074. CHAPTER 34 - REGENERATION.
CHAPTER 34 - REGENERATION. THE divinity of the Bible is a beautiful and harmonious system, consisting of a variety of important principles, closely connected and mutually dependent upon each other. As the malformation of a single wheel would derange all the parts of a complicated piece of machinery, so a radical error in relation to one important doctrine generally extends its influence throughout the entire gospel system. This truth is nowhere more manifest than in connection with the subject now to be considered. Regeneration is a grand focal point, occupying a central position in theology. Here all the important doctrines of the gospel meet; and any radical error in the theories of men may generally be detected. For it may well be said, that whoever is sound in his entire view of the doctrine of regeneration, cannot be seriously erroneous in any essential doctrine of salvation; but, on the other hand, a radical error in this doctrine will not only extend its influence to almost every leading doctrine of Christianity, but it will endanger the salvation of the soul.
All this will be obvious when it is reflected that regeneration implies what is commonly understood by experimental religion. It contemplates that vital change in the moral character which constitutes the distinctive characteristic of the Christian, and which alone can give a meetness for heaven. He who holds not the essential truth here, errs where error may be tremendously fatal; but he whose theory, experience, and life, accord with the orthodox views of regeneration, may embrace in his system of theology much “wood, hay, and stubble,” which shall be burned, “yet he himself shall be saved.” In reference to this point especially, every serious inquirer after salvation should prayerfully “search the Scriptures,” in constant remembrance of the divine monition, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” But he that not only fatally errs on this subject, but “teaches men” to follow him, “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the midst of the sea.” May the Spirit of truth enlighten our understandings, that on this important subject we may have correct thoughts and speak right words!
I.We inquire what is implied in regeneration. This word occurs but twice in the New Testament - Matthew 19:28, and Titus 3:5. In the first-mentioned place, the Greek word is paliggenesia, which signifies reproduction, restoration, or renovation. In Titus the word is the same, only varying in case, and has the same import. Although the same word having the same general import, is used in both places, yet the learned have generally agreed that it does not imply, in both cases, a renovation of the same kind. In Matthew, our Saviour says to the apostles: “Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” The sense in this passage is materially affected by the punctuation. Whitby, Benson, Wesley, Clarke, Watson, and the learned commentators, with few exceptions, so far as we have examined, connect the clause, “in the regeneration,” with what follows. But even then, they differ in the application. Some understand “the regeneration” to refer to the millennial state; others, to the general resurrection and day of judgment; but others, we think, with more propriety, refer it to the perfected gospel dispensation. This, then, being adopted as the most consistent interpretation of the passage, it follows that “regeneration,” in this place, has no reference to the change of personal character constituting an individual a son of God, but a change in the state of things - a renovation of the Church, implying the dissolution of the old, and the establishment of the new, dispensation. The passage in Titus reads as follows: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
Here, as most commentators think, “washing of regeneration” refers to the rite of baptism; but not to the external rite alone, or even mainly. The word “washing” more properly refers to the rite, and “regeneration” to the moral change signified thereby. So constantly was the thing signified present in the minds of the primitive Christians when they contemplated the sign, that they might, without danger of misapprehension, only mention the one, when both were evidently implied. But that “regeneration,” in this place, implies the renewing of the heart, appears obvious from the succeeding clause, “and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” which is intimately connected with, and exegetical of, what precedes. Hence we conclude that, in this passage, the term “regeneration” is applied to that moral renovation of character which constitutes an individual a child of God and an heir of eternal life. So general has been the use of the term regeneration, as expressive of the moral change above mentioned, by theologians in all ages of the Church, that, even if the word itself were not found in Scripture, there could be no impropriety in its use, as its agreed sense is clearly and repeatedly expressed by various other terms. Thus it is called a “passing from death unto life” - a being “born again” - “born of the Spirit” - “born of God” - being “in Christ” - “a new creature” - “created anew,” etc. When, therefore, we speak of “regeneration,” we mean that change in man expressed in Scripture by such terms as we have just quoted. Our present inquiry is to ascertain what that change implies.
1.It does not mean a mere conversion from infidelity to a historical belief of the facts, and a theoretical belief of the truths, of the gospel.
Regeneration presupposes, but does not consist in, mere orthodox views in religion. A person may understand and believe, theoretically, the doctrines of the gospel, and yet be an utter stranger to experimental and practical godliness, and consequently in a state of alienation from God, and exposure to his wrath and righteous indignation.
2.It does not consist in mere morality or external reformation.
This, likewise, regeneration requires; but all this may exist while the heart is unrenewed, and the soul under condemnation.
3.It does not mean a mere external profession of religion.
God has instituted his Church in the world, and commanded that there should be “added unto the Church daily” such as embrace the gospel by faith; but in every age there have been a portion of spurious disciples - persons either deceived themselves, or wickedly deceiving others. “All are not Israel that are of Israel;” the “tares and the wheat” still “grow together;” and in the pale of the visible Church are embraced many who know nothing of the spirituality of religion.
4.Nor does it imply a mere observance of all the forms, ordinances, and external duties of religion. Had this been all that was required, then the Pharisees would have been acceptable worshipers, and Saul of Tarsus might have pleaded the righteousness of the law. But it is “not every one that saith Lord, Lord that shall enter into the kingdom;” nor he that merely performs the external duties of religion; but such as are Christians in heart, “delighting in the law of God after the inward man,” and having “the power” as well as “the form of godliness.”
5.Regeneration does not imply new faculties of either body or soul.
These have become deranged and contaminated by the Fall, but not annihilated. The ungodly have eyes and ears to read and hear the word of God, as well as believers. And they likewise have all the faculties of the soul necessary for the exercise of every spiritual grace. Religion imparts no new faculty, but only regulates and purifies those that already exist. But we now inquire, positively, what does regeneration imply?
1. Regeneration may be defined to be a radical change in the moral character from the love, practice, and dominion of sin, to the love of God, and to the internal exercise, and external practice, of holiness. Or, as Mr. Watson expresses it, it is “deliverance from the bondage of sin, and the power and the will to do all things which are pleasing to God, both as to inward habits and outward acts.” The above definition, it will readily appear, is sustained by the following passages: - 1 John 3:9 : “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” Romans 6:14 : “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Verse 18: “Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Verse 22: “But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness; and the end everlasting life.” The native state of the heart is hatred to God. “The carnal mind” - that is, the unrenewed sinful nature - “is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So, then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” It is only divine grace, regenerating the soul, that can slay this enmity, “turn back our nature’s rapid tide,” and cause the affections of the soul to flow out after God and heavenly objects. The Apostle John says: “Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God;” and, “He that loveth not knoweth not God.” And again: “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren;” and farther: “This is the love of God that we keep his commandments;” and, “Every one which doeth righteousness is born of him.” From the scriptures adduced we may learn, 1. An unregenerate soul can neither love nor obey God while in that state.
2. Every regenerated soul loves God supremely, loves the people of God sincerely and affectionately, and engages willingly and heartily in the service of God, by obeying his commandments.
3.Regeneration stands closely connected with, but is distinct from, justification and adoption.
Mr. Wesley says, in his sermon on “The New Birth,” that justification “relates to that great work which God does for us, in forgiving our sins;” and that regeneration “relates to the great work which God does in us, in renewing our fallen nature.” “In order of time, neither of these is before the other: in the moment we are justified by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Jesus, we are also ‘born of the Spirit;’ but in order of thinking, as it is termed, justification precedes the new birth. We first conceive his wrath to be turned away, and then his Spirit to work in our hearts.” In reference to regeneration, justification, and adoption, Mr. Watson observes:
“They occur at the same time, and they all enter into the experience of the same person; so that no man is justified without being regenerated and adopted, and no man is regenerated and made a son of God who is not justified. Whenever they are mentioned in Scripture, they therefore involve and imply each other - a remark which may preserve us from some errors. Thus, with respect to our heirship, and consequent title to eternal life, in Titus 3:7, it is grounded upon our justification: ‘That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.’ In 1 Peter 1:3, it is connected with our regeneration: ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance,’ etc. Again, in Romans 8:17, it is grounded upon our adoption:
‘If children, then heirs.’ These passages are a sufficient proof that justification, regeneration, and adoption, are not distinct and different titles, but constitute one and the same title, through the gift of God in Christ, to the heavenly inheritance.” (Theological Institutes.)
II.We now inquire, How is the blessing of regeneration attained? By what is the great change which it implies produced? Upon this important subject there are three leading theories.
1. The first theory is, that this change is effected by the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, and that the mind of man is perfectly passive therein.
2. The second is what may be styled the theory of self-conversion. It allows no direct divine influence, but maintains that the truth acts upon the mind by way of moral suasion, and through it alone the sinner submits to the plan of salvation, and obeys the divine command in the ordinance of baptism; and this is said to constitute regeneration.
3. The third theory occupies middle ground between the two above given, and, as we hope to be able to show, is in accordance with the Scriptures. It embraces both divine and human agency as being concerned in the work. This theory is expressed by Dr. Fisk (see “Calvinistic Controversy”) in the following two propositions:
“1. The work of regeneration is performed by the direct and efficient operations of the Holy Spirit upon the heart.
2. The Holy Spirit exerts this regenerating power only on conditions, to be first complied with by the subject of the change.”
We will now consider each of these theories in order.
1. The theory which teaches that man is perfectly passive in regeneration is properly the Calvinistic scheme, as the following quotations will evince. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X., we read these words: “This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” In Buck’s Theological Dictionary, under the head of “Regeneration,” and in reference to it, we have these words:
“The properties of it (regeneration) are these 1. It is a passive work, and herein it differs from conversion. In regeneration we are passive, and receive from God: in conversion we are active, and turn to him.
2. It is an irresistible, or rather an invincible, work of God’s grace.” That the Calvinistic notion is not only that regeneration is a passive work but that it is the first effect of saving grace on the heart, and precedes both repentance and faith, will be farther evident from the following quotations: The great Charnock, as quoted by Buck, uses these words:
“In regeneration, man is wholly passive; in conversion, he is active. The first reviving us is wholly the act of God, without any concurrence of the creature; but after we are revived, we do actively and voluntarily live in his sight. Regeneration is the motion of God in the creature; conversion is the motion of the creature to God, by virtue of that first principle: from this principle all the acts of believing, repenting, mortifying, quickening, do spring. In all these a man is active; in the other he is merely passive.” (See Buck’s Theological Dictionary, under Conversion.) In the works of Thomas Scott, Vol. IV., “Saving Faith,” Part 2, Sec. 2, we have these words: “The first effect of the Lord’s special love to those who are dead in sin and slaves to divers lusts, consists in quickening and regenerating them; and they are regenerated that they may be justified, by being made capable of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.” “We are passive in receiving divine life, though it may be communicated while we are using the appointed means, or bestowing much diligence from natural principles; but we are active in turning to the Lord by true repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. The former is regeneration; the latter, conversion.” “Regeneration precedes both faith and conversion.”
Many more quotations from the most reputable Calvinistic authorities might be added, but we think that the above are sufficient to show that we are not misrepresenting the Calvinistic view, in the presentation above given. In the refutation of this theory of regeneration, we quote from Dr. Fisk, as follows:
“The notion that the mind is entirely passive in this change - that is, that nothing is done by the subject of it which is preparative or conditional, or in any way cooperative in its accomplishment, has been a prevailing sentiment in the various modifications of the old Calvinistic school. It is not, indeed, pretended that the mind is inactive either before or at the time this renovation is effected by the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, it is said that the sinner is resisting with all the power of the mind, and with all the obstinacy of the most inveterate enmity, up to the very moment, and in the very act, of regeneration. f2 So that the sinner is regenerated not only without his cooperation, but also in spite of his utmost resistance. Hence it is maintained that, but for the irresistible influence of the Holy Ghost upon the heart, no sinner would be regenerated.
“1. One of the leading objections to this view is that it is inseparably connected with the doctrine of particular and unconditional election. The two reciprocally imply each other, and must therefore stand or fall together. But this doctrine of particular and unconditional election has been sufficiently refuted, it is hoped; if so, then the doctrine of passivity and irresistible grace is not true.
“2. Another very serious difficulty which this theory (of regeneration) has to contend with is, that the Scriptures, in numerous passages, declare that the Spirit of God may be resisted, grieved, quenched, and utterly disregarded; and that the grace of God may be abused, or received in vain. The passages to establish these propositions are so frequent that I need not stop to point them out. But if this be so, then the grace of God and the Spirit of grace are not irresistible.
“3. It may be yet farther objected to this doctrine of the mind’s passivity in regeneration that it is a virtual denial of all gracious influence upon the heart before regeneration. It has been shown that man is not able to comply with the conditions of salvation without grace, and that the gracious influences of the Divine Spirit are given to every sinner previous to regeneration. But there would be no necessity for this, and no consistency in it, if there are no conditions and no cooperation on the part of the sinner in the process of the new birth. Hence the advocates of this doctrine very consistently maintain that the first act of grace upon the heart of the sinner is that which regenerates him. Since, then, this theory conflicts with the Bible doctrine of a gracious influence anterior to regeneration, it cannot be admitted.
“4. This theory of regeneration removes all conditions on the part of the sinner to the removal of the power and guile of sin. It teaches that if the sinner should do any thing acceptable to God, as a condition to his regeneration, it would imply he did not need regenerating; that such an idea, in fact, would be inconsistent with the doctrine of depravity, and irreconcilable with the idea of salvation by grace. And this is the ground on which the old Calvinists have so repeatedly charged us with the denial of the doctrines of grace, and with holding that we may be justified by our works. There is something very singular in these notions respecting the necessity of unconditional regeneration in order that it may be by grace. These same Calvinists tell us that the sinner can repent, and ought to repent, and that the Scriptures require it at his hand. What! is the sinner able and obliged to do that which would destroy the whole economy of grace - which would blot out the gospel, and nullify the atonement itself? Ought he to do that which would prove him a practical Pelagian and an operative workmonger? Is he, indeed, according to Calvinists themselves, required in Scripture to do that which would prove Calvinism false, and a conditional regeneration true? So it would seem. Put together these two dogmas of Calvinism: 1. The sinner is able and ought to repent. 2. The idea that the sinner does any thing toward his regeneration destroys the doctrine of depravity and of salvation by grace. I say, put these two together, and you have almost all the contradictions of Calvinism converged to a focus; and, what is most fatal to the system, you have the authority of Calvinism itself to prove that every intelligent probationer on the earth not only has the ability, but is authoritatively required, to give practical demonstration that the system is false! What is this but to say, ‘You can, and you cannot’ - if you do not, you will be justly condemned - if you do, you will ruin the gospel system, and yourself with it? When such glaring paradoxes appear, there must be something materially wrong in at least some parts of the system.
“5. But the inconsistency is not its only, and certainly not its most injurious, characteristic. In the same proportion as men are made to believe that there are no conditions on their part to their regeneration, they will be likely to fall into one of the two extremes of carelessness, or despair; either of which persisted in would be ruinous. I cannot doubt but that, in this way, tens of thousands have been ruined. We should infer that such would be the result of the doctrine from only understanding its character; and I am fully satisfied that, in my own personal acquaintance, I have met with hundreds who have been lulled in the cradle of Antinomianism on the one hand, or paralyzed with despair on the other, by this same doctrine of passive, unconditional regeneration. Calvinists, it is true, tell us this is the abuse of the doctrine; but it appears to me to be the legitimate fruit. What else could we expect? A man might as well attempt to dethrone the Mediator as to do any thing toward his own regeneration. Teach this, and carelessness ensues; Antinomian feelings will follow; or, if you arouse the mind by the curse of the law, and by the fearful doom that awaits the unregenerate, what can he do? Nothing! Hell rises from beneath to meet him, but he can do nothing. He looks until he is excited to frenzy, from which he very probably passes over to raving madness, or settles down into a state of gloomy despair.
“6. Another very decisive objection to this doctrine is the frequent, and I may say uniform, language of Scripture. The Scriptures require us to seek, ask, knock, come to Christ, look unto God, repent, believe, open the door of the heart, receive Christ, etc. No one can fail to notice how these instructions are sprinkled over the whole volume of revelation. And, what is specially in point here, all these are spoken of, and urged upon us, as conditions of blessings that shall follow - even the blessings of salvation, of regeneration - and as conditions too, without which we cannot expect these blessings. Take one passage of many: ‘As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.’ If any one doubts whether ‘becoming the sons of God,’ as expressed in this text, means regeneration, the next verse will settle it: ‘Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’ John 1:12-13. The latter verse I may have occasion to remark upon hereafter: it is quoted here to show that the new birth is undoubtedly the subject here spoken of. And we are here expressly taught, in language that will bear no other interpretation, that receiving Christ and believing on his name are the conditions of regeneration. If there were no other passage in the Bible to direct our minds on this subject, this plain, unequivocal text ought to be decisive. But the truth is, this is the uniform language of Scripture. And are there any passages against these? any that say we cannot come, cannot believe, seek, etc.? or any that say this work of personal regeneration is performed independent of conditions? I know of none which will not fairly admit of a different construction. We are often met with this passage: ‘It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.’ (See Romans 9:16.) But whoever interpreteth this of personal and individual regeneration, can hardly have examined the passage carefully and candidly. But we are told, again, it is God that renews the heart; and if it is his work, it is not the work of the sinner. I grant this: this is the very sentiment I mean to maintain; but then there may be conditions - there are conditions - or else we should not hear the Psalmist praying for this, in language that has been preserved for the edification of all subsequent generations: ‘Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.’ This is a practical comment on Christ’s conditional salvation: ‘Ask and ye shall receive.’ Since, then, this doctrine of passive unconditional regeneration implies unconditional election - since it is in opposition to those scriptures which teach that the Spirit and grace of God may be resisted and received in vain - since it is a virtual denial of all gracious influences upon the heart before regeneration - since it leads the abettors of the theory into gross contradictions by their endeavors to reconcile the can and the cannot of their system - since its practical tendency is to make sinners careless, or drive them to despair - and, finally, since it contradicts that numerous class of scriptures, some of which are very unequivocal, that predicate the blessings of regeneration and justification upon certain preparatory and conditional acts of the sinner - therefore we conclude that this theory cannot be true.” (Calvinistic Controversy.)
2. The second theory of regeneration is that which rejects from this work all direct influence of the Holy Spirit, and attributes the entire change to a mere intellectual process, by which the truth of the gospel is accredited, and an external obedience rendered, to the rite of baptism. As the advocates of some modification of this theory, we may set down Socinians, Arians, Unitarians, some of the New School Presbyterians of the United States, and the Rationalists of Germany. These several parties have differed considerably among themselves on this subject. Some have confined the work of regeneration entirely to the mental operation, and taught that the new birth means only the change of the mind and disposition of the soul produced by the force of truth, according to the principles of moral suasion; others have contended that an individual cannot be regenerated till submission to the rite of baptism is added to the mental operation above specified. But they have all agreed in rejecting the direct operation of the Spirit from any agency in this work.
(1) The first leading objection to this theory is, that it is unphilosophical.
It involves what seems to be irreconcilable with the nature of things. To avoid misapprehension, and cut off a common method of evasion, we here remark that the advocates of this theory have been far from admitting that they reject the operation of the Spirit in the accomplishment of this great work. Indeed, they have represented it as exceedingly unjust - as gross misrepresentation and intolerant persecution, that they should be so charged. But all this brandishing about the operations of the Spirit, persecution, etc., is nothing but a ruse by which to evade the subject. When they are charged with denying the “operations of the Spirit,” a definite and commonly understood meaning is attached to that phrase. Hence, to frame a different meaning for it, and then to raise the cry of misrepresentation and persecution, because they are charged with rejecting a doctrine which they admit, is nothing but an evasion of the subject. When they acknowledge the operations of the Spirit, they mean by that phrase something entirely different from what it implies when they are charged with denying it. Therefore it is evident that if the thing which they are charged with denying is not the same thing which they acknowledge, they have not met, but merely evaded, the charge. By the “operations of the Spirit,” the advocates for this theory merely mean that the sacred penmen were inspired by the Spirit to write the Scriptures, and endued with the power of working miracles for their confirmation; and that this word, thus originally inspired and confirmed, now operates on the minds of men so as to produce regeneration, without any farther influence of the Spirit than what is thus indirectly exerted through the written word. Yet they contend that because the Spirit originally inspired the word, all the influence of the word results from that original operation of the Spirit. Whereas the opposers of this theory, by the operation of the Spirit in regeneration, mean a direct exertion of influence by the Spirit on the heart of the sinner. To render these two different views more clearly distinct, we may use a figure of illustration. Thus, the divine influence which the advocates of this theory admit, resembles the influence of the skill and ingenuity of an artist, when he forms a complicated piece of machinery, such, for instance, as a clock or a watch. The well-arranged parts of the machinery may continue to perform the office assigned them, and the hour may be correctly described by the time-piece, even for years after it has passed from the hand of the artisan. Thus, while the clock or the watch continues to run we still, in an indirect sense, attribute its operation to the skill of the workman. Though he may be thousands of miles distant, or even slumbering in his grave, we may still say that his skill and ingenuity are operating through the machinery that he formed. Just in the same sense the theory of regeneration now in question allows the influence of the Spirit of God. They admit that God by his Spirit established the gospel, inspired the word, arranged the system, and set the machine to work; but contend that no farther direct energy is needed. The Spirit, say they, operates through the word like the skill of the man through the watch, and the immediate influence of the Spirit is no more essential to the regeneration of the soul, than the immediate presence and influence of the artisan is indispensable to the operations of the machinery. On the other hand, the opposers of this theory would illustrate their view of divine influence in regeneration by the figure of “a sword,” which is a passive instrument, only moving as it is moved. Thus it is contended that, as the sword can only become the instrument of death in the hand of the warrior by whom it is wielded, so the word of God can only be the instrument of regeneration in the hand, and by the direct energy, of the Holy Spirit. According to this view, there is a direct and real operation of the Spirit; but, according to the former notion, there is no divine power exerted at the time - no real influence of the Spirit at all; but merely a secondary, figurative, or indirect influence. From what has been said, we think it will readily appear that the theory under consideration is unphilosophical, and repugnant to the nature of things. It implies an effect without an adequate cause. Man is a being embracing in his complex character, physical, intellectual, and moral powers. These powers, though intimately connected, are really distinct in their nature. And a power of a correspondently different nature is required to effect a change in them. To effect a physical change, a physical influence is requisite; to effect an intellectual change, an intellectual process is requisite; and to effect a moral change, moral power is required. Now, to show that it is impossible, in the very nature of things, for regeneration to be effected by mere intellectual or physical influence, it is only necessary to reflect on the real nature of the change which regeneration implies. What kind of a change is it? It is not physical; no new faculties are imparted to the body. The feeble constitution is not rendered robust, nor the literally lame, or halt, or blind, restored to soundness. Were it a change of this kind, there would be some philosophy in resorting to physical operations, or applying physical influences. Nor is it an intellectual change. No new faculties of mind are imparted. The unlettered man is not thereby rendered an adept in science, nor the man of naturally feeble intellect exalted to an equality in mental power with Locke or Bacon. Were it a change of this kind, there would be some philosophy in resorting to intellectual operations. But what should we say of the scribe who would direct the sinner to engage in the study of Euclid in order to effect the regeneration of his soul? And yet if this change only implied the improvement of the intellectual faculties, such would be a rational course. The change in question is neither physical nor intellectual. We would not say that it has no connection with the body or the intellect. We are required to attend upon the means of grace, to read or hear the word, and to endeavor to understand the truths of the gospel. But all these constitute no part of, nor do they, to any degree, necessarily result in, regeneration. The change is of a nature radically different. It is not physical, nor yet intellectual, either in whole or in part; but it is solely moral or spiritual. To produce this, there must be an adequate cause. Physical and intellectual causes, we have seen, are inadequate. What, then, we ask, is the power adequate to the performance of the work? We answer, that, as body can operate on body, and mind on mind, so spirit can operate on spirit. He who is “the Father of the spirits of all flesh,” alone is able to form the soul anew - to change the moral character - to “take away the heart of stone, and give a heart of flesh.”
I know that it is attempted to evade the argument for divine influence, as founded on the nature of things, by saying that, “although none but God can regenerate the soul, yet he effects this work by the agency of instituted means, without any direct divine influence at the time.” And the operations of nature are appealed to as illustration and proof. This maneuver of the advocates of the theory of self-conversion, and water-regeneration, divulges the foundation of their entire theory. It is founded upon a false and infidel view of the nature of divine providence. Indeed, the denial of a particular providence, and the rejection of divine influence in regeneration, are necessary parts of the same system. But let us for a moment contemplate the subject. Are we to suppose that, because God may operate through the instrumentality of second causes, therefore he does not operate at all? Are we to suppose that when he formed the material universe he impressed upon matter self-controlling energy - that he endued the earth, the sea, and all things else, with inherent power of self-government; and that the Deity, except in cases of miracle, has had no more direct agency in the things of the world since creation’s birth, than if there were no God in existence? Really it seems that this is implied in the scheme before us. It is nothing better than a modest method to put God out of the world; it leads directly to Atheism. As a refutation of the whole scheme, we ask, What are the laws of nature but the method by which God controls the world? And what the power of attraction, the process of vegetation, or any of the operations of nature around us, but the immediate energy of God? Let but the divine energy be withheld, and vain would be the labor of the husbandman; the rays of the sun, the fruitfulness of the soil, the “showers that water the earth,” could never produce a single spire of grass. Just so the means of grace; the reading and hearing of the word; the intellectual study of the evidences of Christianity, or the doctrines of the gospel; and submission to baptism, and every other external rite of the Church - any of these, or all of them combined, can no more regenerate a soul, without the direct influence of the power of God, than they can create a world. As in nature, so in grace, “Paul may plant, and Apollos water, but God giveth the increase.” The great 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 chapters, 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; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”John 1:12-13. 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 remark, 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 reply, that the conditions of regeneration cannot destroy the idea of grace, unless those conditions are considered meritorious. 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.