Page images
PDF
EPUB

ism, unless the "moral and religious character, of any people" should be admitted to be some "test of the truth of their doctrine."

As controversy is not my object, and as I think I have now placed the argument in a clear light, I shall close the correspondence on my part with this letter, unless unexpected reasons induce me to the contrary. I request you to place this at the disposal of the new Editor. I am aware that it is only by a special indulgence, that my letters can have a place in a publication, the principles of which I strenuously oppose. That indulgence lays me under an obligation of which I cannot but be sensible. ITHAMAR SMITH.

For the Christian Repository.

REMARKS ON THE NEW BIRTH.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.-St. John iii. 5.

Among the many and precious doctrines taught by our Redeemer, that of the new birth occupies a very distinguished portion. The scripture which stands at the head of this article, was a rejoinder of the great "master of assemblies," to a question proposed by the mistaken Nicodemus, which originated from the declaration previously made, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

The reader will readily perceive that the well beloved had recourse to metaphor to explain figure; for his first statement, if understood literally, (unquestionably this was the impression of Nicodemus) did imply an impossibility. But the great "teacher" saw fit to rectify this mistake; from which, however, it is conceived, by the writer of this exposition, mistaken notions have been entertained respecting our Savior's

meaning. Modern Christians, probably, are unanimous, in rejecting the literality of the expression, but generally suppose that the new birth "is a radical change of human nature." Altho this mistake is not so gross, yet it is, apparently, as great as that of the auditor of Jesus. In order to maintain this point, it is supposed that man is "totally depraved," or wholly corrupt. At present it will not be convenient to concede this point.

The old and new Testaments are a kind of dictionary explanatory of themselves, and as such we find the new birth defined in varied language, such as the following; refining, purifying, reclaiming, reconciling, renewing, washing, delivering, &c. Now if we admit that "washing," signifies the same as being "born of water;" how can the notion of total depravity or corruption be true? For instance, would it be deemed prudent in a person to attempt to wash a garment that was one complete mass of dirt or filthiness? Admitting the impertinence of such a one; what would remain when it was washed clean? And again, "refining” after a mass of ore containing nothing but base alloy is refined, what would remain? nothing. And again, to tell of renewing that in us which never existed, is an absurdity inadmissible.

The work of "regeneration," or "being begotten again," appears to be a moral or spiritual reformation "in newness of life," being "delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son, which no man can see or enter, until he is born again." Human nature is, probably the same it ever was, in which "dwelleth no good thing, the flesh lusteth against the spirit." In support of what I have here suggested, I would notice St. Paul who had experienced this new birth in an eminent degree. Altho he said "the law of the spirit of life had made him free

from the law of sin ;" yet he "saw another law in his members warring against the law of his mind." Is it reasonable to suppose that if St. Paul had met with a radical change in his nature, that he would have had such a "warring in his members," and could with propriety say it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me?" St. John, the "well instructed scribe in the kingdom of God's dear Son," testifies "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Here it will be readily seen and acknowledged that the apostle considered himself of that number, who could not say they "had no sin." But it would be impious to suppose that the great and beloved apostles were servants of Satan, in the commission of sin; for altho "sin" and "evil" were present with them, yet we are not informed that they yielded to those temptations. It matters not how much a man is tempted if he does not yield to it. This never was a sin, for our Savior was tempted in all things like as we are; but he could nevertheless say, "get behind me, Satan." The beloved apostle asserts that "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin," for he furthermore remarks, "he that committeth sin is of the devil." It would be impossible to serve two masters at one and the same time, therefore St. Paul exhorts his Roman brethren not to "let sin reign in their mortal bodies," and to "be no more servants of sin." This faithful apostle to the Gentiles, Rom. viii. 1, declares there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. It is evident that if they walked according to the dictates of the flesh, as we read that every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts, and lust where it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin, they as sinners would be condemned; but on the other hand, if they were influenced by the spirit by which they were

brought forth, they would not be condemned from darkness to light, and from satan to God.

From what has been considered, it appears that being born of the water and the spirit are being cleansed "by the washing of water by the word," and renewed in, or by the spirit of holiness to become practical and obedient subjects in the kingdom of King Emmanuel, whose "yoke is easy and burden light."

[ocr errors]

The apostle Paul, thoroughly taught in the science of sanctity, has given us and all who read, an illustration of this mysterious and much controverted subject; which is recorded 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 11. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" This is the kingdom that no man can enter until he is "born again." The attention of the reader is invited to what follows. "Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adalterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God." He has enumerated a "black list" of unworthy characters who are forever debarred the "kingdom of righteousness, peace and joy." But few indeed of our race but what may be brought under some of these denominations; but be not deceived, such characters can never inherit this kingdom. This servant of the cross explained himself by saying, And such were some of you; (it is frequently said that the epistles were addressed to believers exclusively,) but ye are washed, (born of the water) but ye are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of God. "Jesus said, He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." It would be equally as impossible for an unbeliever to see life, unless belief and unbelief have the same effect, as for an idolater or an unrighteous man to inherit this kingdom.

A few remarks further must conclude the present article.

It is apparent from reason and scripture authority, that the "new birth" is prerequisite to salvation. A very respectable portion of the Christian community, believe that the salvation of a part is and was made sure in God's own pleasure. Now as the elect cannot be saved unless they experience the new birth, so we must conclude that salvation is the end to which they are destined, and being born again is the means to produce it, Query. As St. Paul believed and testified that salvation was the end to which God had willed all men to come, (1 Tim. ii. 4.) and as salvation cannot be effected but by the "regeneraton," the means; has not God willed that all men shonld be born of water and the spirit, that they might "enter the kingdom of God ?”

Dear Sir,

For the Christian Repository.

TO REV. SAMUEL C. LOVELAND.

L. W.

I said in my last letter to you, that if you answered the objections therein stated to the doctrine of punishment in the invisible world, it was not probable I should reply to you. However, as you seem to complain of this intimation, I devote a few moments to the consideration of your arguments in the last number of the Repository. I had stated, that my chief difficulty about punishment in a future state, arose from the want of proof that the spirit of man remains an individual being, after the dissolution of the natural body, and previous to the resurrection in a spiritual body. I quoted Solomon's declaration, that both men and beasts have one spirit, and go to one place, so that, in this respect, man hath no pre-eminence above a beast. I argued, that, if man must exist after death as an individual because he

« PreviousContinue »