our children at our prayers?" We ask in reply, where is the scriptural warrant for terming regeneration anything else than vital?

In another passage, Mr. Kennaway restates his views as follows:

"Conversion, which is the grand thing, and which in reality is moral or vital regeneration, takes place in adults before baptism. But the baptism of infants is called regeneration both in Scripture, in the primitive church, and in our own. Baptismal regeneration must be, therefore, something very inferior to conversion. And what can it be except God's seal upon that which has already taken place in adults (for the consideration of their case helps us remarkably in our investigation of the meaning of this most important term) who, having been brought into the kingdom of God in heart previously, are now in the sacrament of baptism made its members outwardly, visibly, and federally? for, if it be not this, then it can only be the channel of increase of grace and confirmation of faith,' as stated in the article on the sacraments. But when we return from the case of the adults to that of the infant, we find that no grace has been previously given and no faith can be possessed by the infant subject, and therefore grace cannot be increased or faith confirmed to them. Baptism must be, therefore, to infants, that which in truth it is also to adults, the admission into the regeneration, i. e. the new kingdom of hope, with all the privileges pertaining to that kingdom.

We say, with all the privileges pertaining to that kingdom,' because God does not mock men with bare names. If we are really put into 'the regeneration' federally, the fœdus or covenant on God's part is to give us the aid of the Holy Spirit, that we may become in heart and in spirit that which we are in profession and name." (Pp. 81, 82.)

What sort of reasoning shall we call this? Adults in the major premiss; infants, in the minor; therefore, "baptismal regeneration must "be something very inferior to conversion." So that two classes totally distinct in capacity, in power of spiritual perception and in moral responsibility, are, by an undistributed middle, made to coalesce into one class, to be acted upon precisely in the same way by a means of grace, i. e. the Sacrament of Baptism. Following up this very illogical process of ratiocination, the whole conclusion which Mr. K. arrives at is, that converted adults and unconverted children are both admitted by baptism into the same state, namely, "into the regeneration, i. e. the "the new kingdom of hope, with all the privileges pertaining to that "kingdom." The underscorir g is the author's own. There was hardly, however, occasion for this. As a conclusion from the foregoing premises, it was remarkable enough of itself without the reader's attention being so particularly drawn to it by italics. As an independent statement, it is equally remarkable. Converted men who are, by the circumstance of their conversion, already translated into God's kingdom of light as that kingdom is opposed to darkness, of holiness as opposed to sin, of righteousness as opposed to guilt, of salvation as opposed

to ruin, are nevertheless, according to Mr. K., by baptism now first admitted into a kingdom of hope. And now what are "the privileges pertaining to this kingdom?" Hear Mr. K.'s answer : "The fœdus, "or covenant, on God's part, is to give us the aid of the Holy Spirit, "that we may become in heart and in spirit that which we are in pro❝fession and name." And this is said of converted men! For, let us remember that the baptism of adults follows only on the profession of a creed which implies and presupposes conversion. In fact, so admits Mr. K. Adults previous to baptism "have been brought into the king"dom of God in heart;" and yet in baptism they receive the federal promise of "the aid of the Holy Spirit, that they may become in heart "and in spirit that which they are in profession and name." What confusion of ideas here! Whatever notion of the sacramental efficacy of baptism, either in adults or infants, may be the correct one, assuredly Mr. Kennaway's, as developed in the above extracts, carries no conviction of its truth to the mind.

We shall now present our readers with one more lengthened extract, that Mr. Kennaway's views and reasoning may be fairly represented, and we shall offer a few remarks with which we hope for the present, at least, to conclude the subject:

"But there is another kind of language used by those who do not go the whole length of Mr. Budd's view, and who at the same time deny that the regeneration' is a covenant state with real privileges. It is difficult, certainly, for them to use sincerely the baptismal service, and still to maintain their view, because, as they believe the word regeneration' to be only capable of being used in one, and that the highest sense, they are (and they must themselves confess it) in a great strait when they thank God for having regenerated the infant, and yet do not believe that regeneration has necessarily taken place. What then is their method of escape? It is a clumsy one enough. They say that they believe some blessing to be conferred, but not the blessing of regeneration. The reason, on the one hand, why they say that they believe some blessing to have been given is, because they are bound by the promises they have quoted, Ask, and ye shall receive;' and the reason, on the other, why they deny that their prayer has been heard is, that they will not, or cannot, or are afraid to acknowledge, that regeneration is descriptive of a covenant state under the headship of the second Adam; and therefore, holding it only to describe the entire change of the heart and the effectual work of grace, they must believe, if they stand by their own words, that grace being indefectible, the infant is savingly converted; because, if true grace is sown in the heart, the infant subject must, according to that article of their creed, persevere unto the end. "It is said, we are aware, that the expression of the occasional services of the Church must be charitably interpreted, and with this we entirely agree. We do so because we have Scripture precedents for such charity. In the old dispensation, every Israelite that had been rightly (ritè), that is, according to God's ordinance, admitted into the covenant, was entitled to all its privileges, including pardon, adoption, and privileged sanctification; and yet all were not Israel that were of Israel.' So in

the new dispensation in the Epistles all are addressed as saints, even when the letter was to a disordered church, like that at Corinth. The apostles looked, in fact, on all who had been baptised, as being actually possessed of that of which baptism was the type, and to which it was the admission seal; they were sanctified or consecrated in the ordinance to God's service, and they were, therefore, looked upon as saints and elect brethren.

“But it does not follow that because they did not all realise in their hearts baptismal and saintly blessings, that therefore they were not really set apart; for this would be to make man's disobedience absolutely destroy God's grace. Such disobedience does, indeed, render the grace of God null and void to the individual, because he refuses to taste its blessing, or rather it deepens his condemnation, as mercy and love slighted must deepen it; but the very fact that it deepens condemnation shows that there is something real in it, something in which its partakers ought to have rejoiced, something for the contempt of which they will have to give a most strict and awful account.

"And if this be the case, as the slightest consideration will show us that it must be in adults, and if it be right, as the Scripture first most plainly demonstrates (and after the Scripture, the universal consent of every ancient church declares it is), to baptise infants, it is evident that they too are admitted by baptism to the participation of real blessings, and that they too by such admission incur responsibility.

"It should always, indeed, be remembered, that baptism is one, simple and single; it is the same to the child that it is to the grown man; we read nowhere of two baptisms, or a twofold result of baptism; it is both to infant and ancient a seal of covenant blessings: it is, as Luther has strongly declared the only bridge from the old state in Adam to the new state in Christ.' The truth that should be grasped by the mind is, that it is the covenant seal, the seal of admission to covenant blessings. Once let this be clearly understood, and there will be no further difficulty; all the expressions which have been alluded to above, as stumbling-blocks to so many, become then simple and satisfactory. The minister has no difficulty in thanking God * for regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit,' both because he sees baptism to be constantly attributed iu Scripture to the agency of the Holy Spirit, (see page 62,) and because it is the seal of the covenant; and whosoever is admitted into the covenant must necessarily be admitted to a participation of its blessings, which are pardon, membership of the family of the second Adam, and the assured aid and influence of the Holy Spirit. The language of the Twenty-fifth Article clearly supports this view. In that article it is asserted that sacraments ordained of Christ, be not only badges and tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us,' &c. This language

should be particularly noted. It declares that the sacrament is the seal attesting God's good will and favour. There is only one way in which that good will can be manifested, and that is through Christ, at whose birth good will towards men' was chanted. The good will and grace must therefore be covenant grace and good will, and the blessing resulting, those which the covenant assures.

"It is said that as the Church catechism has laid down repentance and faith, as required from those who come to baptism, and that these are promised by the sponsors on the child's part, the Church receives that profession as sincerely made, and on such profession baptises the child. We have shown above (p. 73) how opposed to plain straightforward honest interpretation this would be, and it certaiuly is not the view of the Church. But it cannot be so, for this plain reason, that in the case of VOL. IV.

F

private baptism no sponsors are present, and no promises on the child's part are made, and yet the child is considered truly baptised: so that when it is afterwards brought to the church it is received as one of the flock of true christian people,' and the minister is directed to certify that the child, having been born in original sin and in the wrath of God, is by the laver of regeneration in baptism received into the number of the children of God and heirs of everlasting life.”

"But it may be asked, Why does the Church in her catechism make the propriety of infant baptism rest, as she seems to do, on the promised repentance and faith of the infant? Q. Why then are infants baptised? &c. A. Because they promise them both, by their sureties, &c. Now the solution to be given is this. We have no detailed instances in Holy Scripture of the baptism of any but adults. But in all these baptisms, those of the three thousand, that of the Eunuch, that of the jailor, &c., we find that a profession, which included or presupposed repentance, was required as a prerequisite to the administration of the ordinance. The Church. therefore, according to her acknowledged method of action, feels herself bound by these scriptural precedents. She therefore says a profession must be made either by the candidate for ✦ baptism, or by his representatives speaking as his voice.' She adds that which we have attempted to prove, (pp. 97, &c.) that the baptised one is bound' to perform these promises. We see, then, from this explanation, that without, this promise of repentance and faith, the baptism would not be according to correct Scripture precedent, although we should not declare that it was no baptism. The Church, as representing her Lord, takes every pains and precaution to secure the reality of inward sacramental grace, present or future, as well as the decent and scriptural administration of the rite itself.

"We may remark, moreover, that this answer seems to contradict the idea of a decided change of nature in baptism. For the manifestation, as well as the result of such change, is by 'repentance and faith. If, therefore, such a change really took place in all cases, the right answer would be, that infants are baptised because baptism effects that repentance and faith which God looks for in the baptised; and not that the infant-subjects promise to repent and believe. If, however, the Holy Ghost is sealed to the infant, then it may well promise to repent and believe, because the power by which alone if can repent and believe is granted and pledged; and it must promise, because, as a covenant child, it is bound to fulfil them these to high duties."—(Pp. 89-89.)

Let us now remark, in the first place, that when Mr. Kennaway, or any one else, shall have proved that there is any scriptural warrant for using the term regeneration in two senses, then we shall give up our belief that "the word regeneration' is only capable of being used in one, and that the highest sense." Secondly, we are in no great "strait" whatever, when we "thank God for having regenerated the "infant," for we have no possible right to say, that, if faith be exercised in the sacrament, that means of grace will not be a means of grace to the child. And what that grace be, except it be regeneration, it would be, we apprehend, difficult enough for any one to say. Thirdly, the "clumsy method of escape" from the purely ideal difficulty raised by Mr. K., is one which, as far as we know, is not the method em

ployed by those whose views our author is opposing, but the very one he advocates. They say that they believe some blessing to be con"ferred but not the blessing of regeneration." And what does Mr. K. do? Just what he accuses them of doing. "Some blessing," but not the blessing of what he terms "vital regeneration" he asserts "to be "conferred," and this "some blessing" he calls " regeneration." So that he means by "regeneration" this very some blessing;" and by changing the use of the word "regeneration" he adopts "the method "of escape," which he pronounces so very dogmatically to be " a clumsy one enough." Again, says Mr. K., "they will not, or cannot, or are "afraid to acknowledge, that regeneration is descriptive of a covenant "state under the headship of a second Adam." We aver that they do acknowledge this, and that it is precisely because they do acknowledge it, that they do not concur in such views as those propounded by Mr. Kennaway. What our author has to prove is, that there can be to an individual soul 66 a covenant state under the headship of the second "Adam" without a corresponding change of character; or, in other words, that there is no distinction between the visible and the mystical church of Christ. God took, indeed, the nation of Israel under a peculiar covenant, and so does he treat as under the covenant every one who is put, or who put himself, under the covenant of the Gospel. But what we deny is, that either under the Israelitish, or the Gospel covenant, there is no difference between a visible and a mystical membership, and we further deny that the visible membership can in any sense of the word, as used in Scripture, be called the new birth, or regeneration.

Again, let our readers re-peruse Mr. K.'s observations in the foregoing extract, beginning at, " It is said, we are aware, &c." They will see that he now admits, that "the occasional services of the Church "must be charitably interpreted;" and he proceeds very properly to show that the apostles addressed their converts on the basis of their profession, because, “ being consecrated in the ordinance to God's service, they were, therefore, looked upon as saints and elect brethren." But Mr. K. has before, more than once, positively denied that we can charitably interpret" those services. He has averred that regeneration is pronounced by the Church in her baptismal office as a fact which has taken place, and that on no liturgical hypothesis, but absolutely and unconditionally; and to support this view he has given to the term "regeneration," the unscriptural low value which we have so frequently called in question. And now, to maintain (as he was after all this most assuredly called upon to do) a show of consistency, he adds, "But it does not follow that because they did not realise in their hearts