does it not follow-may he not pronounce-that the belief or disbelief of the doctrine, "that regeneration is wrought by virtue of a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism," has a tendency to produce a difference analagous to that which subsists between bitter and sweet?

As it is my intention to consider the important topic of discussion to which I have been incidentally led, at a length in some degree commensurate to its importance, I will conclude for the present, and recur to the subject in a future letter.

And, 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.

333

LETTER III.

REVEREND GENTLEMEN,

UPON resuming the subject of discussion to which I called your attention in my last letter, which, as you will no doubt remember, related to an enquiry as to whether the proposed alteration in the doctrines of our Church, would have the effect of occasioning a change in the character and quality of the religion which she teaches; I proceed to lay down the following positions :

First, That the belief or disbelief of the doctrine that regeneration is wrought by virtue of a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism has a tendency to influence, is calculated to produce a difference in a clergyman's exercise of his ministry.

And, secondly, That the belief or disbelief of the doctrine in question, has a tendency to influence, is calculated to produce a difference in the walk and conversation, (I use the expression in its Scriptural sense) of a private or individual Christian.

Before I enter upon the proof of either of the

above positions, it is necessary to premise that the question, whether regeneration be wrought by virtue of a Divine efficacy inherent in the Sacrament of Baptism, or effected by the independent agency of the Spirit of God,' may be said to involve a second, and is also closely connected with a third.

The second is this; whether human nature be wholly corrupt and degenerate; or only very far gone from perfect or original righteousness? '

Now, with respect to this question, I have only to observe that it is a notorious and indisputable fact, that all who hold what for the sake of distinction I will designate as the evangelical doctrine-all who believe that another regeneration is necessary before a baptized person can enter into the kingdom of heaven;" or in other words, "that regeneration is effected by the independent agency of the Spirit of God," invariably insist upon the entire corruption and degeneracy of the human race. Whereas those who hold, what, since I have proved it to be the doctrine holden by the Church, I feel called upon to denominate the orthodox doctrine; who believe "that regeneration is wrought by virtue of a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism," maintain in common with the Church herself, that man is only very far gone from original righteousness, and not wholly degenerate and depraved.

The third question adverted to above, is this: Those who believe that another regeneration is

necessary before a baptized person can enter into the kingdom of God, usually-but, I admit, not invariably maintain that when that other regeneration has taken place, the person, on whom the change it superinduces has been wrought, may be regarded as one of the elect and is certain of attaining unto everlasting life. Whereas those who hold what I have denominated the orthodox doctrine, believe that not only after he has been made regenerate by virtue of the Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism, but even after he has attained to some degree of faith, and made, it may be, a considerable proficiency in righteousness, a man may fall into presumptuous and deadly sin, and in the end become a cast-away.

Now, gentlemen, although it be true that all who hold the two former of the evangelical opinions to which I have referred, do not insist upon the last ; yet it is evident beyond all possibility of doubt, that you believe and maintain it. For in the Tract No. 1. you unequivocally assert that the persons on whom that other or spiritual regeneration which you conceive to be necessary has been wrought, are "saved persons."*

It is evident, therefore, that I am warranted in considering the three orthodox opinions or doctrines adverted to above, and also the three evangelical, as invariably concomitant-as involved in each other.

* Vide p. 21, and elsewhere.

And now, without further preamble, I will proceed to consider the first of the propositions which I have laid down; viz. That the belief or disbelief of the doctrine," that regeneration is wrought by virtue of a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism," has a tendency to influence, is calculated to produce a difference in a clergyman's exercise of his ministry.

What? we may enquire in the first place, is the course which a clergyman who conscientiously believes the thrée orthodox doctrines adverted to above, will deem it his duty, must judge it incumbent upon him, to pursue in the exercise of his ministry.

If I mistake not, such a clergyman would conceive that the end and object of his sacred vocation was that of building up his people in their most holy faith; of training up, of instructing and establishing the flock which the providence of God has committed to his charge, in that Christian faith and righteousness which is necessary to the attainment of everlasting life. Now, when consulting with himself as to the means likely, by God's blessing, to prove most conducive to the attainment of this end; or in other words, as to the means best calculated to promote the efficacy of his ministrations; it would naturally occur to every such clergyman, that it was a matter of indispensable necessity to adapt his ministrations as exactly as might be to the spiritual condition and capacities of his flock. And in con