GPS-08-The New Birth
CHAPTER VIII. THE NEW BIRTH.
We have said that persons enter the church of God in one way, and in only one way. In this we are sustained by the positive statement of Jesus himself. In a conversation with Nicodemus on this subject, He said: “Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3. And in the 5th verse He said: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” By the phrase “kingdom of God,” here, He meant the church of God, or system of government established by God’s authority on the earth. To this, we suppose, all agree. When we speak of entering the kingdom of God, then, we do not mean heaven, the holiest of all into which Jesus, our adorable High Priest, hath for us entered, but the kingdom established on the earth, on the day of Pentecost. Into this kingdom or church he that is not born again can not enter. This kingdom is a system of government, and those who enter it must be subjects of government, capable of understanding and obeying its laws. Infants, idiots, and irresponsible persons are not such; it was not, therefore, established for them, and their salvation is not suspended upon an entrance into it. Jesus says: “Of such is the kingdom of heaven”—that is, of such as they are now, without being born again. Having seen that a man must be born again, in order to enter the kingdom, and that it is the office of the new birth to introduce the party born into the kingdom, it follows that a more important subject never engaged the attention of man; we will therefore, examine it carefully, and somewhat in detail in the hope that the class of persons for whose benefit we write may ponder well what may be said, and that some good may be done in the name of Jesus. The first thing necessary to a birth is parentage. There must be a father and a mother, or there can be nothing born. Who, then, can be our spiritual parents? Paul salutes the brethren to whom he wrote, thus: “Grace, to you and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1 : l; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:2; Philem. 3. In all these places, Paul, in the same words, recognizes God as our Father; and Jesus taught His disciples to address God, in prayer, as “Our Father who art in heaven.” Matthew 6:9. John says: “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.” And again: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God.”1 John 3:1-2. Other scripture might be quoted, but these are sufficient to identify our Father with great clearness. Paul, in his allegory with reference to the two covenants, tells us that “Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Galatians 4:26. This heavenly Jerusalem, answering in the allegory to the free woman, is our spiritual mother; hence, in the 31st verse, he says: “So, then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” But, before there can be a spiritual birth, the subject must have been begotten. Man is begotten of his father and born of his mother, both physically and spiritually. He is not born of his father, at all, either at the same time when born of the mother or at any other time. The father may have been in his grange long ere the child is born, and how he is born of his father when born of his mother, is not very clear to us. John says: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.” 1 John 5:1. Also, verse 18th, it is said: “We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself.” In keeping with the Bible Union and Anderson’s translations, we have exchanged the word born for begotten, in each of the verses quoted, and we venture to state further that there is not a place in the New Testament where the words “born of God” occurs, that a faithful translation would not render “begotten of God.” In no place will the Spirit’s teaching, faithfully translated, represent us as born of God—born of our Father. Such a thought is absurd in the very nature of things; and no one who understands the new birth, or the natural birth, from which the figure was drawn, will entertain such a thought or use such language. But to proceed. Peter speaks of his brethren as “being born [begotten] again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” 1 Peter 1:23. Here we learn that the word of God is the spiritual seed with which persons are spiritually begotten. And in order that we may be begotten of this incorruptible seed, our Father has ordained that human agents shall preach it to the world. Hence, in this sense, Paul calls Timothy and Titus his sons in the common faith; and also to the Corinthians, he said: “In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” 1 Corinthians 4:15. Then, when Paul preached the word of God, gospel, or incorruptible seed, to the Corinthians, and they believed and received it, they were begotten of God, and Paul speaks of them as having been begotten of him through the gospel, because he was the person through whom God made known the gospel to them. Hence says James: “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.” James 1:18. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation only to those who believe it; but “how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” Romans 10:14. So, then, “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” 1 Corinthians 1:21. Then, when a man believes the gospel, is he not born again? “Devils believe and tremble.” James 2:19. They also acknowledge Jesus the Son of God. Mark 3:11. Were they born again? “Among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” John 12:42-43. There are now many such as these chief rulers were then; are they born again? If a man be born again when he first believes the gospel, when is he begotten, and where are the elements of birth—water and Spirit —of which Jesus said he should be born? John says Jesus “came unto his own, and his own received him not: but to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John 1:11-12. Jesus came to His own prepared people, and many of them did not receive Him, or believe on Him; but to as many of them as did receive Him by believing on his name, He gave the power or privilege of becoming sons of God. Believing on His name, then, did not make them sons, but prepared them to become sons. When a man believes the gospel, and with meekness receives it into a good and honest heart, he is then begotten of God, and is prepared to be born. The vital principle is then implanted in the heart; but he is no more born again at that time than he was physically born the moment he was conceived. As it is not the office of a birth to give life, but to BRING the subject to the enjoyment of life previously possessed in a different state, so without being begotten by the Father through the gospel, and thus having the principle of life implanted in the heart, the subject born would be dead when born, if it were possible for him to be born at all. When he is spiritually begotten, he may avail himself of the means of God’s appointment for a birth, and be born into the kingdom, or he may refuse them, as he may elect. In this particular there is no analogy between a physical and a spiritual birth. In the former we have no agency in being begotten or born, nor is either in the least under our control, in the latter both are to a considerable extent, under the control of the subject. He may (as many do) refuse to hear the gospel at all, or he may refuse to believe it after he has heard it. If he believes it not, his doom was pronounced by Jesus when He said, “He that believeth not shall be damned.” He may also refuse to obey it after he has believed it; if so, he “believes in vain,” and his faith is dead, not having been made perfect by obedience. Faith causes us to love and fear God, and desire to do His will; it also causes us to hate sin because it is contrary to His will; hence Peter, in speaking of the conversion of the Gentiles, said that God “put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Acts 15:9. This, the effect of faith, is what is called a change of heart, and must precede the new birth. But a change of heart is one thing—the new birth a different thing. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus will make apparent the truth of this Position. While he was “yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, he went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues, that if be found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven, and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutes” thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutes”.” Acts 9: 1-5. It will be seen that Saul set out on his journey with his heart filled with bitterness against the disciples, and thought he was doing right to persecute and punish them. Jesus convinced him by a miracle that He was what He professed to be. Saul’s faith was changed from believing that Jesus was an impostor to the belief of the truth that He was the Son of God. This change in his faith produced a corresponding change in his heart, and he abandoned his errand of persecution, and was willing to become a disciple himself. He was then begotten of God; but was he born again? If this was the birth, when and where were the elements of birth with which he then came in contact? Three days hence he was born of water and of the Spirit, in obedience to a divine command given him by Ananias: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16. His heart was changed by the way, but he was born again three days afterward. Faith produces repentance, and repentance changes the practices of the subject—causes him to cease doing evil and commence doing right—but he is not yet born again. His heart may be as submissive to God’s will as it can ever get to be; yes, he may be a worshiper of God to the best of his knowledge, and still not be born again. The new birth does not consist in a reformation of life. An examination of the character of Cornelius will give proof of this: “There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. He saw in a vision evidently, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and shine alms are come up for a memorial before God.” Acts 10:14. Here was a devoted, charitable, praying, and God-fearing man, quite as good as the best of our day, as far as reformation of life can make them good, and yet he was not born again. But says an objector, “He was born again, for he saw an angel that told him so.” Not exactly: he did see and converse with an angel that told him his prayers and his alms were coming up for a memorial before God, and he told him more than this—” Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and thy house shall be saved.” Acts 11:13-14. Was he born again and still unsaved? The promise “shall be saved” clearly shows that he was unsaved; and not only so, but he was to hear words of Peter by which he was to be saved. Was he saved by the words before he heard them? If so, why did not the angel shape the language thus: “who shall tell thee words by which you are or have been saved.” If he was at that time born again, it follows that there is no salvation in being born again, for it is as clear as language can make any thing, that he was not then saved, in the gospel sense of that word. If he was born again when the angel appeared to him, he was born again without ever having heard the gospel, and therefore without gospel faith. Peter, in alluding to this matter, said that “God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” Acts 15:7. Then Cornelius had neither heard the gospel nor believed it until Peter preached it to him, and surely a cause must be desperate that could assume that he was born again prior to that time. Then as his conduct was as good before birth as after it, it follows that the birth did not consist in a reformation of life in this case. A birth contemplates a change of state—a transition or passing from one state to another. A change of state, then, and the beginning of a new life, is the thought conveyed by the expression “born again,” and we have the same thought presented by Paul, in his epistles, in other figures, varied to suit the circumstances under which he wrote. He expresses it by the figure of marriage, Romans 7:4; by the figure of grafting, Romans 11:24; by the figure of adoption, Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5; and by the figure of translation from one government to another, Colossians 1:13. If an individual be married to Christ, his state is changed—he is born again. If he be taken from the wild olive-tree and grafted into the tame olive-tree, or from the world and grafted into Christ, the true Vine, his state is changed—he is born again. If he be taken—as a child—from one family and adopted into another, the family of God, his state is changed—he is born again. If he renounce his allegiance to one government, the devil’s, and be legally translated into another, the kingdom of God’s dear Son, his state is changed—he is born again. We might amplify each of these figures of speech, and show the correctness of the Position assumed; but our space will only allow us to use a single one of the illustrations given: A gentleman visits and seeks the hand of a lady under unfavorable circumstances, and is rejected. There may be a single cause or many causes co-operating to produce his rejection. She may be unfavorably impressed with his character, or she may worship at the shrine of another, whose heart she hopes to win, or both causes may cooperate in producing his rejection. Circumstances change, however, and she finds her first suitor an unworthy man, and she becomes disgusted by him. Meanwhile, she learns more of the character of the man she rejected, and finds him chaste in his conversation, courteous, polite, and accomplished in manners—that a social, warm, and undissembling heart controls him—that he has a mind well stored with valuable information—that he has descended from a good family—and, above all, that he is possessed of inexhaustible wealth. A knowledge of these facts changes her heart, and she now admires and loves the man she once rejected. She receives him gladly, and is willing to become the sharer of his prosperity or adversity through life, but she is not yet his wife. Though her heart is changed, her state is not; she was in the single or unmarried state, at first, and is so yet. The parents may consent, the license be secured, the proper officer be present for the solemnization of the nuptials, the supper prepared and the wedding furnished with guests, and still she is not married; and were the process here arrested, she would not be entitled to the privileges of his house, to wear his name, or to inherit his estate. When she is married and her state legally changed, then, and not till then, is she entitled to all these privileges growing out of the new relation. Now for the application. The gospel is preached to the sinner—he is in love with the transient pleasures afforded in the service of the devil. The carpenter’s Son, born in Bethlehem and cradled in a manger, has no charms for him. By-and-by he finds that the pleasures of sin are deceptive, and the devil, in whose service he delighted, has nothing with which to reward him but misery and woe. Meanwhile he learns more of Him who proposes to save all who will come to God by Him. He finds Him so chaste in conversation, that guile is not found in His mouth; so amiable in disposition, that when He is reviled He reviles not again, and yet so powerful, that the furious winds and boisterous waves are calm at His bidding, the grave yields up the dead to live again, and devils tremble at His word; the waters are firm as a pavement beneath His majestic tread, God is His Father, and He the only Son and Heir to all things—He is chief among ten thousand and altogether lovely. With faith like this, he can not fail to feel grieved that he ever loved the devil or his service, because he is the enemy of Him whom he now loves supremely. Surely, his heart is now changed—is he born again? If so, there is no fitness in the figure, for he is not married yet. Though his heart is changed, his state is not; and if he stops at this point, he can no more claim the Christian name and character than can the unmarried woman claim the name and patrimony of him to whom she is espoused. But it is insisted that this change of heart is the new birth, and (strange enough, too) the same persons insist that we have no change of heart, and deny the importance of it, when, in reality, we have their change of heart and new birth, in our change of heart. We insist that we must not only love our betrothed, but we must be married to the Bridegroom according to law, before we can claim the privileges of His bride. He will not permit us to live with Him in adultery if we were so disposed. A change of heart, then, is not a change of state; it must precede the new birth, but it is not the new birth. The language “born again,” was unique when used by Christ to Nicodemus. No inspired man had used such language before: is there any reason for its use then? The Jews believed that Jesus had come to re-establish the kingdom of David and literally sit on his throne on the earth; hence when he entered Jerusalem, on one occasion, “They that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Mark 11:9-10. And even His apostles did not understand the nature of His kingdom until after they received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and were by it guided into all truth. “When they therefore came together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” Acts 1:6. It is not unreasonable that Nicodemus had the same mistaken views of the kingdom, and he knew well that he was born into that kingdom, and had a right to citizenship in it by virtue of Abrahamic parentage; and being “a ruler of the Jews,” “a master of Israel,” he may have expected to be entitled to an office in Christ’s kingdom on that account. Jesus corrects this mistake by telling him that the kingdom of God was not to be entered in that way; but as a birth gave him entrance into that, he must be born again to enter this. There is much speculation about the import of this language; but as Jesus attempted to explain the matter to Nicodemus, and then asked, “Art thou a master of Israel and knowest not these things?” we are encouraged to approach the examination of the subject in the belief that He intended to be understood, and, as “a teacher come from God,” He was competent to make clear what He attempted to explain. Let us, then, take up the language in which the conversation is recorded, and see whether or not we may understand it: “There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.” So reads the first verse, and from it we learn that, at one time in the world’s history, there lived a man whose name was Nicodemus; that he belonged to the sect of the Jews’ religion called the Pharisees; and that he was a distinguished personage or ruler among the Jews. 2d verse: “The same (Nicodemus) came to Jesus by night (not in daylight) and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” Here we learn that Nicodemus was convinced by the miracles which Jesus did that He was really a teacher come from God. This is all plain; let us try again. 3d verse: “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God.” Here we learn, not how a man may be born again, but the indispensable necessity of being born again in order to see or enjoy the privileges and blessings of the kingdom of God. 4th verse: “Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” Here we find that Nicodemus knew nothing of but one birth, and this was a birth of the flesh, and that he could not understand how a man, when old, could be born in this way; he therefore asks an explanation, ’How can a man be born when he is old?” Jesus attempts to tell him how it can be; hence the 5th verse: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Here we learn that the elements of birth are water and Spirit, and that a man must be born of both to be born again—not born of water and begot ten by the Spirit, as some translations would indicate, but he must be born of both to be born at all. How is he to be born of water and of the Spirit? One answers that he must get religion in the altar, grove, or elsewhere, and being then baptized with the Spirit, he is born of the Spirit, and after a time he is baptized in water and is then born of water. Well, this theory makes baptism in water indispensable to entering the kingdom. Will the reader think of this? It also makes two births where there should be but one. The language is born again, not again and again, or twice more—once at the altar and once at the creek. This is not all; the order is transposed. Jesus said born of water and of the Spirit; this theory says born of the Spirit and of water. It is out of joint at every angle. Another theory says that we are “born of water when we are born into the world, and born of the Spirit when we get religion.” This will provoke a smile on the face of our readers; but it is taught by men of lofty pretensions, and must be noticed, whether worthy of respect or not, because it is regarded important by those who present it. It makes the answer of Jesus wholly inapplicable to the question asked by Nicodemus, who did not inquire how a child had been born into the world, but “How can a man be born when he is old? The answer was, not that you have once been born of water, and must be born again of the Spirit, hut you must be born again. How? Of water AND of the Spirit. Another theory makes that part of the Saviour’s language which applies to the Spirit apply to the belief of the gospel at the time the subject is spiritually begotten. While this theory may not be, practically, as mischievous as those already noticed, it is quite as unphilosophic and foreign from the truth as any one of them. It breaks up the order of the Lord’s arrangement and takes the term Spirit, which comes after water, and places it in theory as far before water as faith precedes baptism. If this be the thought, it occurs to us that the Lord was unfortunate in the selection of terms in which to express it. It would have been as easy to have said, a man must be begotten by the Spirit and born of water, as he have said what He did say. But we are told that the Greek word genneethee, here rendered born, is elsewhere rendered begotten, and hence may have that meaning here. We grant that it is often so rendered; but should it be so rendered here? If so, it must mean begotten as to water as well as Spirit, and hence the process is all begetting, and there is no birth about it. Is any one prepared for this? Will he render the passage, “begotten of water and of the Spirit?” But may not the word genneethee mean begotten as to Spirit and born as to water? It must be thus divided in meaning, to fit the theory; and hence our neighbors may be right in saying that eis [for], in Acts 2:38, means in order to as to repentance, but because of as to baptism. Such renderings are at war with all rules of exegesis on the subject. THE SENSE OF A WORD CAN NOT BE DIVERSE OR MULTIFORM AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME PLACE. Ernesti, p. 9. Again: IN NO LANGUAGE CAN A WORD HAVE MORE THAN ONE LITERAL MEANING IN THE SAME PLACE. Ernesti, p. 11. According to these rules, we may translate genneethee either begotten OR born, as the sense may require, but we can not translate it by both in one place; yet we might as well so render it in words as in theory. Let those who do so, agree with our neighbors that baptidzontes means sprinkle, pour, AND immerse, in Matthew 28 : l9. If we may thus bifurcate the meaning of genneethee, in John 3:5, and make it mean both begotten AND born at the same time and in the same place, then we may as well have an end to all rules of interpretation, and no longer complain of others for doing that which we do ourselves. Surely, Jesus understood the figure He employed; and if so, the theory is wrong. To be begotten of God is entirely a different thing from being born of water and of the Spirit. He who believes the gospel, and is truly begotten of God, is not half born, but has the full measure of a birth of water and of the Spirit between him and the kingdom of God, and must be born of BOTH to be born at all. Begetting must precede a birth, but it is no part of a birth. But as one error often begets others, so this theory has led to the notion that “regeneration and the new birth are identical.” Generate means to beget; re, as a prefix, means again. Hence regenerate must mean to beget again. Born means brought forth, and born again is synonymous with reborn, hence, if language means any thing, to regenerate or beget again is one thing, and reborn or born again is a different thing. Physically, a man is generated or begotten and subsequently born; spiritually, he is regenerated ( i.e., begotten again ), and subsequently reborn ( i.e., born again). Regeneration is the beginning, that may end in salvation. We are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5. The washing that belongs to or follows regeneration is not regeneration. The regenerated man may be born again—no one else can be; but it is re-birth, not regeneration, that reaches salvation.
But our question is yet unanswered, and having been gone from it so long, we must repeat it, lest it may have been forgotten: How is a man born of water and of the Spirit? We answer that he is born of water as a means appointed by the Spirit for a birth. How is a man begotten of God? Not literally. How then? He is begotten with the word of truth, the gospel, as the means appointed for this purpose. Then why not a man be born of the Spirit when born of water as the means appointed by the Spirit for a birth? Baptism is the act by which we are placed in and delivered from the water, according to the teaching of the Spirit, and thus we are born of water and of the Spirit; hence we are “buried with him in baptism, wherein also we are risen with him.” Colossians 2:12. To be, if possible, more plain—to be born contemplates a delivery, a coming forth from one state into another. Then were we to immerse a man in water, without faith, repentance, or any thing else ( as we are often accused of doing), when delivered from the water he would be born of water, but not of water and of the Spirit, because the process was not in accordance with the teaching of the Spirit; then it is equally clear that if born of water, as taught by the Spirit, he is born of water and of the Spirit. But we are told that the word water, in the sentence “water and of the Spirit,” does not mean water; and one quibbler will say it means grace, another that it means Spirit; and a third will say that he does not know what it means, but it can not mean water, for then he must be bap- tized or into the kingdom of God he can not go—and his theory tells him baptism is a non-essential. So the word of the Lord is made to bend to suit the theory instead of giving shape to the theory. But we are told that the Greek particle kai, here rendered and, is sometimes rendered “even” and that this sentence should read thus: “Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit,” etc. It is true that the word is sometimes so rendered, but can it be rendered “even,” in this connection? And is the primary meaning of the word, and the rules of translation give preference to the primary meaning, unless the sense requires its removal. Does the sense require that and should give place to even, in the sentence before us? Theories may require such a change, but the sense does not either require or allow it. The word water has no qualifying term, and wherever we find water, whether in the Jordan or elsewhere, we have the proper element. But not so of the Spirit. It is made definite, the Spirit—not spirit, a spirit, some spirit, or any spirit, but the Spirit. “Born of water and of the Spirit”—immersed in and born of water, according to the teaching of the Spirit. How perfect the sense! But another tells us that the word water is exegetical of the word Spirit; hence to be born of water and of the Spirit, is to be born of the Spirit like an overflow of water. Whoever saw an exegesis given in advance of the word explained? We feel ashamed that it is necessary to notice such quibbles as these. Suppose a man living at the time the Saviour was on the earth, who had witnessed the many immersions performed in those days, had heard Jesus say, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of God,” and he had no theory or prepossessions to give shape to his conclusions, but had to form them only by the language used, would he conclude that the word water meant grace, Spirit, or any thing else but water~ Would he not more likely conclude, with Wesley, Clarke, and others, that it had reference to water baptism? Is there a man out of the lunatic asylum who can believe that any one of these quibbles would ever have been thought of had it not been necessary to devise some means to save some theory from being destroyed by the obvious meaning of the Saviour’s language? There were two questions asked by Nicodemus, in the 4th verse: The first, “How can a man be born when he is old?” Jesus answered as we have seen in the 5th verse. The second question, “Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” shows that he had entirely mistaken the kind of birth required. This mistake Jesus corrects, in the 6th verse, by saying: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”—as much as to say to him: “You are thinking of a birth of the flesh, and a second birth of this character would be indeed impossible. But I am speaking of a moral transition of the spiritual or inner man. The man born again is the same physical man as he was before, but the temper and disposition of the inner man are not like they were before. ‘That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.’ Seeing your difficulty grows out of a failure to recognize the existence of an invisible or ’inner man’ (Ephesians 3:16) dwelling in ’our earthly house of this tabernacle’ (2 Corinthians 5:1), and which is the subject of the change produced by the new birth, I will use an illustration which will make plain the fact just stated, that ’that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,’ hence the 8th verse, ’The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.’“ The mist and fog that men have thrown around this verse envelop it in darkness thick as that with which God cursed the land of Egypt. And we are of the opinion that most of it has grown out of a failure to keep before the mind the difficulty under which Nicodemus was laboring, for the removal of which Jesus introduced the illustration, and failing to get the point in the comparison at the right place. We once listened to a very eloquent man through a labored effort to explain the new birth, at the close of which he said that this verse was designed to teach us that the new birth is incomprehensible to all finite minds. Others can see that it teaches the doctrine of abstract and mysterious spiritual operations; others say that, as the wind blows down a large oak, and leaves others standing around it, so the Spirit is partial in its operations, converting one or two out of the many who were with him or them at the mourner’s bench. Jesus did not say, “So is the Spirit,” or “So is the operation of the Spirit”—no such comparison was made or intended. Others say that the language was addressed to Nicodemus, and is not appli- cable to us at all, because we can tell where the wind comes from and where it goes to. “He bringeth the wind out of his treasure.” Psalms 135:7. “Who hath gathered the wind in his fist.” Proverbs 30:4. And what is gained by these quotations? Where is God’s treasure from whence the wind comes? and where is His fist in which it is gathered? But suppose we can tell where the wind comes from and goes to, what light has been thrown on the new birth by the discovery? We confess ourself unable to see any at all. If we go back to the 4th verse and see the difficulty in the mind of Nicodemus to be a second birth of the flesh, then come to the correction given to this mistake in the 6th verse—”That which is born of the Spirit is spirit”—and then regard the 8th verse as an illustration used to teach the existence of an invisible principle or spiritual man, which is changed by the new birth, then, it seems to us, there need be no difficulty in understanding the matter. We have seen many translations of this verse, quite a number of which we have before us at this writing; and it is worthy of note that, whether the Greek pneuma be rendered wind or spirit, the illustrative qualities of the figure are still the same: they are both invisible—recognized by sound and not by sight. “So is every one that is born of the Spirit”—it being spirit that is so born. While the kingdom was yet in prospect, Jesus taught the people by parables and figures; but after its establishment, figures gave place to facts, commands, and promises. Jesus commissioned his apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, promising salvation to those who would believe and obey it. He also promised them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, and enable them to unerringly perform the work He had assigned them. When it came, they began to preach as it inspired them —persons were cut to the heart and made to cry out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter did not tell them to be born again, because the time for figures had passed; he therefore said to them: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Acts 2:38. Thus he told them plainly, without a figure, to do that which would translate them into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, and produce that change of state indicated by the figurative language of Jesus as used in the conversation with Nicodemus when He said: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” When Peter thus addressed them, “they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Now, are they born again? Surely, they are. When were they born again? Just when they did what Peter commanded them to do. Then, if they were born again when they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, will you not be born again when you do as they did? and if it took this to introduce them into the kingdom of God then, will any thing less do you now?