The covenant made with Abraham and sealed by circumcision, and the same covenant made by Christ and sealed by baptism, require, and imply both on the part of God and on the part of man, all that can be required in any covenant. When spiritual persons enter by faith into covenant with God in Christ Jesus, and thus seal their engagements to be his faithful servants, they do that, and only that, which is required of every one who is baptised in his name, and which every one in his baptism professes and engages to do "with all his heart.'

We make the foregoing remark, because this subject, the turning point, in one respect, in this controversy, seems to be very imperfectly understood. Bishop Bethell, aware that when the spiritual blessings of God's covenant are legitimately applied, the covenant must be sealed on man's part, if it be considered as a mutual compact, has endeavoured to evade this sealing on the part of man, and refers the matter of baptism wholly to God. General View, pp. 46, 47, 81, 82. That God does set his mark or seal upon the soul, is very true. But then, whenever this is done, man also "sets to his seal that God is true."

There is no genuine, that is, no beneficial covenant between God and man, until man complies; until then it is not a covenant conveying blessings. When man believes, which he professes to do, and is enjoined to do in this ordinance, he seals his covenant with God. Man is as truly a party in the covenant as God is. Not indeed in forming it or enjoining the obligation to unite in it, but in its operative character. God has appointed the covenant and prescribed its terms "without asking any one's consent," whether it shall be so or not. But God does require, and also asks man's consent and approbation of the covenant thus appointed, both in his word and by his ministers; and he does so in the most tender and engaging terms: and man's approbation of the Almighty's claim and favours is in itself a "setting to his seal that God is true." And the covenant is no covenant, God is not his God, man is not of the number of his people, divine blessings cannot pass over to him, until his consent

and approbation are given, and so the sealing be effected. A covenant does not answer its ends and purposes till both parties unite. No blessings can be transmitted to man, until God and he accord: and no curse can follow, but on their disagreement.

Men are not, indeed, forced to comply; but they are laid under very powerful and urgent motives to receive the seal of this covenant. If they choose to risk death, they may rebel, and refuse to believe and be baptised. But consent is required. The seal is no seal, to answer the scripture purpose, but as a "token" of man's consent of heart with God. "It shall be," said God to Abraham, " a token of the covenant between me and you." It is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the real ideas of Dr. Pusey on this subject. For though he labours very hard to prove that the early Christian Fathers were in the right when they spoke so much about persons being "sealed" in baptism; he does not appear to recognize the part which righteous persons perform in their setting to their "seal that God is true." Nay, indeed, he takes pains to prove that in the case of baptismal regeneration he is wholly inactive. He writes thus :—

"But now, as if to exclude all idea of human agency in this our spiritual creation, to shut out all human cooperation and boasting, as though we had in any way contributed to our own birth, and were not wholly the creatures of His hands, no loop-hole has been left us, no other instrument named; our birth (when its direct means are spoken of) is attributed to the baptism of water, and of the Spirit, and to that only." 13. "Faith, and love, and prayer are here excluded. 12.

We shall not now anticipate the discussion of any future proof that the above assertion of Dr. Pusey is highly inconsistent with other statements in the same publication, and especially with the following sentiments of Bishop Bethell, whose "theory of regeneration" is such as does not "exclude the voluntary agency of man from any share-in the conversion of the soul to holiness." p. 37.

PRINTED BY STEWART AND MURRAY, OLD BAILEY.

PLAIN TRACTS

FOR CRITICAL TIMES;

ON THE IMPORTANT SUBJECTS OF

BAPTISM AND REGENERATION,

WITH AN ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE

OXFORD TRACTS,

&c. &c.

BAPTISM OF ADULTS AND INFANTS,

ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (PUSEY, BETHELL, AND LAWRENCE.)

BY A UNION OF CLERGYMEN.

LONDON:

PUBLISHED BY SMITH, ELDER AND CO. CORNHILL.

1838.

BAPTISM, &c.

BAPTISM, as used by our church, involves or implies a spiritual covenant or mutual stipulation between God and the persons baptised. Its blessings, therefore, must necessarily be hypothetical.

From our previous discussion we derived this conclusion, that the sacrament, and the heart required by it, are not always united, and that the ordinance may be received without any beneficial effect; and therefore that baptism is not regeneration, nor necessarily connected with it. Though the requirements and promises of the covenant, as we have seen, always implied and supposed a regenerate state of soul and mind in Abraham and his seed, yet it did not always meet, in fact, with that state of mind: for it was often wanting, not only before, but also after the sacrament was administered. But we do not, as God does not, speak of the sacraments as they are too often received by men, but as they were and are intended and appointed to be received by him who has prescribed them. In this view then we may say, that baptism is the introduction into the Christian covenant.

This notion of baptism seems to be admitted on all hands, however persons may differ in their ideas respecting its efficacy and importance. The church of England clearly views it in this light. We shall now consider the nature and requirements, the form and the working of this momentous concern.