THE NEW BIRTH.

(Read John ii. 23-iii. 13.)

The third chapter of John has long been a battleground of interpreters. Peculiar interpretations, early in the history of Christian theology, gave rise to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and along with this the doctrine of the efficacy of the sacraments ex opere operato-that is, by the inherent power of the sacrament itself, without reference to the character of the administrator or the spiritual condition of the recipient. With this was linked the assumption of priestly power over the sacraments. A logical deduction from all this was, the salvation of baptized infants dying in infancy, and the damnation of unbaptized infants dying in infancy. Other interpreters, denying this assumption of the power of the priesthood over the sacraments, nevertheless regarded this chapter as teaching the doctrine of miraculous regeneration: that is, the impartation of a new life by a direct creative act of the Holy Spirit; and baptism is so intimately associated with this creative act, that those dying unbaptized-even unbaptized infants-are eternally lost. On this theory, regeneration is as much a miracle as the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The sinner has no power to believe or repent until he is first the passive subject of this regenerating power; and regeneration itself is so great a mystery that many are left in life-long doubt whether

they have ever experienced it. They are left in inconsolable anguish over a point of vital importance to their everlasting welfare. Others, disgusted with this theory and, revolting at the thought of banishing a helpless infant to eternal perdition because unbaptized, for which lack of baptism it has no personal responsibilityhave been driven to deny that "born of water" has any reference to baptism. This, though a modern interpretation, is at present much in vogue. Others regard the theory of miraculous regeneration, whether in infants or adults, as contrary to the general tenor of New Testament teaching, as involving essential injustice, since it consigns the unbeliever to eternal condemnation for the absence of a faith of which he was utterly incapable, and for an unregenerate condition over which he had no control. They reason that as, according to this theory, the sinner can not believe unless he is first regenerated; and as in regeneration he is entirely passive, the subject of a divine creative act; the theory throws on God the whole responsibility for his want of faith, and represents God as withholding the power necessary to regeneration, and then condemning the helpless sinner because he has not been the recipient of that power! This class of interpreters insist on such an interpretation of the metaphorical language of John iii. 3-8 as shall bring it into harmony with the literal teaching of Jesus and his apostles on the subject -teaching which, in their view, makes the sinner justly responsible for his unbelief, and holds him justly accountable if he fails to realize the regenerating power of the Spirit.

The variety of conflicting interpretations of this chapter leads us to raise the inquiry whether an undue

Although it is

prominence has not been given to it as the prime source of information, for all people and ages, concerning the conditions of entrance into the kingdom of God. That its teaching is of grave interest, we do not for a moment question; but that it was intended for Heaven's chief message to the world concerning the conditions of salvation and the means of entrance into the kingdom of God, we do not believe. not our purpose, in these studies, to enter into the arena of theological controversy, it yet falls within the sphere of our duty to rescue this passage from the hands of theological combatants and to place it in its proper setting as a portion of the sacred narrative. Indeed, we can not do justice to our own purpose of setting forth the characteristics of our Lord's teaching, and the progressive development, in that teaching, of the kingdom he came to establish, without such a treatment of this chapter as may seem to involve us in theological controversy. For the controversial aspect of this study we are not responsible. It is impossible to make an honest effort to arrive at an understanding of the meaning of the narrative without making our way through and over the conflicting interpretations that lie in our way.

Let the reader keep in mind what was said in our last study concerning the circumstances of the times, and the position and character of Nicodemus, and especially what is said in chap. ii. 23-25, of which the conference with Nicodemus in the third chapter is an illustration, and we shall, we think, be prepared for the following conclusions:

1. The object of Nicodemus in coming to Jesus was to learn whether he was the true Messiah; and if

so, to obtain information concerning the kingdom he was about to establish-the kingdom of heaven which John the Baptist had proclaimed as near. He was already satisfied that Jesus "was a teacher come from God;" beyond that all was dark to him. They who represent Nicodemus as only half revealing his convictions. in cautious terms and with diplomatic reserve, and they who interpret the phrase "come from God" as a half acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus, since the Messiah was often designated among the Jews as "the Coming One," "He that should come" (Matt. xi. 3), seem to us to impugn needlessly his honesty and candor, and to put an undue and fanciful strain on his language. What he had seen and heard convinced him that Jesus was a teacher sent from God. This, with him, was beyond doubt, and he honestly avowed his conviction. But he was left in doubt as to the Messiahship of Jesus. Jesus had not avowed it. He had performed no act, given no sign, by which the people could recognize him as such. All he had said and done might well enough comport with the idea that he was the Messiah; but there had been no demonstration such as the Jews were looking for, to satisfy them beyond doubt that he was the promised Redeemer. Nicodemus opened the conference with a frank' avowal of the faith he then had: "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher sent from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." Jesus, in his answer, introduces at once the kingdom of God," because he, knowing what was in the mind of Nicodemus, would let him know that he understood what was in his thoughts; and thus he released the inquirer from all embarrassment in

introducing as a topic of conversation that which filled. his thoughts. There can be no doubt, we think, that in using the phrase "kingdom of God," Jesus touched the chord that was already vibrating in the heart of Nicodemus, and anticipated the announcement of the real object of this visit. Let not the reader fail to note that the phrase "born again," or "born anew, is used with reference to entrance into the kingdom of God, not the family of God-clearly indicating that the kingdom of the Messiah and entrance into it was that concerning which Nicodemus came to inquire.

2. It is evident that Nicodemus, in common with his associates, had none but carnal conceptions of the kingdom of God. There are errors of an age which assert their dominion equally over all ranks and ́ classes the enlightened and refined and pious, as well as the ignorant, coarse and impious. Their sway is undisputed by the best knowledge and the purest piety of the times. They have to be outgrown, or overcome, by the unsuspected and therefore unopposed incoming of new and better ideas. Such was the huge error of witchcraft; such was persecution for opinion's sake. For ages these pestilent errors held universal dominion. No one dared dispute their right to universal acceptance. No arguments, no appeals of outraged humanity, could prevail against them. To doubt the truth of witchcraft, or the right of the civil or ecclesiastical authorities to coerce the conscience, or to lift a voice against the shocking cruelties practiced on witches and heretics, was atheism. The purest and gentlest piety, the largest intelligence and learning, found nothing inconsistent with themselves in persecuting witches and heretics to indescribable tortures and horrid deaths.