively disproves your notion of infant baptismal
regeneration.

Perhaps you will now say to me you prove too much ;
for if what has been stated is true, infants ought not to
be baptized at all. This truly is the conclusion many
have come to, and they act accordingly ; and perhaps
we should have fallen into the same error if we had
not had the Church to guide us. Who can help ad-
miring her wisdom and moderation in this matter:

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 49

She had opposite errors to contend against, — the Popish
error of regeneration as the necessary consequence of
infant baptism on the one hand, and the Anabaptist error
of not allowing infants to be baptized, on the other. She
firmly and discreetly opposes both, rejecting the one,
and yet retaining the other. I say rejecting the one,
for at the Reformation a great change was made in this
Article of faith, upon which change I shall build an
argument in the proper place. This brings me to the
last paragraph to be noticed.

III. "The baptism of young children is in any wise
to be retained in the church as most agreeable with the
institution of Christ." You see they felt your own
difficulty and made provision, lest it should drive us
away from any part of the truth. But why was this
added if your doctrine of baptismal regeneration was still
intended to he taught ? On this supposition it cannot
be accounted for, and it is both unnecessary and absurd;
as well as a similar addition in the catechism. It plainly
proves that adults only were contemplated; and of
them, those only who were duly qualified. It is very
likely that some of the Anabaptist objectors said,
" you have expunged the doctrine of baptismal regen-
eration from your articles of faith ; you require repent-
ance whereby sin is forsaken, and a steadfast faith to be
in the candidate for baptism ; and yet you allow infants
to be baptized although you acknowledge they cannot
perform them." He. was a difficulty — an apparent
inconsistency. But he. v did our Bishops avoid it? Did
they reinstate the Article they had abolished, and thus

50 THE DOCTRINE OF

again embrace error to avoid a supposed incongruity ?
Or did they yield to the clamour, and forbid infants
being brought to Christ ? Or did they say, we will
give up the qualification and then infants may be con-
sistently baptized ? Any of these alternatives would
have sufficed to silence the objection urged. But no,
they chose none of them. All disagreed with their
avowed guide, the word of the living God. They
calmly viewed the whole question, and, in doing so,
said, we may suppose thus : " We will not re-adopt
the article of faith which teaches infant baptismal re-
generation— what we have altered we have altered ;
that shall stand. We must not forbid children coming
to their only Saviour. Forbid any one coming to Him !
Grievous even to think of! Our office is to invite — not
forbid. Infants too were brought into covenant with God
by circumcision, when eight days old, under a dispen-
sation, the privileges of which were far less than those
of our own. And beside this, Christ himself said,
1 Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to
come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.'
No, this must not be entertained for a moment. We
dare not lower the standard of qualification. St. Peter
said " Repent and be baptized ;" and St. Philip, ' If
thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest ' be
baptized. That, too, would be making baptism the
mere putting away of the filth of the flesh, and not the
answer of a good conscience towards God ; and also
reducing this sacrament to one part only, the outward
and visible sign, omitting the inward and spiritual grace."

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 51

With what substantial satisfaction may we contemplate
the course they pursued in this difficulty. They were
as cautious as firm. Theirs was no puny intellect,
leading them to take a one sided view of the subject.
They grasped it in all its parts. Truly the Great Head
of the church endued them with heavenly wisdom and
prudence. While others went astray they were kept in
this narrow path of truth. The Spirit of God dwelt in
their heart, and His word on their tongues, and Eng-
land reaps the benefit of their gifts and graces. How
thankful ought we their descendants to be ! They ex-
amined every inch of their way, and felt as they
proceeded, that they stood on firm ground. In the
paragraph therefore I am examining they say, Children
have ever been baptized from the earliest ages, therefore
" the baptism of young children is in any wise to be " —
not brought into, but " retained in the church." Jesus
commanded the children to be brought unto Him,
therefore it is most agreeable to His institution, for He
does not say any thing in one place that contradicts what
He orders in another. But here begun their difficulty.
They had demanded qualifications for baptism which
they knew infants could not bring ; and yet, as we have
seen, they could not relinquish them without opposing
the Bible, which they would not do let the consequences
be what they might. What did they do in this dilemma ?
We may suppose they went to their usual guide in
perplexities ; nor did it fail them. They must have
found that Christianity itself is founded upon the
principle of substitution. Christ stood in the place of

52 THE DOCTRINE OF

sinners, and why not introduce the same principle here ?
Is there any thing in the nature of the case to forbid it ?
Nothing. Does Scripture either directly or by implica-
tion prohibit it. They could answer, No. They went
further, and found that the principle had always been
acted upon from primitive ages — that Godfathers and
Godmothers were ever admitted to stand sureties for
children. In this they possessed all they desired. All
apparently conflicting doctrines were reconciled by this
practice, and it became the key stone of the archway
they had erected. They kept up their high standard of
qualification, making no exceptions in the case of any
one. Children shall be brought to the ordinance of
Christ, said they, but they must come in the character
of penitent believers ; and to ensure their being trained
up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, we will
require sureties who shall be responsible for that right
training. Here they stood, and wrote, " What is re-
quired of persons to be baptized ? Repentance, where-
by they forsake sin, and faith, whereby they steadfastly
believe the promises of God made to them in that
sacrament. Why then are infants baptized when by
reason of their tender age they cannot perform them ?
Because they promise them both by their sureties, which
promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound
to perform."' Thus they took the Bible for their guide
and the primitive church for their model ; and we, as a
ronsequence, have a constitution the nearest of any to
Apostolic usage, some of our enemies themselves being
judges. I hope you see that children are allowed to

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 53

come to the sacrament of baptism only on the ground
that they are properly qualified. They are baptized on
precisely the same account as adults : namely, because
repentance and faith have been professed. I say pro-
fessed; for we are able to take cognizance of nothing
else. From the nature of the case, whether they are
regenerate in fact, remains to be proved as opportunity
serves.

But you will say the office of baptism declares the
baptized child regenerate by the Holy Ghost. This
may seem at variance with me, but it is not really so.
I do not see how the church could consistently order
any thing less, after requiring the child to make a true
confession of faith and repentance. I will, however,
shew you that there is no inconsistency between the
baptismal services, and my way of explaining the
Articles and Catechism. Remember it is no question of
ours whether the profession is sincere. If it is made at
all, either personally or substitutionally, we are bound
to receive it as sincere, and act accordingly. God alone
can judge the heart. Bearing this in mind consider,

1. That I have proved that repentance and faith are

required of persons to be baptized, and that these graces

are the essence of regeneration. But then repentance

and faith are not complete or perfected until baptism

has been submitted to. Repentance is not repentance

unless it brings forth its appropriate fruits — leaving off

sin and practising Christ's commands. Now suppose a

man were to cease from doing evil, and were to keep all

Christ's commands but one, could we consider him a true

E 3

54

THE DOCTRINE OF

and complete penitent believer ? Could we declare him
regenerate ? Of course not. He is so far defective.
There is one fruit of repentance he does not bring forth,
one command he wilfully breaks. It may arise from
ignorance or obstinacy. No matter ; his repentance is
not scriptural. He holds fast one sin and " whosoever
offends in one point is guilty of all." Transfer these
ideas to the point in hand. Suppose a person works no
iniquity, and keeps every command of Christ but that
one to be baptized ; is he regenerate ? No ! He is not
far from the kingdom of God but he is not in it. He
does not bring forth all the fruits of repentance and faith
in his power. He breaks one command. Christ said to
His disciples, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you. If indeed
he cannot procure baptism, he shall be saved without it,
for the sacraments are only generally necessary to salva-
tion. But if he can and refuses to do so, I acknowledge
I do not see how he can be saved. He breaks Christ's
command, and how can this be done with impunity ?
If however he obeys, he produces the deficient evidence
of his sincere attachment to Christ. He brings forth
the last required fruit, so to speak, of his repentance
towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ —
he is baptized and regenerated. Mark, he is regenerated
in baptism. The top stone is then brought on, and the
building so far complete. From the nature of the case,
all the fruits of repentance cannot be brought forth

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 55

except at and by baptism, and thus we may be said to be
then regenerated. In this sense I have no objection to
hold that baptism conveys regeneration, and in this sense
alone can our church be proved to hold it. I know that in
the early church they applied strong language to baptism ;
and perhaps they had good reason — reason which we,
in these days of peace, cannot have. When persecution
raged, none would be baptized but those that were
attached to Christ and His cause. They must have had
repentance and faith. At such a time nothing was got
by their profession but outward disgrace and misery,
and perhaps loss of property, and even life. Now when,
notwithstanding this, persons were found who dared to
be baptized, thus giving a bold and decided, an open and
clear proof, to a wicked generation, of not being asham-
ed of Christ and His words, it must be admitted, that
before they took such a step the grace of Cod wrought
powerfully in them. Under such circumstances, too,
baptism was specially important. If it was shunned,
there was some sinful reserve. But when, in the midst
of opposition, it was sought and submitted to, we need
not be surprised if they did apply strong and endearing
language to an act, by which they gave conclusive
evidence of their love to the Jesus. It was a rite
in which they left all for Christ, taking Him for their
God, and His law ^for their rule — a rite in which He
took them for His people, therein making over to them
all the rich blessings of the gospel, and visibly signing
their forgiveness and adoption. But in our days the
mere act of being baptized is no proof of inward grace,

56 THE DOCTRINE OF

and consequently we cannot speak of the result with such
confidence as they. Baptism is the same as ever, but
we do not come to it with such earnest and devoted
hearts ; and it is not a sacrament, unless there is the
inward and spiritual grace, as well as the outward sign.
We are far too apt to magnify the latter and forget the
former, so that we are reminded of Bishop Burnet's
words, "Oh! that men had not so soon confused the
divine thing, and the sign which represented it ; and
had not wished to bind the work of the Spirit on the
outward sign."

You will not forget, that infants are received upon
the ground of their being, as far as we can judge —
and we can judge no farther than the profession — peni-
tent believers. If, then, they are presented for baptism
in that character, and they there bring forth the only
remaining fruit of repentance and faith, is there not
great propriety in declaring concerning each one, Seeing
now, dearly beloved, that this child is by baptism re-
generate, and grafted into the body of Christ's church,
&c. &c. ? There is no inconsistency, here, then, either
in the church, or in my way of explaining her formu-
laries. But this will be more evident if you consider,

2. That the priest and congregation present pray
that the child may be regenerated. And they are en-
couraged to this by that precious promise of Christ,
blended in the second prayer : " Ask and it shall be
given ; seek and ye shall find." Now you must know,
that while I firmly deny the necessary consequence of
regeneration upon infant baptism, I do not say that re-

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 57

generation in such a case is impossible. There is
nothing to make it so. God can as well regenerate
a child, as an adult ; for the wind bloweth where it
listeth. Now, as this is the case, and as the required
qualification is substitutionally present, and as the gift
itself has been asked for, why should we not believe
that God has heard prayer, and blessed His own ordi-
nance ; and praise Him for it ? saying, " We yield
thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath
pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy
Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption,
and to incorporate him into thy holy church r" To direct
otherwise would be to say that we might pray, and pray
too in faith, and according to God's will, — for all this
is supposed — and yet not be answered. It would be
encouraging unbelief; a sin which requires to be rooted
out, and not fostered. The church, in a word, would
be most inconsistent with herself; but as it is, she is
beautiful and harmonious ; and I love harmony, es-
pecially church harmony, too well to wish to produce
a discordant note in the song of praise which we sing to
our heavenly Father, at the joyous time of dedicating
our dear little ones to Him. I am not like some who
would alter our baptismal service. I would not alter a
word. Something like a license would then be given
to the carelessness and want of devotion which we are
so often pained to see during the administration of bap-
tism. Our Reformers were men of faith, and framed
the service in faith, and intended that we shoidd use
it in faith ; and they silently condemn us if we do not.

58 THE DOCTRINE OF

But you will still say, is it not a manifest contradiction
to pronounce a child regenerate, when at the same time
we believe it is possible, and, perhaps, probable that
he is not so? I think not; but you shall judge when
you have considered,

3. The inconsistency of the opposite course. Here
is the child presented in the character of a true peni-
tent. We have prayed for his regeneration, and God
has promised whatever we ask according to His will.
The act of baptism is performed, and then what shall
we say, or do ? There are but three alternatives : either
we must declare him regenerate, or not regenerate, or
we must be silent. Shall we take the second, and de-
clare the child is not regenerate ? What ! after we have
prayed to the contrary ? Would it not be rash in the
highest degree ? Shall we presume to limit the Holy
One of Israel ? How can we know that He has not
regenerated the child ? Has he said He will not ?
We cannot take this alternative. Shall we, then, take
the third ? This is but a shade better than the second.
We are driven to the first. It is the only consistent
course; though the positive proof of it, as a matter of
fact, cannot yet be given. Add one consideration
more, namely,

4. That this is not the only instance in which our
church pronounces the bestowment of blessings upon
the profession of the required conditions. I say upon
the profession; for this is all we can take cognizance
of. We are not able to judge whether the inward and
spiritual grace corresponding to the profession is pre-

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 59

sent. If it is not, the sin lies at their door ; not at ours.
In the daily service, the congregation are supposed to
confess their sins, with a humble, lowly, penitent, and
obedient heart. Here repentance and faith are pro-
fessed ; and, undoubtedly, if they really exist, pardon
is bestowed. The minister, consequently, is instructed
" to declare and pronounce to God's people, being peni-
tent, the absolution and remission of their sins." But
is every one who joins in the confession forgiven ?
Nobody believes it. Yet what is done here more or
less than in the baptismal service ? Take another ex-
ample more to the point, if possible, than this, from
the visitation of the sick. The sick man professes his
repentance and faith ; and upon that, absolution is
pronounced in a more direct manner than in the daily
service. But is he forgiven ? Yes, indeed, if he is
sincere — not because pardon is pronounced, but because
he repents and believes the Gospel. But who will take
it upon him to say, that every sick man, with whom
this service is used, is sincere ? You will say, with
this we have nothing to do. Just so. Absolution is
pronounced upon the supposition that the profession is
true and faithful. We must, however, perceive, that
our knowledge of pardon being really given, is no more
certain than is our knowledge that the person is a true
penitent. So in the case of the child. He comes in
the character of a sincere penitent, nor can we, with
any propriety, pronounce a decision except in accord-
ance with the profession. When Philip the Deacon
baptized Simon Magus, no doubt he thought him sin-

60 THE DOCTRINE OF

cere ; and when, after his baptism, he continued with
him wondering at the miracles and signs which he saw,
Philip must have looked upon him as an upright dis-
ciple of Christ ; and have treated him as such. And
if he had to make any declaration concerning him to
Peter, when he presented him for confirmation, we are
obliged to suppose it was, that he had been born of God.
But did it turn out so? It did not. When certain
circumstances arose, he shewed himself in his true
colours. Peter said to him — going upon the principle
" By their fruits ye shall know them " — " Thy heart is
not right in the sight of God. For I perceive thou art
in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."
I trust I have said enough to show, that there is no
inconsistency in my scheme, nor any impropriety in
thanking God that the child is regenerated, upon the
supposition only that he is so. Whether he is really
so, remains to be proved or disproved by his conduct
in after life. Whether the sick man is forgiven must be
shewn by his conversation upon his recovery. If he
was, he will love God in proportion to what was for-
given ; and the love of God always leads to the keeping
of His commands. If he was not, he will be as bad as
before, perhaps worse. The wicked lives of the vast
majority of baptized persons, prove they were not re-
generated ; and to address them as such while they
follow, and not renounce, the devil and all his works,
the pomps and vanities of this wicked world, and all
the sinful lusts of the flesh, is, it appears to me, taking
measures to send them to the gra\e with a lie in their

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 61

right hand — is antinomianisrn in its worst forms, and
m est delusive to the souls of men.

Another thought strikes me. The Scriptures through-
out denounce sin, and enjoin a perfect conformity to the
law of God ; and yet they every where suppose that
this will not be done, and make provision accordingly.
" My little children," says St. John, " these things I
write unto you that ye sin not." This is tantamount to
an injunction. But did he believe it would be obeyed?
Not so. " But if any man sin we have an Advocate
■with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and He is
the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but
also for the sins of the whole world." Sin is not allowed
but forbidden ; yet if, notwithstanding this, we should
sin — should be overtaken in a fault, — there is no cause
for despair. Cause there is for shame and godly sorrow,
but not for despair ; for we diave still an Intercessor :
God is still willing to forgive. In this passage a su])-
j>osition is made, which is not believed to be real. You
are told not to sin, and yet it is taken for granted that
you will sin. Indeed if there is any incongruity in my
way of explaining the standards of our church, it belongs
to the Bible as well as to me. We have seen that it does
not teach what you call baptismal regeneration ; that it
requires such conditions from persons to be baptized as
infants cannot fulfil ; and yet it commands that children
should be brought to Christ. How we can obey the
command and yet demand the conditions in such a case
I do not see, except in the way in which our church has
done it ; and how we can demand the conditions and

62 THE DOCTRINE OF

obtain them (as far as we can judge) either substitu-
tional^ or personally, and not pronounce the blessings
promised through the merits of Christ to the performance
of those conditions, I do not know. If the church had
omitted any thing she had enjoined, she would not have
been, in this matter, such a perfect whole. As it is, all
the parts are beautifully adapted the one to the other,
and I shall never cease to adore that wisdom and good-
ness which kept our Reformers from going astray where
the liability to it was so great, and the temptations so
many ; and at a time, too, when many did go astray,
either on the one side or other.

We next examine the Catechism. I have already
been obliged to intrench upon this ground ; so that the
less need be said now. The second answer is as follows :
" In my baptism, wherein I was made a member of
Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom
of heaven." If you apply the principle already laid
down, no difficulty will be seen here. Every child who
repeats this answer, was presented at baptism as one
professing repentance and faith. If he is yet so young,
— and the Catechism was made for young children, — •
that we are not able to discover any thing contrary to
what was pronounced at baptism, we have no right to
alter our judgment respecting him. But if he is grown
up, and gives positive evidence that he is in the flesh,
and not in the spirit, then, I humbly conceive that it
is our duty, as good stewards of the mysteries of God,
giving unto all the household their portion of meat in
due season, and bringing out of our treasury things new

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 63

and old, to address him in the spirit and words of the
first of those texts at the beginning of morning and
evening prayers, " When the wicked man turneth away
from hi^ wickedness that he hath committe.l, and doeth
that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul
alive." If you ask me upon what ground I, as a
Clergyman, come to this conclusion, the answer is, upon
that of the XI and XIII Articles. To see the force of
them, you must consider, that our Reformers could not,
with scripture on their side, forbid children to be bap-
tized ; nor could they, in consistency with the same
scriptures, allow them to partake of this sacrament ex-
cept as persons who had fulfilled the required conditions.
And this being the case, they could do no less than
pronounce the bestowment of the blessings attached to
their performance, and treat the baptized party as hav-
ing them in his possession. So far all is clear ; and it
is equally clear to my mind that, although, on the
ground above mentioned, they pronounce every baptized
child regenerate, yet they did not expect it would be
so in fact ; and this I consider is proved by the two
Articles I have named. The first says, that we are
justified by faith only, and refers us to the " Homily of
Justification,"'* where this is conclusively proved. Now,
if we are justified by faith only, then we were not justi-
fied at our baptism ; for being then infants, we could
not exercise the faith without which no flesh living can
be justified. Is it not plain that this Article is framed

* Its title on the Book of Homilies is, " On Salvation."

64 THE DOCTRINE OF

upon the supposition that we were not regenerated, and
consequently not justified at baptism 1 The XIII Article
is still clearer if possible than this. It speaks of works
done before justification, and before the grace of Christ,
and also before the inspiration of the Spirit. But can
it mean works done before our baptism in infancy, when,
you say, these blessings are always bestowed ? It is
impossible to believe it ! Most evident it is, that our
Reformers took it for granted, that although we are
baptized in our infancy, yet many of us would grow
up without either the grace of Christ, or the inspiration
of the Spirit, or justification ; and therefore, not the
children of God. Now when persons give evidence by
their wicked lives that this is the case, I am no more
than carrying out my ordination vows, and obeying the
directions of our Church, when I tell them not to mar-
vel if I say, "ye must be born again." It is necessary
that you should become new creatures in Christ Jesus.
" Old things must pass away ; behold, all things must
become new."

The definition of a sacrament comes next : " I mean
an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual
grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a
means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to
assure us thereof." Here, you observe, baptism is a
means by which we receive the inward and spiritual
grace of baptism, viz. regeneration. Apply my principle
again. Let a person come prepared in the way the
church requires, (and this preparation is implied in all
her formularies) and I do not deny that he is regener-

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 65

ated, in baptism, in the sense above laid down. Indeed
it is the key which opens, without any force whatever,
all the difficult locks I have yet found. By its means
I can easily enter all the spacious apartments of the
building of our church, and see their richness and
beauty ; and I assure you as I walk through them, I
experience great satisfaction from the discoveries which
are every where made.

But I find there is another way of answering you —
Mr. Faber's way. I must recall to your mind what it
is I oppose— that baptism is the necessary, certain, and
only conveyer of regeneration. I do not say that it can-
not convey regeneration, nor that it never does so. In
the bestowment of grace, God is a Sovereign, whether
it respects the person, means, or time. Now it is very
observable, and I dare say you have noticed it, that
this definition does not say, the means, but a means. If
it had affirmed more it would have contradicted St.
Peter where he writes, " Being born again, not of cor-
ruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God,
which liveth and abideth for ever."' I have no doubt but
it is a means by which some receive it. Have we not
known children, who from their infancy have exhibited
a heavenly, Christ-like disposition, delighting in com-
munion with God and every other holy exercise ? But
to say that it is the means, the means exclusively, is not
taking the catechism as it is. I do not forget that one of
your authors objects to this construction. But when I
stand upon the same ground with Mr. Faber, I am in

very respectable companv, and this perhaps may lessen

f3

66 THE DOCTRINE OF

the odium of opposing his judgment ; for I willingly
acknowledge he is clever, and that his argument is
ingenious. He comes to the conclusion that, " baptism
is by the church delared to be a, or one of the means of
grace ; but the, or, tlie sole appointed means of that
particular grace designated regeneration." The strength
of his reasoning is here, that, according to him, " the
answer alludes to grace not conveyed through the sacra-
ment." His argument, in short, is this ; "As a means
and a pledge implies other means and other pledges,
why should not an inward grace imply other graces
too ?" For this plain reason, that there is a word which
makes the grace definite, but nothing which makes the
means so. Read the answer again. " I mean an outward
and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given
unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means where-
by we receive the same." The word same definitely
fixes what grace is meant ; namely, that one represented
by the ordinance, and that one is, he tells us, regenera-
tion. This answer, then, does teach us, that baptism is
a means by which we receive regeneration, but not the
sole means. This author so often hints at the lack of
critical acumen, and fair exposition in his antagonist, and
so frequently enjoys, apparently, a triumph over him,
that I had almost caught the same spirit ; but I forbear,
remembering that he is a Christian brother, and a cleri-
cal brother too. I forgot in the right place to notice the
private service of baptism, but that is of no consequence.
I will do it here. On it, you remark, that although
there are no sponsors, yet the child is pronounced

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 67

regenerate. I answer whether the child be baptized in
public or private, it can be received only in the character
of one possessing the required qualifications. The
question in the catechism is not, What is required of
persons to be baptized tvhen they briny sponsors ; but it
is put in the abstract, without any adjuncts or accidents
whatever ; " of persons to be baptized.'' Plainly, under
any circumstances, in private or public, with or without
sponsors, in childhood or in riper years. The church
does no more relax her requirements in the case of a
child privately baptized, than in that of one publicly
baptized. She does not say, that it is the presence of
sponsors, or of any one else, which makes the baptism
of infants valid ; nor do I ; but it is, that they are
brought upon the ground of their having true repentance,
and a steadfast faith. It is true we cannot be sure that
infants have these graces, and as in the event of their
not having them in due time, our holy vocation would
be disgraced, the church takes security of the sureties,
that they shall, in proper season, be forthcoming ; and
these sureties are responsible, if not for the actual
appearance of the fruits of righteousness, yet for their
having used every possible means that they may appear.
There is nothing therefore in the fact you notice which
militates against my view of the subject.

You refer me to the Nicene Creed. " I believe in one
baptism for the remission of sins ;" and the interpretation
you give of it is, that when the child is baptized his
sins are at the same time forgiven. This is contrary to
what I have shewn is the plain meaning of the church

68 THE DOCTRINE OF

in other places ; and certainly she does not intend to
contradict herself in any of her authorized formularies.
The creed is necessarily short, and therefore ambiguous.
I say amhiguous, for it says nothing about the applica-
tion of baptism ; and, as far as it is concerned, the opus
operatum question could not be disproved. We must
seek for information some where else ; and where but in
the Articles and Catechism ? From them we learn that
they who receive baptism rightly, with repentance and
faith, are grafted into the church ; (to such) the
promises of forgiveness of sins are visibly signed and
sealed. Our church is most wise and prudent and
strictly follows the example of the Bible. In those
parts where she lays down her doctrines, she says
nothing at all about particular persons, nor does she
order us to say that this one, or that one is fit for bap-
tism ; but describes the character of those that are fit.
All persons knowing the conditions, must not present
themselves, or others, unless they are fulfilled, or
professed to have been fulfilled ; and she takes a solemn
promise of them or of their sureties to this effect. I say
again, it is not for us to judge them. If they say they
are sincere, we are bound so to believe them, until they
give undoubted evidence to the contrary. If they really
possess what they profess, their sins are remitted ; or,
as the creed expresses it, they are baptized for the
remission of sins ; or, to use the words of St. Peter,
which include the qualification, the rite itself, and the
blessedness of it, "Repent and be baptized every one of

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 69

you, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost."

Before I conclude, there is an argument against you
of a general nature, which I must not fail to uro-e. I
allude to the change which took place in this doctrine at
the time of the Reformation. No one will deny, that
the doctrine of infant baptismal regeneration, which you
and many others now advocate, was held by the Papists
before the Reformation. The question is, was this one
of the things which were rejected ? If I can shew you
that it was, and this I hope to do, it will be a conclusive
proof that the Protestant Church of England does not
embrace it. Now in 1816 Dr. (afterwards Bishop)
Laurence, Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ's
Church, undertook to defend Bishop Mant, who had
written on your side of the question, and who was
answered by, I think, Scott. Laurence quotes, in
his favour, as he thinks, from the " Book of Articles,"
published by royal authority in the year 1536 ; and
which was composed in Convocation, and signed by the
Members on the eleventh of July of that year. His
quotation, he says, is from Vol. Ill of Wilkins's Con-
cilia Magnse Brittaniaa, page 819 ; in which a copy of
these Articles may be found. No doubt he quotes the
strongest passage he could find for his purpose ; but I
think you will see it substantiates the view advocated in
these pages. The following is the quotation.

" In the directions there given, all Bishops and
preachers are required, among other things, to teach
the people, " that men or children having the use of

70 THE DOCTRINE OF

reason, and willing and desirous to be baptized, shall
by virtue of that holy sacrament obtain the grace and
remission of all their sins, if they shall come thereunto
perfectly and truly repentant, and contrite of all their
sins before committed; and also 'perfectly and constantly
confessing and believing all the articles of our faith
according as it was mentioned in the Article before, or
else not. And finally, if they shall also have firm
credence and trust in the promise of God adjoined to the
said sacrament, that is to say, that in and by this
said sacrament which they shall receive, God the
Father giveth unto them, for His Son Jesus Christ's
sake, remission of all their sins and the grace of the
Holy Ghost, whereby they be newly regenerated and
made the very children of God according to the saying
of Christ and His Apostle St. Peter, " Repent and 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,"

Laurence also says, " There are also extant in the
Cottonian Library, certain Articles drawn up in Latin,
and in one or two instances, corrected by Henry him-
self, which Strype, in his Ecclesiastical Memorials,
refers to the year 1540, but which, from their great
resemblance to the foregoing, might perhaps have been
of an earlier date. They are upon the following sub-
jects : De Ecclesia, De Justification, De Eucharistia,
De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Sacramentorum Usu.
They seem to be merely extracts from the preceding
Articles translated into Latin. From some of these, a

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 71

considerable part of the XXV, XXVI, and XXXIV

Articles of our Church was copied almost verbatim. —
I shall quote from them a passage upon adult baptism
applicable to my present purpose. It is there said,
" De adultis vero docemus, quod ita consequuntur per
baptismum remissionem peccatorum, et gratiam, se
baptizandi attulerent poenitentiam veram, confessioncm
articulorum fidei, et credant vere ipsis ibi donari remis-
sionem peccatorum et justification em proptur Christum
sicut Petrus ait in Actis ; Penitentiam agite ; et bap-
tizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Jesu Christi
in remissionem peccatorum, et accepietis donum Spiritus
Sancti."

These quotations are from pages 47 and 48 of Lau-
rence's work, which he entitles " The Doctrine of the
Church of England, upon the Efficacy of Baptism,
vindicated from Misrepresentation." I need not stop to
show how exactly these quotations accord with the
sentiments contained in this letter. The Papists said,
All the blessings contained in regeneration, are given
to infants when they are baptized. No ! said our
Reformers in Convocation, at which Cranmer must
have presided, they are given to persons who bring
true repentance and faith.

I have now taken away all the proofs by which you
imagined your opinion was upheld. I brought it to
the test of the Bible ; and there it was found lamentably
deficient. When weighed in the balance of the sanc-
tuary, it was found wanting. Had it been gold, it
would have endured the furnace ; but it proved dross.

72 THE DOCTRINE OF

Heaven's blest Book, the bulwark of Protestantism,
disowns your doctrine ; and this made me more than
suspect that it would not stand the next test to which it
was to be submitted. Then it was brought to the touch-
stone of the Prayer Book, and there again it could not
endure examination. I have taken no advantage of the
sophistry of words, but have considered every ex-
pression in the " literal and grammatical sense."
My cause has not been that of a wily Counsel, advo-
cating a bad cause, who, in supporting it, uses all
manner of tricks and contortions, suppressing the
essential facts, and advancing others which have little
or nothing to do with the matter. I have, as far as I
know, hidden nothing ; nor have I lightly passed over,
what are supposed to be difficulties on my side of the
question, and expatiated on those which we consider as
supporting it. I have made a full and true statement of
the case ; and it has been a sufficient proof of the just-
ness of my cause. The church has spoken for herself;
and my work has been to dispel the mists in which she
was enveloped ; and, be it remembered, to do this by
means of her own light, and then to exhibit her in her
own heaven-born beauty. I am persuaded she has but
to be known and understood to be loved. ■' She is all
glorious within, her clothing is of wrought gold ;" and it
grieves me to see her arrayed in any of the distinctive
garments of Popery. Apostolic and primitive garb, I
have no objection to, but I have a most decided objec-
tion to modern fashions. Take her as she is, she will
be found all that a man, having the Holy Spirit for his

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 73

teacher, and the Bible for his guide, can wish for. She
is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Pro-
phets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner
stone. And as the Great Master Builder, the Chief
Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, has not given us
direction in every particular respecting the rearing of
the building — leaving this to those whom His providence
places in authority — she proceeds on this delicate ground
with great caution. She first, most properly, denies to
herself the authority " to ordain any thing contrary to
God's word written ;" and then goes to primitive times
for direction in matters which that word has left indif-
ferent ; and her wisdom a- judgment ought to be
admired by every one. She has avoided all extremes;
neither burdening us with a number of ceremonies on
the one hand, nor treating us as if we were all spirit
on the other. " As we walk around our Zion, and go
round about her, telling her towers, and marking well
her bulwarks, can we help exclaiming in heartfelt
gratitude, "Great is our Lord, and greatly to be praised
in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.
Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth is
mount Zion. As we have heard, so have we seen in
the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God.
May God establish it for ever!" And when we enter
her sacred enclosure to view her internal arrangements
and economy, can we help saying, " How amiable
are thy tabernacles, O Lord of Hosts !" "Of Zion it
shall be said, this and that man was born in her, and
the Highest Himself shall establish her. The Lord

G

74 THE DOCTRINE OF

shall count, when he writeth up his peoplp, that this
man was born there. As well the singers as the players
on instruments shall be there : all my springs are in
thee." Much has been lately said about submission to
the teaching of our Church. I hope it will be seen
from this letter who they are that do this. I readily
acknowledge that unless we can bona fide subscribe to
her doctrines and practices, we have no business to
enter within her pale as ministers. But then they who
talk of obedience assume that they alone submit to her — ■
that they alone with a true heart make the required
subscription, and that all others who hold not their
opinions, are little less than perjured. But did it ever
occur to them, that as they are not infallible, it is very
possible for them to be mistaken ? that therefore they
should not speak as if they only, without doubt, were
right, and all others certainly wrong. They seem to
discover no difference between these two propositions :
This is our judgment of what the church teaches ; and,
This is what the church teaches. They identify the
two, and proceed upon the supposition, that their
judgment is the correct expression of the mind of the
church; as if they were her oracle. But, no; it is
their private opinion of that mind, and nothing more.
One who is eminent among them, speaks of those who
preach their views on the subject as " orthodox," and
of them that oppose it, as I am doing, as " heterodox."
I must say, without any feeling contrary to brotherly
love, I call this arrogance in the extreme. The Apos
ties f,iomselves never spoke with greater assurance, even

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 10

when they were under the guidance of inspiration. But
when St. Paul gave his priv 'gment, he did it

with modesty and caution. It does not become me to
speak dogmatically, even though I had not condemned
such a practice ; but I trust you have, by this time,
learnt what weight is to be attached to such assertions.
As to submission to the church, (I do not wish to be
uncharitable, nor do I say they wilfully do it ; but)
it has often been forced upon ray judgment, whether I
would or not, that it is merely this in many cases,
persons adopt their own system, attempt to engraft it
upon the church, and then put it forth as the church's
teaching. But is it so ? Judge you. Let us lay
aside all prejudice, and allow no preconceived notion
to darken our mind. Let the question simply be,
" what is truth V and not, " what do we wish to be the
truth :" and then let the church be heard indeed ;
standing, as she does, upon the broad, firm founda-
tion of God's word, and I have no fear as to the
result. Let what has been written in these Letters be
brought to this test, and if it does not stand the trial,
reject it.

In my next, I will answer your miscellaneous objec-
tions, and also, as far as is necessary to substantiate my
own positions, review those parts of your favourite
pamphlet which have not come under notice.

76 THE DOCTRINE OF

LETTER III

My dear Friend,

I intend in this letter to answer some general
objections which you bring against me, and to
make some observations on that pamphlet upon
which you principally rely. The first is stated in these
words,

" The importance of this doctrine " (the one I am
combating) " must be at once apparent to those who
reflect, that the whole moral education of a Christian
people is altered, if instead of teaching them, as we
ought to do, that God has given them a gift which they
may use to their own ^alvation, but for losing which
they will be awfully punished ; — if instead of this we
tell them to wait and expect the gift of grace, before
receiving which they cannot please God. The orthodox
would preach to all baptized persons, telling them that
they may and can serve God if they will : the heterodox
would address baptized persons as heathens, and warn

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 77

them that until they have an effectual calling they can
do nothing."

It is here implied that until a man has received bap-
tism he has no gift which he may use to his own salva-
tion, and that haptism is the beginning of salvation.
But this is not the truth, nor does the church hold such
a view as that presented in the above extract. Baptism
is the door into the church if received rightly, not if a
right baptism is received. Now to receive baptism
rightly there must be qualifying grace, which the cate-
chism calls repentance and faith. It is quite true, that
" the condition of man after the fall is such, that he
cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural
strength and good works to faith and calling upon God."
Quite true that he cannot begin even to work out his
salvation without divine srace ; but it is not true that he
is unable to do this without baptism, for repentance is
the beginning of salvation, and this the church requires
before baptism can be administered. In consequence of
the death of Christ, every man, when the gospel calls
him to it, has the power to begin to repent : he can, if
he will, pray in Christ's name; and continue to do so;
and if he pursues this course, further help will be
afforded. If this is not true, what can we say to the
heathen in our plantations and colonies ? Would you
baptize them at once without preparation ? I trow not.
You would instruct them ; and they shewed any con-
cern for salvation by enquiring, ''Men and brethren what
shall we do V you would, I doubt not, answer, "The

church requires repentance and faith from all candidates
c 3

70 THE DOCTRINE OF

for baptism ; repent therefore, and then be baptized
every one of you for the remission of sins and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Such an address
as this, delivered before baptism, is not treating them
as if they had no " gift which they might use to their
own salvation." It implies that they have a gift ; and
we ought to tell such that they are responsible for its
use. And if we do so, can it be said of us, with any
truth, that we — the heterodox ! — " warn them, that
vintil they have an effectual calling they can do nothing?"
No, we tell them that God calls them, and that if they
will, they can, by His help, make that call effectual,
for He willeth not the death of a sinner. If then ad-
dressing them in our colonies as unbaptized heathens
does not imply that they have no " gift which they may
use to their salvation," how can it be proved that ad-
dressing them as baptized heathens at home implies it ?

You say that in some parts of my first letter I speak
as if there were greater difficulty in the regeneration of
an infant than in that of an adult. You assert it is not
so, and quote the following passage from Waterland :
"As to infants, their innocence and incapacity are to
them instead of repentance, which they do not wTant,
and of actual faith, which they cannot have ; and they
are capable of being born again and adopted by God,
because they bring no obstacle." I am sorry to differ
from such a man as Waterland, but remembering that
I have subscribed not to his works but to the Articles,
&c, I must take the latter as my guide and standard.

1. 1 have proved that the qualifications mentioned

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 79

in the catechism, as necessary for baptism, are required
no less from infants than from adults. And as infants
cannot have them, the church demands them from their
substitutes, and from themselves as soon as they are
able. On the supposition that the church does not re-
quire them from infants, her order to bring sponsors is
unmeaning and without foundation. If the qualifi-
cations are not necessary for infants, why do the sponsors
make such a solemn promise of repentance and faith in
the name of their godchild ? Why bring sureties at
all ? It cannot be to make the ordinance effectual. It
is effectual without them. Christ's appointment made
it so : " His work is perfect." Not as witnesses to the
fact which then takes place. The congregation are in
that capacity. They are there to promise and vow three
things in the child's name, viz. repentance, faith, and
obedience. If these sentiments are true, then,

2. The above quotation is not so. It speaks of the
innocence and incapacity of infants as the ground upon
which they are presented for baptism ; and as serving
them instead of repentance and faith. That this is not
the teaching of the church will be evident if we recon-
sider the catechism. " Why then are infants baptized
when, by reason of their tender age, they cannot perform
them ?" If Dr. Waterland is right, the answer will be,
" Because their innocence and incapacity are to them
instead of repentance, which they do not want, and of
actual faith, which they cannot have." The answer,
however, which the Catechism gives is totally different.
"Because they promise them loth by their sureties, which

80 THE DOCTRINE OF

promise when they come to age themselves are bound to
perform." They promise "both" repentance and faith by
their sureties, and it is " because" they do this that they
are baptized. Now repentance and faith imply sin in
those who exercise them. The church knows nothing of
the innocence of infants, neither does she anywhere recog-
nize anything of the kind. The IX Article settles this
point ; but I make the following extracts from the bap-
tismal service and catechism. " Forasmuch as all men
are conceived and bor:% in sin." " That he being delivered
from thy wrath" " 0 merciful God ! grant that the old
Adam in this child may die." " Grant that all carnal
affections may die in him." "For being by nature bom in
sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the
children of grace." These quotations shew that we are to
regard children as sinful, and if so they are no more ca-
pable, in themselves, " cf being born again and adopted
by God" than adults, who have no greater obstacles to
the working of God's Spirit and the exercise ot his favour
than infants. If you object that, in the baptismal service,
Christ is represented as exhorting all men to follow the in-
nocency of children, it will be sufficient to answer, that
the word as there used cannot mean anything inconsistent
with the above extracts, much less can it imply that inno-
cency in them can supply the place of repentance and faith.
Tou object to my proof against your doctrine which,
in my first letter, I drew from the wicked lives of bap-
tized persons : I still depend on that argument although
I have again read Avhat Mr. Greenlaw says on that sub-

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 81

ject. He tells us* in one place, that to be regenerate is
to receive the Holy Ghost, to have our sins pardoned,
to be adopted into the family of God, and to have our
faith quickened and confirmed ; and yet he maintains
that a man may be thus regenerated, and notwithstanding
this, that he may resemble, in life and practice, those
who have not received such blessings. I will shew
that this is contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures,
and of the church.

1. Let us hear what the Bible says on this subject.

" That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Here two classes
of persons are mentioned : those born of the flesh and
those born of the spirit. Now, as they that are born
of the flesh follow the desires of the flesh and of the
mind, so they that are born of the spirit, walk after the
spirit ; or the difference which our Lord marks, has
no foundation.

" For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit,
neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For
every tree is known by his own fruit." Here again
there are two classes essentially differing from each
other. On the one hand, a corrupt tree does not bea;
good fruit, and on the other, a good tree does not bear
corrupt fruit. It is a flat contradiction therefore to say,
that a tree may be good — may be engrafted as we are
engrafted into the church by baptism — and yet bear evil
fruit. If a tree does bear evil fruit, it is proved by that
very fact to be evil, for it is as much a law in theology

* Page 30.

&■£ THE DOCTRINE OF

that " by their fruits ye shall know them," as it is in
mathematics that 6( the whole is greater than its part."

" So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, hut in the Spirit, if so be that
the Spirit of God dwell in you." Two classes are here
also spoken of. The first cannot please God because
they are in the flesh, and the fleshly mind is enmity
against God : the second are not in the flesh, but in the
spirit. They are the very opposite to the other, because
the Spirit of God dwells in them. The above quotation
compared with odier parts of the pamphlet, declares that
a man may have the Holy Spirit, and yet follow the
flesh, but St. Paul says we are not in the flesh, if so be
the Spirit dwells in us. Now as they that are in the
flesh cannot please God, and as they that are in the
Spirit are not in the flesh, therefore the latter do please
God, or the text utters an absurdity, and there is no
difference between those in the flesh and those in die
Spirit.

We now come to the principal texts, — those found
in St. John's 1st Epistle, — and as they speak strong
language, special pains are taken with them by Mr.
Greenlaw ; and I never saw any thing so ingenious,
to prove that a man may be a child of God, and yet
act as if he were a child of Satan.

" Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,
for His seed remained) in him ; and he cannot sin, be-
cause he is born of God. For whatsoever is born of
God, overcometh the world."

He says these words must be taken in connection

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 83

with our Lord's discourse in the 15th chapter of St.
John's Gospel; and argues, " that if the phraseology

of the Epistle he in any of its expressions ambiguous,
its explanation and right meaning must be gathered
from our Saviour's words;" for that it is not likely
that the " beloved disciple would in his own teaching
set himself up in opposition to his Master." Oppo-
sition between the two is quite out of the question :
the Spirit of the Master rested upon the servant. But
suppose I were to say, that Jesus told his disciples, he
had many things to say to them, but that they could not
bear them now ; and that he promised the Holy Spirit
should be given to them, after his departure, to lead
them into all truth. Suppose I were to infer from this,
that what was obscurely laid down in the gospel was
fully explained in the epistle ; and that therefore, as
far as clearness and fulness were concerned, the latter
must take the priority ; who could say that I had not
reason on my side ? Who could say that I had not as
much right to choose the epistle for my standard, as he
the gospel for his ? The question then would come to
this, that if there is any apparent difference between the
two, we must take that side which presents the fewer
difficulties. Let us examine St. John first.

In many places he positively asserts that whosoever
is born of God doth not sin ; and this not in one form
of speech only, but in many. I quote the other instances
besides those given above. " Whosoever abideth in Him
sinneth not : whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him nor
knovm Him. He that committeth sin is of the devil ;

84 THE DOCTRINE OP

for the devil sinneth from the beginning. In this the
children of God are manifest and the children of the
devil : whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God,
neither he that loveth not his brother. Hereby know
we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He
hath given us of His Spirit. We know that whosoever
is born of God sinneth not, but he that is born of God
keepeth himself and that wicked one toucheth him not."
But Mr. Greenlaw endeavours to set aside the two
passages at the head of this section in this way : " The
context appears to us to explain sufficiently, that St.
John is speaking as our Saviour does, not of every one
who is born of God, but of every one who (having been
born of God) abideth in that state." I must be allowed
to say that there is not the least foundation for the dis-
tinction here made. If the question were, whether a
man will get to heaven, there would be some reason for
it ; for to arrive at that state of perfect blessedness, it is
necessary not only to be born again, but to abide in that
state ; but when the question refers to the fruits of
regeneration, it cannot exist. The question may be
asked, " If our not sinning depends, not upon our
being bom of God, but upon our abiding in that state,
how long must we abide before we can arrive at what
is so desirable ? Abiding in the state of the new birth
does not imply a change, which it must do if his expla-
nation is right. It may imply increase, but not change.
After a man has been abiding a long while in the state
of the new birth, he is in the same state as at the be-
ginning, with this difference only, that he has grown in

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 85

it. If therefore a person abiding in the new birth sin-
neth not, he that is bom of God sinneth not. As an
illustration, take the two verses which gave rise to these
observations, and alter them a little. He observes that
while the ninth verse says, Whosoever is born of God
sinneth not, the sixth verse says, Whosoever abideth in
Him sinneth not, and he considers this proves that it is
not he that is merely born of God who does not sin, but
he that abideth in that state. I say then alter the verses
thus, " Whosoever is born of a xvoman, breathes."
" Whosoever abideth in that state, breathes." Evidently
it is not said that he who is born of a woman breathes,
but he who abideth in that state. Would you dignify
this by calling it reasoning? Yet this is exactly what
Mr. Greenlaw does ; so at least it appears to me. But
even supposing there was room for the distinction,
nothing is gained by it ; for St. John observes, that the
seed does remain, or abide, as he renders it, in whoso-
ever is born of God. Kead the verse again. "Who-
soever is born of God doth not commit sin for His seed
remaineth in him." St. John's testimony, then, con-
cerning the fruits which invariably follow regeneration,
is decisive and unequivocal. What then shall we say of
our Saviour's words, " every branch in me that beareth
not fruit ?" That he pourtrays the case of many in the
present day, who make a profession of His religion, but
who do not obey His precepts ; who call Him " Lord
Lord, but do not the thing which He says," who bear
His name, but imbibe n His spirit. He says no more
here than He does in all those parables, in which He

OO THE DOCTRINE OF

teaches, that in the visible church, there would ever be
the tares and the wheat, the sheep and the goats, the
wicked and the righteous ; but to speak of both classes
as regenerate is confounding what the Scripture makes
as opposite as the poles. It will not be necessary now
to notice what is said on the other passage until I come
to make some general observations on the pamphlet.
But having promised to shew that the opinion here com-
bated, is contrary to the teaching of the church, I will
now do so,

2. By making some extracts, and if they are rather
long I hope to be excused. " Albeit that good works,
which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justifica-
tion, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity
of God's judgment ; yet are they pleasing and acceptable
to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true
and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith
may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the
fruit." (XII Article).

" Forasmuch as faith without works is dead ; it is not
now faith, as a dead man is not a man."

" Of this faith three things are specially to be noted. —
First, that this faith does not lie dead in the heart, but
is lively and fruitful in bringing forth good works."

" For the first, that as the light cannot be hid, but
will sheiv forth itself at one place or other; so a true
faith cannot be kept secret : but when occasion is offered,
it will break out and will shew itself by good works."

" Many that professed the faith of Christ were in
this error ; that they thought they knew God and be-

baptismal regeneration. 87

lieved in Him, when in their life they declared the
contrary : which error, St. John in his first Epistle
confuting, writeth in this wise : " Hereby we are
certified that we know God, if we observe His com-
mandments. He that saith he knoweth God and
observeth not his commandments is a liar and the truth
is not in him." And again he saith, " Whosoever sin-
neth doth not see God nor know Him. Let no man
deceive you, well-beloved children." And moreover he
saith, " Hereby we know that we be of the truth, and
so we shall persuade our hearts before Him." And yet
further he saith, " Every man that believeth in Christ is
born of God ; and ice know that whosoever is born of
God doth not sin : but he that is begotten of God,
purgeth himself and the devil doth not touch him."
And finally he concludeth and sheweth the cause why
he wrote this Epistle; saying, "For this cause have I
written to you, that you may know that you have ever-
lasting life, which do believe in the Son of God. And
in his third Epistle, he confirmeth the whole matter of
faith and works in few words ; saying, He that doth
well is of God, and he that doth evil knoweth not
God."

" And as St. John saith, that as the lively knowledge
and faith of God bringeth forth good works ; so saith
he likewise of hope and charity, that they cannot stand
with evil living. Of hope he writeth thus : " We know
that when he shall appear we shall be like Him ; for we
shall see Him as He is : and whosoever hath this hope
in Him doth purify kiauelj ■ as God is pure." And

88 THE DOCTRINE OP

of charity he saith these words : " He that doth keep
God's word and commandment, in him is truly the
perfect love of God." And again he saith, " This is
the love of God that we should keep His command-
ments." And St. John wrote not this as a subtile saying,
devised of his own fantasy, but as a most certain and
necessary truth, taught unto him by Christ Himself, the
eternal and infallible verity : who in many places doth
most clearly affirm, thatfaith, hope, and charity, cannot
consist or stand without good and godly works. Of faith
He saith, " He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting
life : but he that believeth not in the Son, shall not see
that life, but the wrath of God remaineth on him."
And the same He confirmeth with a double oath ;
saying, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that be-
lieveth on me hath everlasting life." Now forasmuch
as he that believeth on Christ hath everlasting life, it
must needs consequently follow, that he that hath this
faith must have also good works, and be studious to
observe God's commandments obediently."

" Some peradventure fancy in themselves that they
belong to God, although they live in sin : and so they
come to the church and shew themselves as God's dear
children. But St. John saith plainly, " If we say we
have any company with God and vxdk in darkness, we
do lie."

These extracts are from the " Homily on Faith," and
if you think them garbled, I desire nothing more than
that you read the whole Homily, and the more you
consider it the greater will your conviction be, that

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 89

Mr. Greenlaw's exposition of the passages in St. John,
and his opinion generally on the subject, are in direct
opposition to the teaching of the church. I am sure
had he known it he would not have written such senti-
ments as those contained in his pamphlet. But I may
be allowed to express a hope that you, and others like
you, will look at home before you give any more hints
about sincerity in subscribing to the Articles, Homilies,
Sec. In these observations I have been careful to keep
the enquiry distinct from the doctrine of final perse-
verance. I have not assumed the truth of that doctrine
to prove my position, but have simply shewn what the
Bible and the church say on the subject. I will now
pass on to notice another objection brought against me
from the IX Article.

The fact that the word " renati," which occurs
twice in the Latin Article, is rendered in the English
Article, in one place regenerated, and iu the other bap-
tized, may seem at first sight to be decisive on your side
of the question ; but apply the principle ai eady so often
laid down, and there will be no difficulty. I acknow-
ledge, that when a person comes to baptism prepared
with repentance and faith, his regeneration is then and
there effected ; and you may thus, as far as practice is
concerned, use the words baptized and regenerated as
convertible terms. But if you theorize on the matter,
you cannot do so, unless you make regeneration to
mean no more than the outward form of the ceremony.
If you take baptism as the outward si<_rn, and regenera-
tion as the thing signified, then these words do not

h3

90 THE DOCTRINE OF

represent the same thing. Nevertheless if a man comes
prepared in the way the church requires he is regenerated
in baptism. Now you will remember that in the early
ages of Christianity, when the meaning of theological
terms ivas fixed, they did come prepared. No one, in
such times of persecution, would come without being so,
and practically baptism was to them regeneration ; and
it is in this sense that the word renati is rendered in one
instance regenerated and in the other baptized, for in no
other can you make all the formularies of our church
consistent. To make the sacrament of baptism neces-
sarily effectual in the case of infants, or indeed in the
case of any one is very little, if any, removed from the
opus operatum of the Romanists.

As for the office of confirmation it was through
forgetfulness that I did not notice it in my second letter,
not because I saw any difficulty in it. All the candi-
dates are called regenerate, and that most properly. I
have shewn why they are so pronounced at baptism, and
it would be most strange if the church were to order
them to be looked upon in any other light at confir-
mation, and that more especially when they there make
a good profession.

I now proceed to make some general observations on
Mr. Greenlaw's pamphlet, and I do this for two
reasons, first, to defend some of my own arguments ;
and secondly, to dispel any doubt which may remain in
your mind, if he is not fully answered as far as my
purpose repuires it. His first part, I trust, has been

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. <>1

fully discussed ; the second part therefore is that which
must principally come under review.

It is asked, in page 43, " Where in the Scriptures is
the term regenerated, or any other word bearing- the least
resemblance of meaning to it, applied to those who
became followers of Christ during His life ?" This is
asked in opposition to his opponent, who wished to
maintain that it was the practice of Christ to regenerate
souls without the use of baptism. Mr. G. attempts to
disprove this in two ways ; first by making the above
enquiry, and secondly by observing on John vii. 39,
that the Holy Spirit was not yet given because Jesus
was not yet glorified. Now if it comes to a question of
words, I am quite willing to allow that the " term re-
generated was not applied to those who became followers
of Christ during His life time ;" but if we make it a
question of things, then I say with the church, that all
the holy men who preceded Christ possessed it. He
tells us in pages 36 and 40, what our church means by
regeneration. That it is by the act of baptism to re-
ceive the Holy Ghost, to have our sins pardoned, to be
adopted into God's family, and to have our faith
quickened and confirmed. I may observe that in the
present feature of the case the medium through which
these blessings are given, is not included in the enquiry,
but it is, whether the thing itself meant by the term was
ever given before the day of pentecost.

The Holy Ghost was given under the Mosaic dispen-
sation, for Stephen says the Jews resisted it. "Ye
stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do

92 THE DOCTRINE OF

always resist the Holy Ghost • as your fathers did, so
do ye." Forgiveness of sins was bestowed : David
says, (Psalm ciii. 12,) " As far as the East is from the
West, so far hath he removed our transgressions from
us." Jesus said unto the sick of the palsy, " Son, thy
sins he forgiven thee." And those words to Simon, and
to the woman who washed His feet, " Wherefore I say
unto thee, her sins which are many are forgiven." "And
He said unto her, thy sins are forgiven." They were
adopted into God's family ; for it is written " Thou
Lord art our Father and Redeemer ;" and be it remem-
bered, that this text the Church quotes to prove the
very thing I am endeavouring to prove.* And, not to
forget the last particular, Abraham's faith was strength-
ened and confirmed on many occasions. Now, if Mr. G.
is right in saying these are the things included in re-
generation, and if the above examples are true, all
which are taken from times before the outpouring of
the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, how are we to un-
derstand him where he says, (page 46) " that in every
age persons have been accepted of God in Christ, .though
the particular grace of regeneration was not vouchsafed
till the redemption was fully accomplished." I am the
more perplexed, because he reasons so differently in
pages 50 and 51. He there shows that the antitype is
far superior to the type, and thus concludes : "Another
sacrament was ordained of Christ, corresponding with
the sacrament of circumcision, and therefore analogy

• See page 93.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 93

would lead us to consider it to be endued with spiritual
qualities resembling in kind, but in a far superior degree,
the blessings communicated at circumcision ; and such
in fact is the doctrine of tJie Church of England." The
difference, then, between the blessings communicated at
circumcision, and those given bj baptism, is not one of
kind, but of degree ; and he is quite right in saving,
that this is the doctrine of the Church of England. I
will make two extracts which relate to this point, from
the Homilies : "All these fathers, martyrs, and other
holy men whom St. Paul spake of, (in Heb. xi.) had
their faith surely fixed in God when all the world was
against them." This is the Christian faith which these
holy men had, and we also ought to have. And al-
though they were not named christian men, yet was it
a christian faith which they had : for they looked for
all benefits of God the Father, through the merits of
his Son Jesus Christ, as we now do. This difference
is between them and us, — that they looked when Christ
should come ; and we be in the time when he is come.
Therefore St. Augustine saith, the time is altered and
changed, but not the faith. For we have both one
faith in one Christ. The same Holy Ghost also that
we have, had they, (2 Cor. iv. 13.) saith St. Paul.
For as the Holy Ghost doth teach us to trust in God,
and to call upon Him as our Father, so did he teach
them to say — " As it is written, thou Lord art our
Father and Redeemer, and thy name is without begin-
ning, and everlasting. (Isa. xiii. 16.) God gave them
then grace to be his children, as he now doth. But

94 THE DOCTRINE OF

now by the coming of our Saviour Christ, we have
received more abundantly the Spirit of God in our
hearts ; whereby we may conceive a greater faith, and
a surer trust than many of them had. But in effect,
they and we be all on?: we have the same faith that
they had in God ; and they the same that we have."
"The thief that was hanged when Christ suffered did be-
lieve only ; and the most merciful God justified him."

What, then, shall we say of the words of St. John ?
That he must refer to the receiving of the Spirit, not
in His ordinary gifts, but extraordinary operations ;
for it is certain, that in the former sense He had been
received in all ages : so at least our church teaches.

It will now be necessary to defend the use I have
made of the case of Simon Magus in my second letter.
Mr. Greenlaw says, " There is not even the shadow of
a peg on which to suspend the thought, that his faith
at the time was less sincere than that of others : on the
contrary it is added of him that he continued with Philip,
and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which
were done. As the scriptures declare the same, though
in stronger terms, of Simon that they do of others, —
if they were regenerated, then was Simon,— if he was
not regenerated, then were not they" I suppose Mr. G.
must know that almost all Commentators and divines,
ancient and modern, are against him ; and as he at-
taches considerable importance to this fact, when urged
against his antagonist, I have no doubt he will attach
the same importance to it, although brought against
himself. So universal, indeed, has been the feeling,

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 95

that his name is given to a certain great sin, which we
call Simony. There is one mark which decidedly proves
that he was not regenerated, although baptized. When
a man is regenerated, he receives the Holy Ghost ;
and wherever He is, He enlightens the mind. Now, if
Simon's mind had been enlightened, he never would
have conceived that most absurd thought and wicked
sin, " that the gift of God could be purchased with
money." If Mr. G.'s regeneration does not dispel such
ignorance, and destroy such a sin as this, sure I am it
is not the regeneration taught by the Church of Eng-
land. St. Peter was completely shocked at the proposal
of so great and dreadful a sin ; and yet it seems, it may
be committed by one who is, according to Mr. G., re-
generated. I cannot think he considered what he was
writing. It is but too evident that Simon was, after
baptism, the same as he ever had been ; and that he
applied for baptism to regain the influence over the
Samaritans which he had lost through the preaching of
Philip. Mr. G. further says, " that we need not be in-
formed that it was the impious proposal that he made
to St. Peter that brought him into the gall of bitterness
and bond of iniquity." This cannot be. It was the
proposal by which he shewed he was in the gall of bit-
terness, and by which Peter detected the hypocrisy of
his heart ; or as Beza intimates, by which he dragged
this " hypocrite from his lurking place." The fact that
he begged the Apostles Peter and John to pray for him,
does not invalidate this conclusion. It was in itself an
act of disobedience to the holy Apostles. They had

96 THE DOCTRINE OF

told him to pray, but said he, " pray ye." What for 1
That the wickedness of my heart may be taken away \
This was far from his object. " That none of these
things''' (judgments) "which ye have spoken come upon
me." He herein followed the example of another wick-
ed man — Pharoah, who often begged Moses and Aaron
to pray for the removal of God's judgments, but never
that his sins might be taken away. It may be very
amiable to try to give a good character to a man whom
almost every body, in all ages, has justly loaded with
infamy, and to call in criticism to aid in the work ;
(which criticism, I must say, is opposed to the wisdom
of our translators) but when this is done to prove that a
man may be regenerated, and yet walk in sin and
wickedness, it can scarcely fail to excite one's indigna-
tion, and that more especially when it contravenes every
thing connected with our best and holiest feelings — when
it opposes the doctrines, both of the Scriptures and our
church ; which doctrines have, by the blessing of our
merciful God, put us into the possession of an ever-
flowing spring of happiness and purity here, and has
imparted a sanctifying hope of glory hereafter. Ever
dear to a Christian's heart must these doctrines be, and
that church too which places such an impregnable
barrier around them as is contained in the Common
Prayer Book, Articles, and Homilies. May I ever be
kept in my present mind, to prize them above gold and
silver, and to draw from them strength and consolation
amidst the various infirmities, afflictions, and cares of

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 97

of this life ; and may the same mind, my dear friend,
be given to you.

It now only remains that I support the use I have
made of 1 John v. 4. I will quote Mr. G's words which
contain the strength of his argument. " It appears to
escape the observation of those who allege that St. John
represents certain effects as invariably attending re-
generation, that in the two chapters where he speaks of
the ability with which the sons of God are endued, he
says in one case, "ye have overcome," in the other,
" overcometh," not hath overcome, his intention being to
signify, — in the former case, that those born of God, had
successfully withstood the false prophets who denied
that Christ was come in the flesh, — in the latter, that
whatsoever has been born of God is of power to over-
come the world." According to this, then, when St.
John said " overcometh," he did not mean what we
usually understand by the word. He meant that we
have the power to overcome, not that we do overcome.
It is not hath overcome but overcometh. It is not in tho
perfect tense but present, 1 suppose he means to say.
I really find it difficult to defend thi3 text. The de-
fence is supposed to be clearer than the thing defended.
Now it seems to me that the text is as clear as it can be,
and that to hold a light to it, has the tendency to lessen,
its brightness. The Apostle says, Whatsoever is born of
God overcometh the world. It, or he does overcome, as
the present tense is sometimes rendered. Suppose he
had said hath overcome, would that have been true. ? It
cannot be said of any one that he has overcome the

98 THE DOCTRINE OF

world till he is in heaven.* But it may be said of
every true child of God that he overcometh it. He does
it day by day. Let me quote another text from the
writings of St. John and then apply Mr. G's criticism to
it. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second
death. That is, not he that overcometh, but he that
hath the power to overcome, shall not be hurt of the
second death. I cannot believe therefore, that the
Apostle when he said overcometh, meant not overcome,
but only the power to overcome. In this way you may
make the Scripture speak anything. He does teach,
and let it be solemnly laid upon our consciences, that if
we are born of God we do overcome the world, and that
because we have the same faith as those worthies
mentioned in the 11 chapter of the Hebrews, and by
which they overcame it. This is the victory that over-
cometh the world even our faith.

I think I have now said all that is necessary to
establish the arguments I used in the other letters.
And now let me exhort you to give up a doctrine which
you cannot hold consistently, either with Scripture or
the Prayer Book. These are authorities to which we
are bound to submit. Not that I put them on a level
with each other ; but the first affects us as Christians,
the second as churchmen. It is infidelity if we oppose
the one, dissent if we oppose the other. I wish you to
be a true Christian first, and then you will be a true
churchman ; and I must maintain that you cannot be a

* Let not him that givdeth on his harness boast himself as he
that puttcth it off. 1 Kings xx. 11.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 99

true son of the church while you hold this doctrine. As
long as you hold it you make her contradict herself,
setting one part of her formularies at variance with
another. I know that most consider there are difficulties
in the question ; but the scheme here laid down explains
every one, and shews our doctrines and practices as
purely scriptural and primitive. It shews that the
scriptural edifice of our Establishment is firm in its
foundation, beautiful in its proportions, substantial in
it structure, capacious in its dimensions, and glorious in
its appearance. Every other destroys part of its found-
ation, or removes some of its stones, thereby either
weakening the one or spoiling the symmetry of the other.
Most sincerely shall I rejoice if you are led to see this,
and to embrace the truth as it is in Jesus, set forth alike
by the Bible and our Church.

THE END.

W. ROWBOTTOM, PRINTER, DERBY.