.... There is no passage in

the notion of one person's faith b person; and to make the efficacy it is the means of grafting into t Church, dependent upon the faith, n be baptized, but of those who bring hi to destroy the essence of the Sacramen inconsistencies which it is hardly neces out. The case which you suppose to be we all know, of every day occurrence. presented for Baptism by parties who l faith. Is that child baptized according commands or not? If not, it must be which no person will maintain; b grafted into the body of Chri

in the sense in wh

Again, take th

parents beir

to answer of that I

those of t

wno baptizes it. But if his prayers, offered in faith, make Baptism efficacious when privately administered, why should they not be equally efficacious when it is administered in public? and how can their efficacy be destroyed by the unfaithfulness of other parties who may be present?.... The Church declares, at the end of the Office for Public Baptism, It is certain, by God's Word, that children which are

baptized,

my living, and by so doing escape from ny further collision on the subject. bey the command, and, giving my to leave further proceedings in order that the case may be

+ical tribunals."

rise, that one who could fore him, should have

Bishop Blomfield himself did not suffer the occasion of the cholera to pass by without showing the same interest in the material comforts of the poor which he had already shown by giving his active assistance to the

1 That of baptismal regeneration.

doubt. As early as 1818 he had spoken severely of those clergymen who impugned this doctrine, and in his volume of sermons, published while at Bishopsgate, he had again stated it, guardedly but distinctly. In 1836 he wrote as follows to a clergyman on the effects of Infant Baptism :

There is no passage in Scripture which warrants the notion of one person's faith being imputed to another person; and to make the efficacy of Baptism, as far as it is the means of grafting into the body of Christ's Church, dependent upon the faith, not of the child to be baptized, but of those who bring him to the font, is to destroy the essence of the Sacrament, and involves inconsistencies which it is hardly necessary to point

out.

The case which you suppose to be impossible is, we all know, of every day occurrence. An infant is presented for Baptism by parties who have no lively faith. Is that child baptized according to our Lord's commands or not? If not, it must be baptized again, which no person will maintain; but if it is, then it is grafted into the body of Christ's Church, and regenerate, in the sense in which our Church employs the term. Again, take the case of a child baptized privately, the parents being dead, or out of the way, and no sponsors to answer for it. Upon whose prayers does the efficacy of that Baptism depend? You will say, perhaps, upon those of the minister who baptizes it. But if his prayers, offered in faith, make Baptism efficacious when privately administered, why should they not be equally efficacious when it is administered in public? and how can their efficacy be destroyed by the unfaithfulness of other parties who may be present?.... The Church declares, at the end of the Office for Public Baptism, 'It is certain, by God's Word, that children which are baptized,

dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.' But they cannot be saved, as far as we know, except they be regenerate. Therefore every such child is regenerate. When the Church limits the effects of Baptism to those who are rightly baptized, it is clear from the Office of Private Baptism that it means those who have been baptized with water, in the name of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. And if the Church considered that Baptism is rightly administered only when the parents or sponsors pray in faith, how could any minister take upon himself to declare, ‘I certify you that in this case all is well done, and according to due order concerning the baptizing of this child, who, being born in original sin and in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of regeneration in Baptism, received into the number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life?'

Whatever may be the notions of private persons as to the kind of regeneration which takes place in Baptism, it is abundantly clear what the Church means by it. If you think that you can reconcile your present opinions with the language both of the Articles and Offices of the Church, I have no right to question your sincerity. And as to preventing you from taking possession of

-, the thing is done. It is a very different question, whether, with a knowledge of your opinions, I should have collated you in the first instance, and whether, having done so, I should afterwards resume the grant. I am not, however, quite without hope that, as your opinions respecting Baptism have been fluctuating for some time past, you may be led by further reading and reflection to take what I believe to be a more scriptural as well as rational view of the subject than that which you entertain at present....."

Again, a few years later:

To the Hon. and Rev. B. W. Noel.-Not true to say that few serious persons believe in Baptismal Regeneration. "LONDON HOUSE, Feb. 16, 1840.

".... The more I consider the bearing of your remarks, not upon Baptismal Regeneration itself, but upon the disbelief of it on the part of the great body of the clergy, the more strongly I feel that it is incumbent upon you to offer those whose honesty you have apparently impeached, some declaration that you did not intend to impeach it, and some explanation of the sense in which you used the offensive expression.

That there is one sense, at least, in which the clergy at large admit the notion of Baptismal Regeneration you certainly cannot deny. Many understand the term in another, and, as you think, unscriptural sense; but to assert that they are therefore not serious in their religious belief is, in a high degree, presumptuous and uncharitable.

That a great number, I believe by far the greater number, of those clergymen who are sometimes termed (properly enough as to the fact, but improperly if by way of distinction) serious clergymen receive Baptismal Regeneration in some sense, appears from what Mr. Bickersteth, who, I suppose, will be admitted as a fair and able exponent of their views, has very recently stated in his work on Baptism. In this view the Church of Christ admits and recognises the regeneration of the baptized.' 'Regeneration, as an entrance into Church privileges, always accompanies Baptism, whatever may be the future course of the baptized.'

In this sense of the words there are few, I apprehend, of the clergy who are not ready to admit the notion of Baptismal Regeneration; and therefore, even though you thought a belief in the higher notion of it inconsistent with seriousness (which you have surely no right