"As for the works of the Spirit, the fruits of faith, charitable and godly motions, if he have any at all in him, they proceed only of the Holy Ghost, who is the only worker of our sanctification, and maketh us new men in Christ Jesus. . . . And who can choose but marve] to consider, that Peter should become of a simple fisher, a chief and mighty Apostle ? Paul of a cruel and bloody persecutor, a faithful disciple of Christ, to teach the Gentiles? Such is the power of the Holy Ghost to regenerate men, and as it were to bring them forth anew, so that they shall be nothing like the men that they were before. Neither doth he think it sufficient inwardly to work the spiritual and new birth of man, unless he do also dwell and abide in him. . . . . But how shall I know that the Holy Ghost is within me? some man perchance will say. Forsooth, as the tree is known by its fruit, so is also the Holy Ghost. . . Here is now that glass, wherein thou must behold thyself, and discern whether thou have the Holy Ghost within thee or the spirit of the flesh. If thou see that thy works be virtuous and good, consonant to the prescript rule of God's word, savouring and tasting not of the flesh, but of the Spirit, then assure thyself that thou art endued with the Holy Ghost: otherwise, in thinking well of thyself, thou dost nothing else but deceive thyself."

Such is the language in which this Homily speaks of regeneration. Whether it is consistent with the notion that all receive this regeneration who are baptized in infancy, may safely be left to the judgment of the impartial reader.

CHAPTER IX.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK.

§ 1. Examination of the Baptismal Services for Infants, and proof of the principle on which they are constructed, by a comparison of them with the other Services in the Book of Common Prayer.

THE stronghold of those who maintain that our Church teaches that all infants are spiritually regenerated in baptism, is in certain expressions found in the Services for the administration of that rite. That the popular mind should be misled, in the present day, by the phraseology there used, is not perhaps matter for much surprise; but that it should be deliberately asserted, by those who profess an acquaintance with the early history of our Reformed Church, that such was the meaning intended to be affixed to these expressions by our Reformers and early divines, is what may well excite our wonder. The evidence given above of the doctrine of our Church in their day, as shown by the writings of her chief guides and brightest ornaments, must have gone far, I should conceive, to settle the point already in the mind of the reader; or at least to show him, that there must have been some extraordinary and unaccountable inconsistency between their own doctrine and that which they inculcated in the Formularies they drew up for the Church, if they meant those Formularies to bear the sense which has been attributed to them. But the majority of our modern divines, attached to a very different school of theology from that of our Reformation, contemplate our Services from a totally different point of view, and in connexion with a different system of theology from that of those who first drew them up and used them; and, slight

ing the writings of the very men to whom we are indebted for them, and consequently ignorant of the meaning of the phraseology of that period, naturally misconstrue them.

An impartial review, however, of the Prayer Book itself, as a whole, is, alone, sufficient to dispel the delusion; the whole Book, in all its Services, being drawn up precisely upon the same principle, namely, that of supposing that all interested in its Services are the true and living members of Christ's Body, the Church. Explained upon this principle, all the Services in the Book are intelligible, and consistent with each other, and upon no other principle are they so. If this method of interpretation is departed from, all is confusion and inconsistency. And they who are clamouring the loudest for the application of a contrary principle of interpretation in the case of the Baptismal Services for Infants, are themselves compelled to admit that other Services must be so understood.

In proceeding, then, to examine the Baptismal Services for Infants, I commence with the remark that I give the highest sense to the blessing spoken of both in the prayers and thanksgivings offered. I do not believe that the blessing there meant is only an introduction into the visible Church, or anything less than spiritual regeneration; that is, a grafting into the Body of Christ of his true members by that rite which he has himself appointed as the external and visible mode of perfecting that union. But the whole Service proceeds upon the hypothesis, that the party baptized is, in the eye of God, (which takes in all time and events as present) one of his accepted ones. In all such cases baptism (whether its sensible effects be immediate or in abeyance and future,) is efficacious.

First, let us consider the Form for Public Baptism.

The proof that this hypothetical system of interpretation is that intended to be affixed to the Service, must of course be mainly derived from a comparison of it with other parts of the Prayer Book, and the known sentiments of those who drew up the Form, or originally sanctioned and approved of it, and such like considerations. But the Service itself supplies us with some evidence on the subject, and particularly in one passage, HALF of which is often quoted by those who take a contrary view, as favoring their mode of interpretation. It is said that, in the Exhortation, those who bring the child are thus addressed,-" Doubt ye not, there

fore, but earnestly believe, that he will likewise favourably receive this present infant,"-and therefore that the acceptance of the infant ought to be a matter of faith, and no doubt entertained about it. This is urged by the Bishop of Exeter.* Now it is only necessary to go to the end of the sentence, to see that this passage is in fact strongly confirmatory of the view that the hypothetical principle of interpretation is the correct one. For the whole sentence is this,-" Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe, that he will likewise favorably receive this present infant; that he will embrace him with the arms of his

mercy; that HE WILL GIVE UNTO HIM THE BLESSING OF ETERNAL LIFE, AND MAKE HIM PARTAKER OF HIS EVERLASTING KINGDOM." So that with precisely the same sort of assurance that we are exhorted to believe that God will then favorably receive the infant, are we exhorted to believe that he will ultimately save him and admit him into heaven. No words could show more clearly what is the nature of the confidence required; namely, that it is that of charitable hope and presumption.

Further; as we proceed in the Service, it is required that certain stipulations and promises be made in the name of the child, to be performed as soon as he is of age to perform them. And these promises are reckoned as the promises of the child, and made a most important part of the Service, as we see in the words," After this promise made by Christ, this infant must also faithfully, for his part, promise by you that are his sureties, (until he come of age to take it upon himself) that he will renounce," &c. And our Catechism expressly tells us, that baptism is given to infants, "BECAUSE they promise faith and repentance by their sureties, which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform." To infants, then, who reach adult age, the Church (if she were able to foresee whether or not this would be the case) would not give baptism if she knew that this promise never would be fulfilled. For otherwise the stipulation is a nullity and an absurdity. It is replied, that the Church allows baptism to be administered to infants not likely to live, without any such stipulations, and considers the baptism valid. Doubtless she does; nor would she reiterate baptism in the case of any child baptized without sponsors.

* Charge, p. 40.

Such sponsions are not necessary to make the rite valid, but their requisition shows the sense our Church entertains of the nature of the rite. And this is what we want to know. And in the case of sick children, she ministers the rite, without sponsions, as to those who are about to die in their infancy, and never to be capable of faith and repentance; whom she believes to be saved as being in the same covenant with their parents, assuming them (as she is bound to do,) to be the children of true believers. But immediately the condition of the infant is changed, she requires these stipulations to be entered into for him before he is formally recognized as a member of the Church. It is impossible for her, in the nature of things, to do more to show her sense of the necessity of certain engagements being entered into in behalf of any child about to reach adult age, before it is recognized even outwardly as a member of Christ. It must ever be recollected, that Baptism is a rite in which a covenant-engagement is entered into between God and man; in which, therefore, the engagement on God's part is to be met by a corresponding engagement on the part of man; and where the baptized party is too young to make this promise in his own person, it is made by others for him; and baptism is administered on this vicarious pledge, in order that God's children (whom we cannot discern from the rest at that age) may not lack the seal of the covenant, and that rite which has been appointed by God for the formal and visible incorporation of men into his family as his adopted children.

Thus then an engagement is entered into on behalf of the child, and baptism given on that condition. Now if this engagement is never fulfilled by the child, (which is foreseen by God from the first,) what right have we to say that he is ever made a partaker of the full baptismal blessing? Either this engagement is a perfect nullity and mockery, or it indicates a belief on the part of the Church that the baptismal blessing is only to be expected, in the case of infants that reach adult age, when what is then promised is performed. In such cases, and in such only, can she consider baptism to be efficacious.

But such an engagement having been entered into, and our duty being (as she conceives) "not to doubt" that the infant is one of those whom God will accept and ultimately save, a thanksgiving is offered after the child has been baptized, for the