of him as being truly and really his. We see the present phenomena of character, various acts and expressions, various indications of present sentiment, and feeling, and will. But supposing he lives another twenty years, and this character disappears, and another comes in its place, shall we say that he was really and truly of that former character, even when he had it? In one sense we may, and the ordinary forms of speech adopt this sense, and do so describe him. We talk commonly of such an one having been once a very good chracter, and now being completely changed, and become a very bad one. But it is evident that the human mind cannot rest in such a simple cutting a man into two as this, but probes for some unity of the moral being underneath this surface of division and duality. It seems unreal to rest contentedly in the former character of the man, as if it were substantial, even for the time of its duration-for true substance ought to continue: if it vanishes and comes to nothing, it was not true substance. In moral scrutiny then, and the estimation of human character, the philosopher makes the end tell backwards upon the beginning, and antedates it from the first. The predestinarian does the same thing in the department of grace. He asserts in the first place the communication by God to man of temporary grace, that is to say, grace which is really and truly grace for the time, though it afterwards stops, and stops finally. And on this principle he speaks of all men as put into a state of grace in their infancy by baptism, whatever they turn out in their after life, and whatever be the futurity of that grace, whether to continue or to terminate. But he is ready to admit that in another, a peculiar, and a philosophical aspect of the matter, that never was a state of grace, which was not, in the divine spiritual administration, continued in the individual; but stopped and came to nothing. He is taken to the end, as the test of reality in the case of grace, just as the moralist was taken to the end, as the test of reality in the case of human character.1 He probes for a unity in the work of grace, just as the moralist probes for a unity in the moral being. A man was once good, and ends in being bad; grace was once a man's state, and afterwards ceased to be; both are true in an ordinary sense, and neither are true in an esoteric. In an esoteric sense the man is one moral being from the first, and not first one and then another:

1 It may be said that the two cases differ, because grace may have been given ever so genuinely and substantially, although neglect on the part of the individual caused it afterwards to be withdrawn: but it must be remembered that the predestinarian, as such, regards grace as absolutely creative of human goodness, just as the moralist regards the will. That grace, therefore, according to him, which stopped short of this creation, had not the true quality of grace; and the ultimate failure threw back an unsubstantiality upon the beginning, and proved that grace, so called, had not been real grace at all.

grace, or the absence of it, is grace, or the absence of it from the first, and not first the one, and then the other. The end decides which it is, and is antedated from the first either way.

While S. Augustine, however, occasionally holds this language, he expressly guards it from being used in the least degree to the supplanting or the qualifying of the recognised language of the Church, respecting baptism, that it is the instrument of regeneration, and that all in their infancy receive regeneration, and are made the sons of God in baptism. There is a passage, for example, of some length, in the book De Correptione et Gratia, which begins:

Nor let us be disturbed, if to some of His own sons God does not give that perseverance. God forbid indeed that this should be the case of those who are predestinated and called according to His purpose, who are truly the children of the promise. But of those others it may be. For, as for them, on account of their pious life (present life he means), they are CALLED the sons of God, but inasmuch as they are going to live wickedly and die in this wickedness, they are not pronounced the sons of God by the foreknowledge of God.'

The passage proceeds—

....

'Of such John saith: "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. "They went out from us, but they were not of us"-that is to say, they were not of us when they were seen among us. . . . . They were not sons, even when they had the profession and name of sons: not that their goodness was feigned, but that it did not continue. They were in good, but because they did not abide in it, i.e. did not persevere to the end; they were not, he says, of us even when they were with us-that is, they were not of the number of the sons of God, even when they were in the faith of sons: inasmuch as those who are truly sons are foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, and culled according to His purpose, that they may be chosen.'2

The passage concludes

We CALL them then elect, disciples of Christ, and sons of God, because those whom we see to have been regenerated and to live piously are thus to be CALLED ; but they really are what they are called, if they have remained in that on

Nec nos moveat quod filiis suis quibusdam Deus non dat istam perseverantiam. Absit enim ut ita esset, si de illis prædestinatis essent et secundum propositum vocatis, qui vere sunt filii promissionis. Nam isti cum pie vivunt dicuntur filii Dei; sed quoniam victuri sunt impie et in eadem impietate morituri, non eos dicit filios Dei præscientia Dei.

2 De quibus ait Joannes: Ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis; quod si fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum.'. 'Ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis ;' hoc est, et quando videbantur in nobis non erant ex nobis.... Non erant filii etiam quando erant in professione et nomine filiorum; non quia justitiam simulaverunt, sed quia in ea non permanserunt. Erant itaque in

bono, sed quia in eo non permanserunt, id est non usque in finem perseverarunt, non erant, inquit, ex nobis, etiam quando erant nobiscum; hoc est non erant in numero filiorum, etiam quando erant in fide filiorum; quoniam qui vere filii sunt præsciti et prædestinati sunt conformes imaginis Filii ejus, et secundum propositum vocati sunt ut electi essent.

account of which they are thus called. If they have not perseverance, however, i e. do not remain in the course they have begun-they are not truly thus called; inasmuch as what they are called they are not. They are not this, that is, in His eye who knows what they will be, and foresees the bad in which their end goodness will end.'1

Again, in a passage which occurs in the book De Dono Perseverantiæ

Have not lastly both been called, and followed the call, both been justified, both renewed by the laver of regeneration? True; but if he who certainly knew what he said [S. John, whose words "they went out from us, &c." he had just quoted] were asked this, He would reply, and say,-All this is true: in all these respects they were of us; nevertheless, according to a certain division [discretionem] they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. And what is that division? The divine books are open: the Scripture cries aloud for us to hear. They were not of us, because they were not called according to His purpose; they were not elected in Christ before the foundation of the world; they did not obtain their lot in Him; they were not predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things."

12

Now what is the language held in these passages but this: that in one particular point of view, namely, with reference to the ultimate issue of things, and making that the test of all that had gone before it, many who are regenerate and are the sons of God in the ordinary acceptation of the terms, are not regenerate and not the sons of God really; but that this is only one particular point of view, and that in all common acceptation, these persons are regenerate and are the sons of God now. He allows, he sanctions, he demands the liberty, to deny in one sense the equal regeneration of all members of the Church; but he immediately adds that that is an esoteric sense, a philosophical sense; and that the liberty so used is not to interfere at all with the counter assertion that all are alike regenerate. While he does not assert that in all points of view all members of the Church are regenerate, he does assert that all are regenerate, though not in all points of view. This is the point. The holder

1 Appellamus ergo nos et electos et Christi discipulos, et Dei filios, quia sic appellandi sunt quos regeneratos pie vivere cernimus; sed tunc vere sunt quod appellantur, si manserint in eo propter quod sic appellantur. Si autem perseverantiam non habent, i.e. in eo quod coeperunt esse non manent, non vere appellantur quod appellantur et non sunt: apud eum enim hoc non sunt, cui notum est quod futuri sunt, id est, ex bonis mali.-De Corrept. et Grat. c. ix.

2 Nonne postremo utrique vocati fuerant, et vocantem secuti, utrique ex impiis justificati, et per lavacrum regenerationis utrique renovati? Sed si hæc audiret ille qui sciebat proculdubio quod dicebat, respondere posset et dicere: Vera sunt hæc, secundum hæc omnia ex nobis erant. Veruntamen secundum aliam quandam discretionem non erant ex nobis; nam si fuissent ex nobis, mansissent utique nobiscum. Quæ est tandem ista discretio? Patent libri Dei, clamat Scriptura divina, adhibeamus auditum. Non erant ex eis quia non erant secundum propositum vocati; non erant in Christo electi ante constitutionem mundi; non erant in eo sortem consecuti; non erant prædestinati secundum propositum ejus, qui universa operatur.'-De Dono Perseverantiæ, c. ix.

one

of Baptismal Regeneration does not require us to say that all baptized infants are in every sense of the word, regenerate; he only requires us to say, that all baptized infants are regenerate. And here he has S. Augustine, in the very passages which would be pointed to as favouring his opponent, most clearly and decisively on his side. S. Augustine, to the question whether persons subsequently proving reprobates, have been called, justified, renewed by the laver of regeneration' answers, 'All this is true; in all these respects they were of us:' (Vera sunt hæc, secundum hæc omnia ex nobis erant.) He says expressly of such persons, 'We call them elect and children of God; and they are thus to be called,' (Appellamus nos electos et Dei filios quia sic appellandi sunt.) It will be said, 'S. Augustine, you see, only says they are to be called so; he adopts our language and mode of speaking, the hypothetical one.' But this is just what he does not do. How is a man called elect, and how is a man called the child of God? Is the way of calling him elect to say it is doubtful whether he has ever been chosen? And is the way to call a man a child of God to say that it remains to be seen whether he is or not? How do we call a man honest, and how do we call a man true, or brave, or faithful? Do we call him honest by saying that we do not know whether he is honest or dishonest ? Is that the mode and way of calling a man honest? If it is it is a very unserviceable one, but we apprehend it is not. We call anything that which we do call it, by saying that it is that thing which we call it. We call a thing round, or we call a thing square, by saying that it is round, or is square. We call a man honest by saying that he is honest. And in the same way we call a man elect, by saying that he is elect, and we call a man a child of God, by saying that he is a child of God. S. Augustine then imposes, as plainly as words can show, the assertion that we are all, as members of the Church, made regenerate and children of God. Will those who claim S. Augustine's authority, do what he tells them? Will they call the baptized members of the Church regenerate, say, that is, that they are regenerate? Will they make that statement? If they object to do so, they are clearly not followers of S. Augustine. For it would be a strange inference to draw from S. Augustine's express direction that something was to be said, that therefore he meant that that something was not to be said; and because he pronounced that all members of the Church were to be called regenerate, that therefore he meant they were not to be called so.

This question indeed of Baptismal Regeneration is in a very large sense a practical question. The question is what ground is to be taken, and what line is to be pursued, in speaking and dealing with the mass of members of the Church whom you have to educate as

Will

children, and whom you have to instruct and exhort as adults. Are you to suppose, in your addresses and appeals to them, that they have received a particular grace, termed regeneration, in baptism; or are you to suppose that they have not; or are you to suppose it uncertain whether they have or have not? One of these three lines must be taken, and the question is which. S. Augustine says, as plainly as words can signify, that the first of these three lines is to be taken. He says that all the body of baptized are to be called regenerate and sons of God; i.e., that we are to assert and state that they are regenerate and are the sons of God. He gives his unqualified support to that system of teaching and preaching which supposes the Christian body addressed, to have been regenerated; that system which sends men back to their baptism as the source of their spiritual life, appeals to them on the ground that they have received that gift, and are responsible for its use and improvement; and takes generally a certain past and conferred new birth as the status of the Christian body, instead of a future and uncertain one. those who appeal to S. Augustine adopt this system? If they will, we, for our part, will allow them the internal counterbalance to it if they like. If they will adopt S. Augustine's practical language, they may claim their right to his esoteric. It is nothing to us if a person, upon a distinct and peculiar ground, because he considers that the end as known and determined on in the Eternal foreknowledge of God really gives the character to all states of the individual previous to it; so that a person who is not ultimately regenerate has never been really regenerate; it is nothing to us if in the peculiar aspect which Eternal foreknowledge suggests, he declines to say that the body of Christians are regenerate. It does not weigh a feather with us, his holding the results of one peculiar and mystical point of view, simply as the results of such a view. He is as welcome to them as possible, and we would not attempt to tyrannize over such speculations in their proper place. But he must do something else too. It is contrary to every principle of common sense to suppose that a great practical system of teaching should be interfered with by such a peculiar esoteric aspect of things. It is impossible for us to say what things are or are not, with reference to this ultimate end, and as existing in the Divine Eternal foreknowledge. If we wait for this ultimate test, we may suspend our assertions at once about everything which takes place in this lower world. But in the meantime the Church does make assertions, and does require her members to make them. All her fathers and teachers have made assertions about the Christian body. The most speculative, and those most deeply impressed with the fact of the mere outside and surface, the mere husk and shell, which the visible Church is as compared