thereby is rendered as unable to co-operate with the power of the spirit which regenerates him, as Lazarus was with the power that raised him from the dead; or, as Adam was with that by which he was created; each and all being alike passive under the divine energizing influence. But this construction of the fleshly and the spiritual birth, although strictly accordant with the assertion of Calvin, that infants "Before they see the light of this life, are in the sight of God filthy and spotted;" and that "their whole nature is a certain seed of sin, which cannot but be hateful and abominable unto God." Yet still, both this construction and this assertion, are in direct contradiction to right reason, and to Christ's own doctrines. It has been already ascertained that sin, not in a figurative or metaphorical sense, but in the true and real signification of the term, that is, as justly subjecting the of fender to all the penalty of law, can consist but only in the transgression of law. Hence, therefore, it necessarily results, that nothing can correctly and strictly be deemed sin, or sinfulness, but that whatever it is, whereby law is transgressed. And hence it indubitably further follows, that mankind cannot possibly be born sinful, because they cannot either in the womb, or in the moment of birth, transgress any law human or divine; and to affirm the contrary of this, although by Calvin himself, is but to assert the most palpable

nonsense.

Christ, the unerring teacher, when urging the neccssity of the new birth, did not affirm it of little children, but of adult persons. He on some occasions,

contrasted infantile innocency, with adult degeneracy. For "there arose a reasoning among them, (adults) "which of them should be the greatest; and Jesus

દુઃ

perceiving the thought of their heart, called a little "child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, "and said, Verily I say unto you, except ye be eon"verted and become as little children, ye shall not en❝ter into the kingdom of heaven: Whosoever there"fore shall humble himself as, this little child, the "same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Again, "Then were brought unto him little children, "that he should put his hands on them and pray, and "the disciples rebuked those that brought them. But "when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and "said unto them, suffer the little children to come un"to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the king"dom of God. Verily, whosoever shall not receive "the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise "enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." hilst we thus hear declared, infantile meetness for the kingdom of God, by him, unto whom that kingdom belongs and behold him exhibit little children, as becoming and instructive examples for his adult disciples to copy after, in order to their advancement in his blessed kingdom. So on the other hand, when he unmasks the actual iniquity of hearts really depraved, through the deceitful lusts; it is not the hearts of little children, but of self corrupted adults that he As thus "out of the heart of men, pro"ceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

uncovers.

But

"thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. "All these things came from within, and defile the "man." (Mark v11, 21, 22, 23.) To ascribe therefore, this depravity of the worst of self corrupted men, either to all men universally, or more particularly to the infant race of mankind, is a species of slander and vile detraction, expressly forbidden by that commandment which says, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Should it in reply be asked, what could Christ consistently have intended, by teaching that the subjects of the fleshly birth, need a spiritual birth, in order to the attainment of life eternal, unless thereby he intended to teach that same universal depravity which is taught by Calvinism? Such question being propounded and insisted on, would peremptorily demand an inquiry into the true meaning of being flesh from the fleshly birth; and a further inquiry into the operation and nature of the spiritual birth. And as it is a fair question, and one which should not be evade I therefore shall endeavour to make such inquiries, as necessarily result from it.

To be constituted flesh, by the fleshly birth, has two meanings, which can neither be disputed nor denied. First, it signifies that the child's person is con stituted of materials similar to those which compose the persons of the parents from whom it descended. And secondly it indicates the communication of like animal appetites, with those of the parents, as hunger, thirst, sexual propensions, &c. and which in them

selves are neither virtuous nor vicious.

But there is

likewise therein another implication, viz. That of "natural affection." Here some dispute may arise, as Calvinism seems to take for granted, that all natural affection is unholy affection. This however cannot be admitted; because this affection is implanted in human nature, by the forming hand of God himself. And is sanctioned by the authority of divine law, as witness the fifth commandment and its implications. These affections of human nature, are the legitimate offspring of the fleshly birth, are impressed by the hand of God himself, on the human heart. And their proper exercise is expressly enjoined by divine law. And to all this we may add, that these affections, when duly cultivated and improved, are delightful sweetners of human life; render human society and intercourse amiable and endearing; kindly stimulate to the performance of the important duties of relative life; and when with due influence, they actuate husband and wife, parent and child, brether and sister, friend, relative and neighbour, they, by an union of hearts and hands, produce a condition of society bearing resemblance in no small degree, to that of the kingdom of heaven itself. To affirm therefore, that these affections are in themselves sinful, is no mark of either candour, or true wisdom. If natural affection is in itself a criminal affection, then certainly it ought if possible to be wholly suppressed, and exterminated from the human heart. But such an eradication would be not only a mutilation, but likewise a horrible depravation of the human heart; for St. Paul, in Ro

mans 1, 31, and in II Timothy, 111, 3, ranks such as are "without natural affection," amongst the vilest persons and characters of that, and of future corrupt generations.

t

17

or

ng!

Br

To be constituted flesh by the fleshly birth implies then most clearly, first, that the child's person is constituted of materials similar to those which compose the persons of the parents from whom it descended. Secondly, It imports that the animal appetites of the parents, such as hunger, thirst, and sexual propensions, are communicated with the animal nature to the offspring. And thirdly, It indicates the transmittal of the natural affections, viz. self love, love of parents, and ther kindred love of human kind, as well as conjugal af fection. And although these affections of nature, are in themselves deemed sinful by the generality of Calvinists yet they can never be proved to be sinful in themselves, however sinful may be their abuse and corruption. And this leads directly to a most important point, viz. To the natural affections, not as they are communicated by the fleshly birth, but as they become vitiated and depraved by abuse, by a criminal and habitual indulgence of them on forbidden objects. This corruption of human hearts, which is effected by repeated acts of iniquity, Calvinism mistakes for an effect of the fleshly birth. This mistake probably first arose from a misconception of St. Paul's account of this corruption, where he denominates it the works of the flesh. But from whatever cause it may have arisen, it has lead to the gross errour of ascribing to natural generation, what results only from