calling to arms and to the battle, would introduce confusion (being uncertain, unmeaning, unintelligible) into all the army. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? (1 Cor. xiv. 6-8.) He does not on this account deny the gifts of Pentecost, but acknowledges them, if genuine (1 Cor. i. 7), and establishes them; yet pointing out at the same time the more excellent way of love (1 Cor. xii. 31, and xiii.); and admonishing them to lay aside all disorderly conduct. (1 Cor. xiv. 40.) There were, moreover, among them also some who denied the resurrection of the dead. (1 Cor. xv. 12.) And a church in a more corrupt state cannot well be imagined; yet a church it was, for many of them were recovered out of the snare of the devil, and brought to penitence and sorrow for the things by which they had so grievously offended. "Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you." (2 Cor. vii. 9-12.)

But as if to make us feel how just all his censures

were in his first letter, he does not retract one of them in the second. On the contrary, while rejoicing with joy over their penitence, he reminds them of their delinquencies; and even adds various particulars respecting himself, which in their impenitent state he deemed it right to withhold from the first. While puffed up in their fleshly minds, with their philosophizing teachers with men of enticing words and of human wisdom-they had neglected and despised himself, though he was the Apostle of the Lord-a man of simplicity and godly sincerity, who, not by fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, had his conversation among them. "His letters, said they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." (2 Cor. x. 10.) This indignity he felt as a man, and rebuked them for their conduct towards him, as became an apostle, in the verses and parts which follow; but there were other things besides. Amidst all their proverbial affluence and splendour, they had suffered him to want; a fact he could not forget, nor fail to remind them of it for their good. "When I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me, the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.” (2 Cor. xi. 9.) It was painful to him, and had been so heart-rending a matter when with them, that he dared not to trust them, for he plainly conveys that he had not sufficient confidence in them to ask or to receive a kindness at their hands. He allowed indeed their Church-standing, for notwithstanding their false doctrine and abominable practices and disorderly

conduct, there were among them those who were not so deeply involved as the rest, and among them all was the word of God read and preached, and the sacraments (can we say?) duly administered. But though they were allowed by him to be a Church of Christ, yet in such a state, what is to be said or inferred of the regeneration? and the justification of the many? And, indeed, what with reference to various members of church that ever was?

any

It is competent to us to expose the folly of the notion "that spiritual regeneration always attends baptism" by a consideration of the state of any church, whether ancient or modern. How clearly does it appear in the case of each of the seven Apocalyptic Churches? But not unnecessarily to enlarge, by further noticing them, let this part be concluded by a remark on the fearful state, even of many among the beloved Philippians? How very afflictive is that passage in parentheses! "(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)" (Philip. iii. 18, 19.) Was Simon Magus more in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, than the baptized many whose state and character the apostle Paul describes and delineates at Corinth, yea, and even at Philippi? and if not, where was their spiritual regeneration ?

There are two objections, which to all these things are sometimes, or even usually urged. It is imagined by some that St. Paul writes all his heavy charges against persons who, though they might be somehow or other connected with the churches, yet

were not members; and that the parties who, properly speaking, constituted those churches, were exempted from, and not involved in his censure.

There is, no doubt, some truth in this idea, and which is also before suggested, but is allowed only so far as it is real, and not so far as, we have said, is imagined; for he expressly declared that his remarks were confined to them that were within (the Church), and that they did not extend or apply to any without. "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters, for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now have I written unto you not to keep company, if a man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? (Precisely according with our Lord's statement regarding privilege, Mark iv. 11, p. 20) do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth." (1 Cor. v. 9-13.) The worst of characters then were within, but all within were baptized, for the Church had authority over, or took charge of, none besides: therefore were some of the baptized the worst of characters.-Vile in their affections, and reprobate concerning every good work; they were enemies of the cross of Christ, and their end was to be destroyed. Where then was their spiritual regeneration, before, or at, or after their baptism? Within the Church they were, by baptism: but not spiritually of the Church!

The other objection which is necessarily urged h he advocates of "spiritual regeneration" by bapti

that all such have lost or sinned away the gift or grace bestowed on them at baptism, so that whatever they become afterwards, they were, if baptized, spiritually regenerated thereby. This objection is indeed worthy of these advocates; for this being urged, accounts for the dogma being believed. It is one error insisted upon after another, and urged in support of the other; as if two errors could make one truth; or as if false premises could lead to true results. There is no truth in the one or in the other; and insisting upon either or both, by whomsoever done, is proof of an entire misconception of what spiritual regeneration, or the new birth, is. What is it? It is not making the old man better, but the creation of the new man. It is not the infusion of a principle to change the nature of the old man who is corrupt, and corrupt remains until he is put off: but it is the implantation of the new nature in man, the spiritual man who after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (Eph. iv. 24.) Hence our Lord says, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born (ävwbev) from above." (John iii. 5-7.) By this he does not set aside the Christian's birth, by water baptism, into the Church, but insists upon it and upon the creation of the Spirit also together; but it is upon the union of the two that the stress, the urgent emphatic "must" comes, which shows the necessity for the latter, with a declaration whence it cometh; it is not only of the Church, but from above, that " ye must be born-not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John i. 13.)