Like, that the world ever saw, because all the sins of all the world were accumulated in him, to receive their condemnation and their punishment. I do not know what men mean, when they use such language, and it is charitable to suppose that they do not know themselves. There is no danger of any one using it at the present day, and no need of proving its absurdity.

In the same manner the word ransom has been interpret ed literally, and some of the Christian Fathers taught that the sufferings of Christ were the ransom, or purchase-money, paid by God and received by the enemy of souls, the Devil, as the price of the sinner's release. We shall not follow such interpretations further; they belong to days gone by, and are a monument of human weakness.

The whole language which we have quoted we think means no more nor less than this: that Christ suffered for us, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. Whatever is expressed more than these words imply is figurative, and not literal. The sufferings and death of Christ were necessary as a means of our redemption from sin; they were therefore endured in consequence or on account of our sins; they were our ransom, the price paid for us, the cost of our deliverance. "The chastisement of our peace was laid upon him,” because this was the means through which our peace was obtained. "By his stripes we are healed," because the healing of our souls, in the forgiveness of our sins, is the result of that dispensation of which his sufferings were a needful part. “We are washed in his blood," because the shedding of his blood leads to our cleansing. He suffered and died in our stead, (although this is not a Scriptural expression because his sufferings and death save us from condemnation. As to all this language, there has been much disputing about words. I find in orthodox

creeds and books a great deal to which I cannot assent. But whenever I converse with individuals who receive such creeds, and learn what they mean by the words used, the differences gradually fade away. I believe that the majority of them hold in fact nearly the same doctrine which I have now explained. Even when they speak of a vicarious atonement, they very often mean no more than we can accept. There is a plain and real sense in which I can use that word, for it is true that Christ suffered for us, and by this means, through the grace of God, we escape the suffering which our sins would otherwise have brought upon us. If he had not come upon earth and fulfilled his ministry, we must have died in our sins, for we are not able to guide ourselves nor save ourselves, and it is through him alone that we come near to God. There may be others who believe more than these words convey, and who teach that the wrath of God was literally laid on Jesus Christ; but I seldom meet them, and think that their number is daily becoming less. For ourselves, we are satisfied to know that "God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The way for our return to God is open, and he is waiting to be gracious.

REGENERATION.

JESUS ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO HIM, VERILY, VERILY, I SAY UNTO THEE, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, HE CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD. THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE FLESH IS FLESH, AND THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT IS SPIRIT.- John iii. 3, 6.

OUR subject this evening is the Christian doctrine of Regeneration, or the new birth; the nature of the change implied in those words, the means and agency by which it is produced, and the evidences by which we may judge of its reality. It is a subject whose importance all Christians acknowledge, for whatever views we take of it, as theologians, we must admit that in practical religion every thing depends upon its application. To ask who is regenerate is to ask who is a Christian. To become regenerate is to become a Christian. We may dispute as to what the new birth is, but we cannot dispute the Saviour's words, that "unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." There are some persons who suppose that Unitarians deny this doctrine. But there could not be a greater mistake. It would be the same as denying that a man can become a Christian, or that there is any real difference between good men and bad, between those who serve God and those who serve him not. There are some

explanations of the doctrine which we reject, because they are unsound and unscriptural, but we do not reject the doctrine itself.

For example, we do not believe in an instantaneous and miraculous change, by virtue of which he who is at one moment totally depraved can become in the next one of God's saints. But we do believe, that by the blessing of God a radical change may begin at any time, by which the direction of a man's life may be changed from that which leads downward to that which leads upward.

We do not believe that this change will always be accompanied, either with the panic of an agonized conscience, or the ecstasies of rejoicing, but that its inward experience will be different in different individuals, according to their various temperament and education, to the degrees of their guilt, and to the influences under which they have been placed. The outward evidences of the change will also differ in an equal degree. I have seen men at a campmeeting under such strong excitement, that they have been tied, hand and foot, to prevent them from some bodily injury ; others pass through an equally strong experience, to whom the kingdom of God comes without observation. We do not deny the reality of the change effected in either case. We must judge of them both, as we judge of the tree, by its fruit. We give our preference indeed to the latter, because observation leads us to distrust all violent excitements. There is danger that they will not last, and that the spiritual fever will be followed by a corresponding and perhaps fatal prostration. This is particularly true, where the excitemen' is produced by artificial means, by the sympathy of crowds and the appliances of fear. At such times men are carried beyond their own convictions, and are very liable to be deceived as to their real feelings. The result very often is,

that after a few days they see every thing in a different light, and sometimes the Scripture is fulfilled in them, that the last stage of such men is worse than the first. We have greater confidence in the change which comes through the quietness of thought. It may promise less at first, but will accomplish more in the end. It may be accompanied with less of the rapture of religious triumph, but it is more likely to bring us to that peace which passeth all understanding. For such reasons, we do not enter into what are called "revivals of religion," and the protracted meetings by which they are generally excited. Our observation of them has not been favorable to their permanent usefulness. It is not that we deny the change of heart which is needed in becoming a Christian, nor that we would limit the action of God's spirit in producing it. We may rightly pray to him, “Revive thy work in the midst of the years"; and in the progress of every religious society, as in the experience of every individual, there will be times of awakening, in which the lukewarm become zealous, and the cold-hearted and sinful are rebuked. Such seasons of refreshing, when they come from the use of the ordinary Gospel means, are always to be welcomed, and their result is always good. But when they are brought on almost forcibly, by the use of what we may call religious machinery, it is quite a different thing. They are artificial in their origin and unnatural in their result. Their good effect, which seems at first very great, is seldom permanent. I have known instances in which, out of a hundred converts, less than one tenth held fast to their profession for six months. In such cases the evil is greater than the good, and it is from the fear of such results that we prefer more quiet modes of proceeding.

Once more: we believe that every real change in the