expostulates with the doubts of his catechumen, as it were, thus: Why, Nicodemus, do you not also doubt the reality of the wind? It is a viewless, invisible agent. You know it by inference alone from its effects. It bows the foliage of the forests and the fields of yellow grain. It distends the canvass of the mariner and chafes the mountain surges of the ocean. But you never saw it; nor can you comprehend its laws, its motions, or its modes; or prognosticate its phenomena for a single day. Equally real, and equally palpable are the influences of the Spirit; and equally credible, in the case of every one that is begotten of the Spirit.

We proceed to the translation.

Jesus answered and said unto him, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be begotten from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be begotten when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be begotten? Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be begotten of water, even of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is begotten of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is begotten of the Spirit, is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be begotten from above.

We close with a few observations.

1. To love the truth supremely, practically, habitually, and to take it thus for our rule in all things, is the proper proof and evidence of a regenerated state.

2. In substance the thing was the same always, and under all dispensations, and is as real as vital piety, as rational as the temper that obey's God, cordially and prevailingly, in all things.

3. The personality of the Spirit is illustrated by the phrases here preferred. The Spirit begets us, is the Author of our regeneration. The phrase, begotten of the Spirit, is kindred to that of begotten of the flesh, i. e. of a man or one's sire. It is the counterpart, exact and interchangeable, or rather is it another form of the identity of the phrase, begotten of God. Thus, Ο γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος-ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ cou, and these are often and currently used, with a common. meaning and scope.

3. The correct phraseology favors the true idea of THE ACTIVITY OF THE SUBJECT in regeneration. It is not necessary that the figure should teach us everything about it; and we must know more, than any one figure can depicture to us, of the whole subject of regeneration.

If God actuates the subject, through the truth and according to the laws-not of depravity, but-of mind, surely the subject acts. He concurs, acquiesces, and makes the transition from death unto life. He comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest. He repents of his sins, believes in the Saviour, joins his cause, and hopes in his favor and his faithfulness. Can God regenerate him remaining rebellious, hostile, and resisting the Spirit with full purpose and with all his might? Can HE do contradiction and absurdity, because HE is a sovereign, and because some theologians can conceive of nothing but passivity and materialism? If he regenerates a man, is it all one with regenerating a log of wood or any other unconscious mass? Is it not a nobler wonder, that he can conciliate an enemy, and engage his friendship, and make him a faithful and affectionate son, than that he could change passively the texture of an apple or a stone?

Some divines hold, and are not afraid to say, in illustration of their peculiar orthodoxy, that God could just as well regenerate a man when he is asleep, as when he is awake! This may be a very consolatory doctrine to some preachers of passivity, whose style and manner is proverbially soporific. Besides, I should think it quite true and logical, if a man is entirely and wholly passive in regeneration. Their faith might flourish more perhaps, and with quite as happy a consistency, if they were to add to the important illustration, "as well asleep as awake," the equally credible ones, " as well drunk as sober, in blasphemy as in prayer, in the theatre as in the church."

But their grand reply is, "So say the STANDARDS of our Presbyterian Church. How dare you commit the perjury of contradicting them ?"

This looks much like the ultima ratio regum,* like answering with the thunder of artillery. Mine answer to them is1) Regeneration, as such, is scarcely mentioned in the whole. of our symbols; and except incidentally, not at all. The subject is treated mainly or only under the head of "effectual

* These Latin words, the writer has been amused with observing, cast in bas relief, quite frequently, on the cannon of the kings of Europe, by way of apology for their use; since the last argument of kings implies at once their logical patience and luminous demonstration preceding the use of their big guns, and also the incorrigible obstinacy of the people that needs and compels their reluctant resort to their last argument.

ས

calling." And this involves no passivity, but expressly predicates its opposite. "Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and especial love to his elect, and from nothing in their moving him thereunto) he doth in his accepted time invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able, freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein." Elsewhere,"effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace."

2) A worse objection is taken from what is apprehended as an express asseveration of passivity in regeneration.

Now that the subject is passive in adoption, justification, and election, is not disputed. If he is active in sanctification, why not in regeneration. If in the progress, why not in its commencement? The standards referred to say that the subject "is altogether passive therein, UNTIL"-mark it! i. e. BEFORE regeneration or effectual calling. What is the inference? Why that IN it, he is not passive, whatever he may be BEFORE it, and "until" the change occurs.

ARTICLE XI.

ANTE-COLUMBIAN HISTORY OF AMERICA.

DIGHTON ROCK,

-LANGUAGE OF SKRELLINGs, etc.

By Rev. A. B. Chapin, New Haven, Conn.

THE publication of the Antiquitates Americanae, etc. has justly been considered an important era in the study of the early history of this country. But though few doubt the accuracy of the conclusions drawn by the Northern Antiquarian Society, many are disposed to question the soundness of some of the premises from which those conclusions are drawn. The two doubtful points, are the Dighton Rock Inscription, and the names of the Indians, given by the Northmen. We propose to consider both of these points as briefly as may be, to ascertain, if

possible, how much reliance can be placed upon these supposed facts.

In regard to the first, the Assoonet, or Dighton Rock inscription, Mr. Schoolcraft, (Am. Bib. Rep. April 1839, p. 444,) supposes "the event recorded to be one of importance in Indian history; and the characters, hieroglyphics of the Algic stamp.", But this applies only to the hieroglyphics, and in order to account for the letters and numerals which occur among the hieroglyphics, he supposes, "that some idle boy, or more idle man, added them in sport." In other words, he believes the inscription to be the work of the Indians, and "the letters and numerals" to be a forgery. That the Indians did not inscribe the letters is plain. Either, then, they are a forgery, or must have been made by some other people. The Northern Antiquarian Society suppose them to have been the work of the Northmen; Mr. Schoolcraft and some others attribute them to the moderns. To which they probably belong, it is our purpose now to inquire.

The Antiquitates gives nine copies of this inscription, made at different times, and by different persons. The last was made in 1830, by order of the Rhode Island Historical Society, and is a perfect copy of the inscription, as it now exists. That contains the following letters and numerals, in the order and relative position here indicated, except that the P (Th) is not quite in a line with the other letters.

Between the P and O is a rude sketch of a person, as in the "View" given in the last number of the Repository. Note, that the is not found on that View, nor is it in all respects an accurate copy. The other copies were made as follows. 1680. Rev. Mr. Danforth. This copy includes but a part of the inscription, and does not cover the place where the letters and numerals occur. Mr. D. " observes in relation to the inscription, that there was a tradition current with the oldest Indians [in 1680 and before], that there came a wooden house and men of another country in it, swimming upon the river Assoonet, who fought the Indians with mighty success." (Antiq. Am. p. 374.)

1712.

Rev. Dr. Mather. President Stiles said of this, "A bad copy." In the place where the letters and numerals are now found, this has IXI П.

1730. Rev. Dr. Greenwood, Professor at Cambridge. This is a mere sketch, but has XXX.

1768. Mr. Sewall, Prof. at Cambridge, assisted by Thomas Danforth, William Baylies, and Daniel Cobb. Mr. Winthrop, Prof. of Mathematics at Cambridge in 1774, in a letter of that date, says: "This [Mr. Sewall's] is the most exact copy of the inscription ever taken." He says also, "I went to see this rock above thirty years ago, and again last spring," and adds, "it is certain it was made before the English came to this country." (Antiq. Am. pp. 375, 376.) This copy has XXXI M and Þ.

1788. Mr. James Winthrop. This is less perfect than the preceding, in almost every respect. It has, IXXX N. 1790. Dr. Baylies and Mr. Goodwin. This is more full than any of the preceding. It has, TXXXI M, Þ, and OR. 1807. Mr. Kendall. This copy has FXXXI M and ORINX. 1812. Mr. Gardener. This has only XXX, N and O.

We see, therefore, that there is a general agreement among all the copies, as to the existence of the numerals at least. It should also be observed, that all the copies of the inscription, represent the numerals as contiguous. Consequently there must have been three X's on the copy of 1712, and two I's, on that of 1730, because it is impossible that any letters could have been inscribed between those given by Dr. Mather. We have then, in 1712, IXXXI, and II, which differs but slightly from TXXXI and M found in the copy of 1830. But if this were not so, we have the evidence of Professor Winthrop, that the copy of 1768, was the best copy of the inscription, as it existed more than thirty years before, that is, as early as 1740; and this copy has XXXI and M, omitting only the first letter F, and the cross-bar of the last character, of what is now found. But the first letter must have existed in 1768, because an I existed in 1730, and the letter itself in 1790. And all these had such an appearance of antiquity, as early as 1740, as to leave no doubt on the mind of Mr. Winthrop, that they were made " before the English came to this country." In 1790, the whole of the first line of the inscrip

SECOND SERIES, VOL. II. NO. III.

25