their high vocation. He points out its symbolic reference, and what it is when accompanied by the inward spiritual grace which it represents. But he does not assert that all who are partakers of the outward sign, are also partakers of the thing signified thereby, nor can this be inferred from his words.1 His argument in this chapter turns on the obligation, which arises from the profession made in baptism, to die to sin and live again unto righteousness. Happy would it be if all were in reality what they are in profession! On Coloss. ii. 12, I refer, with the highest satisfaction, to Bishop Davenant's Exposition, which, as the language of the two Epistles is similar, will also explain the passage from the Romans which we have just considered. Eph. v. 26, which has also been produced as favouring the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, seems to me to be a death-blow to the cause. are there said to be cleansed with the washing of water BY THE WORD. Is not the word the instrument, and the washing of water the accompanying evidence, the outward visible sign of the inward spiritual grace?

We

On 1 Cor. vi. 11, it has been asserted that the washing of baptism is mentioned as the instrument by which the blessings of justification and sanctification are conveyed. Nothing is wanting to make

1 See Dr. Fulke's note on these verses.

this text applicable to the purpose for which it has been adduced, but proof that the washing mentioned by the Apostle means the washing of baptism; and that, supposing its reference to baptism, it is spoken of as the vehicle of the other blessings. As no attempt has been made to prove either of these preliminary points, I leave the propriety of this interpretation to stand or fall with the general issue of the argument. The use which is made of it is a gratuitous assumption, which needs not to be seriously confuted.

But to close this branch of the subject it may be asked, If regeneration and baptism be inseparable; if the former always accompany the latter; if to baptize men be to regenerate them; would not our blessed Lord, whose grand object in coming into our sinful world was to regenerate that world, have employed himself, at least partially, in administering the all-important ordinance of baptism? Would He not have baptized the children who were brought to Him for his blessing, or have directed his Apostles to do it? Whereas, no instance is recorded of his baptizing a single individual. And though it is said, (John iii. 22) that "he tarried in Judea and baptized; this seems to be explained in the beginning of the following chapter, where it is remarked that "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." In this case would St. Paul have said that God sent him "not

to baptize, but to preach the Gospel?" Or, would he have thanked God that he baptized no persons at Corinth but Crispus and Gaius ?

We must now close our discussion for the present; but I shall be ready to pursue it further the first opportunity, by showing that the doctrine of the church of England, on this point as on all others, is in perfect unison with the Holy Scriptures; and that Baptismal Regeneration, as it is now maintained, is no part of her creed.

U. I shall wait, almost impatiently, for the time of renewing this to me most interesting conversation. Accept, my dear Sir, my best thanks for the light which you have already thrown on the subject.

60

DIALOGUE II.

C. You are very punctual to the appointed time for pursuing our discussion on Baptismal Regenera

tion.

U. My dear Sir, I am too deeply interested in the subject to make any unnecessary delay in my

visit to you.

C. Well, then, without further preface, we proceed to examine the doctrine of our venerable church, which, as I believe, is, on this point as on all others, in strict accordance with the Holy Scriptures; and to shew that Baptismal Regeneration, as it is now maintained, in the Tracts for the Times,' is no part of her creed.

6

The XXVIIth Article teaches, unless I have strangely mistaken the meaning of its language, a doctrine opposite to that which is now maintained. This Article expressly sets forth the doctrine of the Church concerning baptism. I have, therefore, a full license to appeal to it as decisive. Baptism is not only a sign of profession and a mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from

others that are not christened, but it is also a SIGN of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed: faith is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of prayer unto God.' Such is the doctrinal language of our Church on the subject in question, and it appears to me pointedly and fully in opposition to the notion of baptismal regeneration. Baptism is a SIGN of regeneratiom, a SEAL to the promises of forgiveness and of adoption. Certainly it is; but a sign is not the thing signified, nor is a seal to an instrument, nor even the instrument itself, the benefit conferred by that instrument. The Article proceeds on the supposition that the candidates for baptism have been before regenerated; that is, have before become 'dead to sin' and alive to God, by a new birth unto righteousness.' It asserts that in those who receive baptism rightly,1 that is, who have the prerequisites to baptism mentioned in the Catechism, viz. repentance and faith, faith is CONFIRMED, and grace INCREASED, by virtue of prayer unto God; faith cannot be confirmed, unless it have previously existed; nor can grace be increased, unless it have before been con

1 The adverb rightly in this Article corresponds with the word worthily in the XXVth.