καὶ πνευματικῆς χάριτος ἡμῖν δοθείσης. It consists of two parts the outward visible sign and the inward spiritual grace,' without both of which, as before observed, there can be no sacrament either administered or received. Baptism is no baptism, but mere washing with water, if the inward and spiritual grace be not annexed to the outward visible sign. But (says the Record) the Article asserts over and over again that it (i. e., baptism) is a sign of the thing, and not the thing itself; and it cannot be at once the sign and the thing itself! Why, this is the very nature of a sacrament. It is an effectual sign of God's good-will towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in us;' it is 'an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace given unto us.' One part of each sacrament is the sign, and another the thing signified. Are there no analogies in nature? Nay, rather is not all nature a demonstration of the outward visible sign accompanying that which is inward, and that which is spiritual? What are the blossoms of spring but signs of God's preserving and sustaining care in the world which he has created? When these appear, we recognize God's earnest of present life and future fruitfulness. What are the showers that water the soil but signs and pledges to us of the care of Him who visiteth the earth, and increaseth it? In these things the laws of nature are analogous to those of grace. And where is the difficulty of imagining a sign which shall be the instrument or efficient cause of the thing which is signified? As when a man signs, seals, and delivers a deed, the sign, and the seal, and the delivery are the actual taking or yielding possession of the estate-so baptism is the sign and seal of our heavenly inheritance, and the instrument whereby we obtain a sure title to its possession" (Gresley's Second Statement, pp. 22-25).

And this dishonest handling of the Articles is continued throughout, as our readers will see, if they compare the quotations of the writer with the Articles, and observe how much has been taken and how much left. But the grave theologian of the Record is pleased to suppose that he has discovered incontestible proof of the soundness of his position in other points besides those we have already touched upon. Here is the wonderful discovery :

"The authoritative declaration by our Church, in the Article, of the nature and effects of baptism, would receive fresh light (did it require it) from two facts; first, that in the Article of Henry VIII.'s Liturgy (framed when the Church had but partially escaped from Popery), that baptism is regeneration is authoritatively asserted. That Article, so strong that Mr. Gresley himself might have drawn it, is blotted out, and our twenty-seventh Article is substituted for it. Does this fact not speak in a language stronger than words? The second fact to which we allude is contained in the closing words of this twenty-seventh Article. They, are, as our readers know, the following:- The baptism of young children is in anywise to be retained in the Church.' From this it appears that the body of the Article refers to adult baptism, or, in any case, to baptism in general; then, at the close, the baptism

VOL. XX.-E E

of young children is specifically referred to, and it is in anywise to be retained in the Church. Why? We ask Mr. Gresley, why? We ask the abettors of infant regeneration at large, why is in anywise the baptism of young children to be retained in the Church? The Article has said nothing in support of baptismal regeneration so far; nay, it has said a great deal in direct opposition to the dogma; for it asserts, over and over again, that it is a sign of the thing, and not the thing itself, and it cannot be at once the sign and the thing itself. But now, at last, surely we shall have the assertion of infant regeneration in baptism. If infant regeneration is the doctrine of the Church, the reason for the administration of baptism to children is wholly overwhelming, and will now be shown forth. But no! It is to be retained, says our Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. No doubt of it! Moderate, sound, wholesome doctrine; but what resemblance in it to the dogma of baptismal regeneration we shall leave Mr. Gresley to declare" (Gresley Examined, pp. 12, 13).

Now, with regard to the two points thus brought under notice it will not be necessary to say much. For, with regard to the first point, it is not sufficient to show that an alteration has been made in the wording of the exponent of doctrine. The writer who would argue from that must show that alteration has been made in the doctrine also; or, in other words, he must show that the new wording does not contain in it that which favours the old hypothesis, and this the writer does not. And, with regard to the second point, it is not sufficient to allege that nothing is said of infantile regeneration; for it was not necessary to the proof of that point that anything should be. For, as the passage as to infant baptism forms part of the Article which asserts the general doctrine of the Church upon baptism, and regeneration is insisted upon in it, its connexion with it is sufficient to carry it on: what is predicated of baptism in general is predicated of baptism in particular: there is no occasion that the doctrine should be repeated. The writer goes on with his proof in the following language:—

"The next Church authority in order on the doctrine of baptism is the twenty-fifth Article Of the Sacraments: they are declared to be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's goodwill toward us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.' This is spoken of both sacraments. They are witnesses, and, if witnesses at all, they must be sure or true witnesses. They are also signs (corresponding to the twenty-seventh Article) and must be effectual' for the purposes for which the signs are given-namely, for quickening, strengthening, and confirming the faith of those that worthily receive them. Still there is anything here rather than the assertion of infant or baptismal regeneration; and, as we learn from the twentyninth Article, that such as be void of a lively faith, although they do

carnally and visibly press with their teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ,' in like manner we conclude in relation to both sacraments (in the words of the twenty-fifth Article), that in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation (Gresley Examined, p. 13).

In this passage there is the same stress laid upon the words signs and witnesses as had been before laid upon the former of these words; but here the Article is quoted more honestly. The writer probably could not see that it went against his argument, and therefore thought he could afford to be honest. The invisible working, however, is entirely overlooked, and the quickening of faith-words which are fully sufficient to point to regeneration, and which cannot be explained upon his hypothesis. And, though it be true that the last part that he has quoted speaks of some who have no benefit from the sacraments from the unworthy receiving of them, yet can he not argue from thence that some children may not be regenerated who are baptized; for not only does it contradict the language of the Church, which says of each and every one "this child is regenerate" but, himself being witness, it applies, in so far as it applies to baptism at all, to adult baptism, which is a very different thing. We shall not, however, detail the argument upon this point until after we have made further quotation, as the service of adult baptism is referred to by the writer, and it may be as well to see what he says first. The following words will introduce that part of the subject to our notice :-

"We turn, then, next in order to the ministration of baptism to such as are of riper years.' In this solemn service, by which men are engrafted into Christ's visible Church, the foundation is laid in a profession of a true faith, and the renunciation of the world, the flesh, and the devil. If this profession is sincere, then all the blessings of the new covenant, on this sealing ordinance being administered, flow in full abundance to the true convert. But if, on the contrary, those coming to the ordinance are without a lively faith' and a true heart, the administration of baptism, far from having a wholesome effect or operation,' is unspeakably injurious; they rather thereby, in the words we have just quoted from the twenty-fifth Article, 'purchase to themselves damnation.'

"But how does the Church speak of all such indiscriminately? Why, exactly in the words, both before and after the administration of the ordinance, which Mr. Gresley quotes to show that it is impossible 'there can be the shadow of a doubt that the Church of England holds the doctrine of baptismal regeneration! We need not go over all the passages which Mr. Gresley has quoted to establish this imagination, some of which indeed have no bearing on the question. We shall only say that, in the service for adult baptism, the Church, immediately

after the administration, says-Secing now that these persons are regenerate,' exactly as in the case of infants, while there can be no doubt that as regards multitudes, according to her own teaching, a curse and not a blessing is the effect.

6

"So is it in the order of confirmation,' and so in the order for the burial of the dead.' All are crowned by the language of charity and hope from the cradle to the grave; but many distinct intimations are given that it is only the language of charity. It is only they who die in the Lord that are blessed,' and who are taken by Almighty God of his great mercy unto himself (Burial Service). It is only they who possess a lively faith who are partakers of Christ in the sacrament of his body and blood (Twenty-ninth Article). On them only who worthily receive the sacraments have they a wholesome effect or operation (Twenty-fifth Article). On the possession of a true faith and corresponding life alone is any one declared to be regenerated and born again (Services for Adult and Infant Baptism). And all men who, like Mr. Gresley, take the promises without the root from which they grow are satisfied with the sign without the thing signified-are so exclusively occupied with the words of charity which the Church employs, as to separate them from the truths which she propounds in connection with them, and without which they die as the body from which the spirit has escaped-all such men, we say, are only deceiving themselves and all that trust in them.

"These observations apply with full force to the service for infant baptism, and to the catechism. The former is nothing else than the adaptation of the service for adults to infants. We have seen that while the Church, on the one hand, authoritatively pronounces all baptized adults regenerated, exactly as in the case of infants, she on the other hand declares, with equal clearness, that if there be want of faith and sincerity, on which profession she administered the ordinance, instead of being a blessing it is a curse. There is no command to baptize infants in the word of God. The Church rightly directs the ordinance to be administered to them as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.' But that she thereby imparts to them absolutely and invariably spiritual regeneration is a power which she neither possesses nor assumes, and the superficial fancy that she does either possess or assume it rests on a basis which she emphatically and repeatedly rejects. It is a fit dogma for apostate Rome; it is without foundation in Scripture; it is opposed to the marked experience of mankind; it is carnal, antinomian, destructive: and they are those alone (though themselves ignorant of the fact) who are more or less infected with Popish doctrine, and whose eyes are but partially opened to God's truth, who can receive or tolerate so gross a delusion" (Gresley Examined, pp. 13-15).

Our readers have probably observed that the service for infant baptism is here expressly stated to be "nothing else than an adaptation of the service for adults to infants," and that the whole argument proceeds upon that supposition. A more untrue assertion was never made-a more unfortunate argument

was never ventured on. The second book of King Edward VI. was confirmed by Parliament in 1551; and the last revision of the Prayer Book was subscribed by the Convocation in 1661, and confirmed by Parliament in the March following; and when we say that there was no alteration in the service for the baptism of infants subsequent to the former period, and that there was no service for the baptism of adults prior to the latter period, it will at once be seen that the assertion and argument of the writer in the Record are untenable. That which was alleged to have been copied from the service for adult baptism was publishsd one hundred and ten years before, to the very evident discomfiture of this very dishonest theologian.

Nor let it be supposed, that, because the same words are used in the baptism of adults, or words of an equal import, and it be true that some adults may not rightly receive the sacrament of baptism, children may not be entitled to claim the blessings of baptism more than they are; for, in truth, the service for the baptism of adults is not only a later but an exceptional service: adults are treated in a different way altogether from infants. They are never admitted to baptism, till after examination; and, as it is possible for them to deceive those who examine them, so it is possible that the regeneration, which is pronounced to be imparted when they are baptized, may not in some cases be given. It is possible certainly, but not very probable. There is, however, not only no probability of this with children, but no possibility; for children are never examined-they are baptized-and the Church pronounces them regenerate without. It certainly may be a question how far their baptism may benefit them if they afterwards refuse to ratify the vows made by their godfathers and godmothers at the font; and forgetfulness of their vows may turn God away from them, even though they have been previously confirmed; but this has nothing whatever to do with the question of the bestowal of grace-only with the loss of it. Now, not only must a thing be had before it can be lost, but there is no doubt that the new birth is given in all cases of infant baptism, if at least the Church is to be heard; for, though it may be afterwards despised and fail therefore to produce its full fruit, the Church does not hold that such subsequent circumstances are to be supposed to shew that it was never given; because the Church not only says of every child that it is regenerate when it is baptized, but strengthens that assertion with observations which are entirely incompatible with the supposition alluded to. The rubric at the end of the service for the public baptism of infants expressly states, that "it is certain by God's word that children