ages, by revelation, by prayer, by the other institu tions of religion. With these he has connected the growth of holiness in the soul of man, just as he has connected the sowing of the seed and the labours of cultivation with producing a harvest, instead of calling it into being by an immediate act of creative power.

We object, in the third place, that the doctrine of passive regeneration connected with human inability, makes the preaching of the Gospel a solemn mockery. It makes the preacher contradict himself at every breath. He stands professedly to call sinners to repentance, and he must, if he be faithful, say to men in the name, and as the ambassador of Christ, "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." But if he tell them the whole truth, as he is bound to do, he must likewise tell them that it does not depend upon their will, that they cannot make one effectual motion towards it, till God works upon their hearts, and there is nothing that they can do which will prepare themselves for it, or induce God to do it. If this be not a solemn mockery, and a cruel one, I know not what is. That it does not bring all such religious instruction into entire discredit, is because the grossness of the contradiction is kept out of sight, by general, mystical, and indefinite language.

We object to the doctrine of passive regeneration, and in short the doctrine as it is taught in the Creeds and preached at the present day, that it is

founded on a perversion of the figurative language of Scripture. So indeed have been most of the extravagances which have disfigured the Christian church. It was thus that the doctrine of transubstantiation was drawn from the phrase, "this is my body," and of vicarious sacrifice from Christ's redeeming us with his blood. Figurative language is the comparison of one thing with another for the sake of illustration, from some point of resemblance. But instead of stopping at those points in which there is a real resemblance, enthusiastic minds run on to find or make a resemblance where there is none. This is sometimes harmless. But it does not stop here. Some minds pass from enthusiasm to fanaticism, and insist in transferring to the thing compared, all the qualities and circumstances of the thing to which it is compared.

Thus because Christ called the process by which a man became a true Christian in his day, being "born again," not from any resemblance between the two things, but from an accidental cause, as I shall hereafter show, the expression has been caught up and made to contain the very essence of the Gospel. Happening to fall in, as it did, with the theory of man's entire corruption and inability, which has prevailed since the days of Calvin, though occurring but a few times, it has been more used perhaps in Protestant Churches, to express that spiritual renovation which is the legitimate effect of the Gospel, than all the many terms which signify the same thing in the whole New Testament. The

nature of spiritual renovation has been imagined and described to be, not what it is, but what natural birth is. Instead of investigating spiritual renovation in its own laws and nature, they go for them to natural birth, and insist, because of the comparison, that one is precisely like the other in every respect. Men are not born according to their own wills, or volitions, so it follows logically and philosophically, that we are passive in regeneration. One takes place in a very short space of time, so the other must without question likewise be instantaneous. And as a person once born cannot relapse into a state of being unborn, so it is demonstrably proved that a good man can never become a bad man. Thus it is that the literal parts of Scripture are sacrificed, and made to bend to the figurative, and even contrary figures are overlooked and forgotten. It is forgotten that Christ and his apostles always addressed men as free, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." It is forgotten that the kingdom of heaven is compared to leaven, to the gradual growth of corn, and a grain of mustard seed. It is forgotten that all Christians were warned against relapse, and Paul himself felt the possibility of becoming a castaway.

What do men mean by thus treating the doctrines of revelation? Do they wish to mystify instead of explaining the Bible? Do they wish to make it a riddle instead of a plain book? Do they wish to make the people entirely dependent on the Priesthood, or would they so enlighten them that

they may find the way to heaven themselves? Would they make the Gospel glad tidings, or the means of filling men's minds with confusion, alarm and distress?

This brings me to the second principal division of discourse, the examination of that part of Scripture, on which this phraseology is founded. It is as you know taken from the third chapter of John, from Christ's conversation with Nicodemus. That conversation I shall now attempt to explain.

And we first observe that the artificial division of the Bible into chapters and verses, as often in other cases, so peculiarly in this, has contributed to obscure the meaning, by destroying the connection on which the whole point and bearing of the conversation depend. The last three verses of the preceding chapter ought to have belonged to this, as they are immediately introductory, and state a general truth of which the conversation with Nicodemus is a particular proof, example, illustration. "Now when Jesus was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man.” As an example of this he goes on to say, "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these

miracles which thou doest, except God be with him Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." What answer was this to the address of Nicodemus? None at

It was

all surely. But it was something more. an answer to what was in him, to his thoughts, and purposes, and his whole character. Being "born again," was a phrase very well understood by Nicodemus, because it was a phrase in common use among the Jews, and applied to the act of becoming a proselyte to Judaism from idolatry. The convert was washed or baptized, received a new name, renounced his natural kindred, and by a kind of legal fiction became a child of Abraham, and commencing a new life, was very naturally said to be born again. Such, said Christ to Nicodemus, must be the change, which must take place in every one, even a Jew, who is received into the kingdom of heaven, and becomes a true Christian. Nicodemus undoubtedly understanding him in that sense, inquires, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Can we Jews, who have grown old in our religion, renounce it for a new one? Are we not now the people of God? "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born" of water and spirit, not "of water and of the Spirit" as our version has mistranslated it, "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." You come to me in secret, and