Seu p tends ee ss + ee Vitdneddadenee OF) Pe ee eee eer ee “~ ws yey vw ites eeu be an yh Oe duh eda — * — mre atey eer % pres Ns ane reed coher ene ae = Lana * ve +ehe has **. tee moe Anne 7 Ape enne nae tdahae dt tana nee, than cedeeed Cou eee ~ vy er MOS PON Eh. PON EE CVO ietheecalee boos ~ v . tht te tet 2e Rew eds eee + Vey wy eed enees eeeh years Vie meywee ey eeoenhe x< Akane + LAD Apeaatedtadeee tae outaee iserceTehietee aera ~ 7 nate Reet woevesrty ters Lenke anne rn tr er ee ty rerrrys oh A ae ach path tahene teak yak eaeak nih aan RAO One ARR ARA. Geouaut Ce ree ees AR ARNE AAARARA MM | Re me Seog use deer AND Ae tt rane ehh em yah te Ae the Am bhat OO ee eh ete D to ANA HD tt AAane ht ahne ner ameenanan sarmrn ee peerees Soe es At Ne ke am AOR AAO mn ee i rererer ers AORN wt ho ALARA AAR AAS AAO ODMENA Reman Arran te As AANE ARNON SAAN At eh Em Dae toa ns a An nn nan Re ARAN AM NINE roo ANARAA AR ee Om nnne © Ansmann athe, SAAR dah A mon eee a reywyey AASANAA AS AR AAA a An nN AA Ae mh hah yA age A o Am Ape ANAPARAORANCRARA ROAD bor ot A Aes mackie euteunae ee LOTT rere eee Nh Ne A A Amen bee oom ETT eN tt evs Deere SuL el enyere toc} LPT PE STCED ONES weparee Reeepeoereey. Ab AS enh amd ere SS EN Y Ye Y ewe Sec eye te ite yesew yee eK ee ores = mm oh Anne aaa ame — Vyeey ree Pe. ae hn tann anes, Serre A Ao AAR mA tnee nt nee Nees ye rr rerere ry ys +aAananlann bh ah eee A cohen mma A a opeeywcereoereee mb Am er eer ee rerrerre: AADRPARAAA REA en a Rha Rae Lae peer yer: ts ees we S wy eee waew bese Af AAA ++ Ae aS teen bannons oat iabhs Sooo Wwe Theolon; PRINCETON, N. J. BV 811 .M69 1883a Mozley, J..B. 1813-1878. A review of the baptismal controversy 11) ae RE en Number ; ; * 7 é r ia wh a ee Ty ah ; anes * ; oo: sue ka ae } 7 ¢ Y ‘Ache REVIEW OF THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY BY J. B.“MOZLEY, D.D. LATE CANON OF CHERIST CHURCH, AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD SECOND EDITION Nely Pork EK. 2 BpULTron- AND co. PUBLISHERS BOOKSELLERS AND IMPORTERS 39 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET MDCCCLXXXIII PREFACE. THE Baptismal Controversy was the controversy of the first half of this century. It produced treatises from a succession of writers,—Archbishop Laurence, Bishop Mant, Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Faber, Bishop Bethell, Dr. Pusey, Dr. Goode, Archdeacon Wilberforce, and others. It came to a head in the Gorham trial, and has since dropped. A review of a field of past controversy, and an attempt to arrive at a judgment upon it, may not be without use to the theological reader. A controversy, if we collect the strong points and reasonable admissions of the different writers in it, has sometimes a force and value as a whole beyond the sepa- rate works of which it is composed; the different works taken together tending to establish a conclusion which is not proved in any one of them singly. In the present controversy Archbishop Laurence and Bishop Bethell, on the one hand, admit that all infants are not regenerate in baptism in the sense, claimed for that term, of actual good- ness. On the other hand, Dr. Pusey and Mr. Faber, both disciples of antiquity, claim that sense for thisterm. If these conclusions are both of them correct, as agreeing, the one with common sense and experience, the other with A 2 lv Preface. the natural meaning of Seripture, we have the direction of this controversy as a whole, and the issue to which it tends. I have, however, in the present treatise, confined my- self to two positions: one, that the doctrine of the re- generation of all infants in baptism is not an article of the faith ; the other, that the formularies of our Church do not impose it. Moderate and needful fulness, in the proof of main ‘positions, will lead a writer unavoidably into questions not identical with those positions ; but a candid reader will distinguish between such collateral questions, and the main positions which it is the object of a treatise to prove. These two positions, which occupy respectively the two Parts of the present Treatise, have this connexion, that if the one is proved, the way is favourably prepared for the proof of the other. We cannot, indeed, considering all the objects which a Christian Church has in view, insist on limiting its safeguards to fundamentals; but thus much must be allowed, that, if a particular doctrine is not an article of the faith, there is no special reason for expecting that the formularies of our Church will be found to impose it; and, in entering upon the exami- nation of this latter question, we are saved that anxiety which we should feel, supposing the subject-matter of the question were a fundamental. The construction which has been put upon our Formu- laries in this treatise is the same which, judging from Preface. Vv their practice, was put upon them by our School of Stan- dard Divines. The division of opinion on this question was as patent a fact in their day as it is in our own. Had they regarded, therefore, one of these opinions as contradictory to our Formularies, they would have ar- raigned the public maintainers of it. But in no one instance did they do so. The attempt which was made ten years ago to convert a difference into a ground of exclusion, however sincere the convictions from which it proceeded, was wholly new and unprecedented. The late learned Bishop Kaye defended the Gorham Judgment upon this ground, that it represented the tradition of the English Church, denying that it ‘‘ sanctioned any inno- vation in the doctrine of the Church respecting the efficacy of infant baptism.” ' The Bishop of St. David’s defended the Judgment upon the same ground, viz. that those who pronounced it “wished to leave the doctrine of the Church precisely as they found it, not to erect but to prevent the erection of any new barrier to the exercise of the ministry within her communion.”? The Bishop of Oxford has supported the Judgment, by the statement 1 Volume of Charges, p. 448. One of equal learning, who aided the Tractarian movement by his laborious life and singular and saintly simplicity of character, wrote: “If Mr. Gorham himself would set up his defence strictly upon the ground of this writer, we might allow it to be probable that the unfettered Church would bear with him.” Review of * Augustinian Doctrine of Predestina- tion,” by the late Mr. Charles Marriott. Literary Churchman, June 30, 1855. 2 Charge in 1851. vl Preface. that “the Prayer Book is the common standing-place ” and “common statement of truth,’ for both parties in the Church.’ The attempt, therefore, made on that occasion in the direction of exclusion, may be retired from without any surrender of our historical Church Standard. It may happen to religious parties, as it does to political, that they may sometimes in the warmth of zeal make a mis- taken move, and commit themselves to a claim for which there is not sufficient ground. But there is nothing in the Gorham Judgment which involves any departure from Anglican principles, and the acceptance of it need not rank as a party badge, or be exposed to the reproach of unsound Churchmanship. 3 Speech in Convocation, February, 1858, and Charge in 1861. CONTENTS. PARE Ff, CHAPTER I. Proor FROM SCRIPTURE i . . . . . II. Tue Doctrine oF BAPTISM SO FAR AS CONTAINED IN ScRIPTURE z é ; III. Tue Baprismat CHARACTER . IV. REGENERATION CONSIDERED AS REMISSION OF SIN V. ScRIPTURAL SENSE OF REGENERATION VI. PatRISTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION VII. ScHOLASTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION VIII. CaLvInNistIc SENSE OF REGENERATION IX. REGENERATION OF ADULTS IN Baptism X. REGENERATION OF INFANTS IN Baptism XI. SEconDARY AND INCORRECT SENSES OF REGENERATION. XII. THE PATRISTIC ASSERTION OF THE REGENERATION OF ALL INFANTS IN Baptism XIII. AUGUSTINIANISM ° . . . . XIV. Conctusion . : ; Pak tL, I. IntRopuctTION ‘ : II, Toe Inrant BaptrisMAL SERVICE . . . . III. THe CatecHIsm . : PAGE 227 235 252 Vill Contents. CHAPTER PAGE TV. Rue or LItvERAL INTERPRETATION CONSIDERED . 1 Oak V. ARTICLES AND PrRayER BOOK CONSIDERED IN CONNEXION 284 V1. Documentary SovuRcEs. ; : ; 5 » 295 VII. Baptismat LANGUAGE OF CALVINISM . f ‘ :° oon VIII. ARGUMENT OF PRECEDENT . : ; : . 337 TX, RELATIONS OF TIME BETWEEN THE GRACE AND THE SACRAMENT . : : : ; ; ; The conclusion at which Wall arrives in his great work is that Pedobaptism should be treated as an open question, which is not to separate members of the same Church. The point on which, as distinct from refuting the mistake, he censures the conduct of the Anti-pzedobaptists, is that they did not treat the question as an open one, but a fundamental, leaving the com- munion of the Church in consequence, whereas he would have had them remain in the Church, adhering, if they could not be dissuaded, to their own practice; which was the line taken by a portion of this school at its first rise. See Note 2. Cuap. II.] as contained in Scripture. 98 apparent primary design in the institution of baptism. The infant is admitted to baptism on the supposition of faith and repentance: he is made to say, that he believes that he renounces the world, and desires to be baptized. But why this recourse to a supposition, and to an indirect admission of the infant upon the adult — ground instead of upon his own status as an infant, if it was not that the practice of infant baptism had to be maintained in combination with the idea of an in- stitution primarily for adults? Even when the supposi- tion was not expressed, as it was in the offices,® the baptismal theory of the Church supplied it as the tacit accompaniment even of the most naked administration of the rite. The faith of the parent or sponsor stood for that of the child:! if the child had neither, the faith of the Church did the same; the infant never left the ground of a supposed adult qualification, and the Church has with remarkable caution, and in spite of much temp- tation, never, to this day, ventured upon the step of a total removal of the infant from the basis of the adult in baptism. Our Church, accordingly, in her account of the Sacrament of Baptism in the Catechism, treats it primarily as an institution for adults, pronouncing faith and repentance to be the conditions of baptism,—“ that which is required of persons to be. baptized.” She then introduces infants to the benefit of the sacrament, but still through the medium of the adult conditions, not 6 Mature reflection might have taught the Puritans of a former day, and might still teach some objectors of our own, that the institution of sponsors is a witness rather against than for a superstitious doctrine of baptism, as connecting the infant with the conditions of an adult. 7 «Prodest ergo non credentibus ? Sed abest ut ego dicam non credentes infantes. Credit in altero qui peccavit in altero.... unde credunt ? Quomodo credunt? Fide parentum.”’ Augustine, Serm. 294, c. 18, 19. 24 The Doctrine of Baptism so far [Parr I. upon the ground of their own status as infants,—“ be- cause they promise them both by their sureties, which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform.” ® It has been urged, indeed, that baptism and circum- cision stand on the same ground as infant rites, but the two ordinances differ considerably in the whole manner and circumstances of their institution. Circumcision was by the very form of its original institution a rite for infants and adults equally. “'This is My covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you, and thy seed after thee ; every man child among you shall be circumcised. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations.” Adults and infants then stood on equal ground with respect to cir- cumcision by the very letter of Scripture. But when Scripture describes the original institution of Christian Baptism, it makes no mention of infants, and everything relating to the rite is given in connexion with adults. If this distinction in the original type of the institu- tion be true, it would seem that practice has been in the contrary direction to original type, has selected for the field of growth not a first application but a second, and has made an institution almost wholly for infants out of an institution primarily for adults. But whether we accept this distinction or not, it still remains true that the practice of Infant Baptism is no essential part of the original institution of baptism, but only the particular shape it has taken in its practical working in the Christian 8 This answer admits of two meanings, according to the kind of anticipation to which we interpret it to apply; whether the recep- tion of the sacrament previous to the grace, or the reception of the grace previous to fulfilment of the conditions of the grace. In either case, however, the infant by the act of “ promising” is asso- ciated with the future adult. Cuav. II.] as contained in Scripture. 25 community. For some centuries even of Church prac- tice there was by no means the same regularity on this point that there is now, and such passages as the cele- brated one in Tertullian “ Quid festinat innocens eetas,” &c., and others, though not admitting of the mterpre- tation which Anti-peedobaptists have given them, or inconsistent even with the belief in the necessity of infant baptism as the alternative of going without bap- tism altogether, still show that the practical standard of those times on this point was very different from that of our own. Though the institution then has thus attained so extensive a practical development in one direction, this must not divert us from the original type of the ‘institution itself, which was neutral and open on this point, leaving its own future working and mode of appli- cation, so long as the substance was secure, to the natural feeling and discretion of Christians. Such being the state of the case, then, with respect to the practice itself of infant baptism in Scripture, the omission in Scripture of infant baptism, carries with it the omission of infant regeneration by baptism. It is possible indeed that without any express mention of infant baptism, some Scriptural statement might still prove the regeneration of infants «f baptized. But no such statement occurs. We find in Scripture a general connexion of regeneration with baptism; but after thus generally connecting this grace with this sacrament, and mentioning faith and repentance as the conditions of receiving this grace in the case of adults, the New Tes- tament stops short, and does not inform us of the rela- tions in which those stand to this sacrament, who from tender age are incapable of fulfilling these conditions. Various attempts have indeed been made to extract from this general language of Scripture, in which re- generation figures as the grace of baptism, the particular 26 The Doctrine of Baptism so far {Parr I. result that infants are regenerate in baptism; but none with any success. This general language of Scripture has, because it is general, appeared to some to be “ un- limited,” and that baptism ‘is the washing of regene- ration,’ has been considered to imply in its very meaning as a phrase or statement, that baptism is this to all who are baptized.? But such a logical inference is plainly untenable, because it cannot be maintained, and is not in fact maintained by those who draw this very inference, that everybody who is baptized is regenerate, whatever be his personal state and condition. Indeed such a mode of treating Scripture language proceeds upon a misap- prehension altogether of the force of general or inde- finite statement, which can connect a benefit with a particular ordinance without following that connexion into particulars. Jt may be true that we have no right to “restrain”? such language, but neither on the other hand have we the right to give it definite extension beyond the cases of application which are given. Assuming, then, on the ground of the evident con- nexion of the two in Scripture, that regeneration is re- presented in Scripture as the grace of baptism, we must bear in mind that what we are concerned with now is another and a further question, relating to the recipients of such grace. The grace of the sacrament is one thing, who receive it is another. Supposing that baptism con- veys regeneration to qualified persons, who these qualified persons are, and in particular whether all infants are 9“ Where the language of Holy Scripture is unlimited we are not to restrain it. But Holy Scripture speaks universally ; it says ‘The washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost,’ ‘born of water and of the Spirit... .’ Scripture pro- nounces baptism absolutely to be ‘the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost ;’ and what Scripture calls it it must remain, at all times, and however applied to infants as well as to adults.” ‘ Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism,” p. 63. Cuar. II] as contained in Scripture. 27 such, is altogether a further question, which must be decided by reference to the rules and conditions of the institution of baptism, so far as we are informed about them. Consider the case of the other sacrament. The assertion of the grace of the Hucharist does not imply more than that a certain grace attaches to that sacra- ment as such, leaving the question who are the recipients of such grace to subsequent decision. There is indeed one theory according to which these two positions are identical, and the admission of the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism is the simultaneous admission that all infants are recipients of such grace; the theory, viz., which has been expressed in the dictum ““sacramenta semper suum effectum habere non ponenti obicem.”’ It appears to some to follow logically from the fact of a sacrament conferring grace at all, that it con- fers it upon all who do not interpose any obstacle to the reception of it; it beg assumed that infants do not or cannot do this; upon which theory it follows that the particular position about infants is contained in the general one about the grace of the sacrament. But can we admit the correctness of such reasoning? We can- not, in the first place, assume that infants do not present any obex to the reception of the grace of baptism, be- cause they do not present the obex of personal sin:! inasmuch as the doctrine of original sin represents them as having, though physically unable to commit actual sin, sin of some kind in them, which has been transmitted by birth; as prior to baptism children of wrath, lying under the Divine curse, and polluted by an internal though undeveloped source of corruption. That beings in this state are, on account of the absence of personal sin, qualified for receiving the grace of baptism, cannot 1“ Responde prius quis ad baptismum innocens veniat, excepto illo,’ &c. Augustine contra Literas Petiliani, 1. 2, c. 101. 28 The Doctrine of Baptism so far {Parr I. be taken for granted, unless it is so declared in Scrip- ture. In the next place, were it true that infants pre- sented no obea to the reception of the grace of baptism, we could not still infer with any certainty that such a negative condition was qualification enough for this grace; because it must be remembered that the absence of personal sin in infants is quite a different thing from the same freedom in adults. The absence of personal sin is in adults positive goodness, in infants it is only a physical incapacity for action by reason of the immaturity of nature. But that such a neutral condition as this is an adequate qualification for the grace of baptism cannot be assumed, unless it is so declared in Scripture. The Sacrament of Baptism, then, admitted to possess erace, it still depends upon the laws and conditions of the institution of that sacrament who receive that grace. Nor can this question of the recipients be decided by logical inference from the first position; but it is a question of fact to be settled by reference to the proper sources of information on the subject. We do not admit, for example, that because the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper confers grace, it therefore confers grace upon infants. This ference does indeed appear to have pre- vailed at one period, and to have dictated, even in the West, an extensive practice of Infant Communion,? which established itself permanently in the Hastern Church; but it has not been generally acknowledged. It is true that Baptism is an initiatory sacrament, but the conditions of an initiatory sacrament can no more be decided by such reasoning than those of another. Now in this state of the case one side fills up the omission of Scripture in one way, another in another. Some fill up the void with the statement that infants, as such, receive regenerating grace in baptism, upon the 2 Waterland on Infant Communion, vol. vi. p. 41. Cuap. II.] as contazned tn Scripture. 29 ground that the infantine state in infants is an equivalent to faith and repentance in adults. Others fill it up quite differently, by converting the omission of the effect of baptism upon infants, as such, into a denial of it. The omission of Scripture is thus on both sides converted into a statement, either affirmative or negative, which is on either side to exceed the limits of the written word. Those who put the infantine state in infants, and faith and repentance in adults, ona par as conditions of baptism, may assert something to which on abstract grounds there is no objection; still the important difference remains, that Scripture does mention faith and repentance as con- ditions of baptismal grace, and does not mention the infantine state itself as such a condition. Those again who deny all conditions but faith and repentance, can allege that no others are mentioned in Scripture; still the important difference remains, that Scripture does not deny, but only omit other conditions. It is upon these two interpretations of Scripture that the two great schools of doctrine on this subject, which may, in broad terms, be called the school which preceded the Reformation, and the school of the Reformation, have been founded. ‘The school which preceded the Reforma- tion, comprehending the fathers and the schoolmen, maintained that the infant, as such, was qualified for the grace of baptism, the infantine state being considered an equivalent in infants to faith and repentance in adults.’ And the basis of this position was a division between infants and adults, that adults stood upon one ground with respect to baptism, and infants upon another; that the grace of the sacrament was in the one case con- ‘Though this position was modified in some quarters by a limitation of the infant’s benefit in baptism to the negative part of the baptismal gift or remission of sin, as distinguished from the positive or renovative. See Note 14. 30 The Doctrine of Baptism so far |Parv I. ditional, in the other unconditional. The divines of the Reformation, on the other hand, discarded this double principle, and insisted upon a simplification of the bap- tismal scheme, which would bring the whole operation of it under one law. They maintained that the grace of baptism was always conditional, and that mfants and adults stood upon the same ground—one, and one only, qualification of baptism being mentioned in Scripture, viz. that of faith and repentance. Under this scheme, then, the infant had to be connected with faith and re- pentance, and brought under the head of an adult, before he could be pronounced a partaker of baptismal grace. And for this purpose two principal arrangements were made, one that baptism was in the infant’s case an antici- patory rite, and was only attended by grace when its recipient as an adult believed and repented ; the other that the certain seed of a future faith was implanted in some infants by Divine grace previously to baptism, which, counting for the actual grown quality, made them at the tyme persons fit and qualified for the grace of baptism. The latter is the theory of “prevenient grace,” which was not a gratuitous hypothesis of the Reformation divines, proceeding from mere fancy, but an integral part of a plan for the admission of the infant to the grace of baptism, in consistency with alleged Scriptural rule and law. Prevenient grace is by universal admission neces- sary for the regeneration of adults in baptism, because without this prevenient grace they cannot have faith, which is the condition of their regeneration. Prevenient grace was, according to the Reformation divines, neces- sary for the regeneration of infants as well, and for the same reason, viz. because without it they could not have faith—in their case a seminal faith. The principle of this whole later scheme was equality between the infant and adult in regard to baptism. Why, Cuap. II.] as contained tn Scripture. 31 it was asked, should infants be placed in so much more advantageous a position than adults with respect to bap- tism, as that they should be certain of regeneration by the simple fact of being baptized, while adults have only the same grace by the fulfilment of express conditions? Such ipso facto reception of the grace was not necessary for the virtue and efficacy of the sacrament; was it the right or due of the infant partaker? Analogy seemed rather to point to some equalizing rule which would arrange a substantial identity of the terms of regenera- tion, only differing according to the difference of age. Between these extreme positions then, that of dogma- tically claiming for infants, as such, the grace of regene- ration in baptism, and that of dogmatically denying it to infants as such, a middle course is open, viz. that of leaving the omission in Scripture as it stands, and acquiescing in an absence of positive doctrine on the subject." The regeneration of infants, as such, in baptism may be seen to be a position supplementary to and additional to Scripture, the more clearly, perhaps, if for the term regeneration, the association of which with infants custom has rendered so familiar, we substitute justification. The substitution of this term makes no difference to the reasoning in the present case, because justification, or the Divine act by which sin ceases to be imputed to us, is an integral part of regeneration; so that, on the supposition that infants, as such, are regenerate, they are also justified in baptism.® But the doctrine of Scripture is that we are 4 Note 3. 5 “ Justificatio est revera regeneratio.” Luther, Op. i.p. 388. “‘ Regeneration is the spiritual grace of baptism in reference to the change in ourselves, whereas justification is the spiritual grace of baptism in reference to our reconciliation with God.” Bp. Marsh’s second Letter to Simeon, p. 20. 32 Lhe Doctrine of Baptism so far | Parr I. justified by faith; and though some interpret this faith as including works, and others reject this interpretation, all agree in accepting as the condition of justification men- tioned in Scripture, an act or state of mind which, we know, can belong only to adults, and of which infants are incapable. Most persons would indeed, I think, admit that justification without faith was a strange notion, on being first placed before them; and that it carried a difficulty with it as not being in the line of Scripture language. Nor could they well help this impression, because Scripture only contemplates forgiveness as apply- ing to the actual sins of moral agents who are capable of faith, and therefore cannot be pardoned without it; the application of which forgiveness, therefore, to the case of those who, as not being moral agents, are capable neither of actual sin nor faith, is a position supplementary to Scripture; though it is a position which has the sanction of antiquity, which filled up the void in Scripture with the positive statement of the justification of all infants in baptism. . Luther was vastly perplexed by the difficulty of recon- ciling infant justification in baptism with his own great doctrine of justification by faith, and in order to meet it went almost to the extravagant length of asserting that infants had literal and actual faith excited in them by an act of Divine power, to qualify them for justification in the sacrament.° The Wittemberg Conference drew a more moderate assertion from him of their endowment with “‘afaith according to their capacity and measure ;”’ ’ but the true existence of faith in the infant was still insisted on as the essential condition of his justification, and many Lutherans for a long time clung to the older 6 Note 4. 7“ Tnitium quoddam fidei in infantibus extare, secundum ipsorum mensuram et modulum.” Bucer, Angl, Script., p. 656. Cuap. II.] as contarned in Scripture. 33 language of their founder.* The great controversies on justification in our own Church have all along assumed faith, in the narrower or larger sense, as the condition of man’s justification; the case of those who from natural immaturity cannot possess faith, being either left out of the calculation altogether or treated as an exceptional case, which God provides for in an extraordinary manner. “God is the donor,” says Waterland, “‘and He can dispense the grace to some without faith as to infants, and to others without baptism, as to martyrs principally, and to catechumens prevented by extremities; but still the ordinary rule is first to dispense it upon a true and lively faith, sealed with the stipulations mutually passed in baptism.” ® Infant justification is here regarded as an exceptional appendage to the regular Divine method, and the want of faith is put on the same ground as the want of baptism, as a want, viz., which in certain cases is supplied in an extraordinary way. This want in infants, then, of express Scriptural quali- fication for justification applies equally to that of which justification is an integral part, viz. to their regeneration, which, without faith and repentance, is a supplement to Scripture, as is their justification without either. Not that by the expression, “‘ supplement of Scripture,” it is meant that such a supplement is presumptuous, or one that we are forbidden to make, or that it is not in itself true and correct. The same Providence which has left unfinished doctrine in Scripture has also endowed us with that reason which moves us,—and within certain limits innocently,—to build further to it, as we think ’ “Tamen Lutherani hodie non contenti hac mitiore expositione actualem in pueris fidem constituunt.” Whitaker, Prelect. de Sacr., p. 284. «Summary View of the Doctrine of Justification,” vol. vi. p- 12. See Note 6. D 34 The Doctrine of Baptism so far {Parr I. appropriately and considerately ; but such supplement is still no integral part of revelation. A neutral conclusion, however, on this subject will not be allowed to pass without some objections. 1. It may appear an anomaly then that, when to the Divine foreknowledge it was certain that the baptism of infants was going to become with the spread of Christianity the general rule and that of adults the exception, we should be so much better informed of the relation of adults than of that of infants to this ordinance. But to this objection the general answer may be made which is made to the same kind of objection in other cases, viz. that we are no judges beforehand upon such a question. Such a combination of information with want of informa- tion as to the operation of a sacrament, is. not out of analogy with the general course of Divine revelation in the dispensations alike of nature and of grace. On how many subjects connected with the invisible world does the Bible tell us something, and then suddenly stop short, — leaving off, as it were accidentally, with partial and fragmentary truth? And this general answer receives additional weight when we take into consideration what was mentioned above, that the practice of infant baptism, though unquestionably divinely foreknown in its full extent as almost wholly superseding adult, is still no essential part of the institution of baptism, but only the particular shape which it has taken in its practical work- ing in the Christian world. 2. Another objection to a neutral position respecting 1 «To us, to the vast majority of the Church, since the day that the writer of the Epistle wrote those words under the guidance of the Holy Spirit foreknowing that state of things, the doctrine of baptism is the doctrine of Infant Baptism; in that shape, practically, it concerns us.” Lord Lyttelton’s Tract on Infant Baptism. Cuap. II.| as contained in Scripture. 35 the regeneration of infants as such, comes in the form of an appeal to our consistency : for why baptize infants at all, it may be said, when we have no certain information that they receive at the time the beneficial effect of baptism ? But it can be no sufficient reason for not baptizing infants that we do so with partial knowledge, or want of absolute information. If natural feeling, religious instincts, and the analogy of the older dispensa- tion are all in favour of admitting infants to the initiatory rite of a Divine covenant, we are, in the absence of prohibition, justified in doing so. - This particular objection, however, may assume the more formidable shape of a doubt thrown upon the whole subsequent baptismal state of those who are baptized in infancy; on the ground that, as persons cannot be baptized again, if baptism is administered to them, when it is not certain that they receive the grace of it, the same doubt cleaves to their state ever after. I shall reserve this question for another chapter, but in the mean time I shall take for granted, what the whole history of baptism from its first institution abundantly proves, that this is an incorrect assumption; and that the supposition, even if made, that infants are not regenefate by baptism at the time, does not hinder but that they are regenerate by virtue of that same baptism afterwards, upon fulfilling the required conditions. The general statement then of the baptismal question, so far as this chapter goes, may be summed up as follows :— 1. To state in the first place what the doctrine is, con- cerning the presence or absence of which in Scripture we are now inquiring. It is not the doctrine of baptismal regeneration generally, which is assumed, but the position that all infants are regenerate in baptism. The identity of these two positions has indeed been assumed in recent D2 36 The Doctrine of Baptisn so far {Parr I. controversy, the one having been taken to mean the other; so that, had any one spoken of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in any other meaning than that of the regeneration of all infants in baptism, he would have been regarded as using words in a non-natural sense, and adopting an outward phraseology with an inward reserve. But, though the verbal question is not important, it must be seen that these are in reality two distinct positions,— that of baptismal regeneration, or that baptism confers regeneration upon qualified persons, and that infants are qualified persons. The question of a sacrament possessing a particular grace is decided not by the fact who are the recipients of that grace, but by such a grace attaching to it as a sacrament—the way in which we decide this point in the case of the Eucharist. It is true, that if we are in addition informed that such a class of persons are reci- pients, this additional fact becomes a part of the true doctrine relating to that sacrament; but, in the absence of such information, we cannot insert a fixed class of recipients—such as, e.g.,in the present case imfants— in the essence of the sacrament, and incorporate it with its substance and basis. 2. To state with still further accuracy what the doctrine is which we are inquiring about, it is that of the regene- ration of dnfants, as such, i.e. as distinguished from the same infants grown up to years of discretion. This distinction is important because, on the supposition that an infant is not regenerate as such in baptism, he may | still be regenerate afterwards, as an adult, by virtue of the same previous baptism; nor with any more doubt attaching to his case, than what necessarily attaches to all cases in which personal conditions have to be fulfilled, the same doubt which must always attach to adult baptisms. Cuap. II.] as contained in Scripture. a 3. There being two modes of proof by which the regeneration of infants, as such, in baptism, might be established as a doctrine of Scripture; one its express mention in Scripture, the other the extraction of it by logical inference from the general doctrine of baptism in Scripture ; of these two the former is absent, the latter is an incorrect application of reasoning. 4, On the assumption that baptism does not convey regeneration to infants at the time, it still is not a barren form, for it conveys a pledge of and title to regeneration upon certain conditions fulfilled, and so transfers the infant out of a wholly natural and uncovenanted state, as will appear more clearly in the next chapter. 5. The real difference between the baptismal state of infants upon this supposition and upon the other is not so great as might at first be thought. Upon the one supposition they have regeneration from the moment of baptism, but they are only in an elementary stage of the state, till it is developed by action; upon the other they have from the same date a conditional pledge to the full state, which the same course of action secures; this pledge being also accompanied by a preparatory grace, such as that which the catechumens of the early Church enjoyed, and which partakes of the true nature of Gospel grace. The main question, however, which has been decided in this chapter, is a question of fact relating to Scripture, viz. that Scripture asserts nowhere, either explicitly or implicitly, the regeneration of infants in baptism. Without neglecting the consideration of consequences, it must still be remembered that no appeal to them can undo or set aside the plain fact of its omission in Scrip- ture. Itis impossible, then, with this fact before us, and with the rule before us that nothing that is not read in Scripture, or may be proved thereby, is to be required of 38 The Doctrine of Baptism, Se. any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, to maintain that the regeneration of infants in baptism is an article of the faith. It may be said that Scripture may be interpreted consistently with this position, and that antiquity does so interpret it; but the imposition ofa sense on Scripture, which the words only admit of and do not oblige, is not proof from Scripture.’ It may appear to some again that the omission is accidental, and owing to the circum- stance that the most prominent subjects of baptism at the first promulgation of the Gospel were, in the nature of the case, adults; but the rule of faith, which requires proof from Scripture for an article of the faith, looks only to the fact of the presence or absence of such proof in Scripture, without concerning itself with the reasons.® The test which is laid down in this rule of faith is a matter-of-fact test. We may seem to ourselves to be able to account for the omission of infant baptism in Scripture simply and naturally enough, by a reference to the cir- cumstances: under which the writings of the New Testa- ment were composed, the state of things which accompanied the first preaching of the Gospel, when the conversion of adults was necessarily the most conspicuous and important work ; and we may then explain the omission of infant regeneration in Scripture by the omission of infant baptism in Scripture. But if we think we can explain the second of these omissions by the first, and the first by something else, this cannot undo the fact of these omissions; and the fact of the absence of proof in Scripture is all that we are concerned with in the appli- cation of this rule of faith. peti $ (Pea: CHAPTER III THE BAPTISMAL CHARACTER OnE reason which has undoubtedly contributed much to the assumption of infant regeneration in baptism, as a necessary part of the doctrine of baptism, is an inference which is drawn respecting the condition of all those who have been baptized in infancy, if this assumption is not allowed; the inference, viz. which was noticed at the end of the last chapter, that if it is allowed to be doubtful whether such persons received the grace of baptism at the actual time of being baptized, a doubt must attach to their baptismal condition ever after.’ Such a result would of course unsettle the baptismal condition of nearly the whole Christian world; and, nobody being prepared to allow this uncertainty, the inference is drawn that the regeneration of infants as such cannot be permitted to rank as an open question, but must be considered as part and parcel of the fundamental doctrine of baptism. It is, however, a principle testified to in Scripture, and universally maintained in the Christian Church from the first, that the grace of baptism does not depend upon the personal state or condition of the baptized person 1 “To all the promises and descriptions of baptism apply to Infant Baptism? Certainly, unless they did in effect, Infant Baptism were wrong; for so we should be depriving our children of whatever benefits it were supposed that Adult Baptism conferred, and Infant Baptism was incapable of.” Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism, p. 63. 40 The Baptismal Character. [Parr l, at the time of the administration of the rite, but is re- ceived subsequently, upon the proper conditions of it being fulfilled. This law, or modus operandi of the sacra- ment, is connected with its fundamental character as an initiatory rite, which can only be administered once, and does not admit of repetition. The law of this sacrament would indeed be severe if both of these conditions attached to it at once, ie. if together with the rule of its institution that it cannot be repeated, the benefit of it also altogether hung upon the particular disposition of the recipient at the time. Along with the one rule, therefore, another also is found to attach to the sacra- ment, viz. that of a suspended beneficial effect ; that the grace, even if forfeited by unworthiness at the time, still remains conditionally attached to the state of the bap- tized man, and is received upon his becoming worthy.’ It is the same when the state of unworthiness is not simultaneous with but subsequent to baptism, and is a fall from the previous possession of baptismal grace. As in the former case the grace remains suspended till it is had, so in the latter it remains suspended after it has been lost, to be recovered again upon repentance ; though in this case the recovery is not absolutely complete. The two cases rest essentially on the same ground, and are met by the same law. Baptism, correctly administered, has thus one effect which is universal and invariable, whatever be the state 2 The late Mr. Faber (Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, p. 113) rejects the principle of suspension as untenable upon the ground that “suspension importing non-communication at the time,” and communication importing non-suspension, there is no room for this middle effect. But this argument altogether misses the point, because it just leaves out and does not take cognizance of the very idea of suspension, which is thatof a future communication in con- nexion with a present act as the condition of it. Cuap.III.| he Baptismal Character. 41 or condition of the baptized person at the time, viz. a title to or pledge for the grace of the sacrament upon worthiness ; an effect which places him in a certain sense in a covenanted state; for the promise of any gift upon conditions is a covenant, and therefore one who has the promise of regenerating grace upon conditions is in a covenanted state, and is taken out of the simple state of heathenism. This effect is indeed no more than a con- tinuation and extension of the rite itself: still it is on that very account something beyond the rite itself. In later theology it obtained the formal name of the baptismal character, a term which only really stood for this modus operandi of the sacrament ;* though the Schoolmen after thei: fashion materialized its meaning, and put the cause for the effect, assigning the character as the reason for the non-repetition of baptism, instead of the non-repetition of baptism as the reason for the character.* I retain the scholastic name as a convenient one, and one for which there is Augustinian authority,’ for this invariable effect 3 « Character sacramentum est et sacramenti effectus.” Bellar- mine, De Effectu Sacr. 1. 2, c. 22. ‘“ Res et sacramentum est character baptismalis.” Aquinas, S. T., p. 3, Q. 66, A.1. “ Bap- tismus ex communi sententia aliquod sacramentale confert etiamsi percipiatur sine fide.... aliquem effectum sacramentalem habet preter gratiam.”’ Bellarmine, ibid. “Fictione recedente character totum supplet quod sacramentum sine fictione faceret.” Bonaventure, t. v. p. 81. + “ Causa quare non potest iterari baptismus est character quem imprimit.” Bonaventure, tom. v. p. 75. “ Baptisma non potest repeti....sed vera causa non potest assignari hujus discriminis nisi character.” Bellarmine, De Effectu Sacr. 1. 2, c. 22. 5 «Nam si Christiani baptismi sacramentum etiam apud heereti- cos valet et sufficit ad consecrationem, quamvis ad vite sternee participationem non sufficiat; que consecratio reum quidem facit hzereticum extra Domini gregem habentem dominicum characterem,” &c. Ep. 98. “Ovem que foris errabat et dominicum characterem a fallacibus depredatoribus suis foris acceperat, venientem ad Chris- 42 The Baptismal Character. [Parr I. of baptism, which is, it will be observed, distinguished by its very definition from regeneration, existing before the possession of and after the loss of the grace of baptism. The New Testament nowhere formally states this par- ticular effect of baptism. It is clear, however, that those who lost the grace of baptism by wilful sin were not, according to Apostolic practice, cut off for ever from the new Covenant; but on their repentance were treated as again partaking of a grace which had only been sus- pended by unworthiness, being re-admitted to the Church and the state and privileges of Christian brethren. We gather no less plainly from Scripture that even when baptism was received in the first instance without the proper qualifications, and therefore without grace, it still gave a conditional title to that grace, and imparted a new distinction of some kind. When we read of three thousand being baptized in one day by the Apostles, and of the admission into the Church of five thousand at once on another occasion, we cannot suppose that every one of that large number of adults was in a state of mind which constituted a qualification for the saving grace of baptism; but we cannot reasonably doubt that all without exception, in being “ added to the Church,” were brought within the Christian covenant, in this sense, that they were admitted to a state and a title which dis- tinguished them from heathens; and that upon the tiane veritatis salutem ab errore corrigi, characterem tamen in ea dominicum agnosci potius quam improbari; quandoquidem ipsum characterem multi et lupi et lupis infigunt,” &. De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. 6,c.1. This effect of baptism, however, he more com- monly expresses under the terms—“ integritas sacramenti,” “ veri- tas sacramenti,” “ visibilis sanctificatio,” “ Christi baptismus usque ad celebrationem,” “Christum induere usque ad Sacramenti per- ceptionem,” “ verum baptisma,” “ baptismus sanctus,” “ baptismus vivus,” &e. Cuap. III.] Zhe Baptismal Character. 43 strength of this title every one of them, whatever may have been his disposition of mind at the time of being baptized, had subsequently upon worthiness the saving grace of the sacrament. With reference to this point, indeed, another and an important consideration comes in, viz. that of the free and liberal policy of the new dispensation from the first, with respect to the rule and tests of admission into its pale. Faith and repentance are undoubtedly laid down in the case of adults, as necessary for receiving the grace of the sacrament, but the criterion for ascertaining the existence of these qualifications in individuals has never been a rigid one. The Gospel, in this respect, stands in remarkable contrast with the precision of particular sects which have aimed at too much perfection in the constitu- tion of the visible Church, and have only in consequence narrowed and circumscribed their limits as Christian bodies, without even really attaining their own object of a higher standard,—for no human test can exclude hypocrisy. The Gospel plan of admission has been from the first large and comprehensive, applying no scrupulous touchstone of inward personal qualifications, but content rather with the outward hold of men in the first instance, trusting to its own power of moulding and disciplining them afterwards. Our Lord’s parables describe the area of the Christian Church as wide, and the occupation as miscellaneous, the tares and the wheat both finding their way in together, to await in a large mixed society the final division ; and the parting command to the Apostles was,— Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Nor, as has been observed, when we come to New Testament practice and the scale of Apostolic bap- tisms, does this rite at all figure as one designed to be admi- nistered with a sparing hand and by the use of nice tests. A4 The Baptismal Character. [|Parvl. But such a liberal rule of admission as this is alto- gether inconsistent with the rigid supposition, that the whole future benefit of the new Covenant to the indi- vidual should be dependent upon the disposition of mind he was in at the particular time of his first admission into it. In that case, the practice of baptizing men in masses, upon a general desire indeed expressed for the sacrament, but certainly without any strict examination of individual qualifications, would be attended by the most fearful risks, and would indeed be a positive cruelty rather than an indulgent or wise policy: for it would be the extremity of rashness and precipitation, it would be sporting with men’s souls and eternal interests, to invite them in crowds to baptism, if a certain inward state of mind at that particular time was everything, in the absence of which, so to speak, all chance was gone. But, indeed, such a supposition as this latter receives no kind of warrant from any part of the New Testament; for though Scripture, so far as it speaks on the subject, attaches moral conditions to the reception of the grace of baptism, it attaches no conditions of time, nor ever once implies that the grace of baptism, in order to be had subsequently to baptism, must have been had simul- taneously with it. . The Church has followed the liberal rule of Scripture in this matter, and the fundamental characteristic of the new Covenant as one of mercy has, like a general prin- ciple of equity interpreting a civil statute, dictated the catholic law of baptism. It was held universally from the first, that in the case of the Fictus, or the person who received baptism in a state of unworthiness, the grace, though not received at the time, was received afterwards upon his change of inward disposition. In other words, the Church drew a distinction between the grace or salu- tary effects of baptism and a title or character which it Cuap. III.] Zhe Baptismal Character. A5 conferred, by which grace, at the time absent or present, the recipient was removed from the position of a heathen. The same distinction was applied to the case of persons who fell into states of unworthiness subsequently to bap- tism which they had received at the time worthily. A small party—the Novatian—took a hopeless view of the condition of persons, who, having once enjoyed the grace of baptism, afterwards fell away from and lost it by wilful sin; but the Church recognized a Christian title which continued good throughout, even while the grace of the sacrament was lost; which title, without any fresh bap- tism, re-admitted them to grace upon true repentance. This admitted operation of baptism in the case of the Fictus became, indeed, the basis upon which other large and important baptismal rules in the same direction were maintained ; and the Church rested upon it as her argu- mentative fulcrum in deciding the point at issue in the Cyprianic and Donatist controversies, i.e. in establishing the validity of schismatical and heretical baptism. St. Augustine appeals to it throughout his anti-Donatist works as a settled point, which he could take for granted without fear of challenge ; and upon the ground of the subsequent profitableness of the baptism of the Fictus assumed as universally admitted, argued for the same effect the case of the person baptized in schism and _heresy.® The two cases were indeed, upon the assumption of cer- tain effects of schism, almost identical; the preliminary obstacle being in both alike unworthiness in the recipient, only occasioned in the one place by personal defect, in the other by a want inherent in a position external to the Church, outside of which the spiritual disposition of love could not be had, inasmuch as it was only within her that 6 De Baptismo contra Donat. 1. 1, c. 12; 1. 5, c. 20; 1. 6, ¢. 34, » and passim. 46 The Baptismal Character. [Parr I. the Holy Spirit operated. The validity of heretical bap- tism was thus raised as a superstructure upon the basis of the operation of baptism in the case of the Fictus, assumed to possess an antecedent undoubted position as an established catholic truth. | In maintaining this general position with respect to the operation of baptism, the Church doubtless did not altoge- ther shut its eye to a certain evident expediency, for very awkward consequences would have followed upon any different ground taken. Any uncertainty attaching to the sacramental profitableness of baptism afterwards, if re- ceived without faith and repentance at the time, would have introduced doubt on the largest scale into the actual mass of existing baptisms, would have imperilled the spiritual state of thousands, and have infected the whole atmo- sphere of Christendom with distrust. Nor probably were the limbs of the main position maintained without an eye to the effect upon the centre if they were abandoned : and the validity of schismatical and heretical baptism may have been adhered to the more firmly from the idea that those cases, 1f given up, might react upon the baptism of the Fictus, or baptism received in a state of sin. It was a first principle with the Church to establish the validity of baptism upon as plain and matter-of-fact a ground as possible, simplifying the tests of it, and relieving it from doubt and uncertainty; so as to set people’s minds at rest, and leave no room for fears and apprehensions on that head. And therefore the two conditions of the matter and the words ascertained, nothing was allowed to interfere with the validity of baptism, or its subsequent profitableness, where the proper conditions were fulfilled. But though the Church did not probably shut out prac- tical consequences altogether from her view, the doc- trine that she laid down was clear and decisive ; and the operation of baptism in the case of the Fictus was always Cuap. III.] Zhe Baptismal Character. 47 appealed to as a known, admitted, and universally received truth. The law that the subsequent grace of baptism does not depend on the qualification of the baptized person at the time, is thus part and parcel of the doctrine of baptism itself ; it dates from the very institution of the sacrament, and carries with it the unanimous assent of the Church in every age. It is, indeed, this law of baptism which has been erroneously expressed by some divines as “ once regenerate, always regenerate.” The regenerate state may be lost because it is essentially a state of pardon and acceptance, which is lost when the person falls into a state of sin: but the baptismal character is not lost. Waterland draws attention to this distinction between, as he expresses it, ‘the baptismal consecration and the covenant state consequent,’ and “the saving effect of baptism, the new birth or spiritual life,” in the case of adults baptized in sin.’ The real and full truth of the case I take to lie in the particulars here following :— 1. It is certain, in general, that the Holy Spirit, some way or other, has a hand in every true and valid baptism ; God never fails as to His part in an awful sacrament, how- ever men may guiltily fail in theirs. 2. The Holy Spirit is in some sort offered to all that receive Christian bap- tism ; for the very nature of a sacrament requires that the sign and the grace should so far go together, and the unworthy could not be guilty of rejecting the grace, while they recezve the sign, if both were not offered them. 3. As the Holy Spirit consecrates and sanctifies the waters of baptism, giving them an outward and relative holiness, so he consecrates the persons also in an outward and relative sense, whether good or bad, by a sacred dedication of them to the worship and service of the whole Trinity ; 7 V. iv. p. 441. 48 The Baptismal Character. | Parr I. which consecration is for ever binding and has its effect, either to the salvation of the parties, if they repent or amend, or to the greater damnation if they do not. 4. I must add that even the unworthy are by their baptism put into a Christian state; otherwise they would be as mere Pagans still, and would want anew baptism to make them Christians. Therefore as they are by baptism trans- lated out of their natwral state into the state Christian, they must be supposed to have pardon, and grace, and Gospel privileges conditionally made over to them, though not yet actually applied by reason of their disqualifications : a grant which will do them no manner of service, but hurt, if they never repent; butif they do repent and turn to God, then that conditional grant suspended as it were before, with respect to any saving effects, begins at length to take place effectually ; and so their baptism which had stood waiting without any salutary fruit for a time, now becomes beneficial and saving to the returning peni- tents.” ° The law of baptism then being clear and decisive that the profitableness of it does not depend upon the qualifi- cations of the baptized person at the time, but commences subsequently as soon as those qualifications are obtained ; it is evident that the baptism of infants, supposed not to have at the time the proper qualifications for the grace of baptism, comes strictly and properly under it. For let this be supposed of infants, still all that can be said of infants, even on this supposition, is that they are human persons who are baptized without being qualified at the time for the grace of the sacrament ; and as thus described the above principle applies strictly to them; and their baptism has a suspended grace accompanying it, which comes into operation upon their growing up and becom- 5 V. iv. p. 443. Cuap. IlIl.| Zhe Baptismal Character. 49 ing qualified for it. The principle has been undoubtedly laid down in the Christian Church from the first, that the grace of the sacrament is not tied to the time of its admi- nistration ; that the simultaneity of the signand the thing signified is not necessary, but that on the contrary the sign may precede the grace by an indefinitely long interval. The only answer indeed which I can suppose being made to this distinction that infants may not be regene- rate in baptism at the time, and yet receive in baptism a title to regenerating grace upon becoming afterwards qualified for it, is the plea that this title as carrying with it a kind of covenanted state, is itself regeneration. But to assert this would be simply to misapprehend at the very outset the very nature of this title or character, which is by its very definition, not regeneration, but only a conditional right to it. Regeneration is undoubtedly grace, but nothing can be more clear and decided than the distinction, maintained by the whole of antiquity and pervading all subsequent theology, which separates the baptismal character from grace.’ Regeneration is in its own nature and at the very time it is given, beneficial, being, besides other things, the actual pardon of sin, which is a present advantage: but the baptismal cha- racter does not remit sin, and is no benefit at the time, but only a title to benefit subsequently upon conditions fulfilled. Regeneration is only received by the adult upon faith and repentance; but the baptismal character is received by every baptized person, and even without faith and repentance. These two things, therefore, are entirely distinct; and that all infants receive the baptismal cha- racter in baptism does not at all imply that all infants are regenerate in baptism. When, then, among other language, the divines of the 9 Note 6. 50 The Baptismal Character. Reformation held that mfant baptism was an anticipatory rite which, though it was not beneficial at the time on account of the want of qualification in the recipient, became beneficial afterwards’ upon his obtaining that qualification, they had a parallel case provided for them in antiquity. They were only applying to infants the same law and rule of baptism, which the Fathers had applied to unqualified adults. The case of the Fictus, which had received the unanimous and uninterrupted assent of the Church, involved unquestionably the great principle just mentioned. The Reformers applied this principle to Infant Baptism, nor in doing so did they admit that they at all depreciated the virtue of the sacra- ment. The identity of time, in the connexion of the sign with the thing signified, was the only point affected by this arrangement, and that, besides that it was evidently no intrinsic or fundamental part of the relation of the two, had been completely given up by antiquity in the case mentioned. Such a separation in time between the _ sacrament itself and the virtue and benefit of it, no more derogated from the former as the channel and instrument of the latter, m the case of infant baptism, than it did in the case of the baptism of the Fictus. 1 Note 7. CHAPTER IV REGENERATION CONSIDERED AS REMISSION OF SIN Two definitions of Regeneration may be said to divide theological opinion; according to one of which it is a state of pardon and of actual goodness, according to the other a state of pardon and a new capacity only for good- ness, or an assisting grace. In this state of the case, then, the first observation that we make is, that, upon either definition, regeneration is a complex thing, consisting of parts of which it is the whole or sum; only existing in any person by the presence of both those parts, and cancelled if either is absent; those parts being, the one, remission of sin past, the other, one or other of tke two alternatives just mentioned. It is from overlooking this complex character of regeneration that various mistakes have been made. We hear of a non-beneficial regeneration, which is received by impeni- tent adults in baptism ;* but if persons would examine what it is which constitutes regeneration, they would find that, in the nature of the case, the gift cannot be other- wise than beneficial; because, as the res sacramenti of baptism, it undoubtedly comprehends the Divine pardon, which is in its own nature an advantage and a benefit. They would find that for that reason an impenitent adult cannot receive regeneration in baptism, inasmuch as that would be to suppose sin pardoned without repentance.? They would find again that it is not ‘‘once regenerate, 1 Note 8. 2 Note 9. E 2 52 Regeneration considered as [Parr l. always regenerate; because that would be saying, “ Once in a state of pardon, always in a state of pardon.” The baptismal character is indeed received by impenitent adults, and always remains, but the baptismal character is not regeneration. This preliminary remark, however, made, it will be con- venient, in approaching the question of the real or Scrip- tural meaning of regeneration, to eliminate, in the first instance, from the two antagonistic definitions that which is common to both, viz. this particular benefit of remission of sin, in order to clear the ground for a comparison of the two on the point on which they differ ; and to relieve ourselves from the necessity of carrying about with us throughout the discussion an extra weight of language, caused by the perpetual junction of that which is not with that which is in dispute. In eliminating, however, from the two rival definitions of regeneration, the common benefit of remission of sin, we must pause a short time to consider a question relating to this particular gift of remission, which bears imme- diately upon the main point of difference between the two definitions. For whereas the two received definitions of regeneration differ in this respect, that one does and the other does not make regeneration actual goodness, the question may be raised whether this gift of remission of sin, which both adopt in common, does not of itself con- stitute actual goodness; masmuch as it may be argued that a man must be good in the sight of God as soon as ever sin is no longer imputed to him, What is it then which is involved in remission of sin ? In examining the precise effect of remission, and what actually takes place in this Divine act, we find that we cannot describe this effect, regarded by itself, as being more than the removal of an existing impediment in the way of the individual’s goodness. It is the nature of sin Cuap. IV. |] Remission of Sin. 53 that, though the act passes away, it leaves a result behind it* in that stain upon the soul which we call guilt—a result which affects the character even after the act, making the character of the individual, so long as this guilt attaches to him, bad. The guilt of past sin then being an impediment to the present goodness of the indi- vidual, remission of sin is the removal of that impediment: but the removal of an impediment to goodness is not goodness, because the removal of an impediment is only a negative thing, whereas goodness is a positive quality, and consists in certain actual habits and dispositions, which are active and living principles of goodness within the soul, producing acts upon the opportunity and power being supplied. The individual is by remission relieved of a certain effect of his past wrong acts, but has he there- fore right habits and dispositions? Has he a present inclination to virtue simply on account of such forgiveness of past vice? We must see, if we examine the matter, that the absence of a certain effect of past wickedness is altogether a different thing from the production of positive goodness within the soul, that these are in their own nature different spiritual facts. And we must also see that it is no derogation from the Divine act of remitting sin to insist on this distinction; it being no defect in a Divine act that it should be the act which it professes to be, and not another, and that the end in which it issues should be its own appropriate end and no other. The Divine act of remission of sin is in its own nature then limited to the removal of an effect which has followed from past sin, and does not of itself produce the existence of actual goodness in the soul. Nor is it true to say that the individual is good in the sight of God by virtue of the non-imputation of sin simply ; because God sees things as 8 “Manent peccata reatu, quee preterierunt actu.” Augustine contra Jul. Pel. 1. vi. c. 19. 54 Regeneration considered as [Parr I. they are, and if actual goodness is not produced in the person by simple remission of sin, actual goodness is not perceived in him by God as the effect of such remission. The argument might, indeed, at first sight commend itself that pardon is an act of love, and that Divine love implies goodness in the object of it; but this would be an inference drawn from a word which had one meaning in the premiss, and another in the conclusion. In one sense God only loves the good, but in another sense God’s love is bestowed upon the creature as such, of whose welfare it is the desire.* It is true that remission of sin in the case of moral agents supposes a certain actual goodness in them as the condition of it, viz. faith and repentance: but such good- ness as being the condition of remission, and therefore preceding it, is plainly not the effect of such remission, or contained in it as its cause, or constituted by remission of sin ;—which is the question with which we are concerned. The Schoolmen, who went with their usual minuteness into the nature of the Divine gift of remission of sin, were particular in drawing attention to this distinction, that the non-imputation of sin did not constitute actual good- ness. They identified justification indeed with actual goodness, but justification, in the Roman and Scholastic sense, means more than remission of sin, viz. the actual infusion into the creature of good habits, and of the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. This infusion, then, of actual goodness into the human soul, was decided in the schools to constitute such actual goodness, but the simple remis- sion of sin was pronounced not todoso. And though the doctrine of the later Schoolmen was that infusion of virtues and remission of sin went together de facto, in the Divine dispensation ; the goodness of the justified person was attributed expressly to the infusion and not to the 4 Note 10. Cuap. IV. | Remission of Sin. 55 remission. A section of the schools indeed went so far as to maintain only one Divine act in justification, viz. that of infusion of virtues, and with it this result, that so far from remission of sin causing actual goodness, on the contrary, it was the infusion of actual goodness which caused remis- sion of sin, “ extinguishing it by contrary disposition.” ° Calvinism,—and the same may be said of Lutheranism, —is less decided against the claim of remission of sin to constitute actual goodness, and appears at first sight to contemplate a point in the life of the soul, at which it is good in the sight of God, simply by reason of delivery from guilt, viz. when the Divine grace arresting the sinner in the midst of his pollution, and conveying to him instan- taneously a pardon in full of the past, by this pardon justifies him. But justification, in the Calvinistic sense, does not coincide with the precise idea of actual goodness in God’s sight, being distinguished by the Calvinist him- self from that insertion of the habit of holiness and good- ness, 1.e. sanctification, which he upholds as a necessary accompaniment of justification.6 For by maintaining the 5 Thorndike, Covenant of Grace, b. 2, c. 30,5.19. ‘“ Vasquez acriter contendit remissionem peccati nihil prorsus in re esse, nisi infusionem justitiz, tribuitque hanc opinionem quibusdam Roma- nensibus.” Forbes’ Considerations, |. 2, de Justif., c. 4. Occham on the contrary,—‘ Deus de potentia sua absoluta potest remittere culpam et poenam sine infusione gratiz . . . Tamen dico de facto quod gratia infunditur, quia hoc sonant auctoritates sacree Scrip- ture et dicta sanctorum.” In Lomb. iv. 3. And Bellarmine,— “ Reatus poene et offensa possent quidem tolli sine infusione justi- tize, nihil enim impedire videtur quo minus possit Deus velle non ordinare poenam et condonare offensam, et non habere pro inimico illum cui donum habitualis justitiz non concesserit.” De Justifi- catione, 1. 2, c. 16. 6 “Cum justificatione sanctificatio mnecessario conjungitur.” Whitaker de Sacr. Q. 5, ¢. 3, p. 146. The Lutheran doctrine is the same: “Opera sequuntur justificationem fidei infallibiter.” Luther, tom. i. p. 373. 56 Regeneration considered as { Part I. necessity of inward sanctification as the criterion of justi- fication, the Calvinist substantially requires more than simple pardon as necessary to constitute the man actually good in the sight of God. The Lutheran doctrine is the same as the Calvinistic. The bearing of this negative characteristic of remission of sin, viz. that it does not constitute actual goodness, upon the case of baptized infants, deserves attention. Remission to adults of actual sin presupposes, in the shape of faith and repentance, certain actual goodness: but the remission to the infant of original sin, not requiring, as in the nature of the case it cannot, any such conditions, we have in consequence, in the state of the baptized infant, simply the effect of remission of sin itself, abstracted from adjuncts and accompaniments. What then is the effect of this naked and pure remission of sin upon the baptized infant? It is evident from the foregoing considerations what the effect is not,—that though the infant has of course the goodness of natural innocence, he does not possess goodness in a moral or theological sense, by reason of the remission of original sin. He is free, indeed, from personal sin, and he is admitted to Divine favour; but neither does the admission into Divine favour,—inasmuch as God loves us independently of goodness in us,—neither does the absence of personal sin, where this is the effect of mere physical immaturity ; nor do both of these together constitute actual goodness: in the place of which an im- pending and as yet uncertain struggle between concu- piscence and grace, the flesh and the spirit, between an inherent principle of evil and a latent germinal principle of good, forms a morally neutral and indeterminate state in the infant to whom original sin is yet remitted. He has implanted spiritual faculties of which after-life may show either the culture or neglect, but at present his character is wholly unformed for good or for evil, and the Cuap. IV. | Remussion of Sin. oy issue is in suspense, and awaits a future contingency. Nor has he by reason of such remission even an implanted or seminal habit of goodness. He possesses, therefore, in no sense a determinate moral character, and therefore is not good in a moral or theological sense. The later Schoolmen refused indeed to recognize this neutral and indeterminate state in baptized infants, and insisted upon the point that they possessed positive goodness ; but, as has been said, they assigned them this goodness as the consequence of a distinct infusion of habits into them, and not as the result of remission of original sin. Resting upon the maxim that the remission of sin and implantation of goodness, though in the abstract separable, always went together de facto in the Divine economy, in the same way in which the Calvinist asserts that justification and sanctification go together, they maintained that, together with the remission of original sin in baptism, the infant had also the habits of faith, hope, and charity infused into him. Nor was the refusal in this case to separate a state of pardon from a state of actual goodness an unnatural and unreasonable refusal, had the pardon which is supposed in this case been a pardon of the natural and comprehensible kind; for certainly when a being enjoys the Divine pardon in the natural and comprehensible sense, it is only reasonable to conclude that he is in a state of positive goodness. But the pardon which is here supposed as the privilege of the baptized infant, viz. remission of original sin, is not pardon in the ordinary and natural, but in an incom- prehensible sense ; because the sin being incomprehensible sin, the forgiveness of it is incomprehensible forgiveness —a distinction which accounts for the forgiveness of the infant being without the moral accompaniments of the forgiveness of the adult. If we adopt the Scholastic notion, then, of the im- 58 Regeneration considered, Sc. plantation of the actual habit of goodness in the infant, that is another and a distinct ground on which to lay the infant’s claim to moral or personal goodness; but the remission of original sin is no ground for this claim; it does not give him moral character, or therefore make him good in a moral sense. He is as yet an unformed being in moral respects, and his condition is neutral, suspended, and as yet undetermined either to good or evil. Anglican divines are unanimous on this point, viz. that remission of origirfal sin does not constitute actual goodness. They maintain the remission of original sin in baptism, but they entirely reject at the same time the idea that the baptized infant is good in a moral sense; they regard him as incapable of possessing such goodness, because they regard him as incapable of possessing moral character in any sense,—although a pardoned being, having received remission of original sin.’ They look upon him as a- being endowed with latent moral faculties, the use or neglect of which in after-life will determine then his character either for good or evil; but as a being at present neither good nor bad morally, but in a state altogether neutral and indeterminate. “ “He may question me respecting the regeneration of infants, whether or not I believe that a moral change takes place in them. Without the slightest hesitation, however, I answer I do not; and for this plain reason, because I am persuaded the thing itself is impossible ; morality and immorality being alike incompatible with their state of being.” Abp. Lawrence, Efficacy of Baptism, Part ii. p- 25. ‘Infants are indeed sanctified in a certain sense, but notin the sense of proper renewal of mind and heart.” Waterland, Sum- mary View of Justification, vol. vi. p. 7. It must be observed, however, that this neutral state of the infant is no obstacle to his salvation, if he die as an infant; it being in the power of God in the act of admitting him to eternal life to bestow such supplemen- tary qualifications as are necessary for that new state of existence. CHAPTER V SCRIPTURAL SENSE OF REGENERATION In a preceding chapter it appeared that Scripture was silent on the subject of the regeneration of infants, as such, in baptism. The question, however, with which we are concerned is not whether any infants are regenerate in baptism, but a very different one—whether all are. But on this latter question an additional consideration arises. | For can the term “regenerate”’ in its true meaning, as used in Scripture, be applied consistently with the facts of our experience to all baptized infants? This is an important question, and to answer it we must first ascertain what is the Scriptural sense of the term, which will be my object in this chapter. All agree then that regeneration involves a true power to possess holiness and goodness; but is it not also described in Scripture as implymg more than this, viz. goodness and holiness itself? . The term regenerate only occurs a few times in the New Testament, twice in the substantive shape of ‘‘re- generation,’ once as a verb, if we are to adopt our English translation of yervn?7 dvwGev in John in. 3, and once as a participle. But we need not infer from thence any scarcity of Scripture language to decide the meaning of this term, because confessed synonyms abound in the New Testament, the meaning of which is partly by the 60 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. [Part I. Synonymous terms themselves, and partly by their con- text, made sufficiently clear and evident. The principal synonym, then, which stamps the mean- ing of “regenerate,” or “ born again,” is the expression “born of God” or “child of God.” It is confessed on all sides that these two expressions, “ born again” and “born of God,” mean exactly the same thing, and are convertible terms; one who is born again, being in the nature of the case born of God; because, the first birth being from man, the second birth must, by virtue of the very contrast, be from God; so that the two are sub- stantially one and the same term.’ Assuming the complete identity then of these two terms, I shall observe, in the first place, that the term “child of God” in Scripture is not an isolated one, but that it belongs to a class of expressions; and that the meaning which attaches to the class fixes the meaning of this individual specimen of it. The phrase “son of,” when used as a phrase in Scripture, and out of its literal signification, expresses a similarity of character in the person who is called the son, to the other whose son he is said to be, whether the likeness involve good or evil. The phrase assumes that the offspring is like the parent, not only in nature, but in character,—a fictitious assump- tion, but one which serves for a phraseological purpose. A “son of valour” is a courageous man; a “son of thunder” is a vehement and energetic man; a “son of * “Born of God, i.e. regenerate.” Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism, p. 18. The term ‘ child of God” is used in the Catechism obviously as an equivalent to “ regenerate,” whichis the term used in the Baptismal Service. In using therefore in this treatise the terms “ regenerate,” and ‘ regeneration,” I use the former term as the head of the class of Scriptural terms and synonyms, “born of God,” “ Son of God,” &c.; and the latter term as the substantive of the former. Cuap. V.] Scrzptural Sense of Regeneration. 61 Belial,” or wickedness, is a bad man; a “child of dis- obedience”’ is a disobedient man. A “child of Abraham” is one who resembles Abraham in faith and obedience; a ‘child of the devil” and a “ child of hell” is one who resembles the devil and the occupants of hell, in malice and wickedness. The “children of light” and the ** children of darkness,” the “ children of the world” and the ‘‘ children of the resurrection’”’ the “ children of the kingdom ”* and the “children of the wicked one,” are those who are respectively like light and darkness, this world and the eternal world, the powers of heaven and the powers of hell, in character. A ‘‘son of wrath” and a “son of perdition”’ have a cognateness rather than a likeness to “wrath” and “ perdition.”” The phrase is not always used with complete exactness, but it invariably denotes an actual character good or bad, and not only a capacity for good or evil. John vii. 42, 47. + Matt. v. 44, 45. Car. V.] Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 63 an actual likeness to God, and, as a general rule, a like- ness to Him in respect of goodness and holiness. But we have not to do in the present argument with the term “born of God” or “child of God” simply, but with the term as used in a particular connexion, and under particular circumstances. We have to do with this term as expressing a certain change which takes place in the soul under a new and spiritual dispensation. Our Lord in the saying “ that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” points distinctly to a remarkable inward change of some kind, which is produced by the Holy Spirit under the Gospel dispensation; and the Hpistles constantly refer and appeal to this change as the most important one in the whole life of the soul, and the basis of all hopes of eternal happiness. The question, then, with which we are concerned is not what the term “born of God” means as a term simply, but what it means when it is used in this connexion, and to express this change; and on this head Scripture is clear, full, and decisive. We are not left to collect the meaning of the term “born of God” from the general analogy of the phrase, or the principle upon which the class of phrases is founded ; but we have positively and directly described to us what a “son of God” is, his distinctive qualities and characteristics, and what it is which constitutes this sonship. And this it is which composes the main evidence of the Scriptural meaning of this term. Wherever then the New Testament describes a “ child of God,” or one who is “born of God,” it mvariably describes him as a good and holy person, and describes the state as involving these qualities and characteristics. “As many as are led by the Spirit of God,” says St. Paul, “ they are the sons of God.” And he exhorts the Philippians to be “ blameless and harmless, the sons of 64 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation.” ‘“ Behold,” says St. John, “ what man- ner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not,’ °—knoweth us not, because we are the sons of God, and because the sons of God differ wholly in life and conversation from the world. “ Every one that doeth righteousness is born of God,”’*® says the same Apostle. ‘‘ Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world,” ‘ Whosoever is born of God sinneth not, and that wicked one toucheth him not.”? “ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, neither can he sin, because he is born of God.’ ® “Tn this the children of God are manifest, and the chil- dren of the devil; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.”*® ‘He that is begotten of God keepeth himself.” “ Hvery one that loveth is born of God.”? Words could not declare more plainly that the regenerate state involves actual goodness and holiness, and not only a capacity for obtaining these qualifications.* We get the same result from other terms which are used in Scripture as identical in meaning with “regene- rate.’ The term “new creature”? obviously means the same as “born again,” and the term “ new creature” plainly signifies a man of changed heart and life. ‘‘ Dead unto sin,” and “alive unto God,” are other expressions 5 1 John iii 1. 6 1 John ii. 29. 7 1 John v. 4, 18. 8 1 John i. 9. 7 Vohn 1: 10. ) 4 John yee 2 1 John iv. 7. 3 The accuracies of classical scholarship have a questionable place in the interpretation of the Greek of the New Testament. The distinction, however, between the regenerate state and abiding in the regenerate state, even if gained out of the Greek perfect, yeyevynrat, is a needless refinement for the purpose of the present argument; forif abiding in the regenerate state is actual goodness, the regenerate state is actual goodness. Cuar. V.| Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 65 which have the same meaning as “ born again ;” all three phrases alike signifying a first life ended, and a second life begun ; but there can be no doubt that this death to sin and this life to God, are an actual abstinence from sin, and actual good living. All three phrases, indeed, “born again,” “new creature,” “new man,” mean in Scripture what the same kind of phrases mean in the common language of mankind. When we say that such a one,—referring to somebody who has hitherto borne a bad character,—has become “ quite a new man,’ we do not mean that he has got a new capacity for alteration of character, but that he is an actually altered man. And in the same way “ regenerate,” “new creature,” “ new man,” in Scripture, do not denote a capacity for goodness only, however high and promising a one, but actual good- ness. Some divines appear indeed to suppose that by exalt- ing the capacity for goodness which the Gospel imparts, as a capacity, they can supply an adequate and sufficient meaning to these phrases. ‘They describe regeneration as “the communication or transmission of the nature of the second Adam,” “ the grafting into the second Adam,” “the reconstruction of humanity in the second Adam,” “the communication of Christ’s humanity,” “the re- fashioning of our nature in its head and model,” “ the reconstruction of humanity at large in Christ’s manhood.” But if all that they mean by these phrases, when they use them, is that regeneration is the implanting of a new capacity for goodness in human nature, this conception of regeneration is altogether inadequate, notwithstanding the loftiness of the language by which it is covered. For a mere capacity for a thing can by no difference in its magnitude be made the thing ; the most vicious man may possess in the lowest depths of his actual degradation, the capacity for the very highest form of goodness; but F 66 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Part I. he is not therefore good; and regeneration implies in its Scriptural sense actual goodness. We get the same result from certain recognized types and figures of the new birth. The ablutions of the old law were an actual cleansing of the flesh, and therefore the antitype is an actual purification of the heart. Cir- cumcision was an actual cutting off of the flesh, and therefore the antitype is an actual mortification of cor- rupt nature. The new birth is, according to St. Paul, inward circumcision, and there can be no doubt what inward circumcision is. This being the natural and obvious meaning, however, of Scripture, various reasons are urged in some quarters, why these statements of Scripture should not be under- stood in their natural and obvious sense. The language of St. John especially has, in consequence of its remark- able simplicity and decision, become prominent subject- matter of explanation, and objections have been raised against the literal interpretation of this language, as, upon sound principles of exegesis, impossible. It is urged, then, that the statement of St. John, that “whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,” is incapable of a literal interpretation, because according to such an interpretation, nobody in the world would be regenerate. But this is to judge of the meaning of a statement by a totally irrelevant test, viz. whether such a statement is exemplified by the present behaviour and temper of Christians. The meaning of language is one thing, its application to persons around us is another. It is no proof that St. John does not mean what he says in this statement, that such a meaning is not realized in the conduct of Christians in this life. It will be replied, however, that the term “ regenerate” is a term which is realized m this world, some persons being undoubtedly regenerate now and in this life; and Cuap. V.] Scrzptural Sense of Regeneration. 67 that it is not a mere ideal and anticipatory term: and that, therefore, we are obliged to understand it in a sense which is a different sense from the literal one in this statement. But admitting that the term “regene- rate” is one which is realized in this world, we are not, therefore, obliged to understand it in a different sense from the literal one in this statement, but only in a dif- ferent degree of the same sense. The perfectly regene- ate man is perfectly good; the imperfectly regenerate man is imperfectly good; the distinction does not involve a different sense of the word, but only more or less ful- ness of the same sense. We may see the same difference in the use of the word “ good” itself. We have the best authority for saying that “there is none good but One, that is God ;” and yet we speak of good men. Nor when we speak of good men do we use the word “ good” ina different sense from its literal one in our Lord’s saying, but only in a different degree of the same sense. Good is an unrealized epithet according to one standard, a realized one according to another; in a perfect degree nobody in the world is good, in an imperfect degree many are good; but these two standards do not involve any different sense of the word “ good,” for good still means good, whether it is higher good or lower. In the same way the regenerate state admits of degrees, and is an un- realized state in one degree, a realized one in another ; but this does not involve a different sense of “ regene- rate,’ any more than the same distinction involves a different sense of “ good.” It is true that underneath the broad meaning of the term in Scripture as implying actual goodness and holi- ness, we do upon a closer examination see variations. We see, as has appeared just now, that the regenerate state is sometimes spoken of as an unmixed state of good- ness, and sometimes as a now realized state of goodness, F 2 68 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. which therefore admits of the mixture of sin. And just as we observe two modes of representing it in regard to its purity, we may also observe two modes of representing this state with regard to its durability. The more pro- minent and pervadiug idea of Scripture, perhaps, is the indefectibility of the regenerate state; for when the sup- position is made of the regenerate state being fallen away from and lost, it appears to be made as what we might call an extreme supposition. But still the supposition is made, and in more than one text; and so far the rege- nerate state is represented as a defectible state. But whether represented as indefectible or as defectible good- ness, the regenerate state still always figures as goodness ; nor does the possibility of a fall from it show that it is not, but rather that it is a state of actual goodness. For a fall or lapse, such as Scripture speaks of, is from a state of actual goodness, and is the serious thing it is on that very account. Though the ideal sense of the term then, which ap- pears occasionally in Scripture, is sometimes made an argument for explaining away the natural sense of the term in Scripture altogether, such an argument is alto- gether untenable. The natural meaning of the term in Scripture, as involving actual goodness, is not done away with because that goodness is sometimes represented as perfect and indefectible, and sometimes as imperfect and defectible. ‘There can be no reason why a word should not sometimes be used in an ideal sense, and sometimes in a more practical one. Christians are evidently ad- dressed on both grounds in Scripture; sometimes as already citizens of heaven, sitting in heavenly places, and arrived at the heavenly Jerusalem, so that it is spoken of as a kind of impossibility that they should sin, for “ how shall they that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?” sometimes on the matter-of-fact ground, as persons of a Cuap. V.] Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 69 good and spiritual habit of mind for the time being, who are however in danger of losing that habit by neglect. It is very common for the meanings of words to exhibit variations, which variations however do not unsettle that general meaning of which they are variations. And with variations of meaning, according as it is regarded in a higher or lower aspect, the regenerate state in Scripture still always figures as actual goodness. There appears to be no reason, therefore, for attri- buting to the Scriptural descriptions of regeneration as actual goodness that which divines call the “ tropolo- gical”? sense. The tropological meaning of a term is a meaning founded upon a moral use and application of its literal meaning. Thus the “ circumcision,” mentioned in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, has not a literal but a tropological meaning, founded upon a moral application of the literal meaning. In like manner, it is maintained that the meaning of regeneration in Scripture as actual goodness is a tropological meaning ; the intended effect of regeneration, used and improved, being put for regeneration itself. ‘ Whosoever is born of God overcometh the world;” i.e. it is added, if he rightly improves that spiritual faculty.* But this is an interference with the natural meaning of the words, and an interference for which there is no call or reason. The received rule of interpretation is, that we should always take Scripture in its literal sense where we can; i.e. where there is no overwhelming obstacle to such mean- ing. But what is the obstacle to the literal meaning in the present case? We know nothing about the meaning of the term ‘‘ born of God” at all till we come to its use in Scripture; and therefore there can be no more objec- tion to a meaning of the term implying goodness and * Bishop Bethell on Baptismal Regeneration, p. 306. Arch- deacon Dodgson’s Controversy of Faith, p. 43. 70 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. [Parr I. holiness, if such is the natural sense of Scripture, than to any other meaning. We go to Scripture for the meaning of this term, as we should go to any authoritative writing for the meaning of any particular word we wanted to know, and finding the meaning, we take it as we find it. Such interpolations then as this are wholly unwarranted, and contrary to the law of Scripture interpretation. The tropological sense of a term implies a certain obvious and familiar sense in the background, with which it takes the liberty in question for a didactic purpose. There is this literal meaning in the case of circumcision; but no ori- ginal literal meaning meets us in all Scripture of the term “born of God,” upon which the sense of actual goodness can rest as the tropological meaning. Actual goodness, on the contrary, is the first and obvious meaning attach- ing to the term. But though the attempt to explain away the actual statements of Scripture on this subject fail, and the natural sense of the language is too clear to be disturbed by artificial interpretations, other arguments are still resorted to by way of a set-off against these statements, in order to counterbalance and neutralize from without language which cannot be unsettled or weakened from within. One of these arguments is so obviously irrele- vant that little more than a notice of 16 is enough. The fact that the Epistles abound in exhortation to the re- generate is appealed to as showing that regeneration is a faculty only, and not actual goodness; the argument being, that if it was actual goodness, those who possessed it would not need exhortation to goodness. But it is evident that the good require exhortation to continue in goodness, as the sinner requires exhortation to attain it. And this, it may be observed, is the form of practical address which prevails in the Epistles, viz. exhortation to continue in a state in which those who are addressed Cuar. V.] Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 71 are already assumed to be. Christians are addressed as having undergone a remarkable change of heart, having passed from death to life and from the power of Satan unto God, and they are exhorted to abide in this new state and habit of mind. The form of exhortation is, that because “ the old man has been crucified” in them, therefore they ‘‘should not henceforth serve sin;” that they have already “ died to sin,” and therefore ‘“ should not live any longer therein ;” that “having been made free from sin, and become servants to God,” they “ should have their fruit unto holiness.” * Some arguments, however, on which much stress has been laid, as proving that the sense in which the term “son of God,” as used in Scripture, does not imply actual coodness, will require longer notice. 1. One is the argument from the alleged appropriation of the term “regenerate” to the spiritual change which takes place in baptism. Regeneration, it is said, is evidently referred to in Scripture as connected with baptism ; this connexion being implied in a whole class of phrases even where it is not explicitly stated. The regenerate state then, it is argued, is distinguished in Scripture from actual goodness, and therefore does not in Scripture imply actual goodness. But there is an evident mistake in such reasoning as this, for let it be assumed that regeneration has in Scrip- ture a special and appropriate use in connexion with baptism, does it, therefore, lose in this connexion the meaning which it bore antecedently as a word? ‘The laws of language, and the very consistency of language, are against such an inference; for why should one word rather than another be selected for a special use, but because that word has a particular signification which is 5 Rom. vi. 6, 2, 22. 72 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. [Parr I. wanted for that use? It is plainly not any word which will do for such appropriation, but some one word is taken in preference to others, on account of its meaning asa word. But if that meaning is the reason why it is selected, why is that meaning dropped as a consequence of its selection? The word “regenerate” then, or “born of God,” evidently implying in its meaning as a word actual goodness in Scripture, this meaning still goes on when the word is appropriated, and regeneration in baptism is still regeneration in its antecedent and natural sense. This is, indeed, a fallacy which pervades the remarks of some very respectable divines on this subject. It is assumed that if regeneration is distinguished from actual goodness, it therefore does not mean actual goodness ; but words may, and constantly do, include in their mean- ing that from which they are distinguished, retaining a general and antecedent meaning, though at the same time distinguished from it by a special application. Thus law, truth, light, spirit, covenant, faith, Church, kingdom, power, glory, good tidings, become in Scripture the law, the truth, the light, the Spirit, the covenant, the faith, the Church, the kingdom, the power, the glory, the good tidings or Hvangel; but these terms retain their ante- cedent meaning as terms, and do not lose it on account of the appropriation. The law of Moses was a law in the true and antecedent sense of the word; the truth is truth, the light is light, the covenant a covenant, the Spirit spirit. Life, death, salvation, damnation, judgment, and other words have a like appropriation in Scripture, but they retain notwithstanding their original and antecedent meanings. And, according to the same law of language, baptismal regeneration is still regeneration: the word does not cease to mean a particular thing, because that thing is conveyed by a particular channel. How that Cuar. V.|] Scrzptural Sense of Regeneration. 73 thing is conveyed by that channel is a question with which we are not at present concerned. As a law of language, the old meaning which existed before this connexion goes on with it, and whatever the word meant as a word, that it continues to mean as an appropriated word. It may gain additional meaning, as involving in its special connexion remission of sin and admission to a new covenant, but it does not forfeit its old meaning. Regeneration even in the Calvinistic definition is dis- tinguished from actual goodness, as being an actual goodness which is infused into the soul at a particular time, viz. at the moment of the effectual call, or in elect infants at baptism or before baptism; and also as in- volving in addition the pardon of sin past; but it does not the less mean actual goodness in the Calvinistic sense. The baptismal controversy has thus exhibited a mis- take on both sides. On the one side it has certainly been a mistake to deny, in the face of such strong evidence, that the term “ regenerate” has an appropriate use in connexion with baptism: but on the other side it has also been a good deal forgotten that this term has a meaning of its own apart from its connexion with baptism, which meaning it does not lose, but retains in this connexion. If asked where this antecedent meaning is to be found, I go back to the proof which I have already adduced on this subject, to those statements of Scripture which have been already referred to, in which the phrase “son of God,” or “ born of God,” is evidently used as implying certain qualities and characteristics. It is therefore not enough, in describing regeneration, to say that it is baptismal regeneration, unless we also state what it—regeneration itself—is; i.e. go back to its natural and antecedent meaning as a word. For it is reversing the proper order of things to deduce our idea 7A Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parti. of regeneration from baptism, instead of our idea of the baptismal gift from regeneration. But it is not necessary to appeal to the laws of lan- guage for deciding this question, for the passages in Scripture which are cited on this question, as containing an express or implicit reference to baptism as the act by which Christians had become regenerate, decide it of themselves ; obviously referrmg to the state ito which Christians had by that act entered, as a state of actual holiness and goodness. It is remarked by divines that in various passages in the Hpistles the new spiritual con- dition of Christians is put in the past tense, and they thence infer an implied reference in these passages to baptism, as the act by which this new spiritual condition had been obtained. How then is this new spiritual con- dition described in these passages, and what are the characteristics given of it in this connexion? Is it de- scribed as a mere capacity or power? By no means, but plainly as a state of actual goodness and holiness. “ Now if we died with Christ °”’—‘‘ Now if we died to sin,”’’ says St. Paul; “how shall we live any longer therein? .. . for he that hath died is free from sin.”’* “We were buried with Him by baptism unto death” °—‘‘ We were planted together in the likeness of His death” '—“ Our old man was crucified with Him” ’—‘ Having been made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness ”’ * —<‘‘ Having been made free from sin, and having become the servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness” * —‘“‘The law of the Spirit of Christ hath made me free from the law of sin and death” *—“Ye received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” * The 6 Rom. vi. 8. 7 Rom. vi. 2. 8 Rom. vi. 7. 9 Rom. vi. 4. 1 Rom. vi. 5. 2 Rom. vi. 6. 3 Rom. vi. 18. * Rom. vi. 22. 5 Rom. viii. 2. 6 Rom. viii. 15. Cap. V.] Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 75 phrases “‘ having died to sin,” “ the old man having been crucified,” “having been made free from sin,” “ having become the servants of righteousness,” ‘‘ having become the servants of God,” imply in their natural signification an actual mortification of carnal, and the sway of spiritual, affections in the soul, or an actual state of holiness and goodness. And therefore the actual language of those very passages in which regeneration is contemplated in connexion with baptism shows that regeneration con- tinues to imply holiness and goodness, and by no means loses that meaning in this connexion. 2. Another argument against the term “child of God” implying in Scripture actual goodness arises from the application of the term in the Old Testament to the Jewish people. The Jewish nation is called in the Old Testament God’s son,—“ Israel is My son, even My firstborn.” “ Ye are the children of the Lord your God,” says Moses to the people, and the name is applied to them on several occasions, especially in the prophetical writings. It is argued, then, that the only reason there could be for the application of the term to them, was that the Jewish people were admitted into covenant with God, and to particular privileges in connexion with it; and therefore, that the term is evidently not used in Scripture to imply actual goodness, but only admission to covenant relations and privileges. But, in the first place, the language of the Old Testa- ment asa whole throws extreme doubt upon this as a true and adequate account of the application of the term to the Jewish nation. The Jewish nation was admitted indeed to a covenant with God, and to various privileges in connexion with that covenant, especially to the know- ledge of the true God, of His nature, His will, and of the true worship of Him. But we must also consider what was the immediate consequence of this admission 76 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. of the Jewish nation to this remarkable spiritual light from which the rest of mankind were excluded. The consequence of the Jewish nation being admitted to this knowledge of God and of the worship of Him, was that it did actually possess a true faith im God, and practised a true worship of Him, which no other nation of the world possessed or practised. Its faith and its worship were not opportunities only, or capacities only, but per- formances ; and the nation is represented in Scripture as not only admitted to a covenant, but as having re- ceived an actual religious mould from the fashioning hand of God. And accordingly we find the Jewish nation, as it is called in the Old Testament the “son of God,” so also called in the same Old Testament “the righteous nation’’—not, of course, that all the individuals of it possessed a true faith, or gave God a true worship, but that some did; and that, according to a common figure of speech, the nation was represented after the type of the better portion of it. However great a mixture the Jewish people, regarded only as an aggregate of indi- viduals, may have been; regarded as a wnity, the nation is represented in Scripture as—though guilty indeed of backslidings and great sins, as righteous persons often are—still righteous ;7 and as righteous entering in the page of futurity into its eternal reward, and admitted into that paradise which brightens the distant horizon, and forms the closing scene of prophecy. ‘ Ah, sinful nation,” says the Almighty, through the Prophet, “a people laden with iniquity; but it follows, “I will purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin ; “ “Deus electos suos a se aversos per peccatum revocat sane ad se, ut revocavit Davidem, Petrum, et alios multos... Nec de alia Dei gratia ad aversos ab ipso electos ejus testantur dicta prophe- tarum...ubi de fotius populi Det, non de smgulorum hominum restitutione vates loquitur.” Bucer, Script. Angl., p. 811. Cuap. V.| Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 77 afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.”* The tongue of prophecy never wearies with describing the spiritual greatness and glory of the chosen nation. “I will make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness . .. thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.”* ‘Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.”’ “Thy people shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever.”? “I will place salvation in Zion for Israel My glory.”* ‘ They shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols. But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation : ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.”* It makes no difference if the Jewish people is, as the subject of these prophecies, a typical people—a type of the true Israel, and of the Elect. For if “the righteous nation” is typical, the nation whom God calls His “son” is typical also: it is enough that it is the same collective personage which is called the “son,” which is also called “ righteous ;” that it is the same people and the same name of “ Israel” that unites both epithets. Indeed, that the Jewish nation is, as it con- fessedly is, the type of the Elect, is a circumstance which throws peculiar ight upon the other fact, viz. that God addresses it as His son. The term “son of God” then does not, when we examine the language of older inspiration as a whole, appear to be used in the Old Testament except in con- nexion with actual goodness,—whether belonging to an abstract or a typical personage, or a real person, is irrele- vant ; but, in the next place, we must consider that in the present argument we have to do not with the Old Testa- ment, but with the New Testament use of the term. We 8 Tsa. 1. 4, 25, 26. ® Isa. lx. 17, 18. 1 Isa. xxvi. 2. 2 Isa. Ix. 21. 3 Isa. xlvi. 13. 4 Isa. xlv. 16, 17. 78 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. have to do with this term in a particular connexion, viz. as expressing a particular change which takes place in the soul under the later and spiritual dispensation; and the meaning of the term, as expressing this change, is what it has been stated to be. 8. Again, in answer to the proof of the sense of the term “son of God” in the New Testament, the application of this or synonymous terms to whole bodies of Christians is appealed to as evidence that when Scripture apparently speaks of the regenerate state as involving actual good- ness, this is not its real meaning; for that, if it was, Scripture would not address, in this way, all Christians as regenerate. But to rest upon this ground for the disproof of the natural meaning of express statements of Scripture, is to rest not only upon unsafe ground, but upon ground which the admissions of all schools of divines have made altogether untenable. It may be granted, indeed, that this state is attributed in the Epistles to whole Christian bodies, if not expressly, by allusion and implication ; the members of those bodies being constantly addressed in them as regenerate persons; phrases equivalent to this being used if the exact word is not. But it is universally admitted by divines that Scripture makes use of pre- sumptive or hypothetical language. This a known and recognized principle, which is constantly taken into account in the interpretation of Scripture: indeed it would not be easy to mention any principle of construc- tion, of a special sort, which was of more familiar occurrence than this, or had obtained more general and undoubted acceptance, with all schools of expositors. Itis a principle which is constantly appealed to in our standard commen- taries, and which is had recourse to without any hesitation for the explanation of various statements of Scripture. No doubt, indeed, has ever been entertained of the fact that this is a form of speech which is in use in Scripture, Cuap. V.] Screptural Sense of Regeneration. 79 i.e. as to the principle itself of supposition being adopted by Scripture: it is therefore appealed to, circumstances appearing to require it, by divines, as naturally and as confidently as certain conventional constructions and figures of speech in language are appealed to by gram- marians. It is generally allowed that when all Christians are addressed in the New Testament as “ saints,” “dead to sin,” “alive to God,” “risen with Christ,” “having their conversation in heaven,” and in other like modes, they are addressed so hypothetically, and not to express the literal fact that all the individuals so addressed were of this character ; which would not have been true. When then we have this plain and strong evidence of the Scriptural sense of the term “child of God” before us, viz. that wherever Scripture describes him, explains what he is, and tells us what his characteristics are, it invariably describes him as a good and holy person, and makes these the characteristics of sonship; we cannot give up this as the Scriptural sense of the term, in con- sideration of such an argument as this—an argument, be it observed, not resting upon any plain statements of Scripture, but only upon an inference from a certain application of the word, and that inference open to the answer here given. Could any positive statements of Scripture indeed be appealed to which actually described the regenerate man in a different way from that in which he is described in the statements which were above cited, such language would form a proper ground for another meaning of the term: in which case we could only say that Scripture contained two different meanings of this term. But this application of the term in Scripture is no ground whatever for another sense of the term; showing as it does, not that the term as applied to the whole Christian body does not mean actual goodness, but only that meaning this, it is applied hypothetically. The difficulty which is 80 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr. raised is solved by another explanation than that which is brought forward, and that an explanation in perfect har- mony with the style and rules of Scripture. Some divines have indeed preferred as a theological ar- rangement a secondary sense of the term “ regenerate ”’ to the hypothetical application of it in its true sense. But what is this secondary sense when we examine it? It is itself no more than the true sense hypothetically applied. They therefore gain nothing by the exchange, and only avoid one form of doing a thing in order to do the same thing under another. ‘They say that the regenerate state, when attributed to whole bodies, means that they are regene- rate, new creatures, members of Christ, children of God by external profession. But what is an external profession but a supposition which men make or desire to have made about themselves? Divines have in the same way main- tained a Scriptural secondary sense of the term “ saint,” as “saint by outward vocation and charitable presump- tion ;”* but this is in very terms only the real sense of the term applied hypothetically. We have thus from an examination of the language of Scripture, ascertained what is the true and Scriptural sense of the term “regenerate,” or “born of God,” which we should distinguish from certain incorrect and inade- quate senses. 1. Regeneration is not simply grace, though these words have been commonly used as synonymous in recent controversy. Grace is the generic term including even altogether fruitless grace, or mere assisting grace even if it produces nothing in the person to whom it is given; but regeneration is a grace which implies fruit, or an actual state of goodness naman. 2. Regeneration is not simply remission of sin actual or original, but involves a positive quality of goodness. 38. Regeneration is not a 5 Pearson on the Creed, Art. ix. Cuap. V.| Scrzptural Sense of Regeneration. 81 mere change of federal relations to God, or admission to a covenant containing the promise of eternal life, if we are qualified, but involves the qualification. 4. Regene- ration implies not a mere capacity for goodness, but goodness itself. Two false distinctions may be noticed in conclusion :— 1. Regeneration is pronounced by some to be totally different from renovation; Waterland drawing the dis- tinction thus: ‘ Regeneration,” he says, “is a kind of renewal, but then it is of the spiritual state considered at large, whereas renovation seems to mean a more parti- cular kind of renewal, namely, of the inward frame or disposition of the man.” ° This distinction is untrue, for regeneration is certainly presented to us in the New Testament as “the renewal of the inward frame and disposition,” and therefore so far it is exactly the same as renovation. Regeneration, indeed, only differs from renovation, in being renovation and something besides, viz. remission of sin: the term as appropriated to express the grace of baptism, involving this addition. 2. Another false distinction is the contrast between regeneration as a birth, and a certain spiritual character and disposition which has to be formed and grow into existence after this birth by the contingent exertion of the will. The act of regeneration is a birth, but it is a birth into a state of actual possession, not of means of acquisition only ; and from the moment that it takes place goodness exists, and has not to grow into ewistence, though it admits of growth. The regenerate man may rise indefinitely in the scale of perfection, but he is still, from the moment that he is regenerate, a formed spiritual man, having actual goodness; of which his birth is the beginning and first enjoyment indeed, but not the mere rudimental capacity. ® On Regeneration, vol. iv. p. 483. CHAPTER VI PATRISTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION Wirxovr going to the Fathers to ascertain the true mean- ing of the term regenerate, which has been already ascer- tained from Scripture,—inasmuch as whatever be the sense in which Scripture uses the word, that is the true one,— it is not unimportant to observe that the Scriptural mean- ing of this term as stated in the last chapter is accepted and carried on by the Fathers. 1. And first, as has been already observed, this word has a meaning of its own as a word employed in language to signify something. What is the meaning then which attaches to it in the Fathers, in this independent use, and apart from a sacramental connexion ? We rarely meet then with the very term regenerate in the Fathers in this independent use, though it occurs sufficiently often to have its meaning clearly stamped upon it, and that meaning the Scriptural one. Clement of Rome says that “ Noah preached regeneration,” evidently using the term as a synonym for “ righteousness,” of which St. Peter calls Noah a “ preacher,”’ and for “ repentance,” of which Clement himself has just. before called the same Noah a preacher.’ Clement of Alexandria 1 2 Pet. i. 5. 2 Née motos etpebeis did rhs eroupylas avrod madvyyeveciay Kiopo exnpvéev. 1 Ep. ad Cor. s. 9. Noe exnpvEev perdavorav, s. 7. The explanation of St. Clement’s meaning, as being that Noah an- nounced baptismal regeneration, by foretelling the Flood, which was a type of the latter, is far-fetched. Patristic Sense of Regeneration. 83 calls the young man’s return to piety after a post-bap- tismal lapse into a robber’s life, regeneration, and applies the same term to the repentance of the adulteress.3 “ How shall a man,” says Hippolytus, “ be regenerated ? By not committing adultery, murder, or idolatry, by over- coming pleasure and pride, by throwing off the defilement and burden of sin and corruption.” 4 But for the proof of the Patristic meaning of “ rege- nerate,” in its independent use as a word, we are not restricted to the occurrence of that very word itself, because, as has been observed, there is another term which is perfectly synonymous with it, and is to all intents and purposes the same word, viz. the term “born of God,” or “child of God.” Whatever this latter phrase then means, in its independent use as a phrase, that the former means as well. But this opening admits us to a field of evidence as large and ample as could be desired; > Avdods péya rapadevypa petavolas adnOuijs kal péya yyopiopa TaALy- dere Ap. Euseb. Hist. 1. 3, c. 23. “H yap rot mopvevoara Gh pev TH aie améOavev S€ tais évroXais’ 7 de peravonoaca, oiov avayevvnOeioa kata Ti emaTpopyy Tov Biov, madty- yeveciay éxer Cons, Strom. 1. 2, c. 23. Much is made by some of the ofoy here, as if it were a confession of incorrectness in the use of dvayevynOeioa in the sense here given to it. But if ofov does stand here for “as it were,” all that we can gather from it is, that “born again” is a metaphor for change of life, not that change of life is not the correct meaning of the metaphor: it is, however, rendered in the translation of Sylburgius which Potter adopts simply —“ ut que sit.” The use of the term in these two passages is explained by some as having reference to regeneration in baptism reviving upon repentance and amendment after a course of sin; and regeneration is understood in them to mean not simply re- generation, but “ a sort of second regeneration.” Thisis an assump- tion, however, for which there is no ground. Not indeed that much difference would be made were this gloss even admitted. For how could return to goodness be a second regeneration, if goodness was not implied in the first regeneration? For Clement’s sense of the word in other passages, see Note 11. 4 In Theoph. s. 10. a 2 84 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. for the term “ child of God,” or “{born of God,” is of con- stant occurrence in the Fathers as signifying a good and holy man.’ 2. But the word “regenerate” has in the Fathers, besides its use asa word, a special and appropriate use in connexion with baptism; therefore the next question is, what is the meaning of the word in the Fathers as thus appropriated? Does its antecedent meaning as a word still go on attaching to it in its sacramental connexion ; and does regeneration continue to imply actual goodness, when it becomes baptismal regeneration, as before when it was regeneration ? There appears to be, as has been already observed, a prevalent assumption, that when the term regenerate con- tracts a special use and becomes appropriated to baptism, it drops its antecedent meaning as a word; but such an assumption, as has been explained,° is contrary to the laws of language, because a term is selected for a special use on account of its antecedent meaning, to part with which therefore on account of its special use would be a result wholly imconsistent and irrational. The thing which the term signifies continues the same it was before, only with the addition of the instrument by which it is conveyed. 5 Thus Origen,— Every man who has attained to maturity is either a child of God or a child of the devil. For either he commits sin or does not; if he does, heisa child of the devil; if he does not, he isa child of God.” In Joan. tom. xx.13. “They are sons of men,” says Augustine, “ when they do ill, sons of God when they do well.” On Psalm li. And again, “Love alone distinguishes between the children of God and the children of the devil. Let all sign them- selves with the sign of the cross, let all say Amen, let all sing Hallelujah, let all be baptized, let all come to church, the children of God are only distinguished from the children of the devil by love. They who have love are born of God, they who have not love are not born of God.” In1 Ep. Joan., Tract. v. s. 7. BP. 7s Cuap. VI.| Patrestic Sense of Regeneration. 85 The Fathers then retain for the word as appropriated to baptism, the meaning of actual goodness. Other aspects of the gift, indeed, such as that of pardon, admission to a covenant, a new spiritual faculty, have an established place in their language, and may for a time exclusively occupy their attention, but these are not exclusive of the gift of actual righteousness, but additional to it. If we take the terms which the Fathers apply to bap- tismal regeneration in amass, we have the following col- lective description of it. We see it called righteousness, sanctification, transformation, renovation, purification, the perishing of the outer man, the formation of the inner ; the life of virtues, the death of crimes; the port of inno- cence, the shipwreck of sins ; the sprinkling of the con- science, the new infancy of innocence, the return of the original formation, the cleansing with the invisible hyssop ; the presence of a new heart and new spirit, the removal! of the stony heart; the destruction of the devil, the dissolu- tion of bondage, the stripping off of the filthy garment, and the putting on of the incorrupt and spotless clothing —the robe of royalty, the garment of princes, the robe of glory, the garment of redemption; the resurrection to immortality, the drinking in of immortality, the putting on of immortality ; the enjoyment of the inheritance, the glory from on high, the gleaming with the rays of righteousness as with the brightness of the sun; incorruption, salvation, deification, eternal life, paradise, and heaven. Such lan- guage is certainly the description of more than a mere state of ability to attain even sublime holiness and good- ness, which would be compatible with actual wickedness : it is the description of a state of actual righteousness. To come to particular passages, the two following belong to a class, as it may be called, of panegyrics of baptism ; lofty statements presenting with considerable pomp chains of high privileges and virtues attaching to 86 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. that ordinance, and intending to give the idea of a solemn triumphant procession. Chrysostom thus enumerates “the ten honours of baptism :’—“ Blessed be God, who alone doeth wonders; who maketh all things and changeth all. Behold, they enjoy the calm of freedom who a little before were held captives, they are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error, and they have the lot of righteousness who were in the confusion of sin. For they are not only free, but holy; not holy only, but righteous ; not righteous only, but sons; not sons only, but heirs ; not heirs only, but brethren of Christ; not brethren of Christ only, but co-heirs ; not only co-heirs, but members ; not members only, but a temple; not a temple only, but instruments of the Spirit.” “ Baptism,” says Gregory Nazianzen, “is the bright- ness of the soul, transformation of life, the answer of a good conscience toward God, the help of infirmity, the putting off of the flesh, obedience to the Spirit, com- munion with the Word, restoration of the creature to rectitude, the cataclysm of sin, participation of light, dis- persion of darkness, the chariot to God, migration with Christ, the prop of faith, the perfection of the under- standing, the key of the kingdom of heaven, change of living, dissolution of bondage, unloosening of chains, the recreation of the whole man.” * So much of the language of the Fathers which fur- nishes the recognized proof of their doctrine of baptism is language of this kind, or approximating to it, that we cannot explain away these passages as rhetorical without, in the proportion in which we do so, reducing our proof of the Patristic doctrine altogether. We must under- stand them as declaring something doctrinal as to the nature of the baptismal gift or regeneration, and we find 7 No. 1, Note 12. 8 No. 2, Note 12. Cuar. VI.| Patristec Sense of Regeneration. 87 that the most moderate and apparently literal items of the description are terms denoting actual holiness and goodness :— Holy ” and “ righteous ” being the terms which Chrysostom applies to the regenerate man ; “trans- formation of life,” “the answer of a good conscience,” the “ putting off of the flesh,” “ obedience to the Spirit,” “ change of living,” being the terms Gregory of Nazian- zen applies to the regenerate state. Or take the following, which are more of the didactic type :—“ Approach, O man, and be regenerated,” says Hippolytus, in a passage already partially quoted. “ And how, saith he? If thou do not commit adultery or murder; do not worship idols, art not overcome by plea- sure or pride: if thou throwest off the filth of impurity and burden of sin, puttest off the armour of Satan and puttest on the breastplate of faith ; as saith Isaiah, ‘ Wash you, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the fat of the land.” Thou seest, beloved, how the Prophet foretold the purification of baptism; for he that goeth down into the laver of regeneration with faith quits evil and joins himself to Christ, renounces the enemy and confesses Christ to be God, puts off slavery and puts on adoption, ascends from baptism bright as the sun, and emitting the rays of righteousness.” ° The writer begins here with the natu- ral use of “‘regeneration’’ as a word meaning morally converted; but does he give up the sense when he comes in the next place to connect regeneration with baptism? By no means. ‘The natural sense of the term as involvy- 9 No. 3, Note 12. 88 Patrostic Sense of Regeneration. [Part I. ing actual goodness still continues, and regeneration, as ‘the purification of baptism,”’ retains all that it implied as simply regeneration. Gregory Nyssen refers renewal and regeneration to baptism; but does he change the signification of those terms as thus appropriated? By no means. “Ye who boast of the gift of regeneration and renewal,” he says, “ give evidence of that mystical grace by a change of morals. ... There are plain signs by which we know the new-born man; the abandonment of old habits, and a new life and conversation will show that the soul is born anew of another parentage.... Was the man be- fore baptism licentious, covetous, rapacious, a reviler, a liar, a sycophant, let him now be orderly, moderate, content with his own and giving of that to the needy, truth- loving, respectful, affable, practising all that is praise- worthy. ... So ought the sons of God to have their con- versation ; for after grace we are called His sons, and therefore it behoves us accurately to attend to the Pater- nal characteristics, that fashioning and moulding our- selves into likeness to our Father, we may show ourselves to be His genuine sons, and not a spurious offspring. Our Lord, in the Gospels, bids us pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us, that we may be the children of our Father which is in heaven... . Ye are sons, He says, when you imitate your Father’s good- ness.”' What I observe of this passage is, that it does not represent a good life and conversation only as the fruit which ought to follow regeneration, but also as a test which decides the fact of it; and that it thus re- presents regeneration, even that which is connected with baptism,—not as a faculty only which is consistent with contrary practice, but as an inward disposition and habit which implies a corresponding practice. 1 No. 4, Note 12. Cuap. VI.] Patristic Sense of Regeneration. 89 Justin Martyr, in the well-known passage in the Apology which describes the process of baptismal admission into the Christian Church and Covenant, regards regeneration, even as appropriated to baptism, in the light of an actu- ally holy disposition of mind, “being made the child of freedom and choice:” and the “illumination,” which in him and other early writers figures as so prominent a characteristic of the baptismal gift, is not a mere faculty, but a habit of mind, and that of a religious and moral kind.* Clement of Alexandria appropriates, like Justin, regeneration to baptism ; but still how does he describe regeneration even as tied toa sacrament? “ Being rege- nerated,” he says, “‘ we forthwith received perfection, for we were enlightened, and that is to know God. Bap- tized, we are enlightened; enlightened, we are adopted ; adopted, we are perfected; perfected, we are made im- mortal. ... We believe that we are perfect so far as is possible in this world. ... We wash away all our sins, and are no longer bent upon evil. For this is this very grace of illumination, that we are no longer the same in moral disposition that we were before baptism. . . . We are purified by baptism, and run up to the immortal light as children to their father... that being children of God who have put off the old man, having stripped ourselves of the tunic of wickedness and put on the incorruptibility of Christ, we may, as a people new-made, holy, regene- rated, preserve the unpolluted man.” ® Cyprian, in the well-known letter in which he describes ov ee , , 2 "Ores pn avaykns réxva pndé dyvoias pévapev, a\Aa Tpoatpevews > , ms , Kal emioTnuns, aperews TE GuapTiav Urep GY mponudpropev TUX@pEV EV code g > / ~ A T@ VOaTL, errovouaterar TH eAopev@ avayevynOyvat, kal peravonoayte ert mel fe a a a a Tots NuapTnpevors, TO TOU TaTpos TOV GA@y Kal Aeomdrov Oeod Gvopa... kaXeirat b€ rovTo TO Nouvtpov horicpds. Apolog. 1.1, s. 61. Mia xdpts avtn tod hotiaparos TO pr TOV avToy EL D mp 7 ov- xp n paros TO pi) TOV avTOY Elvat TO Tp 7 ov / cacOa tov rporov. Clem. Alex. Peed. 1.1, c. 6. 3 No. 5, Note 12. 90 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Part I. his own regeneration in the baptismal water, still de- scribes that regeneration as “a conversion.”* He de- scribes the effects of this new birth by water much, indeed, in the same way in which one of a modern school, who connected the new birth not with water but with the impulse of the Spirit only, would describe those effects, i.e. as conscious and felt, as a sensible inward enlighten- ment and elevation, and the immediate possession of a new temper of mind and a new point of view in which to look at everything. “ Forthwith, in a wonderful man- ner, doubtful things began to certify themselves, shut things to open, dark things to shine, difficult things to be easy, things impossible to be practicable ; so that one could not but recognize the difference between that which being subject by carnal birth to sin was earthly, and that which being quickened by the Holy Spirit had begun to be of God.” Though he contemplates regeneration then as imparted in and by baptism, the term still retains with Cyprian, in this connexion, its natural meaning of an actual conversion of heart and temper. Augustine, in the well-known passage in which he answers the objection of the absence of faith in infants as recipients of baptism, identifies regeneration even in its sacramental connexion with actual conversion of heart. “As in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day after birth, the sign of the righteousness of faith preceded, and when he grew up the righteousness itself followed; so in baptized infants the sacrament of regeneration precedes, and, if they preserve Chris- tian piety, that conversion follows in the heart the sacrament of which preceded in the body.”’ To call 4 « Difficile prorsus ac durum opinabar ut quis renasci denuo posset .... Qui possibilis aiebam, est tanta conversio.” Hp. 1. 5 “Tn baptizatis infantibus preecedit regenerationis sacramen- Cuap. VI.] Patrestic Sense of Regeneration. 91 baptism alternately the sacrament of regeneration and the sacrament of conversion is to identify one of these terms in meaning with the other: there cannot be a plainer proof that, to the writer’s mind at the time, both terms meant the same thing. The natural sense of regeneration then, as implying actual goodness, still goes on adhering to it, even as appropriated to baptism, in this statement of Augustine. It is true Augustine goes on to say :—“ The Sacrament of Baptism is one thing, conversion of the heart is another ;”’ and hence Bishop Bethell extracts a ground for the following remark upon this whole passage, viz. that “it appears to him to be a direct example of the manner in which the Fathers separated regeneration from conversion.” But Augustine is not distinguishing here between regeneration and conversion, which he has obviously just identified with each other, but between “the Sacrament of Baptism ” and conversion. We come now to a later and more advanced language descriptive of the baptismal gift. “ What mind,” says Leo, ‘‘ can comprehend this sacrament ? what tongue can describe this grace? Iniquity returns to innocence, and old age to newness ; aliens come into the adoption, and strangers into the heirdom. Men begin to be just from being ungodly, bountiful from being covetous, chaste from being incontinent, heavenly from being earthly. What is this transformation but the right hand of the Most High?” “Not only the glorious fortitude of martyrs,” says the same Father, ‘ but the faith of all the re-born, in the very act of regeneration, suffers with Christ; for while they renounce the devil and confess their belief in God, while they pass from old age to tum, et si Christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequitur etiam in corde. conversio cujus mysterium preecessit in corpore.” De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. 4, c. 24. 92 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. newness, while they put off the image of the earthly and assume the form of the heavenly, a certain similitude of death and resurrection takes place; so that being taken up by Christ and taking up Christ, the man is not the same after baptism that he was before it, but the body of the regenerate becomes the flesh of Christ.””—“ The new creature in baptism is not stripped of the covering of real flesh, but of the infection of the old condemned nature, so that the man is made the body of Christ because Christ is the body of man.” “It is manifest that all incur damnation by birth in Adam, unless they are rescued by being re-born in Christ; wherefore we must accurately consider what it is which is done in the gift of regeneration. Although all the portions of the same mystery meet together in one, what is enacted visibly is one thing, what is solemnized invisibly is another; the form of the sacrament is not the same as its virtue, the form being administered by man, the virtue being im- parted by God; to whose power it is to be referred, that while the outer man is washed, the inner man 1s changed ; a new creature made out of an old, vessels of wrath trans- formed into vessels of mercy, the sinful flesh changed into the body of Christ ; from ungodly men become righteous, from captives free, from sons of men sons of God.” ° Here is a view of baptism which connects it more intimately and radically with the Incarnation than the earlier language of the Fathers did; incorporating it as it were in that fundamental mystery, and constructing a rationale of the sacrament upon a basis of theological science and system. It is a view which was elicited by the Eutychian heresy, which denied the proper human nature of our Lord, and by this denial extracted from the orthodox side a stronger and intenser contradictory 6 No. 6, Note 12. Cuap. VI.] Patristec Sense of Regeneration. 93 rationale of that human nature, making it even a more active centre in theology, with more of ramification and result. Baptism, upon this view, incorporated the humanity of the individual man in the central human nature of our Lord, who, as the second Adam, was the typical man, the exemplar and true representative of humanity. The sacrament—if the term “ physical” can be applied to spiritual thngs—thus produced something of a physical change in the soul in the shape of an actual participation of our Lord’s human nature, and imparted to it a positive form and mould in the impress of the image of the second Adam. But what was this change as a moral change, or a moral rise in the condition of the soul? Was it the being endowed with a faculty only by which the individual was enabled to attain holiness and goodness? Leo certainly describes more than a faculty when he says, that “‘ while the outer man is washed, the inner man is changed; ” that “‘he is a new creature made out of an old,” “a righteous man begun out of an ungodly, a charitable out of a covetous, a captive out of a free ;” that “the image of the earthly man is cast off, and the form assumed of the heavenly man,” and that “he is not the same man after baptism that he was before it”? “ What is this transformation,” he says, “but the right hand of the Most High?” The new moral state thus described is certainly a state inconsistent with the person who is in it being at the time wicked ; and there- fore is a state of actual holiness and goodness. This general representation of baptismal regeneration in the Fathers as implying actual goodness and _ holiness, will be confirmed by some points of detail. 1. The delivery or release from sin imparted in baptism, appears in the Fathers to include more than what is commonly understood by “ remission of sin,” or release from the guilt and penalty of past sin, viz. an actual 94 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. purification of the soul from present sin; and thus a good deal of the language of the Fathers which at first sight might appear to express only “remission of sin”? virtually expresses a state of actual holiness, as the effect of baptism. Clement of Alexandria distinguishes between these two effects of delivery from sin. “ Baptism,” he says, “is called the laver because it is that by which we cast off our sins, the gift because it is that by which are remitted the penalties due to our sins.”’ And it is a purification from present sin which he describes when he says,— clearing away in baptism the darkening cloud of our sins, we have our spiritual eye free and unim- peded.” * The cleansing of baptism is here made to consist in the removal of present sin, as well as the remission of past. Chrysostom understands the baptismal release from sin in the same sense, in his comment on Rom. vi. 2, “ We that have died to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?”? “ What is died? Our becoming dead to it, believing and being enlightened. What is becoming dead to it? Obeying it no longer. For this hath baptism done for us once; it deadened us toit... . What the cross and burial then was to Christ, this hath baptism been to us, though not in the same material ; for He died and was buried to the flesh, we to sin; as the death of Christ to flesh was real, so was ours to sin real.”’?* This deliverance from sin in baptism is spoken of as a spiritual resurrection. ‘One resurrection is a delivery from sin, the second is the resurrection of the body ; He hath given the greater; expect the less, for this is indeed much greater than the other; the delivery from sin far greater than the resurrection of the body. .... We have risen the greater resurrection wherein we cast off the death of sin so difficult to get rid of, and 7 No. 5, Note 12. 8 Thid. ° No. 7, Note 12. Cuap. VI.| Patrestic Sense of Regeneration. 95 put off the old garment; let us not despair of the less when we long ago had the greater in baptism.”?! The baptismal deliverance from sin, then, in the sense in which the Fathers understood it, was not only remission of past sin, but purification from present, and so implied actual goodness and holiness. 2. Regeneration in baptism always figures in the Fathers as the reality of which circumcision was the type ; it is represented as spiritual circumcision. ‘The hand applieth not this circumcision,” says Chrysostom, “but the Spirit; it circumciseth not a part, but the whole man. The body 1s circumcised in both, but in the one corporally, in the other spiritually. Ye have put off like the Jews not your flesh, but your sins. When and how? In Baptism.’’’ “Our circumcision,” says Theo- doret, “is not bodily but spiritual, not made by the hand but divine, not the riddance of a little flesh, but the delivery from all corruption.” * But there can be no doubt that spiritual circumcision is actual goodness and holiness. If regeneration in baptism then is spiritual circumcision, regeneration in baptism is actual goodness and holiness. 3. In practical exhortation we employ two different kinds of language, according as we suppose men simply to have a faculty for goodness which they ought to use to become good, or an actual habit of goodness which they ought to guard, maintain, and properly improve as an existing treasure. In the one case the argument is— you are not yet good, and therefore you must endeavour to become so; in the other it is—you are good, and therefore you must take care and remain so ; and express and embody your inward habit in all your actions. This latter argument becomes—persons who are the proper 1 No. 8, Note 12. 2 No. 9, Note 12. 3 No. 10, Note 12. 96 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. [Parrl. subjects of it being supposed—the most forcible and stirring inducement there is to a good life and conduct. For it must be remembered that persons do not cease to be subjects of exhortation because they are good; they have a most important work to do to which they are to be strenuously urged, viz. to sustain and advance their own goodness, for people may easily neglect even their own virtue, and fall away from it. In this case then the appeal to men to keep up an existing goodness, is the strongest of all arguments, because it reminds them of the rich treasure, of which the loss would be indelible disgrace, involving as it were gratuitous suicide. The possession of goodness is indeed the greatest and highest of all responsibilities, the appeal to which is adapted to stir up the whole man and awaken the most wholesome fear and vigorous resolution. We observe in the Fathers then a permanent use of this latter argument. ‘They do not in practical exhorta- tion urge the baptized only to cultivate a faculty, but to guard an actual goodness which they became possessed of in baptism. It is thus that Chrysostom, commenting on the text, “ He that is dead is freed from sin,” * exhorts the baptized:—‘If thou hast died in baptism, remain dead, for a dead man cannot sin any longer. He lies dead, and therefore is delivered from sinning any more. So is it with him who has come up from baptism. He died there to sin once: it behoves him to remain dead to it.’ ® —‘ Baptism,” he says again, “hath done this once for us; it deadened us to sin; but for the rest we must by our exertions verify this constantly : so that, though sin issue ten thousand commands, we should obey it no longer, but remain motionless as the dead.” °—“ God gave us the renewal of regeneration in the laver of bap- 4 Rom. vi. 7. 5 No. 11, Note 12. 6 No. 7, Note 12. Cuap. VI.| Patristic Sense of Regeneration. 97 tism, that having therein put off the old man or wicked actions, and having put on the new, we may tread the path of virtue.”’’—%Gape not, therefore, after luxury and splendid dress, for thou hast already the glory from on high, and Christ is become everything to thee, table and garment and house, and head and root ; for as many of youas have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ.” °—“ For this is regeneration, not when the house is rotten rebuilding it on the old foundation, but building it up anew altogether, as He hath done to us.”® «Thou renouncedst sin,” says Theodoret, “and becamest dead to it, and wert buried with Christ. How then is it possible for thee to take to sin again? ”’? This, as it is a comment upon, so is evidently also a carrying on of, the same method of exhortation that we observe in St. Paul’s Epistles, in which the Apostle so affectionately urges Christians as having died to sin, and having been made free from sin, and having become the servants of righteousness, to act in consistency with this already existing goodness and heavenly-mindedness. The death to sin, which the mature Christian shows in practice, is contemplated in these passages as only the death to sin which took place in baptism continwed—the same state with it, not the contingent result of it. The érravop0wots TAaomaTOs Of Gregory Nazianzen seems to express the same idea, viz. that man is “set right ” in bap- tism, re-endowed with the habit in which he was created, and so given a fresh start, with the advantage of being placed again in an initial state of virtue, in which he has only to remain and persevere, in order to obtain his final reward. It may be asked, indeed, how such actual goodness, as the Fathers describe regeneration to be, is imparted by 7 No. 12, Note 12. 8 No. 18, Note 12. 9 No. 14, Note 12. 1 No. 15, Note 12. H 98 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. an outward rite. But we have only to do here with the fact of the Patristic sense, not with any ulterior question which may follow from it. There are interpreters, indeed, of the Fathers who come forward with an explanation on this point. These interpreters say that the Fathers having principally in their minds, in their use of this language, the case of zealous and devout adults, who came to baptism with already formed devout dispositions, are not to be understood too literally in the assertion that such dispositions are imparted then and there by the visible sacrament, which is rather a mode of speaking, meaning substantially that baptism is the climax and consumma- tion of that whole previous process of conversion which has produced these dispositions. I am not, however, concerned in the present chapter with any difficulty resulting from the Patristic sense of regeneration, or any explanation of it, but only with the Patristic sense of regeneration itself. Again, the whole of this language of the Fathers has received a particular interpretation from divines of the Anglican school, who, maintaining the docrine of bap- tismal regeneration upon the authority of the Fathers, have yet explained all this language as descriptive of a faculty only for attaining actual goodness. They have apparently given it this sense from deciding that it was wanted, to accommodate such language to the facts of Christian life, which do not indicate an actual state of goodness as uniformly derived from baptism. But when a large mass of language lies before us, and the question is what it means, this is a question which must be settled, not by considering what is wanted to suit the needs of theology, but by the natural force and signification of the language itself, which being clear and decided, it is not then allowable that an outside difficulty resulting from some ulterior question should unseat this natural Cuap. VI.] Patristic Sense of Regeneration. 99 interpretation, and cancel the intrinsic meaning of such language. Hxamined by this plain test, this language refuses the explanation just mentioned. Nowhere do the Fathers represent regeneration as a faculty only, a “potential principle”? as distinguished from actual righteousness: on the contrary, they describe it, as plainly as they can do by words, as being actual righteousness. CHAPTER VII SCHOLASTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION WE come now from the Fathers to the baptismal language of the Schools. The Scholastic sense of regeneration is, with all the peculiarity and quaintness of the forms in which it is expressed, a remarkable witness to the tenacity with which the Scriptural sense has clung to the term amid much foreign incrustation, and the growth of artificial subtleties and refinements. The Fathers use language to one general purport, but the more accurate Schoolmen brought matters more to a point: and when they had formally raised the question what regeneration was, declared without hesitation that it involved actual goodness and all the Christian virtues. This definition of the baptismal gift was expressed in the formula that “baptism conferred grace and the virtues” '—a formula which substantially explains itself, but which, being cast in an antiquated mould of language, not familiar to the ear of an ordinary reader of English divinity, may require some elucidation. The term “ gratia” then may at first mislead the Anglican reader accustomed to understand that term in the sense of assisting grace, or an imparted faculty. It has a much higher sense in this formula, and stands for a grace which is positively creative, not only imparting the power but the very fact of goodness—the sense which it 1“ Per baptismum conferuntur homini gratia et virtutes.” Summ. Theol. P. 3, Q. 69, A. 4. Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. IOI apparently bears in one portion of Scripture language. This creative sense, though not necessarily implying the predestinarian hypothesis, was indebted for its preserva- tion to the predestinarian school in the Patristic Church, in whose guardianship the deposit remained, till from Augustine and his followers it came down to Lombard and Aquinas. In the theology of these two chiefs of the schools “ grace” figures as an actually creating and fashioning agent, not only inserting the faculty, but the habit of virtue in the soul, and imparting ab initio to it the final spiritual mould; it figures as a cause which brings with it simultaneously its effect in the shape of a moral conformation then and there produced of the inner man; itis gratia gratum faciens,—grace which makes a man of such a character as that God is pleased with him ; grace which makes a man virtuous, efficiens virtuosum ; grace which inserts goodness in the creature, ponens bonum in creatura; grace, “which is a quality of the soul of man, as beauty is a quality of the body, consti- tuting him an object of moral love;” grace, “whereby the soul is moulded into the very form and likeness of God, by which likeness it is made worthy of the life eternal ;” grace which contains and includes all the virtues, as the abundant source and the productive root contain the stream and the plant.* And hence the juxtaposition of grace with the other term, virtutes, which is presented to us in this formula: the stream is given with the source, the plant with the root. The Schoolmen draw different subtle distinctions in defining the relation of “grace” to the “virtues ;” Lombard considering that grace is virtue,* by which he appears to mean that grace is that common substance of 2 Note 13. 3 “Tila gratia virtus non incongrue nominatur.” Lombard, |. 2, dist. 27. 102 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. {Parr I. which the virtues are different forms ; Aquinas, that grace is rather a root or substratum of the virtues,—a radical habit out of which the virtues are necessarily produced and derived. “ “ Grace is a universally directing habit,” says Alexander Hales, ‘‘ each virtue directing to its own act, but grace to all. Grace is the light, virtue is the ray ; the same in substance and differing only in relation, because the ray is the direction of the light into this or that part of the atmosphere, and in the same way virtue is the manifestation of grace in this or that form in the soul.” * Itis enough, however—for such subtle refine- ments are wholly beside the main question—that grace in this formula.is not merely an assisting grace; but that, whether as a common substance containing them, or as a radical habit de facto producing them, grace actually, and not potentially only, includes the Christian virtues; and that, standing in this relation to each other, grace and the virtues, the root and the branches together’ are inserted in the soul in the act of regeneration. Thus much for “grace.” The “virtues” —to turn to the other term in this formula—are again defined with sufficient precision as to their nature and rank. First, they are virtues, correctly defined according to the science of ethics, which asserts virtue to be a “ habit,” and a “habit” to be “a quality difficult to remove, by which a man acts easily and pleasantly.’ ° ‘A habit,” 4“ Gratia est habitudo quedam que presupponitur virtutibus sicut earum principium et radix.” Aquinas, S. T., 1ma, 2de, Q. 110, A. 3. “ Gratia purificationis aut est charitas cum fide et spe ; aut certe est queedam alia qualitas cum qua infallibiliter conjunctze sunt tres ille virtutes.” Bellarmine, De Sacram. Bapt. 1.1. ¢. 11. 5 Summa Theol. p. 464. 6 « Virtus est habitus, ad cujus rationem pertinet quod sit quali- tas difficile mobilis, per quam aliquis faciliter et delectabiliter opera- tw.’ Sum. Theol. P. 3, Q. 69, A. 4. Cuapr. VIT.| Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 103 says Durandus, quoting another Aristotelian definition, “is that by which a man is well or ill disposed to himself or another: a habit is that which determines the faculty to good or evil.”7 “ Every faculty which suffers under difficulty in the performance of its act wants a facilitating principle ; which principle is a habit.”* Such being a habit, a virtue is a good habit. “ Virtue,” says Lombard, quoting Augustine, “is a good quality of the mind by which we live aright, bona qualitas mentis qua recte vivitur”’*® ‘Virtue,’ says Bonaventure, quoting the same authority, “is the habit of a well-constituted mind, habitus mentis bene constitute.”' “The virtues” then, which, according to this formula, are involved in re- generation, are true and real virtues of the texture and composition prescribed in the science of ethics. So much for the nature of the “virtues.” Their rank is decided by the character of the dispensation to which they belong. They are not the prudential or the simply moral habits attaching to a state of nature, but they are the transcendental and supernatural virtues of a state of grace,” laid down in Scripture as principally three—faith, hope, and charity; which three “theological virtues ” therefore, to give the Scholastic name, are according to this formula inserted in the soul in the act of regenera- tion. Such being, however, the fundamental formula of the Schools, an important difference appears in the earlier 7 In Lomb. p. 198. 8 In Lomb. p. 252. 9 L. 2, dist. 27. 1 Compendium Theol. 1. v. ¢. 5. 2 « Virtutes theologices hae modo ordinant hominem ad beati- tudinem supernaturalem, sicut per naturalem inclinationem ordi- natur homo in finem sibi connaturalem.” Aquinas, S, T., 1ma, Ode, Q. 62,A. 3. “ Prater habitus morales acquisitos indigemus theologicis habitibus ... Actus quibus ordinamur ad beatitudinem supernaturalem procedunt ex potentiis perfectis per habitus.” Durandus in Lomb. p. 254. 104 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. [Parr I. and later application of it, and the language of Peter Lombard invites attention as exhibiting considerable differences from that of his successors in the Schools. Lombard adopts the radical formula just mentioned, that the thing given in baptism, 1.e. regeneration, is an actual habit of goodness—“the deposition of vices, and the collation of virtues.” “It is this,’ he says, ‘‘ which constitutes the new man; abolition of sin, adornment with the virtues: the abolition of sin expels foulness, the apposition of virtues confers splendour, and this is the res sacramenti of baptism.”* But while Lombard thus defined regeneration or the grace of baptism, he hesitated when he came to the question of infants as recipients of this grace, and finally declined to assert that they received the whole of it, that they had this gift of regeneration imparted to them in its fulness and completeness. He expresses this opinion in a celebrated passage,’ in which having allowed infants the negative part of regeneration or the remission of original sin, and meeting the question whether they receive the positive—the grace, “qua ad majorem venientes setatem possint velle et operari bonum,” he replies, “ Videtur quod non:” because only recognizing grace as a habit of goodness, he says that infants cannot possess habits. “ Quia gratia illa charitas est et fides. . . . Sed quis dixerit eos accepisse fidem et charitatem ?” But the limitation which Lombard attached to the infant’s reception of baptismal grace altogether dis- 3 “Causa vero institutionis Baptismi est innovatio mentis, ut homo qui per peccatum vetus fuerat, per gratiam baptismi renove- tur, quod fit depositione vitiorum et collatione virtutum. Sic enim fit quisque novus homo, cum abolitis peccatis ornatur virtutibus. Abolitio peccatorum pellit foeditatem, appositio virtutum affert decorem; et hc est res hujus sacramenti.” L. 4, dist. 3. * Note 14. Caar. VII. | Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 105 appeared in later Scholasticism. Aquinas and the formal medieval school laid it down distinctly and summarily that “infants in baptism receive grace and the virtues ;” and Bellarmine only expresses a long-established decision in asserting that ‘the habits of faith, hope, and charity are infused into infants at baptism.”* The infant left the baptismal font, endowed not only with the faculties, but with the habits of all Christian goodness already miraculously formed in him: he rose out of the water with a soul not only directed towards but already fashioned upon the true exemplar, and moulded into the perfect form of the spiritual man. It was true that infants were incapable from natural immaturity of ex- pressing these habits in action, but they still possessed the habits: they were not yet “able to entertain the motions of free will,” but they were still susceptible of moral goodness “ by means of the Divine information of their souls ;”’ 1.e. by the original reception of a moral mould and a rudimental character from the Divine hand.° Such was’ the Scholastic doctrine of the regeneration > “Pueri in baptismo gratiam et virtutes consequuntur.” §S. T., ar G). 695A... G: “ Infantibus in baptismo infunduntur habitus fidei, spei, et chari- tatis.” Bellarmine, De Sacr. Bapt. 1. i. c. 11. “ Anima rationalis duobus modis dicitur esse susceptibilis vir- tutes, uno modo per acquisitionem, alio modo per infusionem. Per acquisitionem, parvulus manens parvulus non suscipit virtutem. Sed per infusionem suscipit virtutem antequam utatur: sicut patet in Salomone, cui infusa est scientia cum dormiebat.’’ Alexander Alensis, Sum. Th. p. 184. “Dantur parvulis habitus perfecti virtutum quamvis per illos non operentur.” Bonaventure in Lomb. iv. p. 64. ® “ Pueri non sunt capaces motus liberi arbitrii, et ideo moventur a Deo ad justitiam per solam informationem anime ipsorum.” Aquinas, 8. T., 1ma, 2d, Q. 113, A. 3. 106 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. of all infants in baptism ; its fundamental characteristic being that it did not give up but retained the Scriptural sense of regeneration as actual goodness ; only making that difference in the actual goodness of the infant which his infantine age required, viz. that it was a seminal habit, not a habit in action. The notion of regeneration as a mere faculty or capacity was not even entertained. Such a scheme had to meet the difficulties attaching to the theological application of the doctrine beyond the limits of Scripture, but did not tamper with the natural meaning of a Scripture term. The question, indeed, immediately arose upon the con- struction of this bold baptismal scheme, how it was to be reconciled with facts. A habit was, by its very Scho- lastic definition, “a quality of the mind not easily re- movable, by which one acts easily and pleasurably.” How was it then that those who possessed these habits, by the implantation of them in their souls in infancy, did not show them as they grew up, in the usual way in which habits are shown, by expressing them in action, and by performing good actions with that facility and pleasure which a habit imparts? Instead of which we unfortunately see the great mass of each Christian gene- ration as it grows up, living in carelessness and sin in- stead of virtue, and hardly any practising virtue from the first with ease, as if they had already the habit of it. But the tendency of the medizeval mind, in theological as in other science, was not to allow facts to interfere with theory. The facts were indeed too strong for denial, but the theoretical spirit maintains its ground sometimes, not by refusing to admit facts when they are patent, but by not allowing them when admitted to interfere with theory, and satisfying itself with a feeble and insufficient explana- tion. So long then as the infant remained such, the expla- Cuap. VII.] Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 107 nation of this difficulty was easy, viz. that though the implanted habit was in him, it was in him only in a latent and unconscious stage, and he could not act upon it by reason of the immaturity of nature.’ But then came the real test of the theory. The infant grows up, attains the use of his natural faculties, and becomes a reasonable and responsible agent; but he still does not, and may not for his whole life, show such habits. How was this? The excuse of natural immaturity could now no longer apply, and recourse was had to another and a much more intricate and subtle one. The explanation of the difficulty was then asserted to lie in the fundamental nature of habits: that habits did not move themselves, but required the free will of the agent to put them in motion on any successive occasion in which action was required. A man did not act in a particular way at any given time, simply by having the habit, but by acting according to his habit. It thus de- pended on the prevailing motion of the agent’s will at the time, whether a habit was used, and expressed itself in action, or whether it lay dormant and idle.* If .there- fore, in addition to these infused habits themselves, a suc- 7 “Videntes pueros inhabiles ad actus virtutum crediderunt eos post baptismum nullatenus virtutem habere. Sed ista impotentia operandi non accedit pueris ex defectu habitunm, sed ex impedi- mento corporali.” Aquinas, 8. T., P. 3, Q. 69, A.6. ‘Hic effectus non statim inest puero post baptismum. Hoc autem non est prop- ter defectum virtutis, sed propter impotentiam nature agentis.” Bonaventure, Comp. Theol. 1. v. c. 3. See Note 15. 8 “ Habitus non facit ut operemur, sed ut, cum operari volumus, facile operemur. Scitum est apud omnes philosophos habitum esse in nostra potestate, quo uti possumus cum volumus, sed non facit ut velimus, imo quiescit donec voluntas eum pro libitu exer- ceat.” Morinus, De Peen. |]. 8, c. 2. “Non est habitus qui facit facere.” Jansen, De Grat. Christi, p- 186. 108 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. cession of special motions were given to the will to wse them, either by Divine grace simply or by the will of the agent himself conjointly with Divine grace, the infused habits were then brought into active use ; if these special motions were not given, then the habits slept and the agent fell back under the dominion of concupiscence, under which he indulged in sinful acts. This is the well-known Scholastic doct~ine of “ special grace,” as distinguished from “ habitual grace.” These infused virtues bearing, as habits imparted by grace, the technical name of “ habitual grace ” in Scholastic divinity, it is a maxim in that system that a man cannot act by “habitual grace” alone, but wants the addition of special erace besides it to make him act °—in common language, that, as a man cannot act at any given time simply by his habit, he requires besides his habit a special motion of the will to make him act. Habitual grace, then, thus needing the aid of special in order to bring it out and convert it to practical use, or, in other words, the general habit needing a particular impulse or motion to make it act on any given occasion, how was this special motion given? It depended on the system of the theologian, whether it was a motion of the independent human will aided by grace, or whether it was a motion of sovereign grace alone. Bellarmine makes it sometimes the one and 9 “ Homo ad recte vivendum dupliciter auxilio Dei indiget, uno modo quantum ad aliquod habituale donum...alio modo ut a Deo moveatur ad agendum.” Aquinas, S. T., 1ma, 2dee, Q. 109, A. 9. “Neque enim auxilium speciale est habitus infusus; sed actio qua Deus hominem movet ad operandum, vel cum eo operatur.” Bellarmine, de Grat. et Lib. Arb. 1.1. ¢. 2. “Gratia habitualis non est illa gratia quee facit velle et facere, queeque donat voluntatem et actionem; nam alioquin justus sem- per vellet et faceret.” ‘“‘Necessarium adjutorium gratie actualis quod tune datur quando actu volumus et operamur.” Jansen, De Grat. Christi, pp. 186, 151. Cuap. VII.] Scholastec Sense of Regeneration. 109 sometimes the other:' Aquinas makes it sovereign and irresistible grace alone. In the “Summa Theologica,”’ this whole goodness of the regenerate creature, implanted in him at the moment of his new birth, figures, as how- ever fixed a habit, only as the Divine formation pre- ceding the final gift of action itself. It is the perfect disposition for action, standing on the very edge of proximity to it, and ready to turn into it in a moment, like matter trembling upon the point of crystallization; but still needing this last Divine impulse to convert it into the form of practice, and without that impulse lying dormant and sluggish, like the inanimate machine before the spring is touched. The Deity would have everything prepared for Him before He takes the finishing step; He therefore endows the creature with good habits, 1.e. puts him into a state of perfect readiness and promptness for virtuous action, that with this admirable facility already formed in him, he may be moved instantaneously by the final touch.” But if, in accordance with a secret eternal decree, the final touch is withheld, this whole Divine creation lies motionless and unproductive, habit just stops short of action, and the regenerate being, amid the fullest endowments of virtue, is left in the mass of orginal corruption, and perishes in his sins. Here was the explanation, then, of the important dif_i- 1 « Auxilium Dei vere sufficiens adfuisse nonnullis, qui tamen reipsa conversi non sunt, ac per hoc auxilium illud efficaw non fuisse ..+.quibusdam concedi efficaz auxilium.” De Grat. et Lib. Arb. Prise. if. The “ auxilium sufficiens” of Bellarmine however was a mockery : —‘ Nam tanquam pie credamus omnibus dari pro loco et tempore auxilium sufficiens, quo possint credere; tamen Scriptura docet reipsa non credere, nisi illos qui habent auxilium efficax.” Ibid. eit Coron 2 «Tnfundit aliquas formas seu qualitates naturales secundum quas suaviter et prompte ab ipso moveantur.” See Note 16. 110 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parrl. culty of habits possessed, and not at all shown by action ; the bold explanation, viz. that it was fundamentally un- necessary that habits should act at all ; because the agent could not act according to his habit without “ special motions,” which special motions he might never have. Another reason which was alleged to explain this diffi- culty was substantially the same, and only differently expressed. Inasmuch as in the absence of special motives to make him act, the agent fell back under the dominion of concupiscence as his practical impulse, it was alleged that habits were prevented from acting by concupiscence.* Human nature, it was said, was in a peculiar condition as an agent, and was not to be judged of by ordinary tests. A deep and radical principle of evil, called concupiscence, resided in it, by which the internal action of the machine was disordered, and the natural operation of these habits was obstructed; so that when it came to the point of actually doing or not doing something, concupiscence ‘stepped into the seat of habit, and possessed itself of the spring of action in the soul. It was the continual repeti- tion of this process which produced the case which was to be explained, viz. that of an individual who never acted according to his habit. A man indulged in perpetual malice, or was the slave of avarice, or rioted in gluttony and drunkenness, for his whole life; the reason was not that he did not possess the habits of temperance, gene- rosity, and love, which he had by infusion, but that there was, so to speak, a hitch in the operation of the habits, something wrong in their executive and administrative functions; it was habit in an abnormal and exceptional state. There was for this reason, then, no objection to be 3 “Difficultas ad bonum et pronitas ad malum inveniuntur in baptizatis non propter defectwin habitus virtutwm, sed propter con- cupiscentiam.” Aquinas, Sum. Theol. P. 3, Q. 69, A. 4. Cuap. VII.] Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 111 alleged on the score of fact to the universal infusion of these habits in baptism, because at no stage of their existence was it necessary that these habits should produce action. They could not act in the infant on account of immaturity ; they need not act in the adult on account of concupiscence. The habits were there, but the man might be wholly different from them, and to all practical purposes the same as if he were without them. The mistake in this whole train of reasoning is ap- parent, and would not be worth pointing out were it not that there is a use in noticing what structures of words ingenious men will raise in order to maintain an hypo- thesis. It is quite true that a habit does not necessarily produce action at any given time, and on any given occasion. A man does not always act according to his habit; one habitually meek may commit a violent act, and one habitually brave a cowardly one. But though a good habit need not produce right acts on this particular occasion or on that, it must produce right acts on the whole. It is not habit otherwise, for what we mean by a habit is a disposition which on the whole produces action in this or that direction. The Scholastic theory gives a man the habit of liberality, which he cannot exert on account of the love of money; and the habit of sobriety, of which he cannot avail himself on account of the desire to drink. But in our very meaning of habit we imply the general fact of overcoming a contrary inclination. Such is the Scholastic doctrine of ‘‘ Infused Habits ”— a tenable doctrine, so far as it only asserts—what we see exemplied in nature—the Divine power of implanting habits, which are thus infused as distinguished from acquired habits; an inconsistent, artificial, and absurd doctrine, so far as it erects a class of habits which are real habits without producing action. A perfect Church was thus, by the mere force of theory, erected in the world, 112 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. {Parr I. and renewed by the inexhaustible fertility of the bap- tismal font, which sent up a perpetual succession of souls divinely fashioned and armed in the full panoply of Christian virtue ; this miraculous metamorphosis of sinful into virtuous and just beings was a perpetual process going on under the dispensation of grace; but theory could, after all, only produce an illusory creation which eluded all grasp, and vanished at the first contact with the waking senses; the whole erection was ideal and fictitious, and before the eye could fasten on it, melted into space. The boldness of Roman theology is at the same time joined to a considerable flexibleness in this speculation. The character of the formed Christian combines the true habit of virtue with the diminution of concupiscence ; the two, indeed, are but different aspects of one change, for in proportion as habit strengthens, concupiscence decays, and exerts a less imperious yoke. The baptismal gift then, as embodying the true habit of virtue, reduced concupiscence in the Scholastic system to that tenuity which was consistent with that habit,—to a principle of corruption which, just felt, but deprived of all force, “ had not the nature of sin.” But while a weakened and only just not extinct concupiscence was wanted on one side of the theory to combine with the infused habit of virtue, a strong one was wanted on the other as a counteracting principle to account for that habit’s unproductiveness, and being wanted was asserted. The Scholastic system thus bent concupiscence to its own convenience, and made it strong or weak, in accordance with its own needs. But without criticizing the boldness or the misapplied ingenuity of the Scholastic doctrine of baptism, or follow- ing the evolutions of medizeval theological science, it is enough to observe the fact for the sake of which this examination was entered upon, viz. a fundamental inter- a ~Cuap. VII.| Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 113 pretation of regeneration as implying actual goodness. It is true that Scholasticism, having laid down its baptismal formula, endeavours by logical artifice to escape the consequences of it; but the formula itself is no less positive, and the interpretation contained in it no less clear.* Before quitting this baptismal theory, however, it is proper we should append to it its correct theological name. The doctrine which has been described, then, in this chapter is the Roman doctrine of Justification which, after a long reign in the Schools, had the finishing stroke of authority put to it in the decree of the Council of Trent, which lays down as the formal cause of (ie. that which constitutes) justification, “ the righteousness of God, not that whereby He is righteous, but that by which He makes us righteous ; being endued with which, we are renewed in the spirit of our minds, and not only are accounted, but are truly called, and are righteous ;” for that “in justifi- cation, together with remission of sin, faith, hope, and charity are infused into us.” * The Anglican doctrine of justification® lays down some real goodness as necessary to justification, but it maintains it as the condition of, and not as the contents and material of, the gift. Understood in a forensic sense as a declaratory act of God accounting us righteous, justification presupposes as the ground of this imputation the goodness of faith and repentance in us, but does not itself insert or implant this goodness. 4 Note 17. 5 Note 18. 6 « Notate actum Dei hominem justum estimantis, non justum facientis.” Bull, Harmonia, Dissert. Prior. c. 1. Thorndike, Covenant of Grace, b. ii. c. 30, s. 21. Bishop Forbes inclines to the Roman view, “.... ita ut post justiticationem nihil macule peccati mortalis et gravioris maneat in anima peccatoris, quod nunquam ordinarie fit absque infusione inherentis gratia.” De Just. 1. i. co. 4. Anglo-Cath. Hd. v. 1, p- 166. I 114 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr. But the Roman justification, while it requires, with the Anglican, conditions in the shape of certain preparatory workings of the heart, is not like the Anglican, only a forensic and imputative act, but an act by which God literally infuses habitual righteousness into the soul, which has only experienced good motions before, inserting in it the habits of faith, hope, and charity. Justification is thus, in the Roman sense, the making a man actually good, and is, indeed, identical with sanctification; for sanctification is also this endowing of the soul with actually good and holy affections, habits, and dispositions. And being such, justification is the grace of baptism, and is thus identical with, and stamps this whole meaning wpon, regeneration; which state of regeneration, therefore, involves actual goodness in the Roman sense.’ And it will be observed that this question has nothing to do with the correctness or incorrectness of the Roman sense of justification: that is a matter of controversy: but, whether the Roman sense of justification is right or wrong, the Roman sense of regeneration or the grace of baptism, as identical with justification, 1s alike fixed by it. It is remarkable indeed, that as we leave the Fathers, and enter upon Scholastic ground, the term “ regenera- tion,” to a great extent, disappears, and the term “ justi- 7 “The ancient moralists,” says Bishop Bethell, “make a just and reasonable distinction between faculties or dispositions and habits. Faculties or dispositions are potential principles of action, which must be elicited by education or opportunities, and formed into habits by use and exercise. Habits are the same principles in a state of activity, and of readiness and aptness for use. But according to the doctrine of the Scholastic divines, those principles which are said to be infused into the soul when it is regenerated, do not follow the order of moral causes, but are at once in a state of activity, and produce free acts, as soon as they have the oppor- tunity of exerting themselves.” Treatise on Baptismal Regenera- tion, p. 164, Cuap. VII.| Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 115 fication ” rises in its place, to express the res sacramenti of baptism.* The great Patristic term was taken up again, after the lapse of centuries, by the Anglican divines, who professed a recurrence to the Fathers, but it suffered a long intermediate obscuration. The reason of the sub- stitution may have been that regeneration is a metaphor, and that as theology became more scientific, it became impatient of the metaphor, and chose a term which seemed etymologically to express the fact involved i regenera- tion,— the being made just or righteous. Justification, indeed, as the baptismal gift, and con- nected specially with the new dispensation, carried with it a privilege which previous to Christian baptism it did not. As the baptismal gift and identical with regene- ration, it was the apertio januce ceelestis, which it was not before. The door of heaven opened forthwith to the Christian saint, while the justified fathers of the Old Covenant, who were justified without being regenerated, reposed in a separate realm allotted to them, and were restricted for a preliminary period to the peaceful, though longing, expectation of the Visio Dei.’ 8 «Res ergo hujus sacramenti justificatio est.” Lombard, 1. iv. dist. 3, s. 12. “ Tnterior justificatio que est res hujus sacramenti.” Aquinas, Be Ps Pp. 3, Qs. 66, ALT: “Res sacramenti scilicet gratia cum virtutibus.” Bonaventure in Lomb. iv. p. 64. Bellarmine makes more use of the term regeneration, but still only as subordinate to the other term. “ Justificatio est regenera- tio et renovatio per lavacrum baptismi in nobis facta. Hance autem regenerationem, quz est ipsa justificatio, fierl per aliquod donum inhzrens probari potest ex ipsa natura et ratione regenerationis ; neque enim intelligi potest quemadmodum regeneretur aliquis sine ulla sui mutatione .... Regeneratio aliquid in ipso homine ponit, ob quod filius Dei nominetur et sit... primarium donum quod est charitas.” De Justificatione, l. 2, c. 3. ° “Tili{Sancti Patres] habebant carentiam visionis cum expecta- 12 116 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. But while Christian justification, ie. regeneration, was thus distinguished from the justification of the patriarchs and saints of the Old Covenant, the distinction was no more than this ; it was one of reward or privilege, not of sub- stance of spiritual condition; appendant and temporary, not intrinsic. Boththe Fathers and Schoolmen, indeed, acknow- ledge more fellowship and common ground with the Old Testament saint,’ than do some modern divines who repre- sent this interval between sanctification and regeneration, as if it divided two radically different conditions of the human soul, and as if the ancient saints did not partake of the same grace of which baptized Christians did. This is a new and an unauthorized depreciation of the spiritual rank of the old patriarchs, whom ancient theology describes as justified and sanctified by the same grace by which Christians are, and one flowing from the same Incarnation, though in the one case prior, in the other posterior, in time to that event. There has been but one fundamental dispensation in the world since its creation, viz. that of the Gospel, the consummation of which was prospective to the older saint, retrospective to the later, but was, whether looked forward to or looked back to, the object and source of the same essentially Christian faith; nor do the Fathers scruple to call the saints of the Old Testament Christians.’ A great advantage undoubtedly attaches to the later stage of this great inclusive dispensation, as compared with the earlier one ; and an advantage to which natural tione, et ideo quia visionem Dei expectabant non tantum in limbo, sed in sinu Abrahe dicebantur esse... Sinus autem Abrahe in bonum quia est ibi requies.” Bonaventure in Lomb. iv. p. 582. See Mr. Owen’s “ Introduction to the Study of Dogmatic Theology,” chap. xvi. 1 And were freer too in their concessions to the sacraments of the old Law. Note 19. 2 Note 19. Cuap. VII.] Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 117 reason as well as formal theology testifies. Christianity has given a wonderful stimulus and expansion to our moral nature, and has produced a character superior in power, freedom, and comprehensiveness to that of the saint of the Old Testament. Even the intellectual enlightenment of the Christian, his superior insight into many sublime truths, and the largeness of his field of sympathy, are a great excitement to his moral powers. The true test of character, however, is the root rather than the expansion; whether we attend to the cautions of common sense, or whether we take our standard from poetry, which, impatient of the outer organization and framework of human character, pierces to its core, in order to find that sterling truth of nature, which makes the man according to the design of God. The mind of the poet penetrates within to reach the centre, the sub- stance of the uncorrupted heart, which may be more or less richly and largely developed according to circum- stances, but of which the true worth is itself. High and refined knowledge is indeed in an especial way penetrated by this reactionary test, which dismisses form and outer growth to recur to the foundation, and grasp the root of sincerity in man. It is thus that the highest civilization fosters the poetical aspect of the poor, because in the midst of growth and development, the craving more especially arises for the native rudiments,—those elementary forms of character which witness to their own truth, and which have the purity and strength of primordial substance. Half-formed thoughts, unconnected words, ejaculations, and mere looks, are prized above the most complete manifestations of the educated mind, as glimpses of a world of truth, escapings from the fountain-head, and fragments of a genuine original. The Christian character thus existed in its root in the patriarch and saint of the Old Testament; it had not that 118 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. development indeed which a later stage of the dispensation gave to it, but the whole greatness of the foundation was there,—the faith which, dim in the apprehension of its object, certain of itself, led the way and made the wonderful beginning; performed the first great act of foresight, and cast the first fixed look out of visible nature; drew the rough outline of futurity, and beheld afar off the city whose builder and maker is God. The patriarchal character is thus essentially a spiritual and a Christian one, the type and exemplar to which the Church still appeals as containing the whole substance of Gospel faith and sanctity. And, as such, it is the creation of the same Divine grace which works in the Christian Church. It may indeed help us to see how the substance of the Christian character could exist in the ancient patriarch without the expansion, that, vice versd, in the Christian there is sometimes seen the expansion without the sub- stance. The history of character under Christianity has its mysteries; the greatness of the revelations made to man has sometimes not abased him, but the contrary ; and he has used Christianity, as Alcibiades used Socrates, for the power which its truths have given him over others, rather than for the profit of them to himself. The large- ness which they have given to our field of view, the new world which they have opened, furnish him with a fulcrum for moving the feelings and controlling the wills of others, with which the whole of ancient philosophy had nothing to be compared. He has seen his advantage, and he has availed himself of it without scruple. And thus it is that the marvellous gift of a rich religious imagination, and an outer ethical formation, even upon a_ transcendental pattern, have sometimes not excluded in the Christian teacher and man of power an inner eye to vanity, a regard to a fleeting unsubstantial end. We see a want of simplicity and singleness in the fundamental aim of a soul desiring Cuap. VII.] Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 119 dominion over men’s minds, and pursuing a carnal great- ness even in the sphere of spiritual things. We see that something is grasped at which is external to the Divine law, and which therefore must involve asubtle self-seeking. Yet this inner unsoundness is surrounded with an outer depth of idea and feeling, with brilliant aspirations, and the signs of powerfully realized Christian truth. The expansion is perfect and admirable, but the mind within is not the mind of Christ.’ Vice versd, the patriarchal mind was the mind of Christ, but without the advantage of expansion. Its religious greatness consisted not im any beautiful diversity of outer ethical growth, but im an inward singleness of mind—that strong stock of truth upon which, as upon its native stay, the rising Church leaned undoubtedly, turning thenceforward and for ever to it, as to the original exemplar and type of faith. Such was the justification and sanctification of the saints of the Old Testament, the gift of the same Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost, and the work of the same Divine grace which now sanctifies the elect people of God. 3 “ Si habuerit virtutem magnam et devotionem nimis ardentem, adhuc multum sibi deest... scilicet unum ut se relinquat.” De Imitatione Christi. ‘ S’ils vous ont donné Dieu pour objet, ce n’a été que pour exercer votre superbe.” Pascal. CHAPTER VIII CALVINISTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION Tux testimony of the Calvinistic School on the question now before us will perhaps be considered by some not to deserve much attention, but notwithstanding the partial and rigid character of this system, we cannot with fairness put out of court a school which can show so many great theological features, and whose learning and intellectual power and acuteness have been combined with the deepest faith. It need not be said then that regeneration involves actual goodness in the Calvinistic definition. Nor, asthe preceding chapters have shown, was this definition any innovation on the part of the Calvinists. We are apt to represent this school as having supplanted an old estab- lished sense of regeneration by a new one of its own, but, by the admission of Bishop Bethell himself, the Calvinists found the idea of regeneration “as a radical change of heart, and an implantation of a new character and dispo- sition,” already established in the Schools before them ; nor, in adopting it, did they do more than follow the lead of recognized theology. The tendency of Calvinism, however, as a popular sys- tem, has been to fix as the date of this great inward change, not baptism, but the moment of the effectual call, when God, by a sovereign act of grace, transfers the sin- ner from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, implanting in him new affections and inclinations. Up to this time the elect have indeed been the subjects of Calvinestic Sense of Regeneration. 121 a Divine decree predestinating them to everlasting life, but nothing has been done to put this decree in execu- tion, and the internal condition of the elect has been the same as that of the sinful mass; but at the call they are actually separated by a change of internal condition from the latter, and are endowed with a spiritual habit and disposition of mind. Bishop Bethel thus decides that the Schoolmen and the Calvinists define regeneration substantially alike. “ Ac- cording to the Schoolmen, man is endowed with the habit of justifying grace, containing in it the habits of faith, hope, and charity, when he is baptized; the Scholastic Calvinists asserted that regeneration consists in such a habit of grace bestowed upon the elect at the moment of the effectual call.” * But both Schools, he observed, agree in maintaining “ that habits of belief and holiness are implanted in the soul by a literal creation or miraculous action of Divine power,” *in the act of regeneration ; both identify regeneration with ‘‘a change of affections and inward feelings,” with “ an infusion of particular virtues,” * with ‘‘ the renewal of the whole inward frame, and a radical change in all the parts and faculties of the soul.” * Though in recognizing the fact of this substantial agree- ment of two different Schools in a particular definition, Bishop Bethell hardly seems to give it the weight which is due to it—to the concordant testimony of two such opposite and independent witnesses to one meaning of regeneration as the true one. The Calvinistic definition, however, added to the sense of regeneration as actual goodness, and farther extended it. A temporary habit of goodness is not enough in the opinion of the Calvinist to constitute so high a privilege as that of being a son of God; for which privilege some 1 Treatise, p. 162. 2 P. 183. $. Pref. p. 30. 4 Pref. p. 39. 122 Calvenestec Sense of Regeneration. {Parr I. guarantee seems to him requisite that the person who is good now, should also be good in eternity. Sonship is necessarily an immortal state in his idea, because it is being the son of the “ Eternal and Immortal,” a partici- pation of a nature which is imperishable and cannot fail. To talk of a man then being a son of God now, and not being a son of God at a certain date from hence, is con- demned as simple trifling, and the idea of a temporary sonship is altogether rejected as an incongruity and a solecism in reason. ‘The condition is required, therefore, by the Calvinist, in assigning the title of son of God, that once possessed it should never be parted with ; nor is such a condition to beset aside as wholly unreasonable or un- scriptural, appealing as it does to a natural maxim,which -we cannot altogether discard, that the end is the test even of the reality of the present, and favoured as it is by certain striking portions of Scripture language. The too rigid adherence, however, to the condition of permanence and indefectibility as essential to regenera- tion, involved the Calvinist in difficulties as great as the concession of a temporary regeneration would have entailed. It may seem unnatural and incongruous to say that a man is a son of God now, who will be a child of the devil ata certain date from hence, but still the fact must be admitted that men do fall, and from a good life change to a bad one. How, then, are we to describe the previous state of good- ness? Was it altogether a deception without mward reality? We might say so, perhaps, if it vanished for ever and never appeared again. But what if it revives, and revives to continue totheend? It must be admitted then to have been a real goodness, and therefore true sonship ; and yet to have been apparently only temporary, stopping at a particular time. The Calvinist then ex- plained this difficulty by supposing in such a case a root of goodness, which remained in the human soul even Cuap. VIII. ] Caluinastic Sense of Regeneration. 123 when the visible fruit, in the shape of an apparent actual life of goodness, was gone, and the man was sunk in vice ; —from which it followed that the sonship had never reaily ceased, but only suffered an eclipse.’ But that a man should be in root and essence a son of God, at the very time that he is wallowing in the pollution of sin, is not a Scriptural idea. Itis true that by a figure of speech Scripture represents what is certain to be, as already pre- sent, and in this sense a profligate man may be a saint now to the Divine prescience, but he is not a saint in him- self. The Calvinist thus bridged over the interval of the elect’s lapse at the cost of his definition of regeneration, and obtained his continuous line of sonship by an un- authorized reduction of the meaning of that term. Regeneration was thus wltimately defined not as a habit, but as aprocess; by virtue of which goodness did not necessarily then exist, but was in sure progress to forma- tion. It wasa process which when once begun in man by the Holy Ghost, was never wholly abandoned, but though sometimes thrown back upon its original starting-ground, with all the fabric hitherto erected demolished, had still an ultimate footing reserved to it in the soul, upon which the Spirit commenced in due time His work afresh, till the spiritual man was built up. The Calvinistic and Scholastic definitions thus agreeing at the outset, parted company at a certain stage of the argument; and regeneration from an actual “ habit” of goodness, which > “Hoo tamen non dubito quin semen illud quo electos suos re- generat Deus, ut est incorruptibile, ita perpetuam vim habeat. Fieri quidem posse concedo ut interdum suffocetur, quemadmodum in Davide: sed tamen quo tempore videbatur extincta esse omnis in eo pietas, carbo vivus sub cineribus latebat. Conatur quidem Satan avellere quicquid Dei est in electis; sed ubi plurimum illi permittitur, manet semper occulta radix, que deinde pullulat.”’ Calvin on 1 John iui. 9. 124 Calvinistic Sense of Regeneration. | Part I. naturally shows itself in the practice of goodness, became the process of the formation of goodness, all the first intro- ductory part of which could be secret, and simultaneous with a life of the grossest sin. This modification of the definition of regeneration, helped a section of the Calvinistic School out of another difficulty. The Calvinistic School could not consistently with its principles hold the regeneration of all infants in baptism. Indeed they were in a difficulty here antecedently to the objection arising from their own peculiar tenet. For the only definition of infant baptismal regeneration, which, by the admission of Bishop Bethell, was presented to the Calvinists upon their first birth as a school, was the established Scholastic definition, that all infants had the habits of faith, hope, and charity infused into them at baptism. But they could not accept this position, but were obliged to reject it, not only because it was opposed to Calvinism, but because it was contrary to fact. But though the Calvinistic School could not consist- ently hold the regeneration of all infants in baptism, and though its popular tendency has been to defer that change to the age of consciousness, it has still as a school never given up the connexion of regeneration with baptism, but adhered to the teaching of its early authorities, who main- tained the regeneration of infants—those who were elect —and baptism as the instrument or the seal of this re- generation.’ But how was the regeneration of the elect in infancy consistent with the obvious fact that many of the elect lived years in sin before their actual conversion ? In what mode and sense were they regenerate throughout this previous life? By “ initial regeneration,’ it was answered. But what was this? If it was an implanted habit it would come out with the growth of reason, 5 See Chapter vu. Part II. 7 Note 20. Cuap. VIII. | Calvenestec Sense of Regeneration. 125 whereas the elect person might live up to a point of middle or perhaps even declining life in sin. This initial regeneration then was not an implanted habit, but only the commencement of an infallible process, which had to work its way through a long conflict of opposing forces, and gradually shape the rough material of the human soul into the spiritual form. Such an incipient stage of a process is not the regeneration of the New Testament ; for though the decree of predestination can attach to a person in and throughout the longest period of sin, he is not during this period in the Scriptural sense of the word regenerate. This modification, however, of the definition of regeneration got the sacramental Calvinist out of a difficulty, out of which the Schoolman never extricated himself. For the Scholastic implanted habit provoked the challenge to come out and show itself with the growth of reason; whereas the Calvinistic process invited no such challenge, only being obliged to show itself when it was completed, which it might not be till even the end of life. An examination into the Anglican sense of regenera- tion would now follow in natural order. I use the term *« Anglican” because this is the ordinary designation of a particular school which succeeded the Calvinistic in our Church, and which contains most of our well-known divines. The Anglican School, though a divided witness, still gives the main strength of its testimony to that sense of regeneration which has been maintained in this treatise as the true and Scriptural one; but an exa- mination of the method of treatment which the divines of this school applied to this question is reserved for another place in this treatise.* 8 Chapter xi. CHAPTER IX REGENERATION OF ADULTS IN BAPTISM Tux case of adult regeneration in baptism is easily stated with respect to the conditions of it. That no adult is regenerate in baptism without faith and repentance is the unquestionable doctrine of Scripture and the universal Church.’ An opposite language, viz. that even wicked adults are regenerate in baptism, though not beneficially, is held by some, but such a notion is entirely without warrant. Those who maintain such a position seem to do so upon the idea that regeneration is only the imparting of a power or faculty ; in which case they see no inconsistency in the notion of a man being regenerated while wicked, because it is a law of the Divine dispensations that great faculties are conferred upon good and bad alike. But regeneration is a complex thing, including in the essential idea of it, besides this power for the future, remission of past sin, to which forgiveness the wicked cannot possibly be admitted while they are wicked. They receive the baptismal character indeed, which is perhaps what these persons mean; but this character is not regeneration. But when we go from the conditions of the gift, to what the gift 7s in the case of adults, the case becomes more difficult. The main distinction which a preceding chapter? has established is, that the regenerate state is 1 See p. 50, and Notes 6 and 8. 2 Chapter v. Regeneration of Adults in Baptism. 127 in the Scriptural sense a habit of goodness and not a faculty only. It was shown to be actual goodness, and by goodness we mean a habit of goodness. But here a question arises. For regeneration is confessed on all sides to be an absolute gift of God, but can habits be absolutely given, and created by Divine power? Our faculties are universally acknowledged to be simply given us, but according to the Aristotelian doctrine, habits are acquired by our own use of the faculties, or by succes- sive acts. The answer to this question is that habits, even as distinguished from faculties, can be implanted in the soul by Divine power. Instances of this appear in- deed in the course of God’s natural providence. Sudden impressions from outward events, or sudden impulses from within, have been known to give an immediate turn to character and to produce a settled moral bias and mould of mind which has influenced the conduct of the individual from that time forward. And we recognize the fact of what we call “natural character,’ which is a moral habit of mind imparted to the individual at birth, causing him to act in a certain way as he grows up. Nor is such a doctrine of the implantation of habits by Divine power Calvinism ; because it does not follow, if a man is endowed with a good habit, that therefore the contingent acts of free will are dispensed with in sustaining it. He is undoubtedly placed at an advantage in regard to moral action; still acts do not in our present state neces- sarily flow from habits without any effort of the will, and therefore such imparted habits are attended by risk, and require the exertion of the will to maintain them. Pri- mitive theology represented Adam as created not only with the faculty, but with the habit of goodness, but that habit did not prevent a fall afterwards by voluntary neglect and sin. But though there appears to be no objection to assert- 128 Regeneration of Adults [Parr I. ing thata moral habit can be implanted by Divine power, a further question is raised when we come to the sacra- ment of baptism as the means by which such a habit is implanted. For is it reasonable to suppose that a moral habit can be imparted to a human being by a particular outward rite? Such a result is less startling in the case of infants, because the germ and commencement of life is itself a kind of mystery, and so harmonizes more with such a mysterious creation. But let us place before our minds an adult in the full possession of his reason and faculties, and we must feel great difficulty in the idea of a moral habit bemg formed by an external rite, in the grown and mature man. Such an effect of the sacrament comes into direct collision with reasonable modes of thinking of which we find ourselves possessed. There is this important consideration too in the case of the adult, that a good disposition is the previous con- dition upon which he receives the grace, and therefore cannot be the effect of it. And though a good disposition may exist without a formed habit, the adult may often have the latter as well, and come to baptism already a mature Christian in character. The case of adult regeneration in baptism has thus difficulties peculiar to itself. Were regeneration only defined as an admission to an outward covenant and spiritual privileges, the way would be clear; but re- generation being an inward moral and spiritual habit, the question arises whether such a habit is imparted to an adult in and by baptism; and the effect of baptism upon adults becomes a separate subject for consideration, involving peculiar difficulties, apart from those attaching in common to the whole baptismal question. Theology has accordingly, in its treatment of the baptismal question, always trod with peculiar caution upon this particular portion of the ground; and the Cuap. IX. |] tn Baptism. 129 questions which arose out of adult baptism ultimately produced an opening through which a good deal of relaxation and modification of doctrinal language crept in. The case of adults from time to time necessitated important concessions, and moral considerations were allowed to outweigh those of ritual, till at length the obsignatory theory triumphed in this particular case, and it was decided that the faithful adult was regenerate before baptism, though this did not release him from the obligation to receive the outward seal of the sacrament. The difficulty of a moral and spiritual habit, such as regeneration is, being imparted to an adult in baptism, was thus got rid of by antedating in his case regene- ration to baptism, and regarding him as _ possessing the res sacramenti by virtue of his faith and holiness before the outward rite. But this explanation was not immediately arrived at, but was led up to by a series of steps. The first of these was the case of unbaptized martyrs. Adults possess moral character. They possess evidently —some of them—when they have had the advantage of Christian instruction, even Christian character, ante- cedently to baptism; and this was a fact which the greater prevalence of adult baptism, involving as it did a constant number of grown-up persons who had though unbaptized the Christian faith and temper, brought forcibly home to the mind even of the early Church, amid all its high regard to sacraments. Could it be said that a catechumen who suffered martyrdom for the faith was not a member of Christ, because he was not baptized? Moral feeling rejected such an idea, and it was decided that martyrdom of itself conferred upon him regeneration, for which it gained the name of the baptism of blood. But the course of concession could not stop here, because a catechumen who was not martyred might have the K 130 Regeneration of Adults [Panes spirit of a martyr, might have been as willing as the other to suffer death for the faith, had he had the call. Was such an one then not a member of Christ because by accident he had died without baptism? Moral feeling - again rejected such an idea, and it was decided that faith of itself supplied the place of baptism in the believing catechumen. The exception allowed to martyrdom thus established, as the next step, a much wider and more general modification of the doctrine of baptism ; the ruling principle in such concessions being the plain ground of morals which must ultimately outweigh any other that comes into competition with it, viz. that the acceptable thing in the sight of God is actual holiness and goodness, and that where this is had no defect of ritual can possibly interfere with the individual’s favour in His sight. St. Ambrose, therefore, claimed this concession without hesitation.® But the course of concession could not stop even here, for if the act of baptism made a real inward change in the pious and believing adult, as compared with his state before; if he entered into a new spiritual condition in and by that act; to suppose that God supplied the want of this to the believing adult who died without baptism, by an extraordinary arrangement, was an assumption. But it was not satisfactory that so important a claim should rest upon so irregular a footing as a mere pious assumption; and therefore, as a security to the faithful unbaptized, the next step was to modify the effect of baptism upon the faithful baptized; and it was decided ultimately that the latter possessed the substance of regeneration before baptism, and had thus nothing wanting in the substance of his spiritual condition for baptism afterwards to supply. The regeneration of the faithful $ “Qui habuit spiritum tuum, quomodo non accepit gratiam tnam.” De obitu Valentiniani consolatio, s. 2. Cuap. IX. | in Baptism. 131 unbaptized thus no longer stood as a divergence from the regular doctrine of baptism, but was incorporated in that doctrine ; and the success of an exceptional claim resulted at last in a modification of doctrinal basis. This modification, however, was some time obtaining a recognized place in theology. The ordinary language of the Fathers does not, perhaps, present any noticeable difference in describing the effect of baptism upon believing adults, and upon infants,—though, when Cyprian in middle life attributes his own regeneration, which he pointedly describes as a conversion, to the simple rite of baptism, it is difficult to suppose that he means such language to be understood quite literally. The sudden moral and intellectual change which he relates would, as produced by the simple administration of an outward rite, have been a miracle, and he does not profess to be relating a miracle. But, though the ordinary language of the Fathers does not present much that is distinctive on the subject of adult baptism, occasional modifications appear, especially when they have the case of pious believing and instructed adults expressly before them. Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria both appear to sanction the antedating of illumination,—which was another term for regeneration, —as the growth of discipline and instruction,’ to the actual administration of baptism. ‘Tertullian meets the * Kandetra 5€ rovTo Td Novtpov Hhariopos, os PortiCopevov thy Sidvo.ay T@v tavta pavOavevray, Justin, Apol. 1.1, s.61. Dlumination, which is always spoken of by the Fathers as the gift of baptism, is here made to precede baptism, as the result of preceding instruc- tion. Clement declines tying illumination to the actual rite. "Ore d€ 7 yyaous cuvavaréANet TO Hotiopartt, TeplactpdmTovea Toy vovY, Kal evbéws axovopev pabnral oi auabeis’ réTepoy Tore, THS paOnoews eExeivns mporyevoyerns ; ov yap av €xots eiwety TOY xpdvoy, Potter’s Ed. Wot. we 1G. o Kee 132 Regeneration of Adults [Parr I. question, why a person who has already true Christian faith is baptized, seeing that Abraham was justified by the sacrament of faith only, and he answers it by saying, that before our Lord’s Passion and Resurrection faith ‘naked ”? was enough; but that, after faith had enlarged its subject-matter by the addition of the articles of the Nativity, Passion, and Resurrection, “an augmentation was added to the sacrament of faith, viz. the seal of baptism ; a clothing, as it were, of the faith which hitherto was naked.” *® The addition which the sacrament makes to faith is explained here as one more of an outer than an inner kind; for the body is more the substance of the man than the clothing, and faith stands for the body, the sacrament for the clothing. Again, in combating the idea which persons had that they might live in sin up to the time of baptism, relying upon everything being wiped off. by that act, he says,—“ Baptism is the seal of faith, which faith starts with and is proved by repentance. We are not therefore washed that we may cease to sin, inasmuch as we are already washed in heart.”° ‘Two points may be noted in this language. First, baptism is the seal of faith. The explanation of baptism as the seal of faith, like the former explanation of it as the clothing of faith, does not describe the sacrament as producing any change in the substance of the spiritual condition of the individual who has already true faith. The substance of a document is its language, in which the person engages — 5 « Buerit salus retro per fidem nudam ante Domini passionem et resurrectionem. At ubi fides aucta est credendi in nativitatem, passionem, resurrectionemque ejus, addita est ampliatio sacra- mento, obsignatio Baptismi vestimentum quodammodo fidei que retro erat nuda.” De Bapt. c. 13. 6 « Tavacrum illud obsignatio est fidei; que fides a poenitentize fide incipitur et commendatur. Non ideo abluimur ut delinquere desinamus, quoniam jam corde loti sumus.” De Peen. c. 6. op) Cap. IX. ] 7x Baptism. 13 \ to do such and such things ; the seal is a formal rather than a substantial addition. The language even without the seal has of itself a binding power, because a man cannot declare in words that he will do a thing, and afterwards not do it, without being convicted by those very words. And therefore, though the law may choose to require the addition of the seal, such an addition does not appertain to the substance of the document, which lies in the natural force of the language composing it. As the seal of faith, therefore, baptism does not add anything intrinsic and essential to faith. The other point is the assertion, that those who come to baptism in a right state of mind are already baptized in heart—corde lott. Inward baptism is regeneration. St. Augustine evidently feels a difficulty when he finds himself confronting the case of an adult possessing the true Christian faith and temper before baptism, and required to state what it is which is effected in such an one by baptism. In such a case, he says, ‘‘ What the bodily sanctification of the sacrament avails, and what it does in the man, it is difficult to say;’ but unless it availed much, our Lord would not have received the baptism of a servant. So little ought any one, however spiritually advanced before baptism, to despise that sacra- ment which is applied corporally by the minister, and by which God works the spiritual consecration of the man. Nor for any other purpose was the office of baptizing given to John, than that our Lord who gave it to him might, in not disdaining to accept the baptism of a servant, commend the path of humility and declare how much His own baptism was to be valued. For He foresaw that there would not be wanting that pride in some, who having attained proficiency of understanding and morals, 7 “Quid autem valeat et quid agat in homine corporaliter adhibita sanctificatio ... difficile est dicere,” &c. See Note 21. 134 Regeneration of Adults [Past I, might rank themselves above many of the baptized in life and doctrine ; which would induce them to think baptism in their own case superfluous, inasmuch as they would feel themselves to have attained already that habit of mind to which many baptized persons were still striving to ascend.” The first remark to make upon this explanation is, that the difficulty is felt more clearly than it is answered. The writer, however, while he uses many high expressions to show the value of baptism in such a case as he describes, evidently avoids asserting any substantial inward change as the effect of the sacrament. The effect he ascribes to it is “a spiritually wrought consecration ;,—an indefinite expression, indeed, but one which does not contain the idea of a substantial inward change or actual regeneration. The appeal also to our Lord’s “fulfilment of righteous- ness,” in submitting Himself to John’s baptism, and to the duty of humility and not despising ordinances of Divine appointment, points rather to an act of obedience, conferring a blessing as such, than to the reception of an inward substantial change. It is evident, indeed, that our Lord’s baptism was an act of simple obedience to a positive ordinance without an inward effect: the promi- nent use of this case then, as the one on which to rest the obligation of the believing adult to submit himself to this ordinance, suggests the motive of obedience as the princi- pal one enjoined in this and other passages of Augustine. The famous maxim of Augustine, “ Legis opera sequun- tur justificatum, non preecedunt justificandum,”’ may be added to the concessions of antiquity upon this subject. This maxim, which mainly affects the question of the part which works have in justification, also incidentally, but still substantially, affects the question of the part which baptism has in justification, in a particular case, viz. in the case of the adult who has before baptism practised Cuap. IX. |] on Baptism. 135 good works, or exhibited a good and holy character. The result of the maxim is in his case to make justification precede baptism ; for, where good works precede baptism, a maxim, which antedates justification to good works, still more antedates justification to baptism. This celebrated maxim of Augustine has indeed been explained as assuming that justification is in baptism, and only meaning to assert that works after baptism have the exclusive title to the name of “ Christian works or righteousness properly so called.” But Augustine admits to the fullest extent the’ possibility of good works and of Christian works before baptism; and therefore this is an artificial explanation of this maxim, which must rather be taken as one of those Augustinian dicta which qualify the sacramental system, and reveal an opening into another and counterbalancing one. The incidental and desultory concession, however, of the Fathers was more methodically adopted by the Schools. The Schoolmen were, indeed, so strongly committed to the position that the baptismal gift or regeneration was an actual habit of goodness, that this concession in the case of adults was forced upon them. For what were they to say? ‘That an adult had a moral habit im- parted to him in and by an outward rite? That was plainly unreasonable. And, moreover, the faithful adult came with a good disposition already formed to baptism. The language of theology accordingly, contrary to the general tendency of sacramental statements, which was to greater rigidity, became more systematically free on this subject. Peter Lombard, who built his structure of divinity entirely upon a Patristic basis, hardly professing it indeed to be more than a digest of the Fathers, pro- nounces distinctly, or rather, what is still more signifi- cant, treats it as a point universally admitted, that adults who come to baptism in faith and love are, upon 136 Regeneration of Adults [Part I. the strength of this inward disposition, justified or re- generate already. “Tt is wont to be asked,” he says, “concerning those who come with faith and love to baptism, being already sanctified by the Spirit, what it is which baptism bestows upon them. For it appears to bestow nothing, inasmuch as they are already justified by faith and repentance, and have received forgiveness of sin. To which it may be replied, that those persons have been indeed, through their faith and repentance, justified, 1. e. cleansed from the stain of sin, and absolved from the debt of eternal punishment : yet that they are bound to temporal satisfaction such as that to which penitents in the Church are liable. But when they receive baptism, they are both cleansed from their sins committed, if so be, in the interval after con-. version, and are absolved from exterior satisfaction ; and assisting grace and every virtue 1s wecreased in the bap- tized person, so that be may be called really a new man. The fomes peccati also is still more weakened in him. Wherefore Jerome saith that the faith which makes men believers, is either given or nourished in baptism, because to him that hath not it is therein given, and to him that hath it is given that he have more. Whoso approaches baptism then clean, is therein made cleaner, and to every one that hath there is given then more. . . . Wherefore baptism confers much even upon one already justified by faith ; because coming to baptism he is borne, like the branch by the dove, within the ark, having been. before within in the judgment of God, but being now within in the judgment of the Church.”’ * 8 « Solet etiam queeri de his qui jam sanctificati spiritu cum fide et charitate ad baptismum accedunt, quid eis conferat baptismus. Nihil enim eis videtur preestare, cwm per fidem et contritionem jam remissis peccatis justificati sunt. Ad quod sane dici potest, eos quidem per fidem et contritionem justificatos, i.e. a macula peccati Cuap. xX. | an Baptism. a7 In this statement it is first assumed that adults who have faith and love are regenerate before baptism. They come to baptism already justified, jam justificati ; and justification, as the res sacramenti of baptism,’ is identical with regeneration. This assumed, however, the statement proceeds to combine with this truth, the reservation of something still for baptism to confer; which further advantage is pronounced to consist first in visible Church membership, and next in an addition made to the inward state. Was he clean before? he is now cleaner. Had he faith? he has now more faith. Had he virtues? they are now increased. But while additions are -left to be con- ferred in baptism, the truth is still assumed, as one of general consent, that the res sacramenti of baptism is possessed by believing adults before baptism. Nor can the position laid down in this statement be distinguished in any substantial respect from that which the divines of the Reformation maintained on the same subject. The divines of the Reformation maintained that the faithful adult was regenerate before baptism ;’ while at the same time they pergatos et a debito ewterne pone absolutos; et tamen adhuc teneri satisfactione temporali, qua poenitentes ligantur in Hcclesia. Cum autem baptismum percipiunt, et a peccatis que interim post conversionem contraxerunt, mundantur, et ab exteriori satisfactione absolvuntur ; et adjutrix gratia omnisque virtus in eo augetur, ut vere novus homo tune dici posset. Fomes quoque peccati in eo amplius debilitatur. Ideo Hier. dicit quod fides que fideles facit, in aquis baptismi datur vel nutritur: quia non habenti aliquando illi datur, et jam habenti ut plenius habeat datur. Sic et de aliis intelligendum est. Qui ergo mundus accedit ibi fit mundior, et omni habenti ibiamplius datur ... Multum ergo confert baptismus etiam jam per fidem justificato; quia accedens ad baptismum quasi ramus a columba portatur in arcam; qui ante erat judicio Dei, sed nunc etiam judicio ecclesiz intus est.” Lib. iv. distinct. 4, s. 6. 9 See p. 115. 1“ Divines of the Anglican school have also not scrupled to use the same language. ‘ Ablution is not the cause, but only the sign 138 Regeneration of Adults [Part T. were perfectly willing to admit the increase, awctio, of the Divine gift, in the sacrament.’ Lombard then comes to the question, “ Cujus rei baptismus, qui datur jam justo, sit sacramentum ;” and he settles it in the same way, viz. that, though there is an increase of grace given at the time and baptism is a sign of this increase, the grace of justification, that grace which is the res sacramenti of baptism, is possessed before, and baptism is the sign and seal of this preceding grace,— “‘Sacramentum rei que preecessit, i.e. remissionis ante per fidem date.” ‘ Nec mireris,”’ he adds, “rem aliquando precedere sacramentum, cum aliquando etiam longe post sequatur.” * The doctrinal assumption of Lombard, that the justifica- tion of the faithful adult precedes baptism, was accepted by a whole line of commentators on the Sentences, and by the most distinguished divines of the medizval Church. Aquinas acquiesces in it as being a decision “ de baptismo eorum qui prius rem sacramenti acceperant,” and asserts that the believing adult is before baptism a member of Christ spiritually —mentaliter ; to be made one corporally and sacramentally in baptism.* ‘‘ One who is justified,” says Durandus, “ by the baptism of the Spirit is still bound to receive the baptism of water, not for the sake of remedy, which he does not need, but on account of the Divine precept, and to supply that which is sacramental and outward. ... For baptism was instituted not only for a of the spiritual grace which is conferred at baptism; and the spiritual grace is a consequence of that faith and repentance which must precede the ablution.’” Bp. Marsh’s Second Letter to Simeon, p. 9. 2 Note 22. 3 Lombard, lib. iv. distinct. 4, s. 7. 4 « Adulti prius credentes in Christum ei incorporantur menta- liter ; sed postmodum cum baptizantur ei qaodammodo corporaliter, scilicet per visibile sacramentum.” Sum. Theol. P. 3, Q. 69, A. 5. Also In Lomb. iv. 4. Cuap. [X.] in Baptism. 139 5 paleameta le MRA 02S ASE remedy against sin, but also for public utility.”° Brad- wardine asserts “the justification of adults before the baptism of water, by the baptism of repentance, and the baptism of the Spirit through faith.” ® Bellarmine maintains asan established truth, that ‘‘ adults are by faith and contrition justified before they come actually to the sacrament,” and explains their case as analogous to that of the fathers of the old law, who received their justifica- tion by the instrumentality of faith.’ These admissions in the case of believing adults, were elicited by the plain force of moral principle. No good- ness of fallen man can indeed be pleasing and acceptable to God without a Mediator, nor indeed without a Mediator can this goodness be attained and exist; but a Mediator supposed, and man supposed to have attained to goodness and holiness, the moral nature of the Deity requires that when this character is presented to Him, He must regard it with an absolute favour, which arises immediately upon 5 «“Justificatus baptismo Flaminis adhuc tenetur baptizar1 bap- tismo fluminis, non propter remedium quo non indiget, sed propter preceptum divinum et ut suppleatur in eo quod sacramentale est et exterius in ritu baptismi, et interius in collatione characteris. Baptismus enim institutus est non solum in remedium persone contra culpam, sed etiam propter utilitatem publicam et conformi- tatis membrorum ecclesiz.” Durandus in Lomb. p. 308. 6 “Quis non profitetur Concilium Nicenum, ‘Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum ? > Multi tamen adulti ante baptismum aque seu fluminis, in baptismo Flaminis credendo in Christum, et in baptismo poenitentiz a peecatis omnibus sunt mundati.” De Causa Dei, p. 414. 7 «“ Hoc est discrimen inter sacramenta legis veteris et novee, quod nostra conferunt gratiam, illa solum eam significabant. Non autem est consequens Veteres Patres non habuisse gratiam, aut habuisse sine organo applicante Christi merita. Nam etiamsi non habuerunt eam per sacramenta, tamen habuerunt per fidem. Sicut nunc adulti per fidem et contritionem veram justificantur antequam reipsa ad sacramentum accedant.” De Effectu Sacramentorum, L 8. e218. 140 Regeneration of Adults [Part I. the existence of the character, and therefore cannot wait for the accident of an external rite. Itis true the renewed man is still under an obligation to obey positive ordinances of Divine appointment, the voluntary neglect of which is therefore contrary to the original supposition of his goodness ; but such ordinances cannot make any sub- stantial change in his condition, as in God’s sight. No new type or mould of the inner man is bestowed upon such a person in baptism, because he is already formed upon that new pattern. Should such an admission as this be regarded by some as too great a modification of the doctrine of baptismal grace, it should be borne in mind what extreme importance attaches to moral considerations, lying as these do at the bottom of the whole evidence of religion. We should be careful not to let our estimate of sacraments betray us into any collision with these. Religious truth is too complex indeed to admit of such a supremacy being given to the doctrine of sacramental efficacy, as that all other considerations must give way to bringing out this one truth ; which we must rather be content to hold as a limited and modified principle, adjusting it to sound and reasonable claims from other quarters. It only remains now that this language of the Schools with reference to the regeneration of adults in baptism, should be considered in connexion with a certain pro- minent part of the baptismal language of the Reforma- - tion divines. There were two positions which were maintained by the divines of the Reformation in relation to the regeneration of infants in baptism, which though one of them had led practically to the other, were still two distinct positions. One was that faith must be implanted by prevenient grace, in the infant as well asin the adult, before baptism, as the condition of his regeneration. The other was that the Cuap. IX. ] on Baptism. 141 existence of this seminal faith in the infant actually con- stituted his regeneration ; and that he had really the new nature before baptism in that very gift of faith, which made him the worthy recipient of baptism; which when received was only the seal of a sonship justification and adoption already possessed. In the first, then, of these two positions, the Reformation divines received no support from the Schools. The Schools only regarded regenera- tion in baptism as conditional, and requiring antecedent faith, in the case of adults. But the first position of the Reformation divines with respect to the condition of faith in the infant assumed, these divines then received a strong support from the Schools for their second position, viz. that the infant was regenerate and justified before baptism by virtue of this faith. The Schools asserted this of the believing adult: on the assumption, then, of the infant’s belief, the Reformation divines had the same right to antedate the infant’s regeneration before baptism, that the Schoolmen had to antedate the adult’s. An antecedent inward holiness supposed in both, both stood upon the same ground with respect to an antecedent regeneration by virtue of it. When the divines of the Reformation, then, came to construct their obsignatory theory of baptism, they found the basis of it ready to hand in the Scholastic doctrine of adult baptism. ‘Theirs was indeed a larger and com- pleter scheme, but the foundation was laid for it. They took up the theory which the Schools had confined to adults, and applied it to infants. The Schools drew a sharp line of demarcation between infants and adults as recipients of baptism; the Reformation divines over- threw this distinction, and reduced both cases to one principle; but it was a difference about infants as a class of recipients that constituted the difference between the Scholastic and Reformed doctrines of baptism, and 142 Regeneration of Adults [Panwd) not a difference about the obsignatory theory itself, which in substance preceded the Reformation. The two Schools differed in their application of the doctrine of prevenient grace, one limiting the need of this grace for implanting faith to adults, the other extending it to infants; but both treated the grace which preceded regeneration as regeneration itself. Nor was the difference between the two on the head of regeneration before baptism, but only as to the cases which came under this head. One result of the present and previous inquiries will be noticed in conclusion, viz. the important latitude and modification which is gained for the traditionary doctrine that regeneration is “in baptism.” The formula or phrase that regeneration is “in bap- tism ” appears at first sight to imply that regeneration must always take place at the moment of baptism, and that if it does not take place then, it does not take place at-all. This is the meaning which the naked phrase conveys, apart from all comment and in- terpretation: but when we come to the comment and interpretation by which this phrase has been in fact attended, we find that, in its actual use and _—ac- ceptation, it by no means contains so rigid a position as the one just mentioned, but allows of very large ex- ceptions to regeneration “im baptism ;’’ exceptions, in- deed, so large and formal as to amount to counter rules. We observed before, in the case of the Fictus, the admission that the rite of baptism precedes the grace by an indefi- nite interval in all unbelieving adults ; we have now the admission that the grace precedes the rite by an inde- finite interval in all believing adults. The result of both admissions taken together was, that no adult whatever was regenerate “im” baptism, but always either before or after: if believing, before ; if unbelieving, after. The formula then that regeneration is ‘‘ in baptism,” allowed in actual use and acceptation for the exception of the Cuap. IX. ] in Baptism. 143 whole class of adult recipients. It might have been thought indeed beforehand that, though the subsequence of the grace to the rite in one whole class of cases was allowed, the theologians of the ante-Reformation period would still have opposed its precedence, as apparently contradictory to the relation of cause and effect between the rite and the grace. But in matter of fact the latter concession appears to have been made as easily as the former; Lombard only saying, “ Nec mireris rem ali- quando (i.e. in the whole class of believing adults) pre- cedere sacramentum, cum aliquando etiam longe post sequatur, ut in illis qui ficte accedunt.”’ § When divines of the Reformation then applied the same language to infants, whom they sometimes spoke of as regenerate before baptism by virtue of an antecedent implanted faith, and sometimes as regenerate after bap- tism by virtue of a subsequently obtained faith,°® they did not say anything more counter to the formula “in bap- tism” than the Schoolmen had done before them. They only interpreted the formula as open to the same excep- tion, in the case of infants, to which the Schoolmen had treated it as open in the case of adults.’ Indeed, on so mysterious a subject as the connexion of a spiritual grace with an outward sign, especially with other causes of complication, and different cases arising calling for modifications of doctrine to suit them, we can- not be surprised if the precise coincidence of the sign and the thing signified in point of time has given way ; and if this formula has from allowing various exceptions, 8 L. iv. distinct. 4, s. 7. 9 See Note 22. 1 Even Mr. Gorham’s extreme statement, which he elsewhere qualified, that “the filial state is given to the worthy recipient before baptism, not in baptism” (Examination, p. 113), does not appear to be more than Lombard’s statement, that the adult is justified by faith before baptism—jam per fidem justificatus, applied to the infant. 144 Regeneration of Adults [Parr [. at last, as we may say, included such exceptions, and be- come a large and general heading, comprehending dif- ferent relations of precedence and consequence. This part of the subject has an important bearing again upon the interpretation of baptismal services. ‘The an- cient baptismal offices imply in their form that the person, whether adult or infant, is unregenerate up to the moment of baptism, and regenerate immediately upon baptism. But the history of the doctrine of baptism shows that this form of the Baptismal Office does not represent an actual doctrine to this effect. First we have it ruled from the very commencement, in the case of the Fictus or unbelieving adult, that baptism may precede regenera- tion by an indefinitely long interval. But the Service in every case asserts that the baptized person is regenerate then and there. The character of the Service, then, as speaking doctrinally upon the point of time, altogether breaks down under the pressure of actual received inter- pretation; the Service saying one thing, and the doc- trine of baptism, as ruled in the case of the Fictus, saying another. And it must be observed that the lati- tude of construction now mentioned as attaching to the time of regeneration asserted in the Service, is distinct from and additional to the hypothetical construction of the fact of regeneration asserted in the Service, which is in the case of the adult the universally admitted con- struction. Again, and on the other hand, we have it laid down in the received Scholastic doctrine of adult 2 The case of the Fictus involved a double latitude in the con- struction of the Church’s Baptismal Office. First the assertion in the office that he was regenerate had to be construed hypothetically, as made upon the assumption of his faith and repentance; and, secondly, the assertion that he was regenerate then had to be in- terpreted as consistent with a regeneration coming subsequently upon the fulfilment of conditions. Cuap. IX. |] in Baptism. 145 baptism, that regeneration, or justification, which was the term then more in use in theology, may precede bap- tism by an indefinitely long interval; whereas the form of the Baptismal Service assumes that every person 1s unregenerate up to the moment of baptism. The charac- ter of the Service, then, as speaking doctrinally upon the point of time, again breaks down under the pressure of actual authorized interpretation ; and we find now that the form of service is consistent with the person being regenerate before baptism, as we found above that it was consistent with his being regenerate not till after bap- tism. Upon the point of time, then, the Service is not doctrinal, and the declaration of the fact of regeneration upon baptism allows for its ewistence either before bap- tism, or not till after baptism. The history of the doctrine of baptism is a comment upon the Church’s ritual language, and a comment which fixes this latitude of construction upon it. Nor was it more than the application of the same liberty to another case, when divines of the Reformation treated the: language of the Baptismal Office as open to the same interpretation in the case of infants. The posi- tion of these divines was that the new nature was not conferred upon the infant in the actual instant of baptism, but antecedently in that gift of implanted faith which he had before baptism, and of which the sacrament was the seal; and they interpreted the Baptismal Service with a latitude in harmony with this position, regarding the declaration of the fact of regeneration upon baptism, as consistent with its existence before baptism. But this m- terpretation in the case of infants no more violated the natural meaning of the Service, than the same interpre- tation did in the case of adults; for the apparent assump- tion that the person is unregenerate up to the moment of baptism, is, and always has been, exactly the same, in L 146 Regeneration of Adults in Baptism. Baptismal Offices, in the case of infants and of adults. The Baptismal Service, then, had already contracted a latitude of construction on this point, before it came under Reformation comment and treatment; and the divines of that epoch only copied and extended a precedent which had been handed down to them from the Schools. CHAPTER X REGENERATION OF INFANTS IN BAPTISM Tue Scriptural sense of the term “regenerate” having been decided in a previous chapter, the question arises whether, in this sense, viz. that of actual goodness, the term can legitimately be applied to all baptized infants. The notion then may, I think, at once be set aside as altogether untenable, that infants just born can be pious and virtuous agents; but though this is impossible from the immaturity of nature, it may still be asked whether they are not capable of possessing actual’ goodness and holiness in some sense and manner. It is true, it may be said, adults alone come under consideration in Scripture, and therefore the regenerate state in Scripture is de- scribed as the goodness of the adult, the goodness of actual life and conduct. But are we debarred on that account from giving the term an application to infants, in some way and manner, corresponding to the difference in the stage of life, and in proportion with an incipient and embryo reason ? I answer that if this claim is conceded, we must still take care that in transferring the term from the adult to the infant, we do not reduce its sense below the Scriptural one, and altogether alter the meaning of the word. We must only make such difference in its application to the infant, 1 T use the word actual throughout this treatise only to express goodness itself, as distinguished from the capacity for it: not, of course, as implying action. L 2 148 Regeneration of Lnfants [Parr I. as is required by the difference of his condition; and not under colour of consulting the capacity of the recipient, totally change the nature of the gift. 1. An infant is not regenerate in the sense of being actually good, if he has only a new capacity for goodness implanted in him at baptism. A faculty or capacity for attaining goodness is a totally different thing from good- ness, the power altogether a distinct thing from the fact. It matters not by what name we call such a new spiritual faculty. A “new nature” in the sense only of new im- planted faculties and capacities, does not constitute a being actually good. The inhabitation of the Holy Spirit, as a prompting and assisting Divine influence within the soul, does not make that soul actually good. The inward im- pulse to good which exists in man by nature, does not make him morally good; no more does the peculiar and higher impulse under the Gospel make him spiritually good. By no exaltation, then, of the rank or magnitude of a new spiritual faculty, as a faculty, can we make that faculty to be actual goodness; otherwise the most abomi- nably vicious man may be simultaneously a virtuous man; for the most depraved person may possess in the lowest depth of his guilt and pollution, the capacity for the very highest form of goodness. 2. An infant is not made actually good in baptism, if he is only freed from the guilt of original sin ; because the cessation of the imputation of sin does not constitute goodness, which is a positive quality, and consists in a good moral character or habit; not possessing which he would be, notwithstanding such remission of original sin, in a morally neutral and indeterminate state.’ 3. An infant is not made good in baptism by being admitted into a new federal state or covenant with God ; 2 See Chapter iv. Cuap. X.] in Baptism. 149 because this federal state, so far as divines explain it, is only a combination of the two states just mentioned, viz. forgiveness of sin, and the opportunity, by means of the enabling grace of God, of attaining salvation. It may be suggested, however, that there still remains a mode in which the infant may be made actually good in baptism, viz. by what is called implanted character. Im- planted character is represented as more than a faculty for attaining a particular character, and yet not that character in full existence and literal operation, i.e. as a seminal or rudimental character—like implanted reason which is in the infant, but only in a latent, unconscious, and incipient stage.* It may be said that in ordinary life we recognize what we call “natural character,” i.e. a certain original moral conformation belonging to the in- dividual from his birth, and coming out with the advance of his reason; that in the same way the Christian or spiritual character may be implanted in an infant at baptism, and that the infant endowed with this character is regenerate in the Scriptural sense of the word. If infants then can be regenerate at all in baptism in the Scriptural sense, implying actual goodness, they only can be in this sense just mentioned, this qualified and accommodated sense of actual goodness—accommodated to their special case ; 1.e. by having actual goodness in a rudimental and seminal form, or a seminal character or habit implanted in them in baptism. And therefore the alternative lying between this kind of regeneration, or none at all for them in the Scriptural sense, the question 3 I use character in the common English sense. 4 «The reasonable soul is infused so soon as the body of an infant is organized and made capable of such an inhabitant: yet it doth not presently act, or enable the rofant to act rationally so soon as it is infused... . So is it in the spiritual being.” Burgess on Bapt. Reg. of Infants, p. 265. 150 Regeneration of Infants [Part I. is whether all infants are regenerated in this way in baptism. On this question, then, I need hardly call attention, in the first place, to this inevitable result, that 7f this im- planted character does universally accompany infant bap- tism, it must show itself in those infants as they grow up, and show itself in all of them, coming out with the advance of their reason and faculties. Only waiting the growth of nature, it must manifest itself as nature opens out, and manifest itself in the ordinary way in which character is wont to do. - It may not be necessary, indeed —though we may easily make too free with such a sup- position, when as a matter of fact “ implanted character ” is so rarely lost—it may not be necessary that such im- planted goodness should, having come out, always con- tinue: becatise goodness, even if implanted, may require © the concurrence of free will to sustain it, and therefore may in course of time, for want of this attention, be lost. But even granting this, before it is lost, it must have appeared, and appeared as the character of the man. Let us take the case, already referred to, of what we call a “ natural”? character. It is commonly considered that certain moral tempers are natural in some persons, or belong to them from their birth, that one man is naturally meek and gentle, another zealous, another brave, and so on. But what is the test of the fact of such tempers having been implanted? Evidently their actual appearance in the individual. Nobody would think of talking of a natural temper in a man, which temper however had never come out and never been seen. The exhibition of it by the individual is essential to the fact of its original implanting. In the same way it would be absurd to speak of spiritual goodness, or the Christian character having been implanted in those in Cuap. X. ] on Baptism. 51 whom, as they grew up, this character never came out and became apparent. What impediment is there which can be supposed in the case, such as can be accepted as a valid reason for the non-appearance of this character in those in whom it has been by the hypothesis implanted, as those persons grow up and show character of some sort or other? Have they lost it by unseen internal wrong acts before they have had the opportunity of showing it outwardly? Such a sup- position would be absurd, because as the infant becomes a moral agent, and becomes capable of inward action, he also becomes capable of outward. The character, then, is by the supposition in him, and before anything can have intervened to suppress that character, he acts, he reveals himself, he expresses what is in him. Why does he not — express, why does he not act according to that character ? His own action could alone destroy that implanted cha- racter, if it was in him, and therefore that character is necessarily in him up to the moment that he begins to act ; and therefore that same character must be in him simul- taneously with his first action, and expression of himself ; and therefore that same character must come out and manifest itself in that first general behaviour, manifest itself on the whole. Tull he is a moral agent he can have done nothing to counteract this character, still less to suppress and extinguish it; as soon as he isa moral agent he shows it. Where is the interval then between the point up to which this character is by the hypothesis secure, and the point at which it becomes, if it exists, visible, in which this character can be effaced and de- stroyed? There is in the very nature of things no such interval; and therefore it is impossible that a certain positive character and temper should have been implanted in the infant by a Divine act, and yet that it never should from the first have appeared in him, never come out, and 152 Regeneration of Infants [Part I. never have been observed by those who were constantly with him, and watching all his actions, words, and moral symptoms. Such a supposition is plainly absurd and un- tenable, contrary to every principle of common sense and every rule of evidence. Were it a case of adults, every one would see imme- diately how absurd it would be to ascribe a religious and virtuous character to them which never appeared; but infants being the subject, the necessity for expression appears to some to be done away with altogether, because it is deferred, and implanted goodness, because it is seminal at the time, seems to entail no manifestation of it either then or ever. But the law of expression is as certain in the case of the infant as in the case of the adult ; its operation only is suspended. The character, if it is there, is not relieved from the necessity of ex- pressing itself when it can, because it was excused from expressing itself before it could. Nor must we try by representing goodness when it is present as seminal, and when the time comes for showing itself as lost ; by ex- cusing first the infant in respect of the future, and then the moral agent in respect of the past, to elude the law of expression altogether, and balk manifestation at both ends. This is the turning-point of the whole case. If persons think that actual goodness can be implanted in infants without any appearance or manifestation of it whatever, earlier or later, either when they are infants and cannot show it, or afterwards as they grow up and can: if they think that this goodness can be, not a sus- pended disclosure, but a permanent secret, totally passing away and vanishing before one single presentation to human cognizance, then the absence from the very first of all visible signs of such a character will be no proof to them that it has not been implanted, and they will alto- gether deny the relevance of the test of fact in the matter. Cap. X. | in Baptism. 153 But if, on the other hand, it is admitted that if actual goodness is implanted in an infant at baptism, it must come out and show itself in him as he grows up, then the criterion of fact must apply, and the absence of such appearance be taken as proof against such implantation. It may be urged, indeed, that an infant may possess actual goodness, not only in the sense of a seminal habit, but also in the sense of a process having commenced in him, or a gradual work of the Holy Spirit, by means of which he will one day attain actual goodness ; and that such a process begun in him does not require any mani- festation of character immediately upon the growth of reason, but only when the character itself is completed, which may be at any time of life near or remote. It appears to me that if the former sense be a fair liberty taken with the actual goodness of Scripture, this latter is a decided strain upon it; because if we allow that an implanted habit, which is ready for action upon physical power and opportunity being given, is present goodness, it is still a different thing to allow that an infant is now good because the process of the formation of such a habit has commenced in him, which may not be completed till after a whole adult life of sin. Provided, however, this process is an infallible one and the issue certain, 1t may be granted that, in an incorrect and metaphorical sense, he may be called good now as being so to the Divine prescience; because we represent God as regarding things as they are in their end, and this end as already present to the Divine eye. But if this sense of actual goodness is allowed, it must be remembered that it is so only on the condition that the issue 7s certain, because the future fact must be first supposed and assumed in order to be antedated. There can be no pretence for calling a being actually good, who is neither good now nor can give any guarantee that he ever will be. And 154 Regeneration of Infants [| Parr if this condition is granted, then exactly the same criterion of fact decides whether this process has begun in all baptized infants, which decides whether the habit has been implanted in them. Because in that case all baptized infants must at any rate become good men, if they live, at some stage of life or other, early or remote. Indeed this infallible process is what the Calvinist places in the elect. | It is, indeed, common to say that a “ seed ’’ of goodness is implanted in all infants in baptism, but that it is not necessary that this seed should produce fruit; but a seed that need not produce fruit is not actual goodness, but only a metaphorical name for an implanted faculty. If this “seed” 7s in any sense actual goodness, it must, whether as a seminal character or the beginning of an infallible process, produce actual goodness; and then the test of visible fact is what must decide whether this seed has been implanted.° The test then of the character having been implanted, 5 The “implanted goodness” about which the question is raised in this chapter is identical with the “infused habit,” or habitualis gratia of the Schools, discussed in Chapter vii. The “infused habit ’’ of the Schools was a seminal character or disposition which was implanted in the infant at baptism; and it got the name of habitualis gratia, or habit of grace, because it was an elementary habit implanted by grace. The Schoolmen decided against the whole evidence of facts, which they met by the evasions and re- finements noticed in Chapter vii., that this habit of goodness was implanted in all infants in baptism. The Calvinists of the Reformation adopted the habitualis gratia or habituale principium gratic, of the Schools, in the sense how- ever, not of an implanted habit, but the commencement of a process, or course of operation on the part of the Holy Spirit, which con- tinued till the individual reached the habit of goodness, which might be at any point of life, early or late (see Chapter viii.). They assigned this gift however to the elect only, not to all the baptized. Crap. X.] nm Baptism. 155 being the appearance of it in the individual as he grows up, does this character, as a matter of fact, appear in every baptized infant as he grows up? Or do we not rather, as a plain matter of fact, see the greatest mixture in every rising Christian generation ; some exhibiting a religious character, and others—the majority it must be said—not doing so? Indeed, if, side by side with the supposition of an actual goodness universally implanted in baptism, we place the real state of the case, what an unaccountable annihilation have we of an immense spiritual formation,—not, be it observed, destroyed by neglect, but never once apparent,—gone for ever, before it to human eye existed, and extinguished before the first perceptible dawn of moral agency. What an unmeaning, absurd, and incredible abortion have we here !—a whole world of character annihilated before it has begun, and a whole moral creation effaced before all visible moral action. What a peculiar stamp again would, upon this suppo- sition, be impressed upon all want of religion among Christians. All want of religion in people who had been baptized would, according to this supposition, be a fall from previous individual piety and virtue, and would present itself to us in that aspect. But do we look upon it as such? It is true that, as a race, we are fallen from our first estate in paradise; and it is true that we are all personally fallen from the natural innocence of infancy, in the sense that we are guilty of sins from which the immaturity of infancy saved us; but that, as distinct from these two changes, the common run of sinfulness in Christians is a fall from a previously spiritual and gracious character, is obviously untrue, and such an aspect of it is plainly artificial. There is nothing, then, in the facts of the world around us, to show that a seminal character or habit of goodness 156 Regeneration of Infants [Panne may not be implanted in some infants at baptism; but to maintain that it is implanted in all is to maintain something which does altogether contradict plain facts. But such being the case, all infants are not regenerate in baptism in the Scriptural sense; for the Scriptural sense implies actual goodness, and this actual goodness can only by possibility be possessed by infants in the shape of this seminal and implanted goodness. Senses short of the Scriptural one do not indeed involve any collision with facts, because an implanted faculty, simple remission of original sin, admission to a covenant, involve no phenomenon of goodness as the consequence, and therefore provoke no challenge of this kind.. But if we take the word in its Scriptural sense, the application of it to all baptized infants incurs this test and is plainly contradicted by the facts of our experience. What are the objections, then, to this conclusion, in the silence of Scripture on the whole subject? Did Scripture assert indeed the regeneration of all infants in baptism, this conclusion would place us in opposition to an assertion of Scripture. But, imasmuch as Scripture nowhere asserts or implies this, if we assert it, when we cannot reconcile the assertion with the Scriptural sense of regeneration, the difficulty is of our own making. 1. But it will be said in the first place that we must not test the truth of a mysterious Divine act in a sacra- ment by its “visible fruits.” But where a Divine act is defined in its very nature to be such as that “visible fruits”’ must proceed from it, if it has really taken place, this is a reasonable and a necessary test to apply. It is no presumptuous objection of rationalism, but it is the natural criterion of the existence of the Divine act in question. The test of “visible fruits ” is one which we cannot indiscriminately condemn as inapplicable to all Divine acts as such ; it depends on the nature of the act Cap. X.] 2 Baptism. 157 whether this test properly apples to it or not. Were the Divine act one of implanting a spiritual faculty only, such a test would be an impertinent and irrelevant one, because the existence of the faculty is consistent with the total neglect of it by the individual, and therefore with the absence of all visible fruits. But the act in question being that of implanting a character, this test does properly and necessarily apply to it, for if the character had been implanted it would have shown itself, i.e. there would have been visible fruits. 2. The ground of mystery will be appealed to against the test of fact; the argument being that regeneration is too mysterious a thing for such an argument to be founded upon its meaning. ‘lo that extent, however, to which a state is clearly described in Scripture, in language ad- dressed to our natural understanding, such a state is not a mystery to us, but a thing known; and it is an illegi- timate use of the ground of mystery to employ it to in- tercept the natural argument from such plain meaning of Scripture where we have it. Regeneration is plainly described in Scripture as a state of actual goodness, and if it is described as such, we have a right in deciding the existence of regeneration, to apply those tests by which we ascertain the existence of actual goodness. 3. This objection of fact again to the supposition of the universal regeneration of infants at baptism, will be met with the answer that regeneration is a “ past act,” which is not interfered with by any amount or duration of subsequent wickedness in the individual who has under- gone it. Much stress is laid upon this distinction, and it is observed that in the passages in the New Testament in which the Divine act of regenerating is directly or indi- rectly referred to, the verb which expresses it is put in a past tense in the original, though our translation does 158 Regeneration of Infants [ Pano: not give it so; thereby showing, it is said, that regene- ration is a past act. But though regeneration, as being a “ past act,” is quite consistent with a present bad cha- racter in the individual, it is not consistent with there never having appeared a former good one. And it is not the subsequent rise of the bad character which is the objection to be met here, but the previous non-appearance of the good one. The “act” may be past, but if it is of the nature here supposed, we have a right toask for some fruits of it, present or past. 4, The argument just quoted is sometimes put into the form of a distinction between regeneration as an act, and regeneration as a state. A person, it is said, may not be in the state of regeneration, or of actual goodness, and yet the act of regeneration implanting such goodness in him, may have passed over him. This is a true distinction, but not at all to the point. Regeneration is doubtless an act of God, as well as a state of man, but the act involves the existence at some time of the state, and the state, even if it has ceased now, still involved visible fruits before its termination. 5. The test of fact again is met by the answer that this implanted goodness is not indefectible. It has been lost, we are told, and that accounts for your not seeing it now. Yes, but before we talk of it being lost, let it first be ascertained that it was ever had. The objection of fact which is here raised is no Calvinistic one ; it is based upon uo peculiar theory of grace, and indeed upon no theory whatever ; but upon the simple and plain ground of com- mon sense that if a character has been implanted in an individual, it must somehow or other appear and show itself. In the case of what we call a natural character, or a character implanted by nature, we make it necessary that it should come out, and if it never comes out, then we say it has not been implanted. And on the same prin- Crap. X.] an Baptism. 159 ciple, if a character has been implanted in a man by grace, that character must come out, and if it never comes out, then we must say that it never has been implanted. 6. The loss, however, asserted under the last head, of all this once existing goodness, is sometimes explained and defended by the supposition of a universal early fall. A particular kind of language is in use in some quarters, which assumes a universal early lapse from bap- tismal goodness. But what is it which is meant by this language? In the first place, it is not the fall of the race from original righteousness, but a universal personal fall from baptismal goodness, which is asserted. But if we examine the different meanings in which this assertion can be understood,—for writers are not very clear in it,—we shall find that there is either some confusion in the idea of baptismal goodness, or a mistake in the fact that there has been such an universal lapse from this goodness. Do they mean to assert the loss of the natural innocence of infancy ? The loss is true, but the thing lost is no result of baptism. Do they mean to assert the loss of a state of pardon resulting from the remission of original sin, in the absence of capacity for actual? If that state has been lost, that state did not constitute goodness.® Lastly, do they mean the loss of an implanted habit or character of goodness? That may be admitted to be goodness; but then that goodness has not been universally lost, because if it had been, it would have appeared as universally before the loss. I may conclude by observing that the whole weight of Anglican authority is against the regeneration of all infants in baptism in the sense of an implantation of actual goodness in them.’ Bishop Bethell, who may be 6 See Chapter iv. 7 Note 23. 160 Regeneration of Infants [ Part I. taken as a legitimate representative of the English School, pointedly repudiates the idea that any ‘change of affec- tions or inward feelings, or creation or infusion of moral habits or virtues,” ® is implied in baptismal regeneration ; and allows that, if it were, the doctrine of the regenera- tion of all infants in baptism would be untenable, and contrary to experience. ‘If it were,” he says, “a self- evident truth that regeneration is an implantation of a habit of grace, containing in it the habits of all Christian graces and virtues, or that it is a radical change of all the parts and faculties of the soul, it might be absurd to suppose that those infants who, as they grow up, exhibit no signs of spiritual habits or dispositions, have been rege- nerated in baptism.” But, he adds, ‘ that sound masculine theology which our Church has adopted, knows nothing of these speculations, which are inconsistent with Serip- tural truth and simplicity, the experience of human nature, and the frame and constitution of the human soul:”® and he defines regeneration as the “ potential principle of a new life, independently of its moral operations and legi- timate effects,’ combined with “ forgiveness of sin.” ' Bishop Bethell’s argument so far differs, then, from my own, that he denies first that regeneration itself implies actual goodness, even in its true and Scriptural sense, in which I think he is mistaken ; and secondly, that he ap- pears to assert that the implantation of the actual habit of goodness in the creature by Divine grace, is “ contrary to the frame and constitution of the human soul ;” in which also I think him mistaken ;* but his argument entirely 8 Treatise on Regeneration, p. 165. Pref. p. 30. 9 Thid. 124, 127. ‘1 Thid. 120. 2 Bp. Bethell, as a disciple of the Fathers, could hardly have remembered when he laid down this principle, that the Fathers always represent Adam as created im goodness, 1.e. as commencing existence with the habit already created in him. Cuap. X. | an Baptism. 161 agrees with that of this chapter upon the question of fact which is at issue in it, viz. whether regeneration in the sense of actual goodness is conferred upon all infants in baptism ; deciding positively that it is not, and that it would be contrary to experience to assert that it was.* 3 Another authority on this subject, Mr. Davison, in arguing for the universal regeneration of infants in baptism, is also par- ticular in telling us in what sense he understands the word in this assertion ; that he does not “conceive of regeneration as either inducing a present habit of moral holiness, or as determining the formation of it afterwards ”*—as “including the conversion of the man to Christian principles in act or habit,” but as “a state of grace, with promise of pardon for sin, and aid of heavenly power.” Remains, pp. 323, 346, 327. CHAPTER XI SECONDARY AND INCORRECT SENSES OF REGENERATION We have only dealt hitherto with the true sense of the term regenerate, but the term in the hands of theologians contracted, in course of time, secondary and incorrect senses, which deserve attention. By a secondary sense I mean a sense which, while it claims a right of use, pro- fesses to be a secondary and not the true sense; by an incorrect sense I mean a sense which is incorrect, with the profession of being true. I will take these two classes of untrue senses in order, and first notice the secondary senses of the term. 1, A technical or conventional sense of regenerate early grew up in the Church, according to which it simply stood for the visible fact of being baptized, as where it was said that Constantine was regenerated, and Constantius was not regenerated, and the like. Whether or not such a sense rose out of the recognized language of supposition in use in the New Testament, according to which all the baptized were presumed to be regenerate in heart and life, it is of common use in early writings. It is well known that this term was in Jewish use before it was adopted by the new dispensation, and that as a Jewish term it contracted a technical meaning, and stood for the admission of a proselyte, which took place by baptism. “The common phrase,’ says Wall, “was to call the baptism of a proselyte his regeneration or new birth.” ’ It 1 Oxford Ed. vol. i. p. 31. Secondary and Incorrect Senses, &c. 163 contracted the same conventional sense in the Christian Church, which “ appropriated,’”’ as Wall says, “the word regeneration as much to signify baptism as we do the word christening,’’? 1. e. as a convertible term for it. 2. A tendency existed in the Cyprianic and Donatist controversies to create a use of the term “ regenerate ” in a secondary sense, as standing for the baptismal character. The nature of the baptismal character has been explained in a previous chapter,’ viz. that it is a certain universal and irremoveable effect of baptism, belonging to it as a sacrament which can only be administered once, and does not admit of repetition,—a title which it confers once for all upon every baptized person to the grace of the sacra- ment, upon fulfilling the conditions; admitting him to the grace upon subsequent fulfilment, even when he did not receive it at the time he was baptized from the absence of fulfilment; and reinstating him in the grace upon the return of fulfilment, even when he has lost it by the cessation of fulfilment. It was this conditional ttle to grace as distinguished from grace itself. When this particular effect of baptism was brought out prominently, as it was by the controversies just mentioned, various names were employed to denote and express it—inteyri- tas sacramenti—veritas sacramenti—visibilis sanctificatio, and others. St. Augustine, however, occasionally goes further, and though he never calls it regeneration, applies to it terms somewhat like and parallel. The Church, he says, “ brings forth all by baptism—omnes per baptismum parit—either out of her own womb or out of another’s,”’ 4 1.e.in her own or a schismatical communion. Even a schismatical communion produces sons—generat filios—by baptism, though not as schismatical, but as having a bond of union with the true Church, “ non ex hoc generat unde 2 Vol. i. p. 59. 3 Chapter iii. * De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. i. ¢. 15. M 2 164 Secondary and Incorrect [Parr I. separata est,” but ‘ex hoc unde conjuncta est.”*> When wicked men receive baptism within the Church, the Church brings them forth as Rebecca brought forth Hsau ; when they receive baptism outside of the Church they are “ generated in God’s people from Sarah, but through Agar, —tales in Dei populo generantur Sara quidem, sed per Agar.” ® Here baptism in a state of sin and ina state of schism, in neither of which cases the regenerating grace of it is received, is still spoken of as a kind of spiritual birth ; though, in the nature of the case, this is using the expression in a secondary sense, inasmuch as in its true sense it necessarily implies present grace.’ > De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. i. c. 10. STbid, c/1G; 7 The establishment of the validity of schismatical baptism has been supposed to have a tendency in the direction of ecclesiastical comprehensiveness. It only admits however the spiritual instru- mentality of a schismatical communion on one point, viz. the bestowal of the baptismal character; this is an effect which dis- tinctly stops short of grace; and it is the being a channel of grace which decides that a communion belongs to the Church. For the proof of the above summary of Augustinianism, see “Treatise on Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination,’ Chapters V. Vi. Vl. Vill. Cuap. XIII.] oKopodwy peuynuevor peta TO pavva’ eka yap Kal €ikoolv Nuepas Tap CC 386 Note 12. ” > \ \ , , Led / / > a avTo TO Banticpa petaBaddcpevor Tots mpoTepois maALW ETLxXELpOdpeED. Hom. x. in Rom., tom. ix. pp. 625, 526. 8. Chrysostom, p. 89 :— > ~ ‘ 3, ay, A > , A 3 A os: £m. ~ , ¢ va Exeivos ev aveotn Ty avdotagw THY amd TOU GmAov Oavatou' Hueis ‘ Aa > , , ” \ \ > , > U dé dSutAodv amoGavevtes Oavarov Siumdnv kai THY avacrac.w anorapeba. / b) ae , \ > A = c , / A b “a Miay pev dveornwey Tews Thy ard Tis duaprias. Buveragnpev yap avT@ ~ , > co A “~ =. o ev T@ Barriopart, kal cuvnyepOnuev avT@ Ora Tov Bamticparos’ pia arn dvdorac.s amadXay? duaptnpdarev’ Sevrépa d€ avactacts 7 TOD GapaTos" ” \ , , \ \ » 7 3 ” \ \ , eOw@xe THY peiCova, mpooddKa kal THY EAXdTTOVa’ av’TN yap TOAV pEifav > Ul \ \ / ¢ r > A x rn ) co > 7 é€xelyns. TloAv yap pei(ov dpapti@v amaddayyvat 7 o@pa ioe anord- pevov. Aid TovTo émece TO THpa, ered) Huaptev” ovKovy ei apxT) TOU mecel 1 dpaptia, apy? Tov avactnva TO amaddaynvar THs Gpaptias. "Avéotnwev Aouroy THY peiCova avactacw Tov xaerov Odvaroy THs ayap- Tlas pipavtes, kal arodvodpuevor TO madaLov iwatioy, pr Tolvuy Urep TOD €AdtTovos amayopevowpev. Tavtny kal npets madau THY avdoracw aveo- Thuev, OTe €BarticOnwev’ Kal of THY Tod Bantioparos de viv éomépay cata&iwbevtes, Ta Kada Tav’ta dpa. Hom. contra Ebriosos et de Resurrectione, tom. i. p. 443. 9. Chrysostom, p. 89 :— > \ \ > 4 \ > Led \ \ , > A \ a Ov yap xelp emayer Kaas Exel THY TEpLTOMNY TaUTHY, adda TO TVEdpA. Od pépos GAN 6dov GvOpwrov Tepitépver’ THpa Kal TOUTO, T@pa KaKEivo" > AM PAN wpa Ais RAL ass n ’ 2 IRS eee eee eS rare GANG TO pev capkl, TO Se mvEvpaTLK@s TepiTemveTat’ GAN ovx ws “Iovdator > \ , > WE cs ’ > 5 , rf) , Py x > i ov yap oapka, GANG dyaptnuata ame€edicacbe. lore kai mov ; ev TO Barricpart. Hom. vi.in Ep. Coloss., tom. xi. p. 367. 10. Theodoret, p. 89 :— AwddoKet radw THs TeptTopns THY Siapopav. Ov yap eoti, Pyut, cap- A > A A > \ , . A , > \ ~ , KLKT) GANG TVEVpATLKT), OVOE YELpoTrOinTos adAa Oeia, OVdE TuLKPOv TopaATOS adaipecis, adda dons araddayy THs POopas. In Col. 2. 11. 11. Chrysostom, p. 90:— ‘O yap dmobavav, pyot, Sedikaiwrar aro THs dwaptias. Tlept mavrds , , an , of oa is b] .y > 7 \ \ ~ dvOparov TovTs pnow, ort @orep 6 aroGavev amndXaktat TO Aowmoy TOU dyapravew, vekpos kelwevos, ovT@ kal 6 dvaBas and Tov Banticparos. > ‘ \ e a 4 > A \ a , ‘ \ multe , Exedy yap draké améOavev éxet, vexpov det pevery Ova mavtos TH Guapria. Ei rolvuy dméOaves ev t@ Bantiopati, peve vexpds* Kal yap €kacTos dmobavay ovKéTt duaptave Suva av. Hom. xi. in Rom., tom. ix. p- dol. 12. Chrysostom, p. 90 :— ‘Oo Xd 6 (2) A > ~ \ € / > , co - iravOporos Oeds olkovopay Ty nueTeépay TwTnpiay €xapicaro Hiv tiv du TOU AovTpOd THs Tadvyyevedias avakainowy, iva amroGEpevor TOV Tadav dvOpwrov Toutéott Tas mpa&ers Tas Tovnpas Kat evOvodwevot TOV véov, emi Thy THs apetns 6d0v Badig¢oper. Hom. xl. in Gen., tom. iv. p- 409. Note 13. 387 —, 13. P. 91:— ‘ , »” \ ‘ \ , , \ \ \ , Mn Toivuy rt mpds Ta Bi@rikd pelr@pev KeNvores, pr) TEpL TpYpry Tpa- mens, unde mepl moduréAccayv iwatiwv’ Kal yap eyes ipatuov peyroroy, Exes TpareCav mvevparixny, exes THY Oday THY avo, Kal TavTa cou 6 , , be ‘ / Xpioros yivera, kal tpame(a Kal ipdriov, Kal oikos kal Kesbadn, Kal pica. 7 = , ° Oca yap eis Xptorov €BantiaOnte Xpiotov evedvoacbe. Ad Illumi- natos Catechesis, 2, tom. i. p. 236. 14. P. 91:— Tovro yap €ort madtyyevecia. KaOarep yap émi oikias caOpas Siaket- pens ovdeis trootnpiopa TiOnow ovde cuppamTet Tais maXacais oiKoSopais, d\Xa péxpe Tov OepeNiwy adriv Katadicas ovtas dvobev aviotnor Kal > , ° So BaD. 8 > , é > > , Bune > >» avakatvi€el, oUT@ Kal avTOs eroingev’ OK ETETKEVaTEY Tuas GAN dvobev Kateckevace., Tovto yap €oti—'‘ kal avaxawooews Tvevparos dyiov.” "Avobev enoinae kawovs. Hom. iil. in Ep. ad Tit., tom. xi. p. 761. 15. P. 91. Theodoret, Ep. Rom. 6. 3 :— ’HpynOns, dnot, THy Guapriav, Kal vexpos avtH yé ito XpicTd pynOns, pnot, THv Guaptiay, Kal vexpods ait yéyovas, kal TH Xpiore a re Ul , 2 auveradns’ Tas Toivuy oidy TE GE THY Exeivny Guapriay béEacba ; Nore 13, p. 101. Peter Lombard.— Ea (gratia) preeparatur hominis voluntas ut sit bona, bonumque efficaciter velit . . . Et si diligenter intendas, monstratur que sit ipsa gratia voluntatem .preveniens et pre- parans, scilicet fides cwm dilectione.” lL. ii. Dist. 26,§1.4. Grace is characterized as effective or securing that for which it is given, according to the Augustinian definition, De Preed. ec. 5, “Posse habere fidem sicut posse habere charitatem nature est hominum ; habere autem fidem sicut habere charitatem gratic est fidelium.” Aquinas.—*‘ Gratia aliquid ponit in eo qui gratiam accipit .. . Quamlibet Dei dilectionem sequitur aliquod bonum in creatura causatum. Et secundum hujusmodi boni differentiam differens consideratur dilectio Dei ad creaturam: una quidem communis secundum quam esse naturale rebus creatis largitur, alia specialis secundum quam trahit creaturam ad participationem divini boni . .. Causatur ex dilectione divina quod est in homine Deo gratum.” S. T. Ima. 2de.Q.110.A.1. “ Gratia comparatur ad voluntatem, ut movensad motum.” Ibid. A.4. “ Gratia est nitor anime sane- tum concilians amorem, sed nitor animee est queedam qualitas sicut et pulchritudo corporis. Ergo gratia est quedam qualitas.” Ibid. cc 2 388 Note 4. A.2. “Gratia dicitur facere gratum formaliter, scilicet quia per hane homo justificatur, et dignus efficitur vocari Deo gratus.” Ibid. Q. 111. A. 1. “Deus non sine nobis nos justificat, quia per motum liberi arbitru, dum justiticamur, Dei justitiz consentimus. Ille tamen motus non est causa gratie sed effectus, unde tota operatio pertinet ad gratiam.” Ibid. A. 2. “Virtutes dicuntur theologice, tum quia habent Deum pro objecto, tum quia a solo Deo nobis infunduntur ... Iste virtutes non dicuntur divinz sicut quibus Deus sit virtuosus, sed sicut qui- bus nos eficimur virtuosi a Deo.” Ibid. Q. 62. A.1. “ Virtutes acquisitz per actus humanos sunt dispositiones quibus homo con- venienter disponitur in ordine ad naturam. Virtutes autem infuse disponunt homines altiori modo et ad altiorem finem. Et secun- dum acceptionem hujusmodi dicimur regenerari in filios Dei.” Ibid. Q. 110. A. 3. “ Deus movet omnia secundum modum unius- cujusque .. . Et ideo in eo qui habet usum liberi arbitrii non fit motio a Deo ad justitiam absque motu liberi arbitrii; sed ita in- fundit donum gratiz justificantis, quod etiam simul cum hoc movet liberum arbitrium ad donum acceptandum.” Ibid. Q. 113. A. 3. “Deus movet voluntatem hominis sicut universalis motor ad uni- versale objectum voluntatis, quodest bonum . . . Specialiter Deus movet aliquos ad aliquid determinate volendum quod est bonum, sicut in his quos movet per gratiam.” Ibid. Q. 9. A. 6. See Chapters ix. and x., on the Scholastic Doctrines of Necessity and Predestination, in the “Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination.”’ Alexander Alensis.— Gratia qua aliquis dicitur esse gratus Deo necessario ponit aliquid bonum in gratificato, quo est gratus Deo: illud autem quo est gratus Deo est illud quo est Deiformis vel assimilatus Deo . . . ponit aliquid in ipso quo dicitur assimilatus Deo, per quam assimilationem est dignus vite eterne.” Sum. Vheol. t. 11. p. 460. Nore 14, p. 104. “ Solet etiam querisi parvulis in baptismo datur gratia qua, cum tempus habuerint utendi libero arbitrio, possint bene velle et operari. De adultis enim qui digne recipiunt sacramentum non ambigitur quin gratiam operantem et cooperantem perceperint ; quee in vacuum eis redit, si per liberum arbitrium post mortaliter deliquerint, qui merito peccati gratiam appositam perdunt. Unde . Node 14. 389 dicuntur contumeliam Spiritui Sancto facere, et ipsuma se fugare. De parvulis autem qui nondum ratione utuntur questio est an in baptismo receperint gratiam, qua ad majorem venientes etatem possint velle et operari bonum. Videtur quod non receperint, quia gratia illa charitas est et fides que voluntatem preparat et adjuvat. Sed quis dixerit eos accepisse fidem et charitatem? Si vero gra- tiam non receperint, qua bene operari possint cum fuerint adulti, non ergo sufficit eis in hoc statu gratia in baptismo data, nec per illam possunt modo boni esse, nisi alia addatur; que sinon additur, non est ex eorum culpa, quia justificati sunt a peccato. Quidam putant gratiam operantem et cooperantem cunctis parvulis dari in munere non in usu; ut cum ad majorem venerint etatem, ex munere-sortiautur usum, nisi per hberum arbitrium usum muneris extinguant peccando; et ita ex eorum culpa est non ex defectu gratiz quod mali fiunt, qui ex Dei munere valentes habere usum bonum, per liberum arbitrium renuerunt, et usum pravum ele- gerunt.” L. iv. Dist. 4. Having previously decided the general question what constitutes the grace of baptism, Lombard comes in this passage to a point of detail, who are the recipients of this grace; and that part of the baptismal gift which consists in remission of sin being supposed to be the common benefit of all in baptism, he raises the question whether the other or positive part, which he has just called the “apposition of virtues,” and now calls “ the grace by which we are able to will and do aright,” is so also. He assumes that adults receive it, but moots it as a question which is still undecided, whether infants do,—an parvuli in baptismo receperint gratiam ; and decides it in the negative,—videtur quod non receperint ; on the ground that this grace consists of the virtues of faith and love, and that infants cannot, by reason of the immaturity of nature, possess these virtues, Sed quis diverit eos accepisse fidem et charitatem ? He declines deciding even that this grace will certainly be given them when they grow up, only saying that “it will not be owing to their fault if it is not, because they are justified from sin.”? This is an awkward conclusion, and not very intelligible, but it is no decision. Some think, “ quidam putant,” that grace is given to infants in munere, not in usu, to be converted to use subsequently as they grow up; but he quotes the opinion without endorsing it. 2 The term “justified,” it must be observed, is not used here in the scholastic sense of the word, but in the simpler sense of acquittal, or de- liverance from guilt, as, indeed, besides the general context, the limita- tion of the adjunct—‘‘ a peccato ”—shows. 390 Note 14. The naturai conclusion, then, from this passage is, that Lombard declines to assert that infants receive in baptism that whole grace which he identifies with the grace of baptism or regeneration, and only commits himself to a particular part of that grace as the benefit of the infant recipient, and that part, it must be added, not a distinctive gift of the new dispensation, but common to old and new. The distinctive grace of baptism was, in Lombard’s scheme, the “ apposition of virtues :” it was that which admitted a man to the new dispensation, and made him a new creature, a true member of Christ. The remission of sin was a negative gift, which had no peculiar Gospel rank, but belonged to the initiatory sacrament of the new dispensation, in common with the initiatory sacrament of the old; for circumcision conferred remission of sin, both original and actual, according to Lombard, before this office was transferred to baptism. (See Note 19.) Whileinfants then had the gift com- mon to baptism and circumcision secured to them, the Gospel sup- plement of this negative gift, or the infusion of positive virtue, does not attach for certain to infant baptism, according to Lom- bard. One thing is remarkable in the passage, that the writer does not seem even to recognize the idea of baptismal grace as a mere power and faculty. He includes power in it, gratia qua possint bene velle et operari, but he only sees this power in the form of a habit, an implanted habit of faith and love,—gratia illa charitas est et fides. This habit is indeed not only implanted virtue, but also assisting grace, que voluntatem preparat et adjuvat ; it being of the very nature of a habit to assisé the will to do what is right on each par- ticular occasion; but the assistance is contemplated in the form of habit, not of a faculty only. The Anglican reader accustomed to the latter idea of baptismal grace, expects in reply to the ques- tion, “ Whether infants receive in baptism that grace by which they will be able, when they grow up, to will and do good ? ” the answer that infants are capable of having a faculty implanted in them, which as they grow up they can improve into a habit; but Lom- bard disappoints him with a negative, on the ground that this grace is the virtue of faith and love itself,—quia illa gratia est charitas et fides, which infants cannot have on account of the immaturity of nature. The late Archdeacon Wilberforce explains this passage of Lom- bard as only meaning to assert that grace was a Divine influence as distinguished from an infused habit. “The doctrine of Peter Lombard differed in one very essential point from that of the later Notes 15, 16. 391 Schoolmen. For whereas they separated those gifts which grace bestows upon men from their Divine Giver, speaking of them as habits infused into the mind . . . he identified ‘the love of God which is shed abroad in our hearts,’ with the Spirit which sheds it.” Doctrine of Baptism, p. 198. But this is first to make a mistake as to a fact. Lombard does represent grace as an infused habit. “Illa gratia virtus non incongrue nominatur.” ‘ Homo per gratiam baptismi renovatur, quod fit collatione virtutuiv.” “ Gratia illa charitas est et fides.” ‘ Virtues” are habits, and “love and faith” are habits. In the next place it is totally to overlook the point of the passage, which distinguishes between two parts of the baptismal gift, not between two aspects of the whole of it. Lombard has in his mind infants as distinguished from adults, but two modes of representing the baptismal gift would have had nothing to do with infants as distinguished from adults, as it would have applied in common to both. Note 15, p. 107. Whitaker’s answer to the Schoolmen would have been better if he had left out the extreme case of an education among Turks and Pagans, which would provoke the reply that a habit might be implanted and yet not developed on account of unfavourable cir- cumstances. The difficulty of the Scholastic hypothesis is that, under the favourable circumstances of Christian education and society, this supposed universally implanted habit does not come out in all or even the majority of baptized infants. “ Author hujus insulse distinctionis fuit Thomas, qui ait causam cur puerl, cum habeant habitus, tamen inhabiles sint ad actus, esse impedimen- tum corporale, ut dormientes, licet habitus virtutum habeant, tamen propter somnum non operantur. Sed hance esse fictam causam patet. Nam dormientes sublato impedimento possunt actus exer- cere: at si puer baptizatus transferretur ad Turcas aut Paganos, ubi de Christo nihil audiret, non crederet actu, etiam remoto etatis impedimento; quod indicat illum nullum talem fidei habitum habu- isse; nam si habuisset zetate jam provectus sciret alijyuid eorum que fidei sunt, et posset aliquem fidei actum ex illo habitu elicere.” Whitaker, Prelect. de Sacr. p. 287. Nore 16, p. 109. **Creaturis naturalibus sic providet ut non solum moveat eas ad 392 Note 17. actus naturales, sed etiam largiatur eis formas et virtutes quas- dam, quee sunt principia actuum, ut secundum seipsas inclinentur ad hujusmodi motus; et sic motus quibus a Deo moventur fiunt creaturis connaturales et faciles, secundum illud Sap. 8. 1: H¢ disponit omnia suaviter. Multo igitur magis illis quos movet ad consequendum bonum supernaturale eternum, infundit aliquas formas seu qualitates naturales secundum quas suaviter et prompte ab ipso moveantur ad bonum zternum consequendum.” §. T’.1ma. Pde. Q.110. A.2. ‘“ Manifestum est quod omne quod movetur necesse est proportionatum esse motori; et hee est perfectio mo- bilis, in quantum est mobile, dispositio qua disponitur ad hoc quod bene moveatur a suo motore. Quanto igitur movens est altior, tanto necesse est quod mobile perfectiori dispositione ei propor- tionetur, sicut videmus quod perfectius oportet esse discipulum dispositum ad hoc quod altiorem doctrinam capiat a doctore. Manifestum autem est quod virtutes humane perficiunt hominem, secundum quod homo natus est moveri per rationem in his que interius vel exterius agit. Oportet igitur inesse homini altiores perfectiones, secundum quas sit dispositus ad hoc quod divinitus mo- veatur ; et istee perfectiones vocantur dona, non solum quia infun- duntur a Deo, sed quia secundum ea homo disponitur, ut efficiatur prompte mobilis ab inspiratione divina.” Ibid. Q. 68. A. 1. Nore 17, p. 118. Dr. Pusey testifies, in his well-known tract, to the sense of rege- neration, which has been maintained in these three chapters as the true one. “ Regeneration,” according to him, “ comprehends change of heart and affections, repentance, faith, life, and love” (Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism, p. 47); “sin not only remitted,” but “slain and crucified, so that we must henceforth watch that it live not again in us, that we serve it not again” (p. 97); “the putting on of Christ, and the being conformed to Christ ” (p.*122) ; “the true circumcision, being disencumbered of the sinful mass with which we were naturally encumbered, the body of the sins of the flesh” (p. 126). Itis “the state in which Christians were persuaded to abide, the fulness which they had received from Him by whom they had been filled, and in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ” (p. 126); it “ places again upon us the Creator’s image, renewing us after His likeness, Note 18. > Bae and impressing His cast, and to speak the high truth, His features upon our souls, as a seal gives its stamp to the body whereon it is impressed ” (p. 137): it had “ cleansed the hearts of the Christians, addressed by St. Paul, from an evil conscience, joined them to Christ, made them partakers of His holiness, and fitted them to appear before Him: after which cleansing they were to remain clean” (186). “The modern interpretation, which finds a de- scription of conversion in the putting off the oid and putting on of the new man ’’—one of the Apostolic phrases for regenera- tion—is, he maintains, “true as far as it goes,” though “ it loses sight of baptism ’’ as the channel of such conversion (178). In the opinion also of a learned critic and devoted disciple of the Fathers, regeneration “implies more than a mere capacity for goodness and holiness; viz. the actual imparting of those graces in a manner and degree proportioned to the capacity of the subject, with a tendency as well as power for their growth and future de- velopment; involves actual imparted grace and the gradual deve- lopment of the fruits of grace, although that grace or goodness be not necessarily either permanent or final.” ‘The view,” he adds, “has been pretty universally held by Catholics, that regeneration does imply the gift of real and actual goodness, according to the spiritual capacities of the subject.” Christian Remembrancer, No. 93, pp. 222, 235. Norte 18, p. 113. “ Unica formalis causa [justificationis] est justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati renovamur spiritu mentis nostrz, et non modo reputamur sed vere justi nominamur et sumus ... Caritas Dei diffunditur in cordi- bus eorum qui justificantur, atque ipsis inheret, unde in ipsa justi- ficatione cum remissione peccatorum hec simul omnia infusa accipit homo per Jesum Christum, cui inseritur, fidem, spem, et caritatem ... Hujus justificationis cause sunt, finalis quidem gloria Dei . Instrumentalis sacramentum baptismi.” Sess. 6, c. 7. “Gratia [que baptismo homini prestatur] est non solum per quam peccatorum fit remissio, sed divina qualitas in animo inhe- rens, ac veluti splendor quidam et lux, que animarum nostrarum maculas omnes delet, ipsasque animas pulchriores et splendidiores reddit . . . Huic autem additur nobilissimus omniuwm virtutum comitatus que in animam cum gratia divinitus infunduntur.” Catechism of Trent, P. 2. C. 2. Q. 49, 50. 304 Note 19. Wore 19,:ip:. 116. “ Ut sciamus etiam antiquos justos non nisi per eandem fidem liberatos per quam liberamur et nos; fidem scilicet Incarnationis Christi, que illis preenuntiabatur, sicut nobis facta annuntiabatur.” Aug. Ep. 157, § 14. “ Ante tempus Legis et tempore ipso Legis justos Patres . . . Dei gratia per fidem justificabat; et nunc eadem in apertum jam veniens revelata justiticat.” Ep.177,§ 15. “Sa- cramentum porro regenerationis nostre manifestum esse voluit manifestatus Mediator. EHrat autem antiquis justis aliquod occul- tum, cum tamen et illi eadem fide salvi fierent quee fuerat suo tem- pore revelanda.” Ep. 187, § 34. “Imo vero, ut sic loquar, quemadmodum se veritas habet, non nominum consuetudo, Chris- tianus etiam ille tunc populus fuit.” Serm. 300. Circumcision is described in some of the following passages as the sacramental channel, in others as the sign, of true justifying grace conferred upon the Ancient Fathers. Augustine.—*“ Ex quo instituta est circumcisio in populo Dei, quee erat tunc signaculum justitiz fidei, ita ad significationem pur- gationis valebat et in parvulis originalis veterisque peccati, sicut et baptismus ex illo valere coepit ad innovationem hominis ex quo institutus est. Non quod ante circumcisionem justitia fidei nulla erat... sed superioribus temporibus latuit sacramentum Jjustifica- tionis ex fide.” De Nupt. et Conc. ].ii.¢c.11. The passage as quoted by Lombard has “ purgationem ” instead of “ significationem purgationis.” Lombard.—* Fuit inter illa sacramenta sacramentum quoddam, scilicet circumcisionis, idem conferens remedium contra peccatum, quod nunc baptismus prestat.” LL. iv. Dist. 1. Bede.—“ Idem salutiferze curationis auxilium in lege circumcisio contra originale vulnus peccati agebat, quod baptismus agere reve- lates tempore gratiz consuevit; excepto quod regni ccelestis januam intrare non poterat.” Hom. in Circum. t. iv. p. 187. Bonaventure.—“ Circumcisio congrue fuit instituta tempore legis scripte ad deletionem originalis culpz.” ‘Tom. v. p. 19. Hugo de St. Victor.—* Idem salutiferze curationis auxilium cir- cumcisio contra originale peccatum in lege cooperabatur, quod nunc baptismus; excepto quod regni coelestis jJanuam primi patres intrare non poterant, propter quod necessaria fuit mors Christi, quee aditum vite patefecit.”” Tom. i. p. 261. Alexander Alensis.— Circumcisione tollebatur originale pecca- tum.” ‘ Quicquid arbitrati sunt nonnulli, circumcisione veteri Note 19. 395 nedum peccatum originale tollebatur, sed et gratia etiam preesta- batur.” ‘“ Revera ex vi circumcisionis tollebatur originale in par- vulis et tam originale quam actuale in adultis digne suscipientibus. Virtus tamen circumcisionis per se et primo fuit ordinata ad de- letionem originalis;; sed quia gratia gratificans non compatitur suum mortale aliquod, neque mors spiritualis tollitur nisi per introductionem vite spiritualis, cum hoc quod gratia sive virtus circumcisionis tollebat originale, ad quod per se ordinata erat, tollebat et actuale.’’ Summ. Theol. t. iv. pp. 74, 75. ‘Ex sacramento circumcisionis datur gratia tollens originale peccatum, et diminuens superfluitatem concupiscentie, et debitum tollens concupiscendi, et virtutem prestans resistendi concupis- centie.” Ibid. p. 76. Durandus.—* Circumcisio que auferebat culpam conferebat gratiam.” P. 293. Aquinas decides against the sacraments of the old law “con- ferring justifying grace” “‘ per seipsa,” even as anticipatory appli- cations of the benefit of Christ’s passion,—‘‘ Sed nec potest dici quod ew passione Christi virtutem haberent conferendi gratiam justificantem ;” arguing with his usual subtlety that, though a cause can operate before its own existence as a motive to the mind or a final cause, it cannot as producing an outward effect or as an efficient cause; and therefore that the Passion of Christ could not act as the efficient cause of the virtue of sacraments which pre- ceded that Passion. ‘‘ Nihil prohibet id quod est posterius tem- pore, antequam sit, movere, secundum quod preecedit 7m actu anime, sicut finis, qui est posterior tempore, movet agentem secundum quod est apprehensus et desideratus ab ipso; sed illud quod non- dum est in rerum natura non movet secundum usum exteriorum rerum. Sic ergo manifestum est quod a passione Christi, que est causa humane justificationis, convenienter derivatur virtus justi- ficativa ad sacramenta nove legis, non autem ad sacramenta veteris legis.’ The sacraments of the old law, however, are still pronounced to confer grace as signs of faith,—that faith which had, even before the new law, the power or office of justifying, “ per fidem passionis Christi’ justificabantur antiqui patres sicut et nos.” In this sense, then, circumcision conferred grace,—‘ In circum- cisione conferebatur gratia in quantum erat signum passionis Christi future.” 8. "T.. PP. 3. Q) 62." A. G. Bull on the other hand maintains that the “Old covenant laboured under a want of pardoning grace, or the remission of sins.” Harm. Diss. 2, c. 7, § 5. 396 Notes 20, 21. Nore 20, p. 124. “ Hence I distinguish life into initial and actual. Not as if the Spirit were not actually communicated and did not actually work, or actually begin from the very first instant to'prepare the soul to future actual newness of life, by infusing some potential and seminal grace: but my meaning is that the Spirit doth not at that time ordinarily so plenarily change—renew the whole man,—as to work in him either faith, hope, or love, or so much as the habits of these and other graces. . . . Therefore we call that first work, Initial, thereby understanding the first disposition to or degree of actual regeneration, but forasmuch as that first work doth not (for aught we know) extend toa present actual change of the whole man in the same manner and degree, that afterwards is wrought in him at his effectual calling; therefore, we call that latter work Actual regeneration. “This ought not to seem strange to any, for just so it is in the course of nature. So soon as the reasonable soul is infused, there is in some sense (not every way in respect of degrees) a rational life. But how? The soul is there, and in that soul are included all the principles of reason; but the soul doth not send forth those principles into action (unless in some insensible manner by little and little preparing the infant unto human action), till afterwards that the senses begin to act. Before that time the reasonable life cannot wholly be denied to be in an infant, yet forasmuch as the infant hath not by this time the actual use of reason, for this cause we call the further perfection of his natural principles by tract of time attained, when reason puts itself into act, actual rational life ; and we term the same life, in respect of the first degree and princi- ples thereof, which together with the reasonable soul in the first infusion thereof it received, initial life.” Burgess (p. 241), Calvin, Zanchius, Chamier, Daneau, Whitaker, White, Ainsworth, and others, are quoted in defence of this position. Nore 21, p. 133. “Quid autem valeat et quid agat in homine corporaliter adhibita sanctificatio sacramenti . . . difficile est dicere. Nisi tamen plu- rimum valeret, non servi baptismum Dominus accepisset... . Usque adeo nemo debet in quolibet provectu interioris hominis, si Note 22. 207 forte ante baptismum usque ad spiritualem intellectum pio corde profecerit, contemnere sacramentum, quod ministrorum opere cor- poraliter adhibetur, sed per hoc Deus hominis consecrationem spiritualiter operatur. Nec ob aliud existimo munus baptizandi Johanni fuisse attributum, nisi ut Dominus ipse qui dederat, cum servi baptismum non sprevisset accipere, dedicaret humilitatis viam, et quanti pendendum esset suum baptisma quo ipse baptizaturus erat, tali facto apertissime declararet. Videbat enim tanquam peritissimus medicus salutis eterne, quorundam non defuturum tumorem, qui cum intellectu veritatis et probabilibus moribus ita profecissent ut multis baptizatis vita atque doctrina se preeponere minime dubitarent, supervacaneum sibi esse crederent baptizari, quando ad illum mentis habitum se pervenisse sentirent, ad quem multi baptizati adhuc ascendere conarentur.” De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. iv. c. 23. “Et quare oportebat ut Dominus baptizaretur? Quia multi contempturi erant baptismum, eo quod jam majore gratia preediti viderentur, quam viderent alios fideles. Verbi gratia jam conti- nenter vivens catechumenus contemneret conjugatum, et diceret se meliorem quam ille sit fidelis. Ile catechumenus posset dicere in corde suo: Quid mihi opus est baptismum accipere; ut hoc habeam quod et iste, quo jam melior sum? Ne ergo cervix ista precipitaret quosdam de meritis justitie sua plurimum elatos, baptizari voluit Dominus a servo; tanquam alloquens filios capi- tales: Quid vos extollitis? Quid erigitis, quia habetis, ille pru- dentiam, ille doctrinam, ille castitatem, ille fortitudinem patientiz P Numquid tantum habere potestis, quantum ego qui dedi? Ht tamen ego baptizatus sum a servo, vos dedignamini a Domino. Hoc est ut impleatur omnis justitia.” In Joan. Evang. Tract. 13, § 6, Nore 22, p. 138. “Negari enim non potest adultos credentes justificationem ha- bere etiam antequam baptizentur. . . . Quin et Deus existimandus est, ut est bonus, dum consignantur sue promissiones et sua dona, ex sua mera misericordia reddere illa auctiora.” Peter Martyr, Loci Comm. pp. 580, 584. “Baptismus Cornelio fuit lavacrum regenerationis, qui tamen jam Spiritu Sancto donatus erat. . . . Fides requiritur antequam ad Sacramentum accedant. Atqui fides non est sine Christo; sed, 398 Note 23. quatenus Sacramentis confirmatur et augescet fides, confirmantur in nobis Dei dong, adeoque quodammodo augescit Christus in nobis.” Consensus Tigurinus,¢.19. © “* Sacramenta, ipsam nobis obsignando, fidem nostram hoc modo sustinent, alunt, confirmant, adaugent.” Calvin, Inst. 1. iv. ¢. 14, § 7. ‘Si Catechumeni vere credant, habent testante Domino vitam eternam, et sunt vere jam membra Christi et Hcclesiz, vereque justificati faciunt necessario bona opera. Nec enim his baptis- mate confertur primum justificatio, sed obsignatur eis, confirma- tur, et augetur.” Bucer, Script. Ang. p. 730. “This marvellous conjunction and incorporation is first begun and wrought by faith, as saith Paulinus unto St. Augustine :—‘ Per fidem nostram incorporamur in Christo Jesu. Domino nostro.’ Afterwards the same incorporation is assured unto us, and increased in our baptism.” Jewell, Controversy with Harding, Art. 1. Our Twenty-seventh Article on Baptism is very much in the language of Lombard. Contemplating the case of faithful adults, it describes the gift conferred in the actual administration of the rite as one rather of an outward kind, “being grafted into the Church.” Lombard says, “Qui ante erat judicio Dei, sed nunc etiam judicio ecclesiz intus est.” While the inner grace is only the increase of one already had, “ faith is confirmed and grace in- creased.” Lombard says, “ Adjutrix gratia omnisque virtus auge- tur.” The principle applies to our baptismal service for adults. The faithful adult 1s by the literal terms of this service wnre- generate before the act of baptism, and becomes regenerate for the first time by it. But the Scholastic view modifies the rigour and bareness of this line of division, and antedates his regeneration and justification. Norte 23, p. 159. Hammond in one passage maintains the infusion of a habit in the act of regeneration, but the position compels him to give up the assertion of the regeneration of all infants in baptism, and to fall back on the presumptive principle, “That makes a man to be truly regenerate, when the seed is sown in the heart, when the habit is infused; and this is done sometimes discernibly, sometimes not discernibly . .. Undiscernibly God’s supernatural agency interposes sometimes in the mother’s womb. . . but this divine address attends Note 23. 399 most ordinarily till the time of our baptism, when the Spirit accompanying the outward sign infuses itself into their hearts, and there seats and plants itself, and grows up with the reasonable soul, keeping even their most luxuriant years within bounds; and as they come to an use of their reason, to a more and more multi- plying this habit of grace into holy spiritual acts of faith and obe- dience ; from which it is ordinarily said that infants baptized have habitual faith, as they may be also said to have habitual repentance, and the habits of all other graces, because they have the root and seed of those beauteous healthful flowers, which will actually flourish there when they come to years. And this, I say, is so Frequent to be performed at baptism, that ordinarily it is not wrought without that means, and in those means we may expect it, as our Church doth in our Liturgies, where she presumes at every baptism that ‘it hath pleased God to regenerate the infant by His Holy Spirit.’ Sermon xxvii. Here is the position maintained that in regeneration there is implanted a habit of faith and obedience which naturally produces “ multiplied acts,” when the infant grows up. But in what pro- portion of the baptized does this criterion of “acts” show this habit to be implanted P Hammond is in a difficulty here. He cannot consistently with plain facts say that it is implanted in aJ/ infants in baptism; and therefore he interprets the statement in the Baptismal Service as hypothetical,—“ Our Church presumes at every baptism that it hath pleased God to regenerate the infant.” At the same time he wants the bestowal of the habit to be consi- dered as almost universal,—“ It is so frequent to be performed in baptism, that we may expect it.” Upon this question of proportion, experience unhappily decides against Hammond. Thisis however a subordinate question, when the main point of universality has been given up. Bishop Kaye, in his Charge in 1852, adopts the position of the habituale principium gratie, and maintains that “in baptism the infant receives the habit of faith and obedience ” (Charges, p. 452), without however appearing to see the consequences of such a posi- tion; for he supposes himself, and quotes Hammond as supposing, that the habit “is ordinarily infused into the hearts of all infants at baptism.” What Bishop Kaye means by something being ordinarily given always is not very clear; but it is evident that he is under the general impression that an implanted habit of goodness may be the universal accompaniment of infant baptism, which has been shown to be untenable. 400 Notes 24, 25. Nore 24, p. 182. Those who maintain that the consent of antiquity of itself estab- lishes an article of the faith, will have to decide some points that they had rather leave in suspense. There is certainly a concurrence of antiquity in the belief that unbaptized infants cannot go to heaven. So completely indeed was this taken for granted in the early Church, that the Pelagians themselves allowed the conclusion, though dis- owning the premiss for it, and dared not, in defiance of the whole Church, admit them to heaven, but assigned them a middle state, —an alternative which Augustine in the name of the whole Church emphatically rejected. ‘‘ Respondemus cum Augustino Dei judicia esse occulta, cur tot parvulos perire sinat, interim tamen esse jus- tissima. Nam etiamsi parvuli sine sua culpa non baptizantur, non tamen sine sua culpa pereunt, cum habeant originale peccatum. Qui autem fingunt aliud remedium preter baptismum, apertissime pugnant cum Evangelio, Conciliis, Patribus atque Ecclesic uni- verse consensu.’ Bellarmine, De Sacr. Bapt. 1.1. ¢. 4. “ Sane infantes, quia hance, prohibente state, non possunt habere fidem, hoc est cordis ad Deum conversionem, consequentur nec salutem, si absque Baptismi perceptione moriuntur.” St. Bernard, De Bapt. c. 9. Gataker.—‘“ Adversus antiquos qui hic adducuntur exceptio du- plex occurrit 1. quod sine tinctione discedentes fammis infernalibus adjudicarunt. .. .” Ward.— Hsto quod in uno dogmate vel in altero errarint, non sequitur illico in ‘aliis dogmatibus non recte sentire.” Disceptatio inter Ward et Gataker, p. 194. Note 25, p. 182. It is not easy to see how the condemnation of the Pelagian Ce- lestius by the Council of Ephesus, is even the implicit assertion by that Council of the regeneration of allinfants in baptism. In the silence of the Council we can assume no other reason for the con- demnation of Celestius, than that as a Pelagian he held the Pela- gian heresy, or the denial of original sin. The Council then by implication asserts original sin. But the assertion of original sin is not the assertion of the remission of original sin to all infants in baptism, which is a totally distinct proposition ; still less is it the assertion of the regeneration of all infants in baptism. Indeed Note 25. 401 Pelagius (though he would not include in regeneration the remission of what he did not believe in—original sin) happened himself to assert the regeneration of all infants in baptism (Augustine, De Heer. c. 88. Contra Jul. Pel. 1. in. c. 3.5); and therefore that asser- tion cannot be extracted out of the simple denial of Pelagianism. The same remark may be made upon the First Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, which, among many points on which a Bishop elect is to be examined, inserts this—“ Si in baptismo omnia peccata, id est, tam illud originale contractum, quam illa quee voluntaria admissa sunt, dimittantur ;” and upon the Second Canon of the Council of Milevi—“ Quicunque dicit in remissionem quidem peccatorum eos (parvulos) baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati, quod regenerationis lavacro expietur, unde fit consequens, ut in eis forma baptismatis, in remissionem pec- catorum, non vere sed false intelligatur—anathema sit.” Whether all baptized infants are recipients of the remission of original sin is not the question before these Councils; the point which they assert is, that infants have original sin to be remitted. We want the express statement directly by a General Council that “all infants are regenerate in baptism,” and we are presented instead with the adoption by a General Council (Chalcedon) of the canons of another, a Provincial Council, one of which latter asserts the doctrine of original sin, its remission in baptism, and its remission to infants ; all which three assertions were made by the Calvinists of the Reformation. The only relevant point,—the remission to allinfants,—is not stated. A formal condition of an Article of the faith, which the assertion by a General Council is, must be ful- filled with formal correctness. No General Council has imposed in terms the position that “ all infants are regenerate in baptism.” The Bishop of Exeter says (Letter to Archbishop of Canterbury, p- 02) that by declaring original sin to be a hindrance to the benefit of baptism, he (Mr. Gorham) denied the Article of the Creed, “ One baptism for the remission of sins.” But the statement that “baptism is for the remission of sin,” does not exclude hindrances to such remission. A state of actual sin is, we know, “a hindrance to the benefit of baptism :” whether original sin is, is a further and disputed question; but it is not excluded as such an hindrance by this clause. In the statement of the Council of Orange (a small Council, A.D. 029, attended by fourteen Bishops) ‘‘ quod accept a per baptis- mum gratia omnes baptizati Christo auxiliante et co-operante, que ad salutem anime pertinent, possint et debeant, si fideliter laborare pd po a Vote 26. voluerint, adimplere ” (Harduin, v. 11. p. 1101)—the assertion that all who receive baptismal grace can fulfil, &c., has nothing to do with the question who do receive that grace. Note 26, p. 204. 1. In order to make Augustinianism consistent with sufficient erace for all, “sufficient ” has been defined as such a measure of grace as suffices to put a person in sucha state, that “2f he died in that state he would be saved.” ? But thisis an inadequate criterion of sufficient grace, which must be sufficient not only up toa particular time, but for the whole of life. Is grace which accompanies a man up to the age of twenty, because it would have been sufficient for him had he lived to be no older than twenty, therefore sufficient for him if he lives to be eighty ? It must be remembered that upon every theory of grace, the man is spiritually dead as soon as ever the grace of God leaves him. Is strength, then, to swim fifty yards and no more of the slightest service toa man who has to cross a river amile wide? Not of the least, because when he has swum his fifty yards he sinks immediately, and no more reaches the opposite bank than a man who could not swim a foot. In the same way a soul that has had the benefit of Divine grace up to a certain age, as certainly perishes when that grace finally leaves it, and as cer- tainly misses salvation, as a soul that never had grace atall. And, therefore, grace is not grace sufficient for salvation, if (for any other cause but one which is not the cause here supposed, viz. ha- bitual and obstinate neglect and contempt of it) it stops short of the final stage of life, because whenever it stops short it delivers the man over to the power of sin, under which continuing till he dies, he perishes finally. For this reason the regeneration pro statu infantis, which is ap- pealed to as a universal accompaniment of infant baptism, even on the Augustinian scheme, is no proof that that scheme is consistent with the real regeneration of all infants in baptism. It is true that Augustinianism is consistent with every baptized infant being rege- 3 “ Ag regards the doctrine of sufficient grace, suppose the matter were stated thus, that grace may be given such as that men may believe, shall live religiously, shall love God, be holy, be such that if they died they should be saved—who yet through their life being lengthened do fall away ; can it be denied that grace sufficient for salvation was given to them ?’’ Christian Remembrancer, No. 93, p. 248. Note 26. . 493 nerate pro statu infantis,i.e. being in that state that if he died as an infant he would be saved; but this is not enough to constitute the baptized person regenerate absolutely, for which purpose it is essential that he should be admitted into a state of grace sufficient for the needs of whatever age or circumstances of life he may actually attain to, and that he should be placed in a condition of spiritual competency generally, and not only with reference to one particular contingency. An infant whois about to grow up to years of discretion is not regenerate in baptism, unless he is guaranteed in baptism such grace as is wanted for the needs of that maturer age. But Augustinianism does not admit of this state of sufficient grace being universally entered into at baptism. And this suggests the proper mode of treating the difficulty which is sometimes raised upon the supposition of an infant being after baptism immediately carried away by Turks or heathens and brought up in a false religion; in which case itis alleged that he is regenerate as being baptized, but that he has not subsequently grace sufficient for salvation; not having even the knowledge of the truth or the opportunity of belief given him. But itis a mistaken notion of regeneration that it is something done like a piece of magic ina moment, after which moment, nothing can interfere with the truth and reality of it. Regeneration is admission to a state, and a state of indefinite continuance, in which there is afforded grace sufficient for salvation. This state, therefore, implies in its very nature the outward advantages of the Christian calling ; it assumes that the person is brought up as a Christian; in the absence of which outward means of grace, the state itself of rege- neration does not exist, though the baptismal character may be received. 2. The subtle distinction that it is the same grace in both cases, but that the elect have the power to wse their baptismal grace profitably, the rést have not, is hardly worth meeting, because such subtleties are in fact mere words without meaning. How can we distinguish between the grace and the power to use it ? The power to use the grace is part of the grace, nor should we get into a way of speaking of a new nature as if it were a material insertion in the man, which could be separated from all relation to his inward will and moral power. It is true that a man may have an inward faculty implanted in him by God, and be placed by God’s natural providence under such outward circumstances, that he cannot practically use it. A plough- man may be born an orator, wea ik the total want of education pd 2 404 Note 27. hinder all development of his gift. And again it is true that aman may have one particular faculty implanted in him, and yet that the development and use of it may be prevented by the absence of other faculties, as in the case of a general who has a first-rate stra- tegical head without the nerve to execute his plans. But it is absurd to say that a man can have a general inward power which he has not the general inward power to use,—the general inward power to lead a good life conferred by baptism, which he has not the general inward power to use in consequence of his exclusion from the decree of predestination. Nove 27, p. 228. “Our Reformers from first to jlast agreed with the majority of the most distinguished Continental Reformers in maintaining that baptism (when spoken of in the abstract with reference to its true nature, intent, and purpose) is a rite divinely appointed as the instrument in the use of which a certain spiritual blessing is con- veyed by God to the recipient; and the consequence was that both, when speaking of baptism in the abstract, used the strongest expres- sions as to the value of the blessings conferred in it by God; and they did this both for the purpose of upholding the truth and counteracting the opposite error. * But it is palpably a misinterpretation of this language to infer from it that this Sacrament is represented thereby as having this effect upon all who partake of it; because such general statements refer to the case of adults, as well as infants; and in the former case itis admitted that faith and repentance are necessary to a salutary reception of the Sacrament. Therefore some qualification may have been held necessary in the latter case.” Effects of Infant | Baptism, p. 190. “Tn baptism, as Nowell says, regeneration ‘ efigiem suam tenet,’ or in the corresponding words of Calvin, ‘ Spiritualis regeneratio figuratur ;’ but, as both say, it is a figure or representation of such a kind ‘ut annexa sit veritas,’ because God does not deal with His servants by empty signs. No; wherever the party is suchas He accepts (for whom alone the Sacraments were ordained at all) God works with His Sacraments, and they not merely seal but give grace.” Ibid. p. 261. “ A conclusive argument no doubt may be derived from these Note 28. 405 passages (in the Catechism) against those who affirm that the Sa- crament of Baptism is a bare empty sign, to which even in the case of the worthy recipient, no special grace is attached by Divine promise. But the question as to the character and qualifications necessary in those who receive the inward grace as well as the out- ward sign in baptism, both as it respects adults and infants, is not touched by the statements here made as to the nature and effects of baptism.” P. 458. The same assertion of the grace of the Sacrament, as distinct from the conditions of receiving it, was made in court by the counsel for Mr. Gorham,—‘* The acknowledgment of the blessings attached to baptism is common to both sides ; but this leaves unresolved the real question between us, viz. whether these are or are not received in all cases. It is admitted by the other side that no one detracts from the grace of the sacrament by saying that such expressions do not necessarily apply to every individual adult who is baptized ; and it must also be admitted that when Mr. Gorham affirms, in respect of infants, that such expressions do not necessarily and in every case apply to them, he is not detracting from the grace be- longing to the Sacrament of Baptism.” Dr. Bayford’s Speech, p. 102. Nore 28, p. 244. The application of the law of adult baptism to infant baptism so entirely pervades the theology of the Reformation, that it is unnecessary to cite passages. The Lutheran statements are given in Notes 4.and 32. The statements of the other division of the Reformation are as express, ‘ Baptizantur in futuram pceniten- tiam et fidem : que etsi nondum in illis formate sunt, arcana tamen Spiritus operatione utriusque semen in illis latet.” (Calvin, Instit. 1. iv.c. 16, § 20.) “ Objici consuevit aliam esse rationem infantium, et aliam adultorum. Quoniam illi qui provecte sunt etatis fidem habere possunt, qua pertineant ad gregem Dei, que infantibus non est tribuenda ... Respondemus quod fidem expressam et actu requirimus, quoad illos qui sunt adulti; in parvulis vero Chris- tianorum qui baptizandi offeruntur, eam esse dicimus inchoatam,,. in suo, inquam, principio et radice . . . Quamobrem parvuli qui vere ad electionem Dei pertinent, antequam baptizentur, Spiritu Dei sunt instructi.” Peter Martyr, Loc. Comm. pp. 583, 584. ‘ Si loquantur de fide actuali, illa Scripture loca que heec requirunt in baptizatis ad adultos esse restringenda dicimus: ad infantes 406 Note 29. autem quod attinet, quia peccatores sunt non proprio actu sed hereditario habitu, sufficit quod peccati mortificationem et fidem habeant non proprio actu sese exerentem, sed in habitual principio gratiz inclusam. Spiritum autem Christi principium hoc habituale gratiz in illis efficere posse et solere nemo sanus negaverit.” Da- venant, in Coloss. c. 2, v. 12. “ Baptismus etiam in infante, non ut tu autumas, ex opere operato, sed ex fide solum recipientis gratiam operatur ... ‘ Parvulus,’ inquit Lutherus, ‘ fide nfusa mutatur et renovatur.’ ‘ Eos virtute sui spiritus vobis incomprehensa renovat Deus,’ ait Calvinus .. . Credat necne infans, Hcclesiz incertum est, sed nisi credere infantem judicio charitatis Ecclesia judicaret, nec sponsores infantis nomine sic respondere mandaret, nec in- fantem, nisi sic responderet, baptizari vetaret.” Crakanthorp, Defens. Eccl. Angl. Anglo-Catholic Library, p. 224. See Whitaker, Prelect. de Sacr. pp. 15, 285. Zanchius, Explic. Ep. ad Eph. p- 222. Chamier, De Sacram. p. 128. Nowell’s Catechism. Norte 29, p. 250. “ An hypothetical sense,” says Mr. Davison, “seems admissible, only when the Liturgy is speaking first of individuals, and, secondly, when their individual state is impossible to be known in those respects in which it bears upon the tenor of the special service re- lating to them; and when also, thirdly, there can be no ambiguity whether it be an hypothetical sense or not.” * Of which three con- ditions, the two latter, he says, are not fulfilled in the case of infant baptism. But when Mr. Davison laid down these conditions of hypothetical interpretation, he did not take into consideration that upon the doc- trinal ground of one school in the Church, his second condition of ad- missibility 7s unquestionably fulfilled in the case of infant baptism. On the Calvinistic ground the state of the infant “in those respects in which it bears upon the tenor of the special service relating to them is impossible to be known.” It is not known whether the infant is one of the elect or not, and upon his election depends his regenera- tion. Mr. Davison says indeed,—“ The Church is in this instance fully aware of the present state and condition of the subject to whom the rite is to be applied. The infant is born in a state of sin, and it is incapable of believing and repenting. This state is 4 Remains, p. 294. Note 29. 407 Se OO not unknown to the Church, nor, since it pertains at the same time to the application of the office to be administered, can it be disre- garded by the Church in that office.” But upon the Calvinistic ground this is not a correct or sufficient description of the state of the infant in relation to baptism, because in addition to these known circumstances, he is also regarded as the subject of an un- known Divine decree upon which his exception of the grace of bap- tism depends. The Calvinist, therefore, cannot admit Mr. Davison’s conclusion, ‘‘that the possible reasons of exception which might exist in other cases can have no place here, and that, since the actual subject is so definitely and universally known, the language of the service cannot have a concealed reserve in regard to any such cases of exception.” 4 Mr. Davison’s third condition, that there must be “no ambiguity whether it be an hypothetical sense or not,” falls under one or other of the two following alternatives. If by “no ambiguity” Mr. Davison means no ambiguity to the interpreter himself,—that he must not apply the hypothetical sense to a statement, unless it is the only sense in which he himself can accept it; the condition is sound, but the case of the Calvinist fulfils it, because this is the only sense in which he can accept this statement, and there is no ambiguity about this point to him. If by the condition of “no ambiguity” Mr. Davison means that it must be the only sense in which any person whatever can accept the statement, the condition is not fulfilled in the present case, but then the condition itself is an arbitrary and untrue one. There can be no reason why a state- ment in a service should not admit of two interpretations, a literal and an hypothetical one, according to different doctrinal grounds taken by two persons, any more than why the language of an article should not admit of two different meanings. A person ought not to give an hypothetical sense to a statement unless it is the only sense in which he can accept it; but he is not debarred from giving it because another person can take it in the literal sense. When Mr. Davison’s canons of hypothetical interpretation are analyzed, they will be found to come to this, that the interpretation in order to be admissible must be necessary. But necessary in whose opinion? Mr. Davison assumes—in the opinion of every- body. But for an allowable interpretation an unanimous ground is not needed. It is enough if the doctrine upon which the neces. sity arises is held by some, and if those, whether few or many, are 5 Pp. 295, 296, 408 Note 30. allowed by the Church to hold it. The whole Christian body inter- prets the statement of the adult’s regeneration hypothetically. Why? Because the whole Christian body holds that the re- generation of the adult is conditional. Some of this body interpret the statement of the infant’s regeneration hypothetically. Why? Because some hold that the regeneration of infants is conditional. If the conditional rationale, then, of infant regeneration is not pro- hibited, those who hold it, whatever proportion of the Church they may be, have as much right to interpret this statement hypotheti- cally in the case of infants, as the whole collective Church has to do so in the case of adults. Mr. Davison’s canons, while they allow for cases of unanimous hypothetical interpretation, the necessity for which arises from plain facts or universally admitted truths, do not provide for this latter case of an hypothetical inter- pretation, the necessity for which arises from a doctrine which is simply allowed and held with consent of the Church. But this latter case ought to be provided for, and its omission shows not that the case itself is unsound, but that Mr. Davison’s canons are inadequate. Nore 30, p. 257. Mr. Faber (Primitive Doctrine of Election, p. 374) has mistaken the language of Melancthon. Melancthon, commenting on the text of St. Paul,—* Quos elegit, hos et vocavit,” says, “ Mox igitur monet ubi electi querendi sint, scilicet in coetu vocatorum.” (T. 1. p- 154.) Mr. Faber understands this as meaning that the “elect” concide with the “‘ccetus vocatorum,” or the visible Church, and fixes upon Melancthon the interpretation of the phrase “the elect” as meaning those who are elected to admission into the Visible Church. But Melancthon does not mean by the above that “the elect’ coincide with the “coetus vocatorum,” but only that they are im that “coetus,” along with others who are not theelect. “In hoc sunt electiomnes . . . nec fingamus electos esse queerendos eatra coetum vocatorum.” (Ibid.) ‘Semper in hoc ccetu sunt electi aliqui, i.e. heeredes seternz vite, etiamsi simul his admixti sunt multi non sancti et non electi,” p. 158. Mr. Faber mistakes again Melancthon’s assertion of an “ electa Ecclesia,” for the assertion that the Visible Church is the body of the elect, and quotes “ Scitote esse ecclesiam electam propter Filium ;” whereas Melancthon him- self immediately adds, ‘“‘ Et heec electa Ecclesia preedicatione colli- Note 31. 7 409 gitur, et fit justa, et ornabitur eterna gloria.” Ibid. The “ electa Ecclesia ” of Melancthon is iz the visible Church, but as one body within another body; being indeed that inner invisible body, for the sake of which the outward visible body exists,—“‘ De Ecclesia visibili scire necesse est, quia in hac tantum sunt electi, propter quos et hic visibilis coetus a Deo colligitur et conservatur.” Ibid. p. 159. - Nore 31, p. 299. Archbishop Laurence quotes as an anti-Calvinistic statement of Luther :—* Deus non est crudelis et immitis tyrannus; non odit, non abjicit homines, sed amat;” but does a Calvinist say that God is a cruel and harsh tyrant, and that He does not love but reject mankind ? (B. L. p. 159.) Again Luther says, “ Preedicatio Evan- gelii universalis et publica est, omnibus patens quicunque suscipere volunt. Ac Dei voluntas hec est, cum eam sic invulgat, ut omnes credant et salventur” (B. L. p.165). But no Calvinist denies that * God will have ail men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” which is a simple text of Scripture, though he accepts it with a reserve, which he thinks other statements in Scripture render necessary. And he will agree with Luther that to reject this statement of Scripture is both presumptuous and dangerous : —‘‘ Qui sentiunt Dei voluntatem non esse ut omnes salventur, aut in desperationem ruunt, aut in securissimam impietatem dissolvun- tur” (Postilla Dom. quoted B. L. p. 165). Calvin says, “ Cum utris- que [piis et impiis] Dei misericordia per Evangeliwm offeratur, fides est, hoc est, Deiilluminatio, que inter pios et impios distinguit.... Impii autem non causentur sibi deesse asylum, quo se a peccati servitute recipiant, dum oblatum sibi ingratitudine sua respuunt” (Instit. 1. i. ¢. 24, § 17).—** In exitialem abyssum se ingurgitant qui ut de sua electione fiant certiores, eternum Dei consilium sine verbo percontantur ” (Ibid. § 4). Nor again does a writer recant necessarianism, because he attri- outes a real existence and a true motion to the human will. Arch- bishop Laurence finds some passages in which Jmther attributes consent and co-operation to the human will. “ Permittamus dun- taxat Deum in nobis operari” (Op. vol. v. p. 592). “* Simasque Deum in te operari ” (vol. iii. p. 172). “ Sed non operatur in nobis sine nobis, ut quos ad hoe creavit et servavit, ut in nobis operaretur, et nos el cooperaremur” (vol. ii. p. 470, quoted B. L. 284). But AIO Note 31. consent and co-operation belong to the will as such, without which it would cease to be a will: nor therefore does a Calvinist deny such functions of the will:—‘ Fateor ergo expectandam esse fide- libus hane Dei benedictionem, quo melius usi fuerint superioribus gratis, ut eo majoribus posthac augeantur.... Hac quidem [dis- tinctione operantis gratize et cooperantis] usus est Augustinus sed commoda, definitione leniens, Deum cooperando efficere quod ope- rando incipit. .. . Quod dicere solent, postquam prime gratiz locum dedimus, jam conatus nostros subsequenti gratia cooperari, re- spondeo: Siintelligunt nos, ex quo semel Domini virtute in justitize obsequium adornati sumus, ultro pergere et propensos esse ad se- quendam gratiz actionem, nihil reclamo ” (Calvin, Instit. 1. 11. ¢. 3, § 11). “ Quis enim ita desipit ut hominis motionem ajactu lapidis nihil differre autumet ? Neque vero quicquam simile consequitur ex nostra doctrina. In naturales hominis facultates referimus, approbare, respicere; velle, nolle; eniti, resistere; ... Ubi reenum in illis suum (Deus) erigit, voluntatem,...quoin sanctitatem et justitiam propendeat flectit.... Admonet (Augustinus) actionem hominis non tolli Spiritus Sancti motu... non destrui gratia voluntatem sed magis reparari.... Nihil jam obstat quominus rite agere dicamur, quod agit Spiritus Dei in nobis” (Ibid. c. 5, § 14, 15). In one instance indeed a statement gives offence to Luther which would not offend a Calvinist :—‘ Alii sunt qui heec verba sic inter- pretantur: Multi sunt vocati, i. e. Deus multis suam gratiam offert ; pauci vero electi, i.e. cum paucis suam gratiam communicat, nam pauci salvantur. Valde impia hee sententia est. Nam quis non Deum summe oderit, side Deo non aliter sentiat, quam ejus volun- tatis culpa fieri, ut non salvemur?” (Postilla Domestica, p. 57, quoted B. L. p. 161.) But before we draw an inference from an insulated case, we should take into account the character of the work in which this case occurs. The “ Postilla Domestica ” is not a theological treatise, it is not even a work which was written by Luther. It is a collection of ‘Home Sermons,” published by two disciples from notes taken down at the time, and published with Luther’s sanction and under his eye, but still not his written com- position. Nothing could be more natural than that Luther should in a course of practical discourses protest against the abuse of the doctrine of the De Servo Arbitrio, which had been great among some sectaries, who had perverted it to license immorality. But the state- ments of such a work have not the theological weight of the written statements of a doctrinal treatise. Note 32. AIL Nore 32, p. 304. The Augsburgh Confession lays down the universal proposition, fidem ir usu sacramentorwm requiri, and condemns the ex opere operato, without allowance for any exception in the case of infants, Art. XIII. Luther says, “ Nisi adsit aut paretur fides nihil pro- dest baptismus :” and to the objection of infant baptism replies, “ Parvulus fide infusa mutatur, mundatur, et renovatur.” Op. t: ii. p. 78. See Note 4, and p. 32. ‘‘Deinde ejusdem farine est quod sentit infantibus, qui sunt ut ipse loquitur incapaces fidei, non esse necessariam fidem. Quasi vero ullus sit hominum qui cum sit capax imaginis Dei, non etiam sit capax fidei: aut quasi infantes sine sua quadam proprie divi- nitus collata fide, salutem consequi possent. Fieri enim non potest, ut sive infans sive adultus placeat Deo absque Christo et fide in Christum, eaque propria et divinitus donata. Non videmus infantes credere, sed Deus qui suos in omnibus creaturis gemitus quos ipse in els exciverat et quos he pro liberatione filiorum Dei, ut Paulus testatur, emittunt, videt et audit, tam acutos habet sensus, ut et infantium fidem, qua eos pro sua clementia, et quodam singulari modo ornat, intueatur et agnoscat.” Brentius, Apol. Confess. Wir- temberg. tom. viii. p. 386. “ Baptismus fidei signaculum est, et, cum sit fidei signaculum etiam in infantibus baptizatis, necesse est infantes credere.” Major, tom. ll. p. 345. I must remark here upon a mistake of Bellarmine in the inter- pretation of some later works of Luther, in which, he says, Luther gives another scheme of infant baptism, and contradicts his former statements as to the necessity of faith in infants. “ Altera sen- tentia infantibus nullam fidem in baptismo esse necessariam. Hance videtur etiam Lutherus docuisse. Nam licet antequam Anabap- tistee exorirentur, illa scripserit que supra citavimus; tamen pos- teaquam illi apparuerant, scripsit librum contra eos anno MDXXVIIL., et ubi ad hoc argumentum venisset de fide infantium, dixit nihil interesse sive credant sive non credant. Baptismum enim non fundari super fidem dantis aut recipientis que incertissima est, sed super Dei mandatum et institutionem. Et similia habet in homiliis de baptismo anno xxxvul. et xu. habitis.” (Tom. iii. p- 253.) That which Luther, in these Homilies and elsewhere, asserts to be founded upon the Divine institution, and not upon faith, is not the grace of baptism or justification, but the validity of * AI2 Note 33. baptism; which even when received without faith, he asserts to be operative subsequently upon faith existing. He says, indeed, * Baptismus rectus habendus est etiam non accedente fide” (Cate- chism. Major, Op. v. p. 639); and condemns the Anabaptists because they found baptism “non super Dei mandatum et institu- tionem, sed, ut aliud quoddam opus humanum, super fidem et dig- nitatem nostram, quasi non sat esset, Deum sic distribuisse et mandasse, sed necesse esset primum per nos eum confirmari; nec ante baptismum esse, aut eum valere, quam fides nostra accederet.” (Hom. de Bapt. Op. vii. p. 351.) But he is particular in adding that he speaks here not of the beneficial virtue of baptism, but only of its quality as valid baptism. ‘‘ Loquor autem nunc non de vir- tute sive efficacia et usu Baptismi, sed de ipsa Baptism substantia.” (Ibid. p. 352.) “ Alter potest salvari, alter damnari, eodem bap- tismo, sed id non pertinet ad suhstantiam sed ad virtutem et wswm baptismi.” (Ibid.) ‘Omnes eundem baptismum accipiunt, sed non omnes ejus virtutem et utilitatem accipiunt.” (Ibid. p. 363.) He only asserts that effect of baptism which takes place even in the case of an unbelieving adult. ‘“ Nam quanquam hodierno die Judeeus quispiam fraudulenter quapiam simulatione et malitioso proposito veniret se baptizandum offerens, nosque eundem omni studio baptizaremus, nihil secus nobis dicendum esset Baptismum verum et rectum esse.” (Cat. Maj. Op. v. p. 639.) He only speaks of that validity of baptism which Cyprian denied in the case of heretics. ‘‘ Hodem errore capti sunt et isti qui putant baptismum ab heretico aut infideli administratum, non verum esse Baptis- 99 mum.” (Op. t. vii. p. 349.) Note 33, p. 326. “ Effusio Spiritus Sancti promittitur in Baptismo, ut in Epist. ad Titum diserte scribitur—‘ qui salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis.’””’ Peter Martyr, Loc. Comm. p. 580. ‘“ Nostra sen- tentia utrique huic (Justificationi et Sanctificationi)adhibitum esse Sacramentum Baptismum, scilicet significande atque efficiende.” Chamier, De Bapt. 1. v. p. 118. “ Baptismus est sacramentum regenerationis. ... Ipse vos baptizabit Spiritu Sancto et igne— loquebatur de efficacitate Spiritus Sancti in regeneratione, quem ipse Christus conferebat Baptismo.” Zanchius, Explic. Ep. ad Eph. pp. 217, 218. Note 34. AES “MM. Verum, annon aliud aque tribuis nisi ut ablutionis tan- tum sit figura? P. Sic figuram esse sentio, ut simul annexa sit veritas. Neque enim, sua nobis dona pollicendo, nos Deus frus- tratur. Proinde et peccatorum veniam et vitz novitatem offerri nobis in Baptismo et recipi nobis certum est.”—Catechismus Ge- nevensis. ‘‘ Baptismus nobis testificande nostre adoptioni datus est, quoniam in eo inserimur Christi corpore, et ejus sanguine abluti, simul etiam ipsius spiritu ad vite sanctimoniam renovamur.” —Confessio Gallicana. ‘ Baptizari est imscribi, initiari et recipi in foedus atque familiam adeoque in hereditatem filiorum Dei; imo etiam nunc nuncupari nomine Dei, i.e. appellari filium Dei, purgari item a sordibus peccatorum, et donari varia Dei gratia ad vitam novam et innocentem.’”—Confessio Helvetica Posterior. “ Baptismus est sacramentum institutum ad significandam et con- testandam internam per sanguinem Christi a veccatis absolutionem, seu eorum remissionem; simulque inchoandam per Spiritum Sanctum renovationem seu regenerationem.”—Declaratio Toruni- ensis. ‘De Baptismate itaque confitemur, eo sepeliri nos in mortem Christi, Christum induere, esse lavacrum regenerationis, peccata abluere, nos salvare.”—Confessio Tetrapolitana. “The form of expression which the churches use is indefinite, — and it is necessary it should be so because they speak of bap- tism, considered in the nature of it, when it is applied to those within the covenant . . . yet well knowing that all are not indeed within the covenant, although born of parents that are within the visible Church . . . yea, some propositions that are universally propounded have yet their limitations implied that are discerned by all rational men that either hear or read them. .. . In like manner then must the churches be understood, if they would de- liver themselves in universal terms. Because, in the Sacrament, by virtue of Christ’s institution, ordinary grace is given to all that are by election capable of it; and it being known to none who they may be that are not elected, it is more apt and proper to speak indefinitely.’ Burgess, p. 147. Nore 34, p. 341. Peter Martyr.—‘ Promissio non est generalis de omni semine, sed tantum de illo in quo una consentit electio. Alioquin posteritas Ismaelis et Esau fuerunt ex Abrahamo. Sed quia nos de arcana AI4 no SNE aes Dei providentia et electione minime debemus curiosius inquirere, ideo sanctorum filios sanctos judicamus, quoad ipsi per etatem se non declaraverint a Christo alienos .. . Nequeaudiendi sunt qui hac de re movent scrupulum ac dicunt. Quid si minister fallatur P Quid si revera puer neque est filius promissionis divine electionis, atque misericordie? Quia idem cavillus esse poterit de adultis. Nam de illis quoque ignoramus, ficte necne accedant, an vere cre- dant, an sint filii preedestinationis an perditionis, an Christi gra- tiam habeant an illa sint destituti, et mendaciter dicant se credere. Quid tu illos baptizas ? Scio dices, idcirco id facio, quod sequor illorum externam professionem, quam si mentiantur, mea non refert. Ita nos dicimus, ecclesiam ideo complecti nostros pueros et bap- tizare quod ad nos pertineant. Idque est ilis divine voluntatis tale indicium, quale est in adultis externa professio ... Vides ecclesiam esse que lavatur et baptizatur. Idcirco dum parvuli tin- euntur, constat ad ecclesiam pertinere; et ecclesiz partes vere esse non possunt, nisi spiritu Christi sint ornati. Quamobrem parvuli gui vere ad electionen Dei pertinent, antequam baptizentur, Spiritu Dei sunt instructi.”” Loc. Comm. pp. 582, 584. “Eodem modo hodie usu venit de liberis fideium. Habemus promissionem Deum velle non tantum nostrum esse Deum verum etiam seminis nostri; que promissio cum sit indefinita, arcana Dei electione infantibus applicatur; non quidem semper omnibus, sed certis quibusdam prout divino proposito visum fuerit. Quod quum nos lateat, sequi autem debeamus externum verbum quod commendatum est ecclesiz, sub ea promissione parvulos nostros baptizamus, quemadmodum suos veteres circumcidebant. Id fac- tum Anabaptist reprehendunt, quod neque de Spiritu neque de fide, neque de electione illorum parvulorum nobis quicquam con- stet. Verum nos ista nihil moramur: tantum respicimus verbum Dei quod in generali atque indefinita promissione nobis offertur. Executionem autem ejus Deo committimus, cum de illius electione non possumus judicare.” In Ep. Rom. ix. 8, p. 377. ‘Quzerunt nonnulli cum nesciamus utrum infantes rem sacra- menti habeant, cur apponamus signum, etid, quod nobis incertum sit, obsignemus P Quibus respondemus, hanc queestionem non contra nos adduci sed contra verbum Dei. Is enim diserte przcepit et voluit ut pueri circumciderentur. Deinde respondeant ipsi nobis, cur adultos ad baptismum aut communionem admittant, cum de animo illorum sint incerti. Etenim qui baptizantur aut commu- nicant possunt simulare ac ecclesiam decipere. Respondent satis esse eorum habere professionem. Si mentiuntur, quid hoc ad nos P Note 35. 415 inquiunt. Ipsi viderint. Ita nos dicimus de infantibus nobis esse satis, quod Kcclesiz offerantur vel a parentibus vel ab illis in quorum sunt potestate. Quod si cwm actione sacramenti electio et preedestinatio concurrat, ratuni est quod agimus ; sin minus irritum. Salus enim nostra pendet ab electione ac misericordia Dei. De ea vero, cum nobis occulta sit, nihil judicamus.” Ibid. in ¢. iv. v. 1], p. 125. Note 35, p. 341. Bucer.—“ Nec enim possunt perire quee oves Christi sunt, et habent vitam zeternam, peccareque et errare perseveranter et fina- liter non potest quicunque vere credit in Christo, eoque est in eo regenitus.” Script. Ang. p. 787. “ Baptismate enim homines debent peccatis ablui, regigni et innovarl in vitam eternam : que omnia non nisi sanctorum et ad vitam ceternam electorum.” Ibid. p. 38. _ “Ex illo, Nunquam novi vos, id est, inter meos agnovi, clare docemur qui aliquando a Christo possunt excidere, eos Christi nunquam fuisse, eoque nunquam vere credidisse, aut fuisse pilos, nunquam Spiritum filiorum fuisse nactos.” Enarr. in Matt. ¢. 7, p. 203. ‘Si jam ad Hcclesiam pertinent et ipsorum est regnum coelorum, cur eis signum baptismi negaremus? Si qui heedi inter eos sunt, tum excludendi nobis erunt, cum id esse sese prodiderint... Quid si etiam fidem non habeant, Spiritu Dei nihilominus ad salutem signati? Adest itaque electis infantibus Spiritus Domini.” In Matt. 19, pp. 403, 404. « Aperte docet omnia a Divina Electione pendere, eosque, quibus semel datum fuerit oves esse, perire nunquam posse.” In Joan. per Z26: “Hx his itaque facile cognoscitur omnem ecclesiam veram Dei constare tantum renatis, habere tamen plerumque inter se in com- munione externa sacrorum non renatos .. . Hine itaque planum est vera Hecclesie membra esse tantum renatos ... Ex his jam omnibus locis clare perspicimus baptisma commendari nobis, ut instrumentum divinz misericordiz quo Deus non sua sed nostra causa dignatur uti, ut quo electis swis, guibus ipse hee sua desti- navit dona, conferat regenerationem, &c. Nec minus efficax est horum omnium donorum Dei instrumentum baptisma electis Dev 416 Note 36. quos eo statuit sibi regignere, quam est ullum remedium ad con- ferendam sanitatem corpori.” In Ep. ad Eph. pp. 558, 560, 598. ‘‘Ecclesia est corpus Christi, i.e. congregatio hominum, qu non aliter regitur Christi Spiritu et verbo quam totum corpus a capite regatur. Et hoc modo electorwm et renatorwm tantum est.” Ibid. p. 36. “Nec enim servat baptisma adultos nisi credentes. Salus quidem baptismate offertur omnibus; recipiunt autem illam adulti non nisi per fidem, infantes per arcanam Spiritus Sancti opera- tionem, gua ad vitam eternam sanctificantur.”’ Ibid. p. 146. Note 36, p. 361. Mr. Gorham’s language on this head expressed no more than the obsignatory view of baptism, which pervades the theology of the Reformation. « Putant vi et efficacia operis baptismi peccatum remitti, neque agnoscunt Sacramentis potius remissionem obsignari, quam adulti assequuntur credendo, et parvuli fidelium qui ad electionem perti- nent, per Spiritum Sanctum et gratiam jam habent ... Sed querere facile posset quispiam, Si Christianorum pueri, qui ad electionem pertinent, ut dixisti, anteguam baptizentur pertinent ad fedus Dei et Spiritum Sanctum habent . . . profecto videtur superfluere baptismus. Cui tinguntur? Quid illis accedit? Aut quid confertur illis quod prius non habuerint? Priusquam re- spondeam vicissim ego ex te queram: Sit Ethnicus etatis adulte, qui audita predicatione Evangelica convertatur ad Christum, vere credat: porro sua fide jam justificatus, baptismum desiderat, sed nondum habet: is cum jam votum obtinuerit, quzeso te, cur est baptizandus? Quid confert ei Sacramentum . . . Verum licet ostenderim argumentum non magis contra nos quam contra nostros adversarios facere, attamen ad ipsum dissolvendum hee addam: Praeeceptum Domini est adimplendum. Is jussit ut baptizemur, idemque circumcisionem imperavit. Unde si quis ista contemneret, gravissime peccaret. Huc accedit dona gue jam habentur, et pro- missio que jam ad illos pertinet qui Christi sunt, consignanda est externo symbolo.” Peter Martyr, Loc. Com. p. 584. ‘“‘ Howbeit in plain speech it is not the receiving of the sacra- ment that worketh our joining with God. For whosoever is not joined to God before he receive the sacraments, he eateth and Note 36. A417 drinketh his own judgment. The sacraments be seals and wit- nesses, and not properly causes of this conjunction .. . We confess that Christ by the Sacrament of Regeneration, as Chrysostom saith, hath made us flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone, that we are the members and He is the Head... This marvellous conjunction and incorporation is first begun and wrought by faith ; afterward the same incorporation is assured to us and increased in our baptism.” Jewell, Reply to Mr. Harding’s Answer, P. 8. Ed. pp. 182, 140. “M. Non ergo remissionem peccatorum externa aque lavatione aut aspersione consequimur. A. Minime: nam solus Christus sanguine suo animarum nostrarum maculas luit atque eluit.. . Hujus vero peccatorum nostrorum expiationis obsignationem atque pignus in Sacramento habemus.” Nowell’s Catechism. Bullinger’s “ Decads” received in 1586 the imprimatur of the English Episcopate ; the Upper House of Convocation issuing in that year an order that the junior ministers should provide them- selves with a Bible and Bullinger’s Decads in Latin or English, and read one chapter in the Bible every day, and one sermon in the Decads every week. “The holy and elect people of God are not then first of all partakers of the first grace of God, and heavenly gifts, when they receive the sacraments. For they enjoy the things before they be partakers of the signs.” Bullinger’s Decads, Lond. Ed. Leer. p- 1006. “We believe that God of His mere grace and mercy, in the Blood of Jesus Christ, hath cleansed and adopted them, and ap- pointed them to be heirs of eternal life. We therefore baptizing infants for these causes do abundantly testify that there is not first given unto them in baptism, but that there is sealed and con- firmed unto them, what they had before.” P. 1007. “They, therefore, which before by grace invisibly are received of God into the society of God, those selfsame are visibly now by baptism admitted into the selfsame household of God by the minister of God.” P. 1018. “ Sacraments, therefore, do visibly graff us into the fellowship of Christ and His saints, who were invisibly grafted by His grace before we were partakers of the sacraments.” P. 1021. “ We are not first grafted into the body of Christ by partaking of the sacraments: but we which were before ingrafted by grace invisibly are now also visibly consecrated.” P. 1023. “The holy Scripture teacheth that we are washed clean from Ee 418 Note 37. our sins by baptism. For baptism is a sign, a testimony, and a sealing of our cleansing. For God verily hath promised sanctifica- tion to His Church, and He for His truth’s sake purifieth His Church from all sins by His grace, through the blood of His Son, and regenerateth and cleanseth it by His Spirit, which cleansing is sealed in us by baptism.” P. 1060. “ Whereupon of some it is called the first sign or entrance into Christianity. Not that before we did not belong to the Church. For whosoever is of Christ, partaking the promises of God and of His eternal covenant, belongeth unto the Church. Baptism, there- fore, isa visible sign and testimony of our ingrafting into the body of Christ.” P. 1061. Note 37, p. 362. Of the numerous Protests, which appeared against the Gorham judgment at the time, the principal one, in consideration of the theological names attached to it, adopted the ground “that the renission of original sin to all infants in and by the grace of baptism, is an essential part of the Article ‘One baptism for the remission of sins;’” but, though a Protest of some length, being extended through nine clauses, did not throughout mention the term “ Regenerate.” The Protest is occupied, then, with a diffe- rent term from that with which the judgment is; which is a defect, because in regard to its subject-matter a Protest cannot keep too closely to the terms of the judgment against which it is a Protest. But moreover the term of the Protest differs essentially in mean- ing from the term of the judgment ; because “ remission of original sin” is only a part of regeneration, whereas the judgment spoke of “regeneration.” The term of the judgment then covered a larger area of meaning than the term of the Protest; which is to say that the Protest was upon a different subject-matter from that of the judgment. If it be said that the remission of original sin implies the accompaniment of the other part of regeneration with- out expressing it, one part of the whole going with the other; it still remains that the expressed subject-matter of the Protest is different from the expressed subject-matter of the judgment. And it is important to observe that that part of the contents of regeneration which the term in the Protest does not cover, is just that part which gave rise to the question at issue, viz. whether all infants were or were not regenerate in baptism. This other part is one of two alternatives, actual goodness or the power of attain- Note 38. 419 ing actual goodness and salvation, according as regeneration is defined. But either alternative is, upon the ground of experience or the special ground of the Predestinarian respectively, an obstacle to a regeneration coextensive with infant baptism. Norte 38, p. 350. In examining Hooker’s baptismal language we observe first of all that it is expressly sacramental, so far that he makes the sacra- ment of baptism an ordained channel and instrument of grace. But I need not repeat here the caution which I have more than once given, that among divines a general assertion of the grace of baptism does not commit the asserter to any decision as to the conditions upon which such grace is actually received. This gene- ral form leaves the question open, so that a Calvinist or the opposite could alike make it, each reserving to himself the right to fill up the omission in his own way. We observe, secondly, that Hooker admits infants as well as adults to a present participation of the grace of baptism. The solemn and judicial statements in which this decision is expressed are known to all. These again, however, are only general state- ments to the effect that the grace of baptism is open to “ infants.” We obtain the measure of this general language admitting infants as a class, not only from common usage in speaking and writing, but also specially from the usage of the theological writers of Hooker’s own day. For we find this general language that “ in- fants” are regenerate in baptism, in the writings of avowed Cal- vinists, who did not hesitate to use it, because they never supposed that by saying that ‘‘we” are regenerated in baptism, or that “men” are, or that “infants ” are, they committed themselves to the regeneration either of all infants or all adults in baptism. “We deny,” says Calvin, “that infants cannot be regenerated by the power of God.”® “What,” he asks, “is there to prevent me from saying that infants receive that grace now in part which they will enjoy in fulness hereafter ?”? “In infants,” says Peter Martyr, “the Holy Ghost supplies the room of faith, and the effusion of the Holy Ghost is promised in baptism.”’ “ Bellar- mine saith that hidden grace is imparted to infants when they are € TInstit. iv. 16. 18. 7 Ibid. 19. 8 Loc. Com. chap. 4, c. 8, § 2. Ee2 420 Note 38. baptized: we say so too;” is Whitaker’s statement.® ‘“ When in- JSants are baptized,” says Junius, *‘ God doth both offer and confer all the good things of the covenant.”? “ The infants of the faith- ful,” says Zanchius, “‘ receive the regenerating Spirit in baptism.”? Burgess denies that “ infants do not ordinarily receive the Spirit in baptism.”? The plural “infants ” is used by these divines who are avowed Calvinists, not of course in the sense of all infants, but as a limited plural, implying certainly that the grace of bap- tism spoken of is open to infants as a class, but by no means committing the writers to the position that all infants are regene- rate in baptism, which indeed they expressly denied. When Hooker, therefore, says that “infants have that grace given them,” &c., and that “infants are in the first degree of their ghostly motion,” 4 &c., the phrase by no means of itself implies that he considers that all infants have that grace, or that all infants are in the first degree of ghostly motion, &. These are general statements, which leave it undecided whether all or only some of this class are actually partakers of this grace, whether the plural “infants ” is used as a universal term, or only as a limited plural in the way in which the Calvinists of his own day used it. The phrase, however, which is in itself open to either of these interpretations, receives in matter of fact from another portion and department of Hooker’s own language, the latter of the two. “ God hath predestinated certain men, not all men; the cause mov- ing Him hereunto was not the foresight of any virtue in us; to Him the number of His elect is definitely known.”* And this pre- 9 Prelect. de Sacr. p. 286. 1 Burgess, p. 176. 2 In Eph. p. 222. 3 Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, p. 80. 4 Kecl. Pol. v. 64. 2. ; 5 The following is Hooker’s summary of the doctrine of predestina- tion :— “1. God hath predestinated certain men, not all men. 2. The cause moving Him hereunto was not the foresight of any virtue in us at all. 3. To Him the number of His elect is definitely known. 4. It cannot be but their sins must condemn them to whom the purpose of His saving mercy does not extend. 5. To God’s foreknown elect final continuance in grace is given. 6. Inward grace whereby to be saved is deservedly not given unto all men. 7. No man cometh unto Christ, whom God by the inward grace of His Spirit draweth not. 8. It is not in every, no not in any man’s mere ability, freedom, and power to be saved, no man’s - salvation being possible without grace. Howbeit God is no favourer of sloth, and therefore there can be no such absolute decree touching man’s salvation as on our part includeth no necessity of care and travail, but Note 38. | 421 destination is the original cause or agent in the process of the new birth, without which that process does not take place in any human soul. But the original agent does not work without subordinate means, or an instrument, whichis baptism. ‘“ Eternal election not- withstanding includeth a subordination of means, without which we are not actually brought to enjoy what God secretly did intend ; predestination bringeth not to life without the grace of external vocation wherein our baptism is implied;” but with this external vocation and baptism it does bring to life, and baptism therefore is that ‘ which both declareth us and maketh us Christians ;” it is “the door of our actual entrance into God’s House, the first appa- rent beginning of life, a seal; perhaps, to the grace of election before received, but to our sanctification here, a step that hath not any before it.” It is evident that in this scheme baptism figures as the instru- ment of predestination, the subordinate means without which that original cause of spiritual life in the human soul does not produce that life; that therefore its effect as such a subordinate means must depend upon the original cause or agent whose instrument it is, being present with it to use it for the end designed; that the shall certainly take effect whether we ourselves do wake or sleep.” Keble’s Ed. vol. ii. 752. Preface, p. c. In this summary then we observe a certain caution and reserve in stating the Calvinistic ground, and a stopping short of some harsh por- tions of Calvinistic language. At the same time the kernel of Calvinism is here—‘‘God hath predestinated certain men, not all men, and the cause moving Him was not the foresight of any virtue in us at all.” If a divine decree antecedent to all action or desert of the individual is the necessary condition of salvation, those who are not included in it are ex- cluded from the possibility of salvation. Some persons are antecedently to all works of their own certain to be saved, and others are as certain not to be. It does not signify by what name we call this latter state of exclusion ; whether we call it reprobation or preterition the result is the same. The substance of Calvinism is thus here, while to none of the cautions accompanying it will the Calvinist object. He will allow with Hooker, that those to whom the decree of predestination does not extend, *‘ will be condemned by their own sins,” such continuance in sin being the consequence of this exclusion ; that the non-bestowal of saving grace is “deserved,” by reason of original sin; that God’s absolute decree does not preclude the “necessity of care and travail on our part.”” What- ever then Hooker’s caution may imply, whether the unconscious conflict of a mild disposition with doctrinal logic, or that jealousy of any excess beyond necessary truth which thoughtful and learned men acquire, or even a latent intellectual suspicion of the Calvinistic ground as being open to a balance from other truth, it does not in effect prevent him from stating the substance of Calvinism. 422 Note 38. grace of baptism, therefore, assumes election as the condition upon which it is received by the individual. Baptism is part of the ‘‘external vocation,” but the external vocation is of no force with- out the antecedent election whose instrument it is. The point in dispute between Hooker and Cartwright is, not whether election is not a necessary condition of the new birth, which is assumed on both sides, but whether the individual being elect has the new birth before baptism; Cartwright maintaining that he has, Hooker maintaining that he has not, but that baptism confers the first inward grace; a grace which, though it presup- poses election [of which itis perhaps the seal], presupposes nothing else, but is ‘‘ to our sanctification here a step that hath not any before it.” It follows upon the grace of Baptism being thus dependent upon election, that that grace when received is indefectible, because the elect necessarily persevere to the end, and to them, as Hooker says, “ final continuance in grace is given.” Accordingly, the next thing we observe in Hooker’s language is that he does make justifying or regenerating grace indefectible. ‘The justified man,” he says, “being aliveto God in Jesus Christ our Lord, doth as necessarily from that time forward always live, as Christ, by whom he hath life, liveth always.” ® Again: “ Ifthe justified err, as he may, and never come to understand his error, God doth save him through general repentance : if he fall into heresy, He calleth him either at one time or another by actual repentance; but from infidelity, which is an inward direct denial of the foundation, preserveth him by special providence for ever.”? Again: “There was in Habak- kuk that which St. John doth call ‘the seed of God,’ meaning thereby the first grace which God poureth into the hearts of them that are incorporated into Christ; which having received, if, be- cause it is an adversary to sin, we do therefore think we sin not, we do but deceive ourselves. Yet they which are of God do notsin in anything any such sin as doth quite extinguish grace, because the seed of God abideth in them, and doth shield them from receiv- ing any irremediable wound.” ® Again: “The first thing of His so infused into our hearts in this life is the Spirit of Christ; whereupon the rest of what kind soever do all both necessarily de- pend andinfallibly also ensue, therefore the Apostles term it some- times the seed of God.”® Again: “The man which is born of God 6 Works, vol. iii. p. 643. ? Thid. p. 647. § Thid. p. 559. 9 Kecl. Pol. v. 56. 11. | Note 38. 423 hatha promise that in him the seed of God shall abide; which seed 1s a sure preservative against the sins of the third suit,” which are ‘infidelity, extreme despair, and obduration in sin.” ! We have plainly laid down in these statements the doctrine of the indefectibility of justifying or regenerating grace ; for regeneration confessedly goes along with justification. But holding this doc- trine, in what sense did Hooker accept the statement in the Bap- tismal Service over every infant, that it “is regenerate”? He could not accept it as a doctrinal statement, but only in that sense which was the current and received sense of that day, and in which his own theological friends held it, viz. the hypothetical. To the general principle of charitable presumption, we know from the passage beginning, “ We speak of infants as the rule of piety alloweth,” &c., that Hooker had no objection. The particular case, indeed, in which Hooker there defends the rule of presumption is not the assertion in the service of the infant’s regeneration, for no objection was made to this assertion in Hooker’s day, nor did it enter into the material of controversy between the defenders of the Prayer Book and the Puritans. The case in which he defends the rule of presumption is that of the sponsor saying, in the name of the infant, “I believe,” which was the assertion of the infant’s belief; which Cartwright objects to because faith implies election ; and therefore ‘ it can no more be precisely said that he hath faith, than it may be said precisely that he is elected ;”” but which Hooker justifies on the ground that it is sometimes lawful to state a thing positively, even when we do not know that it is true, but can only presume it to be so: ‘We speak of infants as the rule of piety alloweth,” &c. But though it was another part of the Baptismal Service which extracted this defence of positive statements having an hypothetical meaning, the defence applies generally to the rule of presumption in Church services. But Hooker’s baptismal statements are quoted as contradicting his Calvinistic ones. This contradiction then, were it made out, would only issue in neutralizing Hooker on the question before us, not in making him an authority on one side; but it does not appear to me to be made out. Hooker’s baptismal statements speak undoubtedly of the grace of the Sacraments, and of “infants” as admitted to that grace : they do not assert, however, that all infants receive that grace, but are consistent with the Calvinistic limita- tion. ‘ Baptism is a sacrament which God hath instituted in His - } Vol. iii. p. 646. A424 Note 38. Church, to the end that they which receive the same might thereby be incorporated into Christ, and so through His most precious merit obtain as well that saving grace of imputation which taketh away all former guiltiness, as also that mfused Divine virtue of the Holy Ghost which giveth to the powers of the soul their first disposition toward future newness of life.” (EH. P. v. 60. 2.) Hooker only says here that “ God hath instituted baptism ”’ to the end that they which receive the same might thereby, &c., which is another thing from saying that a// who receive the same are thereby, &c. It is language which leaves the conditions of the benefit open. Quoters of Hooker assume that the “ first disposition toward future newness of life” is a certain implanted faculty, universally implanted in baptized infants; but a faculty common to all is not the ordinary meaning of the term “ disposition ;”? and if we interpret Hooker by Hooker, it is not Hooker’s meaning. For why should not this “first disposition toward future newness of life” be the same with “the first grace” just now referred to, “which God poureth into the hearts of them which are incor- porated into Christ,” which persons “having received do not sin any such sin as doth quite extinguish grace” P Why should it not be the same with “ the first thing infused into our hearts, whereupon the rest of what kind soever doth infallibly ensue :” the same with * the seed of God, which abideth in us and doth shield us from receiv- ing any irremediable wound ;” “ the seed of God, which is a sure pre- servative ” ? Why should it not be the same with the “ seed of faith ” of Calvin, the “root of faith” of Peter Martyr, the “seed of the habit of faith” of Whitaker, the “ habitual principle of grace” of Davenant, and the “ initial regeneration ” of Burgess ; who, we may remark, expressly affixes this Calvinistic sense to this expression of Hooker’s? “The life spiritual is peculiar to God’s elect. Mr. Hooker delivers as much, for having said that infants ‘ receive the Divine virtue of the Holy Ghost in baptism, which giveth to the powers of their souls their first disposition towards future newness of life,’ he afterwards adds, ‘Predestination bringeth not to life 2 Hooker adopts the Scholastic idea of sacramental grace, as being an actual habit or virtue, not assisting grace simply. ‘‘ By grace we always understand, as the word of God teacheth, first, His favour and undeserved mercy toward us: secondly, the bestowing His holy Spirit which in- wardly worketh: thirdly, the effects of that Spirit whatsoever, but espe- cially saving virtues, such as faith, charity, and hope: lastly, the free and full remission of all our sins. This isthe grace which the sacraments yield, and whereby we are all justified.” App. to Book v. Ecel. Pol., wol.ai, —p: YOO; Note 38. 425 without the grace of external vocation wherein our baptism is im- plied.’”$ The authority of Hooker was always appealed to by those Calvinistic writers in our Church who held most strictly the principle of sacramental grace, regulated by predestinarian con- ditions. Again: “There is delivered unto them (infants) that sacrament, a part of the due celebration whereof consisteth in answering to the articles of faith, because the habit of faith, which doth after- wards come with years, is but a further building up of the same edifice, the first foundation whereof was laid by the Sacrament of Baptism. For that, which there we professed without any under- standing, when we afterwards come to acknowledge, do we any- thing else but only bring into ripeness the very seed that was sown before? We are then believers, because we then begin to be that which process of time doth make perfect.” 4 The plurals “ we” and “they,” as has been already shown, are not necessarily universals. A Calvinistic divine then could make this statement without any difficulty, as asserting the implantation of a seminal habit of faith in infants at baptism, which afterwards came out in act as they grew up: the principle of election deter- mining in what infants this took place. Burgess’s whole treatise upon the “ Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants” is indeed but an amplification of this statement, regeneration being a process which is there asserted to have its beginning in baptism, and to involve the seed of future faith and holiness; though this took place only in elect infants. Again: * In sum the whole Church isa multitude of believers, all honoured with that title, even hypocrites for their profession’s sake, as well as saints because of their inward sincere persuasion, and infants as being in the first degree of their ghostly motion toward the actual habit of faith: the first sort are faithful in the eye of the world, the second faithful in the sight of God; the last in the ready direct way to become both, if all things after be suitable to these their present beginnings.” ® Here again, if we interpret Hooker by Hooker, why should not the first degree of the ghostly motion toward the actual habit of faith ” be the same with “ the first grace,” which persons “ having received do not sin any such sin as doth quite extinguish grace ” ? the same with “the first thing infused into our hearts, whereupon the rest of what kind soever do infallibiy ensue”? the same with 3 Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, p. 60. 4 Eccl. Pol. v. 64. 2. 5 Ibid. 426 Note 38. “the seed of God which abideth,” and ‘ the seed of God which is a sure preservative”? The qualification at the conclusion, “ If all things after be suitable to their present beginnings,” is more than significant, making as it does the future issue, 1. e. the final perse- verance of the infants, the test of their having entered upon “ the ready direct way,” “ the first stage of ghostly motion toward the actual habit of faith.”’ Again: “ When we know how Christ in general hath said that of such is the kingdom of heaven, which kingdom is the inheritance of God’s elect, and do withal behold how His providence hath called them unto the first beginnings of eternal life, and presented them at the well-spring of new birth wherein original sin is purged ; besides which sin there is no hindrance of their salvation known to us, as themselves will grant; hard were it that, having so many fair inducements whereupon to ground, we should not be thought to utter at the least a truth as probable and allowable in terming ~ any such particular infant an elect babe, as in presuming the like of others, whose safety nevertheless we are not absolutely able to warrant.’ 6 Hooker appeals here to the fact of a “‘ call” of ‘‘ Providence ” to the “beginnings of eternal life,” and to the fact of a “ presentation at the well-spring of new birth,” as a legitimate ground for the charitable presumption of something more, viz. election and pre- destination to eternal glory. A “ call’? however of “ Providence” is allowed in the Calvinistic scheme to those who never have the “inward” or effectual call. ‘“ Pauci ergo electi sunt ex magno vocatorum numero; non tamen ea vocatione unde fidelibus dicimus eestimandam suam electionem.” Calvin, Inst. ii. 24.8. Anda call to ‘‘ beginnings” is openly allowed in the Calvinistic scheme to those who do not receive the grace enabling them to persevere to the end ;—a distinction which Hooker himself made. ‘‘ We must note there is an election the grace whereof includeth their temporary benefit that are chosen, and there is an election that includeth their eternal good. By temporary I do not mean any secular or worldly blessing... but I mean such spiritual favours as, albeit they tend to everlasting felicity, yet are not themselves everlastingly continued, neither are inwardly infused, but outwardly bestowed graces... This may suffice touching the outward grace, whereby God inviteth the whole world to receive wisdom, and hath opened the gates of His visible Church unto all, thereby testifying His 6 Eccl. Pol. v. 64. 3. Note 38. 427 will and purpose to have all saved, if the let were not in themselves.7 ... The inward means whereby His will is to bring men to eternal life, is that grace of the Holy Spirit which hath been spoken of . . . From whom this inward grace is either withheld altogether or withdrawn, such being left to themselves wax hard and obdurate in sin.” Appendix to B. v. vol. ii. pp. 740, 742. A call of Providence, then, and a call to “ beginnings,” are con- sistent with the Calvinistic scheme; and the “ presentation ” at the well-spring of new birth is a visible fact which is also consistent with that scheme. The baptismal statement before us is con- structed with evident caution, balance, and adjustment; but the advantage which is common to all infants in baptism, in however favourable a light put, is still represented with a reserve, and is consistent with the Calvinistic limitation of the inward grace to some only of the number. The estimate I have given of Hooker’s Calvinistie statements is the same as Mr. Keble’s, who admits that Hooker’s doctrine of the indefectibility of grace is inconsistent with the doctrine of the re- generation of all infants in baptism. ‘“ For how could or can any person beholding what numbers fall away after baptism, hold con- sistently,” § &c.? But the estimate of Hooker’s baptismal state- ments is different. Mr. Keble assumes that when Hooker “ attri- butes justifying or pardoning, together with the first infusion of sanctifying grace to baptism,’ such a mode of speaking implies that “he attributes it to baptism when not unworthily received, and therefore in all cases to mfant baptism.” ® But this is an assumption for which the language itself gives no warrant. For, as has been already explained, a writerin maintaining that a grace attaches to baptism as a sacrament, does not commit himself to a decision upon another and a further question regarding the recipients of such grace; as e.g. that all infants are such recipients. Such is not the force of this language, according to the ordinary rules of language; but moreover the force and meaning of this general kind of statement is known from the language of theological writers of the day. The most decided Calvinistic divines of that day both asserted generally the grace of the sacrament, and also that “infants” received that grace; but these were general forms 7 «* Asserimus nullos perire immerentes . . . impietate, nequitia, in- gratitudine meriti sunt homines.’ Calvin, Instit. iii. 24. 12. ‘Non alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio [originali peccato] sunt obstricti.” Ibid. ii. 1. 8. 8 Preface, p. cii. 9 Tbid. 433° Note 38. of statement which were adopted by those writers because they expressed as much as was wanted, and no more,—expressed the doctrine of the grace of baptism, and also the doctrine that it was given to infants; but did not imply that it was given to all in- fants, which would have been contrary to their whole theology. Hooker’s baptismal language is of this type, and does not, when we examine it, commit the writer to any position respecting the conditions of baptismal grace which would be contrary to Cal- vinistic doctrine. Regarded simply as the interpretation of an author, there is this advantage in the above estimate of Hooker’s baptismal statements, that it makes Hooker consistent with himself. Mr. Keble’s esti- mate of those statements obliges him to regard Hooker as con- tradicting himself, for he says that “these representations cannot be reconciled with Calvin’s doctrine of the absolute perpetuity of justifying and of the first sanctifying grace,” which he admits to be held and stated by Hooker. The cautious and considerate stamp of Hooker’s theology is against the supposition of self- contradiction in Hooker, and the two sets of statements, when compared together, do not appear to me to require it. It was the characteristic of one School of Calvinistic divines, that they discarded the common Reformation plan of modelling infant upon adult baptism. According to the common Reforma- tion plan the condition of previous faith was required for the in- fant; prevenient grace was necessary to implant this faith; and by virtue of this grace he was said to be regenerate before receiving the seal of baptism. This School, on the other hand, introduced the infant, without any medium of preparation, straight from nature to the baptismal grace; and Hooker appears to belong to this School. He vindicates the priority of baptismal grace, that “it is to our sanctification here a step that hath not any before it ;” he will have no regeneration before baptism. But regeneration in baptism, though it presupposes no previous inward grace, still pre- supposes election in Hooker; and that it takes place in all infants is inconsistent with his Calvinistic statements. Mr. Keble classes the Sermons of Hooker, in which most of the statements of the doctrine of indefectibility occur, as his “ earlier productions ;” but if the date which the editor assigns to these Sermons is the true one, they preceded immediately the commence- ment of the “ Ecclesiastical Polity,” to which Mr. Keble gives the date of “the summer of 1586.” Nor indeed does the style or matter of these Sermons at all correspond to the presumption Note 38. 429 which the phrase “earlier productions” is calculated to raise. They are not the crude compositions of a young preacher, express- ing the mere results of a Calvinistic education unchecked by his own reflection, and taking for granted the dominant theological ground of the day. They are mature compositions, indicating a full consciousness of the claim which the Church, as well as his own particular audience, had to well-weighed statements from a preacher of the Temple; and the author has already long thought for him- self, and is in fact already taking an independent line, and adopt- ing an attitude of resistance to the dominant religious temper of the day, on the point of the indiscriminating violence against the Church of Rome, which he endeavours to check. We see in the Sermons in short the same balance and self-reliance, the same kind of tempered conclusions, and the same general controversial ground, which appear in the Ecclesiastical Polity. We must not therefore interpose too wide a mental interval between the Sermons, and the latter great work ;—more especially as the “ Ecclesiastical Polity ” appeals as undoubtingly to the doctrine of the indefectibility of grace as the Sermons do. No candid eritic will of course deny a difference in temper between the Calvinism of Hooker and the popular one of the day. He was too thoughtful to like extreme statements as such, as unthinking people do, or to be carried away by the current of an age. He therefore states the Calvinistic ground with studied moderation, and with a thoughtful gentleness of doctrinal logic stops short of some harsh portions of Calvinistic language. Nor is he, in the “ Eccle- siastical Polity,” by any means profuse of Calvinistic language, rather reserving it for special occasions, when it 1s necessary in the argument that he should retire back upon it;’ when, either because he must make an admission to an opponent, or for some other reason, the fitting time has come for him to bring forward and unveil the basis of his system, instead of tacitly assuming it. Still, what we have to consider in estimating the ground of a writer, is not how often he says, but what he says; which being ascertained, itis sufficient if the rest of his language is consistent with, and not contradictory to, the main assertion. Calvinism was the system to which Hooker substantially attached himself; he was brought up in it; his religious circle was a Calvinistic one, and the principal patron of his mature life and authorship was Archbishop Whitgift, to whom, after the promulgation of the Lambeth Articles, he dedicated the fifth book of the Ecclesiastical Polity. It was natural that a mind of solid but gentle and slow strength, reveren- 430 : Note 38. ‘tial, cautious, and affectionate, should cling with some pertinacity to the opinions which early education, long religious friendships, and existing Church authority fostered. There is no evidence, therefore, that he ever adopted another basis of doctrine. He may betray in his language tendencies to another system, but in defect of such tendencies (whether from strength of early convictions, or deference to religious friends, or a strong perception of the true element in Calvinism, or whatever reason) coming to a head, he is still to be considered as never having given up the Calvinistic scheme of the operation of the sacraments. THE END. SSP t eee a : a [come PRINTED BY GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, LIMITED, ST. JOHN’S SQUARE, LONDON. 3 a i Bs a : a a % = we P = Sed *. se 5 vw ay ‘ a, ys é He ‘ > * = Ame % tS ‘ y SS . sy . g ie 7 eth La | . nan” ae SS Pt Bee phe F re dey < iy) Soe a ¢ Pies pets 1 1012 01042 4754