as

a matter of course, in like manner as in baptism. (51.) And doubtless if it be of the nature of a sacrament, to have two parts, the external and internal; it must needs be so. But on this supposition every wicked person, however gross and blasphemous his character; even though he wished to qualify himself for an office under government, (as scores of men in a neighbouring kingdom have Iately done,) with no better design than to betray their king, and subvert his throne, must still be restored to salvation, or confirmed in it, and must spiritually "eat the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's supper." Against this awful sentiment, however, we need not argue one moment. Though it be an absolute and unavoidable consequence of Dr. M.'s system, it certainly will not meet with a defender in any true churchman. No man in the face of the communion service, the Homily on the Sacrament, and the 29th Article, which is entitled, "of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ in use of the Lord's supper," will dare to assert this. Or if he should, he will not only defend what is utterly inconsistent with every sound principle of our church, but what is utterly destructive of all internal religion, and even genuine morality. It would be a bold position indeed, to assert, that the sacraments have their due effect on characters, who at the time are passive as a stone, deceitful as Anaanias and Saphira; or blasphemous as Simon Magus.

Thirdly.If baptism work regeneration without respect to the disposition of the receiver; then there can be no true willingness or consent of mind required to the effect; nay, it may take place under

positive aversion of heart. But if so, such persons must be pardoned, and made heirs of heaven without repentance, and without faith, if their sins are necessarily forgiven them in baptism or else faith and repentance must be wrought in baptism, without any consent or willingness on their part. But if faith and repentance; or if regeneration are wrought without the consent of the baptised, or against their consent; then the change must be absolute the operation irresistible, and the effect inevitable and necessary. But this would contradict all the reasoning of anti-calvinistic divines upon the subject of free will and human ability, and the arguments of Dr. M. himself on the operations of the Holy Spirit in conversion. (75.) It would introduce not only calvinism, but perhaps fatalism itself, with a full tide.

Certainly the learned Bishop of London in his anniversary sermon, preached at St. Paul's, June 16, 1814, speaks a language utterly inconsistent with the notion of any spiritual operation taking place without consent of mind. (9.) He obsérves that the "very notion of moral renovation implying the consent of the will, excludes the action of irresistible power." (9) And as he adds, there are several parts of the great dispensation for the remedy of human corruption, and the "renewing of the inward man in the image of God," he must necessarily imply that this "renewing of the inward man in the image of God," is not exclusively performed in baptisin.

Fourthly ----Again; if, as Dr. M. makes his pupil say, when I was baptised "I was taught," that I was regenerate by the Holy Spirit---made a

66

child of God, and had undergone a death unto sin, and new birth unto righteousness---been quickened by the Holy Spirit, who had infused into me a new principle of life." (49, 50.) If all this change of nature, &c. was wrought in baptism; then the change was instantaneous:" It must have been performed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. But if so, this change would everinore be visibly and demonstrably evident, and few persons could mistake it. But this we have seen is contrary to fact; and we shall by and by see that it is utterly inconsistent with another part of Dr. M.'s system. It is moreover quite inconsistent with his whole tract, entitled "A Special and Instantaneous Conversion not necessary for Christians." I know Dr. M. professes to make a vast difference between conversion and regeneration. But doubtless regeneration is at least as great and necessary a change as conversion is: for no man living can be saved without regeneration. But if Dr. M.s' statement be just, (60) all persons do not need to be converted: or if they did need it, and were not converted before baptism, they must be regenerated ›and converted at the same time. But if sơ, both conversion and regeneration would be performed in an instant; and all the charge of enthusiasm, which he endeavours to graft on instantaneous" conver

sion, returns upon himself.

I have been the more particular upon this point, because we shall see the necessity of its being clearly settled by and by, when we come to consider the ground on which the church admits of the baptised being regenerated. Though Dr. M. does not profess to stand upon the ground of qualifications

in the baptised, the church of England manifestly does. Which ground (though it is very proper as a ground of charitable hope) is absolutely unsafe, as we have seen, to found an universal doctrine upon. Our church does not make her admission universal: Dr. M. does. This is a most essential difference between them, which we shall proceed now more fully to demonstrate.

We have proved, I hope satisfactorily, that the very notion of entering into covenant, implies agreement of mind in the parties, which it would be ridiculous (among minds so infinitely diversified, and in a corrupt state,) to attempt to prove universally to have place at baptism; and as absolutely untrue in fact. It remains now that we further illustrate this subject, and prove from the doctrines of the church herself, that what we have stated as a general position, is particularly applicable to the church doctrine, upon the subject of baptism.

SECTION II.

Baptism as the instrument by which we enter into Covenant.

This I trust will be particularly attended to. The very term sacrament, implies a stipulation on the part of those who receive it. The Latin term for sacrament, meaning an cath; implies the notion of the souls being really in earnest, in its devotedness to God, when the true spiritual intent of the sacrament is fulfilled. But this oath of allegiance to the Almighty may be insincere. In which case the previleges of the covenant cannot be possessd.

Their term " instrument," mentioned in the 27th article, seems to be of the nature of a deed or public document made use of, between two contracting parties, by which certain privileges are made over on certain conditions, and by this instrument the contract or covenant is ratified, and the agreement "visibly signed and sealed."----This instrament, to be efficacious, must be used both on God's part and on the persons baptised. Our article informs us it is that by which God doth invisibly work in us," conveying the blessings and privileges of the gospel of Christ, (into the profession of which the baptized person is now publicly introduced,) and by this visible token of his covenant doth manifest his grace and love to the persons receiving this ordinance.' But it must also be executed, so to speak, by the person baptized. This, is essential to the nature of an instrumemt by which a covenant is ratified, its blessings made over to any individual, and by which a claim car, at all be made to the possession of those blessings. I say, this execution on the part of the persons baptized is necessary, and essential to the very nature of the case. There is no covenant between God and him till this is done. He cannot be in the covenant, and cannot, of coure, receive right to its provisions.

any

If it be said that consent and execution of this instrument or deed is not needed on man's part. I would reply, that, that is impossible. Let it be remembered, we are now speaking of a covenant deed. Which covenant (in its very nature) is, a mutual stipulation between God and the creature. And the execution of this instrument or deed, is the public and open declaration of that previous mutual