The nature and instrument of regeneration ...

Front matter

Bri? SORLW4

Webster, C.

The nature and instrument of | regeneration

Preface

Turs little book is presented to the Christian public from no desire of authorship. | It is the result of a call in the providence of God, which the writer had no liberty to disobey.

The doctrines of Pelagians and semi-Pelagians on the one hand, and the denial of the instrumentality of the word in regeneration on the other, although apparently opposites, will be seen, by a perusal of these pages, to flow spontaneously from the same radical error, ‘Gahan LAE undue exaltation of the natural man’s ability of will.

- The reader will find no tincture, either of party spirit or denominational pride; but an humble inquiry into that great change which passes upon all those who are redeemed from among men, before their admission into the presence and enjoyment of God. More than a hundred of the best authors, to which the iV PREFACE.

writer could obtain access, have been consulted, compared with the scriptures, and with each other. The result of this laborious research is here brought to view within a narrow compass, in the hope of promoting, through the blessing of God, the spiritual interest of such as have neither the means nor leisure for extended research.

Religious controversy, having its origin in the imperfection of human nature, is always attended with present evil; but all experience demonstrates that its ultimate effects have generally proved beneficial. The present work is, in a great measure, necessarily controversial; but the author has laboured to avoid, as much as possible, the spirit of mere controversy; as truth, and only truth, has been uniformly the object of his ardent pursuit.

A few individuals are found, perhaps, in every community, who handle the word of God as they would a ball in a game of cricket, merely to display their dexterity, or obtain a victory. This class of persons may be discovered by their misrepresentations of the obvi- ‘ous meaning of others; by their carping at

PREFACE. Vv words; by their denials or perversions of scripture; and by their laboured arguments in defence of error. The author desires no participation with such persons in their folly.

The great importance, nay indispensable necessity of a clear and simple style, in such a discussion as the present, has been kept con- ‘stantly in view. The “footsteps of the flock ”’ ‘of God have been attentively considered. No sentiment has been advanced, touching the essentials of true religion, which is not supported by the suffrages of the learned and pious in all ages, who have committed their wiews to writing for the benefit of their fellow ‘men, and “ who being dead, yet speak.”’

It will be perceived that an accurate knowdJedge of the nature of regeneration is essential to a correct understanding of the means by which it is effected.

Several new errors, which have been vented since Charnock wrote, are here met and refuted, Dr, Witherspoon’s standard work on the subject, though of more recent date, is “« A. Practical Treatise,’ exhibiting more directly the evidences, than the nature of the change. It és, however, believed the reader might derive

1*

Vi. PREFACE.

. great benefit by a perusal of the authors just named in connexion with this treatise.

In some respects, it is thought the doctrine of regeneration is presented in a more clear light than in any previous single publication. Be this, however, as it may, the author is confi- | dent no one can sustain any loss by an attentive perusal of the work. |

The learned, before they condemn the minute explanation of some things, which are familiar to them, are requested to reflect, that these things are not so obvious to the generality of readers, as the great prevalence of error clearly demonstrates. |

For the plan of the work, the reader is referred to the table of contents.

It is believed the interests of the Christian church demand this publication. It treats of a change in the souls of men, which lies far beyond those regions that bound the researches -of philosophy: and as the knowledge of this change can be derived only from divine revelation, so its nature can be accurately understood only by those happy souls upon whom it has been effected, by means of that revelation.

Read, ponder, believe, and be saved.

Chapter II. State Of The Question

I. Depravity a source of error,

Ti. Natural ability of will insufficient,

Il, Depravity of the understanding,—will,—affections,—conscience,—inability,—regeneration the work of God,

TV. Man originally the author of his own inability,

V. Definition of terms, faculty,—capacity,—adaptation,—physical,

VI. Regeneration neither destroys, nor confers any new mental faculty,—commands do not imply ability,

Vil. Regeneration is neither the coercion nor the volition of the will,—liberty and necessity ,— influence of mora] character upon the will,

VIII. Same subject continued,—God necessarily holy,

1X. Regeneration not the improvement of sufficient grace,—gifts not grace,

aX. Regeneration not the Spirit’s asststance,—mere assistance develops depravity,

13 18 19

22 23

25 29 30

36 38 42 45

Vill CONTENTS,

XI. Regeneration neither waives nor abrogates the claims of law,—the soul passive in the regenerating act,

XII. Regeneration not simply a change of exercises,

XII. Pernicious influence of errors respecting regeneration,

CHAPTER UL.

REGENERATION DEFINED.)

I. Regeneration the infusion of divine light and spiritual life,

lI. The term regeneration defined,

Til. Same subject continued,

IV. Definition of John Marck,

¥N 4 “ the Scriptures,

VI, ‘Regeneration analogous to the work of creation,—mental and moral power,

Vil. Adaptation ofthe mental powers—increases the guilt of such, as reject the gospel,

VII. Same subject continued,—depravity an ingrained quality,

IX. Same subject continued,—depravity not wholly eradicated in regeneration,

D2 Differences between regeneration and creation,

XI In what sense a creation,

XII. Analogous to the resurrection from the

dead,—its moral likeness,—Dr. Gill’s view erroneous,

XII1. Compared with the image of Adam,

XIV. Restores the intellectual powers,—difference between the knowledge of the rege-

nerate and the unregenerate,

XV. Includes the knowledge of the truth,

XVI. Includes the renewal of the will,—the relation of the understanding and will,—rejection of the gospel always wilful.

XVI. Arminian view of the will,

48 49 is

XVIII.

XIX.

XX, XXI.

ail:

CONTENTS.

Edwards’ view of the will,—the terms good and agreeable,—Caricature of Calvinism,—Reid’s view of the will,

Conscience,—Brown’s view,—an essential faculty,—constitutes the adaptation of the soul to be regenerated by the word,

Renewal. of the will,—Dick’s view,

Regeneration includes the righteousness of the truth,

Renewal of conscience,—the Heathen,

XXIIL., Conscience not the inherent sense of the

XXIV.

XXV.

XXVI.

being of God, Regeneration includes the holiness of the truth, Includes saving faith, Includes all the graces of the Spirit,

XXVIL. Effects the mystical union with Christ, XXVIII. Nature of the mystical union, XX1X. The mystery of a revealed doctrine no objection against its truth

Chapter IV. The Manner Of Regeneration

The manner above, not contrary to reason,

‘The soul passive in the first instance,

Nothing in nature by which it can be illustrated, :

An instantaneous act of the Holy Spirit,

The manner of the instrumentality of the word also mysterious, es

Life a principle too abstract for the grasp of the human intellect,

The work of the Spirit sovereign,

Any attempt to explain the manner of the Spirit’s work in regeneration, is presumption, ix

87 91

99 101 102 103 103 104

111 112

113 116

118 120 122

CONTENTS.

PART IL

THE WORD THE INSTRUMENT OF REGENERA-

XVI.

TION.

Chapter I. State Of The Question

The term word explained,

The word not a natural instrument,—written upon the soul,—the will of God,

In regeneration the word is his efficient will,

Righteousness of Christ its procuring cause,.

Its efficient cause discussed in Part I. Direct and indirect means,

Same subject continued,

Nature of positive institutions,

Occasional commands have no place under the present dispensation,

God operates above, but not contrary to:

moral institutions,—adaptation of the word,

instrumentality limits neither power, nor sovereignty,

Secret providence not a rule of duty,

Secret providence may be executed without means, and contrary to natural laws,

Regeneration may be effected without positive institutions, and above the word,— case of infants,

Exceptions are such as establish instrumentality,—difference between regeneration and inspiration,

A denial of instrumentality confounds them, —is enthusiastic,

XVII. Immediate action consists wish instrumentality, but incomprehensible,—same in sanctification,

XVIII. The question stated,

147 149

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER II. Xl

THE WORD PROVED TO BE THE INSTRUMENT

OF REGENERATION.

i Analogous to the divine procedure in the. natural world, 150 Il. The word the seminal principle of regeneration, 151 Ii Turretine’s view examined, 153, 154 IV. Gives no countenance to an enthusiastic regeneration, 156 . The word called seed,—1 John iii. 9, explained, 158 VI. Exposition of Mark iv. 26, 27,—Luke viii. 11,—1 Pet. i. 23. 160 VI. The word proved to be the instrument from ne James i. 18, 161 VII. From James i. 21, 162 IX. “© Romans vi. 17, 163 X. ‘¢ Romans vii. 9, 164 XI. ‘¢ Psalm cxix. 50, 93, 130, 165 tee ee Peat xix: 7) 167 XIII. “ Romans viii. 28,30, and Heb, ix. 15,— Westminster Assembly, 168 XIV. Difference between external and internal call,— Testimony of Associate Church, 171 XV. Testimony of Marshall, 178 XVI. Farther arguments drawn from the scriptures, 175 XVII. Reformers taught the same doctrine,— Warning of Synod, 176 CHAPTER III.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

I. Objection drawn from the immediate action / of the Spirit, 178 i], From the passivity of the soul, 180

XU CONTENTS.

Ii, From moral suasion,

IV. ‘¢ the inefficacy of the word,

ie < _positive institutions,

Vi. *¢ the spiritual death of the soul,

VII. ‘* acavil on the word organ,

VIII. An absurd objection,

1X. Instrumentality not inconsistent with immediate action,

X. Does not strengthen Pelagianism, XI. Regeneration known by its effects,—The Mystics,

XII. Objection ‘drawn from the term seed »—Luke vill. 8—15, and Heb. xi. 11, examined,

XIII. Objection drawn from our incapacity to comprehend the manner in which the word operates,

XIV. Objection from James i. 18.

XV. Objection from Turretine,

XVI. From Dr. Owen,

XVII. From Dr. Gill,

XVIII. From Dr. Ridgley,

XIX. Objection that the doctrine of instrumentality is a dependence upon the letter,

Address to the members and hearers of the author’s pastoral charge,

List of authors.quoted,

206:

223:

PART, I.

THE NATURE OF REGENERATION.

Chapter I. Statement Of Errors

I, As it would be impossible for the reader to see the bearing and force of many remarks in the following pages, without a knowledge of the principal errors which have been broached upon the subject of Regeneration, particular attention is called in the outset to the most prominent.

1. The radical error of the Arminians, is, that the understanding alone needs to be enlightened :—

«What we do really believe to be our chief good, will be chosen; and what we apprehend to be the worst of evils, will, whilst we do continue under that conviction, be refused by us. It, therefore, can be only requisite, in order to these ends, that the good Spirit should so dllumine our understandings, that we attending to and considering what lies before us, should apprehend and be convinced of our duty.’””*

*‘ We know if an object be viewed as good by our understanding the will chooses it.’”’}

2. The modern Hopkinsians maintain that depravity is limited to the will:— ‘‘’That man possesses, since the fall, the powers of agency requisite to moral obligation, on the ground of the possibility of obedience, is a matter of noto-

TEERY Sic oie ys Choice, without the possibility of other or contrary choice, is the immemorial doctrine of fatHlism. 3. 0 The doctrine of the natural ability of choice, commensurate with obligation, has been, and is, the received doctrine of che universal orthodox church, from the primitive age down to this day.’’t

‘¢Sin and holiness are predicable of nothing but moral actions.’’}

‘¢Sin is a wrong choice, or volition. Holiness is its opposite; aright choice or volition. Nothing else is sin; nothing else is holiness.”’||

“The understanding, considered as distinct from the will, is not capable of moral depravity.” T

* Whitby.

t Inquiro in the Religious Monitor, Vol. 18, p. 289.

t Beecher’s Views in Theology, pp. 30, 31, 35, 47.

§ Hopkins, Vol. 1. p. 129.

|| Spring’s Disquisitions, p. 16.

1 Hopkins, Vol. 1. p. 532.

3. Many from Pelagius to the present day teach that God only assists us by the word, in the production of that change, which takes place in regeneration. See Pelagius as quoted by Turretine.

4, A large number of theologians in different denominations still maintain the doctrine, that all the Holy Spirit. does in regenerating sinners, is to make them willing to do that which they were really able to do before:—

«‘ As God requires men to make to themselves a new heart, on pain of eternal death, it is the strongest possible evidence that they are able to do it... ... The reason why God cannot sin, is not because he is naturally unable to sin, nor because selfishness in him would not be sin. But it is said he cannot sin, because he is voluntarily holy, infinitely disposed not to sin..... A change of heart, then, consists in changing the controlling preference of the mind in regard to the end of pursuit.””*

‘Jt is going altogether beyond the analogy in the case, to assert that there is in regeneration the injection, infusion, or implantation, or creation of a new principle of spiritual life.’’}

‘‘The Bible knows no instantaneous regeneration.’’f

* Finney. } Duffield. ¢ Dr. Gilbert.

5. The Hopkinsians teach, that, “in regeneration, conversion and sanctification, the Holy Spirit operates by his power immediately, and without means, upon the heart.’’*

‘‘ Men are not regenerated by light or the word of

6. New school divines teach that it is effected “ by the influence of truth presented to the mind, and in no other way.’’+

In regeneration “ the sinner is as active as in any subsequent act of obedience.’’}

‘*'The part which the Holy Spirit performs in the work, is, to present truth powerfully before the mind in the form of motives, like an advocate arguing a cause before a jury; or as one man influences and persuades another in the common affairs of life; though with infinitely greater skill and force than can be employed by any human agent. His attention is thus arrested—he resolves in his mind the points at issue —and at length being convinced where his true interest lies, he is prevailed upon by the moral suasion of the Spirit, to change the governing purpose or preference of his mind, and to choose God as his Supreme portion.”||

3 Emmons, Vol. 2. p. 33. Strong, pp. 120, 173. t Hop. Vol. 1. p. 536. t Gilbert. § Emmons, p. 337. _ || Old and New Theology, p. 173.

These authorities could be greatly extended, were it judged necessary.

7. A receht writer, however, goes beyond any of his predecessors in the denial of the instrumentality of the word in regencration: —

“Tt can and should be understood by us how the word operates as an instrument in renewing the soul. . .. A great and supernatural change is effected prior to the operation of the word. .... The word does not operate upon the soul in the very act of regeneration.? 2.) If the word operate, the soul must act. It is impossible, we apprehend, to conceive of any instrumental efficiency in the word, without supposing a corresponding activity in the soul..... A second act necessarily supposes a first, and because the object must be apprehended by the faculty, it re- "quires that the faculty itself be rightly disposed antecedently to the reception of it... .. The word is instrumental in the production of the creature viewed as in a state of perfect formation, which is not the case until it has seen the light, and put forth incipient acts: . . . . The connexion between the word and regeneration, is not that connexion which there is between an instrumental cause and its effect, but a connexion of institution. . . . . The doctrine of the instrumentality of the word strengthens Pelagianism. a* )

1s REGENERATION.

- - James i. 18, says nothing about a new heart, it only has the appearance of being on the subject.”’*

The scriptures ‘do not teach the doctrine of the instrumentality of the word in regeneration.” ‘There .is no adaptation in the word to operate instrumentally upon the soul, nor any adaptation in the faculties of the soul to be operated upon by the word, in the hand of the Spirit. Regeneration is not the effect of the operation of the word in the hand of the Spirit:—Because, 1. The soul is dead in sins: 2. Regeneration is called a creation: 3. It is effected by the direct and immediate influence of the Spirit.t

IJ. In these conflicting sentiments, all equally contrary to the testimony of revealed truth, may be ‘readily traced the following errors, either @xpressed or necessarily implied:— |

1. The Be Mi of man is not total.

2. Depravity us limited to the understanding. \

3. Depravity ra ietieea to the will.

4, Regeneration\ is merely a change of purpose, or choice of tihe will.

t Evangelical Repositor\ y, Vol. 1. Number for September, 1842.

5. No spiritual life is infused; no new moral power communicated.

6. It is effected by the influence of truth, and in no other way.

7. It is effected without any means whatever.

8. God’s command to sinners to make to themselves a new heart, proves their ability to obey.

9. If the Holy Spirit employ “the word of truth”’ in regeneration, it proves the sinner’s ability to make a right use of the word, “If the word operate, the soul must act.”

10. Regeneration is not an instantaneous act.

III. Such, then, are the legitimate fruits of human depravity. These prevalent errors, pernicious, as they are plausible to the biassed reasonings of the natural man, are perfectly congenial to that alienation of mind from God, that leads men to prefer “the words which man’s wisdom teaches,”’ to “the words which the Holy Ghost teaches.’? Consequently, they are the result, not of the Spirit’s dictation, but of a human philosophy. “In Mr. Finney’s two sermons, on the duty of sinners to change their own hearts, he uses the words philosophy, philosophical, unphilosophical, &c., at least fourteen times, He tells us about ¢ the philosophy of conversion,’ ‘the philosophy of self-examination,’ and ‘the philosophy of special efforts to promote revivals of religion.’ Every step in the change is brought to the test of philosophy; and the failure of the sinner to submit to God, is ascribed in one instance to his not understanding the philosophy of the process.”’* In like manner, those who deny the instrumentality of the word in regeneration, are philosophers. One is afraid of “reasoning ina circle;’’ another.is unable to make the doctrine square with his philosophy. He cannot understand how the word. operates. This should be understood; and if it cannot be understood, it should not be believed.. Thus men are too philosophical to believe mysteries, |

Those who deny the infusion of spiritual life in regeneration by the immediate action of divine power, unwittingly adopt the religion of nature, which is seen in the lives of the mass of mankind; but more strikingly exhi-

* Old and New Theology, p. 224.

bited through those horrid superstitions, which form the constituent elements of Popery and Paganism. The tendency of this denial is towards the Atheism of the materialist, which excludes the power of God, not only from the sustentation and government, but also from the creation of the world. But, on the other hand, a denial of the instrumentality of the word in the production of this great change, is one step towards that independency of Deism, which rejects the means of grace. Its advocates are unconsciously rushing into an alliance with those sons of pride who form an imaginary God, to whom they dictate the laws by which he shall govern his creatures.

Chapter II. The State Of The Question

I, Depravity is the source of that radical error,—THE ABILITY OF THE NATURAL MAN’S WiLL,—from which the false and clashing sentiments quoted in the preceding chapter shoot up spontaneously. But this error appears to be fostered in the church, by the want of a due consideration of the difference between the present and primitive state of man; applying to his fallen state arguments which are applicable only to a state of innocence. It is this, which not only clothes error in its plausible garb, but _ also gives it such amazing success in the world. In his primitive state man was perfectly righteous and holy: “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright.” Eccles. vii. 29. He had a perfect knowledge of the divine will respecting himself; for the law of God was written upon his heart, Rom. 11.15. He was able to obey all that the law required; for he wascreated in the image of God, Gen. i. 27. - Thus he was fully capable of the knowledge, love, service, and enjoyment of God his Maker,

From this holy and blessed state he fell by transgression: “He hath sought out many inventions,” Eccles. vii. 29. His fall brought him into a state of guilt and wretchedness from which he has no more power to deliver himself, than the homicide has power to call into life the victim of his unbridled passion. “ For by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; for that all have sinned,’? Rom. v.12. How deplorable then is the present state of the human race! How great the delusion of those who so inconsiderately apply facts and reasoning to Lost man which can only be predicated of man in his primitive state! For although the fall did, indeed, change man’s relation to his Maker, it did not and could not change either the character of God or the claims of his law, which always did and always must require men to “ Love God with all their heart, and soul, and mind and strength, and their neighbour as themselves.”? A contrary supposition implies that God is mutable, and will permit the creature to abrogate his law.

II. But it is maintained by our opponents, that man, in his fallen state, possesses natural ability of will to comply with the requirements of the divine law. Consequently, that regeneration can be nothing more than a “ change of the governing purpose or preference of the mind, which is effected by the presentation of motives drawn from the word.”? The orthodox maintain, that, “although the natural power of understanding and willing remains always in it, (the mind,) nevertheless, the moral habit, or disposition of judging and willing rightly, has been so destroyed, that it can no longer be moved to the upright exercise of itself by the presentation (appulsum) of the object, as was the case in the natural order and instituted state of man, unless the faculty be first renewed.”* Hence they hold, that a supernaturalt change must pass upon all the faculties of the soul, equivalent to a new creation, or resurrection from the dead: that such a change is neces-

t Not inconsistent with the natural faculties, but above their ability.

sary, because, in respect to the right performance, from right-motives, of any duty towards God, or men, the depravity of soul in the natural man is TOTAL.

Ill. A few out of the many passages of scripture, that might be adduced to prove this total depravity of natural men, and the radical change which is ‘effected in regeneration, by the Almighty power of the Holy Spirit, are here selected as the basis of the present discussion.

1. In respect to the understanding. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned,”’ 1 Cor. ii. 14. “There is none that understandeth,”’ Rom.ili.11. “Having the understanding darkened,” Eph. iv.18. “They have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven images,” Isaiah xlv. 20. “To do good they: have no knowledge,” Jer. iv. 22. « Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord,” Eph. v.8. “ The eyes of your understanding being enlightened,” Eph. i. 18. “'Then opened he their understanding,” Luke xxiv.45. “Whose heart the Lord opened,” Acts xvi.14. “Renewed in knowledge,” Col.

iii. 10. “ For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,’’ 2 Cor. iv. 6.

2. In respect to the will. “They say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways,’? Job xxi. 14. “We will not have this man to reign over us,”’ Luke xix. 14. “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life,’ John v. 40. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,’’ Psalm cx. 3. |

3. In respect to the affections. “ How long will ye hate knowledge?” Prov. i. 22. “I have loved strangers, and after them will I go,” Jer. ii, 25. “They have loved to wander,”’ Jer. xiv. 10. Sensual,’? Jude 19. “Earthly, sensual, devilish,’’? James iii. 15. ‘ Herein is love, nor that we loved God,” &c., 1 John iv: 10. .

4, In respect to the conscience. “ Even their conscience defiled,”” i Pit. tih5.. << Hayne our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,” Heb. x. 22. alice

5. In regard to the desperate wickedness, yea, total depravity, of the whole soul, in all its faculties and operations, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be,’? Rom, -yiii. 7. “Every imagination of the thoughts of the heart is only evil continually,” Gen. vi, 5. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked,”’ Jer. xvii. 9. “The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it,” Is. i. 5, 6.

6. In reference to the natural man’s inability. Although necessarily to be inferred from the forecited passages, still it is also taught in the most explicit language. ‘Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil,”? Jer. xiii. 23. ‘“‘You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins,’ Eph. ii. 1. “No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him,” John vi. 44. “A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit,’’? Mat. vii. 18. “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,’ John v. 25. These, and many similar scriptures, illustrate and give pungency to the words of our Lord:—

«Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do,”’ John viil. 44.

7, The same truth is still farther confirmed, by a consideration of those passages of scripture in which God declares the work of changing a sinner’s heart to be his own prerogative, . «The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live for ever,’’ Deut. xxx. 6. “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes,” Ezek. xxxvi. 25— 27. “1 will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts,” Jer. xxxi. 33, Hence the declaration of our Lord, (Matt. xv. 13,) ¢¢Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.’’

Do these solemn declarations of the Holy Ghost mean only the natural man’s own change of purpose? Do they mean no more than that God will assist and succeed his endeavours? Do they imply ability of will commensurate with the divine command,— ‘¢ Make you a new heart?”? Surely, no candid person, solicitous for his own eternal welfare, will maintain the affirmative to any of these questions, .

IV. The whole human race are justly chargeable with self-destruction. “QO Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself,’ Hosea xiii. 9. Man has lifted his hand against his own life. Death entered the world by the sin of man, Rom. v.12. He is the author of his own misery. In this respect he differs from all the other creatures of God, excepting only the devils. “Ye are of your father the devil.” Nor is it possible for men to throw the responsibility of their guilt, either upon the secret providence of God, or the instrumentality of others. “The wicked is snared in the work of his own hands,” Ps. ix. 16. Some of this lost race, God in mercy and wisdom determined to save; to remove their guilt through the satisfaction of a surety; and to renew their nature by his

Q* power. In reference to the rirsT exercise of Almighty power in accomplishing this renovation of nature, the ave yey has been instituted.

V. It is necessary, in a subject like this, to define as accurately as possible such terms as are liable to misapprehension. By “ faculty ” is intended an inherent mental power, essential to the being and identity of the soul. By the phrase “new moral nature,’’ the principle of the new birth is intended, in opposition to the Pelagian “change of purpose,’’ and by way of distinction from the exercises of the renewed soul. Consequently it will be seen that by “new moral nature’? is intended subjection, or conformity to the divine law, together with the ca: pacity for active, and sincere, though it may be still far from perfect obedience to that law. It is used interchangeably with “spiritual life,” to prevent the too frequent recurrence of the same phrase. The carnal mind of the natural man 1s not subject to the divine law, (Rom. viii. 7,) ‘neither indeed can be.” But the mind of the renewed man is in a state, both of passive and active subjection to the law, which implies a new moral nature and capacity.