It is the last which I shall mention.*

For the

subject has already occupied more time, and a larger portion of my remarks, than I intended to devote to it, or can conveniently afford.

Gentlemen, if I mistake not, the contents of this letter will somewhat astonish you. I have not forgotten that I am addressing myself to those who admit that the doctrine demonstrated to be that taught by our church, is justifiably holden by her; but, at the same time, I am aware that you must necessarily be greatly startled at finding the evangelical doctrines exhibited in a light so very different from that in which you have been accustomed to regard them : and I fear that, in consequence, you will naturally feel disposed to entertain a doubt as to the correctness of my views, or question the soundness of the conclusions at which I have arrived.

Permit me, therefore, to request that, if this should be the case, you will re-peruse this letter with your best attention, and patiently reconsider the arguments and investigate the statements it contains.

And, gentlemen, if you follow this advice-I say not what I am about to assert from an overweening opinion that my observations have been stated with any particular perspicuity, but from a strong con

* The author begs to intimate, that he has purposely abstained from mentioning one of the most obvious practical evils incident to a belief in the evangelical doctrines, from a fear lest the remarks which he might make upon the subject should cause discomfort to any of his readers.

viction that they contain the truth!—if you re-peruse this letter (supposing a re-perusal to be necessary) with your best attention, and patiently reconsider the arguments and investigate the statements it contains, the contents of it will, I doubt not, effectually correct any disallowed and unconscious predilection which you might otherwise have retained in favour of the evangelical doctrines, and enable you to give a hearty and unhesitating assent to the doctrine which has been demonstrated to be that taught by our Church with respect to regeneration. Reverend Gentlemen,

With all deference and respect,

I subscribe myself

Your obedient servant,

A LAYMAN,

Sincerely interested in the peace and welfare

of the Church.

169

LETTER VII.

REVEREND GENTLEMEN,

IN applying myself to the consideration of your Tract, No. 2, I would observe, in the first place, that the "Erroneous interpretations" of which it treats, are for the most part as irreconcileable with the doctrine which has been demonstrated to be that taught by our church with respect to that regeneration, as they are with that which you uphold. For instance, this is the case with respect to the opinion ascribed to a certain ' prelate,* who has many advocates,' in page 6 ;viz., "That though it be manifestly proved, that spiritual regeneration, as taught by our church, is a moral change of the heart and affections into the image of God-and thus the idea which confines regeneration to baptism cannot be supported—yet, there may be a twofold' doctrine of regeneration taught in our offices, somewhat differently modified, perhaps, from the one just noticed. And that this must be admitted, in order to explain how the church connects regeneration with baptism, and yet teaches

a spiritual regeneration which does not always take place at baptism."

"This prelate says," you continue, "there are two ways of dedication to God: the one external, by men; the other wrought by God himself, by the operation of the Holy Ghost." He further adds,

that " as there is this twofold dedication and separation, so there is also a twofold sanctification; there is as external, relative, or ecclesiastical sanctification; there is an internal, real, and spiritual sanctification."

Now is it not obvious that the above cited opinion is utterly irreconcileable with that holden by one who believes that regeneration is wrought by virtue of a divine efficacy inherent in the Sacrament of Baptism? For if it has pleased God to endue the Sacrament of Baptism with a divine efficacy, which has the effect of constituting the baptized person "a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven," the due administration of that sacrament must necessarily superinduce "an internal, real, and spiritual sanctification," as well as "6 an external, relative, or ecclesiastical one; for how could the baptized person become "a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven," and at the same time remain destitute of that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord, devoid of all internal, real, and spiritual sanctification?

And the case is the same with respect to

most of the interpretations you impugn.* The plan, therefore, which I propose to adopt, in commenting upon your Tract, No. 2, is that of selecting such passages as adduce any unanswered objection to the doctrine demonstrated to be that taught by our church, and replying to the averments they contain to the best of my ability.

The first passage upon which I have any occasion to remark, is the following: it occurs in p. 4.

*The author begs to observe, that it is to the "interpretations of the various eminent divines whose opinions are referred to, as cited as they are partially set forth by the authors of the Plain Tracts, that he would be understood to confine the observations he has made above. For it is very possible, he conceives, that if the whole system, so to speak, of the divines, to whom the supposed "erroneous interpretations" are ascribed, were placed before the reader, he would perceive that their opinions were perfectly consistent with the doctrine of regeneration as taught by our church.

For example, the interpretation ascribed to Mr. Jerram (vide pp. 4, 5), appears wholly inconsistent with the doctrine which has been demonstrated to be that taught by our church, as it is stated in the Tract; but supposing that in the treatise from which the interpretation ascribed to him is cited, Mr. Jerram had conceded that "the change of mind -the renewal of the soul-which are no part," he says, baptismal regeneration;" are distinct in themselves, and take place at different times; are not of universal necessity,

but

" of

but only take place when a baptized Christian has so far forsaken his own mercy as to constitute himself an enemy in his mind by wicked works, his opinion would be perfectly consistent with the doctrine "that regeneration is wrought by virtue of a divine efficacy inherent in the Sacrament of Baptism." It would be evident, in that case, that the difference between Mr. Jerram and those who hold the doctrine demonstrated to be that taught by our church, would be verbal only the one terming that a second regeneration' which the other denominated conversion.'