assert, that they know the essential means and real influence, by which even our natural life is sustained? We know that we cannot sustain it ourselves, no, not even for a moment. We know that the means and influence are divine, and that they are ever essentially present. We learn the fact from Scripture, with the additional aid of our own reflection, and more than the general fact we know not-see particularly the 139th Psalm. The Church particularly and strikingly applies the Gospel, which she has selected, in the brief exhortation which follows it; she distinctly applies it to every particular case, and nothing can be more absurd in so precise a case, than the introduction of doting questions about futurity. The Church does more than this, in the subsequent address to the sponsors. She distinctly indicates the blessings, and peremptorily applies the promises of our Lord Jesus Christ, made over to us in his Gospel-which promise, she positively affirms, that he for his "part will most surely keep and perform." Is all this no more than mere words? and must we consult a vain philosophy, and enter into a various and vain strife of words, excited by science falsely so called, before we can yield our assent to language so distinct and decided? Mr. Scott imagines that he has made an important discovery, ch. vi. vii. viii. and ix. decisive of the controversy. He main. tains particularly, and at length in ch. viii. that what he calls the hypothetical principle pervades the service of the Church; and in ch. ix. that the same principle is adopted in Scripture. He is much delighted with his discovery, which is acutely con ceived and ably urged, and he is quite confident of its merits and efficacy. We have not time, and will not attempt to follow him. Perhaps he may be pleased to conclude that we are con scious of our inability. It may be so. We make him a present of this gratification without much anxiety.

If he means by his hypothetical principle, that the ultimate enjoy ment of all the promises of the Gospel is conditional, and depends on the future conduct of those to whom they are made, we perfectly agree with him, and only wonder why we have been subjected to all this waste and war of words, since Mr.S. ought to know, that this is a first and fundamental principle of the men with whom he is pleased to contend. But we suspect (for we will not too minutely enquire) the worthy gentleman of some latent fallacy and that our agreement is only apparent. The Church of England maintains the doctrine of universal redemption, on certain conditions, which she believes to be placed within the reach of all her members, if they are themselves disposed to yield to the obligations, under which, by the authority of God, she expressly lays them. She has no latent hypothesis, no secret meanings, to abrogate her promises, and nullify her blessings. Mr. S's.

R 2

hypothesis

hypothesis carries us silently forward to the inscrutable decrees of God. He is not satisfied with the plain and practical principle which is revealed, and which being revealed belongs unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law; but he is willing to dote a little upon those secret things, which belong only unto the Lord our God. If the infant or adult, who receives baptism, is now, or shall hereafter become, one of the elect, then, and in that case, Mr. S. is pleased to allow him all the positive benefit of our sacred forms; though the business being done before, or to be done hereafter altogether independently, that benefit will not be great. But if he is, or shall hereafter, become one of the reprobate, then, and in that case, by the aid of Mr. S's. hypothesis, our sacred services are an absolute nullity. They do nothing, and they infer nothing.

It is deeply to be deplored that such enquiries have ever been indulged, and such difficulties ever started. The simple doctrine, and the easy practice (most urgently enforced by every interesting obligation, and by every alarming motive) of our Church, are sufficient, we trust, to protect us against this most dangerous downfall. In every baptized infant she teaches, and we believe, that the sacred seed is sown. They are, it is said, incapable of spiritual influence.-We have no experience that they are so changed. You know not what they are capable of, and the very nature of the case precludes your presumptuous enquiries, and all your vain experience. We sow the seeds of plants, and frequently they remain long covered in the ground from all human view and investigation. We are profoundly ignorant of the nature and of the variety of the concealed operations. Yet do we certainly know that they are important and essential. Even when they become visible, our knowledge is very scanty, and altogether practical; and many are the conditions which enter into the case between the seed which we sow, and the fruit which we reap. See St. Mark iv. 26-30. The seed may be destroyed in the ground, and never even rise above it, but still in this case at least it will not be denied that it was originally sown. So also is the seed sown in baptized infants, whatever may be its future fate. Motives, at once more interesting and more awful, and a responsibility more tremendous, we cannot imagine, than those which attach to parents, sponsors, and ministers, to do their part in humble co-operation with the Spirit of God, the authority of the Church, and the ordinances of the Gospel, to bring the seed thus certainly sown, gradually, but surely, forward to maturity. It is obviously the opinion of Mr. S. and his friends, that where regeneration once is, its consequences will be infallible. We persist in rejecting these enquiries, and all the conclusions to which they lead. They are

useless

useless at least, and carried to their legitimate length they are in the highest degree dangerous; they are mere subtilties of science falsely so called, and certainly they are not supported by the Church of England.

Witsius (Economy of the Covenants, book 111. ch. 13.1. xxvi.) tells us that it is certain that David was not cut off from Christ, even when he was guilty of adultery and murder. It is a long and intricate story, to be sure, with the learned Dutchman's finally and totally, and "the spiritual life which incessantly flowed from Christ, exceedingly oppressed, and almost stifled with the poison of sin, coming in its appointed time powerfully to exert itself," &c. It is certainly to us, at least, neither very intelligible, nor very moral. But we believe it to be not uncommon doctrine among the friends of Mr. S. We had the following note of a sermon of a regular clergyman from a gentleman on whose veracity we can implicitly rely," But, my brethren, let not the most grievous sinner despair; let him cast his eyes upward, he will see the name of the adulterous murderer of Uriah, written in flaming letters of glory, on the gates of the New Jerusalem, let him read and gather comfort." All this may be very well, and very proper. These men are so much in the secret, with their experience and their impulses, that it may be very salutary; but truly to the uninitiated, it seems neither very wise, nor strictly moral.

It is most certain that David did steadfastly believe the promise that was made him touching the Messias, who should come of him touching the flesh, and that by the same faith he was justified, and grafted in our Saviour Jesus Christ to come; and yet afterwards he fell horribly, committing most detestable adultery, and damnable murder; and yet as soon as he cried Peccavi, I have sinned unto the Lord, his sin being forgiven, he was received into favour again." Homily of Repentance, Part 1st. 8vo. Ed. p. 453.

This seems sufficiently plain and perfectly practical, and from this no man wil! find much encouragement to sin, that grace may abound. David certainly enjoyed the peculiar blessing and favour of God. He as certainly lost both while he was under the gross guilt of horrible adultery and damnable murder.

The sacred seed is liable to numerous accidents, to serious dangers, and to absolute dissolution, not of its parts ouly, but of its substance. This is intelligible doctrine, and it is awfully alarming. But if we maintain, that regeneration comes we know not how, and obtains its final object infallibly; under what provisoes soever we modify our doctrine, we give direct occasion to presumption in one class of men, and to despair in another.

We solemnly declare that we heard the following, or words

equivalent,

equivalent, delivered in something that was called a Christian sermon,

"I see it plainly you will not hear-you are doomed to death and eternal damnation. But, O my brethren, hearken--O my friends, listen to me. Wretched as ye are, I have comfort for you, if you will only hear me. The Lord Jesus can wash away your sins. Aye, my brethren, if you were to commit murder, parricide, incest with your own mother (these horrible words we verify as they stand) to-day, and die to-morrow, and have faith in Christ, and call on the Lord Jesus, doubt not you will be saved."

Why do we mention these things? Because we are convinced that the questions agitated by the men whom we are now opposing, though in a restricted sense, have a direct tendency, and seem to have an increasing effect, to give currency to those wilder notions, which we are persuaded they abhor as much as we do. We have known the most abandoned felons, kept in a state of constant agitation, by regular and irregular clergymen, for upwards of a week, and exhibited to the world as fire-brands snatched from the fire, and as saints purified for heaven, by spiritual regeneration. We have heard the delusive dotings put into their minds, and agitated there by the convulsive circumstances of their situation, debited as marks of con version, and proofs of the Spirit, and verified as such, by ministerial zeal. One could say, O blessed gibbet, the gate of heaven. Another, See the sun shines upon us, a mark of the divine favour. A third could go a step farther, and say, I feel the Holy Ghost in my heart :-And these ravings are noted in a book, and circulated with assiduity through the land. Such folly, delusions so dangerous to the souls of men, would never obtain half their present influence would we confine ourselves strictly to the simple doctrine, and admirable practice of the Church.

Mr. S. seems perfectly convinced, that every thing which we predicate of spiritual influence must be subject to our cog, nizance of consciousness, if it affect ourselves, of experience, if it affect others. Now from the analogy under which the communication is originally made, St. John iii. 8. we gather with eertainty, that the influence of the Spirit is known only by its effects, and that we collect the proofs from reflection, combining the positive and moral works in one harmonious whole. “I will pray the Father," says the divine Redeemer," and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it SEETH him not, neither K NOWETH him: but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." St. John

xiv. 16, 17. It is equally clear to our apprehension, that the influence here so interestingly announced is secret and invisible. Here is no indication of impulses and emotions which the world night see, and experience know; but a secret and indwelling power, operating by means, and known by its fruits-known by a combination of evidence-not the object of mere sense, nor of mere consciousness.

66

Dr. Mant, in speaking of baptism, frequently uses the phrase, "rightly administered," for which he is very severely reproved by Mr. S. This is one of the chief grounds of the accusation, that his doctrine revives the opus operatam. Now we do imagine that the most moderate share of candour, would have discovered, without being told, that this could not be Dr. M's. meaning, and that had it been his purpose to discuss the full and final consequences of baptism, he would not only have added, rightly received," in the case of adults, but he would have included the condition of effectual fulfilment in all who reach the years of discretion. This then being granted, as granted it must be, we demolish at once a large mass of incoherent and impertinent declamation in both the Pamphlets before us. They will, however, probably be disposed to conclude that we yield the point at issue. But, indeed, gentlemen, we do not yet at least feel ourselves under the necessity to make any change in our principles. They have long been made up, and nothing which you have said has had any tendency to alter them.

Well, then, in the case of adult baptism, let "rightly received," be combined with "rightly administered," and surely we shall agree that baptism and regeneration are the same. No, indeed, the matter is not yet of such easy decision. There are still enquiries to be made, and previous questions to be settled; and then there are Scripture cases, as of Cornelius, St. Paul, the Jailor, &c. in superabundance. Repentance and faith are previously necessary in every adult person, who rightly receives baptism; hence, says Mr. S. p. 210, every such person "has been previously born of God,' or regenerated. He must have been so, before that faith could exist in his mind, without which baptism could not be rightly received." Now in this argument, which is delivered with a high tone of self-gratulation, will Mr. S. permit us to say that we see nothing but solemn trifling on one hand, and an absolute renunciation or contempt of the sa crament of baptism on the other? According to the distinct declarations of Scripture, the practice of earliest antiquity, and the doctrine confirmed by the practice of the Church of England, no man in the ordinary circumstances of Christianity (and with extraordinary cases we repeat that we have no concern) is considered as regenerated until he is baptized Regeneration is an inward principle of new life. It is so, and be assured that we mean not

to