THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR'S

REVIEW

ON THE MEANS OF REGENERATION.

THE articles under this title, in the Christian Spectator for 1829, are well known to have proceeded likewise from the author of the Concio ad Clerum, and are indeed expressly ascribed to him in the Inquiry. They will, accordingly, in the observations which I am about to offer on them, be regarded as his, although the Editor of the Spectator has in his last number, undertaken the task of their vindication, very much as though their responsibility belonged to himself.

They are characterised by even more than their author's usual obscurity, and furnish examples, like the Inquiry, of unauthorised assumptions, erroneous principles, and reasonings which are inconsistent and inconclusive. They present, also, some important admissions and statements; the most essential of which however, and those that impart to the discussion its chief value,-perhaps from the consciousness of their inconsistency with some positions which he has long endeavoured to establish, and coincidence with others which he has been reluctant to admit,—are uttered with but a faint and irresolute voice, and are exhibited as conclusions. from positions, with which they have little connexion.

The perspicuousness or obscurity with which an author writes, corresponds with the energy or feebleness of his perceptions. If he puts forth only perplexed and indeter minate statements, or uses language without meaning, it is apparent that his apprehensions are embarrassed with equal cloudiness and uncertainty. To the reproach of this fault, the reviewer is unfortunately eminently obnoxious in respect to many of his most essential positions. His definition of "using the means of regeneration," may be taken as an example.

"The question then naturally arises, what are the acts which constitute using the means of regeneration? We answer that by using the means of regeneration, we do not understand any acts which either precede, or are to be distinguished from regeneration itself, when this term is used in its more common popular import; but we understand those acts, which together with another act, are in the more popular use of language, included under the term regeneration." p. 16.

This definition, which professes to be the result of an accurate analysis of the mental states and acts which are involved in or immediately connected with regeneration, and on which the statements and reasonings through a long series of pages essentially depend, includes by express specification, á totally unknown quantity, the true value of which, the eyes of Argus himself would require an additional gift of perspicacity to ascertain. "By using the means of regeneration, we do not understand any acts which either precede, or are to be distinguished from regeneration itself, when this term is used in its more common popular import." What, then, is its common and popular import? for the language implies, and he elsewhere expressly admits, that it is used with very various significations. What, espe

cially, is the import with which it is used, when employed in its more common and popular sense? Certainly not such as is here represented,-that any acts are included under it; as according to the popular doctrine, as he has himself stated it, the mind is passive instead of acting in regeneration. What then are the acts-those of God, or of man which are to be "distinguished" from regeneration, when used in that particular sense? and what is the rule, usage, or propriety, by which they are to be so distinguished? "But we understand those acts which, together with another act, are in the more popular use of language, included under the term regeneration." But what, again, is that more popular signification? What are the acts which are thus included under it? And what, especially, is that other undefined act, with which they are thus coupled? Is it distinct from and additional to those, or only one of those acts themselves; and if so, which of them? But it were a formidable task, to determine all the queries which need to be settled, in order to ascertain the exact import of this extraordinary definition.

The following rhetorical passage, in which he treats of "a desire of an infraction of a principle, that shall separate an object of an affection, from a drawback of damnation," is not, to say the least, in the usual, nor the happiest style of metaphysical discussion.

"And what is this, but desiring such an infraction of the principles of eternal rectitude, as shall separate from the present attractive object of the sinner's affections, the appalling drawback of fu- ' tare damnation ?"

He at length winds up the argument with the following recapitulation, showing that his premise, his proof, and his

conclusion, are unfortunately only varying modifications of the same thing.

"We have thus attempted to show, that all the acts of the sinner which respect divine truth, and are performed while the selfish principle remains active in the heart, are dictated by the selfish principle and have an exclusive tendency to subserve the selfish purpose of the heart."

That is, acts that are dictated by selfishness, and are selfish, are selfish.

These blemishes-which abound in almost all his pagesthough thus prejudicial in such discussions, and reprehensible in one in a station like his, are not however to impair the force of any of his just reasonings, nor detract from the dignity of the truths which he advances. I have thus glanced at them, simply, that as well for his own, as the credit of the institution with which he is connected, he might guard against their future recurrence; and shall leave them for the more important task of noticing some of the principles and positions which are the basis of his protracted discussion.

I. One of the most noticeable of its characteristics is, that most of its important statements and reasonings rest on the assumption, or rather assertion, of the fact that the doctrine of physical depravity, and the various erroneous positions which are naturally connected with it, are generally held by the Calvinistic clergy.—A fact sufficiently extraordinary, when it is recollected with what diligence and perseverance he has laboured for the last six years, to convince the public that no such views are, or ever were held by Calvinists as a body. He introduces the discussion by remarking that,

"We think the gospel is not now, as it was by apostles, brought

before the human mind in the character and relations of a cause which is to produce an immediate effect. It is extensively true that preachers do not preach, and hearers do not hear the gospel with such an impression of its efficacy. The sword of the spirit is used under the conviction that God in his sovereignty has withdrawn from it its ethereal temper, and the anticipation of its powerlessness, by palsying the hand that wields it, becomes the means of its own fulfilment."

"The conviction of the present practicability of duty, is indispensable to the present performance of duty, and no pressure of obligation is sufficient to counteract the paralyzing persuasion of the utter uselessness of effort. The opposite conviction is, that it will not now be done, and the belief that this is certain, though consistent with the obligation of duty, is fatal to every effort requisite to the present performance of duty. And such we think is the actual belief adopted and acted upon by great numbers."

"In proof of some great dissimilarity between the mode of preaching the gospel in the apostolic age, and at the present day, we ask whence the undeniable fact of the straight-onward unembarrassed call to repentance by apostles, contrasted with the conscious hesitation and embarrassment in uttering the same unqualified message on the part of many a modern preacher ?"-" We believe the true answer to these inquiries is to be found in some peculiarity in the mode of preaching the same gospel in these latter days; a peculiarity which so falls in with the tendency of the human mind to avoid the pressure of present obligation, as to result in the anti-apostolic impression on the minds of many, that nothing is to be done in the work of conversion, but quietly to wait for a divine influence, as the first cause of all doings that are not worse than useless." "And why, we may ask, does the inspired narrative of the effects of the gospel, exhibit it as uniformly, if effectual at all, of such sudden and powerful efficacy upon its listening hearers? Such however are not the most common views entertained respecting the preaching of the gospel in our days. Such is not the honour conferred by the people on God's own institution; such is not the magnifying of their office by the ministers themselves. There is, if the more prevalent opinion be correct, an indispensable, long, progressive preparation to be made. There is the waiting attitude of dependent recipients, ready to take what it may please a sovereign God to give.-But where is the active moral