contrary to fact. We find it also applied by them to a state of repentance, to a state of faith,-to the resurrection of the body,-to the renovation of the world after the final conflagration,-to the commencement of a new period of duration after the end of the present world, to the permanent state of sinless perfection to be enjoyed by the Saints in Heaven.

What then can we think of the Bishop's " carefully examining nearly seventy folio volumes-of "the Fathers—and extracting from them what re"lated to the subjects in question"--and as the result of this careful examination confidently assuring the public, that "regeneration in the language of the Fathers constantly signifies the participation of the Sacrament of Baptism”—and "that they never use the word regenerate but that

66

they mean by it baptism ?" In the preface his lordship says, "I desire it to be understood that I "have not selected" from the writings of the Fathers "what suits my own purpose, and suppressed "what would have made against me." It belongs to his lordship to account for the inconsistency of this declaration with the matter of fact. The most charitable supposition that offers itself, and a supposition, if correct, the least discreditable to the learned Prelate, is, that this tedious examination of the Fathers was, partly, conducted by the assistance of some person employed to read them to him; and that these unfavourable passages happened to be read at some drowsy moments, when his lordship was avail ing himself of the privilege allowed by an ancient

critic to authors engaged in works of considerable length. But every sincere friend of his lordship will unite in advising him, before he hazards any more general assertions respecting the Fathers, to examine their seventy folios over again.

66

ઃઃ

In a passage, which his lordship quotes with ap probation, we are told that "Regeneration, as " often as 'tis used in the Scripture Books, signifies "the Baptismal Regeneration. There is but one "word which answers to this in the New Testament, " and this is Παλιγγενεσία, and that Παλιγγενεσία refers to Baptism, is plain, by having the word A87por joined with it"-" According to his mercy λετρον he saved us, δια λετρο παλιγγενεσίας, by the "washing of Regeneration-Tit. iii. 5." But such an observation is little better than trifling, while the New Testament contains so many other expressions which clearly relate to the same subject. Here is nothing but assertion that Aerpov must refer to the water of baptism, assertion unsupported by the least proof.

Suppose any one were to argue in this manner : "To regenerate, as often as it is used in the Scrip"ture Books, signifies, not the administration of

any outward and visible sign, but the communi"cation of some inward and spiritual grace. "There is but one word which answers to this in "the New Testament, and this is avayevaw and

opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum.

Horat. Art. Poet,

+ Refut. p. 81.

66

"that avayevvaw refers not to Baptism, is plain, by "the only sacred writer who uses it neither men"tioning that Sacrament, nor even glancing at it by "the most distant allusion, throughout the chapter "where the word occurs." "Blessed be the God "and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again (avayevvnoas regenerated us) unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Seeing ye have purified your souls "in obeying the truth through the Spirit, unto unfeigned love of the brethren; see that ye love <c one another with a pure heart fervently being "born again (avayeyevnμEvo being regenerated) not " of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the "word of God which liveth and abideth for ever*." I submit to every understanding, whether an examination of the whole context can discover the most distant allusion to justify the application of the term Regeneration pleaded for by his lordship, and whether this reasoning respecting the use of the word ava¬ γεννάω be not more just than the above remark quoted and adopted by his lordship on the word παλιγγενε σια. It is acknowledged by the same author, p. 81. that our Saviour indeed made use of the like expression before the Apostle to Nicodemus, Except

"

a man yevvnbev avwley be born again, he cannot see ""the kingdom of God.'-John iii. 3. But what he

cr

" means by being born again, he explains, ver. 5.

"a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he ❝cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" But here again we require some proof that these words ought to be understood in a literal sense, before we can admit the assertion that our Lord "directs" the phrase born again "positively to baptism." As well might his lordship contend, as many have done, that when our Lord said, "Except ye eat the flesh "of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have "no life in you;" he "directed" his meaning "positively" to the other Christian Sacrament. But not to multiply arguments, we are sure these words could have no such meaning, as they were spoken in the present tense before the Lord's Supper was instituted. With equal plausibility might we understand the prediction, that the Saviour would

baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire," of a baptism with real, material fire. The absurdity which such an interpretation involves, is not to be removed by supposing it to have been literally accomplished on the day of Pentecost in the "cloven "tongues" which descended on the heads of the Apostles; for they were not tongues of real fire; they only resembled it-wop Tuρos" like as of "fire." And if such expressions as—“ eating the "flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man" -and "baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with "fire" be justly understood as figurative of spiritual privileges and blessings, what good reason can be assigned against a similar interpretation of the

* Matt. iii. 11.

phrase "born of water and of the Spirit?" The suspension of all sight and enjoyment of the kingdom of God on a participation of the Sacrament of Baptism, is a notion that ill becomes a Protestant Bishop, a Bishop of the Church of England in the nineteenth century. But it is time to return from this digression.

Sufficient evidence has now been adduced to enable the reader to form a decided opinion on the Calvinism or Anti-calvinism of the Church of England. A collation of these two classes of extracts cannot fail of producing, in every mind not blinded by prejudice or perverted by interest, the strongest conviction that the doctrines inculcated by the founders of this Protestant Church were, in the main, the very same that were taught by the Reformer of Geneva.

This conclusion is capable of still further confir mation. The Liturgy Articles and Homilies of the Church are not the only works of its Founders that have descended to the present times. There are other monuments of their theology, some composed by them individually, some the fruits of com bined labours. To these writings Dr. Tomline seems not inclined to appeal. He assumes, that neither the Homilies nor any of the Formularies of the Church contain any thing in favour of Calvinistic doctrines, and from this assumption derives what he calls a negative argument," that "the "authors were not Calvinists." Some of them his lordship has named, f If our great Reformers, the