the sin of Adam has deranged the original moral constitution which God had ordained with our first parents, has made us sinners, rendered us liable to sufferings and death, and deprived us of all just hope of eternal life, by our obedience to the law.'

The professors of the theological institution of Yale College, have, with equal explicitness, rejected this sentiment, in their recent "Remarks." It is opposed to the fundamental principles of "The CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR," a publication which is considered, by our ultra-Calvinists, as far-gone in error, as almost any public journal of the day. Who, then, has embodied this article in his creed? The answer is,-No one, in the ranks of those against whom the allegation is made. The New-England divines, and the new-school men in the Presbyterian church, have uniformly held, that there is an important moral relation between Adam and his posterity; that this relation is not fortuitous, but of divine constitution,— not contingent, but certain; that his sin stood connected, in the government of God, with the moral character of his posterity; and that too, in a sense in which the sin of no other parent stands connected with the moral character of his offspring. This is to acknowledge Adam as the representative of the future race. any theologian "has held and taught" any thing contrary to these positions, let him be named and exposed. Let it be shown, that the proper tribunals in the Presbyterian and Congregational churches are not ready to depose him. But let not the church be alarmed, by the continued peal of charges, which apply to nobody, or to a mere man of straw. This beating the air, in theology, is not the thing for the present day. We want something tangible, something definite.

If

What, then, has been said on this subject, which has excited so much aların, and led these "Act and Testimony" brethren to charge, by way of sweeping inference no doubt, the error recorded above, upon certain other members of the Presbyterian church? Two things have been denied. One is, that the posterity of Adam were actual partakers (participes criminis,) in his transgression; and the other, that his posterity receive sin as a constitutional or physical inheritance. But to deduce the sentiment alledged, from these denials, is indeed to draw an inference" with a cart-rope." Let us examine these two points. There are many who deny, that we had any actual participation in the sin of Adam; and it is to be hoped, that the time has not come, when this position is deemed heretical. If so, common-sense is heresy. But is this all that is meant by the charge in the "Act and Testimony"? If I thought so, I should acknowledge the fact at once, and justify the sentiment there condemned as erroneous. If in asserting, that there are some men who hold, "that we have

;

no more to do with the first sin of Adam, than with the sins of any other parent," they mean only to say, that some men hold, that we did not commit, in the eye of the law, "the first sin of Adam," any more than we committed "the sins of any other parent," then the charge is a very harmless one; and no one, in the exercise of his unshattered powers, would refuse to subscribe to it. It has been "held and taught," and no doubt will be, till the end of time," that our relation to Adam" was not of such a nature, that we, as moral agents, in view of the preceptive demand of the law, and subject, in case of transgression, to its penalty, did so violate that law, in the act of Adam, and did so sin in that violation, as to be held criminal for that act, and justly liable to the eternal curse of God. Every part of this proposition applies to Adam but will any one apply it to his unborn posterity? He was a moral agent under law; he did, by his own act, violate that law; he was personally criminal for that violation; and the law might justly inflict its penalty upon him. But where is the individual, who is willing to subscribe the affirmative of all this, as a part of his creed, in relation to the unborn posterity of Adam? You can find no such man. With respect to the other point to which I have adverted, it has been denied, that "our relation to Adam" was of such a nature, that his "first sin" so changed the constitutional powers and physical organization of his posterity, that they receive sin from him as a hereditary evil, and that they are both criminal in the judgment of the law, and justly liable to eternal death for this inheritance, PREVIOUS TO MORAL AGENCY, or the act of sin on their part. These are the things which are "held and taught;" but do they constitute the charge, or any part of it, as stated in the "Act and Testimony"? Far from it. There is no relationship between them. But more of this, when "imputation" shall come under review.

The next particular which demands notice, under this head, is the fifth in order, in the "Act and Testimony," and is thus stated:

'Regeneration. That man's regeneration is his own act; that it consists merely in the change of our governing purpose, which change we must ourselves produce.'

This allegation, as to the main points which it involves, is as groundless as the former. If the sentiment, that "man's regeneration is his own act," is "held and taught" by any class of theologians, it certainly is not by that class to which it is attributed. Mr. Duffield's book on regeneration, where we might expect, from the representations of the exclusive orthodox, to find every thing heretical on this subject, contains no such sentiment. And we have a declaration from his pen, of a later date, that he holds no such doctrine. The Christian Spectator has pointedly conVOL. VII.

21

demned this sentiment in repeated instances. "This term (regeneration,) is a complex one, and denotes not merely a change of heart, but the exercise of divine power, by which that change is secured. It is not, then, a correct use of the term, to drop the latter idea, and speak of regeneration, as merely giving God the affections. The scriptures, accordingly, nowhere make it the duty of men to regenerate themselves, but command them simply, 'Make you a new heart and a new spirit."" vol. vi. p. 151. Why do not these brethren, then, in making their charge, name the man who has promulgated this doctrine, and cite chapter and verse of his book, where it stands recorded? Or is this statement a compound of their own, made up for the occasion, without any regard to the original connection and qualifications of the words used? Or is it an inference which the writer or writers expressly disclaim? These are questions which the subscribers of this document ought to answer at the bar of the christian public. Will they, as candid and honest men, do it?

But what do those theologians, who are accused of heresy, believe, respecting regeneration, from which the above allegation has been formed? And on this point, some things are denied, and some affirmed, which may not comport with the views of the "Act and Testimony" brethren; but which, at the same time, do not imply the doctrine they have alledged and condemned. In relation tothe nature of regeneration, as a subjective change, the moderate Calvinists deny, that it is, in any sense, a physical change. It does not consist in the creation of any new faculties, in an alteration of the constitutional powers, nor in the removal of any physical obliquities or defects. They affirm, that this change is wholly moral. It is a change in the disposition, or in the habitual and permanent voluntary state of the mind. Educated in the school of Edwards, they use the words "will" and "voluntary," to denote not merely individual acts of choice, but all those permanent states of mind which involve the idea of preference. They say, therefore, with Dr. Strong, of Hartford, who will not be accused of heresy, "that a holy will is a holy heart,"-that a temper, disposition, taste, or relish, which is right or wrong, mean the same as a heart or will that is right or wrong." Sermons, i. p. 103. It is in this sense, that they consider the change in regeneration to be a change of "will," or "purpose;" in other words, a change of that moral disposition, or heart, which constitutes the man. As such a disposition (so far as it operates) controls or governs the individual acts of choice, they sometimes call it the "governing purpose" of the soul; and they use these words with the express design of marking it as a disposition or permanent affection, and not a mere transitory exercise of the will, as the High-Hopkinsians represent it. Understood in this sense, there is surely nothing heretical in the ex

こ

*

pression. But more on this point, in its proper place. As to divine influence in regeneration, while they strenuously maintain it, as a cardinal doctrine of the gospel, they deny, that man is so acted upon in this change, as to cease for a moment to be a moral agent, or to lose his intellectual or moral activity. The fruits of the Spirit,—the direct results of His operation,—are declared in the scriptures to be "love," "faith," etc.; actions of the human soul, which, of course, is not a mere recipient, but active, while acted upon, in the production of these results. The words of Edwards, in short, express their views. "God produces all, and we act all. For that is what he produces, viz., our own acts. The effect itself is our ACT AND OUR DUTY." A still higher authority has said, "YE have purified your souls in obeying the truth, through the Spirit." How could the union of human and divine agency, in regeneration, be more expressly declared?

I have said, there is no heresy in the declaration, that regeneration is "a change of the governing purpose," if we recollect, that by governing purpose is meant moral disposition, and that this is a voluntary state of mind, as described above. For if regeneration is not a change of an habitual, voluntary state of mind, in what does it consist? There are but two other things which can be supposed; and these may here be brought to the test. One is a change of the individual exercises of the soul; and the other, a change of some nameless constitutional substratum, either mental or corporeal, which forms the basis of good and bad moral exercises. On the first supposition, every successive act of holiness, through life, would be regeneration; and a person, in order to get to heaven, would need to be regenerated millions of times. According to this theory, there could be no other connection between the first and any subsequent act of holiness, than what was secured by some extraneous power or influence. This does not comport with the teaching of the bible. "A good man, out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things." This is sound doctrine, and good philosophy. On the second supposition, regeneration would be a physical change. Place this substratum where you please, in mind or body, in intellect or heart; refer it to what origin you please,-whether it come immediately from the hand of God, or descended from Adam, as a natural or physical inheritance; if it is something which lies back of moral action; something with which man has nothing to do, either in originating or cherishing; if it is entirely distinct from volition or choice, then sin is a physical existence, and regeneration is a physical change. Establish this, and the whole system of moral obligation is demolished at a blow. Man would be no more bound to love God, than he would be to make discoveries in the natural world, beyond the sphere and scope of his five senses, till a sixth were

superadded by creative power. As to the allegation in the "Act and Testimony," that this "change we ourselves must produce,' I repeat the remark, that it is not correct. Divine truth, and the power of God, are both concerned in this change. "Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth." It is only when considered subjectively, that this change is represented as an act of man's own will. And this, President Davies, who will hardly be denounced as a heretic, expressly teaches. Coming to Christ," says he is an act of the will; and, therefore, to will it heartily, is to perform the act." Witherspoon says, "Regeneration consists in a supreme desire to glorify God, and a preference of his favor to every other enjoyment."* So too, Dickinson declares, that the change wrought by the Spirit, is merely a change in the will, through an operation on the understanding. "He (the Spirit) does but give them a true discovery, a realizing view, and powerful impression, of what is best for them; and that necessarily determines their CHOICE."t

Let us hear the testimony against prevailing " errors," a little farther.

'Divine Influence: That God cannot exert such an influence on the minds of men, as shall make it certain, that they will choose and act in a particular manner, without destroying their moral agency; and that, in a moral system, God could not prevent the existence of sin, or the present amount of sin, however much he might desire it.'

This proposition, as here presented, nobody, certainly, who is concerned with the present controversy, believes. For what is the doctrine here charged, as "held and taught"? Nothing short of this, that God cannot, without destroying human agency, exert any influence, of any kind, on the minds of men, which shall render their actions certain! Now, where shall we look for the very extraordinary heretics who maintain this opinion?—who not only deny, that God can renew the hearts of men by his Spirit, but can even influence them by motives, or direct them by his providence; and who thus shut him out from the government of the world which he has made? I need not say, that Dr. Beecher, Mr. Duffield, Mr. Barnes, and Dr. Taylor, reject such a sentiment with abhorrence. If there are any men in this country, who "hold and teach" the doctrine of God's electing purpose and distinguishing grace, in the salvation of sinners, these are the men. melancholy exhibition of party violence, that such men should be directly pointed at, in a solemn " Act and Testimony," as maintaining opinions which not only subvert the doctrines of grace,

It is a

* Works, vol. i. p. 172. † Dickinson on the Five Points, p. 150. Boston, 1741.