birth is forgotten; and is as inconsistent with regeneration as to say a dead corpse is a living man.

We have here an auswer to Dr. M.'s objection against conversion and regeneration, as being nearly the same thing. There doubtless is a difference between regeneration and conversion, such as the difference between receiving life and living. They seem allied, however, in much the same way, and are equally inseparable. Our church says, that regeneration "is a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness." And Dr. M. tells us that conversion includes a "sincere penitence and sorrow of heart," and a real change of heart and life, of affections and conduct. 57. But if these are not much the same thing, words have lost their meaning.

66

But if Dr. M. still contend that the difference is essential, and that one may be where the other is not, then we must, I suppose, believe that a man may be regenerate, yet not converted: that is, he may be regenerate, yet without " sincere penitence," without sorrow of heart," without a real change of heart and life, of affections and conduct;" or he may possess all these, (as I suppose we are to understand that St. Paul did for three days) and yet be unregenerate. And if unregenerate, then for all this penitence, sorrow for sin, and real change of heart and life, affections and conduct, should he ́die in this statc, he must perish in his sins.

Here, then, (both according to Dr. M.'s account of the scriptures, and of the church,) we have a true key to all this difficulty, if difficulty it must be thought I certainly think it none; for nothing appears more clear from the very nature of regeneration, than that it is and must be evermore attended

by such a life, such marks, and such evidence as must distinguish it from that which is not regeneration.

Our conclusion, then, appears inevitable; which is this: that as all baptised persons do not possess such evidence, all baptised persons cannot (whatever may be their pretensions) be" born again." These marks are invariably connected with regeneration, and we have no evidence whatever of the new birth where these are not. The evidence we have a'ready produced would appear to decide, beyond dispute, this important point. But as the subject admits of the fullest possible demonstration, both from the scripture and from the documents of the church; and as the point is an essential one in the present controversy, and as the justification of the preaching of regeneration to persons who have been baptised will meet its satisfaction here, we shall beg to trespass a little longer on the patience of the reader, in some reference to the scriptures and to the Homilies,

Before, however, we proceed further to discuss the subject, it will be necessary to obviate one objection, which may be supposed to arise against the inference we have been drawing from it, and mean further to illustrate. The objection is this: that these observations are no real evidence who are regenerate, and who are not; for though all are regenerate, yet all do not continue to go on well; and that men must "not rely on admission into filiation with God:" 46. For unless they are 66 preserved by faith and obedience in the possession of the privileges of baptism"--they may lose the privileges of adoption, by disobedience and un

belief; and that "the privileges of baptism nay he forfeited by being hardened in sin." 42.

65

I. We must here enquire, whether regeneration is a “privilege of baptism," and whether it may be "forfeited" or not? If it be said that it may be fost; then I would observe, that those who have lost regeneration, must be "born again,” a “ second time," or they cannot be saved. He that has lost his " new birth" is not now in possession of it ;----is not now regenerate. Therefore he cannot be saved on account of this defect: For except a man be born again," and be in true possession of regeneration at the time of his death, he cannot be saved: he is, as Dr. M. observes, "become as though he had not been born again." Then it is manifestly the same thing (as to all practical and useful purposes) as if he had not been "born again." He must then as manifestly be treated, and addressed as those must be who have not been regenerate; yea, must undergo precisely the same change as if he had not been born again at all: that is, he must inevitably, a "second time" be "born again." St. Paul (Dr. M. informs us, 43) needed regeneration, and was regenerate in baptism. Yet he had received the srerament of circumcision; and he tells us that it is of the nature of a sacrament to have two parts, the "outward visible sign and the inward and spiritual grace." 51. Hence, beyond dispute, he must have been born again twice, 48. And indeed this must inevitably, upon Dr. M.'s principles, have been the case with every person who received both the sacraments of circumcision and baptism

It is not then correct information, (on Dr. M.'s principles) to speak of our regeneration, and of

“

our adoption as the children of God;"--as "of a blessing once conferred, and not to be repeated." 18. Then also our conclusion is unavoidable; we may, yea we must preach to such persons, (notwithstanding their baptism) "verily, verily, ye must be born again."

II. But if the other alternative is taken; and it be said, that" regeneration" indeed is never lost but that the privileges of regeneration may, and will "be lost by being hardened in sin." To this I would ask, what are these privileges? Dr. M. contends that "by baptism' we are "saved and justified;" 32. and obtain "sanctification and purity---and holiness," by the same instrument as that by which we obtain regeneration; namely the "sacrament of baptism.,, 33.----I ask once more; do these privileges; namely, sanctification, justification, and salvation, necessarily belong to regeneration, or do they not? Are they privileges depending upon our regeneration? Privileges, which regeneration introduces, and brings with it; or are they not? If they are not necessarily, or certainly, but only accidentally connected with regeneration; then I would observe, that we may be baptised, and "born again," and yet be neither sanctified, justified, adopted, or saved: that is, we may be regenerate, and yet be no better for it; all things necessary to salvation being dissevered from it. Then such regeneration is a useless thing; and the admonition and warning still return, " ye must be born again." If it be said that they are connected with regeneraration, and brought into our possession by it: then I contend that it is not possible they should be lost, or forfeited so long as regeneration itself remains,

This I should suppose is nearly self-evident. To say that these privileges are connected with regeneration, and yet may be separated from it, is not to be understood. It is the same as saying they are connected with regeneration, and yet are not connected with it. If they depend upon regene→ ration, either as a cause of their existence, or as an associate with them; then clearly while regeneration exists, they exist. Regeneration, so to speak, is their life; the parent, and foster guardian of their being. Then our Saviour's language to his disciples, may fairly be borrowed by regeneration: "Because I live, ye shall live also. If regeneration entitle us to these privileges; (I only mean as anticedent and consequent,) then while we possess regeneration, we possess a title to them; and the title, that is, regeneration, being unalianable, the privileges arising out of this title, must be so too. To say otherwise, is to say that regeneration entitles us to privileges, to which we have no right: that is, a title, which is no title.

In every thing, either in nature or grace, upon whatever condition any blessing is promised or obtained, the condition being had, the blessing of course necessarily follows. And so long as the condition (namely, regeneration) exists, so long will the privileges it brings with it exist. To say that these blessings are obtained upon one condition, and kept upon another, is absurd. Should Dr. M. say they are only "preserved" by "faith and obedience,” I ask, on what condition were they granted? Let us enquire.---" What is required of persons to be baptised? Repentance, whereby we forsake sin, and faith, whereby we stedfastly believe," is the answer.