Would we then arrive at a true exposition of the statements respecting the efficacy of Infant Baptism in our Prayer Book, we must look not to the private opinions of its compilers in contradiction to Catholic teaching, but to the exposition of the most holy and learned Fathers, and Martyrs of the Church. In turning to our common-place book, we find such a mass of evidence bearing upon the judgment of the fathers on this subject, that it would be endless to produce a Catena patrum: we must content ourselves therefore with the testimony of one who is as remarkable for the cautiousness with which he expresses an opinion, as for his ability to form a correct one as to the teaching of the early fathers on the subject before us. Professor Blunt, of Cambridge, in his sketch of the Church of the first two centuries after CHRIST, drawn from the writings of the fathers down to Clemens Alexandrinus inclusive, states, "the primitive doctrine is that Baptism is the sign of regeneration and the instrument thereof, and that by virtue of it infants as well as others who receive it rightly are born again."* Such then must have been the sense in which our reformers understood and taught the efficacy of the Baptism of Infants, for they most solemnly declare their belief of primitive doctrine. But this primitive doctrine is utterly alien from the Calvinistic view of election; for again to quote the decision of Professor Blunt, "I do not discover, in the writings of the early fathers the doctrine of election in any Calvinistic sense. The elect, or at least the pop or foreknown (which is the word they use) are according to them Christians generally-a body whom GOD, of His own mere pleasure certainly has chosen out of the world to be the receptacle of His Gospel-the regenerate by Baptism. For it does not appear from them, that either the elect or the regenerate were absolutely saved, but they were simply placed in a state of salvation which they were at liberty either to relinquish or retain."+ If then the Reformers profess to be guided by the judgment of the early fathers, how could they as honest men, teach that which the early fathers never dreamt of "that spiritual regeneration in Baptism could only result in the case of those who had been from all eternity elected to everlasting life by the free and sovereign grace of GoD ?" This we take it is the real and an incontrovertible answer to the argument of Mr. Goode, adopted unhappily by the Archbishop, when he wishes to fix a Calvinistic gloss to the formularies of our Church and the writings of the reformers. They professed to follow the teaching of the early Church, with whose teaching the heresies of Calvin are notoriously at variance; S. Augustine being the first father whom Calvin ventures to claim. * Page 156. + Page 167. While however we deny that the private opinions of the reformers per se, are the sole interpretations of the Prayer Book, we mean not to attribute to them the "scandalous dishonesty," of holding private opinions opposed to the Prayer Book; they submitted their own judgment to that of the Catholic Church, and therefore their own judgment and the teaching of the Church were identical. This obvious fact is confirmed by their private writings, in adducing which we would premise that we must not place them in the same category with our liturgical formularies, which are the voice of the whole Church of England, and not simply of particular members of it, and whose doctrines were as binding upon the compilers themselves as upon any other member of the Church. So that should their private writings written at different periods and under varying circumstances, be found contradictory to the public formularies, the private opinions must yield to the doctrines of the public formularies and not vice versa, as Mr. Goode would persuade We think it is only fair to make the admission, though we shall now proceed to show that their private opinions confirm our rejection of the Calvinian novelties from the Prayer Book. us. And first let us hear Cranmer. In "a Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man," "that ancient monument of the Reformation," as Dr. Nicholl designates it, (and in which we admit with Mr. Goode, that there are points connected with the Romish controversy, concerning which the writer afterwards expressed a different opinion,) Cranmer maintains not in opposing Rome, for she never erred on that vital truth, but in opposition to Geneva :"GOD is naturally good, and calleth all men to be saved and careth for them, and provideth all things by which they may be saved, except by their own malice they be evil, and so by righteous judgment of GOD perish and be lost. For truly men be to themselves the authors of sin and damnation." And again in the same work on the article of justification. "It is no doubt that although we be once justified, yet we may fall therefrom by our own free will and consenting unto sin, and following the desires thereof. And although we be illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and be made partakers of the HOLY GHOST; yet may we fall and displease GOD." Hear, too, Latimer : : "CHRIST would have all the world to come to Him the promises of our SAVIOUR CHRIST are general-they pertain to the whole world and all mankind; wherefore, then, should any man despair? CHRIST shed as much blood for Judas as for Peter. Peter believed it, and therefore he was saved; Judas would not believe, and therefore he was condemned;-the fault being in him only, and in nobody else." Even Hooper says in the preface to "the Declaration of the Ten Commandments :" "That as the sins of Adam, without privilege or exemption, extended and appertained unto all and every of Adam's posterity, so did the promise of grace generally appertain as well to every and singular of Adam's posterity as to Adam." Our limits forbid us to adduce other passages to the same effect: and sufficient testimony, we believe, has been brought to show the simple impossibility of persons honestly holding these views, to hold at the same time Calvin's theory of Election and final perseverance. That they are utterly irreconcilable has been proved by all our Divines of acknowledged eminence, who have fairly investigated the subject. As Bishop Bull observes:-"A Calvini tum disciplina, tum doctrina qua prorsus alienos fuisse primos Reformationis nostræ authores, satis constat ;"* Heylin, in his "History of the Quinquarticular Controversy;" Bishop Beveridge, in his "Treatise on the Thirty-nine Articles;" Dr. Nicholl in his "Defence of the Prayer Book;" Bishop Tomline, in his "Refutation of Calvinism;" Dr. Hey, in his "Norrisian Lectures;" Bishop Mant, in his "Bampton Lectures;" Archbishop Laurence, in his " Attempt to illustrate those Articles of the Church of England which Calvinists improperly consider as Calvinistical," and more fully and formally in his "Authentic Documents relative to the Predestinarian Controversy;" Mr. Jenkyns, in the preface to his edition of "the Remains of Cranmer;" Dr. Cardwell, in the introduction to the Liturgies of Edward VI., compared, all arrive at the same conclusion-viz., that the compilers of our Prayer Book were untainted by the heresies of Calvin: whilst Calvin himself wrote two letters in denunciation of the very book which is now said to be founded on his peculiar doctrines! It has now been shown by an appeal to the acknowledged principle on which our Formularies were compiled-the principle of interpreting Scripture by the voice of the Church, and by reference to the private writings of the compilers themselves, that the Reformers, almost without exception, did not hold and advocate what are now called the "peculiar doctrines of Calvin." And as the inferences in the Charge, as regards the effects of infant baptism, are drawn from the conclusion that they did hold them, we might, having disproved the premises, leave the conclusion to its own confutation. But we shall not rest upon this negative kind of argument. We shall proceed formally to disprove the assertion "that we cannot insist upon it as a ruled doctrine of our Church, that all baptized children are as such spiritually regenerate; for such was not the doctrine of our Reformers themselves." And first, as to our Reformerswhat was their doctrine? the doctrine, as we have seen them again and again profess-the doctrine of the Primitive Church. Professor Blunt has told us what that doctrine was; to whose tes "The timony we may add that of Bishop Kaye. It was this. prevalent-perhaps the universal-opinion of the early Christians was, that Baptism was absolutely necessary to salvation."* Such was the opinion which the Reformers professed to follow; and yet in passing we may remark, that Mr. Goode has the assurance to declare," that the doctrine that Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation has been undeniably relinquished by our Church as a doctrine of authority in her communion ;"+ and this, too, in contradiction to the express declaration of the Catechism that Baptism is generally—that is, universally—the sense of the word in old writers, where it can be had, necessary to salvation. It is by this rule, the teaching of the early Church, that we must interpret doubtful passages (if there be such) from their writings and our formularies which bear on this subject. Let it be remembered, too, that the office for the baptism of adults was not added till the last revise of the Prayer Book; no such service being needed till the Anabaptist heresy spread amongst us during the Rebellion; so that what the Reformers themselves wrote or compiled has special reference to the baptism of infants. But more than this: there are certain articles about religion set out by Convocation in Henry VIII.'s reign, with Cranmer at its head, in which the condition and effects of infant baptism are stated in relation to those of adult baptism, thus: "Infants must needs be Christened because they be born in original sin, which sin must needs be remitted, which cannot be done but by the Sacrament of Baptism, whereby they receive the HOLY GHOST, Which exerciseth His grace and efficacy on them, and cleanseth and purifieth them from sin by His most secret virtue and operation." Now contrast this with what is said of adult baptism. "That men or children having the use of reason, and willing and desiring to be baptized, shall by virtue of that Holy Sacrament attain the grace and remission of all their sins, if they shall come thereunto perfectly and truly repentant and contrite of all their sins before committed, and also perfectly and constantly confessing and believing all the articles of our faith, or else not."‡ Will "rational men" say that a broad and most definite distinction is not here drawn between the conditions of the efficacy of the baptism of infants and of adults? Without any condition or limitation in the case of infants, they are cleansed and purified from sin in baptism by the HOLY GHOST's most secret virtue and operation in the case of adults these effects follow penitence and faith, or else not. Not a word is here said about sponsors or parents; and it is remarkable that while several of the doctrines connected with the Romish Controversy in these articles were afterwards modified, there is no *Bishop Kaye's Tertullian, p. 347. † Goode, p. 177. statement of any kind to leave us to suppose the opinion of the reformers, as to the efficacy of infant baptism, underwent any change. With these articles as our guide, then, let us proceed to the private writings of the acknowledged leaders of the Reformation; for here, as elsewhere, we do not place every one who happened to rave against popery in the same rank or authority with them. Now what does Cranmer teach in his Catechism of 1553-a document which Mr. Goode allows "originally had the highest ecclesiastical and civil sanction .... having been issued upon the advice of Archbishop Cranmer, and the approval of Bishop Ridley, and the heads of the reformed party in our Church ;"*—well, what does this Catechism teach? the very distinction between the conditions of infant and adult baptism, which we have seen in the articles already quoted. "Master.-Tell me, my son, how these two sacraments be ministered; baptism, &c. "Scholar.-Him that believeth in CHRIST, professeth the articles of the Christian religion, and mindeth to be baptized (I speak now of them that be grown to ripe years of discretion, Sith for young BABES THEIR PARENTS', OR THE CHURCH'S PROFESSION SUFFICETH) the Minister dippeth in or washeth with pure and clean water only, in the Name of the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST; and then commendeth him by prayer to GOD, into Whose Church he is now, as it were, openly enrolled, that it may please God to grant him His grace, whereby he may answer in belief and life agreeably to his profession." So much for adult baptism; and now let us hear Cranmer in the same Catechism declare the efficacy of infant baptism, viz., spiritual regeneration in baptism. "The second birth is by the water of baptism, which Paul calleth the bath of regeneration, because our sins be forgiven us in baptism; and the HOLY GHOST is poured into us, as into GOD's beloved children; so that by the power and working of the HOLY GHOST we are born again spiritually, and made new creatures: and so by baptism we enter into the kingdom of GOD, and shall be saved for ever, if we continue to our lives' end in the faith of CHRIST."+ Ridley and Latimer witness to the same efficacy of baptism as regards infants generally. So we pass on to the opinions of the remodellers of the Prayer Book in Queen Elizabeth's reign. In the name of them all, Jewell says : "We confess, and have evermore taught, that in the sacrament of baptism, by the death and blood of CHRIST, is given remission of all manner of sin, and that not in half or in part, or by way of |