they not object to the simple and scriptural application of these words, because they object to the strong language in which the radical recovery of man is delineated, and to the incalculable moment which is ascribed to it? Do they not object to them, in common with many similar, or nearly similar figures, by which this inward life of God in the soul is represented and enforced? Would they not be disposed to wave their objections, if these particular words were employed in a sense agreeable to their own view of a change of heart; and persevere in them, if, abandoning the mere words, the same degree of spiritual and vital religion were enforced under any other? Indeed, is it not natural and almost necessary, that, as they take an incomparably lower view of this inward change itself, they should protest against a separation between it and the external rite? And is not this the main reason why such a separation is represented by them as forced and extravagant? I must be allowed, at least, to state my conviction, that the strong and vivid conception of what the commencement of real and universal religion is, forms a most important pre-requisite to the conclusions which I am endeavouring to establish; and that it is not, in the great majority of cases, a mere term which is in dispute, but the decision of the nature and importance of that incipient transform

ation of man, on which all religion rests, and which has ever been a main topic of controversy between the worldly and the more spiritual members of the visible church of Christ".

To argue about a mere term, even though it were a scriptural one, would be little worthy of the charity which should distinguish the followers of Christ, except as the use of it may clearly stand connected with the important doctrine of the real magnitude of a radical change of heart. That the question concerning the employment of the words Regeneration and New birth is for the most part so connected, I am well persuaded. Under the mask of this apparently subordinate position, the real attack is usually directed against vital and spiritual religion. The single word Regeneration, indeed (if it is to be distinguished from the terms New birth or the being born of God, born of the Spirit, born again, &c.), as it occurs only twice in the New Testament, and in one of those places in a sense unconnected with my present subject, and in the other with an allusion to baptism*, might perhaps be allowed to stand more properly attached to the inward change of nature as conveyed, or attested and completed, by the appointed sacrament of Christ, or might even be confined to that application. But as the ordinary meaning of it appears to be as nearly as possible equivalent to that of the New birth, and as the two words are commonly either joined together or employed as synonimous, in the services of our church, I cannot, for myself, see the propriety of conceding that general use of it, which the argument of my discourse and the decided language of Scripture appear to require; especially when I recollect that it is by the gradual substitution of new phrases in divinity, that the most serious errors have always been introduced. Still

Matt. xix. 28.-Titus, iii. 5.

To enter, therefore, aright into the whole question, we must recur to the greatness and

my chief anxiety is fixed on the nature and importance of an entire renewal of the whole soul, by whatever scriptural name it may be called. Those who are fully agreed in the magnitude of this fundamental truth, will know how to bear, in the spirit of Christian charity, with the employment of terms somewhat different from those which they themselves prefer.

I have not adverted in the prosecution of my discourse to the use of the word Regeneration in the sense of external privilege merely, as Bishop Hopkins and other eminent divines conceive it to be used in the Liturgical offices; because this sentiment does not appear to militate against the important conclusions which I am endeavouring to establish. Such divines allow the necessity of an universal and radical change of nature subsequent to baptism, and allow that it is to be denominated Regeneration or New birth in the spiritual and highest sense of the expression.

With respect to those divines who confine these terms to a measure of grace universally conveyed in baptism, but not necessarily appearing, as the infant grows up to years, in one single appropriate evidence of a real and entire change in all the faculties of the soul, and who deny the propriety of calling any subsequent change by the scriptural terms Regeneration or New birth; the short answer appears to be, that it is to use the words in a sense not authorized by the Holy Scriptures, and obviously calculated to lower all spiritual religion. It furnishes exactly that plea to a worldly person which he is most anxious to discover, a plea for reconciling a state of indifference and formality and mere external decency of conduct, with hopes of acceptance with God, and a participation of the grace of regeneration by his Holy Spirit.

importance of the conversion of the heart to God, by the work of his Holy Spirit. We must seize this truth in its prominent features, and we must allow it to sway us in our consideration of subordinate disputations connected with it. We must begin, not with its attendant difficulties and distinctions, and then attempt to form a correct judgment of the mighty and general doctrine; but with the powerful and universal principle first, and then make our way through the perplexities of minor details. The heart must be affected, ere the understanding can determine aright. We shall then assuredly incline, not to the side which would lower the duty of man and the operations of divine grace, but to that which would exalt them both.

And, indeed, may I not, in drawing to a conclusion, venture to leave the decision of the subject, when placed on this practical and for the most part uncontroverted footing, to the heart and conscience of every serious Christian? Do we not find in our own cases the extreme backwardness of the human heart to practical religion? Do we not find the difficulty, the pressing difficulty, of overcoming the world, of loving God, of believing from the heart in the alone merits and righteousness of Christ, of delighting in prayer and contemplating Heaven? Is it not a difficult thing to crucify the flesh, to mortify our passions, and obey the calls of

conscience? Is not spiritual religion, that is, a vital, holy, constant service and love of God, a hard, I had almost said, an impracticable attempt? Do we not find-I put the question as in the presence of God-that external duties and our familiar intercourse with sacred topics, so far from elevating the mind to devotion and the love of Christ, soon allow it to decline into a lifeless acquiescence? Is it not a fact, that the researches of science and the fascinations of human learning, however important in their proper sphere, have a tendency to nourish pride and vain reasonings against inward and spiritual religion? Have not our resolutions failed? Do not our good intentions remain frustrated? And are we not at this moment, perhaps, far from acting up to the convictions of our minds and the dictates of duty?

Is it not then possible, waving all the minuter points of controversy, that, without being aware of our danger, we have not taken a right view of the real magnitude of a change of nature? Is it not at least possible, that if we felt more deeply our own depravity, and estimated more highly the work of the Holy Ghost in changing the heart, we might be more successful in our religious course? Would not a new disposition and frame of soul go to the bottom of the case? Would it not supply the very thing which is wanting? Do not great and con