man should be born of water, it is also necessary that he should be born of the Spirit. There is nothing then to indicate, in what way being born of water, and being born of the Spirit, are associated; or whether they have any actual connexion. It is not said that they who are born of water, are also born of the Spirit; but that only those who are both born of water, and born of the Spirit, can enter the kingdom of God.*

2. The Jewish usage, from which the phraseology of the text is thought to be derived, proves that to be born of water is simply to experience a change of condition in respect to a religious community. If water be not regarded simply as a metaphor for the Spirit, there is nothing in the sacred Scriptures to elucidate the meaning of the phrase "born of water." All, who suppose that water literally is meant, explain this passage by reference to Jewish customs and modes of speech. The Jews were accustomed to describe a proselyte as one new born. It does not appear that they attributed this new birth to proselyte baptism, which was but one of the ceremonies of initiation; nor that they ever employed the phrase to be born of water. They spoke of the proselyte to Judaism as new born, not because he was spiritually renewed, but because he was as it were introduced to a new world, to form new associations, to pursue a new course of conduct, to acquire new dispositions and habits. His birth was a change of circumstances, and not of character; it was external, and not internal; it was ecclesiastical, and not spiritual. In the same way, it might naturally be said of those who became proselytes to Christianity, that they, in a similar manner, were born anew. And as an external introduction to Judaism was referred to all the Jewish ceremonies of initiation, so an external introduction to Christianity would be referred to the one Christian ceremony of initiation-to the rite of baptism. In this way, all professed disciples of Christ might be described as born of water. The Jewish rites, which produced an outward change, were emblems of that spiritual change which they could not produce. And so the Christian rite, while effecting a

* When John, addressing the multitudes who came to him, said, concerning Jesus, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire," (èv «vévμatı åyiş Kal Tupl,) Matt. iii. 11, Luke iii. 16, he could not have referred only to the apostles of Jesus. Therefore, the fire here mentioned, could not be the tongues of fire which sat on the heads of the apostles at the day of Pentecost; and these are never described as a baptism with fire. The term fire must, therefore, be interpreted figuratively. If it is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit, then this passage confirms the metaphorical interpretation of water in our Lord's address. If the Holy Spirit and fire are two expressions, literal and figurative, for one object, so are water and Spirit. But if the fire be used for the punishment of the wicked, then two baptisms will be referred to, of a nature entirely different, though only one term is expressed. Thus, whichever meaning be assigned to this passage, it is alike adverse to the interpretation, which attributes one regeneration to two distinct objectsthe water and the Spirit.

corresponding outward change, would emblematically inculcate the higher spiritual change, and not instrumentally effect it.

It cannot be any just objection with those who suppose that baptism with water is here mentioned, that no reference is elsewhere made in the New Testament to this external regeneration, since in no other passage is regeneration named in connexion with water. It is entirely from Jewish customs and phraseology that the inference is drawn, that one who received Christian baptism would be described as born of water. But in Jewish usage, the birth attributed to rites of initiation, was merely an external change. If this usage gave rise to a corresponding Christian usage, it must have been with a similar reference to an external change. The supposition that to be born of water in Christian usage, denoted to be spiritually renewed by water, has not the least support from Jewish usage, but is in direct opposition to it.

The new birth, which is peculiar to Christianity, is spiritual in its nature, and in its origin. On this it is, that our Lord so solemnly insists. But this is no outward change, which, however important, may still leave the character unchanged. It is that awakening of the mind to new views and sentiments, to new purposes and efforts-that commencement of true holiness and blessedness-which can only result from a spiritual union to Christ, and which can only be proved by a moral resemblance to him. The strongest metaphors are employed in the sacred Scriptures to express the greatness of this change, and its nature and effects are clearly described. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have passed away; lo, all things are new."-2 Cor. v. 17. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance."Gal. v. 22. "We all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed to the same image, from glory to glory, by the Spirit of the Lord."-2 Cor. iii. 18. But this regeneration is never attributed to the rite of baptism, in the word of God.

3. If baptism with water is here mentioned, its necessity is explained by the fact, that men were required thus to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord; and consequently, it gives no support to the conjecture, that baptism with water was necessary as the means of the baptism of the Spirit. If our Lord declares baptism with water to be necessary, he certainly does not state why it is necessary. Any reason assigned for its supposed necessity, must be simply our inference; it cannot have the authority of his doctrine. Christ commanded all his disciples publicly to acknowledge him, and he accompanied this command with the most solemn admonition,-"Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will the Son of man also confess before the angels of God; but he that denieth me before men, shall be denied before the angels of

God."-Luke xii. 8. We must avow our faith in the Saviour, and associate ourselves with his followers, if we would participate in the blessings of his kingdom. Now the reception of Christian baptism was one mode of acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah; and all were required in this manner to confess Christ. Thus St. Peter said— "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, on account of Jesus Christ."-Acts ii. 38. They who through fear of reproach or persecution, were deterred from receiving this mark of discipleship, came under the awful denunciation of the Lord: "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in the glory of himself, and of the Father, and of the holy angels."-Luke ix. 26. The necessity of receiving baptism with water, when there could be no doubt of its Divine appointment, is perfectly explained by the fact, that it was one way in which men were commanded to confess Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. This necessity cannot, therefore, give the slightest countenance to the conjectural hypothesis, that baptism with water was the means by which the baptism of the Spirit was given.

On the supposition that the term water is to be taken literally, and that the water of baptism is here meant, though of this rite not the least mention is made, it only follows that baptism with water is declared to be necessary. Most certainly our Lord does not declare why it is necessary. To infer that, because the term born occurs but once, only one birth can be referred to, is to violate the most common rules of language. The difference between the nature of water, and of the Spirit of God, shows that the changes which are effected by them are equally different. The usage of the Jews attributed only an external change to a religious ceremony; and the Scriptures attribute a spiritual change only to the truth and the Spirit of God. The sacred histories most clearly state that the reception of Christian baptism was necessary as a profession of discipleship: they give no intimation that it was necessary as the means of regeneration. The Old Testament presents many instances of ceremonies being absolutely enjoined, as emblems of truth, and signs of outward privileges, but neither the Old nor the New Testament exhibits any doctrines, facts, or promises, to support the strange and superstitious notion, that the application of a material element to the body, will effect a moral change in the soul.

If notwithstanding these considerations, it be still maintained, not only that the term water is to be taken literally, but also that one and the same regeneration is here referred to the water and the Spirit, then it must be admitted that our Lord does teach that, in some cases, those who were baptized with water, were also at the same time baptized with the Spirit, and thus born of water, and of the Spirit. The declaration that "unless one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," implies certainly that some were thus born-that

Nicodemus, to whom the declaration was made, and such as he, might be thus renewed, and must be, for them to enter the kingdom of God. But it does not justify the inference that children are regenerated by baptism,

1. Because there is nothing to show that our Lord at all referred to infant children. He spoke to Nicodemus of that which respected him, and all who could receive religious instruction. There is no more reason for supposing that infants are comprehended in this declaration, than there is for supposing that they are included in the awful statement of the 18th verse- -"He who believeth not is condemned already." They appear to us as incapable in infancy of the regeneration promised, as they are of the faith required; and they are not represented in Scripture as the subjects of the former, any more than of the latter.

2. It is not pretended by any that all who are baptized with water, also receive the Spirit. It cannot possibly be inferred that the water and the Spirit are always combined. It is acknowledged that without some knowledge of the Gospel, true repentance, and faith in Christ, baptism with water will not spiritually regenerate adult persons. These moral conditions, although not mentioned here, are by all declared to be necessary to the spiritual efficacy of the rite of baptism, when administered to those who are capable of religious knowledge, sentiment, and purpose. If our Lord referred to baptism at all, he referred to the baptism of such as Nicodemus. If he attributed any efficacy to baptism, it could only be under those conditions, without which baptism would have been useless to Nicodemus. If he taught Nicodemus that he must be regenerated by water and the Spirit, he did not teach that this regeneration could be obtained either by him, or by any, without Christian knowledge, repentance, and faith, but only in connexion with them.

3. Even if this passage be understood to declare the necessity of baptism to infants, it would not follow that they were regenerated by baptism. If an adult be regenerated by baptism, to his regeneration two classes of conditions are held to be necessary. First, there must be the moral conditions of Christian knowledge, penitence, and faith, without which, it is admitted, baptism will not regenerate an adult. And, secondly, there must be the ceremonial conditions, the due observance of the prescribed rite. These conditions must co-exist in the case of an adult, or his regeneration will not take place. Now when a child is baptized in infancy, it is impossible that these two conditions should co-exist there may be the ceremonial conditions, there cannot be the moral. The regeneration of one baptized in infancy, must be separated from one of the two conditions admitted to be both necessary to an adult. Which alternative then is the more reasonable and scriptural, that those who are baptized in infancy are then regenerated spiritually, 4 P

N. S. VOL. VII.

when only the one ceremonial condition of regeneration can exist ;-or that they are regenerated in after-life, whenever their Christian knowledge, repentance, and faith-the moral conditions of regeneration-are added to the ceremonial, and they possess that state of mind without which baptism with water, however administered to an adult, would be wholly vain?

That some spiritual grace should accompany the act by which any intelligently, sincerely, and honestly acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, may be very probable. But that the same act without intelligence, sincerity, or devotion, should be accompanied with the same spiritual grace, is in the highest degree improbable. It is to imagine that the moral and spiritual conditions of regeneration, are of less moment than the physical and ritual. The evidence that Christian baptism was administered to infants, depends for its conclusiveness on the supposition that Christian baptism was similar in its nature and efficacy to Jewish baptism, though emblematical of higher truths, and the sign of better privileges. If the means of regeneration to any, there is no scriptural evidence that it should be given to infants; still less, that it is the means of their regeneration.

If Christ associates the Spirit with the water of baptism, it is only with baptism when intelligently, honestly, and piously received, as a means of grace, and a confession of faith in him. And these words do not afford the slightest evidence that our Lord ever associated the Spirit with the water of baptism, when there was no intelligence, honesty, or piety in the subject of the rite, or the capacity for any moral and religious affections.

From this investigation it appears that the application of this pas sage to the doctrine of the baptismal regeneration of infants, rests on assumptions as extraordinary, and unreasonable, as any on which human credulity has ever reposed. And after these assumptions have been made, the doctrine cannot by any ingenuity be exhibited as the declaration of the text. It is, at best, merely a doubtful inference from it. First, it is assumed, that the term water is used literally, though the spiritual nature of the subject, the figurative term associated with it, the whole connexion of the passage, and the analogy of all similar Scripture expressions, are opposed to the literal interpretation of the term, and show that it is simply a metaphor. Then, in the next place, it is assumed that there is but one birth which results from the water and Spirit in union, although their nature is so incongruous; and, in Jewish phraseology, to be born of any rite, would only refer to an external change. And when these assumptions have been made, the address to Nicodemus, respecting the necessity of baptism, cannot be shown to have any reference to infants; and, even if it does teach the necessity of their baptism, it cannot possibly teach that they are regenerated by baptism. If the agency of the Spirit were always