agree with the speculative opinions of many excellent men at the present day. The point is both a delicate and an interesting one; and therefore it is expedient to give his own words.

The anonymous paper that had been put in circulation, and contained the thirty-one articles of accusation mentioned above, charged him, among other things, with holding that "the works of the unregenerate may be pleasing to God, and may be an impulsive cause or occasion, on account of which God is moved to confer saving grace upon them."

In respect to this allegation he says, "The word unregenerate may be understood in a two-fold sense. (1) It denotes those who have not experienced any influence of the Spirit, either regenerating them, or tending to or preparing for regeneration. (2) It signifies those who are in the state of being born again, and experience the influence of the Holy Spirit, pertaining either to that which is preparatory to regeneration, or to regeneration itself; although the final act itself of regeneration is not yet completed. I have reference to such persons as are led to acknowledge their sins, to grieve for them, to desire deliverance from them, and to seek after the Deliverer who has been revealed; although they are not yet the actual subjects of that influence of the Spirit, by which the flesh or the old man is mortified, and the new man, formed for a new life, is able to do good works.

In the next place I remark, that a thing may be pleasing to God, either as an initial action pertaining to the commencement of conversion; or as a work complete as to its very essence, and performed by one truly converted and born again. Thus confession of sin is pleasing to God, in which one acknowledges that he is stupid, blind, and poor, and therefore would betake himself to Christ that he may procure ointment for his eyes and garments for himself. So also, works which proceed from warm affection, are pleasing to God. Calvin himself appears to distinguish between the initial and filial fear of God; and so does Beza, who holds that grief and sorrow for sin belong not to the essential part of regeneration, but to the preparatory one; while he places the essence of regeneration itself in the mortification [of sin,] and in the vivification [of holiness.]

In the third place I remark, that the occasion or impulsive cause by which God is moved, may be variously understood. It will be sufficient for my purpose, if I appeal to two passages of Scripture, from a comparison of which a distinction may be made out which is agreeable to, and sufficient for, my present purpose. In Matt. xviii, 32, the king says, 'I have forgiven thee the whole debt, because thou didst ask me.' In Gen. xxii, 16, 17, God says to Abraham, Since thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy son, thine only son, I will greatly bless thee.' If any one does not see in these, first an impulsive cause, and secondly one of complacency, it must be because he is blind as to the Scriptures.

In the fourth place, saving grace is conferred in different measures or ways; it may be the first grace, or the second; it may be antecedent, or subsequent; it may be operating, or co-operating; it may be knocking and opening, or actually entering. Now unless one properly distinguishes all these things, and uses his language accordingly,

he must necessarily infringe upon others, whose sentiments he does not well understand, or he must make them offenders. If any one will duly consider these things, he will find that the accusation or allegation in question, when understood in one sense, is agreeable to the Scriptures; but in another sense, it is widely diverse from them.

Let the word unregenerate be understood as designating one in whom the work of regeneration is begun but not completed; let that which is pleasing when completed, be considered as agreeable when it is commenced; let impulsive be defined as that which tends to the final obtaining of a thing; and finally, let saving grace be considered as secondary, subsequent, co-operative, and actually entering [the sinner's heart;] then, evidently we may say with propriety, that earnest sorrow for sin is pleasing to God in such a sense, that, from his abounding compassion, he is moved by it to bestow grace on sinful man.”. (pp. 158, 159.)

It would seem, from this representation, that the sinner who is awakened to a sense of his lost condition, may, as Arminius viewed it, be the subject of real sorrow for sin, and have a deep, or at least a true sense of his spiritual wants, and of the necessity of betaking himself to Christ in order that they may be supplied; and all this, short of actual regeneration. This seems at first view to be repugnant to his opinions about the natural, unregenerate man, which have been stated above, and also to the statement of Arminius with regard to special grace. But the contradiction is merely in appearance. Arminius does not deny that the sinner's conviction and sorrow for sin, are the work of the Spirit; he recognizes it as the initial work of the Spirit, but not as the essential and completing one. Of course, he does not contradict his views of the natural man, as he is in himself. The mistake, if there be any, lies in his definition of regeneration. He appeals to Beza in order to confirm this, and avers that Beza held grief and sorrow for sin not to be regeneration, but only a preparation for it. The mortification of the sinful principle, and the vivification of the holy one, Beza makes to be regeneration. And as Arminius had himself been a pupil and an ardent admirer of Beza, we can hardly distrust the correctness of this statement.

Now, at the present day, we are accustomed (rightly as I must believe) to think, that real grief and sorrow for sin come only from a heart truly penitent, and therefore truly regenerate. There may be much terror on account of sin, much legal fear, much "sorrow of the world which worketh death," without any real evangelical contrition. The error of Arminius, then, if it be one, lies merely in mistaking the definition of regeneration, or in a want of right views as to the place of its commencement, if I may be permitted so to speak. He makes a gradual work, partly legal and partly evangelical, all of which together makes up an initial and final work of the Spirit, or the whole compass of the operation by Divine grace. After all, the essential act of regeneration itself, the final one, the gratia finalis, efficiens, ingrediens, he does not state to be gradual. It is the preparatory, not the final part, which in his view is gradual.

We may differ from him, then, and from Beza, (if Arminius has correctly stated his opinion,) as to the point where the actual renovation

itself of the heart begins. But we need not, on this account, accuse either of them as being heterodox on this point, so long as they ascribe both the initial and final process to Divine grace, and maintain that the sinner of himself is "dead in trespasses and sins."

In regard, moreover, to what Arminius calls the initial or preparatory part of the work of regeneration, he certainly does not stand alone here. If this be heretical, then others, whose reputation for high orthodoxy has never been called in question, are also heretical on the same point. Thus in confirmation of the statement of Arminius respecting Beza, I find that this author in commenting on John iii, 6, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, says, when explaining the nature of the spiritual birth, in distinction from our natural one," that the Spirit of God does not impart Himself to the regenerate substantially, i. e. by infusing into them a part of His own essence, or by an abscission of Himself in part, and communicating this part to those who are created anew; nor does He create a new substance in the place of the old one which belonged to the natural man; He only renews the image of God in them, removing by His power their former state of pollution, and bestowing on them a disposition to purity; which is a work so great and distinguished, that those who are transformed in such a manner as to their moral qualities, may with propriety be called regenerate, that is, born again, yea, they seem as it were to be created anew, by existing in a new state."

But this great work is not begun and completed at once, according to the views of Beza. So he explains himself: "Hoc autem SENSIM quidem [Spiritus] efficit; et primum in animâ, cujus intellectum verâ luce illustrare, et voluntatem et caeteros affectus ad bonum volendum et praestandum praeparare incipit," that is, "the Holy Spirit GRADUALLY accomplishes the work of regeneration; He begins by imparting light to the understanding; and thus He prepares the way for the will and other affections to be inclined to that which is good."

How this differs, in any material circumstance, from the statement and views of Arminius, I am not able to perceive. Neither of them maintains, that the essential act itself of regenerating, is gradual. Both aver that there is a preparatory work which is gradual, (hoc sensim efficit,) so that one may affirm that Beza and Arminius both held the work of regeneration to be gradual, when considered as a whole, i. e. as embracing the initial or preparatory work; but neither avers this, as to the act itself of creating the soul anew, or of regenerating it in the highest and truly efficient sense.

Nor do these writers stand alone. Dr. Owen, the coryphaeus of the English Calvinists, in his great work on the Spirit, says, that “Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto regene ration." (Vol. i, p. 362.) "This," he goes on to say, "is, for the substance of it, the position of the divines of the Church of England at the synod of Dort... I mention this, that those by whom these things are despised, may a little consider whose ashes they trample on and scorn." He then goes on to aver, that what he says respecting this preparatory work, has respect only to adults; and that "the disposition (preparatory and dispositive) is only materially so, but

not such as contains grace of the same nature as in regeneration itself."

But what is a material disposition to regeneration? Let the author explain himself. "It is one which disposeth, and in some way maketh a subject fit, for the reception of that which shall be communicated, added, or infused into it as its form." By form here, I suppose the writer to mean, what was meant by the metaphysical schools of his day. Form, in one sense of the word, means a mould. Now as melted metal poured into a mould, receives a particular form and shape; so infusion into a thing as a form, borrows its meaning from this. The mould (so to speak) of the soul is, in Dr. Owen's view, first to be fashioned, shaped materialiter, i. e. as to its own natural ingredients or component parts, before the Spirit of God can be infused

into it.

He proceeds to explain his idea. "So wood by dryness and a due composure, is made ready and fit to admit of firing or continual fire." Such then is the preparatory work of regeneration, in Dr. Owen's view. He distinguishes between this so called material disposition and a formal disposition of the soul. The latter is an drapx of essential regenerating grace; (formal here meaning essential, i. e. pertaining, according to the old metaphysics, to essential form ;) it is "where one degree of the same kind disposeth the subject unto farther degrees of it; as the morning light, which is of the same kind, disposeth the air to the reception of the full light of the sun." This formal disposition he excludes from the preparatory work; and exactly the same thing do Arminius and Beza.

Dr. Owen proceeds still farther to unfold his idea of the new birth. "In natural generation," says he, "there are sundry dispositions of the matter, before the form [essence] is introduced. So the body of Adam was formed before the rational soul was breathed into it; and Ezekiel's bones came together with a noise and shaking, before the breath of life entered into them." (p. 363.)

Hear him in another subsequent passage: "There are some things required of us in the way of duty, IN ORDER UNTO OUR REGENERATION, which are so in the power of our own natural abilities, as that nothing but corrupt prejudices and stubbornness in sinning, doth keep or hinder men from the performance of them." These things he states to be, (1) "Outward attendance on the dispensation of God's word; (2) A diligent intention [attention] of mind in attending on the means of grace." "These things," says he again, "are required of us in order unto our regeneration." (pp. 364, 365.) He goes on to state, that these will not of themselves regenerate us, "without an especial, effectual, internal work of the Holy Spirit on the soul;" but that God does "ordinarily, in the effectual dispensation of His grace, meet with them who attend diligently to the outward administration of the means of it."

Beside these preparatory steps toward regeneration, Dr. Owen avers that there are other and more important ones. "There are certain spiritual effects, wrought in and upon the souls of men, whereof the word is the instrument;" viz. (1) Illumination. (2) Conviction. (3) Reformation. "The first of these respects the mind only; the

second, the mind, conscience, and affections; the third, the life and conversation." (p. 366.) Under the head which treats of illumination, he declares, that "there is an illumination [of the unregenerate] which is an especial effect of the Holy Ghost, by the word, on the minds of men ;" and this he endeavors to establish, by declaring that" such an illumination adds perspicuity to the understanding; greater assent of mind to things revealed; some kind of sudden joy; and sometimes it adds gifts to all the rest." He concludes this head, by saying that such illumination is not regeneration, but "a third degree [of illumination] is required thereunto." The second degree has brought the subject of it out of a purely natural state, and placed him on a kind of intermediate ground. A third degree perfects the work. And this second degree, "in the order of nature, is previous to a full and real conversion to God, and is materially [in the sense before explained] preparatory and dispositive thereunto."

Under the head of conviction, he states, that "it is antecedaneous unto real conversion to God;" it consists "in sorrow or grief for sin committed, because past or irrecoverable ;" also "in humiliation for sin, which is the exercise or working of sorrow and fear in outward acts of confession, fasting, praying, and the like." (pp. 368, 369.)

To all these he adds, that "the soul is filled with thoughts, desires, inquiries, and contrivances about a deliverance out of that state and condition wherein it is ;" and that "a great reformation of life, and change in affections, doth ensue hereon."

"All these," he next avers, "may be wrought in the minds of men by the dispensation of the word, and yet the work of regeneration never be perfected in them." Moreover, "These things are good in themselves, and fruits of the kindness of God toward us," (p. 370 ;) "they are the effects of the power of the Spirit of God." (p. 372.)

An objection then presents itself to the mind of this distinguished theologian. "How can the Holy Spirit be the author of a work, which is ineffectual and imperfect upon the hearts of men?" To this he answers, (1) In most persons real conversion follows this work ; and "their preparatory actings make way for the introduction of the new spiritual life into the soul." (2) Their failure is owing to the sinner's extreme wickedness; for "even common illumination and conviction of sin have, in their own nature, a tendency unto sincere conversion." It is "wilfulness and stubbornness in those enlightened and convicted," which defeat the end to be attained. "They faint not for WANT OF STRENGTH to proceed; BUT BY A FREE ACT OF THEIR OWN WILLS, they refuse the grace which is farther tendered unto them in the Gospel. This will, and its actual resistency unto the work of the Spirit, God is pleased in some way to take away. but the sin of men, and their guilt, is in it, where it is continued; for no more is required hereunto, [i. e. to constitute sin or guilt,] but that it be voluntary; IT IS WILL, AND NOT POWER, THAT GIVES RECTITUDE OR OBLIQUITY UNTO MORAL ACTIONS." (pp. 373, 374.)

So speak the unbiassed feelings of every man on earth, respecting the moral nature of sin, when he forgets system, and comes to vindicate God and the work of his Spirit, as Dr. Owen does here. It is "not want of strength," says this excellent man and divine, "but a