Baptism by declaring that the Child is regenerated ;' as well as by returning thanks to God, because it

6

6

hath pleased him to regenerate the Child with the Holy Ghost.

6

The Non-conformists however, labouring by every means in their power to remove a doctrine irreconcilable with their creed, absurdly endeavoured to prove in another part of their reply, that the Liturgy itself admitted not an universal and absolute, but only a partial and hypothetical Regeneration. Their argument was thus framed That you may see,' they remarked, 'that 'the Church of England taketh not all infants infallibly to be regenerated in baptism (unless you grant 'that they repeat the substance of baptism) the bap'tismal prayer is here used' (viz. in the Office of Private Baptism) for the fore-baptized, that God will 'give his Holy Spirit to this infant, that he being born again, and made heir of everlasting salvation, &c. which sheweth, that he is now supposed to be re'generandus, non regeneratus. Do they pray for his Regeneration whom they account regenerated already? You must either confess, that there they re'peat much of the substance of baptism, and take the 'child as not baptized, or else that they take the baptized child to be not regenerate. And then we may well take them for unregenerate, that shew no signs of it at years of discretion, but live a carnal ' and ungodly life, although they can say the Catechism ' and seek Confirmatione.'

6

6

6

6

6

6

As the Reply closed the written documents, which passed between the respective commissioners on this occasion, we can only judge from the alterations, which

d In the original edition it is repent of; but it is worded in the History of Non-Conformity, p. 307, as I have given it.

e Ibid. part ii. p. 101.

6

the Office of Private Baptism here alluded to afterwards underwent, of the disapprobation with which this remark was received. The expressions in the prayer referred to indeed were not changed, because it was unnecessary, as the argument was clearly founded upon a sophism, which carried with it its own refutationf; but an additional prayer was inserted to remove all ambiguity. To the simple form of baptism, previously alone required, I baptize thee in the name of * the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' the following thanksgiving was now for the first time added. '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, &c.' Now when we consider the extracts which I have given from the public acts of the respective Commissioners, can we doubt the motive which prompted this addition? When we consider, that their opponents held, and accused the Church of holding, none to be regenerated in infancy, except such as exhibit signs of Regeneration, and a certain evidence of a special and saving grace, at years of discretion, we cannot surely but perceive the evident object of the finally triumphant party in introducing it; we cannot

6

f The sophistry consists in the sense affixed to the participle being. That this participle relates to a past transaction in the prayer here quoted, is evident from the different wording of the same prayer when used before baptism, in the Office of Public Baptism, which sufficiently indicates the change of circumstances. It is then said, Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may be ⚫ born again, and be made an heir of everlasting salvation &c.' A comparison of the two prayers, one before, the other after baptism, evidently proves that the compilers of our baptismal service used the word being made, in the sense of having been made, or being now made.

G

but perceive that they wished to exclude from our Liturgy every Calvinistical idea of a partial Regeneration.

In the seventeenth century, when the hair of Calvinism was split with a dexterity unknown to more recent times, when the respective theories of covenanted privileges, combined or uncombined with saving grace, relative regeneration, &c. with all their various divisions and subdivisions, were stated with grammatical, and argued with logical, precision, no little refinement of reasoning upon the subject before me was displayed by Dr. Cornelius Burges, a writer of considerable celebrity, who asserted, that every man converted at years of discretion must be considered as having previously possessed a certain species of seminal grace in infancy. Whether the conforming Calvinists of the present day do, or do not, carry their idea of a seminal principle quite so high, is not distinctly avowed; but it seems certain, that, whatsoever commencement they may assign to special grace exhibited in manhood, they will not admit it possible for that peculiar principle of it, which is supposed sometimes to exist in infancy, ever to fail of its necessary and ultimate effect. The Church of England however, I am persuaded, acknowledges neither any distinction in the dispositions of infants, brought to Christ's holy baptism, nor any grace to be participated by them, except that which is universal.

Baptismal Regeneration of elect Infants, by C. Burges, D. D. &c. This infant grace he sometimes denominates initial and potential. Dr. Burges was Chaplain to Charles the First, and afterwards one of the two clerical assessors to the Westminster Assem

bly of Divines. He became subsequently a Non-Conformist. He was a man of talent and respectability.

CHAP. IX.

That all Infunts without exception are regenerated in Baptism, the Doctrine of our Church. The same Doctrine

always held by the Lutherans and in 1536 by the Zuinglians. English Articles of 1536. Latin Articles. Bishops' and King's Books. First Book of Homilies. Proclamation of Edward to the Rebels of Cornwall and Devon. Cranmer.

AFTER what I have advanced in confutation of the adverse theory, after having stated what is not, there seems to be little occasion for me to dwell minutely on what is, the doctrine of our Church upon the subject under discussion. I shall therefore only briefly touch upon some of the principal points.

When she directs the minister to pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit, that the individual infant, brought to be baptized, ' may be born again, and be made an ' heir of everlasting salvation;' and when subsequently she recognises the same infant as 'regenerated with 'God's Holy Spirit, as received for his own child by adoption, and as incorporated into his holy Church;' to a plain understanding it must, I apprehend, appear, that every infant is considered by her as unregenerated before, and as regenerated after, baptism. But the other party argue differently; and contend, that she represents every infant after baptism as regenerated only upon a judgment of charity. Upon what sort of judgment then is it, we may ask, that she represents every infant before baptism as unregenerated? It certainly cannot be upon a judgment of charity. And it would evidently violate the very first principle of their theory to admit, that all infants, as well elect as others, remain unregenerated from their birth to their baptism. It may indeed be assumed, that our Church

supposes God to have a purpose of love towards one and not towards another infant: but such assumptions without proof amount to nothing; and were even proof possible, would but render the Liturgy itself a whimsical tissue of enigmatical incongruities.

It is also asserted in our Baptismal Service, that the infant, who is regenerated and admitted into the number of God's elect at baptism, may not so continue, but may fall from the state of salvation, in which he has been placed. This circumstance alone surely should convince us, that our Church regards all infants as absolutely indeed regenerated, but only as conditionally elected in baptism; and that consequently she knows nothing of what constitutes the corner stone of the Calvinistical system, the doctrine of the indefectibility of grace. And without this doctrine the rule of charitable supposition altogether fails of its application; the rule I mean of present probabilities, or more correctly perhaps of present possibilities, connected with future certainties.

6

But it may be observed, that if our Church, instead of charitably presuming, really believes every baptized child to be regenerated, she must consider every child so endowed as possessing in that act of grace a sure passport to glory. This is perfectly true in cases where no subsequent change of circumstances intervenes; and accordingly she expressly declares it to 'be certain by God's word, that children, which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are ' undoubtedly saved.' What language could have been adopted which would have more satisfactorily proved, that she does not charitably presume, but that she confidently affirms all, and not some baptized infants only, to be in a real and effectual state of grace and salvation, than this? If she conceived Regeneration

6