establish your position, that faith "is always required before Baptism."

A reference to her catechism will explain the doctrine of our church upon the point; and the perusal of their respective works will, I doubt not, evince that Bishop Bethell and Professor Pusey maintain that repentance and faith are requisites for Baptism only where it is administered to one who has passed from a state of infantile irresponsibility, and not "always required."

Need I add? that the argument adduced in support of your position does not establish it.

I will subjoin but one concluding remark: viz. that it must be admitted to be evident that the contents of your Tract, No. 4, cannot in any degree influence or affect the decision of the question in dispute, otherwise than as it operates to subvert the evangelical doctrines in the manner above men. tioned.

Reverend Gentlemen,

Believe me to remain,

With all deference and respect,

Your obedient servant,

A LAYMAN,

Sincerely interested in the peace and welfare

of the Church.

238

LETTER X.

REVEREND GENTLEMEN,

You commence your Tract, No. V., with a most portentous objection to the doctrine which has been demonstrated to be that taught by our church with respect to regeneration.

Baptism, as used by our church," you say, "involves, or implies, a spiritual covenant or mutual stipulation between God and the persons baptized. Its blessings, therefore, must necessarily be hypothetical."

Gentlemen, the argument adduced in the above cited passage may be more intelligibly stated thus :'The form or rite of baptism, used by our church, involves or implies a spiritual covenant, or mutual stipulation, between God and the persons baptized, or their sureties. Therefore, it follows-it is evident, that is, from this circumstance that our church must necessarily account the blessings attendant upon the sacrament of Baptism to be hypothetical.'

Now, I admit the fact that the form of baptism used by our church in ordinary cases, involves or

implies a spiritual covenant, or mutual stipulation, between God and the baptized persons, or their sureties. But the conclusion which I form upon a consideration of this fact, is directly contrary to that at which you have arrived. Instead of concluding 'that because our church uses a form of baptism which involves or implies a spiritual covenant or mutual stipulation between God and the baptized persons, or their sureties, it follows that she must necessarily account the blessings attendant upon the ministration of the sacrament of Baptism to be hypothetical;' I consider, that because she has authorized such a form of baptism, it is evident that our church must hold that there is a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism.'

Now, these two opinions or conclusions are di rectly and irreconcileably opposed to each other: consequently, if the one be right, the other must be wrong. The course, therefore, which I propose to adopt, in order to obviate the portentous objection with which you commence the Tract we are considering, is that of establishing the latter of the two conclusions, and thereby disproving the former, without being at the trouble of confuting the various statements contained in the eleven pages which you have devoted to the discussion of the subject.

In proceeding to establish the latter of the two conclusions adverted to, I would observe, in the first place,

That according to the form or rule which she has

prescribed for the ministration of baptism to infants, our church requires that certain persons, called godfathers and godmothers, should be present at the celebration of it, as spiritual sureties on behalf of the child.

Of these persons, the officiating priest is instructed to demand,

'Dost thou, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?'

'I renounce them all,' is the appointed answer of the godfather or godmother.

Now, gentlemen, if the church hold that there is not any Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism; or, in other words, that its blessings are merely hypothetical; when she prescribes the engagement contained in the above reply, she requires the god. father or godmother to undertake, on behalf of the child, to do that which is manifestly impracticable to man, that which it is the exclusive attribute of Omnipotence to effect.

For if there be no Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism, the infant will not be made regenerate at baptism; and until it be made regenerate, it is impossible that it can walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh; and until it be led to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh, it cannot effectually 'renounce the devil and all his works, or

the vain pomp and glory of the world, so that he -will not follow or be led by them.' And since the infant is not made regenerate at its baptism, in the case we are supposing, and inasmuch as the godfather or godmother can neither procure or promote the regeneration of the godchild *, when he or she enters into the engagement which the church has prescribed, he or she undertakes-solemnly promises and vows, to do what God only can effect.

And awful indeed! is that mockery of the Almighty which such an engagement would induce.

But supposing that the church hold that there is a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism, the case will be altogether different. Then, all that the church virtually calls upon the godfather or godmother to undertake, when she prescribes the engagement adverted to, and all that the godfather or godmother virtually promises and vows to do, when he or she enters into that engagement, is to discharge the practicable duty of seeing that the child is properly brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. For if a Divine efficacy, by which regeneration is wrought, be inherent in the sacrament of Baptism, then, in case the godchild be properly brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord from infancy, the godly susceptibilies implanted

* The argument by which it was proved that a parent cannot procure or forward the regeneration of his child, (vide page 28) will apply with equal force to the case of the godfather and godmother and godchild.

Y