Chapter IX: Part 9

The other fundamental principle seems to follow, almost of necessity, from the scriptures that so abundantly point out the sinner's duty and agency, in connection with his conversion. The principle, however, is strenuously opposed by all classes of Calvinists. The opposite of this is in fact the essential characteristic of Calvinism, if any _one_ notion can be so called; for however much the Calvinistic system may be modified, in other respects, this is clung to as the elementary germ which constitutes the identity of the system. Even the New Divinity, which makes so much of human agency, does not allow it a _conditional action_--it allows of no intermediate volition between the mental states of worldly love and Divine love, as the occasion on which the transfer is made, or the conditional hinge on which the important revolution is accomplished. On the contrary, it considers the volition itself as the transfer--the volition constitutes the _entire change_. Thus warily does Calvinism, in all its changes, avoid conditional regeneration. Hence if I were called upon to give a general definition of Calvinism, that should include all the species that claim the name, I would say, _Calvinists are those who believe in unconditional regeneration_. For the moment this point is given up by any one, all parties agree that he is not a Calvinist.

But why is conditional regeneration so offensive? Is it because the Scriptures directly oppose it? This is hardly pretended. It is supposed, however, by the Calvinists, that to acknowledge this doctrine would require the renunciation of certain other doctrines which are taught in the Scriptures. This lays the foundation for the objections that have been made against this doctrine. It is objected that _a depraved sinner cannot perform an acceptable condition until he is regenerated_--that _God cannot consistently accept of any act short of that which constitutes regeneration_--that _the idea of a conditional regeneration implies salvation by works, in part at least, and not wholly by grace_.

I have mentioned these objections in this connection, not so much to attempt, at this moment, a direct refutation of them, as to advert to what I conceive to be the ground of the difficulty in the minds of those making the objections. It appears to me that the difference between us results principally from a difference of our views in respect to the constitution and the constitutional action of the mind itself. The philosophical part of our theology will be modified very much by our views of the philosophy of mind. Let it be granted then:--

1. That the mind is possessed of a moral susceptibility, generally called _conscience_, which lays the foundation of the notions of right and wrong, and by which we feel the emotions of approval or disapproval for our past conduct, and the feelings of obligation with respect to the present and the future; and that even in an unregenerate state this susceptibility often operates in accordance with its original design, and therefore agreeably with the Divine will.

2. That the understanding or intellect, which is a general division of the mind, containing in itself several distinct susceptibilities or powers, may, in an unregenerate state of the mind, be so enlightened and informed on the subjects of Divine truth as to perceive the right and the wrong; and as to perceive also, to some extent at least, the way of salvation pointed out in the Gospel.

3. That the affections and propensities (sometimes called the heart) are the principal seat of depravity--and these are often arrayed in direct hostility to the convictions of the judgment and the feelings of moral obligation.

4. That the will, or that mental power by which we put forth volitions, and make decisions, while it is more or less, directly or indirectly, influenced by the judgment, the conscience, and the affections, is in fact designed to give direction and unity to the whole mental action; and it always accomplishes this, where there is a proper harmony in the mental powers. But by sin this harmony has been disturbed, and the unholy affections have gained an undue ascendancy, so that, in the unregenerate, in all questions of preference between God and the world, in spite of the judgment, of conscience, and of the will, the world is loved and God is hated.

5. That in those cases where we cannot control our affections by a direct volition, we may, nevertheless, under the promptings of conscience, and in the light of the judgment, resolve against sin--but these resolutions, however firmly and repeatedly made, will be carried away and overruled by the strength of the carnal mind. This shows us our own weakness, drives us to self-despair, until, under the enlightening influences of grace, and the drawings of the Spirit, the soul is led to prayer and to an abdication of itself into the hands of Divine mercy, through Christ; and _then_, and on _these conditions_, the Holy Spirit changes the character and current of the unholy affections--and _this is regeneration_.

In laying down the preceding postulates I have endeavoured to express myself with as much brevity, and with as little metaphysical technicality as possible; for the reason that they are designed to be understood by all. Bating the deficiencies that may on this account be noticed by the philosophical reader, I think it may be assumed that these, so far as the powers and operations of the mind are concerned, embrace the basis and general outlines of what we call _conditional regeneration_. I am not aware that they are in opposition to an one principle of Scripture theology, or mental philosophy. And if this process is found consonant with reason and Scripture, in its general features, it will be easy to show that its relative bearings are such as most happily harmonize all the doctrinal phenomena of the Gospel system.

We plant ourselves then upon these general positions, and as ability will permit, or truth may seem to justify, shall endeavour to defend them against such objections as may be anticipated, or are known to have been made against any of the principles here assumed.

1. It may be objected perhaps that this is making too broad a distinction between the different mental powers, giving to each such a distinctive action and operation as to infringe upon the doctrine of the mind's unity and simplicity. It is believed, however, the more this point is reflected upon by an attentive observance of our own minds, or the minds of others, the more satisfied shall we be that the principles here assumed are correct. That there are these distinct properties of mind no one doubts. It is in accordance with universal language, to speak of the intellect, of the conscience, of the will, and of the affections, as distinct properties of the mind. The properties of mind are as clearly marked by our consciousness, as the properties of matter by our senses. And although, in consequence of the invisibility of mind, there is doubtless a more perfect unity in each individual mental property, than in each distinct quality of matter, still each of the mental qualities has its appropriate and distinctive character. Calvinists themselves acknowledge this. They allow we have a moral sense which tests good or evil, even in an unregenerate state; they allow the intellect may perceive and approve of truth, even when the heart rejects it; they allow that to perceive and to judge, to feel moral obligation and to will, are distinct operations of the mind; and that our perceptions and our conscience may be right, when our affections are wrong. So far then we are agreed, and so far they make distinctions in the mind, as wide as any that have been claimed in the principles above laid down. Theologians, I grant, have, in many instances, confounded in their reasonings the will and the affections. And this has also sometimes been done by writers on the philosophy of the mind. But it is most evident, I think, they have done this without good reason. Mr. Locke says, "I find the will often confounded with several of the affections, especially desire, and one put for the other." This he thinks is an error, of which "any one who turns his thoughts inward upon what passes in his own mind" will be convinced. Rev. Professor Upham, of Bowdoin College, Maine, himself a Calvinist, as is generally supposed, in a late excellent treatise on the will, asserts, and clearly proves, I think, that "_the state of the mind, which we term volition, is entirely distinct from that which we term desire_." Nay, he proves that desires and volitions are often in direct opposition. Hence as love implies desire, our volitions may often conflict with our love. And this is precisely the state the awakened sinner is in when he "would do good, but evil is present with him."

2. It may be said, and has sometimes been said, that this view of the subject involves a contradiction; that it is the same as to say, the man wills against his preference, or in other words, he wills what he does not choose. I cannot answer this objection better than by an argument in Professor Upham's work, already alluded to, in which he says, of a similar objection on this very subject, "It will be found on examination to resolve itself into a verbal fallacy, and naturally vanishes as soon as that fallacy is detected." "It is undoubtedly true that the common usage of language authorizes us to apply the terms choice and choosing indiscriminately to either the desire or volition; but it does not follow, and is not true, that we apply them to these different parts of our nature in precisely the same sense." "When the word choice implies desire at all, it has reference to a number of desirable objects brought before the mind at once, and implies and expresses the ascendant or predominant desire." "At other times we use the terms choice and choosing in application to the will--when it is applied to that power, it expresses the mere act of the will, and nothing more, with the exception, as in the other case, that more than one object of volition was present, in view of the mind, before the putting forth of the voluntary act. It is in fact the circumstance that two or more objects are present, which suggests the use of the word choice or choosing, in either case." "But the acts are entirely different in their nature, although under certain circumstances the same name is applied to them." Hence he adds, "The contradiction is not a real, but merely a verbal one. If we ever choose against choosing, it will be found merely that choice which is volition, placed against that choice which is desire." And this is nothing more than to say that volitions and desires may conflict with each other, which we know to be the fact in numerous instances.

If in reply to the foregoing, and in farther defence of the objection, it should be urged, that there could be not only no motive for the volition in this case, but that it would in fact be put forth against all motive, since the feelings of the heart would be of a directly opposite character, I reply, that it is not true that there would be no motive for the action of the will, in opposition to the sinful affections. It is seen already that the judgment in the awakened sinner is against continuing in sin, and the rebukes of the conscience for the past, and its admonitions for the future, are powerful motives in opposition to the unholy affections. The feelings of compunction and of moral obligation gain great accessions of strength, moreover, from the terrors of the Divine law, which alarm the fears, and from the promises of the Gospel, which encourage the hopes of the awakened sinner. And it is especially and emphatically true that under the existing influence of these fears and hopes, the voice of conscience is most effectual in prompting the sinner to "flee from the wrath to come," and "lay hold on the hope set before him." Can it be said then that there is no motive for a volition, or a mental effort that shall conflict with the unsanctified affections?

3. Again it is said, for every inch of this ground is disputed, that the action of the mind under such motives is purely selfish, and cannot therefore perform conditions acceptable to God. To this it may be replied, that to be influenced by motives of self preservation and personal salvation is not criminal; nay, it is commendable. In proof of this but one argument is necessary. God moves upon our fears and hopes, for the _express purpose_ of inducing us to forsake sin, and serve him; and he applies these motives to man in his unregenerate state. This is so obvious a fact, it is presumed none will deny it. But is it wrong for us to be prompted to action by those considerations which God himself urges upon us? If he attempts to excite our fears and hopes to prompt us to a course of self preservation, can it be wrong for us to be influenced by this means, and in this direction? I should hardly know how to hold an argument with a man that should assert this--and yet this sentiment is implied in the objection now under examination. Beside, these acts conditional to regeneration are not wholly, perhaps not chiefly, from motives of personal interest. Our moral feelings have a great part in this work. And it is principally by arousing an accusing conscience that fear and hope aid in the performance of the conditions of regeneration. But whatever proportion there may be of the ingredients of personal fear and hope in the feelings that enter into this conditional action of the mind, it is certain that the fear of the consequences of sin, and the hope to escape them, are not themselves criminal, much less then are they capable of rendering a complex state of the mind, of which they are but a part, unacceptable to God. Indeed this objection to a mental act, merely because it is prompted by self love, has always been to me a matter of wonder. Selfishness is a term which we generally use in a bad sense, and we mean by it that form of self love that leads us to seek our own gratification at the expense and the injury of others, or in opposition to the will of God. But that self love which leads us to seek our own highest interests, and especially our eternal interests, without injury to others, and in accordance with the Divine will, is never thought criminal, I believe, except where one has a particular system to support by such a notion. But that system is itself of a doubtful character which requires such an argument to sustain it.

4. Another objection which has been made to one of the principles above laid down is, that "it is the province of the will to control the affections, and not the affections the will; and that the will always possesses the power to do this, even in an unregenerate state." If so, then man has power, at any time, by an act of the will, to love God. Let him try--let that unholy sinner try. Can he succeed? You say perhaps, for so the Calvinists have said, "He can if he will;" that is, he can will to love God if he does will to love God! This is no great discovery surely, and it is certainly no proper answer to the question. I ask it again, Can he, by a direct act of the will, love God? Do you say, by varying the form of the answer, "He can if he chooses?" If you mean by choice the act of the will, this is the same answer over again, the folly of which is so apparent. But if you mean by choice the desires of his heart, then your answer amounts to this: If the desires of the heart are in favour of loving God, he can, by an act of the will, love him. But if the desires of the heart are in favour of loving God, the love is already begotten, and there is no need of the act of the will to produce it. In that case your proposition would be, the sinner can love God by an act of the will, _if he loves him!_ the absurdity of which is too evident to require comment. It is thus that the coils of error run into each other in endless circles.

But, perhaps, to help the argument, if possible, it may be urged that the will can decide in favour of a closer examination, and by voluntary attention may get such strong perceptions of truth as will give it the voluntary power over the heart. To this I would reply, in the first place, this is giving up the argument, it is acknowledging that certain preparatory acts of the will are necessary before the mind can love God--but _this is conditional regeneration_. And it may be farther maintained, in opposition to this sentiment that the mere perception of truth, even when united with conscience, and personal fear and hope, is not sufficient to give the will power over the unrenewed affections. In proof of this, Scripture might be adduced; but reserving the Scripture argument for the present, we may quote good Calvinistic authority in proof that the will may be enthralled by the affections. Professor Upham says, "Whenever there is a want of harmony in the mind, there is always a greater or less degree of enthralment." And then he proceeds to show how the mind may be enslaved by the _propensities_, _appetites_, _affections,_ and _passions_. He illustrates; for example, the progress of this enthralment in the case of an appetite for strong drink; which, "like a strong man armed, violently seizes the will, binds it hand and foot, and hurls it into the dust." Again he says, "There are not unfrequently cases where the propensities and passions have become so intense, after years of repetition, as to control, or in other words, enthral the voluntary power almost entirely." (Treatise on the Will.) Dr. Griffin, also an able Calvinistic writer, says, in decided terms, "The judgment of the intellect and the decisions of the will are both controlled by the heart."

The idea of the enthralment of the will, however, may be objected to on another ground, viz. that if admitted it would destroy accountability, since none are accountable for what they cannot avoid. But I have not said they cannot avoid it; neither have I said we are not voluntary either in keeping or discarding the unholy heart. I assert directly the contrary. Every probationer decides whether he will be holy or happy. But his decisions to be holy are effectual only when he seeks that from God which he cannot do for himself. Then, and then only, will God give him the victory over the old man, with the deceitful lusts of the heart. _But this is conditional regeneration_.

Having said thus much in defence of the philosophy of the principles laid down, the way is prepared to show that they accord with Scripture, and to defend them with the doctrine which we build upon them from the supposed Scripture objections which have been urged against them. But this will furnish matter for another number.

NUMBER XV.

REGENERATION, CONTINUED.

In proposing and vindicating, in the preceding number, those views of the philosophy of mind which are supposed to throw light upon the process of regeneration, it was not intended to be intimated that a knowledge of this theory is necessary in order to experience the new birth. In the practical purposes of life men do not ordinarily stop to analyze their mental states before they _judge_, _feel_, and _act_. They have the _practical_ use of their mental faculties, and that suffices. In this way the most ignorant and the most unphilosophical may be saved. Why, then, it may be asked, is it necessary to enter into this analysis at all? To this it may be replied, that whenever we can trace the adaptation of the provisions of grace and the reason of the Divine requirements to the known facts and laws of the human mind, it will strengthen our confidence in the economy of grace, increase our admiration of the wisdom and goodness of God, and sharpen our weapons of defence against the cavils and assaults of an opposing skepticism. But especially is this philosophical examination necessary whenever a superficial or an erroneous philosophy would force upon us an erroneous theology. The metaphysical mist with which some theories have veiled the doctrine of regeneration, and the delusive and distorted views that have resulted from this obscuration, may be removed and corrected by the radiance of a pure philosophy. But as human philosophy is, at best, more likely to err on these subjects than revelation, the former should always be corrected or confirmed by the latter. How is it in the case under examination? How do the assumed opinions correspond with revelation?

Let us glance again at our positions. The principal points assumed are--that there is often a conflict between the feelings of moral obligation on the one hand, enlightened as they are by reason and by grace, sanctioned as they are by fear and hope, and the unholy affections on the other; that under the promptings of the moral feelings the will frequently puts forth its strength to resist and subdue the unholy affections, but in every such case the effort fails when unaided by the sanctifying grace of God--and that victory is finally gained by a conditional act of the will, through which, or on occasion of which, God subdues the passions and changes the heart. These views have been vindicated, as being in accordance with the philosophy of mind. The question now is, Are they sustained by Scripture? I answer, _Yes, most clearly_.

If the Apostle Paul had attempted, by a set argument, to illustrate and affirm these views, he could not have done it better or more explicitly than he has done in the latter part of the 7th, and the first part of the 8th chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. "I see," says the apostle, "another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my members." _The law of sin in his members_ was undoubtedly the carnal mind, the unholy affections. These _warred_ against the _law of his mind_, his enlightened judgment, his feelings of moral obligation; and in this warfare the former were victorious, and carried captive the will; so that "the good that he would, he did not, and the evil that he would not, that he did." "To will was present with him," but "how to perform, he knew not." See the entire passage, for it beautifully illustrates our whole theory. Here is the conflict, the struggle between conscience and sin; here is pointed out the seat of sin, viz. the "flesh" or carnal mind, which is but another name for the unsanctified affections and appetites; here is the will struggling to turn the contest on the side of duty, but struggling in vain; every effort results in defeat--_it is taken captive, and overcome_.--Despair finally settles down upon the mind, as far as personal strength is concerned, and the anxious soul looks abroad for help, and cries out, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death!" Then it is that deliverance comes! Jesus Christ, the Saviour of sinners, sets him free!

Professor Stuart, of Andover, himself a Calvinist, has shown most conclusively, what Arminians have long contended for, that this portion of revelation refers specifically to the work of regeneration. But whether this be granted by every Calvinist or not, no man can deny but that the grand philosophical principles heretofore contended for, are here fully illustrated--the same _division_ of the mind--the same _conflict_--the same _thraldom_ of the _will_, and the same _deliverance_, through _faith_ in Jesus Christ our Lord.

The same principles, in part at least, are recognized in Gal. v, 17, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye _cannot_ do the things that ye _would_." In short, all those passages where the difficulty of subduing the carnal mind, of keeping the body under, of crucifying the old man, all those passages that speak of a _warfare_, an _internal conflict_, and the like, recognize the principles here contended for. These principles, so frequently adverted to in the Scriptures, are proved to be in exact conformity with experience. Who that has passed through this change, but remembers this conflict, this war in the members? Who but recollects how his best resolutions were broken as often as made; and how, after various and vigorous efforts, his heart seemed to himself to grow worse and worse? He found secret treason lurking in his bosom even when he was trying to repent of his past disloyalty.

"The more he strove against its power,
He felt the guilt and sin the more."

Every additional effort sunk him apparently but the lower in "the horrible pit and miry clay," until "the Lord heard his _cry_," until "the Lord brought him up, and set his feet upon a rock, and established his goings, and put a new song in his mouth."

That the Scriptures speak of a conditional action of the mind, preparatory to the work of regeneration, appears from express passages, as well as from the general tenor of that numerous class of scriptures which enjoin duty upon the sinner, and predicate justification and salvation upon those duties. John i, 12, has already been quoted and commented upon, in which the new birth is suspended upon _receiving_ Christ, or _believing_ on his name. The many cases of healing the body, by Christ, are evident illustrations of the healing of the soul. In fact, we have good reasons for supposing that, in most of these cases at least, the soul and body were healed at the same time; and this was always on the condition of _asking_ and _believing_. John iii, 14, 13, "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 everlasting life." Here our Saviour shows the analogy between the cure of the Israelites by looking at the brazen serpent, and of sinners by looking to Christ. But how were the Israelites healed? By the conditional act of _looking_ at the brazen serpent. So looking at Christ is the condition of healing the soul. Take away this condition and the whole analogy is destroyed. Let this condition be understood, and the text will accord with others, equally expressive of conditions. "Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness." "Seek the Lord while he may be found." God hath determined that all nations "should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us." Will any one pretend to say that this looking and seeking implies regeneration? This is mere assumption; where is the proof? who would ever infer this idea from the Scriptures themselves? What! is the sinner regenerated before the malady of his soul, the poisonous bite of sin, is healed? Has he found the Lord before he has sought him? And must he seek after he has found him? The _kingdom of God_ is religion in the soul--it is "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost;" and when we are regenerated, we have it in possession, and have therefore no need to seek it. But we are commanded to _seek_ the kingdom of God; this, therefore, must be a work preparatory to, and conditional of regeneration. "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." "Take my yoke upon you," &c. To be _restless_, and not to have on the yoke of Christ, is to be unregenerate; but such are to _come_ and _take_ the yoke, and then, and on that condition, they will find rest to their souls. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come, &c, and whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life freely." To take of the water of life is to be regenerate; but to this end we must _come_, and must first _will_ in order to _come_. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in and sup with him, and he with me." Before Christ is _in_ the soul, there is no regeneration; but before he will _come_ in, he knocks, and the sinner must first _hear_, and then _open the door_, and on this condition Christ comes in and imparts his grace.

But it is useless to proceed farther in quoting particular texts. They might be extended indefinitely, with a force and pertinency that cannot be evaded: all going to establish the fact that the work of grace on the heart is conditional.

Will any one pretend to deny, that the unregenerate sinner is called upon to _seek_, _ask_, _repent_, _believe_, &c? And what do such scriptures mean? The acts of the mind here enjoined must _constitute_ regeneration, or they must follow regeneration as an effect of that work, or they must precede it as a necessary and required condition. To say that these acts are the very definition of regeneration itself--are only synonymous terms to express this renewal of the heart, is to make regeneration consist in _exercises_ merely--is in fact to make it the sinner's appropriate and exclusive work; unless it can be shown that this commanding the sinner to ask, &c, is nothing more nor less than a promise that God will ask, seek, repent, and believe for him! But this will hardly be pretended; and the idea that these acts do themselves _constitute_ the new birth, has already been seen to be defective and indefensible.

To suppose that these acts follow regeneration, as an effect or fruit of the change itself, is to deny them that position and relation in which they are actually placed by the word of God. It makes one seek, after he has found; ask, after he has received; repent and believe, after he is possessed of that salvation, to obtain which these duties are enjoined. The phraseology to suit this theory, should evidently be of an entirely different character. When the sinner asks what he shall do to be saved, the answer should be--"_Nothing_ until God renews the heart; and then as a fruit of this you will of course _seek_, _ask_, _believe_," &c. If, indeed, the sinner is to do nothing until God renews him, why is it necessary that he should first be awakened? Why is the command addressed to him at all? Why does not the Holy Spirit immediately renew the heart, while the transgressor is stupid in his wickedness, instead of calling after him to _awake_, _flee_, and _escape_ for his life? Do you say you can give no other reason than that it pleases God to take this course with the sinner, and to call up his attention to the subject before he renews him? I answer, then it pleases God that there should be certain preparatory acts of the mind in order to regeneration: and this is in fact admitting the principle for which we contend, and this more especially if it be acknowledged, as it evidently must be, that these preparatory mental states or acts are, to any extent, voluntary. Thus, not only is the absurdity of making these acts the _result_ of regeneration most apparent; but in tracing out the consistent meaning and practical bearing of those scriptures that are addressed to the unconverted, we find them establishing the third alternative, that these acts of the mind are _preparatory_ to regeneration, and are the prescribed conditions on which God will accomplish the work. Thus the Scripture argument is found to confirm the philosophical view of the subject, and both are strengthened by Christian experience. The doctrine of conditional regeneration, therefore, is confirmed by a threefold argument, no part of which, it is believed, can be easily overthrown. Against it, however, there are several strong objections urged, which have already been mentioned, and which we are now prepared to hear and examine.

1. It has been objected, that to admit human agency and co-operation in this change, is to deny salvation by _grace_. But how does this appear? Suppose the very conditions are by a gracious appointment--suppose the operations of a gracious system are in this way better adapted to a moral government--suppose this conditional action of the mind to be itself the result of a gracious influence, enlightening the understanding, and quickening and arousing the moral sense--finally, suppose these conditions not to be _efficient_, much less _meritorious_ causes, by which the mind either changes itself, or renders itself more morally deserving of the Divine favour--I say suppose all this, and then show if you can, how such conditions can detract at all from the grace of this salvation.

2. It has been objected, that "since man never is what he ought to be until he is renewed and made holy, therefore any act short of that which either constitutes or implies regeneration cannot be acceptable to God--God cannot consistently approve of any step that falls short of man's duty. It is his duty to be holy, and therefore any thing short of this is sin, and consequently cannot be accepted as a condition." We should be careful to discriminate between things closely related, and yet actually distinct from each other. It is one thing to be pleased with the character of the mind as a whole, in view of its relations to the Divine law and its necessary qualifications for heaven, and another thing to be pleased with a particular mental state, or conditional volition, in reference to its adaptation to a proposed end, or a specific object. For instance: the Calvinists think that an awakened and an anxiously inquiring sinner is in a more suitable state of mind to receive the blessing of regeneration, than one perfectly stupid and thoughtless. If they do not, why do they try to bring sinners to thoughtfulness? Why do they try to awaken them to a sense of their danger, and make them tremble under the view of the Divine displeasure? Or why do they call their attention to Gospel provisions and a crucified Saviour? Is not this a preparatory process? And have they the Divine warrant for such a course? Is this the method which the Divine Being takes to save his rebellious subjects? Then, doubtless, this method is well pleasing to him: and in reference to this specific end he has in view, he is pleased with each successive step in the process. He is pleased when the shiner pays attention to the word; he is pleased when he is awakened, and when he begins to tremble and inquire, "What shall I do to be saved?" This is just as he would have it, and just as he designed; although the entire character of the sinner is not acceptable to him until he is made holy. The very principle, then, objected to by the Calvinists is recognized by their own theory and practice. Now if we say God is pleased to accept of the sinner's prayer, and faith, and sorrow for sin, as a condition of what he will do for him, what propriety is there in replying, God cannot accept of any thing short of a holy heart? We know he cannot approve of a heart until it is holy; but he can approve of certain feelings and volitions as suited, according to the Divine appointment, to be the condition on which he will make the heart holy. Do you ask on what ground he accepts of this? I answer, on the ground of the merits of Christ; the ground on which the whole process rests. God does not accept of the prayer, repentance, and faith of the _regenerate_, because they are regenerate, and by reason of their holiness; but their acceptance is wholly and continually through Christ. Through the same medium and merits the prayer of the inquiring sinner is heard and answered.

If your servant had left you unjustly, and deserted the service he was obligated to perform, and you should finally tell him, if he would return and resume his duties you would forgive the past, and accept of him for the future, would it be inconsistent to say, you were pleased when he began to listen to the proposal, and pleased when he took the first and every succeeding step, as being suitable and necessary to the end proposed, although, in view of _his_ duty and _your_ claim, you would not be pleased with him, as your acceptable servant, until he was actually and faithfully employed in your service?

Let it not be inferred from the above that I advocate a gradual conversion. I do not. I believe when God renews the heart he does it at once; but the preparatory steps are nevertheless indispensable to the accomplishment of this work. And God is well pleased with the first step of attention on the part of the sinner, and with every succeeding step of prayer, anxious inquiry, feeling of moral obligation, purpose to forsake sin, looking after and attempting to believe in Christ, not because these are _all_ that he requires, but because they are the necessary preparatives for what is to follow.

3. The foregoing remarks will prepare the way to meet a similar objection to the last, and one to some extent the same in substance. It is this: "Are these conditional acts of the mind holy or unholy exercises? If holy, then the work of regeneration is accomplished already, and therefore these cannot be the _conditions_ of that change. If unholy, then they can be no other than offensive to a holy God, and therefore cannot be conditions well pleasing to him." In addition to what has been already said, having a bearing upon this question, it may be stated that the terms holy and unholy may be equivocal, as used in this connection; and thus the supposed dilemma would be more in words than in fact, more in appearance than in reality. This dilemma is urged in the argument under the idea that there can be but the two kinds of exercises, holy and unholy. And this may be true enough, only let us understand what is meant. If by holy exercises are meant those in which the entire feeling is on the side of God, I readily answer, _No_, the mind before regeneration has no such exercises. If by holiness is meant, that the judgment and conscience are on the side of truth, I answer, _Yes_, this is the state of the mind when it is truly awakened by the Holy Spirit and by Divine truth. It is entirely immaterial to me, therefore, whether the objector call the exercise holy or unholy, provided he draw no special inferences from the use of a general term that the positions here assumed do not authorize. Sure I am that the objector cannot say there is nothing in the exercises of the unregenerate, awakened sinner, such as God would have for the end proposed, until he is prepared to say that a fear of the consequences of sin, an enlightened judgment, the remorse of conscience for the past, the feelings of obligation for the future, and the hope of victory over sin through Christ, all combining to induce the sinner to flee for refuge, and lay hold upon the hope set before him, are all wrong, and not as God would have them? But when a man is prepared to say this, it is difficult to see how he could be reasoned with farther, for he would seem to have given up reason and Scripture. And yet who does not know that these are the exercises of the soul awakened to a sense of sin and its consequences, even while as yet his unholy affections hang upon him like a _body of death_:--Yea, who does not know that it is this body of death, from which he cannot escape, and this abhorrence of sin and its consequences, that rein him up, and incline him to a surrender of his soul into the hands of Christ, from whom, as a consequence, he receives _power_ to become a son of God. "But what is the motive?" it is asked, "is not this unholy?" And pray what does this inquiry mean? If by motive is meant the moving cause _out_ of the mind; _that_ cannot be unholy, for it is the Holy Spirit, and the holy word of God, that are thus urging the sinner to Christ. If by motive is meant the judgments and feelings of the mind, that prompt to these voluntary efforts to avoid sin and its consequences, these are the enlightened understanding and the feelings of obligation, already alluded to, which, I repeat, the objector is welcome to call holy or unholy as he pleases; all I claim is, they are what God approves of, and are the necessary conditions of his subsequent work of renewing the heart.

But perhaps it may be asked here, Is not the sinner, in the performance of these conditions, _partly_ converted? I answer, This again depends entirely upon what you mean by conversion. If by conversion you understand the whole of the preparatory work of awakening and seeking, as well as the _change_ of the _heart_--then of course you would say he is _partly_ converted. If you mean by conversion only a change of views and a consequent change of purpose, by which the sinner determines to seek, that he may find the pearl of great price--the blessing of a new heart and of forgiveness, then you would say he is _wholly_ converted. But if you mean, by conversion, the change of heart itself, the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, then not only is not the work done, but it is not begun. The way of the Lord is prepared and the renewal will follow.

Thus the objections that have been thought so formidable against the doctrine of conditional regeneration are found, on a closer inspection, to be more in appearance than in reality. They receive their influence, as objections, rather from their indefiniteness and the ambiguity of terms, than from any intrinsic force.

There is, however, one form more in which an objection may be urged in a general way against the ideas of the new birth here advanced. And as I wish fearlessly and candidly to state and meet, if possible, every difficulty, it will be necessary to touch upon this. It may be urged that "the only exercises that can be claimed as conditions of regeneration on Bible grounds are _repentance_ and _faith;_ for 'repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ' are laid at the foundation of all Gospel requirements. Whenever the awakened sinner came to the apostles to know what he should do to be saved, they always met him with, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.' Whenever the apostles went out to preach the Gospel, they preached 'every where that men should repent.'" "But," continues the objector, "if repentance and faith are the only duties or exercises which can be claimed as conditions, it is evident there are no such conditions; for repentance and faith, so far from being conditions of regeneration, are either the new birth itself, or are Christian graces, implying the new birth."

The premises, in the above objection, will not be denied. Repentance and faith are supposed to be the Gospel conditions of regeneration. But it is denied that these are necessarily regeneration itself, or that they imply regeneration in any other sense, than as antecedents to it. There are, it is acknowledged, a repentance and a faith that are Christian graces, and imply the new birth. This is the faith that "is the substance of things hoped for." It is that principle of spiritual life which the Christian has in his soul when he can say, "The life that I now live I live by faith in the Son of God." This is that repentance, also, which keeps the soul continually at the foot of the cross, and leads it constantly to feel,

"Every moment, Lord, I need
The merit of thy death."

But because repentance and faith are the necessary characteristics of the Christian, and because they are the more perfect as the Christian character ripens, it does not therefore follow that there are no repentance and faith conditional to the new birth. The very fact that repentance and faith were urged by Christ and his apostles, as the initiatory step to salvation, proves the opposite of this. They do not say, Repent and believe the Gospel, and this is salvation, but, "Repent and believe, and ye shall (on this condition) be saved." And surely it is unnecessary to prove here that salvation in the New Testament generally means a meetness for heaven or holiness. Our blessed Saviour was called Jesus, because he _saved_ his people _from their sins_.

Beside, it may well be argued, that faith and repentance are acts of the mind, and cannot therefore be considered as the new birth itself, unless the mind converts itself, especially since they are _enjoined duties_, and must therefore be _voluntary_ acts. It is no where said that God repents and believes for us; but it is expressly and repeatedly taught, that God _renews_ us.--Repentance and faith, then, are our work, but regeneration is his. I know it is said in one place, Acts v, 31, that Christ was exalted "to _give repentance_ to Israel." But the _act_ itself of repentance cannot be said to be _given_. This would be an absurdity. How can any one give me a mental _act?_ Hence Dr. Doddridge, although a Calvinist, very candidly and very justly remarks, on this passage, that "to _give repentance_ signifies to _give place_, or _room_ for repentance," to sustain which interpretation he quotes Josephus and others who use the phrase in this sense. If then repentance and faith are enjoined upon us, as _our duties_, and if they are every where spoken of as prerequisites in the work of salvation, and as preparatory steps and conditions to the process of holiness, how can it be otherwise than that these are antecedent, in the order of nature, to regeneration?

It may farther be argued, in support of this view of faith and repentance, that no sin can be forgiven until repented of--repentance therefore must precede remission of sins. This I suppose Calvinists allow, but they say that, in the order of nature, the heart is renewed before sin is forgiven--and that repentance, therefore, which is either the new birth itself, or the immediate fruit of it, is a condition of justification, but not of regeneration. If this be correct, then the soul is made holy before it is forgiven. But St. Paul informs us, Romans iv, 5, that God through faith "justifieth the _ungodly_." If then there be any antecedence in the order of the two parts of the work of grace, we must suppose that justification has the precedence, and that regeneration follows, and hence repentance and faith precede regeneration. Indeed I cannot see why repentance is not as necessary to remove the sin of the heart as to forgive the sin of the life. If God will not forgive sin without repentance, will he renew the heart without it? Has he any where promised this? If not, but if, on the contrary, he every where seems to have suspended the working out of our salvation _in us_, upon our repentance, then may we safely conclude--nay, then we must necessarily believe that we repent in order to be renewed. The same may be said of faith. Faith in fact seems to be the exclusive channel through which every gracious effect is produced upon the mind. The sinner cannot be awakened without faith, for it precedes every judgment in favour of truth, and every motion of moral feeling, and of course every favourable concurrence of the will. The sinner never could throw himself upon the Divine mercy, never would embrace Christ as his Saviour, until he believed. Hence the Scriptures lay such great stress upon faith, and make it the grand, and indeed the only _immediate_ condition of the work of grace upon the heart. Repentance is a condition only remotely, _in order_ to justifying faith; agreeable to the teaching of Christ, "And ye, when ye had heard, afterward _repented_ not that ye _might believe_ on him." But faith is necessary _immediately_, as that mental state directly antecedent to the giving up of the soul into the hands of Divine mercy. And shall we still be told that faith is not the condition of regeneration? The order of the work seems to be--1. A degree of faith in order to repentance. 2. Repentance, in order to such an increase of faith as will lead the soul to throw itself upon Christ.--3. The giving up of the soul to Christ as the only ground of hope. 4. The change of heart by the efficient operation of the Holy Spirit.--Now on whichever of these four stages of the process, except the first, the objector lays his finger and says, _That_ is not a condition of regeneration, for it is regeneration itself, it will be seen that _that_ very part is conditional. If, for instance, he fix on the second stage, and contend that that is regeneration, which I call repentance _in order_ to regenerating faith; even _that_ would be _conditional_ regeneration, for it is preceded by faith--and so of all that follow. And surely no one will pretend that what I call the first stage, the faith which precedes awakening and remorse of conscience, and the exciting alternations of fear and hope in the anxious and inquiring sinner, is regeneration. And if this first degree of faith is not the change, then it is utterly inconsistent to talk of unconditional regeneration, for this faith stands at the head of all that follows--it is a mental act necessarily preparatory to the whole work. And as we shall presently see, it is an act that depends upon the agency of the will. Hence we are brought again to our conclusion, that the change called the new birth is effected by the Holy Spirit, on the ground of certain conditional acts of him who is the subject of the change.

"But the very _nature_ of repentance and of faith, the very _definition_ of the two mental states expressed by these terms," it is said, "proves that a person, to possess them, must be regenerate; or at any rate, that these states cannot be conditions of regeneration, to be performed by the sinner." Let us attend for a moment to this objection in detail.

What is repentance? "It is," say some Calvinistic writers, "a _change of mind_. The original means this, and so it should have been rendered; and if it had been so rendered, it would have set this controversy at rest." But what if we should grant (what I do not believe) that the original word means this, and this only, still it would not follow that the change of mind called the new birth is meant by this term. A change of judgment is a change of mind--a change of purpose is a change of mind--any change of the general current of feeling, such as that from carelessness and stupidity in to a state of anxiety and earnest inquiry, what shall I do to be saved? is a change of mind.--And such a change of mind indispensably precedes regeneration. No person ever, from being a careless, hardened sinner, becomes an anxious and earnest inquirer after salvation, without an important change in his judgment, moral feeling, and volitions. Hence this definition does not at all help the objector, unless he can prove that the Scriptures always mean by this term that change which they elsewhere call the new birth. Indeed, since we have already shown that repentance is our work, and the renewing of the heart exclusively God's work, it follows incontrovertibly, that the change of mind called repentance is not the new birth.

If repentance meant that change of mind called the new birth, then the regenerate would be _often born again_, and that, too, without backsliding; for those who are growing the fastest in grace repent the most constantly and the most deeply.