that medium, of grace, and solely dependent upon the irrespective will of God. We contend, that all who are baptized in infancy, the case of the far greater portion of Christians, are truly regenerated; they, that the majority of mankind are never regenerated at all at any period of their fivės.

CHAP. III.

Reasoning from Adult to Infant Baptism incorrect. Efficacy of Adult Baptism as dependent upon the assumption of sincerity. Opinion that Regeneration exists before and without Baptism controverted. Inconsistent with the express language of the Liturgy, and with the Catechism.

A COMPLAINT has been made, that Dr. Mant confines, or nearly confines, his attention to infant recipients of Baptism. But they who thus complain well know, that the principal question in debate hinges upon this very point, and that the Church of England possessed no form whatsoever of adult Baptism until the Restoration. They have nevertheless so completely inverted the argument, and perplexed it with foreign topics, that it seems no easy task to disentangle it. I do not however mean to undertake this task; but solely to discuss that which constitutes the true ground of difference between us.

a P. 116.

A

The inverted order of argument alluded to consists in an attempt to explain the doctrine of infant by that of adult Baptism. But as in a Christian country it may be supposed, that all persons are baptized in infancy, and as the ori ginal framers of our Liturgy manifestly acted upon that supposition, I do not perceive how it can be reasonably argued, that they conformed their office of infant Baptism to the principles of an office of adult Baptism, which did not at the time exist. I very well understand how it might happen, that those, who subsequently compiled an office of adult Baptism, when such an office became requisite, might, as far as circumstances permitted, mutatis mutandis, copy the form of an office of infant baptism, which had been previously in use for more than a century. And this did in fact take place, with such alterations and additions as appeared proper to adapt a form for the baptism of infants to the peculiar care of adults; so that for instance, after the words, "Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly "believe, that he will favourably receive these," which were in the former office, was inserted,

"truly repenting and coming unto him by "faith," in the latter office. But I cannot comprehend how the sense of the original is to bè limited by that of the copy, especially upon topics where the cases are not parallel, and where no true point of comparison is to be found. I might also add, where a new paragraph is inserted expressly for the purpose of distinguishing the particular case of adult, from the general case of infant Baptism. Surely, to urge, that our Reformers in the reign of Edward the Sixth presumed, that infants, brought to baptism, possessed the previous requisites of repentance and faith, or any equivalent requisite, respecting which the office compiled by them is wholly silent, merely because in the reign of Charles the Second a clause of that description was admitted into another baptismal office adapted to very different persons, would be to argue in contradiction to every rule of logic, and to every principle of correct reasoning.

The other party profess themselves to be aware that the office of adult baptism is "of "later date than the rest." But no one, they

suppose, "will pretend, that it has not equal au"thority. Besides, the very same system", they

66

say, evidently pervades all the offices, and all "must be interpreted in the same manner b."

The system here meant is the system of charitable supposition; and a whole chapter is employed in demonstrating, that this hypothetical principle, this universal assumption of sincerity, pervades every office of the Church. The position asserted might have been taken for granted without the prolixity of minute detail, in all cases relative to adults; but what is the conclusion hence deducible? Will it be contended, that what is applicable to adults is applicable likewise to infants? The idea of a charitable supposition presumes the possibility of an uncharitable one; but in the case of infants is such a possibility to be conceived? Where incompetency alike excludes both suppositions, the hypothetical principle alluded to cannot exist, because liberality of opinion can have no scope for exertion.