This was natural: but what I wish to notice more particularly is, that with whatever particular view his Gospel was composed, St. John seems in its preparation to have taken occasion to mention many things, which, now that the religion had been some time established, and its doctrines were familiar to the disciples, were become intelligible or interesting; but which, if proposed to view in the earlier accounts of our Lord's teaching, would have been incomprehensible, and perhaps revolting. I will not say that there are no instances of similar memorials in the first Evangelists but that, which occurs occasionally in them, is continually observable in St. John. In addition to texts more obviously prophetical, there are many doctrinal passages, besides the one before us, of which the interpretation must be sought in a mode of reasoning similar to that by which we infer the adaptation of the prophecy to the event; and which could have conveyed but very indistinct notions, if any, of their meaning, at the time they were delivered. Take, for instance, the

declaration in this very conference with Nicodemus, that as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. To us this remarkable passage, apart from its prophetic use, and considered simply as a just description of the manner and the effects of Christ's death, has a plain and obvious meaning: but it must, I think, be admitted, that it would have been no easy matter, at the time it was delivered, for the best instructed scribe to discover in this allusion the Saviour of the world, suffering upon the cross for the sins of men, and becoming the means of salvation to all, who should in faith look to him for help. Still less we know was his further assertion, that, when lifted up from the earth, he should draw all men to him, understood by those to whom it was addressed. And the same may be observed of many other passages, the more particular notice of which would be here out of place.

z John iii. 14, 15.

a John xii. 32.

But, as I have observed, the particular points to which I would attract your notice, are, the frequency of these passages in John, compared with the other Evangelists; and the space they occupy in that part of his Gospel which contains matter peculiar to him And that for this reason; that I think they justify, as applied to the discourses of our Lord recorded by him generally, the mode of interpretation for which I am contending in the passage before us. It is not for a particular occasion, but as throwing light upon the whole body of St. John's Gospel, that I would insist upon it. It is, I think, a peculiar and distinguishable feature of many of our Lord's sayings recorded by the beloved disciple, even of those which refer to points of doctrine, that they required the existence of something future to render them intelligible; and that of course, when made, they were as unintelligible, as they would be still, if separated from the key of the

event.

But they are fully intelligible to us for whom they were written, because we pos

sess the key, which those to whom they were spoken, wanted. And this seems to be a sufficient and satisfactory answer to the objection, which would preclude our interpretation of our Lord's language, as referring to Baptism, on the ground of Baptism itself not being expressly mentioned in it.

But further, and in reference to the admitted design of St. John, to supply deficiencies on remarkable points of doctrine It does not appear from any thing recorded by the Apostles, or delivered down by the tradition of the church, that the doctrine of a spiritual regeneration, or renovation only, was encumbered with any difficulties, which should have made it important to preserve the memorial of our Lord's discourse with Nicodemus. Supposing our Lord to mean only that a great change of heart and life was necessary for an ultimately effectual admission to the kingdom of heaven, there seems to have been little necessity for recalling to mind, and preserving in the Evangelical history, the particular metaphor which puzzled the master in

Israel. We obtain no new information from it, nor can it be said to aid us in the acceptance or the comprehension of a doctrine so familiar to us, as to run through every page of the Gospel. The spiritual change of regeneration, in the sense of those who would disconnect it from Baptism, has no difficulty in it. No difficulty, I mean, to them who admit the Christian doctrine of the agency of the Holy Ghost. Whereas, on the supposition that the outward sign, as well as the internal agency is here referred to, the passage has an obvious and important use, in providing against that separation of the two, and consequent depreciation of our Saviour's ordinance, which has, we now know historically and experimentally, been the result of an exclusive attention to either. And the reason is obvious, why, in agreement with what has been already observed, the record of this discourse is not to be found in the writings of the preceding Evangelists. Till Baptism and the doctrines connected with it were fully understood, and practically familiar to the Christian converts, the ex