ture can consist together, and in what manner we are to modify the sense of the one by the other. Here we come to the grand principle of interpretation; namely; that the Bible, taken as a whole, must explain itself. How then does the Bible account for the fact, that some men are holy, while the generality are sinful? Does it ever represent them to be holy by nature? No, never. It may sometimes speak of their being holy, as a matter of fact simply, without assigning the cause of it. But in other places, it does, with the greatest explicitness, account for this fact. It represents the children of God as being holy, in consequence of regeneration. They who are in Christ, are new creatures. Old things are passed away; all things are become new. The Bible teaches all who are holy, to ascribe their holiness to the newcreating Spirit of God; while it represents their natural character to be like that of others, and describes it in the same language. So that the exception made in their favour does not respect their own native character, but the new character which they possess in consequence of being born of the Spirit. The principle I am contending for, may be easily illustrated by natural things. It may be said of a certain species of shrub or tree, for example, the thorn-bush, that it bears no useful fruit; although in consequence of a scion being ingrafted into it from another tree, it may bear fruit that is delicious and salutary. Still the proper nature of the shrub, and the just description of it, remain the same; and we never think of representing it as a property of the thorn-bush, that it bears delicious fruit. Thus in the

passages above referred to, the universal terms which describe human wickedness, instead of being limited as Dr. Ware proposes, are truly applicable to all men without exception, in regard to their own proper, original char

acter. Those who are now Christians, are naturally subjects of the same depravity with others; and their being different now is owing to "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Here we are furnished with an easy answer to some of Dr. Ware's questions, p. 38. "Let it be asked," he says, “why the cruelty and obstinacy of Pharaoh, rather than the humanity, and piety, and meekness of Moses; why the idolatry, and unprincipled ambition and selfishness of Jeroboam, rather than the piety, and tenderness of conscience, and public spirit of Josiah; why the single wretch who was so base as to betray his master, rather than the eleven who were true and faithful to him, should be selected as specimens of the race to which they belong?" The answer is, that all these vices and iniquities are the natural, spontaneous growth of human nature. They are what the Apostle calls "the fruits of the flesh;"-of that flesh which, according to John iii. 6, belongs to us by our natural birth; while the virtues enumerated are the fruits of the Spirit, or the effects of that divine influence, by which men are delivered from their natural character, and made new creatures. Those men are justly selected, as specimens of the race to which they belong, who are just what their own proper nature makes them, or whose traits of character result from their own moral constitution or nature, unchanged by the Spirit of God. But it would be obviously unjust to select, as specimens of our race, or of the moral character which properly belongs to us, those who are what they are, not by nature, but by grace, or by the new-creating Spirit of God. And if the Bible is made its own interpreter, this must be allowed to be fact with regard to every human being who is the subject of holiness. But the case which Dr. Ware afterwards brings into view, is

altogether different. He asks, "would you select the period of seven years' famine, as an example of the usual fertility of Egypt? The desolating pestilence in the days of David, as a fair specimen of the salubrity of the climate of Israel?" I answer, no. Because the famine does not show the proper character of the soil of Egypt, nor the pestilence, of the climate of Israel. They were real exceptions to what was natural; and Dr. Ware cannot justly adduce them, as he does, unless he can show, that great depravity is as foreign to the moral nature of man, as the famine was to the soil in one case, and the pestilence to the climate in the other.

CHAPTER VII.

Dr. Ware's reply to the argument from John iii. 3. Rom. v. 12. Ephes. ii. 3.

DR. WARE is convinced that the universal necessity of regeneration, asserted in John iii. 3, may consist with original innocency. Still, in his apprehension, the passage implies "the absence or want of that which was necessary to becoming a subject of the kingdom of God;" p. 41; or as he expresses it, p. 42, "that men do not possess by birth that character of personal holiness, which is necessary to their being Christians." Let the reader consider a moment the consistency between this, and what is found in other places. Here, he says of all who are born into the world in every age, that they are by birth destitute of that holiness which is necessary to their being Christians. But soon after, p. 47, he affirms, that "those now born into the world in Christian lands, are as the Ephesians were after their conversion to

Christianity, saved-quickened-fellow-citizens of the saints." What he has written on this point, taken together, stands thus. According to one place, men by their birth receive no moral character. According to another, they are destitute of that which is necessary to their becoming subjects of God's kingdom. And according to a third, "Jews and Gentiles were by nature, what they were before they became Christians.". But here, p. 47, men are Christians by birth. In that very state in which they are born, instead of being as before described, without a moral character of any kind, they have a character that is good. Instead of wanting that which is necessary to their becoming subjects of the kingdom of God, as before, they are by their birth, of the household of God, fellow-heirs with the saints. Instead of being by their birth destitute of holiness, they are subjects of holiness, quickened, sanctified, as the Ephesians were after they became Christians. Little children or infants, generally, instead of being mere human beings, without any disposition or propensity whatever, "are what men are to become by regeneration." p. 31.

I hope the reader will not attribute these contradictions to the fault of Dr. Ware's understanding, so much as to the fault of the system, which he has the misfortune to defend. A man like him would not expose himself in this manner, if his cause did not mislead him. With this apology for him, let me proceed to a few more observations on these remarkable passages, compared together.

In p. 41, men are represented as "reasonable, accountable beings by their natural birth." If accountable beings, they are moral agents, they are under the divine law, and must be judged according to that law. And

this is the same as saying, they will be condemned, if they are not conformed to the law, and approved, if conformed to it. But while treating the same subject in other places, our Author gives us "reasonable, accountable beings," or moral agents, who have nothing in their disposition or character which is either right or wrong, and nothing for which they can be judged. Accountable beings, without any thing, either good or bad, for which they are accountable! Moral agents, without moral affections!

According to Dr. Ware's statements, it would seem that the circumstances of our birth have an astonishing and mysterious efficacy as to the formation of moral character. Those who are born in Christian lands are, by birth, what the converted Ephesians were,-Christians, children of God, heirs of heaven. But the moment you pass the line which bounds Christendom, and enter a pagan land, you find it quite different. There, in consequence of an arrangement of divine providence, in which human beings could have no agency, and over which they could have no power, they are born without any moral disposition; and of course are destitute of that holiness, which is necessary to their being admitted into Christ's kingdom; so that it is plainly necessary that they should be born again,-should undergo "a great moral change," and form "a new character." But here in Christendom, it is not so. Either the atmosphere of a Christian land, or the character and privileges of their parents, or some other causes have so salutary an influence upon their birth, that they possess at once, as soon as they are born, the character of converts. They are sanctified, quickened, and members of God's household, by their natural birth. So that, in regard to them, regeneration is not necessary. They are as good by their