At the same time it may be proved, with the certainty of mathematical demonstration, that these words are not the language of assertion. It cannot be believed, with the 25th and 27th Articles before us, that our Church asserts the invariability of regeneration in all adults who are baptized. No language could be more decisive or distinct than theirs. “In such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect and operation.” But on turning to the Service of Baptism for Adults, we find the very same words used as are employed for infants, “Now that this person is regenerate.” It must be obvious to any man, that if these words are to be understood as a positive doctrinal assertion of invariable regeneration in adults, they are in flat contradiction to the Articles. If they are intended to assert the doctrine that every baptized adult is regenerate, they are in exact and direct opposition to the passages quoted above, which teach most carefully that every baptized adult is not regenerate. If this be the real meaning of our Service, the Prayer Book, in this matter, flatly contradicts itself. If, on the other hand, the passage in the Baptismal Service be the language of assumption, all is harmonious. In its statement of doctrine, the Church gives the caution; in its application to the individual, it confidently and unreservedly assumes the gift. In the case of adults, therefore, the language must be that of assumption, not assertion. But there is an exact identity between the words used for infants and adults. In this respect there is not a shade of difference between the two offices. “Now that this child is regenerate,” says the one; “Now that this person is regenerate,” says the other. Is it consistent, is it logical, is it common sense, to say that one thing is meant in one passage, and another thing in another? That one thing is meant on the 81st page, and a totally different thing by the same words on the 84th page of the same book? That one is assertion, while the other is admitted to be assumption? Common sense demands that in the same book, the same words should mean the same thing. The two passages must therefore be either both assumption or both assertion. Assertion is impossible in the one, and, therefore, assumption is logically necessary in both.