[2] 2 Cor. xi. 13. See also Rom. xvi. 17. Gal. i. 7, &c. Phil. i. 16, iii. 18. Col. ii. 8. 1 John iv. 1.[5a] Acts xx. 28.[5b] Acts vi. 3.[5c] 1 Thess. i. 5, 6.[5d] 1 Cor. ii. 4.[6a] 1 Cor. xii. 1, 8, 11.[6b] 1 Cor. xii. 3.[6c] Rom. viii. 9.[7] Ps. l. 16.[8a] Tracts 71, 77, and 86; Froude’s Remains, i. 322, 380, 394, 425, 433; British Critic, July 1841, p. 45, 69.[8b] See Overton’s True Churchman Ascertained. See also Goode’s Divine Rule of Faith, Preface, p. 16, referring to two centuries ago.[9a] Newman’s Lectures on Romanism, &c. p. 23.[9b] See Overton, p. 71, 72, 82, 92. Robertson observes, in his History of America, p. 163, “Of all the Reformed churches, that of England has deviated the least from the ancient institutions . . . Though the Articles to be recognized as the system of national faith were framed conformable to the doctrines of Calvin, his notions with respect to church government and the mode of worship were not adopted.” See the same testimony in Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. p. 87, 88. Bishop Burnet says, “In England, the first Reformers were generally in the sublapsarian hypothesis; but Perkins and others asserted the supralapsarian way.”—Exposition of the Articles, p. 151. Dr. Heylin, a zealous Arminian, has the following testimony. “Of any men who publicly opposed the Calvinian tenets in this University” (Oxford) “till after the beginning of King James’s reign, I must confess that I have hitherto found no good assurance.” Buckridge, tutor to Abp. Laud, and Houson, are all he can name. Quinq. Hist. Works, p. 626. When Laud preceded about suppressing Calvinistic doctrines, he could not “venture the determining of those points to a Convocation,” so general was the disposition of the bishops and clergy in favour of them. Heylin’s Life of Laud, p. 147. Bishop Burnet’s honest observations, in the close of his discussion of the Seventeenth Article, will not be forgotten. “It is not to be denied, but that the Article seems to be framed according to St. Austin’s doctrine.” . . . “Since the Remonstrants do not deny but that God, having foreseen what all mankind would, according to all the different circumstances in which they should be put, do or not do, He upon that did by a firm and eternal decree lay that whole design in all its branches, which He executes in time; they may subscribe this Article without renouncing their opinion as to this matter. On the other hand, the Calvinists have less occasion for scruple; since the Article does seem more plainly to favour them.”[11] Tract 90, p. 82. They affirm that their interpretation of the Articles was intended to be admissible, though not that which the authors took themselves. This is the old way of putting darkness for light further carried out. Dr. Powell, Archdeacon of Colchester, and Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, preached a sermon some forty years ago to instruct the University in the matter of subscribing to the Articles. And he says, “Where the original sense is one, and the received another, the subscriber is at liberty to use them in either.” But he never went so far as to say that the subsequently received sense was intended to be admissible by the compilers. And Dr. Hey, the Norrisian Professor, speaks of “a religious society changing its doctrines, and yet retaining the expressions by which they were defined;” and says, “In whatever degree the Articles grow obsolete, the Injunction, (that is, the Royal Declaration,) must grow so,” notwithstanding it commands interpretation in the literal sense; and “that a man, by speaking according to the literal sense, may speak falsehood.”—Lectures, vol. ii. p. 68, 72, 74. This mode of dealing with the Articles, when strongly carried out, as in the present case, issues, of course, in a total change. See Overton, p. 22–26.[12] British Critic, July, 1841, p. 45.[13a] Tracts for the Times, No, 71, p. 8, No. 78, p. 2.[13b] Justin Martyr, IrenÆus, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Jewel, Hooker, Morton, Hall, Laud, Ussher, Taylor, Stillingfleet, and many others. See Goode’s Divine Rule, ii. 484, &c. The importance of this question, according to the testimony of Roman Catholics themselves, is evident from such passages as the following from Lumper, Hist. Theol. vol. iii. p. 362. “If Protestants would admit that the complete Rule of Faith is Scripture joined with Divine Tradition, all the other controversies between us and them would soon cease.” See Goode, i. 103.[14] 2 Tim. iii. 15–17.[15a] Cor. ii. 2, and i. 23.[15b] In Tract 81, p, 75, adverting to expressions including the terms Christ crucified, they say, “It may be seen by an attention to the context in all the passages, where these expressions occur, that it is a very different view, and in fact the opposite to the modern notion, which St. Paul always intends by it. It is the necessity of OUR being crucified to the world; it is OUR humiliation together with Him; mortification of the flesh; being made conformable to His sufferings and death. It was a doctrine which was foolishness to the wise, and an offence to the Jew, on account of the debasement of the natural man which it implied.”[16a] Brit. Crit. for April, 1842, p. 446.[16b] Newman’s Lectures on Justification, p. 160, 236, 247.[16c] Pusey’s Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 71.[16d] Newman’s Lecture on Justification, p. 68.[16e] Tract 90, p. 13.[17] Tract 80 and 87.[18] That Aristotle should teach that we are to become right-minded by acting rightly, is not to be wondered at. He knew nothing of the work of the Spirit of God, or of the love of Christ, or of the impossibility (see Acts x. and xii.) of our acting rightly without the grace of the Holy Spirit to give a right mind first. But that Oxford Divines should teach so is to be wonderfully “dark amidst the blaze of noon!”[19] To be grafted into the church is to be outwardly admitted into the enjoyment of church privileges and ordinances. Rightly means, not as hypocrites, but with the repentance and faith of the regenerate. The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, do receive the sacrament of so great a thing as regeneration to their condemnation. Not receiving baptism rightly, they have no true part in the privileges and ordinances of the church, which are thereby sealed to the faithful.[20] When the invitation is received, “Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” (Acts xxii. 16,)—our church has guided us at once to say, it is the mystical, that is, the significant, washing away of sins, that is then accomplished; but so signifying the true, that a lively recollective enjoyment of it is excited in the mind. When we are called to obtain the true remission of sins, it is thus,—“Repent,” (there is the spiritual operation,) “and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,” (there is the outward sign) “for the remission of sins;” or, without any notice of the sign at all, “Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” But repentance, and faith, and conversion, are the fruits of regeneration. Baptism was no more intended to impart the spiritual cleansing from sin, than was the offering of the blood of bullocks and goats; and yet the people are spoken of as purged by that blood, and remission of sins as received by it. It was only a mystical ceremony.—Circumcision was the same: the thing itself was mystical: And Baptism is its counterpart; and both of them are significant of the remission of sins, “the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,” a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness in Christ Jesus, effected by the Holy Spirit of God implanting the seed of the Word of Christ in the soul and vivifying it; before even it is proper that baptism should be administered.[22a] 1 John v. 1. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.[22b] “Except a man be born of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Of the Holy Ghost comes the spiritual birth, and thereby the entrance into the spiritual kingdom or church of God: if the water of baptism be meant, then also figurative birth, and concurrently the visible kingdom or church to which baptism is the only door: a proper parallelism of idea being sustained. But probably, as the expression “baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” means, baptize with the Holy Ghost as a spirit of burning, so “born of water and of the Holy Ghost” means, “born of the Holy Ghost as a Spirit of washing,” the real “washing of regeneration.” This last expression is most frequently understood, and by Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Hopkins amongst others, to refer to the sacramental washing, not the spiritual. But why the force of the term regeneration should not preponderate over that of washing, I cannot see. So “the washing of water by the Word,” wherewith Christ sanctifies and cleanses His church, is the ablution, like as of water, that is by the Word, when the Holy Ghost uses that Word in the hearts of men.[23a] Matt. iii. 11.[23b] 1 Cor. xii. 13.[23c] Rom. vi. 3, 4, 6, 13.[24a] 1 Pet. iii. 21.[24b] Col. ii. 11, 12, 13.[24c] James i. 18[25a] 1 Pet. i. 23, 25.[25b] 1 John iii. 9, 10.[25c] See Scott’s Remarks on Bishop Tomline’s Refutation of Calvinism, vol. ii. p. 197.

“There may be in divers cases,” says Hooker, “life by virtue of inward baptism, where outward is not found.” B. v. 60.

The same may be argued concerning the real “forgiveness of sins,” and the mystical forgiveness. There is one spiritual baptism for the actual, and one sacramental baptism, significant of the same thing, for the significant remission. Equally distinct and separate, and even more so, if possible, is justification; of the possession of which by means of baptism the Scriptures say not a word, neither the Church of England, nor any other church, but the Church of Rome.[26] Sermons for the Times, p. 29, 30.[27a] The revival of “stations” for confession, of “the rod of discipline,” and “the robe of shame,” with other matters of penance, is wishfully inquired after, and may possibly ere long be brought about. See Wordsworth’s Sermon on Evangelical repentance.[27b] Tract 79, p. 5.[27c] Wordsworth’s Sermon, p. 42.[28a] Tracts, vol. i. Advt.[28b] Tract 4, p. 5. Theirs is stated to be “the only church in this realm, which has a right to be quite sure that it has the Lord’s body to give to His people.”[30] A pledge has respect to a thing future. The proper order of regeneration is to precede baptism, which cannot correctly therefore be a pledge of it? Where does Scripture so represent it? Circumcision was not a pledge to Abraham of the righteousness he had: a “seal” it was.

It is easy enough to state and explain the sound meaning belonging to our ritual and catechism. But it should be quite clear and obvious at the first glance, without explanation. The verbal expressions should be such, as that the right meaning only should present itself to the mind of the reader.[31a] Where our twenty-fifth Article says, that by the sacraments God doth not only quicken, but also confirm our faith in Him, “the Latin has nostramque fidem in se non solum excitat, (not vivificat) verum etiam confirmat.”—See the Latin Articles in Burnet.[31b] Pusey’s Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 51.[32a] Tract 90, p. 3.[32b] The sermon is printed almost entirely as it was written; but in preaching, the whole of this section, to the end of the second head, was omitted, on account of the time. A few other paragraphs were also shortened in the delivery, but the sense universally preserved.[33a] Melancthon, Loci. Com. Sig. de Monstr. Eccles.[33b] St. Paul adverts to the laying of the hands of the presbytery upon Timothy, and the laying of his own hands upon him; most probably referring to the same thing. St. Paul, himself a presbyter, possessed an actual superiority, like other apostles, among many presbyters; which, by Divine Providence, was continued in the church: and they who were advanced to it had the name of Bishop (once general among the presbyters) assigned and limited to them.

In the ordination of Deacons, our Church appoints the laying on of the hands of the Bishop only. For more of her views respecting ordination, see Burnet on the twenty-third Article. And note the liberal style of the article itself.[35] Hooker, (Book VI.) shows that with respect to sin generally, the Church, or the ministers thereof, can only declare the divine absolution of the truly repenting sinner believing in Jesus. She actually remits only such outward sins as she can take ecclesiastical cognizance of, and can retain and censure until openly repented of and confessed. Our Church expresses herself better in her Liturgical Absolution, than in that for the Visitation of the Sick, which might be improved.[37] Tracts, vol. ii. Advt.[38a] Rom. x. 13, &c.[38b] Acts xiii. 38, 39.[39a] Collect for the Ordering of Priests, “Most merciful Father,” &c.[39b] Tract 87, p. 75.[39c] 1 Peter i. 12.[39d] 1 Cor. ii. 4.[39e] I have said nothing of many other grounds of revived difference asserted by the Anglo-catholics; such as the Eucharistic sacrifice for the quick and dead, the invocation of saints, the worshipping of images and relics, and the spiritual supremacy of the Pope: it is enough to mention them. If those who assert all these things have the Holy Ghost, those who deny them have Him not.[40] Heb. iii. 7–11.[42] Exod. xxx. 31–33.[43] See also Col. i. 28, 29.—“Christ—whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: whereunto I also labour, striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily.”[46] Ephes. iv. 12. Acts xxvi. 18.[47] Acts v. 36, 37.