Nor is there any exception in the case of infants. Our Reformers in framing the Articles adhered most resolutely to their Bibles, and when the word of God was silent they were silent also. There is no exception respecting infants in the Scriptures; there is none therefore in the Articles. They state as much as, and no more than, the word of God itself instructs them. Nay more, it is plain, both from the Catechism and the Baptismal Service, that no such distinction is recognized. The Catechism does not set aside the necessity of faith and repentance in the case of infancy, but supposes it satisfied by the promise of the sureties. So, also, in the Baptismal Service, the same questions are asked as are asked of adults. There is not the least distinction in respect of infancy; nor the least hint at invariable moral qualification, setting aside the necessity of a positive declaration of the Christian faith. Of course there are difficulties connected with the baptism of unconscious children, but these have nothing to do with our present subject. All that we are now concerned with is the fact that our Church makes no distinction in their favour, but that in every instant she requires a certain confession, and thereby in every instance denies the invariability of the connexion between the inward gift and the outward sign. {29} Again, therefore, we find complete and exact agreement between the Prayer Book and the Bible. In all personal passages the connexion is assumed. In doctrinal statements moral conditions are required, and the invariability of the connexion is denied. This distinction is the simple key to the two passages in the Baptismal Service which have occasioned so much discussion. “Seeing, now, dearly beloved, that this child is regenerate.” “We yield Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for Thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into Thy holy Church.” If the preceding argument be correct, the question with reference to these passages is obviously reduced to this: Are they the language of strong faith assuming the gift given when the outward act had been duly performed? Or, are they a dogmatical statement of the doctrine that every baptized infant is by that act regenerate by the Holy Ghost?