^ .^^^< ^> Covam damagad/ Couvartura andommagte □ Covara rattorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raatauria at/ou pailicuMa I — I Covar titia miaaing/ La titra da couvartura manqua □ Colourad mapa/ Carta* gtegraphiquaa an coulaur □ Colourad inic (i.a. othar thar. blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) I I Colourad plataa and/or illuatrationa/ D D D D Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa an coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ R«li4 avac d'autraa documanta Tight binding may cauaa ahadowa or diatortion along intarior margin/ La raliura «arrAa paut cauaar da I'ombra ou da la distortion la long da la marga IntAriaura Blank laavaa addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar poasibia, thaaa hava baan omittad from filming/ II sa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajoutiaa lors d'una rastauration apparaiaaant dana la taxta, maia. loraqua cala 4tait poaaibia, caa pagaa n'ont pas «t« fiimAaa. Additional comments:/ Commantairaa auppMmantairaa: L'inatitut a microfilm* la maillaur axamplaira qu'il lui a At* poaaibia da aa proeurar. Laa dAtaila da cat axamplaira qui aont paut-*tra uniquas du point da vua bibliographiqua. qui pauvant modif iar una imaga raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dans la mAthoda normala da filmaga aont indiquis ci-daaaoua. I I Colourad pagaa/ Pagaa da coulaur Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommagtea Pagaa rastorad and/oi Pagaa rastaurAas at/ou paliiculAas Pagaa discolourad, stainad or foxa< Pagaa dteolorias, tachatAaa ou piquAas I — I Pagaa damagad/ I I Pagaa rastorad and/or laminatad/ r^ Pagaa discolourad, atainad or foxad/ P« of fll Oi bi th ai( oi fll ai( OI □ Pagaa datachad/ Pagaa ditachAas [TT^Showthrough/ Lj^I Tranaparanca I I Quality of print varias/ D Quality in^gaia da I'imprassion inciudas supplamantary material/ Comprand du material supplAmantaira Only edition available/ Seule idition disponible Tl s» Tl w M di ei bi rii r« m Pagaa wholly or partially obacurad by errata slips, tissues, etc., have l)een refilmed to enaura the beat poaaibia image/ Lea pagaa totalement ou partialiemant obacurcias par un feuillet d'errata, una pelure. etc., ont At* fiimies A nouveau da fapon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux da rMuction indiqu* ci-(f 'rtaaoua. 10X MX ItX 22X 26X aox 12X ItX 20X a4x 2SX 32X Th* copy f ilm«d iMr* has lM«n r«f>roduc«d thanks to tho gonorotity of: UnHsd Chiirdi of Canada Archival L'oxomptairo film* fut roproduH grioo A la 04n4ro«Mda: Unhad Church of Canada Archivaa Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast qHallty possibia considaring tha condition and lagiblHty of tha original copy and in icaaping with tha filming contract spacificatlona. Original capias in printad papa'/ covars ara fllmad baginning with tha front cover and anding on tha last paga with a printad or lilustratad impras- sion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar criginal capias ara fllmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or lilustratad impras- sion. and anding on tha last paga with a printad or lilustratad imprassion. Tha last racordisd frama on aach microflcha shall contain tha symbol ^^ (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (moaning "END"), whichavar applias. IMaps. platas, charts, ate., may ba fllmad at diffarant raduction ratios. Thosa too larga to ba antiraiy included in ona sxposuro ara fiimad baginning in tha uppar laft hand comar, laft to right and top to hottom. as many framas as raquirad. Tha following diagrams illustrata tha mathod: Las imagas suhramaa ont 4H6 raproduitas avcc la plus grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da raxamptoira fllmA, at wi conformity avac las condltkms du contrat da filmaga. Las axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura an papiar ast ImprimAa sont fl!m4a an comman^nt par la pramlar plat at an tarminant salt par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou dlNustratlon. soit par la sacond plat, aalon la cas. Tous iaa autraa axamplairas originaux sont fllmto an commandant par la pramlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou dlllustration at an tarminant par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Un das symbolos suhrants apparattra sur la darnMra imaga da chaqua microflcha. salon la cas: la symbola — ► signifla "A 8UIVRE". la symbols ▼ signifla "FIN". Las cartas, planchaa. taMaaux. ate., pauvant fttra fllmto i das taux da rMuctton dIffArants. Lorsqua la document ast trap grand pour Atra raprodult an un saul cllchA, ii ast fHm* A partir da I'angia supArlaur gaucha. da gaucha A droita. at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra d'imagas nAcaaaaira. Laa diagrammas suivants illustrant ki mAthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 ^c must be bom adain/ *- ii INCLUDING A bOLD Examination of the Doctrines of Justification, Sanctification, the Double Work, Original Sin, Aoopticn, Divine Guidance, Etc. Delivered before the Niagara Conference Theological Union, in Ingersoll, June 8th, 1889, and Published by the unanimous request of 1 HE Union (revised and enlarged). m:i hi w I'll ^^*~^t REGENERATION: ITS NATURE, CONDITIONS, AND CONCOMITANTS. BY REV. T. L. WILKINSON. \m ; The doctrine of inspiration, that man is a fallen creature, exceedingly prone to evil, finds ample illustration and confirma- tion in the history, observation, and experience of our race. The doctrine of the existence and sovereignty of Qod is just as plainly revealed and as clearly manifest. We are safe, there- fore, in assuming — First, the moral government of Ood ; and, secondly, the depravity of man. But the inspired oracles speak not only of human depravity, but of human redemption. By this latter term is meant, in general, the entire scheme of divine wisdom and grace designed and provided as a means of recovery. Necessarily such a scheme presents various aspects, and may be viewed from different standpoints. It was disobedience to the sovereign, on the part of the subject, or antagonism to the divine on the part of the human, that induced our depravity and rendered redemp- tion necessary. This disobedience of the creature to the Creator is what we call sin, and is, in fact, the very essence of sin ; and if we regard sin as a disease, redemption is the divine remedy for this disease. But in providing a remedy for sin, regard must be had to the claims of law and the maintenance of authority, as well as to the eflSciency of the remedy itself. In considering the subject of redemption, therefore, the two principal standpoints will be the divine and the human, and the two great divisions of the subject, atonement and regeneration — atonement to meet the demands of the law, and regeneration to meet the demands of our depravity ; or, atonement to uphold the authority and vindicate the character of the ruler, and regeneration to improve the character of the subject. The topic we propose to deal with at present, however, will include the latter general division only, the term regeneration having Vl^-b^r 2 BBQBNXBATION. been employed ihos far in a comprehensive sense to describe fche entire subjective results of redemption through the opera- tions of divine grace in the soul of man. It will be necessary at this point, however, to premise that divine and human governments, while similar in some respects, essentially differ also in their nature and designs. Human government aims chiefly at the regulation of conduct; the divine, at the formation of character. Human government con- templates the adjustment and management of temporal or earthly afiairs ; the divine, the development and advancement of spiritual interests. Human government proposes to harmo- nize and adjust men's relations to each other, chiefly as social beings, or members of the State, enforcing the right and sup- pressing the wrong by civil or physical disabilities, called pains d noi man can ever baptize without the co-operation of the other, which is supremely absurd, since it limits the prerogatives of Jehovah, contradicts the word of God, and leaves the Almighty "powerless tosav^e a soul until some human priest can be brought to apply the water : and no priest, no salvation. No matter how ripe the subject may be in penitence and faith ; no matter how willing the Deity, or how great the emergency, God's hands are tied and His independent prerogative to save is gone, the machinery of mercy must stand still and devils glory in the Almighty's plight until some Puter-ified priest can bring the hydraulic key and unlock the door. If this be true, we can easily conceive of storms, or freshets, or distance, or disability, or sulkiness, or laziness, or late trains, or slow coaches, or baulky horses, or bad roads, or broken bridges, and a thousand other similar conditions, baulking tho purposes of mercy, check- ing the flow of the streams of grace, and excluding a soul from heaven. Another absurdity involved in this interpretation is that it makes salvation to depend as much upon the acts of the body as upon the state of the heart. But if sin is a moral c^i- ady, and consists in the motives of the .heart rather than the movements uf the body — if it is an act of the soul, rather than an abstract physical action — as all will admit, then the remedy must be applied to the soul rather than to the body, to the spirit rather than to the flesh ; hence it must be exclusively a divine, or spiritual operation, conditioned not upon any physical process, or ceremonial observance, but upon the state of the affections or heart. If this were not so, considering that men are liable not only to deceive, but to be deceived, we can easily imagine the Deity placed under the absurd necessity of saving some very impenitent and hypocritical wretches, while allowing some very sincere and contrite believers to perish outside the fold. All interpretations involving such absurdities and such consequences must be summarily rejected as erroneous. But it appears to me that there is evidence in the passage itself that it was not intended to teach the doctrine of water- 10 REOBNBRATION. baptismal regeneration at all. Our Lord, in the context, enun- ciates the universal principle of " everything after its kind." He says, " That which is bom of the flesh is flesh, and that which is b*>m of the Spirit is spirit." Now, if the water birth is a separate and distinct process, and the same principle is appli- cable to it, then that which is born of water is — water. Or, if the new birth be the result of the co-action of water and Spirit, then the product must be water and Spirit — a conclusion which the advocates of that theory will scarcely care to accept. Doubtless the true meaning of the passage, and, so far as I can see, the only consistent one is, that our Lord, according to a well-understood idiom of speech, describes the same spiritual process in a twofold aspect — first, under its symbolic form, and secondly, under its spiritual, each supplementary to and explan- atory of the other. We have numerous parallel cases in Scrip- ture; e.g., God says by Isaiah (xliv. 3) : " I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed, and My blessing upon thine oflF- spring." Certainly we are not to suppose that both water and Spirit are intended here, but Spirit only, described in the first clause by the name and under the similitude of water, and in the last without a similitude, the latter explaining the former and the former illustrating the latter. So John the Eaptist, in Matt. iii. 11, says of Christ: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Qhost and fire," meaning, doubtless, the Holy Ghost under the similitude of, and purifying like tire. Otherwise, we have three baptisms for believers — one with fire, one with water, and one with Spirit. But the passage under review, we conceive, teaches the one only saving baptism, or birth, under the simili- tude of water, but really through the agency of the Holy Ghost. And there can be no reasonable doubt that this divine work is wrought in the soul of man in the very instant when he, as a penitent sinner, is brought by faith into vital contact with the atoning merits of the blood of Christ, whether this be at the time of baptism or some other time. Thus the atonement becomes the meritorious ground of regeneration, the Divine Spirit the active and efficient agent, and man the subject, or recipient, entitled to all the provisions o| divine grace in time and throughout eternity. If this view be correct, then the pas- sage might very properly be rendered, as it would doubtless If* w- BBGSNERATION. II mean, " Except a man be bom of water, even ot the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of Qod." This rendering is supported by some eminent scholars. In regard to ihe doctrine of water-baptismal regeneration. Rev. Wm. Anderson, LL.D., of Glasgow, in his work entitled " Regeneration," says, on pp. 32, 33 : " Such spiritual-material dynamics — or, to express it more definitely, spiritual hydro- dynuTnica, or wcUer-potoer ; or, still more speciiically, spiritual hydratdica — ^is a first principle of the Popish science of salva- tion. That priesthood of imposture believe — at least they say they do^that by water-baptism there is communicated to the soul of the infant the germ of spiritual life ; and moreover, that there is no other mode of communicating it. The Anglican episcopacy makes precisely the same representation as con- tained in their liturgy, the Book of Common Prayer ; according to the forms of which every child within their Church's pale is baptized, whether by a Low Church Evangelical, using the expressions of the prescribed formula in a non-natural sense, i.e., the inverse of common sense ; or by a High Church Trac- tarian, for once an honest man, using them in a grammatical sense. When we reflect on this, . . . especially when we reflect that, notwithstanding all the exposures which are being frequently made of the impotence of formality, there are so many who judge favorably of themselves merely on account of certain places to which they walk and in which they sit down, certain postures which they assume, certain actions which they perform with their hands, certain eatings and libations which they perform with tneir mouths, and certain words which they pronounce with their tongues, it will appear how much need there is of a sustained witness-bearing for the spiritual nature of Regeneration." Concomitants of Regeneration. Another question logically involved in my theme, and in place just at this point, is as to the relation of justification and sanctification to the work of regeneration, or where do they belong and what are their functions in the redemptive scheme ? It will be noticed thai I have assigned them no place as yet, though it is supremely important that we understand their nature, offices and relations in the saving plan. To this end IS BIQBNBBATION. ■ s- ■ we will make use of the helps supplied by the old dispensation, under which the great spiritual verities of the Oospel were clearly mirrored forth by types and ceremonies. Under that dispensation God's Church was organized as n kingdom or nation. Under that kingdom the ceremonial law was enacted and administered. Under and by virtue of that law, the Levit- ical priesthood, typical of the divine priesthood of Christ, was appointed and officiated, and under that law people were both justified and sanctified; hence justification and sanctification had their birth, in an important sense, under law, and both have reference to the divine government, and cannot be prop- erly interpreted if divorced therefrom. Justification especially, we are told, is a law term, implying a process at law, issuing in an official declaration of innocency concerning some one accused of crime. As in ancient times, however, kings generally exercised judicial functions, the very term itself suggests the threefold idea of king, culprit, and law. The governmental idea, involving regal and judicial prerogative, not only existed under the old dispensation, but is also carried over from the old dispensation into the new, for the Church is now called " the kingdom of God," and Christ is not only King, but Judge, for " the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." But because of the analogy between legal and evangelical justification, we will use a case of the former as an illustration of the latter, and at the same time note the differences. Legal Justification. Suppose a man in a human court of law arraigned under a charge of murder. The indictment is read and the trial pro- ceeds. The witnesses are numerous and higlily credible, while their testimony is direct, specific, and harmonious ; so much so that the counsel for the defence induces hh client to confess his crime and ask for the clemency of the court. The judge accord- ingly pronounces the official sentence of condemnation with such penalty as the law prescribes. It is evident that this man is not justified, but found guilty and condemned. But another man is arraigned, charged with the same crime. The witnesses are few and unreliable ; their evidence is vague, circumstantial, and contradictory, and the evidence of rebuttal is so conclusive RBGBNEKATION. 18 that tiie man's innocence is clearly and undeniably established. The verdict is unanimously for acquittal, the judge pronounces the prisoner innocent, congratulates him on the completeness of his vindication, and discharges him from custody. He, accord- ingly, walks out of court amid the cheers and congratulations of the spectators — justified. This, however, i'i> will be seen, is a case of legal justification, which, in some important respects, difiers from evangelical. In this case there is a charge of guilt, but it is proved untrue, and the man is justified on^the ground of his innocence. In Evangelical Justification the charge is confessedly true, and on the ground of native innocence the sinner could never be justified. He stands in the same relation to the law as the first prisoner in my supposition. He is charged with crime, proved guilty, and admits his guilt Yet tsven he, by the provisions of divine grace, is "justified from all things from which he could not be justified by the law of Moses." How is it done, and what does it inv olve ? Is he merely pardoned ? Let us see. Take the caae of the murderer again. Suppose the royal prerogative to pardon is invoked and exercised in his case, and on receiving the royal parchment he is released from prison and goes forth into society with the pardon in his hand. Is he justified? Is he less truly a murderer, stained with a fellow-creature's blood, than he was while locked behind the prison bars ? In other words, has any change been efiected in his nature or character ? Certainly not, hence he is not justified in any sense analogous to God's method of justi- fying. True, Noah Webster says that to justify, in a theological sense, is "to treat as just, though guilty and deserving of punishment; to pardon; to absolve." This definition, how- ever, can hardly be accepted as orthodox, since God cannot be supposed to treat as just persons who are " guilty and deserv- ing of punishment." If that were justification, then the justify- ing act is only a blind, exceedingly compromising to the char- acter of God, and the saints in heaven would be left to all eternity " guilty and deserving of punishment." This is what Rev. Benjamin Field, in his " Hmd-book of Theology," calls " improper, or secondary, justification." Dr. Cooke defines evan- 14 RBQENBBATION. i\ gelical justification as " absolution from the guilt we had con- tracted, from the punishment to which it had justly exposed US, and restoration to the divine favor " {Theology, p. 361). He also says of justified persons, that they " are as free from the imputation of sin as Adam was when he first inhaled the salu- brious air of Paradise, and in his innocence rejoiced in commu- nion with God. Hence the apostle exultingly asks, ' Who shall lay anything to the charge of Qod's elect ? It is God that jus- tifietb. Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that died.' ' Our sins, though once as scarlet, arp co white as snow ; though red like crimson, they are as wool.' " In fact, we cannot con- ceive of a man as being justified in the sight of God who is not truly just, or righteous ; and how God can reckon, or " treat," a man as righteous who is not truly so is equally inconceivable. Justification, then, in an etvAngelical sense, involves the inno- cence, the CLctual and ahaclute innocence, of the justified person. It does not necessarily imply the making of him innocent, but the declaring of him so ; and in this respect corresponds with legal justification. Nor is it supposable that God could declare a man innocent before he was made so, hence we can have no such- thing as evangelical justification without some anterior provision and process for making men innocent It would be a misleading and deceitful use of words to declare a sick man well whose disease remained uncured ; and any physician who would proceed on such a principle, and undertake to " treat " a man as cured who was still sick, would soon find himself in a court of law, but not in a state of justification. Nor must we impute conduct to God such as would ruin the character of a man. When God pronounces a man just, we are to presume that he is so, without any imputation of sin whatever ; yet the making of him just, I repeat, is no part of the justifying act. Our next inquiry, therefore, must needs be, How is the man made innocent ? We have no earthly parallel for illustration, hence we will attempt to supply an imaginary one. Suppose, e.g., that the king, in the case of that murderer, could, by some magical, chemical, or psychological process, thoroughly purify him by extracting not only the guilt of his crime,. but the very murderous instinct itself; and suppose he could " blot out," not only from the calendar of the court, but from the character and conscience of the man, all stains, traces and consequences of the REGENERATION. 16 crime, and leave him as pure and free from guilt as if the crime had never been committed, then it is evident that he could justify him before the law, and that, too, in a sense ana- logous to evangelical justification. This mysterious process, however, would not be the justifying act, but only an operation essential and preparatory co that act, and for want of a better name let us call it Regeneration. Now, God is able, not by magic, not by chemistry, not by psychology, nor by witchcraft, but " by the washing of regen- eration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost," thus to cleanse and change men ; and He never justifies, nor can He justify, a man not thus regenerated. To do so would logically involve a lie, consequently all justified persons are regenerated, and all regenerated persons are justified. Justification, however, does nothing for us, inwardly. It simply determines our legal standing, while regeneration determines our moral stand- ing. Justification deals with law, regeneration with our nature. As Dr. Cooke expresses it, " Justification is a change in our relation to God (as Sovereign) ; regeneration is a change in our personal state, our affections, and character (nature). Justification is the removal of the guilt we had contracted ; regeneration is the subjugation of our natural depravity by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Justification removes the penalty the law denounces ; regeneration implants a principle of obedi- ence to the precepts the law enjoins. Justification is a restora- tion of the soul to God's favor ; regeneration is a restoration of the soul to His image" (Theology, p. 416). And the one cannot exist apart from the other in the case of a person who has sinned. A justified man must be a regenerated man, and a regenerated man must be a justified man. It will be seen, therefore, that in an important sense justification is a result of regeneration; or, in other words, that the legal act is based upon the regenerative work, and the regenerative work upon the atonement of Christ. And now, with regard *iO sanctification, it will be proper to inquire what relation it sustains to regeneration. Is it a separ- ate and distinct work performed at a difierent time, or is it, like justification, cotemporaneous with, and inseparable frou*, the new birth ? It is agreed on all hands that sanctification and holiness metm the same thing, and it is also agreed that 16 BBOBNERATION. W ' holiness imports, in general, puritj, or the absence of sin. The term sanctify is explained by our theologians to imply two things ; first, to separate an object* from a profane or common Qse, and secondly, to devote it to a holy and religious use. This rather describes the sanctifying process, however, and under the old dispensation this process generally involved the laying of the devoted object upon Qod's altar, and the altar, objectively, " sanctified the gift." Beet, in his excellent treatise on this subject, explains holiness to imply Ood's exclusive ownership of an object, such object being recognized as entirely devoted to His use and service. Now, the altar waa Qod's re- ceptacle for gifts offered to Him, even as a man's hands are re- ceptacles for gifts offered to him. When an object was received, therefore, upon the altar, it was virtually put into Qod's hands, and being then looked upon as His it was objec- tively holy. So when Qod receives the offering we bring to Him in faith, as we " present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto Him," He communicates the grace that makes us inwardly, or subjectively, holy. His acceptance and posses- sion- of us imply and in«rolve thfi; therefore, whosoever is accepted of Qod in Christ, being devoted to His service, is holy, not merely in an objective, but also in a subjective sense. The process leading up to this result is partly human and partly divine. The practical separation of ourselves from sin, and the practical consecration of ourselves to Qod, is our own act, and thus far man may be said to sanctify himself, or present him- self " holy " (see Lev. xi. 44 ; xx. 7 ; and Rom. xii. I). But the separation of sin from us, and the acceptance of our persons and- " reasonable service " is Qod's act, and in this sense it may be said that Qod sanctifies us. It will be seen, therefore, that in this as well as all other developments of divine grace in the soul, there is co-action between Qod and man, and in our attempts to define and comprehend such questions we will do well always to bear this fact in mind. But the point to be decided is as to when this work of sanctification is wrought, and the result called holiness reached. If holiness is the absence of sin, then it must ensue when sin is removed ; and sin is removed, as we have shown, by regenera- tion, therefore holiness must begin at that time. " Being made free from sin uid become servants to Qod, ye have your fruit BIQEMBRATIOM. 17 unto holiness." Does not this passage mean and teaoh that separation from sin and consecration to Qod's service results in a state of holiness just as the bloMom on the tree culminates in " uit ? Qod says by the same apostle, as quoted from. the prophets, " Come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters." Now, when does this process take place ? Is it at the time of our regeneration, or at some subsequent period ? It must be when we are regenerated, or " bom of Qod," that we become the " sons of Qod ; " and, accoriing to this passage, it is when we " separate ourselves from the unclean thing," or sin, that Qod receives us, which, we have shown implies holiness, and it is then that He becomes our Father, and makes us His sons and daughters, and all this implies regeneration. Besides, regenera- tion is evidently the begetting of " the new man which, after Qod, is created in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. W. 24). This passage manifestly teaches the presence of " true holiness " on the part of those who are bom again, and we have shown that justification, which is cotemporaneous with regen- eration, also implies it. " Being made free from sin," therefore, " and become servants to Qod, we have our fruit unto holiness, s(nd the end everlasting life." Doubtless, then, the regenerated person is holy, and regeneration and sanctification, as well as regeneration and justification, in fact, regeneration, justifica- tion and sanctification are cotemporaneous and inseparable, the one never existing in man apart from the others ; ajid this, all our best theologians admit and teach. Besides, it is inconceiv- able that a sinner can be cleansed from sin, renewed in nature, and adopted into the divine family, who is not separated and cleansed from sin, and consecrated to Qod, and these things we have shown to be involved in the idea of holiness. Hence we infer that the state of holiness begins with regeneration. But is sanctification a different process, or work of divine grace, from regeneration, or is it a result of the same process ? I reply, regeneration describes or involves the process, and sancti- fication expresses one phase of the result, just as washing de- scribes a process, and purity the result; or killing a process, and death the result;, or quickening a process, and life the result. Regeneration has to (jio.with our naturer-cleaiudng, quickening, 2 ..<*' 18 RIOBMKRATIOM. : il 1^ , I: t: xvnewing it ; sanctification describes the sum of these operations as developed in our character. Regeneration cores and eradicates the disease of sin from the soul ; the state of spiritual health which ensues is called sanctification. Let me illustrate this whole question in this way. Suppose we are under the old dis- pensation, where there was a temple for religion and a throne for government. The king upon the throne represents law ; the priest in the temple represents character, and, in addition to these, there is a prophet or teacher, one of whose functions it is to ex - plain.and enforce duty. Suppose a person who has transgressed the law coming to the king, asking pardon for his crime and protection from its consequences. The king is inflexible, because he is just, and says, I would be merciful if I could, but I cannot at the expense of justice. So far as my prerogatives are involved, the law roust take its course, and the penalty must be inflicted, for the law says, " The soul that sinneth it shall die ! " With this, he lifts his sword to execute the sentence, but the trem- bling criminal turns to flee away, when, lo, he meets a man arrayed in robes like unto a prophet, and cries out to him, " What must T do to be saved ? " The prophet bids him hie to yonder temple, and tell the priest his tale. The prifM immedi- ately slays a victim, makes atonement for his sin, and on con- dition of future loyalty and obedience sprinkles him with the blood, cleanses him at the laver, gives him a white stone — token and pledge of his purification — and thus certificated sends him back to the king for his benediction. When the king sees him now, and receives the proof of his cleansing, he sheathes his sword, his judicial anger is appeased, his countenance becomes benignant, his throne of justice becomes a throne of grace, and he pronounces the criminal absolved and guiltless. He can now be just, because of what the priest has done, and at the same time the justifier of every one who is thus cleansed in the temple. Observe, it is the king's business to absolve men, and pronounce them just ; it is the priest's business to cleanse them, and pronounce them pure. " Go show thyself to the priest," said Jesus to the cleansed leper, " and ofier the gift that Moses commanded for a testimony unto them." To justify, then, is a kingly function; to regenerate and sanctify a priestly. But sepa- ration from sin and consecration to Qod as King, were required by the priest before he could cleanse and sanctify, and cleansing RIOIMBBATION. 19 wu required by the king before he eould justify and pardon, hence all the conditions of sanetificaticn were involved in regene- ration. The man. being regenerated, is justified when viewed from the standpoint of law, and sanctified when viewed from the standpoint of character. Look at him from the throne, and he is justified ; look at him from the temple, and he is sancti- fied, or holy. Now this is only illustrative, for under the new dispensation the ofiices of Prophet, Priest and King centre in one person — Christ. This Ip beautifully set forth in prophecy by Zechariah (vL 12, 13): "Behold the man whose name is the Branch : and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord : even he shall build the temple of the Lord ; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne : and he f>hall be a priest upon his throne : and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." The word ''both" here doubtless means the king and the priest, the throne and the temple, the regal and sacerdotal departments of the divine administration. The counsel of peace being between them evidently implies that they are managed, not as two rival or distinct departments of the divine commonwealth, but con- jointly, under the same head and to the same end, each in its sphere contributing its part to the unity, harmony and effi- ciency of the whole. The king is priest, and the priest is king, hence the whole transaction involving man's salvation is per- formed by the same person, in the same place and at the same time. Christ is the royal priest, or sacerdotal king, " the Lamb slain in the midst of the throne," being " by the right hand of God exalted, a prince (involving rulership), and a Saviour (involving priestly functions) to give repentance to Israel, the forgiveness of sin&" And because He possesses " all power " as priest and king, He is " able to save them to the uttermost" (cleanse, qtiicken, renew, justify, sanctify, and forever save) *' all them that come unto Qod by Him " (Heb. vii. 25). As priest He regenerates them, as king He absolves and justifies them ; and the combined result is their recovery to the state of holiness from which they fell, therefore all, saved persons b^e regenerated, justified and sanctified. The question very naturally occurs just here, however, Does not this theory antagonize the doctrine of the second work in order to entire sanctification ? I answer, much depends upon 20 RmNIRATIOir. IK I i the view we take of the question. We would require to settle first, what the nature of the second work is, and what it is sup- posed to aooomplish. Is it a new work, or is it a second instal- ment of an old work ? If a new work, what are its peculiarities ? The first accomplishes our regeneration, and involves our justi- cation and sanctiHcation. What additional blessing does the second work secure? The first is accomplished through the merit of the atonement, and by the agency of the Holy Ohosi What additional ground of merit, or efficiency of agent is claimed for the second work ? I cannot answer these questions myself. But, perhaps it will be said that it is a second instal- ment oF the same work, by the same agency, on the same ground of merit, and subject to the same conditions. But the first work, as I have shown, was regeneration, hence the second, according to this presentment, must be more regeneration, or a distinct work souje time after regeneration to perfect it more fully, or remove some defect from it. If this be the case, then what is the nature of that defect ? What did the blood of Christ and the Spirit of Qod fail to accomplish by the first that it is proposed to accomplish by the second ? If it be true that God only partially regenerates us at the first, it must, I should say, be for one of the following reasons: (1) becau.-^ He is unable to complete it at one operation ; or, (2) because He sees it to be better to pro- ceed on the two instalment plan ; else, (3) that man can only meet the conditions in this way. I can conceive of no other reason for such an arrangement. Let us look at these reasons, therefore. Surely no one will rest his case on the first — Ood'a inability, or the inefficiency of the atonement. Neither is it easy to see why Qod should prefer to leave some " remains of sin " in us when He regenerates us, to be a snare to us for a few months, or years, before He will remove them. Nor is it any more conceiv- able how it is that it requires just two efibrts and no more, on man's part, to fully meet the conditions. I could understand this better myself if the number of instalments varied some- what, according to the intelligence and faith of individuals. But, perhaps, Bishop Hedding,of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States, touches the real point when he says» "Begeneration is the beginning of purification, entire sanctifica- tion is the finishing of that work. A regenerate man is (may be) kept from committing known sin ; which is what is com- RIGISyiRATION. fl monly meant in the New Testament by ' committing sin.' But h*: yet finds in himself the remains of inbred corruption, or, original sin, such as pride, anger, envy," etc. This he calls, further on, " the pollutions of our nature." Dr. Anderson, too, previously quoted, speaking of original sin, says, "This is the radical evil which regeneration is designed to remedy " (p. 69). Now, is not this the real ground of the double work theory, viz., that we have two kinds of sin to deal with, original and personal, or native and inbred, and that one operation of grace removes the one, and a separate operation U required to remove . the other ? But it will be seen that doctors differ as to which is removed by the one operation and which by the other. Bishop Hedding affirms that sanctification removes original sin, leaving us to infer that regeneration takes away the personal ; and Dr Anderson affirms that regeneration removes original sin, leav- . ing us to wonder whether personal sin remains after regenera- tion, to be taken away by sanctification, or whether sanctifica- tion precedes regeneration in his theory and removes personal sin first. Amid this confusion what are simple minded people to believe ? Evidently, if we admit two kinds of sin, and a separate operation of divine grace for the removal of each, then it becomes a fair question as to which kind is removed by the one process, and which by the other, and which has precedence in point of time. Let us admit, for the sake of finding a starting point, that the blood of Christ in re- generation cleanses us from our personal sin, but that there is some deeper stain inherited from Adam, a sort of constitu- tional taint so inveterate in its nature that, like a chronic disease, it requires a double application of the remedy to re- move it. Now, let us see where this lands us. This original sin must either be in us when we are born, and consequently inhere in infant children from their very birth, and before, otherwise it skips the infant until it reaches the line of account- ability, and is then communicated. If communicated, who com- municates it ? We must fix the responsibility somewhere, and who will say God does it ? And if such a supposition were even admissible, then let me ask what greater show of justice is there in imparting or imputing Adam's sin to the adult than to the infant, since the latter is just as responsible for it as the former ? But if the devil imparts it, then surely it is original sin indeed, « 82 BBGBNEBATION. coming from the original source direct, and not thronsrh two hundred generations of men. But such a theory is too absurd for toleration, hence we will be obliged to fall back upon the assumption that this " original sin " is bom in us. Then every infant has its share, and must be looked upon as essentially corrupt (I speak advisedly). The supposition is that this form of sin is so inveterate that regeneration cannot remove it. It can take away personal sin, but not this. The plain inference is, therefore, that it is worse, more deep-seated, more deadly, than personal sin, yet all infants are its subjects. What about their salvation, then ? Is it secured, and how ? " Without holiness no man can see God." Without regeneration to remove personal sin no man can see the kingdom of Qod, yet in every infant there is something so much worse than personal sin, that while one application of the atoning blood can remove the one, it requires a second application to eradicate the other ! Driven to such an alternative, is it not about time to inquire, Is it true that we inherit from our first parents anything from which we require to be cleansed in order to our sanctification, which is not uncondi- tior^ally removed from all men, ante-natally by the atonement of Christ ? I do not ask whether we are injuriously affected by Adam's sin, or by the fall, as it is called. This will not be dis- puted. But I simply ask, Do we inherit anything of the nature of sin, and from which we require to be cleansed in order* to our sanctification, which is not ante-natally removed by the atone- ment? If so, where is the Scripture proof? I have already shown that sanctification takes place at the time of regeneration, and is the result of that operation, and this is substantially conceded by all our theologians. I have also shown that cleansing is a part of the regenerative process. Now, if there is more cleansing required at that time, our regeneration must be incomplete, as well as our sanctificatid regenerate all children that chance to die in childhood, as the Calvinists suppose He does in the case of " elect children," and leave those who do not die, to grow up unregenerated, to begin their responsible existence with all the disadvantages of an essentially corrupt, or impure nature to contend against ? This looks exceedingly improbable. Then, again, if this original sin, or inbred corruption, is so much more inveterate than per- sonal guilt that it requires an extra operation on the part of the Holy Spirit to remove it, how is it that all infants as well as regenerated adults, are included in the divine family, and con- stituted heirs of the kingdom of heaven, while personal sin disinherits them ? And how is it that the same divine remedy which at the first application is so impotent to reniove this 24 reoAnebation. Kv- inbred taint, is, at the second application so omnipotent ? But whatever view we take of this question, it seems to be jjfenarally conceded, especially among Methodists, that regeneration con- templates the removal of personal, but not original sin, and is, therefore, not applicable to infant children. And if original sin has been removed unconditionally, by the atonement, from "all men," then the second work, if such a work be admitted, cannot be for the removal of that, but must be based upon the defec- tiveness of regeneration. And, seriously, does not this dispar- age the atonement, and indirectly the divine character ? Can any satisfactory reason be assigned why the blood of the ever- lasting covenant should be applied to the soul of a sinner by the agency of the Holy Ghost, and cleanse him only partially, making a second application of the same blood, by the same divine agency, necessary in order to complete the work ? Is it not more consonant with truth, and less disparaging to the character of God, or the provisions of His grace, to believe and teach that the divine remedy effectually cures when first applied, but requires to be continually applied thereafter, as a preventive, in consequence of our unhealthy tendencies and surroundings ? If so, it follows that in proportion as this is done our spiritual health will be preserved and our spiritual strength renewed, and vice versa. In this case all subsequent unhealthy or defective conditions will be attributable to lapses of faith in applying the remedy, or to unwatchfulness against unhealthy conditions, rather than to defectiveness of tne remedy itself. Nor do these objections to what we regard as an erroneous theory of a second work, necessarily antagonize the fact of such a work — or many such works, for that matter — as an element of human experience, but they simply shift the responsibility of a piecemeal, or instalment salvation, from the shoulders of the Deity, where it does not belong, and place it on the shoulders of man, where it evidently does belong. Few human experiences are up to the divine standard, inasmuch as few Christians live up to their privileges, hence the necessity of a further work of grace to lift us up to that standard. That such a work is an essential festure of the divine plan I have failed to find. That it is a fact, and generally a necessity in human experience, I cannot doubt. Viewed from the divine standpoint, salvation is REOENEBATION. 25 perfect, or complete, and not fragmentary either in provision, proffer, or bestowment. It is offered to us in its entirety, and not upon the instalment plan. Few men, however, have the capacity to understand all that is involved either in Christian life or character, especially before they have entered upon it ; hence most men commence and lang continue on too low a grade; failing to comprehend, failing to grasp, and consequently failing to enjoy the fulness of their present inheritance in Christ. There is bread enough, but they feed on crumbs ; water enough, but they sip it in drops ; light enough, but they grovel with half closed eyes in a dim twilight; life enough, but they remain constitutionally feeble. They do not, perhaps, perpetrate known and overt acts of transgression, such as to bring serious condem- nation, or perhaps their consciences are not " Quick as the apple of an eye, The slightest touch of sin to feel." hence they claim to be living in a justified state, while far below the normal mark and longing for something better. At length, peradventure, under some special awakening, they dis- cover their low ground of character and experience, and are called upon to come up higher. They are induced to forsake their previous sluggish ways, renew their consecration to God, plume the wings of their faith for a higher flight, and the result is that they are lifted, as it were, to the third heaven of enjoyment and hope, and call it, according to their conventional vocabulary, the second blessing. The fact is, however, that they have nothing now but what they might have had from the beginning had they been able and willing to take it in ; nor have they anything yet but may be augmented by succes- sive up-mountings by faith in the future. But this "Lop- toad," " leap-frog " method of ascent is the practical and not the theoretical aspect of the redemptive scheme. In other words, it is not God's plan ; it is only the human outworking of the divine plan. " The path of the just is as a shining light," steadily increasing, or " shining more and more unto the per- fect day." This is the divine plan. The path of the just is like a lantern, always flickering, generally burning dim, in need either of oil or snuffing, or both, and sometimes going entirely out This is the ordinary human outworking of the UPP 26 RBOENBRATIOM. m divine plan. "Tlie kingdom of heaven Js like a grain of mustard seed planted in the ground,!' growing a little every day, and gradually becoming " a great tree." This is the divine plan. The kingdom of heaven is like a toadstool, spricgrng up in a night, and reaching its utmost growth often in a single day. This is the u^}ual human outworking of the divine plan. " The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three raeaaures of meal till (gradually) the whole was leavened." This is the divine plan. The king- dom of heaven is like soda put into sour milk from time to time, causing a sudden and tremendous effervescing for a little while, but soon dying away. This is the human outworking of the divine plan. Or if preferred, the one may be calied ideal salvation, and the other, for want of a better term, the ex- perimental. The difference between these two phases of the subject may be accounted for on the ground that salvation, as realized in human experience, involves not only divine but human agency, and the operations of the former are conditioned upon those of the latter, which are always more or less im- perfectly fulfilled. Within the limits of human compliance, however, the divine part is, no doubt, always perfectly done ; hence, whatever imperfection attaches to the work of grace in any heart, we must always be careful not to attribute it to the divine arrangement, but to the human compliance. And does this presentation of the case antagonize the old- time Methodist doctrine of the double work ? If so, I fear that old-time Methodist doctrine must have been only " going on unto perfection," but I am glad to know that it has been " growing in grace," and especially " in the knowledge of tfie truth," and it is to be hoped that it will become " perfect in this life." At all events, it would be sad for Methodism if it had gained no new light in Scripture interpretation in a century and a half. But let us hear Mr. Wesley on this point. Speaking of a justified person, he says, " So long as he walketh in love (which he may always do), he worships in spirit and in truth. He keepeth the commandments of Qod, and doeth those things which are pleasing in His sight ; so exercising himself as to have a conscience void of offence toward Qod and toward man. And He has power both over outward and inward sin, even ■^ RIGENBRATlbN. 27 from the hnoment he is justified " (Sermon ziii. 4). The fore- going extract is quoted approvingly by Dr. Cooke, who ex- presses substantially the same sentiments. I cannot, at present, or perhaps at any other time for that matter, answer all the objections that might be urged against the views thus advanced, but I am unable to see that they are either unreasonable or uni»criptural. Those passages of Scrip- ture so often quoted to show that God recognizes the existence of shortcomings, or the " remains of sin " in believe:^, and urges them on to perfection in character and life, so far from teach- ing that their present state is according to His own plan, only go to prove, I conceive, that it is contrary to that plan. He certainly offers a full as well as a free salvation to all men, and has expressly declared His will to be " our sanctification." P'^s this mean our partial sanctification for a time, and then suddenly our fuller sanctification ? Or does it mean our com- plete sanctification from the very inception of the new life ? I trust I may be pardoned for believinig it to be the latter, for Christ is " able to save unto the uttermost all who come unto Qod by Him." Not only to save them who come, I opine, but also to save them when they come, so far as uncleemness is con- cerned, since His blood " cleanseth us from all sin," and that, too, at the time it is first applied, " for by one ofiering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified ; " i.e., doubtless, in purpose and provision, and where the provision is fully accepted the purpose is fully accomplished. Bat nowhere, brethren, absolutely nowhere is salvation offered to us on the piecemeal, or instalment plan. However it may be received. Cod's will and plan are that all men should be saved and sanctified com- pletely at all times, but men do not always perfectly co-operate with Him in the execution of His purposes, hence the defects we so often see and feel. Adoption. Another of the concomitants of regeneration is adoption. On this I «,«n dwell but for a moment Hitherto we have been breathing, for the most part, the atmosphere of the court- room and the place of sacrifice, but now we luxuriate amid the loviug associations of home. Qod, as sovereign, found us in a state of rebellion against Himself, and had to deal with us '. >i;! ..„.. .,;:^-.aj S8 REGENERATION. as rebels. In order to sare us from the consequences of our rebellion, expiation must be made, the blood (life) of a victim must flow, cleansing must be performed, guilt removed, inno- cence pronounced and the prisoner released. But all this savors of rigor, it smacks strongly of justice and penalty, and although the guilt is removed and the penalty averted, yet there is an air of coldness, officialism, majesty, and stateli- ness about it all which, while it may inspire awe and awaken gratitude, fails fully to excite and quicken the tenderer sym- pathies and affections of the soul. This element, thus far, is largely wanting. But the divine resources are ample to meet the manifold demands of His administration and the diversi- fied wants of His creatures, hence the home with its father- hood of tenderness and brotherhood of love ; its larder of " fat things " and its wardrobe of white raiment ; its light, its warmth, its music, its friendships, its security, its rest, its benignity, and its blessedness, both in this world and the world to come, is introduced to our notice, and we are intro- duced to its hallowed ai\d hallowing associations and enjoy- ments. And this completes the picture, clothing it with the last needed touches of beauty, and surrounding it with the most exquisite charms. The parabl*^ of the prodigal son is the divine ideal of this scene, each believer was once that prodigal, and for each child of God that parable describes his home. Our introduction to that home may be viewed from two differ- ent standpoints. In one sense we are born into it, inas- much as the rene^Val and. quickening and cleansing of our moral natures resembles a birth. God being the author of this operation, we are said to be " bom of God." But those who are " bom again " of the Spirit, had a previous existence, and belonged to another family, less respectable and less refined. " Ye are of your father the devil, whose works ye do," was once trae of such persons, hence the translation " out of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son," and out of the family of Satan into the family of God — " the household of faith" — \)ecause it involves the principle and resembles the act of adoption, is appropriately described by this name. It is a most suitable and suggestive term, but I cannot dwell upon it. And now a few words, in conclusion, with regard to the minor results of regeneration. I have incidentally shown that •w -TT. BIOBNBRATION. 29 both justification and sanctification, as well as adoption, were among those results, aii;d beyond this I will be able to do little more than epitomize. Among these results I would mention peace, joy, the witness of the Spirit; fruit, implying life and, growth ; knowledge, especially experimental ; fellowship, vic- tory, hope, strength, guidance, and others. On this last point, however, viz., Divine Guidance, I ought, perhaps, in the interests of unity of thought and uniformity of teaching among ourselves, to enlarge for a little. I have no desire to antagonize any one's opinions, or teachings, but " in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." 1. The fact of divine guidance will not be denied by any one who venerat;>s the Word of Qod, and I am only supposed to be dealing with such. 2. That God has various ways of guiding His people no Christian will dispute. He may be sa.id to gtiide, or indicate His will by His word. His Spirit, His providence, and the coun- sels, instructions, and examples of His people. 3. The degree of guidance will be the only point, prob and greater works than He did, "because He was going to the mtmim "" 1^-^...... ''^^l 8S BIOENBRATION. Father." In verses 18, 14, that whatsoever they asked the Father in his name He would do it In verse 16, that the Father would send them " another Comforter," that He might " abide with them forever." In verse 26, that this Comforter should " teach them all things and bring all things tp their remem- brance, whatsoever He had said unto them," showing plainly that the promised Comforter was to come in His place, discharge His functions and, among other things, "guide " them, as He had been guiding them, by instruction, counsel, illumination, "into all truth " that they needed to understand, and as far and as fast as they needed to understand it, just as He Himself had been doing. But He did not tell them everything at once. He said, " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can- not bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth ; for He shall not speak of Himself ; but whatsoever He shall hear that ihall He speak ; and He will show you things to come " (John xvi. 12, 13). Now, let any candid, intelligent student of the Word of Qod calmly study this latter passage in the setting we have given it, and interpret it in the light of the context, and they cannot but see that it has no reference to any guidance, or revelation in regard to the minutiae of our actions and utterances in the ordinary affairs of life. Such an interpretation seems a degrada- tion and perversion of the text, and is not sustained by any fair principle of exegesis. Nor has such a theory of guidance, so far as history informs us, ever been realized by believers, no, not even including the apostles themselves. In fact, it is a positively dangerous and dogmatic assumption. But, finally, whatever may be true with reference to this sub- ject of guidance in the sphere of our personal relations to God, it must be evident to all who reason, that in matters affecting men's relations to each other, and involving their coaction in the social, secular or religious spheio, there can be no safe or satisfactory rule of action that is not equally revealed to and equally binding upon all. Anything short of this would be an anomaly in worldly affairs, and surely God is as reasonable as men. The fact is, it would be a most dangerous thing to make one person's inward impressions a divine standard of action for another. We do not even accept the utterances of those who wrote the Bible because they claim to have been inspired. HBOBNIRATION. 98 Bat we carefully examine the claim, and establish their right to be heard and obeyed on other grounds. This being so, it is an unpardonable impertinence for any one to demand of me that I shall govern my conduct according to his inward impressions, until he has established his right to be regarded as an oracle from heaven by other than his own naked testimony. I should be sorry to be responsible for such a theory of divine guidance. A distinction ought, perhaps, to be noted here between what may be termed the ordinary and extraordinary, the general and the special, or the rule and the exception. I have been endea- voring to expound the rule, but at the same time I must recog- nize the exceptions. In all departments of God's doings we trace this principle. E.g., in the material univerHe results are usually produced by the slow and gradual operations of natural law, though it is (;eneraily conceded that similar results must, at some time, have been produced by the immediate creative energy of Jehovah. The former is the ordinary mode, the latter the extraordinary. In the history of His dealings with man- kind effects have usuaUy been produced by the operation of natural causes, yet all Christians recognize the existence of miracles. The former is the ordinary, the latter the extra- ordinary. In the communication of His will to mankind, what is called "the light of nature" may be regarded as the ordinary^ inspiration or special revelation the extraordinary. So, I humbly think, in the matter of guidance God has His ordinary methods, such as I have already enumerated, and besides these, in case of extraordinary interest, extremity, or importance, He adopts extraordinary, or special methods. We see this illus- trated in the case of sending Philip to join the Ethiopian's chariot; in sending Peter to the house ot Cornelius ; in sending P^ul to Macedonia, and in many similiar cases. But such cases, if they became the rule would cease to be the exceptions. It need not be denied, therefor.-^, that in special emergencies God makes special impressions on men's minds, leading them to act in a certain way for the accomplishment of 'His special purposes, yet it will, doubtless, be perfectly safe to deny that He ever has made or ever will make this the common or ordinary mode of procedure, especially with reference to the trivial affairs of life. But I cannot enlarge on this point. Vv'. f