may so say, of all the moral qualities which men ever possess. The whole is told when it is said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born, of the Spirit is spirit." Hence under the two denominations of flesh and spirit, every where set in the strongest opposition to each other, are comprehended all the moral qualities of the human race: "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other." Hence mankind are represented as remaining, (under the denomination of natural men,) what they were by nature till they become spiritual men by receiving the Spirit of God: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned; but he that is spiritual judgeth all things." And hence the term natural, under which is included every moral quality not derived from the Spirit, is used as synonymous with fleshly, sensual, wicked: "These ["mockers, who walk after their own ungodly lusts," are] natural, having not the Spirit." "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, natural, devilish."* But the evidence arising from the new creation and new birth is worthy to be presented in the form of a distinct argument, and shall be exhibited in the next Lecture. *John iii. 6. 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15. 2 Cor. v. 17. Gal. v. 17, 24. Eph. ii. 10. James iii. 15. Jude 19. LECTURE II. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. GENESIS VI. 5. AND GOD SAW THAT THE WICKEDNESS OF MAN WAS GREAT IN THE EARTH, AND THAT EVERY IMAGINATION OF THE THOUGHTS OF HIS HEART WAS ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY. Argument II. THERE is a change wrought in the elect in some part of their lives, which gives them the first holy principle; of course they had no holiness before. That this change introduces the first holy principle is apparent from the names by which it is called. Of these the most remarkable are, the new creation and new birth. If these names are not utterly insignificant they import the BEGINNING of LIFE. Now in the language of scripture spiritual life is holiness.* As then the first birth or creation is the beginning of natural life, the new creation or new birth, if these terms have any meaning, must be the beginning of holiness. To say that these names denote a progress in spiritual life, is * Rom. vi. 4-13. and viii. 6, 10. and xi. 15. Eph. ii. 1. Col. iii. 3. to say that the new creation or new birth is repeated upon Christians every day. But why call a progress in life a creation or a birth, rather than by any other name to be found in language. To be consistent you must call the progress from youth to manhood a creation and a birth. The very phrases new creation and new birth carry in them an intimation that the first creation or birth was totally defective and must be entirely done over again, that the defect can be remedied by no other means, that we remain what the first creation or birth made us until new made and new born, and that something is produced in this change which did not exist before. What is a new creation if nothing new is created? What is a new birth if nothing new is born? This argument must be conclusive if the terms under consideration really denote the beginning of spiritual life in the soul. Of three things one. They denote the beginning of spiritual life in the soul, or the progress of that life, or something distinct from inward holiness. To apply them to the progress of that life is exactly like calling the advance from youth to manhood a creation or a birth. That fancy must be given up. Only this alternative then remains: either the terms denote the beginning of holiness in the soul, (and then the argument is irresistible,) or they denote something distinct from inward holiness. The latter has been asserted. The only way attempted to avoid the force of this argument has been to allege that nothing more is meant by the new creation than a conversion from pagan or Jewish darkness to the profession of Christianity, and nothing more by the new birth than an introduction to the visible Church by baptism. The decisive question to be tried then is this, Do these terms denote the production of real holiness of heart, or a mere introduction to the visible Church, from a pagan, Jewish, or Christian state? Before putting this question to trial I will make two preliminary remarks. First, if these terms denoted that revolution which took place at the translation of men from pagan or Jewish darkness and sin into the light and holiness of the Christian state, it is not necessary to suppose that they expressed merely or chiefly the outward change. Even if what was visible was so denominated, it is natural to suppose that it was so called, not as a hypocritical show, but as the expression and evidence of the change within. We call the visible figure of a human being a man, though it is the soul that chiefly constitutes him such. If there is such a thing as inward holiness, there is such a thing as outward holiness, and in the languages of men the outward and inward character will be called by the same name. We speak in the absolute form of a man's conversion, without meaning to say that conversion is a mere visible change. We call a man who is externally good, a good man, and one who makes a credible profession of Christianity, a Christian, though we |