change in the human soul, by which it is "created anew in Christ Jesus," is a work which God has delegated to no ordinance or means of grace; to no minister, nor angel; but reserved to himself alone. Therefore, we conclude that the theory of regeneration in question is unphilosophical, and irreconcilable with the nature of things. (2.) A second objection to this theory of regeneration is, that it is at war with the doctrine of man's native and total depravity. Indeed, few have ever advocated it, but such as have denied total depravity. And in this respect, though inconsistent with Scripture, they have been consistent with themselves. For if man, by the mere exercise of his native mental powers, and submission to baptism, can effect the regeneration of his soul, then he cannot be so totally depraved and helpless as to be able to do nothing toward his salvation without the aid of Divine influence. We think it must be obvious that the doctrine of regeneration without Divine influence directly exerted cannot stand with the doctrine of total depravity; and, as the latter has been sufficiently proved in former lectures, we add nothing on that point here. (3.) A third objection to this theory is, that it conflicts with those Scriptures which make it our duty to pray to God for regeneration and its concomitant blessings. That such is the Scripture requirement, we think can scarcely be denied. The command is, seek! ask! knock ! The Holy Spirit is promised to them that "ask;" and St. Paul declares, "As many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Hence, in praying for the Spirit of God, or for the pardon of sins, we are praying for regeneration; these blessings involve each other. But, we ask, on the supposition that God has nothing to do, directly, with regeneration, how can we consistently implore his aid? Will we call on God to do for us what he has made it our duty and privilege to do for ourselves? Or will we beseech him to do what we believe would be contrary to the gospel? According to this theory, for a sinner to be petitioning the throne of God for "a new heart," the "remission of sins," or the blessing of "salvation," would render it suitable for the Almighty to rebuke him, by saying, "Why call upon me on this subject? Have I not given you the power to effect this work without my aid? Go, read the Bible, believe the evidence there, and be baptized, and you may thus regenerate your own souls, by merely exercising your native powers. You have the Scriptures, and you have your native faculties; these are all sufficient; but if they were not, the age of miracles is past, and I exert no direct influence on the hearts of men; and why, therefore, will you waste your time in prayer?" Such a view of the subject seems more congenial to infidelity than religion; but, we confess, to our mind, it appears perfectly consistent with the theory before us. Would a man act consistently to pray to God for the Scriptures, while he has them already in possession? Surely not; and why? Simply because God has already conferred the blessing. No more could he, according to this theory, ask God for the regeneration of his soul; for, so far as the exertion of the Divine influence is concerned, that work is already as completely accomplished as it ever will be. God will do nothing more. (4.) This theory of regeneration by the mere exercise of our native powers contradicts those Scriptures that attribute this work directly to God. These passages are numerous and explicit. It is said, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John i. 12, 13. Here "the power to become the sons of God," or being "born," is not represented to be by mental or physical influence; it is attributed directly to "God." Again; the very terms by which this change is uniformly expressed, if it be not effected by a direct influence of God, are calculated to mislead. It is called a "creation," a "translation," "renewal," and it is repeatedly expressed by the phrase "born of God." We therefore conclude, that, as this theory is unphilosophical, or irreconcilable with the nature of things, -as it is at war with the doctrine of total depravity,—as it conflicts with the Scripture presentation of the duty of prayer,- and as it contradicts all those passages which attribute this work directly to God,-it cannot be true. The two theories which we have considered err on opposite extremes; - the former, by attributing the work to God, irrespective of the agency of man; the latter, by attributing it entirely to man, independent of Divine influence. 3. The third theory of regeneration contains what we believe to be the Scripture view of the subject. It is embraced, as before said, in these two propositions: (1.) It is a work performed by the direct and efficient operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart. (2.) The Holy Spirit exerts this regenerating power only on conditions required of man. The first position, we think, needs no additional proof. On the last we will observe : (1.) It cannot be maintained that the prima facie evidence of Scripture is opposed to conditional regeneration. To quote all the passages which unequivocally teach this idea, would be to transcribe much of the sacred volume. Let it suffice that we notice the principal objection to this doctrine. It is said by Calvinists to conflict with the Scripture view of human depravity and salvation by grace. In reply to this objection, we would say, 1. It might be inconsistent with the doctrine of human depravity if it were contended that the sinner performs these conditions of himself, independent of Divine grace; but such is not the fact. It is "God that worketh in us," that we may have the ability to comply with the conditions prescribed of ourselves we can do nothing. God imparts the grace, which we are required to improve; and when the condition is performed, the promise is sure. As to the second branch of the objection, we remark, that the conditions of regeneration cannot destroy the idea of grace, unless those conditions are considered meritoricus. Grace or favor does not cease to be such because it is conferred according to a certain plan. The conditions of salvation do not change the nature of the blessing bestowed; they only describe the method of bestowment. From all that has been said, we conclude, that regeneration is neither a work of God without the agency of man, nor a work of man without the influence of God, but a work of God performed on conditions required of man. QUESTIONS ON LECTURE XXVI. QUESTION 1. Is regeneration intimately connected with other leading doctrines? 2. In what places does the term occur in Scripture? 3. What is its literal import? 4. How is it to be understood in Matthew? 5. How in Titus? 6. By what other terms is regeneration expressed in Scripture? 7. Does regeneration consist in a historical 8. Does it consist in mere morality? 19. The third? 23. Who have been the advocates of the 24. Have they been agreed among them- 25. 26. 27. 23. 10. Does it imply new faculties of body or 29. soul? 11. How, then, may it be defined? 12. By what texts is this definition sustained? 13. How is regeneration distinguished from 14. Are these blessings simultaneous? 16. By what quotations is the theory of 17. Is this theory inseparably connected with particular and unconditional election? 18. What is the second argument against this theory? How is this theory shown to be unphilo- In what two different senses is the influ- How is the evasion met? How is this theory shown to be incon- 30. How does it conflict with the duty of 31. Wherein is it contrary to those Scrip- 32. What are some of those Scriptures? 34. What is the principal Calvinistic objec- 35. How is the first branch of the objection 36. How is the second answered? tion? A LECTURE XXVII. THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE doctrine of DIVINE INFLUENCE is clearly revealed in the sacred Scriptures, and stands connected with every dispensation and every leading topic of religion. Against this great Bible truth infidelity has hurled her keenest shafts of ridicule, and manifested a most irreconcilable enmity. It is a subject on which there has been a diversity of sentiment among the confessedly orthodox, while pseudo-Christians have exercised their ingenuity to explain it away. Yet we think it will appear, in the sequel, that a renunciation of this doctrine is a renunciation of all vital religion, and that any modification or abatement of its full scriptural import is a proportionate surrender of the essentials of godliness. The importance of this doctrine, considered in its connection with the scheme of human salvation, as well as the great extent of controversy which it has elicited in almost every age of the church, should deeply impress our minds with the necessity of the most implicit and devout reliance on the teachings of inspiration, that we may, upon this radical doctrine, be delivered from all dangerous error, and guided into the knowledge of all essential truth. The influence of the Holy Spirit is a doctrine so repeatedly and explicitly recognized in the Bible, that a formal renunciation of it would amount to a rejection of revelation. Hence, all who have acknowledged the truth of the Scriptures have admitted, under some modification, the doctrine now proposed for discussion. But when the subject is closely scrutinized, and critical inquiry made concerning what is understood by the influence of the Spirit, it is manifest that the phrase is far from being of the same import in the lips of all who use it. Hence, it is very important that we inquire carefully concerning the sense in which this doctrine is presented in Scripture. I. The Scriptures were inspired and confirmed by the miraculous agency of the Holy Spirit. On this point, we refer to the following passages of the holy word. 2 Pet. i. 21. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy meu of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Acts xxviii. 25. "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers." Acts i. 16. "This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas." So far as the inspiration of the prophets is concerned, the above texts are conclusive. In reference to the inspiration of the apostles, the following passages may be consulted: Matt. x. 19, 20. "When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." John xiv. 26. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." 1 Cor. ii. 10, 12, 13. "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." "Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things we also speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." From the foregoing passages, it is evident that the apostles were immediately inspired, by the Holy Ghost, to make known the truths of the gospel as recorded in the New Testament. To qualify them for the great work assigned them, of publishing, and confirming by "signs and wonders and divers miracles," the truths of the gospel, they were supernaturally endued with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. Thus commissioned and prepared, they went forth, and spoke, "as the Spirit gave them utterance," the wonderful things of God, and were enabled to heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform many notable miracles, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and "in the name of Jesus of Nazareth." II. The Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit operates on the minds and hearts of men, in convicting, regenerating, and converting the sinner, and in comforting, guiding, and sanctifying the Christian. Perhaps all professed Christians will admit the truth of this proposition; but all do not construe it in the same way. Therefore, much care is requisite that we may perceive clearly the sense in which this subject is understood by different persons. 1. The first theory that we shall notice upon this subject is that which denies the personality of the Holy Spirit altogether, and explains the phrase to imply nothing but the manifestation of a Divine attribute. The abettors of this theory reject the doctrine of the Trinity; and when they speak of the Holy Spirit, they do not mean a personal intelligence, but merely the manifestation or exercise of some of the Divine attributes. Thus, by the indwelling of the Spirit in the heart of the Christian, they mean no more than this: that a disposition or quality |