imagination or by fancy; but whole, full, and perfect of all together."*

After declaring in face of this evidence that the doctrine of the universal regeneration of infants in baptism "was not the doctrine of the reformers," the Charge adds "nor is such the doctrine laid down in the Thirty-nine Articles." And then the baptismal service is adduced.

Now while not at all afraid to rest upon the Articles only on this question, as we shall show in the sequel, we submit that as the Articles were drawn up after the baptismal service, and do not pretend to alter anything therein contained, they must be interpreted by that service, and not the service by the articles. So we shall adduce the evidence of the Prayer Book in this order. But here we are met in limine by an objection, "that those very expressions in our baptismal service which have been interpreted in modern times (!) as exclusively admitting the sense of the universal regeneration of infants in baptism are borrowed from a service in which the known sentiments of the author will not allow such a meaning to be fixed to them." (p. 28.) Again, "In the baptismal service the very phraseology is borrowed from a service drawn up by Martin Bucer, for the Liturgy published in 1543 by the Archbishop of Cologne," &c. (p. 29.)

Now, in proceeding to meet this objection, we would observe that the charge before us, following the unsafe guidance of Mr. Goode, omits the most important fact connected with the compilation of this formulary. The impression to be drawn from the charge is that Bucer only was concerned with the service; whereas, although Bucer drew up the baptismal service in question, it was not only copied from a Lutheran form, but also was approved by Bucer and Melancthon conjointly. Of course it is very obvious why this suppressio veri should be made. Melancthon was a decided Anti-Calvinist; and if it had been known that he had approved the form in question, it was pretty evident to all honest men, that he did not consider it to be framed on the Calvinian hypothesis, to which he was himself decidedly opposed. Melancthon's approval, therefore, was an awkward fact; and it must be admitted that the suppression of it, and the manner in which Melancthon is disposed of, is a fine specimen of those powers of special pleading for which Mr. Goode is not a little remarkable; for what are the real facts of the case, according to Mr. Goode's own statement? They are doubtless already well known to most of our readers; but we give Mr. Goode's version for the sake of relieving the dulness of our article.

"Herman de Wida, Archbishop of Cologne, becoming dissatisfied with the corrupt practices and doctrines of the Church of Rome,

* Defence of the Apology, Part II., c. xi., sect. 3. VOL. VIII.

N

about the year 1539 or 1540, invited Bucer and Melancthon to his palace at Bonn, to aid him in the work of reformation. Melancthon was at that time unable to comply with his request; but Bucer went, and took up his abode with him at Bonn for a time, at the end of the year 1541, and was commissioned by the Archbishop to draw up a book for the reformation of the doctrine and offices of the Church. While this work was proceeding, he was joined at the commencement of 1543 by Melancthon, who assisted him in the prosecution of his labours. But the portion drawn up by each may be learned from the following extract of a letter from Melancthon to Caspar Cruciger :

Scripsi vobis antea, Episcopum secuturum esse formam Noribergensem erat ante meum adventum institutus liber ad exemplum Noribergense. Retinuit pleraque Bucerus, quosdam articulos auxit, ut est copiosus. Mihi cum omnia relegissem, attribuit articulos TEPI TρIWY ÚTOσTaσewv, de creatione, de peccato originis, et de justitia fidei, et operum, de Ecclesia, de pœnitentia. In his consumpsi tempus hactenus, et legi de ceremoniis Baptismi, et Cœnæ Domini quæ ipse composuit.*"*

Now mark Mr. Goode's conclusion: "Hence we learn that the baptismal service in the work was not only approved by Bucer, but drawn up by him, the Nuremberg form being taken as the groundwork." To be sure we learn this; but do we not further learn that Melancthon read over, for the simple purpose of approving or disapproving, this same service? and, as he states no objection, he doubtless did approve it. And why? because it harmonized with his own views, and what he had himself written for Herman's Liturgy. And the doctrine expressed by him in the article of original sin, would doubtless agree with what he had written in the Augsburgh Confession on the same subject, viz., that "this original depravity is truly sin, condemning and still causing eternal death to those who are not renascuntur per Baptismum et Spiritum Sanctum.”—Art. XI.

It is now quite obvious why Bucer should be so prominently held forth as the compiler of the Baptismal Service in question, and why Melancthon's name should be suppressed altogether in the charge, and placed in the back ground by Mr. Goode. It was to favour the supposition that our own Baptismal Service was compiled from a service "in which the known sentiments of the author will not allow the universal regeneration of infants in Baptism."

We shall now proceed to show that this is mere assertion, and that what we know of the author's, not to mention the approver's sentiments at that time, is a witness to the universal regeneration of infants in Baptism. To come to facts.-It is quite true that Bucer at the commencement of the Reformation move

* Goode, p. 400.

ment, held unworthy views as to the effects of Infant Baptism. "I confess," he says, "that I have not sufficiently explained the authority of GoD, and the true benefit in the word and sacraments." He came, however, to a better mind, and in his conference with Luther declares his agreement with the Lutheran teachers-in direct and acknowledged opposition to the Calvinian theory. In the minutes of this Conference, it is said, quoting the words of Bucer:

"That Baptism is held sacred by us, and that we teach concerning it, not as of some naked sign, but as of the true laver of regeneration, which (regeneration) is through the power of God and the ministry of the minister, supplied to us with water."

So much for Baptism generally, and now what does he say as to the conditions and effects of Infant Baptism?

"But that some are offended in that (since faith in Holy Scripture is received according to that which is heard, and comes to us through hearing, by the application of the Word of God, according to the saying of Paul in the tenth of the Romans; faith cometh by hearing,') we with Augustine and other fathers, have said and written, that infants in that respect have not faith. But that if we will understand the word faith in a large sense, for any surrender of ourselves to GOD, in this sense even infants may be called faithful. For that we simply believe and teach, that true regeneration and true adoption into the Son of GOD are communicated to infants in Baptism, and that the Holy Spirit works in them according to the measure and proportion given to them, as we read of S. John, that he was filled with the HOLY GHOST from his mother's womb. But that where there is any foundation in Scripture for what some affirm, that infants, when they are baptized, understand the words of the Gospel, and actually believe them, and THUS are saved; whence this can be proved from the sacred writings, we are unable as yet to see."

Now this, be it observed, is declared of all infants without any limit to the elect in Calvin's sense and the possessors of actual faith. But Luther in the same Conference illustrates this still more clearly. To Bucer's statement Luther added:-"That as we even when asleep, are numbered among the faithful, and are in truth such, although we be actually thinking nothing of GOD; so, that a certain beginning of faith, (which nevertheless is the work of GOD) exists in infants according to their measure and proportion, which we are ignorant of; and that he called this faith, and that he had rather no questions should be moved concerning these things, and that no one should venture to search deeply into these things to ascertain, that is, in what way the LORD performs in them His own work."

To this statement made in respect of all infants who are baptized, Bucer agreed. "He did not agree, however, that all infants who are not baptized, (so that baptism is not neglected through contempt)

are to be held as damned,"—an opinion which he falsely assigns to some of the ancient doctors.

Now we ask, can anything be clearer than that in respect of all infants, Bucer believed, without any mere "charitable hope" as the Charge would have us suppose, Baptism was the true laver of regeneration; and that the faith which they possessed was not given to one and denied to another, but given to all, in a manner however which he with Luther presumed not to decide; just as we have seen Cranmer supposing the faith of the parent or the Church's faith to be the condition required to the efficacy of Infant Baptism? And here we may say that such has been the opinion of all the best English Divines, so that when Mr. Goode brings them to support his charitable theory, merely because they speak of the faith of infants, he entirely misapprehends or perverts their meaning. They are speaking of infants generally. Mr. Goode restricts them to Calvin's notion of the elect. In fact he works his theory to death, and proves too much. Greatly indeed must his zeal have outstepped his judgment when he claimed Waterland as his ally. Every one knows that Waterland wrote expressly and formally against the ultra-protestant notion of a "charitable hope." But when "the schoolmen " are claimed by Mr. Goode, we need scarcely be surprised that Bishop Andrewes, (Laud's master,) Bishops Pearson, Wilson, and Dr. Waterland, should be. Such then were Bucer's views at this time of the effects of Infant Baptism; views which, in the main, accorded with what we have seen were held by the first compilers of our Baptismal office.

No wonder then that they should avail themselves of a service already framed-itself being modelled upon a German formulary, and compiled according to Strype "by the pains and learning of Melancthon and Bucer," and not by Bucer only, according to the Archbishop, or Bucer and Melancthon, according to Mr. Goode; who both at this time held Lutheran views as to the effects of Infant Baptism. And this fact amply vindicates the memory of Archbishop Laurence from the indecorous sneers of Mr. Goode. That really learned Divine was perfectly justified in stating it as an historical fact, "that the office of our own Church is principally borrowed from that of the Lutherans." It remains for Mr. Goode to show how this statement can honestly be gainsaid, or how he is justified in his, we think, not very creditable attempt to ridicule it at the expense of the Archbishop's learning, if not honesty, both of which however will bear a heavier hammer than Mr. Goode's.

We fully admit, then, that the compilers of our baptismal service "borrowed largely," as Archbishop Laurence, and all other writers on the subject have admitted, from the Cologne service, but we deny the inference drawn from that fact in the charge before us, that "the words were intended to express only the feelings of hope and charity." We have shown that Melancthon and

Bucer, at this time, maintained the universal regeneration of infants in baptism, on the condition of faith indeed, the faith of the whole body of believers-the faith of the Catholic Church-but not a personal faith, the faith of parents, or sponsors, merely, possessed by some, and unknown to others, but the heritage of all whose parents were members of the visible Church. This, too, was the opinion of our first reformers,—and for that reason, they borrowed largely from the Cologne Service;-still, it must be borne in mind, that the same doctrine was implied in the ancient Liturgies, and the old uses of Sarum, York, &c., which uses were followed by our reformers in the arrangement of our baptismal service. This Mr. Palmer has shown in his well known work. Besides, wherever a deviation takes place, it is always for the sake of giving greater prominency and more distinct enunciation of the ancient doctrine; omissions, too, are supplied, such as the ancient prayer for the consecration of the water-in which consecration the essence of the sacrament is contained; while the tediously copious and diffuse exhortations of the Cologne liturgy are either compressed or omitted altogether, and are made after the ancient manner, directly subservient to prayer and the sacrament, the foreign formulary converting them too much into the mere media of religious instruction in general.*

Our compilers, therefore, were not servile imitators, and it is a striking proof of their independence, that when, some years afterwards, on the compilation of the second Reformed Service, Bucer proposed several alterations in this very service-they rejected them. That Bucer did propose what he considered improvements, is proved by Bucer's own writings, (Buceri Scripta Angl.) And yet, in the face of this evidence, Mr. Goode asserts, "that our own Prayer Book having been submitted to him by Cranmer for his judgment, he approved of our baptismal service."+ It is perhaps only fair to add, that further on, in "his learned and masterly work," our author becomes better informed, for in speaking of Bucer's strictures upon the baptismal service, he says, "He treats the whole of it as perfectly consistent with his views, so far as regards the point now in question, and offers not one word of suggestion for the alteration of any part of it relating to the doctrine and effects of baptism." After this statement, from which it is evident that Mr. Goode had seen, or at least heard of Bucer's objections, will it be believed that Bucer did object to passages involving the very doctrine itself; one of which passages, strange to say, was in the Cologne service, which he drew up? prima precatione super infantem, optarim ista omitti:And by the baptism of Thy well beloved SoN,' usque ad, 'We beseech

"In

A Tabular view of the Variations in the Communion and Baptismal Offices, by the Rev. F. Buller.