definite doctrine upon this subject, has often led men to adopt one or other of two opposite extremes, which have the appearance of greater simplicity and definiteness, that is, either to deny the lawfulness of infant baptism altogether, or to embrace the doctrine of baptismal justification and regeneration, and to represent all baptized infants, or at least all the baptized infants of believing parents, as receiving these great blessings in and with the external ordinances, or as certainly and infallibly to receive them at some future time." That is, some have been led by the inconsistent position of those who baptize infants, but deny them the privileges of church-membership for Dr. Cunningham and his Presbyterian brethren, as well as others, deny this — to find a consistent support for infant baptism by accepting the theory of baptismal regeneration, i.e. becoming Ritualists; or else have accepted the only other consistent alternativebecoming Baptists, and thus holding the doctrine of a converted church-membership. And these are the only two possible solutions of the question. As long, therefore, as the "haziness of vision" of which Mr. Grout complains continues, and as long as men "form insensibly very erroneous and defective views of the objects and ends of baptism" as administered to infants, we must expect this. If they cling to infant baptism, and yet hold to the doctrine of regeneration, they must become Ritualists; if they give up infant baptism, they must, in theory at least, become Baptists. Dr. Anderson, of Glasgow, has recently said of this tendency toward baptismal regeneration in Scotland: "There is yet detectable among our Presbyterian population an impure leaven of the superstition of water-baptism sanctification," 2 which, just before, he humorously defines as "spiritual hydro-dynamics, or, still more specifically, spiritual hydraulics - -a first principle of the popish science of salvation." Thus, it matters not what efficacy is attributed to the baptism of infants, what privileges are regarded as insured to them by means of it,

1 Historical Theology, p. 151.

2 Dr. Anderson on Regeneration, p. 25. Compare p. 116.

or what relation they are regarded as holding to the visible church in virtue of it, the question of a regenerated churchmembership comes up, and must be disposed of; and the various efforts made to harmonize the two give evidence of their essential antagonism, and hence demonstrate the solution of the problem impossible. Dr. Nadal's is the only possible one; but that is not a solution, for it denies that regeneration is a condition of membership in the visible church.

Now, the fact is, that the reconciliation of the doctrine of a regenerated church-membership and the retention of infant baptism to say nothing of the church-membership of baptized children-is impossible, because the two things are essentially antagonistic; and therefore these and all other efforts to harmonize them, and that "haziness of vision" and "indistinctness of conception" of which we have just noticed complaint, are simply the indisputable evidences of their diametrical opposition to each other. If what the New Testament plainly teaches concerning the significance of baptism is always to be learned from those instances of, and references to, adult baptism it contains from which source Dr. Cunningham, as we have just seen, says it must, - then infant baptism must be explained in some way harmonizing with that fact. But we can conceive of no possible way of so explaining it, except the theory of baptismal regeneration. Mr. Grout writes his Article to prove that infants are members of the church, but denies the theory of the Ritualist, that they are made new creatures in Christ Jesus. Hence, when he comes to deal with the subject of a regenerated church-membership, he denies to them every privilege to which as members one would suppose them entitled. All he claims for them in the former portion of his essay, he denies to them in the latter. Evidently, the cause of his self-contradiction is that in heart he is loyal to the evangelical doctrine of personal moral renovation by the Holy Spirit as an indispensable prerequisite to participation in spiritual privileges, but yet clings to infant baptism. He cannot, and

he does not, make the two things harmonize. The same is true of Dr. Nadal. He, too, repudiates everything savoring of baptismal regeneration. Unlike Mr. Grout, he makes no attempt to reconcile infant baptism and a regenerate membership. He meets the case, and undoubtedly presents a theory logically consistent, by denying that regeneration is a condition of admission into the church of Christ, and thus relieves the question of all difficulty; for he holds that all the difficulty, haziness, and obscurity that has enveloped this question, or may now shroud it, arises from the fundamental misconception "that adults must be regenerated before entering the visible church." If this conflict of conclusions, among those who concede the existence of difficulties and attempt to remove them and present a consistent theory, be not strong presumptive evidence of essential antagonism between the two things themselves, we confess our judgment at fault. And if the advocates of infant baptism find themselves thus embarrassed respecting its meaning and design, and are forced to dispose, by methods so essentially different, of personal regeneration as necessary to participation in some of the privileges of church association, as we have just seen Mr. Grout and Dr. Nadal do, we need not be surprised that so eminent a man as Dr. Cunningham should have made such strong concessions to the plausibility if we may not use a stronger term of the position of Baptists; for they, to say the least, have the appearance of consistency in their view of the proper subjects of baptism, and certainly are troubled by no such doubts and self-conscious contradictions between their theory and practice as their Paedobaptist brethren. We say "self-conscious contradictions"; for, as these two Articles and the remarks of Dr. Cunningham and of others we might quote show, they feel that between the practice of infant baptism and the advocacy of a regenerated churchmembership there is a strong appearance, at least, of inconsistency, which is ever calling for explanation. The truth, as it seems to a Baptist in contemplating this dilemma in which his Paedobaptist brethren concede themselves to be, is

this: They hold and preach and demand regeneration as indispensable to participation in spiritual privileges; and hence, whenever they defend the doctrine of regeneration, or attempt the explanation of infant baptism, as Dr. Cunningham does, so as to make it harmonize with that conception of baptism we form on seeing it administered to adults, or read in the New Testament of its being administered to that class, they take Baptist ground, and make infant baptism a practical nullity; their statement of its utility and design being shrouded in a mystical indefiniteness. And when they attempt the defence of infant baptism, they (though protesting against it, and endeavoring to steer clear of it) are constantly verging toward the theory of baptismal regeneration excepting, of course, any who may accept of Dr. Nadal's conclusion, that the whole difficulty arises from making regeneration essential to adult participation in the ordinances and in the spiritual privileges of church-membership. Thus are they forced to oscillate perpetually between the Baptist and the ritualistic theories, because they hold both substantially. Infant baptism can have no consistent defence not ritualistic, if it is to be harmonized with the doctrine of a regenerated church-membership; and no development or defence of what they hold respecting a converted church-membership is possible that does not favor, and by the concessions it necessitates prove, the correctness of the position of Baptists. And, as these two principles exist among evangelical Paedobaptists, so, we believe, the more earnestly men among them,-like Mr. Grout, for instance, pressed by the unsatisfactory and indefinite status of baptized children, attempt the solution of the question, that they may set their "feet on solid ground," the clearer will the baptistic and the ritualistic principles be brought out; and then they who have been "born of the Spirit" will (theoretically, at least) subscribe to the Baptist position, and they who have the "form of godliness without the power" will revert to the ritualistic. The two principles are oppo

sites. "The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman."

As we have intimated, it is our evangelical Paedobaptist brethren who encounter those difficulties in attempting to frame a consistent defence of infant baptism. The Roman Catholic and the Ritualist have no difficulty; for they find in the regenerating power of the ordinance of baptism a solution which, granting their theory of the visible church, is satisfactory. The evangelical Paedobaptist, however, has no such theory to come to his assistance, and his evangelical principles lay their interdict upon his adopting it. His trouble comes up afresh every time he defends his doctrine of a regenerated church-membership. And the more zealous he becomes in the advocacy of this, the greater become the contradictions between his belief in it and his practice of baptizing unconscious infants. To us, therefore, the following points seem clear respecting any method by which the evangelical Paedobaptist may attempt the reconciliation of these two things.

(a) He must reject the theory of baptismal regeneration. This, it is evident, he cannot accept. It belongs to the Ritualist. The evangelical Paedobaptist is an enemy of ritualism. We have an instance of this, at the present time, in the controversy between the high-church and the lowchurch Episcopalians. That controversy turns on this very point: "Does the administration of baptism effect the regeneration of the infant, or not?" We know there are other points of dissent in the interpretation of the Prayer-book ; but this is the pivotal one. The low churchman is evangelical. Though baptizing infants, he nevertheless denies that they are thereby and therein "born again," and consequently insists that men must be renewed by the Holy Spirit, or they cannot enter into "the kingdom of heaven." Like the low churchman, all evangelical Paedobaptists must deny baptismal regeneration. In defining the status of baptized children, therefore, it is evident the evangelical Paedobaptist must leave this theory altogether out of the question.