proves that such is your meaning!) "is utterly useless; for it is still necessary that another, that is, a spiritual regeneration, should be experienced, before men can enter into the kingdom of God."

Now, does not the above-cited passage incontestably prove, that by the expression "implanted in the soul by the Spirit of God," you must have understood, and intended to signify, "implanted" by what has here been characterized as "the independent agency of the Holy Ghost." Consequently I am warranted in interpreting your definition as if it had contained a statement to that effect.

But, gentlemen, before I proceed to comment upon the definition, as completed by this necessary explanation of your meaning, you must permit me to observe, that the little leaven contained in your definition—the uncertainty occasioned by its incompleteness, has leavened the whole lump-has communicated much of confusion and indistinctness to your remarks. For instance, in the third paragraph of the "We cannot," you say, tract, wholly approve of such language as the following, as applied to regeneration, when it is said to be limited to a single occurrence”—to be "the commencement, and the commencement only, of the Christian life"- "an act which begins and ends"-and to be, "in its own nature, incapable of repetition;" and "the same in all, and wholly incapable of increase."

Now, to any one who entertained the idea of regeneration which your definition of it would have

conveyed, had it been complete and stated implicitly, that "the holy nature in which regeneration consists was implanted by virtue of a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism," the language of which you disapprove would have appeared unobjectionable, nay correct and appropriate. For in that case, when regeneration was said to be "limited to a single occurrence," any such person would immediately have perceived that the 66 occurrence adverted to was the administration of the sacrament of Baptism, and consequently he would clearly have understood, and readily have assented to, the phrase in question; and so when regeneration is spoken of as " an act that begins and ends," any intelligent and well-educated person, entertaining the opinion adverted to above, would have experienced but little difficulty in comprehending that the act which was said "to begin and end' was that act of God (with reverence be it spoken !) which " begins and ends "-man knows not, it is true, how, or when, or where-during the administration of the sacrament of Baptism. Again: the truth of the position that regeneration is, " in its own nature, incapable of repetition," must be self-evident to one whose idea of it was founded upon the definition supposed to have been laid down: and the case would be the same with respect to the last expression you have cited-viz. that regeneration" is the same in all, and wholly incapable of increase."

And if, instead of defining regeneration as I have supposed you to have done in the preceding paragraph, you had completed the imperfect definition which you have actually given of it by specifically stating that it was by an operation of the Spirit of God, distinct from and independent of any Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism, that the holy nature in which it consists was implanted in the soul; in that case, by any one whose opinion of regeneration was based upon the definition last supposed to have been given of it, the expressions cited and remarked upon above would have been characterized as unmeaning and absurd; if they had not been denounced, as would most probably have been the case, as altogether faulty and pernicious.

But the definition of regeneration actually laid down being incomplete, the idea which it conveys or embodies, if we may so speak, is undetermined; and the consequence is, that the opinion which you have formed and pronounced with respect to the language in question, is indeterminate you neither wholly approve of it, or condemn it as decidedly objectionable.

It is evident,

But to return from this digression. from what has been remarked above, that your definition ought to have distinctly stated that you held regeneration to consist in the implantation of a holy nature in the soul by what has been characterized as the independent agency of the Spirit of God.

Had it done so, I should have commented upon it as follows:

:

Regeneration may undoubtedly be said to consist in the implantation of a holy nature in the soul: it may, as I conceive, be correctly defined as "a change divinely effected in the soul; by virtue of which, the evil nature entailed upon Adam's posterity in consequence of the fall, is amended in so blessed a degree as to constitute man a being capable of inheriting the kingdom of Heaven." And inasmuch as we know that without holiness no man can see the Lord—or in other words, become an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven-it follows that the change in which I have defined regeneration to consist, must be one which may accurately be said to implant or superinduce a holiness of nature.

It is evident, therefore, that we agree in considering regeneration as a change superinducing a holiness of nature divinely effected in the soul. Where we differ is here. You contend that the change in question is effected by the independent agency of the Spirit of God; whereas I maintain that it is wrought by virtue of a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism.

In order to obviate all possibility of our misunderstanding each other, I will explain myself more fully upon this important point. Gentlemen, I conceive that for wise but mysterious purposes which it would be madness and impiety to search into, it has pleased

the Almighty to ordain that a Divine efficacy shall belong to and be inherent in Baptism or in other words, that God is pleased to exert that agency of the Holy Spirit by virtue of which regeneration is effected, in such a manner that its operation is, or rather appears to man's limited faculties to be, necessarily and inseparably connected with the administration of the sacrament of Baptism. Or once more-for it were better to repeat our meaning a thousand times than to leave it uncertain !—that in His all-perfect wisdom God has seen fit to decree (and who shall say that it is what His Omnipotence cannot effect?) that the cleansing of the soul from spiritual pollution shall be the supernatural effect of the administration of the sacrament of Baptism, just as the removal of earthly defilement is the na

tural effect of immersion in water.

Now, gentlemen, our opinions as to the particular point upon which we differ, are wholly and irreconcileably inconsistent with, are directly opposed to, each other. This is self-evident. For you might as reasonably maintain that the table at which I am now writing can be and not be at one and the same instant, as assert that the operation of that blessed energy by which regeneration is wrought, can be independent of, and at the same time inherently connected with the sacrament of Baptism. And inasmuch as I affirm, as I now do, that the view which I have taken of the doctrine of regeneration, when I define