anced any such doctrine as that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened person to concur with them. But nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their sentiments than such an idea as this: so far from harbouring such a thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us to look unto God for that total change both of heart and life, which, long since their days, has begun to be expressed by the term, regeneration. After thanking God for regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit, we are taught to pray, "that he, being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin." and then declaring that total change to be the necessary mean of his obtainthe church directs her members to pray, "grant that we, being regenerated, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit." The primitive fathers uniformly preserve this distinction, and call baptism the "laver of regeneration."

The distinction is founded on scripture. The Apostle in the epistle to Titus, (ch. iii. ver. 5.) speaks of "the washing of regeneration," evidently meaning baptism, and “the renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Following scripture and primitive authority, the church therefore very properly applies the term regeneration to baptism; in which sacrament that change takes place in our spiritual state or condition, which the term describes. Thus the baptismal offices, and the office of confirmation speak of every baptised person "as being regenerate." The cate chism, in reference to baptism, declares, that "being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby," "The baptised (by baptism) "made the children of grace." person is taught to profess, in the catechism, that in baptism, on the conditions of repentance and faith he was made "a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." And in the same admirable summary of christian instruction, he is taught to "thank his heavenly Father who hath called him to this state of salvation."

ing salvation, we add, "So that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom?" Is there I would ask, any person that can require more than this? or does God in his word require more? There are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject; the term, Regeneration, and the thing. The term occurs but twice in the Scriptures; in one place it refers to baptism, and is distinguished from the renewing of the Holy Ghost; which however is represented as attendant on it; and in the other place it has a totally distinct meaning unconnected with the subject. Now the term they use, as the Scripture uses it; and the thing they require, as strongly as any person can require it. They do not give us any reason to imagine that an adult person can be saved without experiencing all that modern Divines have included in the term Regenerar

But, as Mr. Simeon justly maintains, the church enforces a change of heart and life as essential to securing the privileges of baptism. The baptised person, she teaches, must "die to sin, and rise again unto righteousness;" must crucify the old man and utterly abolish the whole body of sin;" and must "continually mortify all his evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceed in all virtue and Godliness of livings" in other words; he must be renewed by the Holy Spirit.

It is much to be lamented that many divines of the church of England, have not attended to this distinction between regeneration and renovation; and apply the former term to that change of heart and life, which the refomers of the church, agreeably to scripture and the primitive Fathers, denoted by the term, renovation. Mr. Simeon very properly observes, that "the total change of heart and life, long since the days of the Reformers, began to be expressed by the term regeneration. Am. Ed]

but

tion: on the contrary they do, both there and throughout the whole Liturgy insist upon the ' necessity of a radical change both of heart and life. Here then, the only question is, not whether a baptized person can be saved by that ordinance without sanctification; whether God does always accompany the sign with the thing signified? Here is certainly room for difference of opinion; but it cannot be positively decided in the negative, because we cannot know, or even judge, respecting it in any instance whatever, except by the fruits, that follow: and therefore in all fairness it may be considered only as a doubtful point: and, if we appeal, as we ought to do, to the holy Scriptures, they certainly do in a very remarkable way accord with the expressions in our Liturgy. St. Paul says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit:" and this he says of all the visible members of Christ's body. Again, speaking of the whole nation of Israel, infants as well as adults, he says, "They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and that rock was Christ." (1 Cor. x. 1-4.) Yet behold, in the very next verse he tells us, that " with many of them God was displeased, and overthrew 1 Cor. xii. 13. 27.

them in the wilderness." In another place he speaks yet more strongly still: “As many of you, says he, as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal. iii. 27.) Here we see what is meant by the expression, "baptized into Christ;" it is precisely the same expression as that before mentioned, of the Israelites being "baptized unto Moses;" (the Greek preposition used in both places is the same,) it includes all that had been initiated into his religion by the rite of baptism: and of them universally does the Apostle say, "They have put on Christ." Now I ask, Have not the persons who scruple the use of that prayer in the baptismal service, equal reason to scruple the use of these different expressions?

Again-St. Peter says, Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins; (Acts ii. 38, 39.) and in another place, "Baptism doth now save us:" (1 Pet. iii. 21.) And speaking elsewhere of baptized persons who were unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says, "He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins."* Does not this very strongly countenance the idea which our Reformers entertained, That the remission of our sins, as well as the regeneration of our souls, is an attendant on the baptismal rite? Perhaps it will be said, that the inspired Writers spake of persons who had been baptized at an adult age. But, if they did so in some places they certainly did not in others; and, where * 2 Peter, i. 9, c2

they did not, they must be understood as comprehending all, whether infants or adults: and therefore the language of our Liturgy, which is not a whit stronger than theirs, may be both subscribed and used without any just occasion of offence.

Let me then speak the truth before God: Though I am no Arminian, I do think that the refinements of Calvin have done great harm in the chruch; they have driven multitudes from the plain, and popular way of speaking used by the inspired writers, and have made them unreasonably and unscripturally squeamish in their modes of expression; and I conceive that, the less addicted any person is to systematic accuracy, the more he will accord with the inspired writers, and the more he will approve of the views of our Reformers. I do not mean however to say, that a slight alteration in two or three instances would not be an improvement; since it would take off a burthen from many minds, and supersede the necessity of laboured explanations; but I do mean to say, that there is no such objection to these expressions as to deter any conscientious person from giving his unfeigned assent and consent to the Liturgy altogether, or from using the particular expressions which we have been endeavouring to explain.

The other objection is, that the use of a Liturgy necessarily generates formality.

We have before acknowledged that the repetition of a form is less likely to arrest the at