the command of God, is applicable only to a state of innocence. In our present fallen state, it leads to the dreadful conclusion, that the creature has power to abolish the law of the Creator, and escape from his subjection to the divine government by transgression.

VII. Regeneration is not the coercion of the will. The choice of the will is both free and necessary: free from the impulsion of external agents; but necessary from its own nature. By a divine constitution every creature necessarily acts according to its nature, when not under restraint. Freedom of, will in God consists, 1. In the power of decreeing to act, or not to act. 2. In the choice of some one course of procedure out of every possible variety that can come within the scope of infinite wisdom and Almighty power; provided always, that the particular course of procedure chosen, be consistent with the divine nature. God cannot deny his own essence-cannot command his creatures to have some other god before him. Here then is both freedom and necessity of will delightfully harmonizing; holding sweet concert in the being and operations of God. So with the soul of man. Its power of choice

is free; but controlled by its own nature and relations in the scale of being. In its fallen state it may incline to the choice of endless absurdities, to create a world, or convert itself into a brute. But its efficient choice of will is limited to things congruous to its nature, and within the compass of its power. In both these respects, the new birth lies far beyond the reach of a carnal mind. 1 Cor. ii. 14. "The moral disposition of the soul, as it respects both the will and understanding, has a governing influence upon the will in its moral actings; in all those actings which respect the supreme Lawgiver and his law, as to matters of sin and duty. The moral disposition lies not primarily in the understanding or in the will, considered as powers of the soul; far less does it lie in any exercise of these powers. But it is an ingrained quality of the soul itself, lying at the root of these powers in their exercise. And it is evident, that, according to what is the prevailing moral disposition of the soul, accordingly must be the moral actings of the will. According to what sort of a heart a man has, accordingly must be the exercise of his heart and the tenour of his behaviour,—in mat

ters of moral good and evil. It was to this purpose that our Lord said- Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.' Matt. vii. 16-18."*

VIII. Regeneration is not, then, the result of the natural man's choice. His choice of God is the effect of the Spirit's regenerating act. "I am found of them that sought me not." Isaiah lxv. 1. Consequently his choice of God is both free and necessary. "Simply to will, belongs to man; to will what is evil, to corrupt nature; to will what is good, to grace." Again; this doctrine "offends those, who know not how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion.....There is such a close connexion between the goodness of God and his divinity, that his deity is not more necessary than his goodness. . . . . .Therefore if a necessity of doing well impairs not the liberty of the divine will in doing well; if the devil, who cannot

* Gib's Contemplations, p. 353.

but do evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; who then will assert that man sins less voluntarily, because he is under a necessity of sinning? By means of liberty it came to pass that man fell into sin; but now the penal depravity consequent upon sin has also introduced a necessity of sinning in conjunction with this liberty." So with the regenerate, their new nature imposes upon them a necessity to choose holiness instead of sin, and yet their choice is most free. 1 John iii. 9.

The Arminians constantly maintain, that freedom of will, not only from the coaction of other agents, but also from this necessity of nature, is absolutely requisite to constitute either merit or demerit in human actions. And yet Dr. Whitby, while he strenuously advocates this doctrine, inconsistently enough with himself, admits, "that God is necessarily holy, and his will necessarily determined to that which is good." But new school theologians have far out-run their Arminian brethren in the downward road of infidelity, and carried out this doctrine of free-will to its legitimate, but

* Calvin's Institutes, B. 2. C. 3. S. 5.

blasphemous results. "Now the reason why God cannot sin, is not because he is naturally unable to sin. ... But it is said he cannot sin, because he is voluntarily holy, infinitely disposed not to sin."* That inscrutable Being, the Lord our God; whose name is "holy and reverend;" who is "glorious in holiness," or, whose glory is his holiness; who has declared in reference to his necessary, but ineffable existence, I AM THAT I AM,-and also employed the same language in reference to his holiness, I AM HOLY,-according to Oberlin Theology, is in his own nature neither sinful nor holy! He has power to sin! His holiness is merely the result of sovereignty! There is no merit in possessing a holy nature! Yea, the possession of a holy nature destroys merit! Verily, these men have become exceedingly bold. "They set their mouth against the heavens," Psalm lxxiii. 9; "understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." 1 Tim.i. 7. Not content with the moral desolation that reigns in the track of their erratic course, they have at length blasphemously ascribed to

* Oberlin Evangelist, Sept. 14, 1842.