Here we find the powerful and acute mind, not of a divine, but of a lawyer, and that lawyer Lord Chancellor Bacon, taking precisely the same view of the doctrine of Holy Scripture and the Church of England, that is now ridiculed under the name of Calvinism. He draws a marked distinction between the Catholic Church, which is Christ's true body, and the visible Church; and holds the members of the former only to be regenerate by the Holy Spirit, who "breatheth where he will, of free grace."

Here I close my list of authorities for the doctrine of the Reformed Church of England during this, the first, and in this inquiry the most important, period of her existence. And I need hardly say, that our Articles and Formularies, as it respects the subject before us, remaining to this day, (with unimportant exceptions), the same as they were during the time when the above testimonies were written, the doctrine which they have delivered as the doctrine of our Church, has, to say the least, the best claim upon our acceptance. And while there is, no doubt, some difference in the precise views of the divines from whom I have quoted, on the subject of Baptism, (agreeing with the remarks I have made above in the first chapter of this work) yet there is not one of them that holds that spiritual regeneration is, in all cases, conferred upon infants in baptism. And almost all of them take what is called the "Calvinistic "view, and make the gift of such regeneration to depend altogether upon God's free mercy; the leading doctrines of the "Calvinistic" system of theology, (speaking generally,) being, as I have already proved, the dominant theology in our Church at that time.

That a party holding different views arose in our Church afterwards, and that, under the guidance of such men as Laud and Mountagu and others, they introduced among us a totally different system of doctrine, and consequently a totally different mode of interpreting our Formularies, is very true. True also is it, that when this party had begun to prevail in the Church at the beginning of the 17th century, especially when they had power to make their interpretation of its Formularies the rule of orthodoxy, the phraseology of the Baptismal Service became (and not till then, be it observed, did it become, in the point now in question,) the object of suspicion and dislike to some among us. Before this period, we

do not find the Puritans themselves complaining of the phrases to which they afterwards so strenuously objected. The sense in which they were understood by the authorities of the Church, was well known, and probably also the approval of such men as Martyr and Bucer to their insertion in the Liturgy clearly remembered, and therefore they gave rise to no scruple, no remonstrance. But when the prevailing tone of doctrine in our Church began to change, and it was found that these expressions were taken in an unorthodox sense, then the feeling respecting them was very naturally changed. And as a new generation rose up, many of whom knew little of the literature of a preceding age, it was likely enough that some should be misled by expressions capable of different interpretations, and imagine the doctrine of our Church to be different from what it really is; especially when they found a certain sense affixed to these expressions by a large party in the Church, and were themselves perhaps not disinclined to find the Church guilty of false doctrine. True also is it, that when, after the Great Rebellion, the Laudian party were again in the ascendant, the Bishops that met at the Savoy Conference in 1661, not only refused the request of those who afterwards became Nonconformists to alter those expressions, but to a certain extent vindicated the Laudian and Romanizing interpretation of these phrases; and that from that day to this there may have been a considerable body of our divines, (though after all only a portion), who have taken the same view. All this is, no doubt, very true. But what does it amount to? Simply that during a long period in the later history of our Reformed Church, our Formularies have been interpreted by a portion, and sometimes the dominant portion, of our divines, in a different way from what those who drew them up intended they should be. How far this may go to justify those who place such a sense upon them, is a question into which I shall not enter. But which interpretation has the best claim upon the members of our Church for their acceptance, cannot (I submit) admit of a doubt. Had new Formularies been drawn up by Convocation at that time, and such new Formularies been accepted and sanctioned by Parliament, the case would have been wholly different. But the Formularies (with exceptions unimportant as far as this point is concerned) remained the same; and were sanctioned by Parliament as such. For the

Act of Uniformity expressly sanctions the Book of Common Prayer, AS THE Book drawn up IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE LATE QUEEN ELIZABETH," with a few" additions and alterations" made by the Convocation then sitting. All that we are here concerned with was confirmed by Parliament as Queen Elizabeth's Prayer Book, and, for aught we know, confirmed in the sense in which it was originally adopted.

Nor indeed have we any declaration of the Convocation of 1662, as to the sense of any part of the Liturgy. What passed at the Savoy Conference, was merely an expression of the judgment of the few Bishops and divines appointed to conduct the Conference, a Conference which broke up without effecting anything. Neither Convocation nor Parliament did anything more than re-issue Queen Elizabeth's Book of Common Prayer with a few additions and alterations.

The proofs for this statement I shall supply in a future chapter.

I now proceed, in the following chapters, to consider the language of our Articles, Homilies, and Book of Common Prayer, relative to the point of doctrine discussed in this work.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, AND THE BOOK OF HOMILIES, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK.

§ 1. The doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles.

IN proceeding to consider the testimony of the Thirty-nine Articles, I would first call the attention of the reader to the mode in which they deal with the subject of our present inquiry. It will be found that they have treated it precisely as Holy Scripture has treated it. They have laid down the general doctrine on the subject of Baptism, in words more expressly referring to the case of adults, leaving the case of infants to be deduced therefrom by analogy.

The case of adults was that with which the first teachers of Christianity had more especially to deal, and to which therefore their words more particularly refer. Our Church here, as in other matters, follows closely the footsteps of Holy Scripture, confining her determinations to what is there plainly expressed. This is proved by the phraseology used, as I shall immediately show. And the general doctrine on the subject having thus been laid down, agreeably to the declarations of Holy Scripture, the particular case of infants is left to be inferred therefrom. The doctrine of the effects of baptism in infants is not left undetermined, so far as regards certain limits being placed to our views, both on one side and the other, respecting it. For the general doctrine has been clearly laid down; and our view of this particular case must be agreeable thereto. A salutary reception

of the Sacraments being limited, by the 25th Article, to a worthy reception, our theory, whatever it may be, touching the case of infants, must be founded upon this view. But as there are various ways in which the case of infants may be viewed in perfect consistency with this general doctrine, so there is scope left by the Articles for some variety of view as to the operation of baptism in the case of infants. And how far this latitude extends, I have already endeavoured to show in the first Chapter.* It appears to me that our Reformers have expressly avoided giving any precise dogmatic statement as to the way in which baptism works in infants; for in the only passage in the Articles in which the subject of Infant Baptism is alluded to, all that is stated is, that "the baptism of infants is to be retained;"+ and this after a general statement of the doctrine of Baptism, which, in some at least of its terms, can hardly be more than inferentially and analogically applied to the case of infants.

Let us observe the phraseology of Articles 25, 26, and 27. In Article 25, it is said,

"Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.... In such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation : but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith."

Now here, not only do the words show, that the case more particularly in view was that of adults, but the joint reference in these words to both the Sacraments renders it necessary so to understand them, because, in our Church, adults only partake of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The effect of baptism in the case of infants can only be deduced inferentially from these words.

*See pp. 4-7, above.

† See Art. 27.

I say the words show this, because although a few divines at the earliest period of our Reformed Church did, clearly, adopt the view of Luther, that infants might have faith, yet it will, I suppose, be universally admitted, that this was not the view of those principally concerned in drawing up our Articles. It is of course admissible under our Articles, but that is a different question.