cable paradox in theory is noticed, viz. that Almighty God should in one passage of Scripture engage to work in us that which in another we are ourselves exhorted and commanded to do, (a paradox which, inexplicable as it may appear to them, every child can readily solve, who has not been educated in the Cavinistical school,) it is subjoined; If these things present a dif'ficulty, and a speculative difficulty it is allowed they 'do present, he who has not felt his own system 'encumbered with it, either has not embraced the sys'tem of Scripture, or has very little considered, what ' he has professed to embrace1.' But whatsoever denomination, as a party, they may approve, their doctrine upon the subject of Baptism is certainly founded upon Calvinistical principles. In the management however of their controversy, so many irrelevant topics have been introduced, so much collateral reasoning pressed, and the whole subject in dispute so involved in extraneous matter, that the principal point at issue has not been fairly and fully brought into discussion. That point I conceive to be of a more limited description, than it is generally represented, and simply to consist in the decision of this question; What is the doctrine of the Church of England respecting a restoration to Divine favour, as well of infants as of duly prepared adults, by baptism? Does she hold that they are not nominally but really regenerated; and that those of them who die after baptism, but before the commission of actual crime, are all without exception undoubtedly saved? Or does she hold, that Election and Salvation are conferred upon a favoured few alone, the great majority being rejected by the inscrutable will of God, and left to perish everlastingly? That she maintains the former opinion f Ib. is the persuasion of the Established Clergy in general : that she maintains the latter is the persuasion of the Calvinistical party alone. The question is by no means an indifferent one, as it involves a doctrine of considerable importance; I mean that which relates to the nature and extent of Divine election. For if all baptized infants, and all duly prepared adults, are indiscriminately elected in Christ out of mankind, so that, if they die previously to the subsequent commission of sin, they are indisputably saved; while of those who survive, some preserve the state of grace, to which they have been elected, if not uniformly, yet finally, but others fall from it, and eventually perish; it must evidently follow, that our Church teaches not an absolute or arbitrary, but a conditional or contingent, election. This conclusion, although unnoticed, must have always been upon one side secretly anticipated. No pains therefore have been spared, and no little ingenuity has been exerted to counteract it, by explaining away and perverting the obvious import of the language contained in our Liturgy, and thus, if possible, to leave untouched the keystone of Calvinistical predestination. A restoration to Divine favour, comprehending remission of sin, and adoption into the number of the elect, is, I apprehend, uniformly represented in our Liturgy, as the inseparable concomitant of Regeneration. In the general use however of this word, perhaps some little misconception might have been avoided, had proper attention been paid to the constant occurrence of metonymies in every language. It is admitted, that Regeneration and Baptism were regarded as synonymous terms by the early Fathers of the Church, who considered Regeneration as the effect of Baptism, using what is denominated a metonymy of the effect for the cause. The same synonymous signification also is adopted in the Articles of our Church, in which the Latin expression renatis is translated baptized. But there is also a metonymy of the cause for the effect, as well as one of the effect for the cause. To this principle it must probably be imputed, that the word Regeneration has been sometimes appropriated, not to the single act of spiritual birth, but to continued acts of spiritual reviviscence, embracing the whole period of the Christian life. But this metonymical and extended sense of it, confusing the primary cause with the subsequent effect, of existence, ought to be rather regarded as a figurative application, than as a literal demonstration of rigid theory. It nevertheless seems to have produced a variety of conception upon the point, occasioning some to represent the new birth as occurring more than once, and others to deny its reality, where, properly speaking, it is only to be found, in baptism. With respect however to the strict definition of the term, as limited to a single occurrence, I do not perceive that any difference of opinion exists between us and the opposite party. Both describe it as the commencement, and the commencement only, of the Christian life. It is said; As to a person once regenerated being regenerat'ed again, those at least, who hold with Calvin the doc 6 g Art. ix. Dr. Mant's opponent seems not aware of this identity of expression, p. 100, 101. But had he referred to the original Latin of the Article, which he appears to have both read and considered, because he quotes it in the very next page, he must have immediately perceived it. In this Article the word renatis occurs twice, 'manet etiam in renatis hæc naturæ depravatio:' again, 6 quanquam in renatis et credentibus nulla propter Christum est 'condemnatio,' &c. In the former instance it is translated regenerated, in the latter baptized. The conclusion seems obvious. 'trine of final perseverance, will agree with Dr. Mant, 'that it cannot be, but that such a person evermore 'continues regenerateh. Reference is then made to a former passage', in which occurs the following observation; I have no wish to contend for a second 'death unto sin, where a death unto sin and a new 'birth unto righteousness appear really and practically ' to have taken place.' But when they proceed to explain the mode and period of regeneration, a discordance of sentiment instantly appears. We consider it as the gift, connected with the medium of grace, exhibited in baptism; they, as the gift unconnected with that medium of grace, and solely dependent upon the irrespective will of God. We contend, that all who are baptized in infancy are truly regenerated; they, that the majority of Christians are never regenerated at all at any period of their lives. CHAP. III. Reasoning from Adult to Infant Baptism incorrect. Efficacy of Adult Baptism as dependent upon the Assumption of sincerity. Opinion that Regeneration exists before and without Baptism controverted. Inconsistent with the express Language of our Liturgy, particularly with the Church Catechism. A COMPLAINT has been made that Dr. Mant confines, or nearly confines, his attention to infant recipients of Baptism. But they who thus complain well know, that the principal question in debate hinges upon this very point, and that the Church of England possessed no form whatsoever of adult Baptism until the Restoration. They have nevertheless so completely inverted the argument, and perplexed it with foreign topics, that it seems no easy task to disentangle it. I h P. 59. i P. 49. a P. 116. do not however mean to undertake this task; but solely to discuss that which constitutes the true ground of difference between us. The inverted order of argument alluded to consists in an attempt to explain the doctrine of infant by that of adult Baptism. But as in a Christian country it may be supposed, that all persons are baptized in infancy, and as the original framers of our Liturgy manifestly acted upon that supposition, I do not perceive how it can be reasonably argued, that they conformed their office of infant Baptism to the principles of an office of adult Baptism, which did not at the time exist. I very well understand how it might happen, that those, who subsequently compiled an office of adult Baptism, when such an office became requisite, might, as far as circumstances permitted, mutatis mutandis, copy the form of an office of infant baptism, which had been previously in use for more than a century. And this did in fact take place, with such alterations and additions as appeared proper to adapt a form for the baptism of infants to the peculiar case of adults; so that for instance, after the words, Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly 'believe, that he will favourably receive these,' which were in the former office, was inserted, truly repenting ' and coming unto him by faith,' in the latter office. But I cannot comprehend how the sense of the original is to be limited by that of the copy, especially upon topics where the cases are not parallel, and where no true point of comparison is to be found. I might also add, where a new paragraph is inserted expressly for the purpose of distinguishing the particular case of adult, from the general case of infant Baptism. Surely, to urge, that our Reformers in the reign of Edward the Sixth presumed, that infants, brought to baptism, possessed the previous requisites of repentance and faith, or any |