tion of its true meaning of actual goodness depends. So long as persons either cannot or will not see this department of Scripture language, so long they will go on saying that regeneration is a capacity for, not the fact of, spiritual goodness. This artificial and untrue meaning of the term will prevail, because the true one is in limine excluded by a particular exclusive theory of free-will, which makes such meaning impossible. But let them give to the language of Scripture its plain and natural interpretation, and acknowledge that part of it which asserts man's righteousness to be a gift and a creation of God, bestowed upon those upon whom from all eternity He decreed to bestow it; let them acknowledge this department of Scripture language, and this great obstacle to accepting the true sense of regeneration will be at once removed; it will be seen that regeneration in this light is only one out of a whole set of terms in Scripture, containing the same doctrine with respect to the source of true righteous ness. I have thus endeavoured to show, first, that regeneration is, in its Scriptural and primitive sense, goodness itself, in distinction to being a mere capacity for it; secondly, that it is final goodness, in distinction to a transient and passing one; thirdly, that it is an imparted goodness, in distinction to being acquired; and, fourthly, that it is not the less real because it is imparted. The proof, however, of the sense of the term regeneration has hitherto rested only on the evidence of the language bearing upon it. But, though this is the main source of proof, the conclusion to which it has led is strongly confirmed by evidence from another quarter, viz., that contained in the rite of baptism. But this will more conveniently form the subject of another chapter. CHAP. II. THE PRIMITIVE SENSE OF THE TERM REGENERATION AS THE argument for the meaning of Regeneration in the preceding chapter was drawn from the use of the term in Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers; and it was shown that regeneration, in the Scriptural and Patristic use of the term, was not a mere capacity for holiness and goodness, but was holiness and goodness itself; was not a mere assisting grace, enabling men to attain the end of a spiritual life and conduct, but was that end itself. It appeared that regeneration was a final and a heavenly state, supposed by anticipation to take place in this world when the individual was admitted by baptism into the bosom of the Christian Church, into the communion and fellowship of saints. When once a member of the Christian Church, it was supposed that he had entered a pure and heavenly society, and a high and glorious state, from which he could not afterwards fall away; that he was out of the reach of farther danger, and was lodged within the walls of the heavenly Jerusalem. Regeneration was the crown and reward of goodness, and not the mere capacity for and assistance to it. I say the crown and reward of goodness in this sense, that goodness and holiness became in the regenerate being a fixed and necessary character, whereas before they were subject to change and lapse; and the best reward of goodness is its own perpetuation. But this meaning of regeneration is also strongly confirmed by the whole character of the institution with which regeneration was connected, viz., the institution of baptism first, the conditions annexed to the reception of baptism; secondly, the unity; and, thirdly, the external form of the rite. 1. The very first thing we observe in the institution of baptism, is that the privilege conferred in it is given upon conditions. There is nothing more plainly laid down in Scripture than that faith and repentance are necessary in order to receive the benefit of regeneration which is attached to baptism, so that when infants are baptized they are bap-. tized upon a supposed or representative faith and repentance. Now suppose regeneration to be a final state, a crown and a reward, and nothing is more intelligible than that conditions should be attached to the bestowal of it. A man must deserve his reward before he gets it, and must earn his crown before it is given him. He must show his fitness and his qualifications for a final state before he is admitted into it. But suppose regeneration to be only a preparatory thing, a means, an assisting grace, and what meaning is there in attaching conditions to the reception of it? Does God exact conditions of the sinner before He gives him His assistance, and wait till he has arrived at a holy disposition before He aids him in attaining it? Such a supposition is absurd, because it contradicts the whole use and meaning of assisting grace. The connection, then, of conditions with the gift of regeneration shows of itself that that gift must be something more than assisting grace. Again, consider what is implied in the very fact of the fulfilment by the individual of these conditions before he receives the gift of regeneration? The fulfilment of these conditions implies that he has had assisting grace already, for nobody can attain true faith and conversion without the assistance of Divine grace. Then, if regeneration is only assisting grace, what does the individual possess in it which he had not before? What new benefit would in regeneration be conferred upon him? In what would his new state differ from his previous one? Assisting grace is the con dition and reward, the means and the end, the journey and the goal, both. The attachment, then, of such conditions to the gift of regeneration shows of itself what the nature of that gift is. The gift must be an advance beyond the conditions required for it. But what advance is there beyond conversion of heart and life, already actually accomplished in the fulfilment of these conditions? What farther benefit is there which a man already converted from a sinful to a good and holy disposition as he must be before he is fit for regeneration as bestowed in baptism-can receive? What, but that his conversion, having been attained, should be made by Divine grace permanent and final? This is a real, a most important addition to his ante-baptismal state. For a man may have attained a good habit of mind, but how does he know it will last? he may fall away from it before long; and if he recovers himself again, he may fall away again. All is risk and insecurity. Fix him, then, in his new habit, make his newly attained disposition his disposition once and for all, and an inestimable benefit is conferred upon him, he is raised from danger to safety, and from fear to triumph. But there is no other benefit which suits his case. The supposition, then, of the grace of baptism or regeneration as a final grace, gives a meaning, a purpose, and a consistency to the whole institution. By a final grace I mean a grace which puts a man into a final and crowning state. A man before he is baptized is a converted man; but he may fall from this goodness, and therefore, as yet, his condition is incomplete. Baptism completes it. It gives him the grace wanted, which secures and makes final the goodness attained before it. The institution thus fulfils its profession, and puts the man truly into a new state. But suppose the grace of baptism an assisting grace only, and what consistency is there in the institution? what explanation is to be given of it? It professes, as its primary purpose, to put a man into an entirely new spiritual state; and it does not do so. It exacts high conditions, as if it were going to bestow a crown and a reward; and it only gives the grace by which the conditions themselves were fulfilled. It may be replied, perhaps, that there is no inconsistency in a later assisting grace being the crown and reward of the use of a previous one, if it is an assisting grace of a higher and nobler kind; that a grace may be final in relation to some grace before it, assisting in itself. But such a distinction as this would not at all satisfy the present case. It is evident that we are put, or supposed to be put, into an entirely new state at baptism, and that regeneration is a new life, a new creation. But does a merely higher degree of the same grace fulfil this complete distinction between the two states before and after baptism? What can a man, by any degree whatever of assisting grace after baptism, do which is wholly different from what he has done before it? He believes and repents before he is baptized; if he lives ever so long in the enjoyment of an assisting grace ever so high after baptism, will he end with anything more than that with which he has begun faith and repentance? Will he ever be perfect so long as he has only a grace which depends on his own will for its effect? He cannot be. His religious course will at best be a mixture throughout of success and failure; the result, so long as it depends at all on himself, will be unsatisfactory; from first to last he will have to grieve over shortcomings and sins; and when he comes to die he will have to do simply that which he did when he was baptized, believe and repent. Then there is no new kind of effect which can be produced in him by assisting grace; and therefore, if this is all that baptismal grace or regeneration means, the latter is not a wholly new state, as it professes to be, but substantially the same with the state antecedent to baptism. I will add that the preparation for baptism required in the early ages strongly confirms this conclusion. The severe discipline which the catechumens underwent previous |