It is argued, however, that infants oppose no obstacle to the operation of Divine grace, and, therefore that in their case the moral character of the recipient invariably insures the blessing. We are not about to discuss this question, for it is not amongst “the things that are written.” There is not a word upon the subject in the Scriptures, and, therefore, we can only expect to be perplexed and led astray when we attempt to define and to determine. This, only, we would remark—that there is no argument drawn from the moral innocence of infants to prove their invariable regeneration, which would not equally prove that Esau was as much a child of God as Jacob. They were born on the same day, and of the same parents; they were circumcised by the same persons under the same circumstances, and we leave it to those who believe God’s gifts to become invariable through the moral innocence of infants to explain the words of God himself, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom. ix. 13.)
(2.) Again, In all the doctrinal passages of Scripture the new birth is said to be invariably accompanied by holiness of personal character.
Only refer to the first epistle of St. John, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1 John iii. 9, 10.) “Everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.” (1 John iv. 7, 8.) “Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1 John v. 4.) “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” (1 John v. 18.)
There are some acknowledged difficulties in these passages; but we make a fearless appeal to any unprejudiced mind: do they not teach beyond the possibility of controversy that the man without faith and without love is not born of God, and that we have no scriptural warrant for calling those regenerate who grow up in sin, who spend their strength in sin, and who go to the grave with the curse of unrepented sin upon their heads?
(3.) The practice of the Apostles accords with these doctrinal statements. They always assumed regeneration in baptized professors until sad facts proved the contrary; but there was a limit to this assumption. And when these sad facts occurred, they declared in language the most explicit that such characters were not regenerate by God.
The language of St. Peter to Simon Magus in Acts viii, 21, is not addressed to him as to a regenerate man in a state of inconsistency; but to an unregenerate man in a state of false profession. In one sense Simon had believed. Like the devils he had been convinced, but he had no union with his Saviour either before his baptism or after it; and though on the principle of assumption the inspired Apostle had sanctioned his baptism on his profession, on the principle of Christian truth he pronounced him reprobate on the manifestation of his sin. “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.”
The language of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians is of the same character. In 2 Cor. xiii, 5, he says, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” The word here rendered “reprobate” is the word which would be applied to false coinage when tested and found wanting. Those, therefore, who were not in the faith were regarded by St. Paul not as regenerate persons who were inconsistent, but as base metal; persons who bore the outward sign of Christianity, but who were not really regenerate, and were, therefore, enjoying no real union with the Lord Jesus.
Just so St. John wrote of those who had apostatized from the faith. (1 John ii, 19.) “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” In these words there are three things carefully to be observed. First: The persons alluded to must have been baptized professors, who at one time had been in fellowship with the Apostles, for it is quite impossible to suppose them unbaptized at the time when they were “with us,” i.e. in union and communion with the Church. Secondly: These persons had broken off from this communion, and were openly antichristian in their principles. Thirdly: St. John explains their conduct upon the principle that they had never been what they had professed to be, and describes their desertion of the truth as a manifestation of their real, though previously hidden, character. On the principle of assumption they had been received into the fellowship of the Church of God; but they were condemned as reprobates as soon as sad facts made manifest the falsehood of their profession. We should not fear to rest the whole question of invariable regeneration in baptism upon this one single text. It is impossible to suppose them unbaptized, and with the inspired Word before us it is equally impossible to regard them as regenerate.
While, therefore, in their hortatory addresses the inspired Apostles always assumed the gift to have been imparted whenever the sacrament had been received, in their doctrinal statements of Divine truth they taught plainly that baptized unbelievers are not to be regarded as regenerate, and that in accordance with the general law of God’s kingdom the outward sign of Baptism may be unaccompanied by the inward gift.
We proceed, then, to our next subject of inquiry, namely, the teaching of the Church of England.