Reformation, and only represent one particular interval, and that a short one, in English theology. It is little to us if this or that individual in the reign of Queen Elizabeth writes Calvinistically about Baptismal Regeneration. He is no more an authority than a divine of the reign of Queen Victoria, who might do the same-suppose Mr. Gorham himself, or Mr. Goode. But thus much we are bound to say:-In the first place, these extracts come after all to much less than they are proclaimed to do. Let any fair person carry his eye over them; he will see a whole predestinarian line of thought running through them, with which he may not at all sympathise; he will see some single statements on baptism in Mr. Gorham's favour. But even throughout these extracts-picked carefully out of whole volumes of theology, as the most telling on Mr. Gorham's side, the very essence of the phraseology antagonistic to baptismal grace which could be found in the school most antagonistic to that grace-even throughout these extracts, as a whole, there runs a most unequivocally superior estimate of baptism, to what is put forward by 'evangelicals' now. Throughout, baptism appears either as a real and bona fide channel of grace, (though of permanent grace to the elect only,) or as the seal which consummates the giving of that grace, or as the true evidence of God's grace, to which all Christians are to refer in thought, whenever they want to assure themselves that they have grace. There is no reduction of baptism to a mere symbol, no erection of a mere internal and conscious new birth.

But supposing these extracts were much more favourable to Mr. Gorham than they are, there remains still a question of some importance-Are these the only statements which these divines make on the subject of baptism, or are there others in the background? And, what is more to the purpose still, Are these the great cardinal statements and professions which these men make as members of the Church; or are they qualifications and explanations, which they make as theologians, of some cardinal statement which has preceded, and is supposed throughout? This is an important distinction. Give, on any doctrine whatever, only the secondary and not the primary part of a writer's whole expression of himself about it, the part where he begins to explain and qualify, separated from the first simple and cardinal statement, and he may be made to appear a denier or a doubter of it. Take the explanatory statements on the doctrine of the Trinity, distinct from the cardinal one, and the doctrine of the Trinity will crumble into pieces. With the doctrine of the Incarnation, with the doctrine of Original Sin, or any other, it will be the same. No doctrine could stand such a test. It is the leading statement which in every doctrine binds all together, and presents the whole, as a whole, to our

view. The doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, then, as held by any writer, is not to be judged of by the explanations and qualifications of it, which he enters into subsequent to the cardinal statement of the doctrine, taken alone. He makes this first; and, when he has made it, enters on the department of explanation; but it would be plainly unfair to him to take all his explanations as if he had never made the previous statement. He carries this with him, and it is supposed throughout. Such being the relation, then, of, and the distinction between, explanatory and primary statement, we see at once, on looking at these extracts on Mr. Gorham's side, that we are looking at a quantity of explanation simply; a critic at once sees with the eye of a comparative anatomist, that there is some head or top wanting to and supposed in all of it.

:

What the school represented by Mr. Gorham in this trial wants, is the right to deny in words that persons are regenerate in baptism; to contradict, i. e., the primary and leading statement of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Now we have looked through the whole of these extracts, and, without pledging ourselves for every single one, we have no hesitation in saying that, as a mass, they completely fail Mr. Gorham at this point. Whatever explanatory liberty they may allow him, they do not give him the precedent which he and his school want-the literal denial of regeneration in baptism. They fail to do so, because they are, in fact, themselves explanations and qualifications of that cardinal statement. This appears, constantly, in the very form of the language in them; the very form evidently supposing it and sometimes, for it cannot be suppressed, the very statement itself comes out. In baptism, Christ and the Holy 'Ghost be given to them that be truly baptized in the water:' (Dr. Bayford, p. 99)-that is Cranmer's statement: and it is one which Mr. Gorham's school wants to deny. Baptism is 'regeneration, when a man is received into the holy Catholic 'Church of Christ, and is now to be accounted for one of the 'lively members of Christ's own body:' (p. 145)—that is Ridley's statement. Baptism is sacramentum a Domino institutum, 'ex aqua et verbo constans, quo regeneramur, et Christo inserimur, 'ad remissionem peccatorum et eternam vitam :' (p. 107)—that is Peter Martyr's statement. Baptism is a figure, indeed; but 'such as hath the truth of things joined and knit unto it: for as in baptism God truly delivereth us forgiveness of sins and 'newness of life, so do we certainlyreceive them :' (p. 139)that is Nowell's statement. "By Baptism is he your Father, ' and you are born of him, and so become his son: therefore, can he none otherwise than love, tender, and favour you, and give you the inheritance of his heavenly kingdom. By Baptism are you made the brother of Christ, heir of God, and

6

24

'fellow-heir with Christ of everlasting glory;

then may

you be certain to be of that number that shall inherit 'eternal life. By Baptism is the Holy Ghost given you; 'then are you the sons of God, and cannot perish:' (p. 149) That is Becon's statement. 'In baptism our sins are taken 'away, and we from sins purged, cleansed, and regenerated in 'a new man:'-that is Launcelot Ridley's statement. 'Baptismum esse sacramentum regenerationis non negamus: '-that is Whittaker's statement. That infants are regenerated in baptism is the language of Scripture and antiquity:'-that is Archbishop Sharp's statement. All infants are in baptism regenerated by the Holy Ghost:'-that is Bishop Hopkins' statement. Here are (and they are only specimens) so many assertions, simple and decided, of Baptismal Regeneration, appearing in the very extracts which Mr. Gorham has picked out of all English theology for disproving that doctrine. Now, our opponent will say: Yes, here are the statements, doubtless: but do not be in a hurry; the writers, or at least some of them, will explain them soon: you will see what they mean by that statement, when you see the appendage to it. But this is exactly what we say. Supposing the statement is explained afterwards, still the statement is made first. But our opponents will not make the statement. They claim all the explanation, without any of the assertion; all the liberty, without any of the yoke. It is true, some writers do explain and some may exceed the just limits of explanation: but those who are most jealous of the baptismal gift, and reduce the meaning of the statement most in the explanation, make, and never abandon, the statement itself. They may call the sanctity imparted by baptism external, ecclesiastical, relative; the regeneration, sacramental: but they maintain that it does impart sanctity, and does confer regeneration. They give no sanction, then, and supply no precedent to those who refuse to make that

:

statement.

to

We will even take their assertion-and this is the concluding observation for which we have been preparing—as made upon Mr. Gorham's own ground;-the ground which has been put forward throughout this contest, and of which it has been the professed object of this contest, on his side, to obtain the concession; -the ground of charitable presumption. Extracts are adduced prove that the ground of charitable presumption is the ground put forward in explanation of the assertion of regeneration in baptism, by various divines of our Church. Who be of the Church,' says Whitgift, 'is known to Him alone who knoweth those that are His.' But we must count all in the Church,' who are in it visibly. 'What thou art inwardly,' says Benefield, 'and in the sight ' of God, God alone knoweth; He alone is kapdiоyvéσтns, and sees and knows thy heart. Since thou hast given thy name to

'Christ, and hast had the washing of the new birth, the Church in charity must judge of thee, as of one truly grafted into Christ, and truly regenerate: but (I say) what thou art inwardly and in 'the sight of God, God knoweth examine thou thyself.' (P. 165.) 'All that receive baptism are called the children of God, regene'rate, justified,' says Bishop Carleton; 'for to us they must be 'taken as such in charity, until they show themselves other.' Our Church,' says Dr. Mayer, doth not usurp the gift of pro'phecy, to take upon her to discern which of her children belong to "God's unsearchable election, but in the judgment of charity embraceth them all, as God's inheritance and hereby teacheth 'every of us so to believe of ourselves by faith, and of others by 'charity.' (P. 191.) There are higher authorities than these brought forward. Hooker is quoted:

6

"We speak of infants as the rule of piety alloweth both to speak and think. They that can take to themselves in ordinary talk a charitable kind of liberty to name men of their own sort God's dear children (notwithstanding the large reign of hypocrisy) should not methinks be so strict and rigorous against the Church for PRESUMING as it doth of a Christian innocent. For 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 hinderance of their salvation known to us, as themselves will grant; hard it were 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." (B. v. § 64.)'-P. 197.

Pearson is quoted: "Without something appearing to the 'contrary, we ought to presume of the good effect: therefore all such as have been received into the Church may in some sense 'be called holy.'

If various divines, however, be put forward, the ground of charitable presumption as an admissible ground on which to make the assertion that all baptized persons are regenerate, a permissible explanation to give. The permission to make that assertion upon that ground, and with that explanation, is no more a licence for not making the assertion itself, than the permission of any other explanatory ground would be. This explanation, like any other, is subsequent to the assertion which it explains, and not prior to it: so far from preventing it from being made, it supposes it to be made. No precedent then has been set, and no authority gained hitherto, taking even Mr. Gorham's own ground, for refusing to make the statement that all infants are regenerate in baptism.

1 We may state generally that we have given the extracts throughout this Article with the italics, as they appear in Dr. Bayford's speech, in order not to appear to suppress any of their meaning.

A

Indeed it is not very easy to understand what Mr. Gorham means by professing the ground of charitable judgment, and then refusing to make the assertion of which that is the ground. The Bishop of Exeter asks him, Will you assert that all baptized infants are regenerate? Mr. Gorham refuses to make that assertion. But the assertion is the test whether the charitable judgment is made or not: it is the expression of that judgment. Take the question of a man's honesty: he is honest; it is uncertain whether he is honest or dishonest; he is dishonest: which of these three is the charitable judgment? Not the last certainly; it may be a just one, but the epithet charitable is not applicable to it: not the middle one; it may be a charitable abstaining from judgment, but it is not a charitable judgment: there remains the first, to which the expression charitable judgment is alone applicable. Supposing we want in general society to give any one the benefit of a charitable judgment relative to his character: do we think it fulfils the scope of a charitable judgment simply to express uncertainty about it? But whether a charitable judgment in social life and ordinary acceptance, involves assertion or not, among theologians with respect to baptismal regeneration it does. The divines whom we have just referred to use the ground of charitable presumption indeed; but they all in succession use it in order to found an assertion upon it. I must judge of thee as of one truly grafted unto Christ,' says Benefield: that means a positive judgment surely, not a mere negative one. 'All who receive baptism are called, the children of God, regenerate, sanctified,' says Bishop Carleton: that is, are affirmed to be so. The judgment of charity embraceth them all as God's inheritance,' says Dr. Mayer: that is a positive judgment again; a judgment which asserts. All are to be 'called holy,' says Pearson; to be termed elect,' says Hooker; to be called saints, members of Christ, and children of God,' says Bishop Hopkins. 'Judge of them' as, ' embrace them as,' 'call them,' ,'' term them :'-if this is not to make the assertion that they are so, what is it? For how, as we said before, do we call a thing this or that, except by saying that it is that which we call it? We call a man honest by saying that he is honest; and in the same way we call him regenerate by saying that he is regenerate. That is what we mean by calling: we do not mean by calling abstaining from calling, refusing to call, suspending our voice altogether. Can any one believe that any one of these divines, had the Bishop of Exeter' called upon them

6

We cannot mention the Bishop of Exeter's name without expressing our admiration of the disinterested courage with which his Lordship has come forward, on various recent occasions especially, to maintain the doctrines, and encourage and protect the practical efforts, of the Church. His defence of Miss Sellon and her Sisterhood against a storm of popular prejudice, will long be remembered. F 2 And