stands it, to convey regeneration. For that would imply,

J. Many strange things. First, gross absurdities, and inconsistence.---She requires repentance faith, and obedience," in order to baptism. But it is very manifest, that if regeneration is not included in, or connected with these, it means nothing, and is useful for nothing, for we may be saved without it. Then why contend for it?

Secondly, she calls the "visible church of Christ," a "congregation of faithful mea." She considers, therefore, every person who comes with the disposition she requires for admission, as a faithful man. That is, doubless, a regenerate man. And she examines, and brings him to the test, in order to prove him to be so. If she finds him otherwise, she rejects him.*

Thirdly, But this rejection would be highly absurd, if the initiatory rite wrought its effects, and made him a christian, 66 whatever was the character"

with which he came.

And the requirement and

* One thing (onitted in its proper place) demonstrative of the erro neous view which Dr. M. appears to have taken of the sacraments, and also of the justness of the construction which we have given of the offices, as compiled with a view to, and for the use of, truly pious characters, is this; namely, that the church has given us TWO IDEAS of the term sacrament. The one embraces both the sign and thing signified by it, as in the offices; the other includes only the "sign," as in the case of the wicked." As examples of this, we observe ;--

I. The first exposition is in the catechism, which makes the sacrament consist of two parts,-the outward sign, and inward_grace, as it is "received by the faithful."

II. The second is found in the 29th Article, where the wicked are said to be "in no wise partakers of Christ; but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing." Note, I. the term sacrament here, means only the sign. II. The wicked eat the sacrament; they still eat not the body of Christ, but the sign only.

examination would be equally unwise if they were no way necessary.

Fourthly, She allows both in baptism, and the Lord's supper, that where repentance and faith are, the person does profitably partake of the inward grace, though he may be unable to enjoy the outward symbols.

Fifthly, She declares baptism to be the outward "sign of regeneration. If it be said that the sign proves regeneration to be there; I answer it does, when the disposition which she requires in persons to be baptised, is found to take place. But neither Dr. M. nor any other person has yet proved that regeneration exists where this disposition does not, although the sign may be received.

II. The scriptures we have seen, can only be consistent on this supposition. Faith is manifestly the grace connected with salvation; but in adults, this is required before baptism. The only thing then which is needed, can be but the evidence and testimony of faith, for with faith, regeneration is connected.

The conclusion is, therefore, that when it is said that by "baptism we are regenerate: The meaning is, we are manifested to be regenerate. Not absolutely and certainly, for that is very often no proof at all, as immediately subsequent conduct often shews; but when (and when only) we come with the mind which the church requires. It is on this supposition alone, that she admits the thing. And when also (in the catechism) "the outward and visible sign" is called the "means whereby we receive" the inward and spiritual grace," that is, regeneration; we must understand it in the same

consistent way; namely, as a means whereby we, thus coming to his holy baptism, receive the seal and token of God's acceptance, (which is, to our own souls, evidence of our regeneration;) and by our holy reception of his baptismal ordinance, we "shew to the church our profession, that is, our faith," and regeneration, as St. James says, by our works;" is, by our obedience to this his command.

66

PRECEDENTS.

Should any object to this, as not being the literal and prima facie meaning of the words; and a meaning which has no precedent either in the word of God, or in the other documents of the church. To this I would say, that the literal meaning of words is to be received when there is no manifest or material objection against it. But when the clearest inconsistency would be visible between this and other documents; when the most palpable absurdity would ensue from requiring what implies regeneration before baptism, which still is only to be effected by it; and when the scriptures could certainly not be reconciled if it were admitted, we must not scruple to reject it for one more consistent. But with respect to the second point, we shall proceed to enquire whether the interpretation we have given is without precedent or not.

I. THE SCRIPTURES afford instances of this metonymical mode of instruction.

Beside the texts we have already adduced, there are more to be found. But for the sake of brevity

66

(it not being my main object to go into the subject generally) I shall just advert to a very remarkable one found in St. James's epistle, in chapter ii. The Apostle argues, that man is “justified by works ;” or by works in connexion with faith; and concludes, after some discussion, in the 24th verse; ye see, then, how by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." St. Paul, however, and the whole word of God, teach us, that man is "justified by faith only." And our church adopts this doctrine as not to be disputed. But if one divine author teach that we are justified by faith only;" and another that we are not justified by faith only, there must be a palpable and manifest contradiction between them, if both are taken literally. One, then, must be explained by the other, and by the general analogy of faith. The only consistent way of doing this, appears to be, to explain St. James as using the same terms as "faith" and " justification," but not in the same sense. If we understand St. James when he declares a man is "justified by works;" to mean the evidence of justification by works, the business is quite clear, consistent with St. Paul, and all the instruction from the word of God. This appears to me very plain, because that which is evidence of faith is evidence of justification. But St. James says, "I will shew thee my faith by my works," 18. Or in other words, I will shew thee my justification by my works; which faith, when genuine, brings with it.---As if he had said, "yoù profess to believe" (" a man may say thou hast faith;" [2, 18 ;] but a "faith" which is "without works is dead.” Therefore I challenge thee to "shew me thy faith without thy work," (which I know is impossible;)

and I will shew thee my faith by my works," which is the only legitimate mode of giving evidence of any thing internal. Thou mayest boast, likewise, of justification by this faith. But know, oh, vain man! that as "faith without works is dead," so a justification, resting upon such a faith, is delusive. In order to justify such a pretension, you must have works to evidence it. Was not Abraham thus justified by works?" Seeth thou how faith brought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"" What can be clearer than that "by works was faith made perfect?" it means proved or evidenced to be perfect; that is, to be of a genuine and right kind. If, then, St. James, when he says 68 a man is justified by works," means proved or evidenced to be justified and when he says "by works was faith made perfect, he means by works was faith proved or evidenced to be perfect. Why should not the church be allowed the same liberty? And why, when the church says by baptism we are regenerate, should she not mean, that when a person comes with repentance and faith to be baptised, he proves and evidences his regeneration by such a solemn act.

If a Papist, to establish justification by works, should insist upon the literal meaning of St. James, he would destroy the whole scriptures, which teach justification by faith alone. So if Dr. M. in order to establish the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, insist upon the literal meaning of that office; in doing this, he makes void the whole system of religion, established by the church, and by consequence destroys all vital godliness.

II. THE HOMILIES afford the same precedent.