New Basis Brethren

The following citations identify a faction among Presbyterians (19th century) known as "New Basis Brethren," of which the famed N. L. Rice, who debated the more famous Alexander Campbell, was a leader, and who are contrasted with the "Constitutional Presbyterians." The issues dividing these two groups appear to be elements of Hyper Calvinism and Antinomianism. Many of the old writers spoke of Hyper Calvinism as being a kind of Antinomianism, or vice versa, even speaking of "Hyper Calvinistic Antinomianism." I hope to have more to publish on this in the future. The elements of Hyperism and Antinomianism include a denial of means in regeneration, and an affirmation that regeneration is a physical change in the soul, giving it faculties it never had previously. This is often called "metaphysical" or "physical regeneration." It also seems to include the false idea that regeneration precedes justification.

These citations prove that not all Presbyterians adopted the "born again before faith" error or the view of Berkhof that regeneration occurred apart from the means of saving truth being applied to the mind in the production of penitent faith. The "New Basis Brethren" are in accord with the "New Divinity" brethren of the 18th century.

The citations begin in "ARTICLE II" as follows:

1. Old and New Theology. By Rev. James Wood. Presbyterian Board of Publication.

2. Old and New Schools. By Rev. N. L. Rice, D.D. Cincinnati.

3. Institutes of Theology. By Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D.D.

4. Discourses and Sayings of our Lord. By Rev. John Brown, D.D. Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presbyterian Church, Scotland.

5. Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians. By Rev. John Brown, D.D. Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presbyterian Church, Scotland.

In former Articles, in review of these books, we have examined the views of the two branches of the Presbyterian Church in this country, and of Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Brown, in regard to the doctrines of Depravity, Justification, and the Atonement. The next topic to which we shall direct the attention of our readers is Regeneration.

We fully accord in sentiment with Dr. Rice when he says, "the doctrine of regeneration lies at the foundation of the Christian system."

"The question then between our exscinding brethren and ourselves does not pertain to the necessity of regeneration. Both parties are agreed as to this point. We may differ as to the cause of this necessity, but it is conceded that regeneration is necessary to admission into heaven.

The inquiries that will involve the points of difference between us on this subject, pertain

I. To the nature.
II. To the cause of regeneration.

I. Its nature.

Every reader of the controversy on this subject must have noticed the different senses in which the term regeneration is used. This, in part, is the origin of the apparent diversity of sentiment that exists as to the nature of this change in man. The term is of Scriptural origin. It occurs only in two passages in the Word of God. In the Gospel by Matthew it is said, "That ye which have followed me in the regeneration," &c. In Titus "the washing of regeneration" is spoken of-Other words of similar import occur in different parts of the New Testament. "Born again," "born of the Spirit," " born of God," are phrases designed to convey the same idea as the word regeneration. These expressions are synonymous with others which the Scriptures employ to denote the moral change necessary to salvation—such as "be converted," "new creation," "spiritually minded," "quickened of the Spirit." Inspired men use them and various other phrases to express the same great truth, and without entering into an explanation of the metaphysical nature of regeneration. In speaking of the nature of this change they make no distinction between regeneration and conversion. The same state or exercise of mind are included under both terms. Let this fact be distinctly remembered. Whatever benefit may be thought to result from distinguishing between regeneration and conversion in our scholastic or popular explanations of a regenerated heart, the distinction is no where made in the Word of God. If there is any difference between these terms as used in the Scriptures, it respects the origin of the change in man, and not the nature of the change, or the character of the mental exercises involved in it. Regeneration may be a complex term, including both the change in man, and the divine influence by which it is produced, and it may be for this reason that man is not commanded to regenerate himself. Conversion seems to be restricted to the change itself without reference to the power effecting it. Still so far as the nature of the new birth is concerned, these terms according to Bible usage, are designed to express the same facts.

Theological writers have differed in their use of the term regeneration. Whilst many standard authors have employed it as the inspired penmen have done, to include the exercises of mind implied in conversion to God, others of equal authority have restricted its application to the power of God in producing a change of heart; and others still have used it to express what they call a holy principle implanted in the soul by God, and existing anterior to the choice of God as the portion of the soul. This variety in the use of the word regeneration has occasioned much misconception of the views of writers on the subject. In some instances the same author will use the term in different senses, sometimes to denote the influence of the Spirit upon the mind, and then as synonymous with conversion. Professor Hill of St. Andrews, says, "This introduction of the principles of a new life, into those who are considered as spiritually dead, is called, in conformity to Scripture language, regeneration. It is also called conversion, a turning men from that state of mind, and those habits of life, which enter into our view when we speak of human nature as corrupt, to those sentiments and habits which proceed from the Spirit of God." Subsequently Professor II. seems to restrict the term regeneration to the part which God performs in effecting the change in man. Dr. Rice, when the imagined heresies of his "New School" brethren do not obscure his mental vision, uses the terms regeneration and conversion interchangeably, as denoting substantially the same thing. He says, "The word conversion, as used in the Scriptures, expresses two important ideas, viz., 1st, a change of heart, and 2d, a change of conduct; or a turning in heart and in life from sin to holiness, from the service of Satan to the service of God." Regeneration is a change of heart from sinfulness to holiness, and consequently from the love and practice of sin to the love and service of God." And yet Dr. R. elsewhere, in explaining the nature of regeneration and conversion, speaks of the former "as a change of heart, and of the latter as a change of life." When writers on theology employ technical terms in so many different ways, is it surprising that they should be misunderstood in regard to vital points of Christian doctrine?

The term regeneration does not occur in the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church. The truth intended to be taught by this word is exhibited by the Westminster divines by the use of very different phraseology. "Effectual calling" is the phrase which they employ to express the beginning of spiritual life in the soul. The word "regenerated" is used in the chapter on Sanctification, and doubtless is synonymous with effectual calling. The nature of this change in man is thus explained in the Westminster Confession: "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted tune, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace." "Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel." In these definitions of effectual calling, we have the views of the Westminster divines as to the nature of the new birth, or of what is called by other theologians, regeneration. A more particular explanation of these definitions will be given in the progress of this Article.

In order to a clear elucidation of our own views, and of those of our New Basis brethren as to the nature of regeneration, we shall arrange our remarks under several distinct heads.

1. Regeneration is not a change in the substance, or the essential attributes of the soul.

The language of the old divines—such as Charnock, Witsius, Turretin and Owen—is certainly fitted to give the impression, that they believed regeneration to consist in a change in the essence or constitutional properties of the soul. Charnock, for example, speaks of the holy principle as not being placed in the understanding and will, "but in the essence of the soul. He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit, 'tis not one particular faculty that is perfected by grace, but the substance of the soul." It is true that these divines are not always consistent with themselves in teaching this doctrine of physical regeneration. They do not use language with philosophical accuracy; and hence some of their expressions seem to indicate that they did not believe that regeneration implied a change in the substance of the soul, but an infusion of new qualities, or a something denominated holiness, which exists apart from all mental exercises. We think, however, that the prevailing impression which most readers of their expositions of this doctrine will receive, is, that they believed in a change either in the very essence of the soul, or in its essential attributes, so that the new principle in man was a faculty, like the faculty of judgment or conscience. But be this as it may, it is enough for us to know that this theory of regeneration has been promulgated, especially by the professed advocates of an Antinomian theology. It is characteristic of that class of theologians who teach that man has nothing to do in the matter of his conversion to God; that he must wait until God so changes the essential nature of his spirit that he will be able to render the required obedience. Our New Basis brethren deny very emphatically that they believe in a physical regeneration, in the sense now explained. Dr. Rice says, "There is in regeneration a new creation, not indeed of any physical faculty," &c. Mr. Wood says, "If by physical regeneration is meant a mechanical change in the substance of the soul, it forms no part of the Old Theology."! Though we "think that these gentlemen and others of their school use language on this subject, which renders them justly liable to the charge of believing in a change in the essential properties of the soul, yet we are willing to attribute their apparent departure from the Confession of Faith to an improper use of terms, and to concede that they do not believe that regeneration consists in a change in the essence, or constitutional powers of the soul. "We must express our regret, however, that our brethren will persist in a nomenclature which, legitimately interpreted, conveys the idea of a change in the very essence of the soul."

2. Regeneration does not consist in the infusion, or implantation of a holy principle in the soul, distinct from love to God.

It is in reference to this point that we come in conflict with the views of Dr. Rice and his school. Whilst they deny that there is a change in the substance, or faculties of the soul in regeneration, they teach that, anterior to love to God, the Spirit infuses or implants what they term a holy principle which is the cause of love to God, and of all subsequent holy acts. They do not tell us in what this holy principle consists, further at least than that it is a relish or taste for spiritual objects. It is not a faculty of the soul; it is not a constitutional property ; it is not merely the Holy Spirit operating directly upon the mind, and thus inducing love to God. But it is a holy something, the effect of the Spirit's operations, infused into the soul, and existing previous to and distinct from love to God. This theory excludes all idea of activity in the soul. There is no thought, no feeling, no purpose, no choice of God as the soul's portion, involved in this idea of regeneration. They are implied in conversion, but not in regeneration. The latter is something denominated a holy principle, implanted in the soul, which is altogether passive, and continues passive as respects its conversion to God, until this holy principle is infused into it. Dr. Rice says, "Regeneration is the implantation of a holy principle or nature." "Regeneration removes in part, that corruption, and implants a holy principle or nature.."

"Now in regard to this theory, let it be observed that it is a mere speculation. There is not the slightest allusion in the Confession of Faith of our Church to any holy principle existing in the soul anterior to the exercise of supreme love to God. Nor can the advocates of this theory adduce a single passage of Scripture which necessarily refers to a radical change in the soul previous to its first exercise of love to God. In reading the debate between Dr. Rice and Mr. Campbell "on the influence of the Holy Spirit," we were impressed with the fact, that the texts of Scripture, usually adduced to prove this theory of regeneration, were cited by Dr. R. to establish his position that conversion, according to the common meaning of the word, was effected by the power of God. He says, "a large number of passages of Scripture directly and most clearly teach that in conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God exerts an influence powerful and efficacious, in addition to the Word and distinct from it." Then he quotes the following texts of Scripture, "I will give them one heart, and one way," &c. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." We agree with Dr. Rice in referring these texts to the conversion of tho soul to God. But it is an unauthorized assumption to refer them to a holy principle implanted in the soul, and which does not include a turning of the heart from sin to holiness, from the service of Satan to the service of God.

If Dr. Rice and his school did not present this theory of regeneration as fundamental, as essential to the new birth, we should not regard it as of so much consequence. As a philosophical speculation, erroneous as it is, they might cherish it, without any special objection on our part. Constitutional Presbyterians are accustomed to allow a diversity of views in regard to the philosophy of Christian doctrine, when such philosophizing does not affect the vitality of the doctrine itself. But when it is charged that the great Scriptural truth of regeneration is denied by some of our ministers, because they do not recognize as truth a philosophical theory to which there is not the most remote allusion in our standards, we repel the accusation, and call upon its advocates to show that it accords either with Scripture, or with the dictates of enlightened reason. The question to be settled is, not whether God has the power to infuse a holy principle into the soul, previous to the exercise of supreme love to Him. No one with proper views of His character will deny that He possesses such power. Nor does the question refer to those who die in infancy before moral agency begins. It is conceded that in regard to all such, a radical change must be effected to prepare them for heaven. Heaven is a place of holiness. Infants are destitute of holiness, and hence what may be termed a holy principle must be imparted before they can enter into that blessed abode. Whether it is a change in the substance of the soul, or in its constitutional properties, or an implantation of a new faculty, like the other faculties of the mind, or simply a direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon the soul, so operating as to render it certain that its first act after its separation from the body, will be a holy act, or love to God, are questions which no man can answer. But whatever may be the truth in regard to the nature of the change in infants, dying in infancy, it is a totally distinct question whether regeneration in moral agents, who are governed by moral influences, consists in the creation or implantation of a holy principle, distinct from love to God. Our brethren who adopt this view adduce several reasons for it, to which we shall briefly advert.

1. It is said that as man is born with a corrupt nature from which do proceed all actual transgression, "regeneration is, of course, the removal in part of that cause, and the implantation of a holy principle or nature, from which shall proceed all actual obedience." That all men are born with corrupt natures, we have shown in a previous Article to be the doctrine of our church. We showed also, that according to Edwards, Dr. Hodge, and even Dr. Rice, this corrupt nature does not consist "in the positive infusion of a sinful principle into the soul." Dr. Hodge says expressly, "It is not the doctrine of our standards that the corruption of nature is any depravation of the soul, or an essential attribute, or the infusion of any positive evil." He quotes from Edwards, as expressive of his own views, the following : "The absence of positive good principles, and the withholding of a special divine influence, leaving the common natural principles of self-love, natural appetite, &c., which were in man in innocence, to themselves, will certainly be followed with the total corruption of the heart, without occasion for any positive influence at all." If then it be true as both Dr. Hodge and Dr. Rice admit it is, that corruption of nature does not consist in "the positive infusion of a sinful principle into the soul," but in "the withholding of a special divine influence, leaving the principles of self-love, natural appetite, &c. to themselves," how can it he consistently argued from this native corruption that regeneration is the positive infusion of a holy principle into the soul, distinct from love to God? By parity of reasoning, we should rather conclude, that the imparting of a special divine influence, the withdrawment of which occasioned this corruption of nature, to induce love to God, would be sufficient to account for the existence of a regenerate heart, without supposing that a holy principle, involving no mental exercise, must be implanted in the soul. According to Dr. Rice, there was no sinful principle infused into the soul. If this be so, what right has Dr. R. to argue from the corruption of our nature that regeneration consists in the infusion, or implantation of a holy principle, distinct from love to God? His admission as to native depravity excludes the idea of regeneration consisting in the infusion of a holy principle into the soul, apart from its acts. If his view of the corruption of our nature he correct, the gift of a divine influence, judicially withheld from Adam's posterity, to control the principles of self-love, natural appetite, &c., and to lead to the right exercise of the mental and moral powers, is all that is necessary to regeneration. In a subsequent part of this Article we shall show that such an influence is imparted to all who are truly regenerated.

2. It is said that the moral character of a choice is determined by the disposition or principle that prompted it, and therefore that the act of supreme love to God necessarily implies the existence of a holy principle in the soul that induced this choice of God. This is presented as a law of mental action. The moral character of a choice, say our brethren, depends upon the nature of the cause inducing it, and hence there could he no love to God, unless there is a holy principle preceding it. It is not sufficient that the Spirit of God directly influences the mind to the choice of God, but he must implant a holy something in the soul, and then that which is thus infused leads to the choice of God. Now if this is a law of the mind's action, it must include moral acts of every kind. It cannot be restricted to holy acts. What, then, we ask, was the cause of Adam's first sinful choice? Was it a sinful cause? If so, whence did this sinful cause originate? If it was not a sinful cause, what becomes of this principle insisted upon as if it were an axiom in moral science, that the moral character of an act is determined by the character of its cause? Dr. Hodge, in defending this theory, says, "This reasoning, though it applies to the origin of holiness, is not applicable to the origin of sin; and therefore the objection that it supposes a sinful disposition to exist in Adam prior to his first transgression is not valid." But why is it not valid? If a sinful choice may result from a cause that is not sinful, why may not a holy choice, or love to God exist without supposing an antecedent state of mind that is in itself holy? The reader will observe the real point at issue. Both parties admit that the Spirit of God is the cause of love to God. But the question is, does He effect this change by first infusing or implanting any thing that is, properly speaking, holy, and which produces love to God? We hold that whilst the Holy Spirit operates directly on the mind, and is the author of the first holy act of the soul, it is not necessary, in order to account for the existence of this act of love to God, to suppose the implantation of a holy principle, called regeneration, distinct from the act itself. It is true that when supreme love to God does exist, it becomes, under the agency of the Holy Spirit, the cause of all subsequent holy acts. But previous to this first act of love to God, which is the result of the Spirit's influences, there is no evidence of the existence of holiness in the heart. Whatever change may have taken place in the views or feelings of the soul, it is not a holy change until supreme love to God is cherished. When we say that the Spirit, in a way that we cannot explain, has induced this first act of love to God, we have a cause adequate to the effect, without predicating holiness of the soul, irrespective of its own acts. But what is this holy principle that exists in the soul previous to love to God? Our brethren do not give us a direct answer to this question. They deny that it is the creation of a faculty in the mind, or any thing that implies a physical change. And yet if it is something which involves no thought, no affection, no purpose, and which is holy, it is difficult to conceive how it can be otherwise than a change either in the substance or constitutional attributes of the soul. We can conceive of permanent states of mind as the consequence of the mind's action. We can understand how a "relish" or "taste" for particular pursuits may be constitutional; and though we cannot explain how it is, yet we can see nothing irrational in one spirit operating directly upon another, and through the instrumentality of the truth inducing the choice of God as the portion of the soul—that first choice being the beginning of holiness in the heart. But we confess our utter inability to conceive how a holy principle can be implanted in the mind, when there is no act of the mind, unless there is a change in the essence or constitutional properties of the soul itself; and this would be physical regeneration, a dogma that saps the foundation of moral responsibility, and spreads the curtain of despair over a ruined race.

3. Regeneration consists in concentrating, under the efficient power of the Holy Spirit, the supreme affections of the soul upon God.

This is the beginning of spiritual life. Whatever may have been the individual's previous exercises of mind—however intensely he may have felt in respect to his spiritual condition—there is no holy principle in his heart, until he transfers his affections from the world to God. His conviction of guilt, his deep anxiety about his future welfare, and the mere illumination of his mind, so that he views God, himself, and the plan of salvation through Christ, differently from what he has hitherto done, do not constitute him a regenerate person. Those states of mind may, and for the most part do, precede regeneration. But it is not until the love of God exists in the soul, that he can be said to be regenerated, when, instead of concentrating the governing affections of his heart upon earthly objects, he fixes them upon God; instead of living for himself, he lives for God; instead of seeking his highest good in the vanities of earth, he seeks it in God—then it is that regeneration can be predicated of him. A radical change has taken place in his moral nature—that is, in the controlling dispositions or affections of his heart. No new faculty has been created in the soul. No new physical taste, apart from the voluntary exercise of the mental powers, has been implanted. But a new direction has been given to the powers already possessed. They now centre upon God as the source of all excellence and happiness. The understanding is enlightened; the will is renewed, that is, chooses God in preference to all other objects; sin is hated; the law of God is the rule of action; his chief delight is to do the will of God; and the prevailing purpose of his mind is to honor and serve his Creator and Redeemer. All this is implied in regeneration. The change in the individual's character is radical and permanent."

"It follows from this explanation that the soul is active in regeneration. It is acted upon by the Spirit; but holiness, or love to God, does not exist without the mind's action. Thought, affection and choice, which are implied in this change, are acts of the soul. The sinner is active in his rebellion against God. It is true he is born with a tendency to evil, which, in consequence of the withdrawal of the special influence of God's grace, results in actual transgression. But that for which he merits the wrath of God always implies mental action. Hence, from the commencement of his moral agency, he is active in sinning against his Creator. When, therefore, he is regenerated, his active powers are directed to new objects and pursuits. In thinking of, and in loving God, he is active, and not merely the passive recipient of impressions from a divine agent. So the Scriptures teach us—in the commands and promises that are given to men. "God commandeth all men every where to repent." "Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed, and make you a new heart and a new spirit. Turn yourselves and live ye." "Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened." "Come unto me, and I will give you rest." Why does God give such commands and promises, if man is not active in this change? These passages refer to the beginning of religion in the soul. There is no intimation here or elsewhere of the existence of holiness in the soul previous to a compliance with these commands. The Holy Spirit has mysteriously led the man to obey these requirements, so that the result is attributable to His efficient agency, operating in consistency with the freedom of the will. But it is not until man has repented and come to God—which, of course, implies action on his part—that he can be said to be regenerated. Turning from sin to holiness; from the service of Satan to the service of God—an act of the mind including repentance, faith, love, and all the graces that distinguish Christian character—is the only regeneration known to the sacred writers."

Regeneration is instantaneous.

"If regeneration is the commencement of spiritual life in the soul, it follows necessarily that the change is instantaneous. There was a period when holiness did not exist in the heart. When, therefore, supreme love to God is exercised, it is instantaneous. How could it be otherwise? Love and enmity to God cannot co-exist in the soul. Nor can neutrality be predicated of a moral agent. He is either the friend or enemy of his Maker. When his enmity ceases, love exists. There may be, and doubtless are, serious thoughts, deep emotion, purposes to renounce sinful indulgence, and to lead a new life. But these precede regeneration, and may exist without resulting in a change of heart. Much misapprehension on this subject has arisen from the different senses in which the term instantaneous has been used. Some writers employ it to denote the states of mind that are antecedent to love to God—to include what is understood by conviction. They admit, however, that the exercises of mind, included under the term conviction, are not holy. Others restrict the word instantaneous to the moment of time when the supreme affection of the soul first centres upon God. In consequence of overlooking these distinctions, Mr. Wood and his brethren have received the impression that ministers in our Church deny that regeneration is instantaneous. Mr. Wood refers particularly to a pamphlet published by the late Dr. Gilbert, in which it is said, "The Bible knows no instantaneous regeneration. This is a refinement of theological philosophers. Being 'born again,' and changing the heart of stone to a heart of flesh, is a gradual process." Whilst we cannot approve of the philosophy which this clear-minded and estimable author uses in explaining his views on this subject, it is due to truth to state, that the difference between him and other Calvinistic writers pertains entirely to the proper use of technical terms. Dr. Gilbert uses the term instantaneous to include the exercises of mind involved in conviction, as well as the actual change from sin to holiness, from supreme selfishness to supreme love to God. He does not intimate that the serious thoughts, conviction of guilt, and anxiety of mind that precede love to God, are in themselves holy. In his view they may be said to be connected with the change denominated regeneration. But holiness cannot be predicated of the individual until his affections are transferred from the world to God. If the word instantaneous was restricted to the moment when the soul chooses God as its portion, Dr. G. would have said that regeneration is instantaneous. He gave to it a more enlarged acceptation, to denote conviction of sin, and supreme love to God. Mr. Wood overlooks the sense in which Dr. G. employs the term, and hence his confusion of ideas as to the real sentiments of this able minister. We regard the unjust imputations and sneering remarks of Mr. Wood and others, with reference to the views of Dr. Gilbert, as another illustration of that want of candor in giving an author the benefit of his own definitions of technical terms, which has distinguished our brethren in their controversy with Constitutional Presbyterians.

This explanation which we have now given is substantially the views of the ministers of our church, and of the Westminster divines. Doubtless there may be some diversity of opinion among our brethren as to the language to be used on this subject, or as to what may be termed the philosophy of this moral change. But there is substantial agreement as to the facts involved in regeneration. We shall quote from the writings of a few of our ministers. In the protest of the minority in the Assembly of 1837, written by Dr. Geo. Duffield, the true doctrine as to regeneration is thus stated. "Regeneration is a radical change of heart, produced by the special operations of the Holy Spirit, determining the sinner to that which is good; and is in all cases instantaneous." Again, he says, "Regeneration is the commencement of spiritual life. That life must have its commencement in some act, or exercise which is the first in the new series." "Whenever the Spirit of God excites and secures ip the heart of man, those acts and emotions which are appropriate to his rational soul, i. e. when they are directed to God, as his supreme good and chief end, he is renewed, regenerated, born again." "Till he begins thus to act, i. e. to act right, he has no life; but as he thus begins, he begins to live." "This beginning to live, or first going forth of the soul in appropriate actings towards God, is with great propriety and beauty denominated the New Birth." Much more of similar import may be found in Dr. Duffield's work on Regeneration. Dr. Rice, says, that according to Dr. D.'s view of regeneration, "there is no change of heart, no taking away the stony heart, no renewing the will," and yet immediately afterwards he quotes a sentence from Dr. D.'s work on Regeneration, which necessarily implies what Dr. Rice in his debate with Mr. Campbell understands by a change of heart. Dr. Duffield says, "Regeneration is the commencement of a change in the character of our voluntary exercises." And this change in the character of our volunary exercises according to Dr. D. is the directing of the powers of the soul to God, as man's supreme good and chief end. His explanation of the nature of regeneration is similar to Dr. Witherspoon's, as contained in his admirable treatise on the subject. Dr. W. says: "As, therefore, the change is properly of a moral or spiritual nature, it seems to me properly and directly to consist in these two things, 1. That our supreme and chief end be to serve and glorify God, and that every other aim be subordinate to this. 2. That the soul rests in God as its chief happiness, and habitually prefers his favor to every other enjoyment."! The reader will observe that Dr. W. represents this change as implying a voluntary act of the mind. Man's supreme and chief end is the prevailing purpose of his life. This is to serve and glorify God. The soul "habitually prefers"—here again is voluntary action—"his favor to every other enjoyment." Will Dr. Rice charge Dr. Witherspoon with heresy because he exhibits this moral change as involving a voluntary act of the soul? Dr. Dufficld is not more explicit than Dr. W. in inculcating this truth. If the one is to be condemned for this sentiment, the other must be placed in the same category. Both, however, in our judgment, are sustained in their views by the teachings of Scripture and the standards of our church.

Our New Basis brethren sometimes render themselves liable, by the language they use on this subject, to the charge they allege against Constitutional Presbyterians. They say, and very justly, that the natural man does not discern spiritual things, and hence the mind must be enlightened before love to God can exist. This illumination of the mind they call regeneration, in distinction from conversion, or the turning of the heart from the world to God. We do not charge our brethren with believing what their language literally imports. We recognize their right to interpret the technical terms they use as they think proper, and though we may judge their application of these terms to be inaccurate, yet we do not hold them responsible for the inferences, however legitimate, we may deduce from their language. Still we think our brethren should exercise more caution in charging upon Constitutional Presbyterians a theory which, so far as we know, is not held by a single minister in our church, and more especially when their own language gives the impression that they believe the erroneous sentiment charged upon others. 2. It is said, that Constitutional Presbyterians believe that regeneration "consists merely in the change of our governing purpose, which change we ourselves must produce." This is the language of the "Act and Testimony," the product of Dr. Breckinridge of exscinding memory. Mr. Wood says, "according to them—the New School—regeneration consists in the mere change of this governing purpose, or preference of the soul." On this subject our brethren have shown a singular want of discrimination. We can account for their strange inferences only upon the supposition that their party prejudices have perverted their judgment.

2. Our next inquiry is, Who is the author or cause of regeneration?

This is a vital question. The answer that is given to it will indicate the opinions entertained on every fundamental doctrine of the gospel. Our limits will not allow a full discussion of this branch of our subject. A concise and clear elucidation of it will accomplish the ohject we have in view in these Articles.

By the cause of regeneration we understand that which renders the appointed means effectual in producing this moral change. There is a distinction between an efficient and instrumental cause. An efficient cause is that which secures the certainty of the result. An instrumental cause is that which is employed by the efficient agent as a means in producing an effect. Both an efficient and instrumental cause is necessary to the regeneration of the soul. Our present inquiry pertains to the efficient cause of regeneration.

1. We remark, that man is not the efficient cause of his regeneration.

While we admit that man, as a moral agent, possesses the requisite constitutional capacity to love God, it is still true that the certainty of exercising this supreme affection depends upon another agency than his own. His depravity has had such an effect upon him, that notwithstanding he possesses the natural power necessary to comply with the requirements of God, it is certain he will never render this obedience unless a supernatural influence is exerted upon him. Man is so averse to God, and to spiritual duties, that, left to himself, he will persist in his rebellion to the close of his probation. Not one of Adam's race, unaided by a higher power, would ever yield his heart to God. The requisite natural capacity to obey God, and actual obedience should not be confounded. The former may exist, while the sinner will continue in impenitence and unbelief. It is necessary, therefore, in order that his obedience may be secured, that another efficient, extraneous influence should operate upon him.

2. The truth of God is not the efficient cause of regeneration. The motives which the Gospel presents are necessary to this result. But in no proper sense of the language can it be said that they are the efficient cause of regeneration. They do not secure, or render certain this moral change. This is evident from the fact that multitudes to whom these motives are addressed are not savingly benefited by them. The connection of the truth of God with this renovation of the heart will be hereafter noticed. Let it suffice at present to observe, that though the truth has power in itself to awaken the sensibilities of the soul, it is not sufficient for its regeneration. Apart from a divine influence, distinct from the truth, the latter would not result in conversion to God.

3. The Holy Spirit of God is the efficient cause of regeneration. When we say that the Spirit of God is the efficient cause of regeneration, we mean to affirm that the certainty of this change in man depends upon the agency of the Holy Spirit; that He arrests the attention, convicts of sin, and induces a transfer of the supreme affection of the soul from the world to God. The influence of the Spirit is distinct from that of the truth; and in regeneration there is superadded to what is called common grace—that is, a degree of grace that is given to all alike—a special influence of the Spirit which overcomes all resistance, and causes the change in man necessary to his salvation. Without this special influence of the Spirit, there would be no true repentance, no saving faith, no love to God—none of the graces that distinguish the regenerate soul. It is not the grace of God that causes the difference between a penitent and impenitent sinner, if the same amount of grace is given to all men. Hence we ascribe the renovation of the heart, in the sense already explained, to a special or higher degree of the Spirit's influence than is imparted to those who continue unrenewed. It is this special influence alone that is ever effectual in melting the obdurate heart, in subduing the perverse will, in purifying and elevating the corrupt affections, and in radically changing the moral character of the soul.

That the Spirit of God is the efficient cause of regeneration is a truth taught most clearly in the Sacred Scriptures. It is said "Except a man be born of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh, and I will put my Spirit within you." "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." In addition to these texts we might refer to facts recorded in the Bible, which confirm its positive declarations. The conversion of Peter and Paul, of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, and of those who composed the Gentile churches, together with the wonderful revolution in human character that has been often visible since the first period of Christianity, prove the reality of the Spirit's agency in transforming the soul into the image of God.

The necessity of the special influence of the Spirit of God to the regeneration of the soul arises, not from any constitutional defect, but from the perversion of the mental and moral powers. The nature of the sinner's dependence upon the Holy Spirit will be more fully discussed when we come to present the views of the two branches of the Presbyterian Church on man's ability to obey the law of God. It is proper, however, to say in this connection, that man as a moral agent, has placed his faculties upon earthly objects to such a degree that he never will turn to God unless a supernatural power is exerted upon him. His dependence upon the Spirit of God is a voluntary dependence. This divine influence is necessary, because the sinner, left to himself, will not accept the offered Saviour. His affections are so strongly fixed upon the world; he is so utterly averse to spiritual things, that there is a moral certainty he will persist in his rebellion against his sovereign, unless the Holy Spirit draws his thoughts to God, and awakens desires after a conformity to the moral law. Man himself creates this necessity. He will not obey God; he will not seek the salvation of his soul; he will die in his sins, if God does not graciously interpose, and by the power of His Spirit change the current of his thoughts, feelings and actions. He is an obstinate, rebellious child, with the knowledge of duty, and with ample natural capacity to perform it; but his obstinacy will not be overcome, until the Holy Spirit, in His special and Almighty power, and in consistency with man's freedom of will, moves upon his soul.

The Holy Spirit in regeneration acts directly on the soul.

It is true the Scriptures do not expressly reveal this truth. We cannot say that they teach it as clearly as they do the fact that the Spirit's influence is necessary to conversion and salvation. And yet we think that the language of the Bible authorizes the sentiment, that in effecting this radical moral change the Spirit acts directly on the mind. It is said, "The heart of the king is in the hands of the Lord as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will." "The Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended to the things which were spoken of Paul." "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." This truth may also be inferred from the moral state of the carnal mind. Blinded as it is by sin, so that spiritual objects are not apprehended in their true light, it is a legitimate inference that in illuminating the mind the Holy Spirit would act directly on the soul. We do not see why one spirit may not act directly on another, as well as through the truth. We cannot understand the mode of His operation in either case. But as the change to be effected is in the moral state or character of the soul, and as this change implies in part the right apprehension of truth, it is natural to conclude that the spirit will directly influence the mind to right action. We do not say that the result of this direct action of the Spirit is the regeneration of the soul, irrespective of its own choice. The fact of an immediate, direct influence of the Spirit on the mind, and the result of this action are totally distinct. We may admit the former, and yet deny that as the consequence of this direct operation, the Spirit implants a holy principle in the soul, distinct from the exercise of supreme love to God. It is with reference to this point that we think our New Basis brethren so greatly err. They take it for granted that a direct operation of the Spirit, and the infusion of holiness into the soul, previous to its choice of God, are synonymous; whereas the one is not a necessary result from the other. There may be a quickening, an enlightening of the mind, a new direction given to the will and other faculties, but yet holiness may not exist until the mind, under the influence of the Spirit, and in view of the truth, chooses the service of God in preference to the world. The Spirit may operate directly on the soul, in connection with the truth, but this direct influence is not a holy principle infused into the soul. It may be, and oftentimes is, resisted, so that it does not result in conversion to God. While, therefore, we believe that the regeneration of the soul is attributable to a direct influence of the Holy Spirit, we reject the inference of our brethren, (for it is an inference, and nothing else,) that this direct operation is synonymous with the infusion of a holy principle into the soul, irrespective of its own action. The Spirit produces supreme love to God, by a direct and almighty influence on the mind, but it is not until this love to God exists that holiness can be predicated of the individual. Whatever may be the effect of the Spirit's direct agency in other respects, there is no holiness in the heart until the mind, in the exercise of its own freedom, and moved by the Spirit and the truth, places its affections supremely on God.

The Holy Spirit employs the Truth, or the Word of God, as a means in regenerating the heart.

That God has physical power to renew the soul, without the use of means, will not be denied by those who believe in the salvation of idiots, or of infants dying before moral agency begins. It is conceded that such are regenerated and saved without the ordinary instrumentality of the truth. But the question now is, what is God's ordinary method of regenerating the hearts of responsible moral agents? Is it by a direct influence on the mind, without the intervention of means, or is it by the efficient direct agency of the Spirit, in connection with the truth, as an instrument in effecting the change? Our New Basis brethren who believe that regeneration consists in the implantation of a holy principle without the soul's action, are consistent in holding that the Spirit does not use the truth as a means of accomplishing this work. There can be no need of the truth as a means of regeneration, if the soul is passive in this change. The Bible, however, teaches with remarkable clearness that the Spirit uses the truth in regenerating the heart. We do not know what language could be used to convey this sentiment, if this is not the teaching of the inspired men of God. It is said, "Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God." "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit." The gospel is "the power of God and the wisdom of God unto salvation." "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." "In Christ Jesus," says the Apostle, "I have begotten you through the gospel." These are a few of the numerous passages in which the truth of God is exhibited as an instrument in the production of spiritual life. They refer to the beginning of holiness in the soul—in other words, to regeneration. Other texts might be quoted to prove that the truth is employed by the Spirit as a means of sanctifying the soul. But we shall restrict our quotations to the subject under consideration. If the passages cited do not convey the sentiment that the Spirit makes use of the truth in begetting or regenerating the soul, what do they mean? It is an unauthorized assumption to say that they refer to conversion in distinction from regeneration.

No such distinction is alluded to in these texts. The words "begat," "born again," &c., are the words commonly used to express the commencement of spiritual life in the soul. When, therefore, the Scriptures say, that this new birth is the result of the power of God operating through the truth, those assume a fearful responsibility, who, to maintain an erroneous philosophical theory, deny that the truth is an instrument in the hands of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of the heart. The plainest language of the Bible must be disregarded when such a position is taken.

If it be asked, how does the Spirit operate through the truth in renewing the soul? We answer, that the Word of God does not reveal the mode in which this is done. The fact itself is clearly revealed. But we have no means to determine how the Spirit acts through the truth. As we cannot tell how one mind acts upon another through the motives presented, it would be presumptuous to state positively what is the connection between the truth as an instrument, and the efficient agency of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of the soul. The influence of the Spirit is doubtless distinct from the truth; and when we consider the radical nature of the change to be effected, we are justified in concluding that the Spirit does more than exhibit the truth—that, in addition to this, the mind is excited by the direct agency of the Spirit to attend to the truth, and under the combined influence of both, to comply with the prescribed terms of salvation. We are aware that it is alleged by those who hold to the mind's passivity in regeneration, that there is no adaptedness in the truth, in the present state of the soul, to awaken its sensibilities; and hence it is said, that no necessity exists for the truth as a means of regeneration. But is not this assertion an imputation upon the wisdom and love of God, and upon the truth itself? We admit fully the depravity of man. We will not yield to our brethren who make this assertion, in the deep conviction of the total alienation of the heart from God. But at the same time we deny that this depravity has had such 'an effect as to destroy man's capacity to feel the power of the truth. He is still an intellectual, sensitive being—capable of being affected by motives adapted to him. If it be otherwise, why is the truth addressed to him? Why is he warned, entreated, and urged by motives drawn from three worlds, to change his course of life, and to prepare for eternal blessedness? If there is no adaptedness in the truth to his spiritual nature; if the powers of his mind have become so paralyzed by sin as to incapacitate him to receive the truth, or to be affected by it, there would be as much propriety in addressing the truth to the brute creation as to man. According to this theory the means of grace are utterly useless. Of what avail is the ministry, the Sabbath, and the various spiritual privileges God has conferred, if the unrenewed mind of man cannot be influenced by them? The Antinomian is consistent in declining to urge impenitent men to repent and believe in Christ, and in exhorting such to "wait God's time," until he renews the heart, and then, according to their theory, they can cultivate the holy dispositions necessary to salvation. But we regard it as a gross perversion of the doctrines of the Westminster Confession for a Presbyterian of any school, to teach that God's truth is not adapted to fallen man, and that, therefore, the Holy Spirit must first literally create a holy principle in the soul before the truth can be used as an instrument in its salvation.

We believe that this holy principle is the result of the combined influence of the Spirit and the Word. The latter is the "sword of the Spirit." When it is wielded by the Spirit, the darkened mind is illuminated; the obdurate heart is melted; the perverse will is subdued; and the sinner, without any infringement upon his freedom of will, gives to God the supreme affection of his soul.

The views we have presented as to the Author or Cause of regeneration are those of the Westminster divines. They ascribe the regeneration of the heart to the special grace of God. But they also teach that this special grace operates in connection with the truth. God "is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation hv Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh." "How is the Word made effectual to salvation ?" "A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners, of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to His image, and subduing them to His will." Let the reader remember that this effectual calling is the only regeneration taught in the Confession of Faith. And yet this is here represented as the result of the influence of the Word and Spirit. Our New Basis brethren depart from the Confession when they exclude the Word of God as an instrument in effecting the only regeneration known to its authors.

Calvin in commenting on Romans, x. 17, "So then faith eometh ty hearing, and hearing by the word of God" says, "This is a remarkable passage concerning the efficiency of preaching, since it testifies that faith proceeds from it. When it pleases the Lord to work, this is the instrument of his power."

The Synod of Dort teaches the same truth, to wit, that regeneration or effectual calling is effected by the Spirit, and the word, "What, therefore, neither the light of nature, nor the law could do, that God performs by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the word, or the ministry of reconciliation." Dr. Chalmers expresses in the strongest terms his opposition to the views of those who "look at regeneration as a physical process, and would fain trace the secret steps of the mysterious and invisible agency by which it is brought about." He says, "The Scripture, no doubt, gives a general intimation that the Spirit of God is the agent in the matter of regeneration, but in a manner and by a way which itself tells us is wholly untraceable." Dr. C. teaches, very clearly, that the Spirit acts through the word. "Let me here premise," says he, "that the Spirit acts upon the mind mediately and not immediately. He acts by the word, and in His whole operation on the heart and understanding of men, there may be no contravention of the laws of our known philosophy." Now we have thought it might appease this repugnance to have it understood, that as the Spirit of God does not act but by the intervention of the word, so the spirit which worketh in the children of disobedience does not act but by the intervention of the word."

Dr. John Brown is equally explicit in inculcating the sentiment, that the Spirit of God employs the truth as an instrument in renewing the heart. "That truth," says Dr. B., "introduced into the heart through divine influence, by being understood and believed, becomes a living, active, operative principle there, producing holiness and joy." " The common character to which all Christians have been formed by the agency of the same Spirit, and the instrumentality of the same word, is a strong motive for the cultivation of Christian brotherly kindness." " It is the Spirit who fixes the mind on the truth, and its evidence, so as to lead to the belief of the truth." "Divine influence is necessary, absolutely necessary, to fix the mind on the truth and its evidence, so as to produce faith, and the native consequences of that faith. "If He adds, "A cordial reception of Christianity can be satisfactorily traced to no cause but a divine influence, so fixing the attention on the truth and its evidence, as that it finds its way as truth into the corrupted mind and heart, and then, by its own power, in producing light and purity establishes for itself a permanent dwelling place."

This, in part, is the testimony of Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Brown to the doctrine of this Article, that the Spirit of God changes the moral character of man, through the instrumentality of the truth. Other Calvinistic authors of equal authority might be adduced to establish the same position. Even Dr. Rice has, unintentionally, we presume, admitted all we contend for on this subject. He says, "We are far, however, from denying that in regeneration the Holy Spirit operates in connection with the truth; for 'of his own will begat He us with the word of truth.' " This admission is inconsistent with the views of Dr. Rice and his brethren as to the nature of regeneration. But his plain, common sense, for once at least, prevailed over his unsound metaphysics.

In confirmation of the views presented in this Article, much could be adduced from the published writings of the ministers of our church. Our limits, however, require that we should be brief.

Dr. Richards, after quoting the definition of effectual calling from the Shorter Catechism, says, "In this definition, the whole work of conviction and conversion is comprised, and its accomplishment ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as its true and proper cause; not, however, overlooking the instrumentality of the word, nor denying that an outward call is freely given to all, where the Gospel comes." "The human heart being totally depra-ved, would uniformly and universally reject the offers' of the Gdspel, if the Divine Spirit did not accompany the word, by his own secret and powerful influence." "It is the Spirit which enlightens them in the knowledge of Christ, and shows them the necessity of a vital union to him if they would secure the pardon of sin and eternal life. Still this is not done without the instrumentality of the word." Dr. Duffield in speaking of the change in regeneration, says, "This transformation is produced through the immediate and special agency of the Holy Spirit. Call it regeneration, new birth, new creature, change of heart, renovation, still the agency of the Spirit of God is assigned as its direct and immediate cause." Again, "Such a thorough transformation of their thoughts, feelings, purposes and conduct, as to make them exhibit a new life, (which is, therefore, very appropriately termed regeneration or being born again,) is effected by the direct and special agency of the Spirit of Crod." "This aversion is overcome by the special influence of the Holy Spirit, who gives an impressiveness to these truths and objects, excites the feelings, secures the attention, engages the affections, and so making the man willing and determined to embrace and cleave to them forever as to realities substantial and eternal, revolutionizes his whole character and conduct, and develops in him a new life." He adds, "Does His influence extend no further than the mere exhibition in the word, of motives, arguments calculated to move the heart and change the will? The sacred Scriptures intimate something more than this. There is something more than the mere objective strivings of the Spirit, as they are sometimes called." "When the influence of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification is promised, or spoken of, it is in connection with, and through the truth." Dr. Rice and Mr. Wood have given special attention to Dr. Duffield's work on Regeneration. They have endeavored to prove that he did not believe in a change of heart, and that he taught that the Spirit did no more in regeneration than exhibit the truth. Dr. Rice says, "According to Dr. D.'s doctrine of regeneration, there is in it no change of heart, no taking away of the stony heart, no renewing of the will." We do not hesitate to pronounce this statement a gross perversion of the views of Dr. Duffield. No fair-minded man can read his work on Regeneration without observing that although he repudiates the theory of physical regeneration, he holds to a radical, permanent change in the moral character of the soul, as necessary to its salvation. He has repeatedly expressed the sentiment that the Holy Spirit operates directly on the mind; but that He does not produce holiness, or change the affections of the heart, except in connection with the truth. "Regeneration," says Dr. D., "is a radical change of heart, produced by the special operations of the Holy Spirit, determining the sinner to that which is good, and is in all cases instantaneous."! The two chapters on the moral suasion of the Spirit, in Dr. D.'s work on Regeneration, have been strangely interpreted by our New Basis brethren. Every unprejudiced reader must perceive that he uses the phrase "moral suasion," not to exclude the direct operation of the Spirit on the mind, but to express the fact that the Spirit employs the truth as an instrument in renewing the heart, in opposition to the Antinomian theory of a physical change, wrought by the Spirit, without the truth. According to Dr. D. the truth is inefficacious, unless the Spirit gives it efficacy. In some way unrevealed, He uses the truth in enlightening the mind, in exciting the susceptibilities, and in inducing a surrender of the heart to God. Dr. Gilbert, whose views are particularly obnoxious to Mr. Wood, teaches substantially the same doctrine. His essay is designed to refute the theory that regeneration is a miracle, or that it consists in a change in the essence, or essential properties of the soul, effected by the Holy Spirit without the intervention of the truth. Hence he speaks of those who hold the opposite doctrine as moral suasionists. He says, "The doctrine of the moral suasionists is this: that the Holy Spirit is the author or ultimate cause of all practical religion in man; the beginning, progress and end being all from Him. That He convicts by the influence of truth presented to the "mind, and in no other way; that regeneration is as really and solely through the truth as conviction is." He says, "The question is not whether the Spirit is the Author of regeneration. This is admitted, and held as a fundamental point."

"After such statements from those whose orthodoxy has been called in question by our New Basis brethren, what must be thought of the charge, that Constitutional Presbyterians believe that man regenerates himself—that there is no such thing as a change of heart—and that regeneration is effected entirely by motives or moral suasion, without the efficient agency of the Holy Spirit? Party prejudice, attachment to certain technical terms, or Antinomian propensities, may lead to these unfounded insinuations; but, whatever may be the cause of them, we regard them as without the slightest foundation, and those who propagate such slanders against their brethren incur a responsibility and a degree of guilt which cannot be fully estimated in this life." (pg. 213-46 - "Old and New Theology," and in Article II on "Regeneration")

The Presbyterian quarterly review‎ - Page 245
by Benjamin J. Wallace - Religion - 1856


See here