dergoing the ceremony of baptism." He justifies, however, the formularies of his Church, in calling all baptized adults regenerated persons, "on account of what ought to be, and of the agreement of the sign and the thing signified." Here too we agree, that every adult who professes saving faith in Christ and is thereupon baptized, ought to be a renewed person, and in the judgment of charity ought to be deemed one. Since we cannot search the heart, we may speak of baptized adults, as being, what we judge them to be. But that in baptism any one is regenerated, whether an infant or an adult, unless it be symbolically, we see no reason to conclude. We shall quote the passages of scripture relied on by each of the Bishops, to show that they are not without some plausible reasons for their sentiments; while we introduce our own explanations, in as few words as possible.

Ananias said to Saul of Tarsus," arise and be baptized, and [symbolically] wash away thy sins." Acts xxii. 16.

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were [spiritually] baptized into Jesus Christ, [by the Holy Ghost] were [spiritually] baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by [spiritual] baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Rom. vi. 3, 4.

"By one Spirit we are all [spiritually] baptized into one body:-and have all been made to drink of one Spirit." 1 Cor. xii. 13.

"As many of you as have been [spiritually] baptized into Christ, have [spiritually] put on Christ." Gal. iii. 27. Should external baptism be the thing intended, then we should say, "As many of you as have been visibly] baptized into Christ have [visibly, or professedly] put on Christ."

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Tit. iii. 5, 6. Now baptism, performed in a VOL. I.

2 T

No. 3.

right manner, and from right motives, is a work of righteousness which we have done; and therefore we are not saved by it. Of course the washing of regeneration must be something else than baptism, because by it we are saved. The rendering of the passage by Dr. Williams seems therefore worthy of adoption. "He saved us by the washing of regeneration, even (xa) the renewing of the Holy Ghost." That xa is frequently translated even, and that one clause of a verse is as frequently exegetical of the preceding, no biblical critic need be informed.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. iii. 21.

The word rendered figure in this passage is avTITUTIV, OF antitype. Had it been Towov, a type or figure, the common translation would be correct. Adam was a type of Christ, and Christ was the antitype of Adam. The apostle tells us, that the salvation of Noah and his family by the ark may be considered as a type, or figurative representation, of our salvation by such a baptism as produces the answer of a good conscience towards God. This salvation by such a baptism is the antitype, or thing typified by the type, to wit, the salvation of Noah by the ark from the overwhelming deluge. That the baptism here spoken of is not an external rite, is evident from the parenthesis, in which the apostle intimates that there is a baptism which of itself can do no more than wash away the filth of the flesh; but that the baptism of which he is speaking is an internal baptism of the conscience, purging it from dead works, making it good, and enabling it to answer the calls of God. Dr. Macknight has many valuable remarks on this subject, but we think him erroneous in suppos ing that the water of the deluge was the type of baptism. He says, "the relative being in the neuter gender, its antecedent cannot be ßwros the ark, which is feminine, but dwg water, which is neuter." The relative is indeed neuter, and its antecedent is not the ark; but a neuter article frequently refers to a sentence, or thing asserted in a clause immediately preceding it, which is the fact in the present instance. "Wherein [in the ark] few, that

is, eight souls were saved by water," bearing up the ark: "to which thing the antitype baptism, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) now saveth us also through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is the translation of Dr. Macknight, with the substitution of the word thing, referring to salvation in the ark, in the place of water; and we are persuaded that it will stand the test of criticism.

The only passage besides these, which Bishop White has quoted, in his "Review of the Question of a Personal Assurance," p. 69. and on which Bishop Tomline appears to place much dependance, is recorded in Colossians ii. 12, in which we read, that believers are "buried with him (Christ) in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The expression here rendered wherein, is ev ŵ, in whom, and is so translated in the preceding verse: so that the last clause of the verse quoted refers to Christ, and not to baptism. We shall give a literal translation of the original, according to the punctuation of Griesbach and Macknight, in the disputed portion, for they agree in placing a colon after baptism, and before the word improperly translated, wherein. Verse 10. And ye are made complete in him who is the head of all government and power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made with. out hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of* the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, being buried with him in baptism: in whom also ye have been jointly raised through the faith of the inworking of the God who raised him from the dead: even you, being dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he jointly made alive with him, having forgiven you all the trespasses, &c.

Now from this portion of scripture it appears, that all who have "received Christ Jesus the Lord, and walk

* Griesbach rejects "the sins of," as not entitled to a place in the text, but Mill, Montanus, Wetstein, Beza, Leusden and Macknight retain the words.

in him, are legally complete, and have a fulness of blessings in him. Particularly, they have baptism, which is the circumcision of Christ, or which answers to circumcision according to Christ's appointment; they have the external circumcision in the external rite of baptism; they have the internal circumcision, the regeneration of the heart, in the baptism or purification of their hearts by the Holy Ghost; they have by visible baptism been visibly initiated into Christ's death for the remission of sins; and all who have experienced the renewing of the Spirit symbolized in Christian baptism, are really so one with Christ in covenant, that they died, and were buried under the curse of the law, in their representative, according to the imputation of God. Yea, they have in him satisfied divine justice, and in him as their head have arisen to a new life of holiness, in which they are free from condemnation.

Any thing in this passage, which intimates that circumcision made without hands always accompanied circumcision made with hands; or that the spiritual bap tism of the mind, is inseparably connected with the ritual baptism of the person, we cannot discover. We adopt, therefore, a sentence which we find in Faber, Williams and Scott, without knowing to whom it ori ginally belongs, for each might thus have parodied the words of inspiration: "He is not a Christian who is one outwardly; neither is that baptism which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Christian who is one inwardly; and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Dr. Scott is one of the evangelical clergy of the Church of England, and it became him to vindicate, or explain away, the forms of prayer prescribed in her li turgy; while Dr. Williams, being a dissenter, took no pains to reconcile her forms of administering baptism with the Bible. The former would not permit Bishop White to be excluded from the number of evangelical churchmen for his opinions about baptism, for he remarks, Vol. I. p. 179, that "a large proportion of the evangelical clergy do suppose that some spiritual gracious effect attends the due administration of infant bap

4

tism, which they think to be meant in our baptismal forms, by the word 'regenerated,' and 'regenerated by the Holy Ghost.'" It is assumed, he says, in their forms, that the parents and sponsors, who bring infants to be baptized, are true Christians; that with the congregation they offer the prayer of faith, for the spiritual baptism symbolically exhibited by the outward application of water; and that God hears and answers these earnest prayers at the time. "Probably too much is assumed," says Dr. Scott, however, "or more, at least, than accords to present circumstances." "The prayers themselves evidently distinguish between baptizing with water, and spiritual regeneration; for the supplication is, that this infant coming to thy holy BAPTISM may receive remission of his sins by SPIRITUAL REGENERATION."

Hitherto we have considered the controversy about divine operations, principally in relation to baptism. Many other questions concerning this subject are agitated by the controvertists before us, which generally resolve themselves into some disputed points of mental science; and this but corroborates our opinion, that a thorough knowledge of what is commonly called the philosophy of the human mind is destined to terminate, if ever they are terminated, the greater part of theological disputes. Of this nature are the questions concerning free will, moral suasion, irresistible grace, and divine illumination.

In opposition to the Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Williams contends, that there is an internal divine agency on the miud of man, requisite to make him holy. In this sentiment we heartily concur; but concerning the mode in which this internal divine agency operates, we differ. Dr. W. says, "the immediate object of the Spirit's operation is not the will, but the heart, as the source of moral actions." p. 35. The Hopkinsians affirm that it is the will, with which they confound the heart, and call them both one faculty. Now in relation to the will Dr. W. is correct; and we approve of his remark, that "a physical, or positive influence on the will itself directly, would in the same degree destroy its freedom;" and that "the will can only be solicited by objective means, or indirectly influenced by an inward principle." This in