but pernicious in the extreme.

Conscious that these

are strong expressions, I am content to leave it to your impartial judgment to decide whether they are not warranted by the sequel, especially in reference to the second point.

In the first place, as far as I am competent to judge, he seems to confine and restrict regeneration to baptism in a way which scripture does not sanction: and in the second, he represents the difficulty of obtaining the pardon of sin after baptism, in a manner most discouraging to the penitent, and apparently subversive of the free grace of the gospel.

In the outset of his elaborate treatise, he states that "baptism is spoken of as the source of our spiritual birth, as no other cause is-save God." Seemingly aware of the difficulty of reconciling his theory with the explicit declarations of scripture, he takes a very summary and superficial view of those passages, which, according to their most simple and obvious interpretation, are at variance with it. Of these I have already cited one, (viz. 1 Peter i. 23) together with other passages of scripture, in order to shew that grace GENERALLY may be imparted through the medium of the word, received into an honest and good heart, independent of, and unconnected with either of the sacraments. With regard to the SPECIFIC grace of regeneration, there is another in St. James i. relating directly to this question, upon which I will beg leave to offer the comments of bishop Hall and of Whitby, rather than my own. The Apostle having stated in verse 17., that every good gift

and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning; adds, in the 18th., Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

On these words, the former commentator remarks. "That infinite and unchangeable mercy of his hath approved itself to us in this, that of his own free will, without any merit of ours, without any of our inclination towards him, he hath regenerated us to himself; not by the mortal and corrupt seed, which we derived from Adam, but by the immortal and incorruptible seed of the word of truth; that we should be singled out as the noblest and happiest of his creatures."* Whitby observes on the same words, "Here is a plain evidence that the word of God is the ordinary means of our regeneration, it being the word preached, the word we are to hear, (v. 19. 22.) and to receive with meekness, by which the new birth is by God wrought in us, and which, saith the Apostle, is able to save the soul."+

If words have any meaning, and if the words of scripture ought to be understood, according to their plain and literal acceptation, the language both of St. James, and of St. Peter, clearly indicates that the grace of regeneration may be conveyed through a channel distinct from that of baptism. Whether, therefore, it may have been originally conferred in that sacred ordinance, and subsequently lost: or, whether, from some cause un

*

Bishop Hall, in loco. Works, vol. iv. p. 468. Pratt's Edn.

Whitby, in loco.-Sec Appendix ix.

known to us, it may not have been communicated at all; this appears to be the means wisely and mercifully ordained for its recovery in the one case, and for its first acquisition, in the other.

With regard to the fundamental doctrine of justification, or the pardon of sin, my sentiments upon it were so fully delivered twelve years ago, that even if time allowed, it would be superfluous for me now to repeat them.* I will, therefore, content myself with contrasting the opinions advanced in the 68th number of the Oxford Tracts with two passages which occur in the excellent homily on repentance.

Although the writer has admitted (according to the 16th Article)" that the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism;" yet the grant, in his view of it, is encumbered with such conditions and limitations as cannot fail to throw great impediments in the way of the sinner's return to God. As if, instead of encouraging and facilitating that return, it were intended to drive him to the very confines of despair, that awful and confessedly difficult passage in Heb. vi. is cited and applied to the case of the individual who has violated his baptismal covenant by falling

* I trust that I may be permitted to express my gratification at finding that the conclusions, at which I had arrived after an investigation of this fundamental doctrine, and the opinion, which I had been led to form of the erroneous views entertained by Bishop Bull relative to it, have recently been corroborated in an unanswerable manner, by so powerful and learned a writer as the Rev. G. S. Faber. This he has done in a work entitled "The primitive doctrine of justification investigated: relatively to the several definitions of the Church of Rome and the Church of England, and with a special reference to the opinions of the late Mr. Knox, as published in his remains."

into sin. Without entering into an investigation of the different interpretations which have been given of this passage by different commentators, let it suffice to observe that it cannot be certainly proved, that it contains any reference to baptism. If it do, there still remains a doubt whether it can by any possibility relate to those who were baptized in their infancy. But, even supposing these points determined, and admitting that it alludes to baptism generally, what are we to understand by falling away (Tарапεσоνтаs)? Does it imply an entire apostacy from the Christian faith, involving the irremissible sin against the Holy Ghost? Or is the term employed to denote the ordinary transgressions into which man may fall through the strength of temptation and the inherent corruption of his nature? Lastly, is the impossibility here predicated, one of an absolute nature, resulting from the former supposition, or only comparative, resulting from the latter?-My own opinion strongly inclines to the former, and is coincident with that of the writer of the homily, as we shall presently

see.

But, before I adduce this testimony, in order that you may be enabled to estimate the force of the contrast, it will be necessary to lay before you some of the inferences which the author of the tract, aided by copious extracts from the writings of the fathers, deduces from the passage in question, inferences, according to my judgment, as little warranted by the passage itself, as the extracts are calculated to exalt the authority of the fathers in their expositions of scripture.

It is asserted by the author of the tract that "the fathers i.e. the whole which we know of the early Church, uno ore, explain this whole passage of the pri vileges of Christian baptism, and of the impossibility of man's again conferring those privileges upon those who had once enjoyed them, and had forfeited them; nay, they urge it as at once conclusive, against the repetition of baptism." In another place, he affirms that "we have no account in scripture of any second remission, obliteration, extinction of all sin, such as is bestowed upon us by "the one baptism for the remission of sins;'" and, further, "that the fountain has been indeed opened to wash away sin and uncleanness, but we dare not promise men a second time, the same easy access to it, which they once had,"—"that things which were allowable in those who are heirs of heaven, ill become one who must now enter in, not through the way of plenary remission, but of repentance for a broken covenant."

In confirmation of these views Tertullian is quoted, who says that "God, providing against these poisons of Satan, though the door of full oblivion (ignoscentiæ) is closed, and the bolt of baptism fastened up, alloweth somewhat still to be open; " and Ambrose, who affirms that "such a life, such a performance of repentance, if it be persevering, may venture to hope, if not for glory, at least for freedom from punishment."-Even that visionary writer Hermas is brought forward. After giving a long extract from his work entitled "The Shepherd," the writer of the tract makes the following observation upon it, which will at once shew you what