who are in a state of favour with God now, or shall find admission into his kingdom hereafter. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, or a new creation; (says the Apostle :) old things are passed away; behold all things are become new *? And our Lord, with repeated asseverations, says to Nicodemus, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God t." P. 39.

According to all this, the process of birth may be going on during the whole course of a man's life; and even at his death it may be imperfect. When is this change truly effected? and what are the signs of the work being finished? We are told, in Scripture, that a man is to grow in grace; but is he to grow be fore he is born, or after he is born? Besides, of this change of which Mr. Simeon speaks, we must confess ourselves to remain in some degree of ignorance. We have known serious men, for various reasons, go over to the fanatical party, enter into all their views, further all their designs, support all their politics, and this we suppose is the new birth. Now that these men undergo a change (one often much for the worse,) we will not deny. As far as either the amendment of life, or the relinquishment of sinful habits, is a change of nature, we acknowledge its reality; but when by this change is meant such an alteration as to preclude the possibility of a total, or the probability of a partial fall, we must wholly deny its reality, under the present dispensation of grace. Our passions are to be subjugated, not eradicated, by the Spirit of God. Even in the highest state of ordinary grace, our evil propensities remain the same, we are only fortified in a stronger degree against their attacks. When then, we talk of a radical and total change, we must still allow the existence of those parts of our nature which in fact do away its totality. Our obser vations indeed have ever conspired to confirm us in this opinion. God only knows the heart of man, he only knows their motives, we must be contented to judge by their deeds; and if lying and deceit, pride aud cruelty appear unequivocally in the transactions of human life, even though he go no more to the theatre or to the assembly, though his looks are demure and sanctified, we never can believe, notwithstanding the asseverations of himself and his friends, that such a man has undergone a change in nature equivalent to a new birth.

Mr. Simeon further informs us, that " an experience of this new birth is predicated of all who are in a state of favour." What he means by " experience," he has not thought proper fully to explain; it cannot be here taken in its common meaning, it

"* 2 Cor. v. 17.

↑ John iii. 3-5.”

must

must signify an actual feeling or assurance of this favour, by a sensible and perceivable operation of the Spirit: but where such an experience is predicated in Scripture, it will be no such easy matter to inform us. Yet without the supposition of this inward assurance,the whole of Mr.Simeon's doctrine must fall to the ground, as it would be otherwise wholly impossible to say, at what time the act of the new birth could possibly take place. Mr. Simeon saw this difficulty, he has therefore hinted only at its solution. It is not for the uninitiated to be let into all the mysteries of experiences; they are reserved for a class of proselytes more advanced in the paths of enthusiasm. They whose animal spirits have conspired to the delusion, carry their experience in their front, in all the characters of spiritual conceit and self-complacent fanaticism; while the poor wretched victims, whose morbid melancholy forbids the ecstasy of this fancied parturition, betray in their very countenances the sadness and the distraction of their heart. And yet Mr. Simeon informs the University, p. 53, "that the pains used to obtain a new and spiritual birth will injure no man." His own experience knows the reverse.

As a specimen of Mr. Simeon's talent in commenting upon Scripture, we shall give the following extract:

"These declarations of our Lord to Nicodemus, are peculiarly strong, because the import of them cannot with any appearance of reason be explained away. Some indeed have endeavoured to explain this of Baptism; but I wish that those who think it can bear that construction, would see what sense they can on that supposition make of the whole context. Let us suppose for a moment that baptism is the new birth, and that baptism was the point which our Lord so strongly insisted on'; Why should our Lord when explaining and enforcing his first assertion, so carefully distinguish between water baptism and the operations of the Holy Spirit; Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God?' Here, admitting that he insisted on the necessity of being born of water, he insisted also on being born of the Spirit, in order that he might convince Nicodemus that he spoke, not of an outward and carnal, but of an inward, and spiritual change. Again, how can his subsequent explanations apply to baptism? On the supposition that he speaks of a spiritual birth, his reasons are clear and forcible, that which is born of the flesh, is flesh;' and therefore unfit for a spiritual kingdom: but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,' and exactly suited to that kingdom which he was about to establish. Again, if it were baptism of which he speaks, what connexion has that with the wind, which bloweth where it listeth, and which, though inexplicable in some respects, is invariably and infallibly to be seen in its effects? If it were baptism, it would blow, not where the vu 2

Spirit

:

Spirit listeth, but where the parents and the minister list and as for its effects, they are for the most part visible to no human being. Moreover, how could our Lord with justice ask Nicodemus, Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?' Nicodemus might have well replied, Yes, I am a master in Israel, and yet know not these things; for how should I know them? Where are they revealed? What is there in the writings of Moses or the Prophets that should have taught me to expect so much from baptism? God required the circumcision of the flesh, as you do baptism; but he required the circumcision of the heart also: and if there be a spiritual change of a similar nature required of us under your dispensation, and that be the thing which you call a new birth, then I confess I ought to have had clearer views of these things, since they were evidently inculcated in the Jewish Scriptures, and were represented also as particularly characterizing the Messiah's reign.' P. 40.

According to the rules of common sense we should say that our Lord, so far from separating water baptism and the opera tions of the Holy Spirit, clearly joins them; making them tantamount to one act. When our Saviour is represented by John as "baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with tire," no one will contend that two separate acts were designated. Mr. Simeon then inquires, "what connection baptism has with the wind which bloweth where it listeth, and is seen in its effects." He then proceeds to say, "if it (i. e. the wind) were baptism, it would blow not where the Spirit listeth, but where the parents and minister list, and as for their effects they are for the most part visible to no human being." Mr. Simeon has contrived to puzzle and confound the plainest passage in Scripture: " the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." As we cannot discover the mode in which the wind blows, we can trace its existence only by its effects, that is, by its sound; so in the dispensation of the Spirit, we cannot discover the manner of its operation, we are assured of its presence only by its effects, that is, by those fruits, which Scripture has declared to be the test of its existence. The analogy between the operations of the wind in the natural world, and of the Spirit in the moral world, is sufficiently clear, and the correspondence most apt; yet Mr. S. has contrived, whether by natural or designed confusion of ideas we know not, to puzzle a very clear illustration. Besides this, " where it listeth "OU bé implies liberty of choice, not preference of object. The Spirit indeed, or inward grace of baptism does descend where the parents and the minister list, and for the best of all possible reasons, because God has promised that it should.

As

As to Mr. Simeon's supposition that our Lord intended to taunt Nicodemus with his ignorance of what it is morally impossible he should ever have known, we must remark that Mr. Simeon seems thoroughly unacquainted with the spirit of the Saviour, which was not that of taunt and reproach to those who were necessarily, not culpably, ignorant. He does indeed reproach Nicodemus with his slowness in applying that knowledge which he had. As a master in Israel he ought to have known that by baptism proselytes, and even the children of proselytes, were admitted into the covenant, and that this baptism was actually called by them " a new birth." As a master iu Israel he ought to have expected this, and more also from baptism, as he might have been taught by reading the 36th chap. of Ezekiel. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and your idols will I cleanse you; a new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put in you, &c. If Nicodemus, as a master in Israel, ought to have known these things, how much more ought he to have known them, who comes forward as an expounder of Scripture to the rising youth of the land.

Another specimen of Mr. Simeon's felicity of exposition, is the following:

"Now then let us inquire also what is said of baptism. It is said, 'Our Lord baptized no man.'--But was he not the means of any being born to God? It is said by St. 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 Caius.' But would he have accounted it a proper ground of thanksgiving, if he had been instrumental to the conversion of no more than these? 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." P. 45.

Is it possible that Mr. Simeon should not know, or knowing, should not declare, that the declaration of St. Paul, 1 Cor. i. 17, has a clear and decided reference to the divisions in the Church of Corinth, in which different degrees of efficacy were assigned to the baptism of different apostles; each by their own paruzans. For which reason, St. Paul rejoices that he had baptized only three of them, "lest any one should say, I had baptized in my own name." Mr. Simeon would really have us to suppose that our Lord never gave his last and most solemn injunction to his disciples, "to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spuit."

We

We could bring numerous instances of Mr. Simeon's perverted exposition of Scripture, but those which we have given, will easily shew our readers in what rank of commentators he deserves a place. We now proceed to Mr. Simeon's power in attack. All the objections of his adversaries, he thus turns upon thiemselves.

"But the chief source of the forementioned error is, that men do not distinguish between a change of state and a change of nature. Baptism is, as we have just shewn, a change of state: for by it we become entitled to all the blessings of the new covenant; but it is not a change of nature. A change of nature may be communicated at the time that that ordinance is administered; but the ordinance itself does not communicate it now, any more than in the Apostolic age. Simon Magus was baptized, and yet remained in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity, as much after his baptism as he was before. And so it may be with us: And this is an infallible proof, that the change which the Scriptures call the new birth, does not always and of necessity accompany this sacred ordinance. As the circumcision of the heart did not always accompany the circumcision of the flesh, so neither does the renovation of the soul always accompany the outward rite of baptism, which shadows it forth; and if only our opponents will distinguish the sign from the thing signified, and assign to each its proper place and office, there will be an immediate end of this controversy." P. 49.

"Which has the preference in point of sobriety; the doctrine. of a new and spiritual birth, by the operation of the Spirit of God; or that of baptism being the new birth? It is objected to the former doctrine, that it is enthusiastic, and that it is accompanied with many absurd and baneful errors; namely, that its advocates insist on sudden impulses, which irresistibly, and without any cooperation on our parts, at some particular time, that may at all subsequent periods be referred to, convert the soul to God. Now we have before denied that the advocates for the new birth give any such representation of it, or that it is in its own nature associated with any such things But now observe the doctrine of our adversaries, namely, of those who identify baptism with the new birth it is curious to observe to what an extent they fall into the very errors which they impute to us. They say, that we are born again in baptism, consequently, they, first, make our new birth sudden.

"Next, they 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