“What is the inward and spiritual grace?
“A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for, being by
nature born in sin and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the
children of grace.”—_Catechism_.
“O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this child may be so buried
that the new man may be raised up in him.”
“Grant that all carnal affections may die in him, and that all things
belonging to the Spirit may live and grow in him.”—_Baptismal Service_.
There is nowhere In the Prayer Book, any more than in the Bible, the
smallest allusion to the idea of a certain spiritual seed being implanted
at Baptism, which may or may not grow in after life. Both agree in
looking for the highest gifts, and the highest gifts alone. We do not
pray that the child may be put merely into a new position, which he may
use or not, as it may happen, but that he “may be born again, and be made
an heir of everlasting salvation.” We look for a permanent, lasting,
saving change; viz., adoption into God’s family, regeneration by the Holy
Ghost.
And as for the idea that the Church looks for baptismal justification
without a change of heart as its necessary and invariable accompaniment,
we would only ask the advocates of such a theory to explain, if they can,
the language of the Catechism, which says that “the inward and spiritual
grace is a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness.” Never,
surely, does the Church of England teach that there can be such a death
and such a life without an inward and sanctifying change by the Holy
Ghost.
II. As to the gift itself, therefore, there is complete agreement. The
great subject of discussion, however, is the connexion. By some it is
thought invariable, at least in the case of infants; _i.e._, it is
maintained that every baptized infant is there and then, ipso facto,
regenerate. Our present object is to shew that such a theory is at
variance with the teaching of the Church, for that the inward gift,
though assumed upon profession, is explicitly taught to be separable from
the outward sign.
1. The spiritual gift is assumed to have been received whenever the
outward sacrament has been administered. The whole of our services are
constructed upon this principle. We are all baptized upon a profession
of our faith, and all meet in the house of God in the character of
baptized believers; the Church, therefore, as a public body, is bound to
assume our profession real. This it does in all its services; so that
there is not a single prayer throughout the Liturgy which is not drawn up
on the principle of assumption. Upon this principle persons are supposed
at their burial to have been believers, as they are assumed in their
confessions to be repentant, and at their baptism to be regenerate.
Indeed it may be laid down as a general rule that whenever there is
anything personal in the bearing of a passage, the person affected is
always assumed to be in fact what he is in profession.
This principle of assumption appears as plainly in the Catechism as the
Liturgy. There is a great distinction to be observed between the
language of the Articles and the Catechism. The Articles teach truth
abstractedly—the Catechism in its personal application to the individual
who employs the words. In the Catechism, therefore, grace is always
assumed. The child is assumed to be a true believer and to be living in
the constant habit of thankful prayer, as for example in the words, “I
heartily thank our heavenly Father, that He hath called me to this state
of salvation, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: And I pray unto God to
give me His grace that I may continue in the same unto my life’s end.”
Upon the same principle he is assumed in the second answer to have been
made in baptism “a member of Christ,” &c. The fourth answer is
manifestly drawn up on the principle of assumption; it declares what
ought to be, and assumes that it is, the child’s character. The second
answer must, in common consistency, mean the same; and it would be just
as reasonable to maintain that the Church teaches the invariable
prayerfulness of every child who repeats the Catechism, as the invariable
regeneration of even child received into its fold by baptism.
Now this principle of assumption is exactly that which we discover in the
addresses of the Apostle. Thus far, therefore, there is agreement
between the Bible and the Prayer Book.
2. As a matter of doctrine, the Prayer Book teaches, like the Bible,
that the spiritual gift is not invariably given in connexion with the
outward sign.
Upon such a subject our chief reference should obviously be to the
Articles. They correspond to the doctrinal teaching of the Scriptures,
the Liturgy to the devotional and hortatory addresses. In the Articles
alone there is no personal application, and, therefore, they alone are
free from the principle of assumption. As we have before remarked, they
deal with abstract truth; and contain a scheme of theology carefully
drawn up for the security of the Church. To them, therefore, we are
bound in common sense to refer for all dogmatical assertions as to the
doctrinal principles of our Church.
Now it is quite impossible for any language to be simpler and clearer
than that of the Articles.
Of both sacraments it is said, Art. 25, “In such only as worthily receive
the same they have a wholesome effect and operation; for they that
receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul
saith.” And of Baptism, Art. 27, “It is a sign of regeneration or new
birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly
are grafted into the Church.”
The doctrine of these passages exactly corresponds with that of
Scripture. They deny in the plainest possible language the invariability
of the connexion; they define the two sacraments by the same conditions;
they make not the most distant allusion to any sacramental peculiarity in
baptism; but assert of both with the most positive distinctness, that in
such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect and
operation.
Nor is there any exception in the case of infants. Our Reformers in
framing the Articles adhered most resolutely to their Bibles, and when
the word of God was silent they were silent also. There is no exception
respecting infants in the Scriptures; there is none therefore in the
Articles. They state as much as, and no more than, the word of God
itself instructs them. Nay more, it is plain, both from the Catechism
and the Baptismal Service, that no such distinction is recognized. The
Catechism does not set aside the necessity of faith and repentance in the
case of infancy, but supposes it satisfied by the promise of the
sureties. So, also, in the Baptismal Service, the same questions are
asked as are asked of adults. There is not the least distinction in
respect of infancy; nor the least hint at invariable moral qualification,
setting aside the necessity of a positive declaration of the Christian
faith. Of course there are difficulties connected with the baptism of
unconscious children, but these have nothing to do with our present
subject. All that we are now concerned with is the fact that our Church
makes no distinction in their favour, but that in every instant she
requires a certain confession, and thereby in every instance denies the
invariability of the connexion between the inward gift and the outward
sign. {29}
Again, therefore, we find complete and exact agreement between the Prayer
Book and the Bible. In all personal passages the connexion is assumed.
In doctrinal statements moral conditions are required, and the
invariability of the connexion is denied.
This distinction is the simple key to the two passages in the Baptismal
Service which have occasioned so much discussion. “Seeing, now, dearly
beloved, that this child is regenerate.” “We yield Thee hearty thanks,
most merciful Father, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant
with Thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for Thine own child by adoption, and
to incorporate him into Thy holy Church.”
If the preceding argument be correct, the question with reference to
these passages is obviously reduced to this: Are they the language of
strong faith assuming the gift given when the outward act had been duly
performed? Or, are they a dogmatical statement of the doctrine that
every baptized infant is by that act regenerate by the Holy Ghost?
It can scarcely be denied that the prayer is drawn up in the spirit of
assumption; we may confine the question, therefore, to the declaration.
Now, if there be any truth in the rule that where there is anything
personal in a passage, the person affected is always assumed to be in
fact what he is in profession, it must apply to these words which are
pre-eminently personal in their character. Earnest prayer has just been
offered; the Church has done her utmost to arouse the spirit of repenting
faith; a declaration of faith and repentance has just been made; and the
sole object of the sentence is to move the congregation to united
thanksgiving and prayer. Assumption, therefore, is absolutely necessary
to the construction of the service; thanksgiving would be impossible
without it; and if, in such circumstances, the Church did not assume the
gift, she must be compelled to stop the mouth of God’s faithful children,
when they would pour forth the gratitude of a hopeful and overflowing
heart.
This view of the passage is confirmed by the similar assumption in the
corresponding prayer after the reception of the other sacrament “Almighty
and everliving God, we most heartily thank Thee, for that Thou dost
vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries with
the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of Thy Son our
Saviour Jesus Christ,” &c. Here are two assumptions—1st, That all the
communicants have received the sacrament duly; and 2nd, That they have
all been fed with the spiritual grace of which it is a sign. But no one
with the Articles before him can suppose that the Church intended to
teach that every communicant invariably feeds on the most precious body
and blood of Christ.
At the same time it may be proved, with the certainty of mathematical
demonstration, that these words are not the language of assertion. It
cannot be believed, with the 25th and 27th Articles before us, that our
Church asserts the invariability of regeneration in all adults who are
baptized. No language could be more decisive or distinct than theirs.
“In such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect
and operation.” But on turning to the Service of Baptism for Adults, we
find the very same words used as are employed for infants, “Now that this
person is regenerate.” It must be obvious to any man, that if these
words are to be understood as a positive doctrinal assertion of
invariable regeneration in adults, they are in flat contradiction to the
Articles. If they are intended to assert the doctrine that every
baptized adult is regenerate, they are in exact and direct opposition to
the passages quoted above, which teach most carefully that every baptized
adult is not regenerate. If this be the real meaning of our Service, the
Prayer Book, in this matter, flatly contradicts itself. If, on the other
hand, the passage in the Baptismal Service be the language of assumption,
all is harmonious. In its statement of doctrine, the Church gives the
caution; in its application to the individual, it confidently and
unreservedly assumes the gift. In the case of adults, therefore, the
language must be that of assumption, not assertion. But there is an
exact identity between the words used for infants and adults. In this
respect there is not a shade of difference between the two offices. “Now
that this child is regenerate,” says the one; “Now that this person is
regenerate,” says the other. Is it consistent, is it logical, is it
common sense, to say that one thing is meant in one passage, and another
thing in another? That one thing is meant on the 81st page, and a
totally different thing by the same words on the 84th page of the same
book? That one is assertion, while the other is admitted to be
assumption? Common sense demands that in the same book, the same words
should mean the same thing. The two passages must therefore be either
both assumption or both assertion. Assertion is impossible in the one,
and, therefore, assumption is logically necessary in both.
There is, therefore, throughout the Prayer Book a beautiful agreement
with the Bible. They both, in hortatory passages, assume regeneration
where faith has been professed, and the sacrament administered. They
both in doctrinal statements teach distinctly that baptized persons are
not all regenerate. The Churchman needs no more than this agreement for
the satisfaction of his conscience. There may be one or two expressions
which he may wish could be so modified as to make clear at a glance the
Church’s meaning without the necessity of comparing them with the
Articles. But still, on the great Protestant principle of the sovereign
supremacy of the Bible it is enough for him that the Liturgy is
scriptural, and that the Word of God has supplied the model for its
construction. It is scriptural in its silence, in its assumptions, in
its assertions. It says nothing where the Bible gives no guide, and
therefore makes no distinction between adults and infants; it assumes
where the Bible assumes, and therefore speaks of all baptized persons as
regenerate; and with the Bible as its authority, it asserts, in language
the most unequivocal and explicit, that baptized persons are not
invariably regenerate, for that the gifts of divine grace are not
invariably connected with either of the sacraments which God has
appointed in His Church.
* * * * *
* * * * *