our church, and was frequently insisted upon by the reformers. He has, with equal satisfaction, proved that this very assertion is avowedly obnoxious to a number of modern divines, who, with their followers, it is to be feared, form a large portion of the community. But Mr. Overton has certainly erred in classing Mr. Daubeny with them; for although Mr. Daubeny in his controversial writings has made use of some strong, and, as we think, incorrect and inconsistent, expressions upon the subject of church membership; yet, in his practical works, we gladly bear testimony to the pleasure we ourselves have received from observing the stress which he has laid upon the very distinction in question. Whether it would be easy to reconcile all Mr. Daubeny's expressions on this subject, in different parts of his writings, with each other, we shall not now examine; but we are clear that in some of his works he is very decisive respecting it. In his Lectures on the Catechism, for example, he expressly maintains that "there are many nominal members, and, comparatively speaking, but few true members of the church." (p. 99.) That "to be members of Christ we must not only be admitted into his church by baptism, but must also put on Christ, i. e. must become like unto Christ, by having the same spirit in us that Christ had." (p. 40.)

Mr. Daubeny, in the same work, addresses his parishioners as a congregation consisting both of regenerate and anregenerate persons; and places the condition of the unregenerate in an alarming point of view, as one in which he thinks many of his hearers may stand. (p. 58.) He observes, that "to talk to the generality of christian professors about religion, is to discourse to the deaf and blind upon music and painting," and that "spiritual things, to be understood, must be spiritually discerned. The want of this faculty of spiritual discernment, constitutes the great difference between the na-, tural man and the christian; by which they become as distinct creatures, as if they did not belong to the same class of beings." (p. 189.) He points out to his hearers" the difference between real and nominal christianity;"-"the shadow and the substance of religion;" between "the many that are called and the few that will be chosen;" between him that

is a christian outwardly, and him who is one inwardly." (p. 195, 197, 160.)

Mr. Daubeny, therefore, in direct opposition to several, whose general cause he nevertheless espouses, does hold and teach the doctrine of regeneration, and of the new creature in Christ Jesus, in the same terms, and with the same emphasis, which are so unjustifiably condemned by many, in the case of those to whom the ob. noxious name of "Evangelical Ministers" has been affixed.

Our time will nof admit of our enter. ing on the verbal discussions to which Mr. Daubeny's defence of the Anti-jacobin Reviewers leads. Suffice it to say on this subject, that, in our opinion, Mr. Overton somewhat misconceived the meaning of these gentlemen, when he represented them as considering all who are baptized to be in such a sense in a state of sal vation, as that they will escape future punishment and obtain everlasting happiness, whatever be their character; and that, on the other hand, Mr. Daubeny's interpretation of Mr. Overton's language is not always correct. To bring this particular point of misunderstanding to an amicable conclusion, each party ought to make some concessions*.

Mr. Daubeny (p. 178) considers Mr. Overton as having given a highly exceptionable definition of baptism. Mr. Overton says, that "the initia tory rite of baptism" (alluding to the form of administration in our liturgy) "inculcates the necessity of an inward and spiritual grace, of a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.” But these words are clearly not a definition of that sacrament, but merely an affirmation respecting it; just as Mr. Daubeny himself states in the language of the church at p. 180, that baptism represents unto us our profession, which is to follow Christ and to be made like unto him. We do not see upon what grounds Mr. Daubeny should represent an explanatory observation, fairly drawn from the terms of our baptismal service, as a formal

*We are glad to observe (p. 186) that idea of our church, only presuming, not Mr. Deubeny appears to encourage the affirming, that all baptized persons are truly, that is, spiritually regenerate. We are, nevertheless, unable to reconcile all that he says upon this subject with his assertions in other places.

and full definition of that sacrament. Prejudice seems here to have prevented him from doing that justice to Mr. Overton of which the case clearly admits and to have led nim rather hastily into a needless degree of severity.

spiritual regeneration does not follow baptism, you are in the same condi tion with the Jews in their most corrupt state, when circumcision went no farther with them than to the mere manual operation on the flesh."(Daub. on Catechism, p. 156. 158. 196.)

At p. 152, Mr. Daubeny earnestly recommends to Mr. Overton the perusal of the writings of Bishop Hall. The ground on which he does so is a very proper one; but we cannot help remarking, and it is a remark which reflects considerable light on the general tenor of the whole of this volume, that the high regard and veneration with which Mr. Daubenv always mentions that inestimable author, is not easily to be reconciled with his strong and unqualified repro

Mr. Daubeny's language will, we think, by many of his readers, be considered as expressive of an opinion that the blessing of spiritual regeneration in its highest and most ap propriate sense, is conveyed in all cases to the party baptized. "The sacrament of baptism," he observes, "is that mysterious rite which conveys an immediate spiritual benefit to the party concerned; that benefit of regeneration by which the baptized person is translated by the holy spirit from the state of nature," &c. (p. 179); and again, as it is God that regenerates, the form appointed by him for that purpose must be produce tive of its intended effect." (p. 181.) Although we by no means wish to represent Mr. Daubeny's opinion of the nature of baptism to be different from that which we believe to be the true one, farther than his expressions will warrant; yet we think him, in this chapter, much more liable to misin terpretation than when, in another work, he says, "These are the immediate effects which this sacrament was intended to produce, even a cleansing from the guilt of sin, and a restoration to the lost favour of God: where these effects are accompanied with a death unto sin, and a new life unto righteousness, then and then only hath this sacrament attained the end for which it was instituted."

This new and spiritual life is supposed to be entered upon at baptism." "Without baptism you are not to expect spiritual regeneration; but if

fessed by modern clergymen, which Bishop Hall, as well in his public capacity at Dort, as in his private wat ings, steadily and consistendy maintained. This is a proof that the Calvinistic system may assume a form acceptable even to those who think themselves its warmest adversaries; and we take this occasion of stating our own wish to have it unequivocally understood, that when the Christian Observer expresses its opinion, that the Calvinistic system is consistent with the articles and other public standards of the Church of England, and by no means liable to those heavy charges of heterodoxy and immorality which some of our cotemporaries prefer against it, we mean to speak of that system of doctrine which pervades and animates the writings of Bishop Hall. Were the writings of such authors as Jewell, Hooker, and Hall to be faithfully and impartially examined with the express view of ascertaining what were their opinions on these controverted subjects, we are persuaded that a different sentiment would prevail amongst many divines of high name, both respecting the real nature of Calvinism, and the designed exclusion of Calvinists from the Church of England. They would also find that the opinions of these eminent men are precisely those of at least many who are called Calvinists in the present day; and that, whether in themselves true or false, they are not liable to those severe censures which have been so liberally bestowed upon them. These fathers of our church may, doubtless, have been

the church, never lose sight of its spiritual nature as it is holy, mystical. and invisible. Mr. Daubeny has, with great propriety, endeavoured to guard his readers against the schismatical a

sible.

invisible and mystical church from the vi"That church of Christ which we properly term his body mystical can be but one; neither can that one be sen-ibly discerned by any man; inasmuch as the parts thereof are some in heaven already

with Christ, and the rest that are on earth

(all-be-it their natural persons be visibl) we do not discern under this property whereby they are truly and infallibly of that body," &c. (See the whole of the third book.)

Archbishop Whitgift, in his Defence of the Church of England against Cartwright, observes, that there are two kinds of government in the church, the one invisible, the other visible; the one spiritual, the other external. The invisible and spiritual government of the church is when

God, by his spirit, gifts, and ministry of his word, doth govern it by ruling in the hearts and consciences of men, and directing them in all things necessary to everlasting life. This kind of government, indeed, is necessary to salvation, and it is in the church of the elect only. The visible and external government is that which is executed by man, and consisteth of external discipline, and visible ceremonies, practised in that church, and over that church, that containeth in it both good and evil, which is usually called the visible church of Christ." (Edit. 1574. p. 80.)

Bishop Pearson commenting on Ephes. v. 25, 26, 27, directs us how within the great complex body of the universal church, to find that church to which absolute holiness doth belong." (Exposition of the Creed, edit. 1683, p. 344.)

This distinction is, with peculiar clearness and precision, expressed by Lord Bacon in his well known confession of faith. The same two-fold character of the church is to be found in the confession of Augsburg, in the writings of Melancthon, and in nearly all the public and private writings of that period.

We have inserted these quotations with the view of inviting our readers to the diligent examination of the originals, for we are convinced that the simple and scriptural manner in which those reverend fathers treated the subject of the church, is much less liable to misconstruction and error than that which so many now adopt. It

is the only one which connects the genuine nature of ecclesiastical polity with the spiritual character of the true church of Christ, and is the best calculated to preserve a just medium between the unauthorized latitudinarianism of one party, and the unbending rigidity of the other.

buses of this doctrine. But having done this he goes farther: he avows a prejudice against the doctrine itself; and by confining his description of church privileges to the visible constitution of the church he overstrains the argument, and, as we conceive, materially injures the cause which it was his intention to promote. He has thus been led already into many disputes, and we fear may, probably, into many more.

between a true visible church and the Mr. Daubeny, when distinguishing true members of it, introduces several very sensible and appropriate remarks; but still he makes imperfect and partial representations where the antient authors are full and satisfactory, Now the view we have taken of the subject is so far from being inconsist ent with a due attention to the visible constitution of the church, that it places it on the firmest basis; as is evident from the writings of those learned and pious supporters of the Church of England, whom we have quoted in our margin, as well as of many of their contemporaries. This view of the church has the farther advantage of guarding the representations of its real nature, against those untenable conclusions into which some modern writers fall, from their exclusively ascribing to its external constitution those characteristic privileges which are inseparable, indeed, from the true spiritual church; but which only appertain to the visible church, so far as it contains the true and invisible church. The visible church is a community of men, making an outward profession of the truth. The invisible church is that portion of the visible which is sanctified by the inward possession of the truth. The former derives its value from its containing the latter: and in proportion as it may be deemed, on scriptural ground, so to do, it has or has not a just claim to the appellation of true, holy, and catholic. Those primitive writers of our own church, whose opinions on this point are most esteemed, did not, with Mr. Daubeny, suppose that episcopacy, however ancient, venerable, and apostolical in its origin, was so exclusively connected with God's Covenanted plan of salvation, as that the ministry and ordinances of any ecclesiastical society, not founded on the episcopal system, must be vain and inefficacious. There is no fact

more easy to be deduced from their writings than that while they held, in consonance with the voice of antiquity, the superior claim and even divine authority of episcopacy; and while they firmly opposed the unreasonable pretensions of schismatics, they acknowledged the sister protestant churches, formed on the Presbyterian plan, to be sound members of the universal church, and maintained communication with them as such*. It is true they considered them as mutilated in circumstantials, but not deficient in essenceț. Mr. Daubeny when speaking of the characteristic marks of the visible church, frequently places one of those marks in so exclusively prominent a light as to convey to his readers an erroneous and confused representation of the subject.

The Church of England, when distinguishing the true church from the church of Rome, thus defines it: "The true church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being a head corner-stone. And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known; pure and sound doctrine, the sacraments ministered according

to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline." (Second part of the homily for Whitsunday.) This is a description of the church which we are fully persuaded is agreeable both to the scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the antient fathers." We cannot, therefore, help feeling some surprise that Mr. Daubeny should express himself on this head in such terms as the following, (p. 197.) "The characteris tic mark, which distinguishes any society, is its appropriate government. The appropriate government of the visible church is that episcopal form, which was originally established by the apostles. Where that form of government is to be found, there the church of Christ, as a visible society, exists. From whence it follows, that every christian must know, if he will but consider, whether he is living in a state of communion with the church, or in a state of separation from it." Mr. Daubeny also concludes, if we understand him aright, and we repel, with sincerity, the charge of wilfully misrepresenting him; that if the episcopal government be but preserved, the absence of the pure word preached, and of the spirituality of divine worship, does not destroy the actual existence of the church. Now, however Mr. Daubeny may justly disclaim any intention of establishing some of the inferences to which, nevertheless, the above positions lead, and which Mr. Overton certainly appears to us to have pushed to an undue length, yet we must observe that nions to be tenable in those unqualiwe do not think either of these opified terms in which they here appear; nor do we see any reason, in consequence of the explanation given by Mr. Daubeny, to alter our former views of the subject (Christ. Observ. for 1802, p. 621*). We still conceive that any branch of the visible church would cease to belong to the church of Christ, whenever the purity of the word, and the doctrine of the sacraments, became thoroughly corrupted; even though the episcopalian form of government should remain. No can

In the passage here referred to, Mr. Daubeny's charge against us received a full, and we will venture to add, unansweraber foration; yet he repeats his charge, without once noticing our reply. Was this quite fair?