well as the simple and ignorant, in persons insulated by society of a different cast and strongly prejudiced against the belief of such a change. Thousands who are not mad, but cool, dispassionate, and wise, the ornaments of society and of learning, whose word would be taken in any other case, and who certainly ought to be regarded as competent judges, tell you that they have had opportunity to see both sides, as the revilers of this doctrine have not; that they once looked upon the subject with the eyes of their opponents, but have since seen for themselves, and do assuredly know that there is such a thing as a spiritual change of heart. And what witnesses can you oppose to these? Men who have nothing to offer but negative testimony,-who can only say, they know of no such thing.

To this interesting change, as the SECOND grand topic of the course, I am now to draw your attention. But as the reasonings on this point will be founded on truths already established, it is necessary to lay these truths before you again at one view. It has been proved that holiness radically consists in universal love, which fixes the heart supremely on God; that sin has its root in affections limited to a private circle, but chiefly in selfishness, including, as a main part, the love of the world; that every man makes either God or himself the object of his chief regard; that supreme selfishness necessarily produces enmity to God, to the utter exclusion of every better affection towards him; that they who do not love God supremely are destitute of true charity to man, and altogether without holiness; that this is the native character of all who are born into the world, whether in pagan or Christian countries.

Out of these truths arises the necessity of that moral change which is denominated regeneration. The reason of this necessity is here laid open to the core, and proves to be the same that our Saviour as

signed to the wondering Nicodemus. He had astonished that Jewish ruler with the solemn asseveration, "Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;" and while the Jew stood doubting and amazed, he added, as the sole ground of this necessity, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh;"* in other words, that which is born by natural generation is "carnal," is "enmity against God," and must be born again.

These truths disclose also the precise nature of the change which is necessary. It is a transition from supreme selfishness to universal love,-from enmity against God to supreme attachment to him. Of course it must be the greatest change that ever takes place in the human affections.

The first question that arises on the subject is whether regeneration is progressive or instantaneous. I shall attempt to prove, from the truths already established and from other considerations, that it must be instantaneous. It is not necessary however to suppose that the precise time is always known. Conceive of a man sitting in a dungeon, so occupied in thought as not to notice the change which is gradually produced by a light approaching at a distance. At length turning his eye he discerns objects, and perceives that light has been admitted into the room; but when it began to enter he cannot tell. Still there was a moment when the first ray passed the casement. So in the present case, the evidence of the change may be earlier or later in its appearance, and more or less rapid in its developement, but the change itself is always instantaneous. Is not such an idea more than implied in the text? What is the blessing promised? Not the gradual improvement of an old temper, but "a new spirit;"-"the stony heart" not softened by degrees into flesh, but by one decisive effort removed and a heart of flesh substituted in its room.

* John iii. 3. 6.

You are told by some that no other change is necessary than what is accomplished by reason, gradually resuming its empire over the appetites and passions. But this theory entirely overlooks the enmity of heart that refuses to yield to reason. It arrays its ethics against the grosser ebullitions of sin,but leaves the seat of the disorder untouched. You are told by others that through the influence of instruction, example, one's own exertions, and the common operations of the Spirit, the enmity is gradually weakened till it is destroyed, and the taste of the mind, as in many other cases, is brought over by degrees from aversion to love. But does not this and every other theory which recognises the principle of progressive regeneration, wholly overlook the nature of the disease and the real ground of the native enmity? The disease is supreme self-love; the ground of enmity, that God requires upon penalty of eternal death, that universal love which will fix the heart supremely on himself. This enmity will remain and exclude every particle of love as long as self-love is supreme. Now self-love will remain supreme till the chief regard is transferred to another object. But in the universe there is not another object to receive it but God himself. Self-love then will remain supreme, and support the enmity in all its vigour, till God is supremely loved. As long as the sinner loves himself chiefly he is the enemy of God, to the utter exclusion of every better affection towards him; the moment he ceases to love himself supremely his highest affection centres in God. There is no intermediate space. No time can elapse between the last moment in which he loves himself supremely and the first moment in which he does not.

You talk of the taste's being brought over by a gradual process from enmity to love; but can you find any step in that process at which the man does

not either love the world better than God or God better than the world? If he loves the world better than God he has made no progress at all; for "if any man love the world the love of the Father is not in him:" and if no love, there must be enmity: "He that is not with me is against me. "The friendship of the world is enmity with God; whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." "Either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other."* On the other hand, if he loves God better than the world, regeneration is consummated, and there is no room for progress. Either then he has made no advance or the work is complete. In every step of the supposed progress he is either an enemy to God or loves him supremely.

Yielding then the point that the man is an enemy to God till the change is complete, it may yet be asked, is not that enmity gradually weakened? It cannot be radically weakened till its cause is weakened, which is supreme self-love, (or more generally the love of the creature, for the social affections too may set up their objects in opposition,) struggling against the law and administration of God. But the love of the creature, (in which self-love is included,) cannot be weakened before the love of God is introduced. What is there to weaken it? If the heart is taken from the creature, it must be set on another object or be annihilated.

other object except God himself.

But there is no Before the love

of God therefore is implanted there is no way radically to weaken the enmity, but to weaken all the affections and reduce the soul nearer to a state of insensibility. And even then the love of the creature, (the sole cause of the hostility,) would exert as absolute a dominion as before, only over a weaker subject. Particular lusts may be absorbed in others,

*Mat. vi. 24. and xii. 30. James iv. 4. 1 John ii. 15.

but the current of sin is only turned into new channels. The passions may be more or less inflamed, and thus the actings of self-love more or less violent. By this means one may sin with a stronger hand than another of equal capacity. Again the passions may be allayed, and less guilt be incurred in an equal time; but the supreme love of the creature, which is the preparation in the soul for the future rage of all these passions, cannot be abated, (at least its dominion cannot be reduced,) but by that heavenly charity which fixes the heart supremely on God.

But you ask, may not new light thrown upon the conscience convince the mind of the unreasonableness of its opposition, and thus soothe and allay its enmity? I answer: by reasoning you may compose the passions of an angry man without at all changing his disposition. After you have succeeded in calming the risings of enmity against God. I ask, is the dominion of the limited affections in the least abated? This is the decisive question: for supreme attachment to the creature comprehends the root and essence of the whole disease. Now can you weaken the love of the creature by light? Or to confine the question to a part of the evil, can you by light and conscience weaken the power of selfishness? Can you reason a man out of his attachment to himself? Will all the light of the last day abate in the least the selfishness of the wicked? Will not light and conscience in their highest degrees act together in the regions of despair, without producing any other effect than rage and gnashing of teeth? No but the living, you say, possess hope. Hope! and can you then bribe a man to be less selfish? What, bribe a man to hate a bribe! If enmity against God were only a prejudice arising from a misconception of his true character, it might indeed be removed by light. In that case it would not be a sin but a virtue; for to hate a false image of God, in other words, a false