he is required to preach, he is no such thing.

And as to the other part of the objection, would it be right for any church to continue supporting a minister who preached false doctrine? An inspired apostle has decided; "A man that is an heretic," much more a minister, "after the first and second admonition, reject." Tit. iii. 10. Again, it may be objected, that many ministers receive a much larger stipend than is necessary for their proper maintenance. This has nothing to do with the question. Whatever his income may be, if he is a man of God, he will spend it to God's glory; but the amount cannot affect the question of his being a hireling or not. It all depends, as we said before, on the motive. If he works for the sake of the pay only, he is a hireling, let the pay be ever so small; if not, he cannot be one, let it be ever so large. The gross and scandalous abuses in the system we don't for a moment defend, and Mr Barker may lash at them to his heart's content. But he does not confine himself to them, he attacks the system itself, that system which St. Paul declares to have been ordained of God. We must beware of "rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing," but really, when we see a man taking upon himself to judge nearly the whole body of Christian Ministers, and in the most scurrilous language condemning them as a set of hirelings, and then talking about charity-it is not very easy to exercise the forbearance of Michael the archangel, who "durst not bring a railing accusation against" his adversary, no! not in the heat of dispute, but said, "The Lord rebuke thee." Jude 9.

LECTURE Vi.

ON THE FALLEN NATURE OF MAN.

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 again. John iii. 6, 7.

In this conversation with Nicodemus, our Lord instructs him in the three grand doctrines of the gospel, which Berridge used to call the three R's,-ruin, redemption, regeneration. Man's ruin is twofold, internal and external; and the gospel provides a twofold remedy to meet it. He has exposed himself to the curse of God's righteous law, and a remedy is provided in "the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" he has also lost the image of God, after which he was "created in righteousness and true holiness," and a remedy is provided in the regeneration or new birth of the Holy Spirit. Now the first thing to observe is, that Christ here insists on the necessity of every man being born again, before he can see the kingdom of God; "except a man" being of course equal to except any or every man: and the next is, the grounds on which he rests that necessity. Nicodemus being surprised at what he had just heard about the new birth, Jesus explains it to him more fully, and shows him why it was so universally necessary: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." By referring to Gal. v. 17-23, you will see at once the meaning of the word flesh, when thus contrasted with the Spirit, namely, the evil principle which is inherent in our nature; and this is the only meaning that will make any sense of our Lord's argument, As every man receives at his birth the corrupt, fallen, fleshly nature of his parents, it is perfectly clear, that he must receive a new nature somehow or other, before he can enter the kingdom of heaven. This new nature, our Lord says, is given by

E

the Holy Spirit, and the receiving of it he calls "being born again." Would any one have believed it possible, that a body of men, acknowledging these to be the words of a teacher sent from God, could yet deny the doctrine of original sin? Or that a person like Mr. Barker, who surely must have read this chapter, could have the hardihood to assert, that "Jesus Christ says not one word of any such thing"? Another meaning may be forced upon the words, for aught I know; but that any one, who was simply willing to learn what Jesus intended to teach by them, could mistake their meaning, I really cannot believe. The whole argument (proving that no one can enter heaven without being born again, because every one being born of the flesh is flesh,) is so perfectly clear, that our Lord may well say, "Marvel not, that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." If Unitarians would only believe what Jesus here teaches about man's fallen nature, they would no longer marvel at, or endeavour to explain away, what he also teaches about the necessity of a new birth.

And now, before we bring other scriptural evidence to prove this doctrine, let us examine the arguments and objections, on the strength of which the positive testimony of Christ is thus flatly rejected. In the first place then we are told in no very measured language, that it is most horrible blasphemy to accuse God of creating any thing wicked or sinful.* So it is; but who ever did accuse him of it? No one denies, that whatever comes from the hands of God must be perfectly good. But do Unitarians suppose, that every child born into the world comes fresh from the hands of God? If they do, both reason and scripture contradict them. Look at yon oak tree, and tell me when God created it. Was it when it first began to sprout out of the ground? No, it was contained in the acorn before that. Was it when that acorn was formed? No, for it grew gradually on another tree; it was part of that tree. Then when did God create it? Why when he created the first oak tree in the world: in that one he created all that have ever grown from it. And now trace back your own existence day by day and hour by hour, and say when God created you. There is but one answer can be given; he created you, when he made the first man in the world: in that man, Adam, all the human race were created. God does not create each child

Mr. Barker appeals to parents, and asks, If you had the making of your own children, would you make them with wicked hearts ? The scriptural answer to this is given above; God made them upright, but they fell from that uprightness, being in the loins of their father Adam (to borrow the apostle's expression,) when he sinned. But just to shew the absurdity of that kind of argument, let us ask another question; If you had the making of your children, would you make them sickly, diseased, deformed, blind, deaf, or dumb? Then you are making God worse than yourself; for children are born so continually. See Lecture on Human Reason.

separately and singly, any more than he creates each tree separately and singly. Adam was made a wonderful being, having power and properties within him capable of propagating his own species to an infinite extent; so that the whole human race is but a developement of that one man. This principle applies to the whole animal and vegetable world; they were all made to "increase and multiply and replenish the earth", each with his own species. It is a universal law of creation, that like produces like; all the trees that ever came from the first oak, are oaks themselves; all the animals that have ever come from the first sheep are sheep themselves, and so on: whether beast, bird, fish, or tree, the parent can only produce a child in its own image. Now suppose, after God had made the first oak tree, some one could have gone and turned it into an ash tree, what would have been the consequence? Why all the trees that came from it would have been ash trees also, Would it then have been said, that God made them ash trees? Or, if there was any blame in the matter, would it be his fault that they were so? Certainly not; he made them, but he made them oaks-not what they now are. So it is with our fallen nature. God created us all holy in Adam; but Adam fell; his nature was changed, he lost the image of God in which he was made, and "in Adam all died": the oak is turned into an ash, and by the laws of creation every one that comes from it must be the same. Adam having lost the image of God himself, could no more bring forth a child in the image of God, than a bramble could bear figs, or a vulture breed a dove. He could only hand down to his children, and his children to their children, and so on, the same corrupt fallen nature, which he had himself. And is God to blame for all this? Certainly not; he made man, but he made him holy—not what he is now: man is fallen from that state of perfection, in which he came from the hands of God.

If any still feel inclined to look upon the birth of each individual child as a separate act of creation, I would direct their attention to the following passages of scripture. "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made." Gen. ii. 3. The works of creation are here represented as finished, as far as this world is concerned. Again, why should God bid man "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth," if every human being was to come into the world simply by an act of God's creative power? Observe also the expression in Eccl. vii. 29, God hath made man upright, but they have found out many inventions;" not does make, but hath made-once for all. St. Paul too speaks most distinctly on this point, saying that Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec,

46

"for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him," Heb, vii. 10. The apostle here actually builds an argument on the fact of something done by Levi's ancestor Abraham being considered as done by him, because he was in Abraham at the time. Then of course, by the same reasoning, we must have all been in Adam when he was created, and in Adam when he fell; a truth which the same apostle elsewhere states plainly-"In Adam all died.”

Another objection brought against this doctrine is, that it destroys man's responsibility. Various answers might be given to this, as for instance, that the Spirit's help is promised to all who ask for it, to overcome the corrupt inclinations of the heart; but I prefer keeping to the inspired answer, which St. Paul gave, when the same objection was brought against another doctrine, "Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Rom, ix. 20. God tells us in his word, that we are responsible creatures, although born in sin; and if we refuse to believe him, because we cannot reconcile the two things together, we do it at our peril. Every true believer knows and feels, that he is responsible for his actions, as certainly as he knows and feels that he " was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive" him.

The same answer will suffice for all cavils about the injustice of children suffering for the sins of their parents. Our first parent's act was our act, just as much as Abraham paying tithes to Melchisedec was Levi's act, "for we were yet in the loins of our father," when he ate the forbidden fruit. Besides, let us appeal to fact: Do not children inherit the curse of their parents' misconduct? Why we see it every day of our lives. A man ruins his health by a vicious depraved life, and the consequence is, he begets a child with a weak sickly constitution. Another squanders away all his money in extravagance and debauchery, and his children are left beggars. A third is transported for felony, and his family have to go to the workhouse. Is it not a universal law of nature, which unquestionable facts are ever proving, that children must and do suffer for the sins of their parents? No one in his senses can deny it, Let us beware of replying against God, because we cannot see the justice or goodness of all he does: let us remember, that "we now see through a glass darkly," and that "it is the glory of God to conceal a thing" in order to try our humility, and faith, and dependence on his simple word.*

It may be asked, Why are not the children of regenerate parents born regenerate? To which we reply, Spiritual Regeneration can not be communicated by natural generation. The father can only give by generation to his children the nature which he received by generation from his father-not the nature which he received by regeneration from the Holy Spirit.