therefore no more than that Providential appointment which determines outward circumstances;-Predestination is simply the Divine fore-knowledge, or a determination on the part of God that man shall be left to determine himself;-Regeneration is Baptism;-Conversion consists in renouncing Heathenism, or in an acknowledgement of the truth of Christianity;—and becoming a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, is all included in a reception into the visible Church. This is the theology of Rome, the theology which Calvin combated with so much vehemence, and which finds its modern advocates in the Lecturers and Regius Professors of the University of Oxford !

Our present business, however, confines us to the doctrine of the Church on the efficacy of Baptism.

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.' pp. 10, 11.

Our Author proceeds in his third chapter, to notice the complaint which has been made, that Dr. Mant nearly confines, his attention to infant recipients of Baptism. He shews that the question in debate hinges upon this very point, since the Church of England possessed no form whatever of adult 'Baptism until the Restoration,' and to attempt therefore to 'explain the doctrine of infant by that of adult Baptism,' is an inverted order of argument. With regard to the former, the hypothesis of a charitable supposition, (which, as Dr. L. justly remarks, presumes the possibility of an uncharitable one,) is wholly untenable; the incompetency of the infant subject of Baptism excludes alike both suppositions. Besides, in the preparatory form of the service for adults, the person, although supposed to possess repentance and faith,'

6

Is regarded as still unregenerate; otherwise the minister would not be instructed thus to pray; "We call upon thee for this person,

* Art. ix. Dr. Mant's opponent will not here allow this identity of expression, certainly not as any result from the context, pp. 100, 101. But had he referred to the original Latin of this Article, which he appears to have both read and considered, because he quotes it in the very next page, he must have acknowledged the truth of a deduction which he contemptuously opposes. In this Article the word renatis occurs twice, manet etiam in renatis hæc naturæ depravatio: again, 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. Mr. Scott however, for reasons not very difficult to divine, quotes only the instance in which it is translated regenerated

"that he coming to thy holy Baptism may receive remission of his "sins by spiritual Regeneration;" and again, "Give thy Holy "Spirit to this person, that he may be born again and be made an "heir of everlasting salvation." Surely this mode of expression sufficiently demonstrates, that he who possesses repentance and faith is not therefore to be necessarily considered as possessing spiritual Regereration. But what follows? Immediately after the administration of baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he is pronounced to be regenerated, to be born again, and to be made an heir of everlasting salvation. Is it possible to deduce any other legitimate conclusion from these premises than this; that the person who after a due preparation comes to Christ's holy Baptism unregenerated, departs regenerated.

When it is said before the act of baptism," Give thy Holy Spirit "to this person, that he may be born again and be made an heir of "everlasting salvation;" and again after the act of baptism, that "being now born again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, he may continue thy servant;" does not the change of tense distinctly point out a change of circumstances dependent upon the intervening act of baptism; indicating that the person baptized, although repenting and believing, was not previously, but is now regenerated?' pp. 21-23.

We pass over Dr. Laurence's inquiry, If Regeneration be already obtained,' (that is, previously to Baptism,) ́ in what can be supposed to consist the "great necessity" of Baptism with water?" We shall merely remark that such an argument might be made admirably to serve the purpose of the abetters of other Romish doctrines: Transubstantiation for instance, or Confirmation. In what consists the great necessity of Confirmation, unless the Holy Spirit is conveyed by the imposition of episcopal hands? Or in what, it might be asked, consists the great necessity of episcopal ordination, unless it also convey the Holy Spirit? The notions implied in these questions, originate alike in a misinterpretation of Scripture. But with regard to the Institute of Baptism itself, the case is widely different and if we once admit that the necessity or importance of a Divine Institute is to be appreciated, not by the authority on which it rests, not by the expressness of the command, but by human interpretations of its design, by the rationale of the rite as expounded by doting superstition; then it matters little by whom the supremacy of the Church is usurped, by Polish or by Roman heresiarch: the Scriptures are no longer the standard of our faith.

Dr. L. however imagines that the necessity of Baptism rests upon its efficacy; and that the Church inculcates upon this point no Calvinistic principles we may conclude (he says,) from the known creed of those who compiled the office in question', (the office for Adult Baptism.)

The compilers of this office were Henchman Bishop of Sarum, Lany Bishop of Peterborough, and Morley Bishop of Worcester, in conjunction with six others, not named, of the Lower House of Convocation. See Act of Convocation, A.D. 1661. in Wilkins's Concilia Magna Britan. &c. v. 4. p. 565. It is added: Hæ præces pro baptizatione adultorum, ultimo die mensis Maii introductæ, unanimiter approbantur. The Anti-Calvinistical principles of this Convocation will not, I presume, be questioned. The three Bishops had also acted under the royal commission previously issued for the revision of our Liturgy; and were in their proceedings under it all opposed to the Presbyterian party. Baxter represents Bishop Morley and Bishop Henchman as the principal opponents of that party in the Savoy Conference. Baxter's Life, part ii. p. 363. Henchman indeed he describes as speaking "calmly and slowly, and not very "oft;" but adds, " he was as high in his principles and resolutions as 66 any of them." Lany he seems to have held in contempt, p. 337, and 364. But Morley he represents as the chief speaker of the Bishops, and the greatest interrupter of those who pleaded for alterations in the Liturgy, p. 363.' p. 30,

We must be very brief in following Dr. Laurence through the remaining part of his argument. The fourth chapter exhibits the doctrine of Luther on the subject of Baptism, and the language of the Augsburg Confession, from which the formulary adopted by our Church, it is asserted, was borrowed The doctrine of Luther is referred to by Mr. Hall in his Treatise "On the Terms of Communion."* Though distinguishable from the opus operatum of the Church of Rome, it bears strongly the indications of that cloudiness of theological knowledge, which attended the dawn of the Reformation. Luther held that Baptism is necessary to salvation; and that' Faith, though an 'indispensible requisite, can add nothing to the efficacy of that sacrament.' The same partial emancipation from Romish error marks the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist. Consubstantiation was one step towards truth from Transubstantiation.

The Latin articles extant in the Cottonian library, in one or two instances corrected by Henry himself,' which are referred to the year 1540 by Strype, contain language respecting adult baptism, perfectly conformable to that of Luther; and the English book of Articles published under the sanction of royal authority in 1536, the probable original of the Latin ones', directs all bishops and preachers to teach the people, that it is by virtue of that holy sacrament' that they obtain the grace and remission of all their sins. Dr. L. subjoins the following quotation.

"And finally, if they shall also have firm credence and trust in See Eclectic Review N.S. V. iv. p. 345.

"the promise of God adjoined to the said sacrament, that is to say, "that in and by this said sacrament, which they shall receive, God "the Father giveth unto them, for his Son Jesus Christ's sake, re"mission of all their sins, and the grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby "they be newly regenerated and made the very children of God, ac"cording to the saying of Christ and his Apostle St. Peter, Peniten"tiam agite, &c."'

From the preceding quotations,' he adds, it is impossible to deduce any other conclusion than that for which I am contending; that Regeneration exists in and by, but not before baptism. And let it be remembered, that these are the earliest documents of our Reformation, which our Reformers at the close of it evidently had in their contemplation, and which some of them, particularly their leader Cranmer, had been instrumental in drawing up, when they established that form of doctrine in our Church, which still subsists.' p. 49, 60.

The fifth chapter continues the series of proof in reference to the sentiments of Cranmer, who was the principal author of the first book of Homilies, and of the Liturgy; and the Author endeavours to shew that the sentiments of Latimer were not different from those of Cranmer. The sixth chapter relates to the First Book of Homilies, the Paraphrase of Erasmus, the Second Book of Homilies, and the last Revision of the Liturgy under the Royal Commission at the Restoration. The following extracts from the published account of the Proceedings of the Commissioners, indisputably prove the sentiments of the High Church Party.

• Among the exceptions made to the language used in the office of Infant baptism, one was to the following expressions in the second introductory prayer, " may receive remission of his sins by spiritual rege"neration." The exception was thus worded; "This expression seeming inconvenient, we desire it may be changed into this, may "be regenerated, and receive remission of sins."

66

The answer of the High Church party, who finally conducted the revision by themselves without control, was this: "Receive remission "of sins by spiritual regeneration, most proper. For baptism is our "spiritual regeneration. St. John iii. Unless a man be born again of "water and the Spirit, &c. And by this is received remission of sins. "Acts ii. 38. Repent and be baptised every one of you for the re“mission of sins. So the Creed; one baptism for the remission of sin." When therefore the same party came to compose the office of Adult baptism, and adopted the very phraseology in question without alteration, can we possibly doubt what precise sense it was their intention to affix to it? They could certainly have intended to affix none to it consistent with the belief, that Regeneration takes place in adults before baptism; because they unambiguously avowed their creed to be, that baptism itself (and not its previous requisites) constitutes our spiritual Regeneration, and that by this, so considered, we obtain the remission of our sins.

Another exception taken by their opponents was to these words

in the Church Catechism: "In my baptism wherein I was made a "child of God, a member of Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom "of heaven." It was said; "We conceive it might more safely be

expressed thus: Wherein I was visibly admitted into the number "of the members of Christ, the children of God, and the heirs (rather than the inheritors) of the kingdom of heaven."

The following was the answer which they gave to this exception. "We conceive this expression" (that is, this mode of expression, or the language previously and still in use)" as safe as that which they "desire, and more fully expressing the efficacy of the sacrament, ac"cording to St. Paul, Galatians iii. 26 and 27; where St. Paul σε proves them all to be children of God, because they were baptized, tand in their baptism had put on Christ. If children then heirs, or, "which is all one, inheritors, Rom. viii. 17.

So explicit a declaration, that we become the members of Christ, the children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven, by the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism, in which we are stated to put on Christ, leaves not a shadow of suspicion respecting the sentiments of those who made it. And let it not be forgotten, that this was the very party, to which we are solely and exclusively indebted for the revision of the Liturgy, and for the compilation of the office itself, the true meaning of which is now controverted.' p. 104-106.

Our Author proceeds in the seventh chapter, to demolish the theory of a supposed disposition in infants to fulfil, when ca'pable of so doing, their baptismal engagements;' upon which the evangelical clergy attempt to reconcile their use of the Ritual. Mr. Scott represents it as analogous to a legal fiction in temporal transactions, and considers the soul of the child as in that sense transferred to his sponsor, and as speaking in him and by him. Dr. Laurence rejoins,

'But what are the gradations in this singular scale of suppositions ascribed to our Church? First, the professions of the sponsor are supposed to be those of the infant himself, although he is acknow ledged to be at the time incapable of all professions whatsoever, as well of comprehending as of performing them. Then these professions are supposed to be made with a species of sincerity. And lastly, by way of solving the preceding ænigma, the infant is supposed to possess, not indeed genuine sincerity, but a certain indescribable disposition, which must hereafter infallibly lead him to prove by his subsequent conduct, that, if he could, he would even now be truly

sincere.

How this extravagant mode of reasoning can render the doctrine of our Church more rational and intelligible, I am wholly at a loss to conjecture. Bold indeed I admit, but certainly not very rational and intelligible, is that hypothesis, which represents her as regenerating by fiction, and as presuming impossibilities.' 113, 114.

The following chapter offers additional proof that the framers of the Liturgy designedly excluded every idea of a conditional or partial Regeneration. The ninth and tenth are occupied