Baptism, so as that they never use the word "regenerate," or born again," but that they mean or denote by it, Baptism." Wall on Infant Baptism. Introduct. p. 58.

NOTE 12.-to p. 48, 7. 11.-" own Church".-Dr. Hey. remarks, in the section just now quoted, that. " in our 9th Article, the Latin word for "regenerated" is "renatis," and "renatis" in this same Article is the Latin for "baptized," whence it appears that our Article means the same thing by. "regenerated" and "baptized."-To which might be added. the incontrovertible evidence to the same effect which may be found in the baptismal service itself, as well as in that for Confirmation.

NOTE 13.-to p. 49, note 1. Mr. Simeon expresses himself thus: "In many instances, where the ordinance is really attended upon in faith, and prayer is offered up to God in faith, we do believe that God bestows a peculiar blessing on the child." (p. 46, 1. 25.) Now, if the spiritual effects of infant Baptism are thus detached from the due performance of the ordinance itself, and made to be solely dependent on the conduct and sentiments of those who are concerned in it, (and that too only in a secondary way,) it would surely be a great satisfaction, to the parents and friends of children baptized in their infancy if Mr. Simeon could lay down some clear and infallible rule for determining in what cases this Sacrament has had its full effect, and in what it has failed. There is, however, one argument adduced by Mr. Simeon, to disprove the spiritual effects of Baptism, which, as it is equally applicable to infant as to adult Baptism, may be properly considered in this place. He takes certain texts of Scripture, which describe the character of those who are truly born of God, and then shews, that this character does not necessarily belong to all who have received Baptism. Thus St. John says: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remainetli in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God." (I. John, 3. 9.) And again: "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God kcepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not."

(1. John v. 18.) "Now we ask," Mr. Simeon says, "is this true of all that are baptized? Do they invariably, from the moment of their Baptism overcome the world? &c." He then puts these questions home to his auditors thus: "You have all been baptized, but have you all overcome the world? Are you all in such a state that you cannot knowingly and habitually commit sin? And have you so kept yourselves that the wicked one does not touch you?" (p. 44, 7. 18.) And now we would take Mr. Simeon on his own ground, and ask him in return whether he himself, or any one else who professes to have experienced the new birth according to the modern notions of it, can truly say that these questions can be answered affirmatively and in their literal sense by themselves any more than others. We imagine they will hardly venture to lay claim to such a character of sinless perfection, and consequently, if these texts prove that Baptism cannot be Regeneration, they also prove that the modern new birth cannot be Regeneration.* Besides, Mr. Simeon's argument, if fully established, would only prove that baptized Christians may in future life be involved in sin. And what then? They might still have been regenerated in Baptism, and afterwards lost by their own neglect the grace they then acquired.-That Baptism however, thus stripped of its essentials, may retain at least "a shadow of good things," Mr. Simeon admits that it is a "sign" of Regeneration; (p. 49, 1. 24.) but we are not much indebted to him for this concession, for a sign, totally unconnected with the thing signified, is a sign of nothing, that is, no sign at all.

It is somewhat curious that with these opinions Mr. Simeon should still profess the most profound respect for Baptism, and

The truth is that, unless the Apostle be made to contradict himself, (see 1 John 1. 8.) the texts above cited, if taken in their strongest sense, must be understood as descriptive merely of the state and condition, which it is the constant object and aim of sincere Christians to attain, though every one must in some degree or other fall short of it.

B

the most perfect conviction that it is attended with "exceeding great benefit to the soul" (p. 46, 1. 20); and still more curious that, only a few pages farther, he should have given an account of the spiritual effects of Baptism, which was evidently intended to be extremely ludicrous. He says that the advocates for the new birth of Baptism "make it irresistible; for the child cannot withstand the power of the priest. Next they make it without any co-operation on our part; for the child is wholly passive. Next they make it arbitrary according to the will of man, who may hasten it, or delay it, or prevent it, exactly as he pleases; whereas it is expressly said of all Christians that they are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."* Next they make it so determinable in point of time, that not the person himself only, but the whole world also, may know it by consulting the parish register.+ And, lastly, they are assured of it not only without any evidence at all, but in the very face of all imaginable evidence to the contrary." (p. 50, 1.24.) But it is more curious than all that, after thus degrading Baptism in one place, Mr. Simeon should, in another, give a description of it, which invests it with all the spiritual privileges for which his opponents contend, and which entirely oversets his favourite doctrine concerning the new birth. He says: "Every blessing which he, (St. Paul,) asserts to have been conveyed by circumcision, we may safely and truly apply to Baptism. By the very admission of persons into covenant with God they are brought into a new state, and have a right and title to all these privileges, and, by the exercise of faith in the Lord

* The slender tissue of argument, which runs through this series of sarcasms, may be easily broken, for the spiritual effects of Baptism, which we mean by the term Regeneration, are in no respect dependent on the will of man, but altogether on that of God, since it is merely by his good will and pleasure that they are annexed to Baptism.

This is the passage alluded to in the preceding sermons, p. 92,

note 1.

Jesus Christ, they come to the actual possession of them." (p. 47, l. 25.) And shortly afterwards he adds: "a baptized person has a right and title to all the blessings of the Christian covenant as soon as he is baptized; but he must comply with the requisitions of the Gospel, and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, before he can have the complete enjoyment of them." (p. 48, l. 18.) By a compliance, therefore, with the requisitions of the Gospel, which are briefly these, that, "denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world," (Tit. 2, 12.) baptized Christians may attain salvation; and what then be comes of the new birth subsequent to Baptism, with all its natural and usual train of extravagancies, and tortures, and ecstasies?

NOTE 14.-to p. 50, note 1.-Mr. Simeon's words are: "It is said by Paul that "God did not send him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel:" but was not he sent to beget souls to God through the Gospel? He goes further, and says, "I thank God I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius." (p. 45, l. 18.) Mr. Simeon here stops short in his quotation, though in the midst of a sentence, and though the latter half of it, which he has suppressed, most fully explains the reason and meaning of the Apostle's remark. Mr. Simeon then asks: "But would he have accounted it a proper ground of thanksgiving if he had been instrumental to the conversion of no more than these?" We answer that he certainly would, under the same circumstances. The case was not, (as Mr. Simeon would represent it,) that St. Paul considered the Baptism of the Corinthians as a matter of indifference, which might be either performed or omitted with equal advantage; but this was in his opinion the matter of indifference-whether Baptism should be conferred on them by himself or any other lawful minister, and, as his own ministry would in this instance have afforded a ground for dissention, the Apostle rejoices that it had not been exercised: and there can be no doubt that the spirit of charity, which dictated the sentiments he here expresses, would have led him to adopt the same if the question

had been-not indeed whether they should be converted at all, but whether by Paul's own ministry rather than that of any other man. Mr. Simeon proceeds: "He tells us of many, whom he had begotten by the Gospel, and who were his sons in the faith, and therefore we are sure that there is a birth effected by the word and Spirit of God that is totally distinct from Baptism." The Apostle had begotten many by the Gospel, or had converted many to the Christian faith. And who were they? Universally, Jews or Heathens; and how does it follow that because they required conversion, therefore so do all baptized Christians? In short, Mr. Simeon's argument is no other than this-in the case of Jews and Heathens, conversion was universally necessary previously to Baptism; therefore in the case of Christians, conversion is universally necessary subsequently to Baptism; an argument, between the premises and conclusion of which there is a vast hiatus, a dreary void. Neither can we see what service Mr. Simeon has done to his cause, by taking the trouble to prove, what every one would have allowed, that the conversion of a heathen was a distinct thing from his Baptism; nor how this fact tends to invalidate the spiritual efficacy of the latter. Its operation in truth is of a directly contrary kind, for if, after persons had experienced the most perfect conversion imaginable, under the ministry, and by the immediate agency, of the Apostles themselves, and even of our Saviour, they still stood in need of Baptism before they could become partakers of the blessings of the Gospel, we must naturally infer that this sacred ordinance is one of the highest importance, and attended with the most beneficial consequences.-Mr. Simeon's comments on our Saviour's mission are similar to those which he has given on St. Paul's: "It is said, "Our Lord baptized no man." was he not the means of any being born to God ?” (p.45, l.16.) And was he not equally the means of their being baptized, when their conversion immediately led them to Baptism as a necessary consequence; and would he not therefore have been equally the means of their being born to God whether that event took place at their conversion or their Baptism?

But