grace conveyed to the baptized infant; whether it be universally conferred or not; and how frequently and early it may be lost, are points not necessarily involved in the present argument. Let charity have its utmost bounds. But if it be too evident that the rising youth, from whatever cause, is living in profligacy and vice, in worldliness and pride, in hatred of religion and neglect of his soul, it will be admitted, I believe, by all, that he must be converted and changed, before he can love God and delight in holy obedience. The case, in its prominent features, still remains clear-a radical alteration of heart and life is indispensable to fallen man-the young person, in point of fact, wants this, and must have it in order to be saved. This is a statement which for the most part, I conceive, will not be disputed.

Nor do I entertain a doubt that the same commanding view of the subject has a tendency to lead us to the conclusion, that the terms Regeneration and New birth may be applied, without impropriety, to this universal change of nature, under whatever circumstances it may commence. Other ideas, indeed, besides this radical change of heart, may possibly be included in the ecclesiastical sense of the word Regeneration. It may even be allowed that the term is adopted in a manner more con

formable to the language of antiquity, when, in addition to that inward renewal, the public attestation and recognition of it by the church, the application of the sign and seal in the washing of regeneration, the reception into the visible body of Christ, and the completion and consummation of the whole change by solemn prayer, and the descent of the Holy Ghost, are all comprehended in its signification. Still the spiritual transformation of the soul is so much the more important part of the entire work-is so completely that on which all the rest turns, and for which it was instituted; whilst the danger of substituting the outward for the inward part of the sacred transaction is so great, that it may surely seem natural, under the spiritual dispensation of the Gospel and in a Protestant church, to call it, in ordinary doctrine, by the expressive term Regeneration. At least, a comprehensive view of the incalculable importance of a spiritual and radical change of the heart would rather seem to justify the use of this distinct and unambiguous, and to some persons even startling language, on such a fundamental point.

This part of the argument, however, appears to receive considerable countenance from the general tenour of Scripture. For, of numerous passages which speak of the New birth, only two seem to me to refer at all to the sacrament

of baptism3, and those in a way which by no means explicitly states the connexion between them; whilst, in the various histories of persons baptized, in the New Testament, not one. case, that I am aware of, occurs, in which any mention is made of attendant regeneration. Such passages, moreover, the following, appear fully to confirm my statement: Of his own will begat he us, by the word of truth. Who hath begotten us again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God. He that doeth righteousness, is born of God. Whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil; whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God. In Christ Jesus I have begotten you, through the Gospel. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. These passages speak of the new birth independently of baptism, assign it to other causes, and point out other evidences of it besides the administration of the rite; and there

3 John, iii. 5. Titus, iii. 5.

4 James, i. 18. 1 Pet. i. 3, 23. 1 John, ii. 29. v. 4. iii. 10. 1 Cor. iv. 15. John, i. 12, 13.

fore lead confessedly to our conclusion, that this change, under whatever circumstances it apparently take place, whether immediately connected with baptism or not, may, and ought to be called by the scriptural term Regeneration or New birth.

We shall be confirmed in this view, by recollecting that the greatest divines of our church, including the Reformers themselves, frequently speak of regeneration and the new birth simply, and by itself, as well as in connexion with the sacrament of baptism. With them, so far as I understand their language, conversion, renovation, regeneration, new birth, a new creature, transformation, are terms employed as applicable, in common, to the general doctrine of the incipient recovery of man to the image and love of God; not, indeed, in opposition to what may perhaps be called, the ecclesiastical completion of it in baptism, or to its occurrence by means of that rite; but still not as invariably connected with it. Standing, then, on this undisputed ground, we shall scarcely be afraid to trust ourselves to the simple language of the inspired writers, and of those who have unhesitatingly followed their example 5.

5 The fact that the oldest and best divines of our church do employ the terms Regeneration and New birth, without any direct reference to the sacrament of baptism, is not, I believe, questioned. The manner in which some would ac

Nay, more; when we consider the magnitude of that change in all the faculties of the soul, which we have before described, in connexion with the actual character, in every period of life, of the vast majority of those who have been baptized; must not this one consideration forbid us to suppose that regeneration is invariably connected with baptism? For myself, at least, I must distinctly avow that this one consideration, independently of other numerous, and in my mind conclusive arguments on the subject, is abundantly sufficient to prevent my entertaining for a moment such a supposition. And on this ground, not only the propriety, but the necessity of the use of the term which I am now maintaining, seems to me at once and undeniably to follow.

Nor do I conceive that I shall justly incur the charge of uncharitableness, if I venture to inquire, whether the reasons which cause some at least to differ from this view of the subject, and to contend that regeneration and the new birth are never to be spoken of as distinct from the sacrament of baptism, may not, in a great degree, be resolved into, what I must consider, a most inadequate conception of the nature of the inward renewal of the heart itself? Do

count for this fact, by distinguishing between a sacramental and a general use of the words, rather confirms than weakens the above argument,