DR. SPRING'S

DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION.

ONE of the most important objects at which a theological teacher should aim, is the acquisition of such views of religion and such a method of exhibiting them, as, from their harmony with each other and the dictates of common sense, are adapted to produce a strong conviction of their truth; such views as accord with fact, and such a presentation of them as to give them to bear on the conscience and heart with their natural and resistless force.

Such was eminently the character of the ministry of the Son of God. All his doctrines, injunctions, exhortations, and warnings, were such, and were presented in such a manner, as to carry along with them a demonstration of their truth and propriety. His hearers recognised the accuracy of the pictures which he drew of their obligations and guilt; the wicked trembled at the justice of his rebukes, and the penitent felt the reality and adaptedness to their wants, of the truths which he revealed and the promises which he offered for their consolation.

And such will be the character of every one's instructions, as far as they accord with the gospel. Truths are ever the same, and universally consistent with each other. They are facts, and all exhibitions of them will consequently harmonize with each other and the realities which they respect.

But any other than such a system of views must obviously, instead of gaining, be adapted to defeat its object. A course of instruction fraught with palpable and important contradictions, at one time inculcating views that overthrow the truths which it teaches at another, here subverting the foundation of the obligations which it there endeavours to enforce, and thence harassing the heart with temptations, instead of exciting it to obedience, must necessarily fail to a great extent of its end, and prove the instrument of multiplying in place of removing the obstacles to the salvation of men.

This fault, however, is apparent in no inconsiderable portion of the theological systems which prevail in the protestant church. Many of their important truths are obscured or overthrown by errors intermingled with them; and their doctrines, contradictory to each other and irreconcileable with revelation, consciousness, and reason, present strong temptations to unbelief, as well as inducements to obedience.

It were easy to verify this by a reference to several of the current doctrines and popular works of the day. A sufficient illustration of it, however, for the present occasion, is furnished by the doctrine of regeneration, as exhibited in "A Dissertation" on the subject, lately published by the Rev. G. Spring.

This is selected merely for its recency, not for any novelty or peculiarity of its views, or manner of exhibiting them. They are generally what are found in the current works on the subject, and often presented with much greater clearness and force.

The main doctrine of the Dissertation, in relation to which its others may be most conveniently considered, is, that the Holy Spirit regenerates the mind by an immediate or physical agency, wholly exclusive of the instrumentality of moral means.

"To say nothing of that class of scriptures which attribute the work of regeneration to the immediate efficiency of the Holy Spirit, the peculiarity of the following passages cannot have escaped our notice," &c. "As though he would impress the thought that holiness was the immediate effect of divine power in distinction from all other ways of producing it, John declares," &c. "We would hesitate in affirming with some most excellent men, that the principal reason why the immediate operation of the Spirit of God in the production of holiness is necessary, is found in any deficiency of intellectual capacity in unregenerated men, or any deficiency in the moral sense, or that this divine influence is necessary to make them moral agents, and to originate their obligations to piety. The principal reason why this influence is necessary is, that unregenerated men are enemies to God and holiness, and their hostility is so unyielding, that no light communicated to their understanding, no obligations addressed to their conscience, no motives presented to their hopes or their fears, can produce holy love." pp. 23–25.

This dogma, the reverse of the doctrine of the word of God on the subject, it is not my intention to undertake formally to refute. I shall employ myself rather in pointing out some of the difficulties which attend its adoption and inculcation, and in contrasting it in that respect with the opposite doctrine.

I. The first difficulty attending it, to which I shall refer, is, that it has no support from the scriptures.

66

Dr. S. speaks, indeed, of their being a class of scriptures which attribute the work of regeneration to the immediate efficiency of the Holy Spirit," but has not designated any such, nor have any of the writers who have employed themselves in inculcating the doctrine;—and obviously because no such class exists. All the passages which relate to the subject, are employed in either simply stating the fact that God renews the mind, or that he renews it through the instrumentality of truth,-none in affirming that it is accomplished without the aid of means. Such

at least I must regard as the fact, until I am able to discover, or the advocates of the opposite position to point out, some passage in which that is plainly inculcated.

The importance of this objection is too apparent to need illustration.

II. All efforts, consequently, to demonstrate it from the scriptures, are misapplications of the sacred word.

Such is most obviously the fact with the passages which Dr. S. quotes for the purpose.

"When Moses reminded the children of Israel of all the wonders of mercy and judgment, in which God had passed before them, he took particular pains to inform them, that all these had not availed to their regeneration. Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs and those great miracles; yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear unto this day." p. 24.

But this is plainly nothing more than a simple statement of the fact, that the means of regeneration had not in that instance been rendered efficacious. It does not affirm nor imply that they never are, and that regeneration is the effect of the "immediate efficiency of the Holy Spirit." To al

lege it, therefore, as proof of that doctrine, is obviously as unauthorised as to derive from it any other inference. It no more follows from the fact that the means employed in that instance were not efficacious, that means are never instrumental to the renovation of the mind, and that it is regenerated solely by an agency wholly exclusive of them, than from the fact that the publication of the gospel is not in all instances productive of good, it follows that it is never of any service; or from the fact that some who enjoy the influences of the Divine Spirit are not renewed, it follows that his agency is never the cause of regeneration; or from the fact that means ever in any instance in the moral or physical world fail of accomplishing the end for which they are employed, it follows infallibly that they never have any instrumentality whatever. But to what conclusions should we be carried, were we to permit ourselves to reason on such a principle? The means of regeneration enjoyed in a certain instance were not rendered efficacious, therefore they never are! It will certainly follow then, and much more obviously, that no being is ever renewed; and thence that there is no such thing as regeneration. A more extraordinary misapplication of the word of God could scarcely have occurred.

His next quotations are of the same character.

"As though he would impress the thought that holiness was the immediate effect of divine power in distinction from all other ways of producing it, John declares of those who were adopted into the family of Christ, that they were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.'" p. 24.

This passage however, simply affirms on the one hand, that the children of God are not born of certain things,