real.  Yet  the  fact  was  fact  before — otherwise  the  coronation
would.be  invalid.  Even  when  the  third  William  was  crown-
ed, there  was  the  symbol  of  a  previous  fact — the  nation's  de-
cree that  he  should  be  king :  and  accordingly,  ever  after,  all
is  dated  back  to  that.  You  talk  of  crown-prerogatives.  You
say  in  your  loyalty  you  "  would  bow  to  the  crown,  though  it
hung  upon  a  bush."  Yet  it  is  only  a  symbol !  You  only
say  it  "  in  a  figure."  But  that  figure  contains  within  it  the
royalty  of  England.
In  a  figure,  the  Bible  speaks  of  baptism  as  you  speak  of
coronation,  as  identical  with  that  which  it  proclaims.  It
calls  it  regeneration.  It  says  baptism  saves.  A  grand  fig-
ure, because  it  rests  upon  eternal  fact.  Call  you  that  noth-
ing ?

We  look  to  the  Bible  to  corroborate  this.  In  the  Acts  of
the  Apostles  Cornelius  is  baptized.  On  what  grounds  ?  To
manufacture  him  into  a  child  of  God,  or  because  he  icas  the
child  of  God  ?  Did  his  baptism  create  the  fact,  or  was  the
fact  prior  to  his  baptism,  and  the  ground  on  which  his  bap-
tism was  valid  ?  The  history  is  this :  St.  Peter  could  not  be-
lieve that  a  Gentile  could  be  a  child  of  God.  But  miracu-
lous phenomena  manifested  to  his  astonishment  that  this  Gen-
tile actually  vms  God's  child — whereupon  the  argument  of
Peter  w^as  very  natural.  He  has  the  Spirit,  therefore  baptism
is  superfluous.  Nay,  he  has  the  Spirit,  therefore  give  him  the
symbol  of  the  Spirit.  Let  it  be  revealed  to  others  what  he  is.
