[28a] Bp. of Exeter’s Letter, p. 52.
[28b] Efficacy of Baptism, p. 85.
[28c] P. 88.
[28d] P. 112.
[28e] P. 113.
[29] P. 197.
[30a] Judgment, p. 14.
[30b] Ibid. 14.
[31] A letter in the Guardian, of March 13th, signed “Solicitus,” has placed this statement in a very intelligible point of view. As it is brief I will venture to quote it.
“It has been asserted by the Privy Council that the baptismal and burial offices are parallel cases:—we hope that the child is regenerate: we hope the dead brother is to rise to eternal life?
“But are the cases parallel? Is it not a notorious fact, that at the Savoy Conference in consequence of the Puritan objections, the words ‘in sure and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life’ were altered into ‘in sure and certain hope of the’ (i.e. the general) ‘resurrection to eternal life.’ And on the other hand when the words ‘it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant by thy Holy Spirit,’ were objected to by the same parties (on the ground that the ‘regeneration of every child that is baptised,’ is at least’ a ‘disputable point,’) no alteration was made. How came this to pass? Surely the Church of England wanted to show that her language with regard to the dead was only that of charitable hope; but that she held the doctrine of regeneration in baptism absolutely and without qualification.—Yours, faithfully,
“Solicitus.”