Page images

“ that


two queries.--- First, were these holy fathers unre-
generute all the time of their pious and active lives,
till they were baptised ?---Secondly, were they in a
state of condomnation, and would they have been
damned, had they died unbaptised? Dr. M. upon
his own principles, must answer that they were un-
regenerate, and must have been damned, St. Paul
(he says, 53) was “ converted three days”-
his heart was renewed,"---that he paid “ obedience"
to the voice from heaven. Still he adds he was not
regenerated, “but was un:ler the pollution of his
sins," when Annanias called on him to be baptised.,
** Three days." Then he might have been three,
or thirty years; and yet notwithstanding his holy
devotedness and zeal for God, inust have remained,
according to Dr. M. unregenerate, and perished
under his sin.

Dr M.'s notions lead to the most extraordinary and in warrantable inconsistence, and error. St. Paul was converted, he tells us; was renewed in his heart, and had become truly obedient to the voice from heaven : yet was “not regenerate;"---Was under the “pollution of his sin.” I dont remember to have seen a sentence more full of inconsistence and error than this. Conversion ; and renewed hearts, and obedient lives, are each and all of them (whereever found) connected with salvation. Paul, therefore must, during these three days, incontrovertibly have been regenerated, or else he was in a state of salvation without regeneration. Again, persons " converted” and “ renewed,” have in every instance, their sins pardoned, and their pollution washed away. It is absolute nonsense, and uncsriptural confusion then, to talk of being converted and

renewed, yea, obedient also, anil yet under guilt and pollution of sin.

Another very important declaration is made by the church in her catechism, in answer to the question, “How many sacraments hath Christ ordained in his churclı?" The answer is, « Туо only, as generally necessary to salvation.”

Generally niece- sary."----We remark here, that this language is quite subversive of Dr. M.'s. idea, pamely, that it is always necessary. This is all we wish to prove, so far as we are concerned. It will fully justify every inference that we find it necessary to draw from it.

First, Then, if baptism is not always necessary to salvation, as is here inost certainly and expressly implied; then it is not always necessary to regeneration.---Secondly, Regeneration being absolutely necessary to salvation; but baptism not always necessary, we are very explicitly enabled to prove, that regeneration may be effected without baptism.

Thus our church and Dr. M. are quite in opposition here also.---- Generally necessary to salvation.” The truth and propriety of this doctrine we fully admit. Baptism, (whatever effect it may be supposed to have towards regeneration) is doubtless generally necessasy to salvation. It is so, because, in the first place it is an express conunand' of God. Believe, “repent, and be baptised.And those who admit the literal interpretation of this language, would have but poor pretensions to hope for salvation, in directly and positively refusing obedience to it.

In the second place, it is more than a command; it is a sacrament; and as such, it is first a “sign or

[ocr errors]

:ark of our profession; that is, a pulvic testimony that we are not “ ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified.” Secondly, it is a sign of regeneration or new birth.” It is really so, where the profession is sincere. Thirlly, it is the instrumeat by which we are grafted into the church.”.. Fourthly, it is a token of God's good will ytowards us, and that by which lis promises are visibly signed and sealed. Lastly, where the heart is right, we have reason to believe that “ faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God." (26th Article) and office of baptism.

Thus we have seen, how the chureh clearly and designedly expunges the notion of the absolute and universal necessity of baptism to salvation. This was the first thing to be proved under the present head; namely, that regeneration may be where baptisın is not.

But secondly, the other point by which we undertook to prove that the church does not, as Dr. M. , does, make baptism and regeneration inseparable, is this, " that baptism may be where regeneration is not.” That is, it may be administered, and rightly administered too, yet not be eifective of regeneration. This our church teaches : and this we shall undertake to prove, from her own forinularies, and authorised documents.

The first reference we shall make, shall be to the articles. And in the articles, let me remark, we must espect to find the most studied care for correctness and precision. The first quotation I shall make for this purpose, is from the 25th Article upon the sacraments: Where she informs us " there are two sacraments ordained of Christ---


Baptism, and the Lord's Supper." She further adds, “ the sacraments were---ordained of Christ,--. that we should duly u: e them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesoneellect or operation : but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith..

First, We observe here, that both the sacraments are included in the instruction we have quoteel. This cannot be denied; because the sacraments in the plural number are thrice mentioned, beside the title, which is “ of the sacraments.” That no one inight have pretence of objection, or evasion, the sacraments intended are mentioned by name.

Baptism and the supper of the Lord.”

Second, This article proves demonstrably, and infallibly the error of Dr. M. Namely, that baptism is of course attended by an “ inward and spiritual grace." (15.) The language of this article, the frainers of it, (had they intended to prevent the possibility of Dr. M.'s conclusion) could scarcely have chosen words more to the purpose.

There are three distinct clauses, all subversive of Dr. M.'s doctrine. The first is, the “sacraments,”----the sacraments take notice, not the sacrament, The

sacraments were ordained of Christ,----that we should duly use them." Note here, First, the receivers of the sacraments are to ".use them."

no l'e" are to use them. This


that the church is of our mind in what we have before remarked

the “instrument:' Namely, that it requires our sign and seal as well as God's. Again, we are dulyto use them, in order to the proper effect. This, again demonstrates what, under the term instrument, covenant, and elsewhere, we have taken nuch pains to prove; namely, that in order to a right eifect there must be in the receivers a right disposition.


To use the sacraments duly, without question, means, to use thein with a proper disposition, in a right manner, and for the enils and purposes for which Christ has appoiuted them. But do all bantised persons use baptisan with this mind, and for these ends? Alas ! how far ocherwise ? What then is the effect to such as do not? Are they regenerate and saved ? Certainly; according to Dr. M. if all are, they must. I know this is Dr. M.'s doctrine; but what says the church? “ And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation."

First, We here observe the term,“ such only," is strikingly demonstrative, that part of the receivers are hereby positively, and absolutely excluded.

Second, “Worthily receive the same.” This term worthily, very clearly implies the faith, repentance, and charity, mentioned in the catechism,

Third, “ But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation. We perceive here, there are unworthy receivers of the sacraments. Then certainly, unworthy receivers of baptism. And nothing can be plainer, than the language : Only worthy receivers, obtain their wholesome effect or operation;" but they who receive them unworthy parchase damnation.

Those who will in the face of language like this, declare, and stand to it, that “regeneration is eflected by baptism, and by baptism exclusively," cannot well be reasoned with. They may say any

« PreviousContinue »