But why are not the opposers of this positive doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration _consistent_?—In other cases, when arguing against those who are anxious to preserve the discipline of the Church, they insist upon “_a literal and grammatical explanation_;”—but here, the doctrine of the Article and Office not according with _their_ sentiments, they are solicitous to evade this rule. In Dr. Cardwell’s _History of Conferences connected with the revision of the Book of Common Prayer_, it is stated that, at that of the Savoy in 1661, when it was suggested by the opposers of Regeneration at Infant Baptism, that the wording of the Office should be altered to signify that Regeneration might _hereafter_ ensue;—it was decided by the Commission, composed of the Bishops and other learned Divines, that such alteration could not be sanctioned; that “the denial” of Regeneration at Infant Baptism “tends to anabaptism and contempt of the Holy Sacrament;” and therefore, that the Office, as it now stands, was strictly in accordance with the Holy Institution, and consequently the true doctrine of the Reformed Church. {26a} I must here, however, limit my observations on controversial points of doctrine. Suffice it to say, as I have before remarked, that in all matters of doubt, we cannot do better than fulfil the vows we have made, and be guided by the plain and literal directions of the Articles and Rubrics of our Church, rather than trust to our own fanciful and fallible interpretations. No safer guide, my Reverend Brethren, can we follow;—for if she is at once the descendant of the purest, truest representative of the Church Apostolical—if the Articles of her faith be all of them proveable to demonstration, from the word of God, as the primitive times interpreted it—and if she has only done her duty to God and man, by refusing either to add to this sacred deposit, or to diminish aught from it—if she has rejected nothing of the forms of preceding ages, but their superstition, or, of their creed, but its novelties; and emancipating herself from a fictitious antiquity, has taken her stand at once on the times of our Saviour and His Apostles—if, in refusing to lord it over Christ’s heritage, she only leaves us “the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free,” {26b} after teaching us how to use it—if, in discarding earthly mediators and the protection of angels, she brings us directly to our King and Saviour, to the over-shadowing wings of Him who loved us, and the strength of the living God—if, in the majestic austerity off her formularies, she chastises the imagination and the attractiveness of will-worship, only to offer up the sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, in words which are the perfection of a reason elevated by faith, and modelled upon inspiration—if she refuses to limit the Saviour’s offices, or modify the Gospel message, because she dares not rationalize upon the ways of God, or tamper with her