ESSAY ON BAPTISM 581

and sensible change of the heart to God, to admit that there is something long before conversion, which is to the Spiritual birth what Conception is to the Natural, and to the Spiritual death what mortal disease is to the Natural, and that this may be by other Christians, and perhaps even by your Master Himself, held quite of as much consequence as that visible change, which you watch so closely, and that this may be with more accuracy and with more Scriptural authority expressed by the term Regeneration? For, remember, Generation is not Birth. It is carelessly called so in our Church of England articles and services-and here is one of the inaccuracies of language which you will have to amend or forgive-but Genesis is not Birth; the two things are spoken of in Scripture indifferently, because both are equally necessary stages in the Christian being-”Of His own will Begat He us,”* “Ye must be Born again,”† “Not circumcision but a new creature”‡ (new creation would be a closer translation), the last and first expression both referring to the new Genesis but not to the new Birth. So, also, one of the only two passages¹ in which the word “regeneration” occurs (Mathew xix. 28) has nothing to do with conversion whatsoever, but speaks of the New World (as the “I make all things new” of Rev. xxi. 5), and in the other (Titus iii. 5) the word regeneration means making the soul new-the new Creation of St. Paul-the Re-Genesis, a thing wholly previous to the new Birth of visible and sensible conversion. Think over this, and consider whether one side of the Church is not disputing with the other in consequence of a most simple, gross, and easily detected confusion of terms.

§ 16. And now let us examine three instances of actual conversion in which there is no chance of our being deceived as to the time or manner of the change, since they are all recorded and described in the Word of God.

The most conspicuous and violent conversion on record is that of St. Paul. But we fall into singular error if we ever permit ourselves to think of that Conversion as in anywise resembling the changes to which the term is now so nearly limited-caused by some sudden impression made on persons of Godless life, or of unalarmed conscience. What was St. Paul’s state of mind before his conversion?

He was (first) an upright man, doing his duty as far as he knew it. I verily (mark the word) “thought with myself that I OUGHT to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.”² This, his inspired record of his own truth and desire to do his duty, we may not doubt.

He was (secondly) as touching the Law Blameless, and besides, zealous towards God. Now what do you think that St. Paul, looking back with the keen and purged sight of Christianity to his early life, would have ventured to call blameless as touching the Law? He could mean nothing

*James i. 18.

† John iii. 7.

‡ Gal. vi. 15.

¹ [See above, § 7, p. 576.]

² [Acts xxvi. 9. The following references are-Philippians iii. 6; Numbers xxv. 7-11; Acts vi. 13; 1 Kings xviii. 40.]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]