Cannot the Spirit of God act by means, unless the sinner have the power in himself rightly to employ those means? So says the objection; but it aims a direct blow against all means in the application of redemption. For the believer never has power in himself to make a right use of means. Consequently, the objection amounts to a limitation of divine power by human inability; and is, therefore, Armi

nianism. sell as such as t

III. It is objected that if the word be the instrument in regeneration, it must be effected by a more powerful presentation of it to those who are regenerated than to others, and consequently regeneration is effected by the moral suasion of the word. There is, no doubt, a more powerful presentation of the word by the Spirit of God to the regenerate, than to others; so powerful, as to change the moral nature and capacity of the soul, as well as the choice of the will. But this power is infinitely above mere moral suasion, though not inconsistent with it.

IV. It is objected, The word cannot be the instrument, because it has in itself no efficacy." It is replied," If God has appointed means ineffectual in themselves, he intends to

make them effectual,”* upon all whom he regenerates.

V. It is objected, there is no more adaptation in the word to regenerate, than there is in positive institutions to produce the effects which divine power caused to follow their observance; consequently, obedience to those things in the word which are moral in their nature proceeds entirely on the same principle with obedience to positive institutions, namely, the authority of God. Therefore, there can be no adaptation in the word, to regenerate, because there is no adaptation in positive institutions to produce their effects. To this, it is replied, That although the authority of God is the formal reason of all obedience, still the word has in itself not only a suitableness, but also a tendency to accomplish the work to which it has been appointed by Jehovah.† "My word shall not return unto me void; but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it,"

* Lawson.

+ This adaptation has been fully demonstrated in Part I. Chap. iii. sections 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 22, and elsewhere in the present essay.

Is. lv. 11. "It is evident, that the gospel, considered simply as a moral means, and independently of the divine constitution, which has connected the influence of the Spirit with the preaching of it, possesses a fitness, an adaptation to the end proposed, which is not to be found in any other part of the word."*

VI. It is objected-"That there can be no adaptation in the soul to be operated upon by the instrumentality of the word, because it is "dead in trespasses and sins." It is replied, that death in trespasses and sins is a moral or spiritual death; the loss of the holy, not the mental nature; of the moral, not the intellectual power. The latter of which, always remains in the soul, and constitutes the basis of freeagency and accountability. And is most admirably adapted to be operated upon by the word, which the Associate Synod say, is "addressed to the understanding." But the whole of the first part of the present work is a refutation of this objection.

VII. It is admitted that the word is the organ of regeneration, while its instrumentality

is denied. This is highly disingenuous. It is running away from the point by a paltry artifice; always perplexing to the unlearned and disgusting to men of sense. What is the difference between organ and instrument? The term organ denotes, "a natural instrument." The term instrument denotes, "the means of conveyance or communication."* We shall not characterize the distinction which has been made between the words organ and instrument in order to mislead the public mind on a point of such vitality; but leave it to the judgment of the reader; simply observing, that it is utterly incomprehensible, how the word can be the organ and yet not be employed "in the very act of regeneration," as the objector has asserted. It is equally incomprehensible, how the word can be the organ of regeneration, if God first regenerates the soul and afterwards writes the law upon the heart, as the objector asserts. Is the word only the medium in which the Spirit conveys himself from one object to another? Such a thought be far from the minds of sober Christians. Sound writers never thought of this sage distinction. They use the terms

* Consult Johnson, Walker and Webster.

instrument, organ, chariot, and vehicle without any apparent difference of meaning, simply to express the great scriptural doctrine that the Holy Spirit always employs the word in the regeneration of adults who are of sane mind. It cannot be known by us whether insane persons are regenerated, during insanity, or not. If so, their case resembles that of infants.

VIII. It is said,-"The word is instrumental in the production of the creature, viewed as in a state of perfect formation, which is not the case, until it has seen the light and put forth incipient acts." It is replied, according to this objection, the fœtus is brought into a state of perfect formation, without any means whatever, but after it "has seen the light," which cannot be till after it has been born, then it is begotten, and means are used to bring it forth. A new theory, truly, both of generation and regeneration!

IX. The objector admits that some passages have the appearance of proving the instrumentality of the word in regeneration, but thinks he has quoted others which establish his position, and that it is too much to demand of him a reconciliation of these apparently contradic