I concluded it might perhaps be of service to some of your readers to send my thoughts upon the sentiment advanced by him, to your useful miscellany for insertion if you deem them worthy of a place there.

What we dislike in the account the doctor gives of this saving work of God upon the soul, is that he makes regeneration to take place without the instrumentality of the word, or any of the ordinary means of grace. And his arguments to prove that this is indeed the case, we consider to be very inconclusive, and involved in great obscurity, if not founded upon mistaken views of the nature of a work of grace in the soul, both in regeneration, and in progressive sanctification. They are

1st. "That it is necessary, from the nature of the thing, to our receiving, improving, or reaping any advantage by the word, that the Spirit should produce the principle of faith; and to say, that this is done by the word is, in effect, to assert that the word produces the principle, and the principle gives efficacy to the word; which seems to me (he says) little less than arguing in a circle." When he says that the Spirit produces the principle of faith, we understand him and agree with him. But when he asserts that this is produced without the instrumentality of the word, while we cannot agree with him, for reasons which may appear afterwards, what claims our notice now, is the manner in which he attempts to prove it. To say that this is done by the word is, in effect, to assert that the word produces the principle, and the principle gives efficacy to the word." A clear statement of the view taken by those who assert that the word is the instrument in this work will, to any unprejudiced mind, at once do away the difficulty. For though the word, according to them, produces the principle, yet it does not this of itself, but by the Spirit giving an efficacy unto it for that express purpose: or in other words, the Spirit giving an efficacy to the word, both pro-. duces the principle in regeneration, and carries the principle implanted, into operation afterwards; so that there is no arguing in a circle here. But the expression, "the principle gives efficacy to the word," which seems to be designed to represent his own view of the way in which the word becomes at all useful, either in regeneration, or in the progress of the work of sanctification in believers, represents something which appears utterly unintelligible upon the principles of sound theology; because sound theology teaches us, that it is the Spirit that gives all the efficacy to the word. The word is said to be "mighty through God" for pulling down strong holds, &c. and not through any inward prin-ciple or any thing in man. We only take notice of this expres

sion to show, that there is some reason to believe, that the Dr. had got into that sentiment by means of some incorrect views he had concerning the Spirit's work in general, or felt it not a little difficult to support it in any degree of consistency with what correct views he had of the truth.

The 2d argument is, "the word cannot profit unless it be mixed with faith, and faith cannot be put forth unless it proceed from a principle of grace implanted, therefore this principle of grace is not produced by it: we may as well suppose (he says) that the presenting a beautiful picture before a man that is blind, can enable him to see; or, the violent motion of a withered hand produce strength for action, as we can suppose that the presenting the word, in an objective way, is the instrument whereby God produces that internal principle by which we are enabled to embrace it." Admitting that the principle of faith in regeneration goes before the act of faith which is produced by it, we see no reason why the instrumentality of the word may not be considered as used in the implanting of that principle, as well as in promoting the believers sanctification afterwards: For, that principle of grace, is just the understanding enlightened, the will renewed, &c.; and how can this be in any adult person, capable of exercising these faculties, without the word, by which the holy Spirit operates to the enlightening of the one, and directing and influencing the other? The argument from the necessity of the word being mixed with faith in order to our attaining any real and certain benefit from it, if of force in the use he makes of it, would prove too much for the Dr. himself, because he grants that the word is the instrument whereby the Spirit carries on the work of sanctification. But this argument would go as far to prove that sanctification is carried on without the instrumentality of the word, as it will to prove that regeneration is effected without its instrumentality; because, even in sanctification, the word cannot be mixed with faith but by the Spirit's working this faith in us, or leading the principle implanted in regeneration, into action, as appears from Song i. 4. and iv. 6. and many other passages of scripture; and therefore, the Spirit's work here must go before that faith which improves the word for sanctification. But how does the Spirit draw out the principle into action, in the believers sanctification? It is by the word, and by that same word, we may conclude, he begets faith in the first exercise of it, and the principle which produces it; making the word the instrument by which he operates in effecting that great and important change upon the sinner. The two comparisons used by the Dr. may be turned with good advantage against himself; because, though a

beautiful picture placed before a man that is blind could not give him sight, it might be the means of even doing this, if it was intended by the Almighty to be so. We are told in scripture of a thing, altogether as unlikely, made a means, through the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, of causing a blind man to see: we refer to the circumstance mentioned in the gospels of a blind man cured by our Lord, by simply anointing his eyes with clay. The violent motion of the withered hand, as the mere action of the arm that wields it, cannot, it must be allowed, produce strength for action in the hand itself, yet we read of a man who was commanded to stretch out his withered hand, and a power, which went along with the word, communicated the ability, so that he stretched it out, and it was made whole as the other. And what might hinder the word, though unequal of itself to give sight to the spiritually blind, and life to the dead sinner, to be the instrument, in the hand of the Spirit, for these important purposes?

The 3d argument, is contained in the following words: "Neither would this so well agree with the idea of its being a new creature, or our being created unto good works; for then, it ought rather to be said, we are created by faith which is a good work; this is to say, that the principle of grace is produced by the instrumentality of that which supposes its being implanted, and is the result and consequence thereof." There is no seeming inconsistency between considering the believer, in virtue of the regenerating principle he is made a partaker of, as a new creature, and affirming that this change, which is passed upon him, was effected by the instrumentality of the word: because, as the first creation of all things was effected by a word of Almighty power, (for in bringing the world into existence, from a state of nonentity, “ he spake and it was done, he commanded and all things stood fast,") so the new creation is accomplished by the word of the gospel, made the power of God for the salvation of those who are its subjects, and begetting faith in them, that they may embrace Christ as the great salvation, and the principle of faithand every other grace. That a work of God, whether of nature or of grace, may be entitled to the character of a creation work, it is not requisite that it be accomplished without means, and our asserting that the word is the instrument, in what is called the new creation, is accordingly without that absurdity, the Dr. would attach to it. Our admitting too, that this new creation is effected by the instrumentality of the word generally, lays no ground for the assertion, that then we would be created by faith, because though the word cannot profit without faith, yet faith does not go before but follows the word, which both begets the

act of faith and the principle which produces it, being in the hand of the Spirit, the instrument for this purpose.

Having presented his arguments to prove that regeneration is accomplished without the instrumentality of the word, he tries to account for the other way of thinking on this subject. "I am ready (he says) to conjecture that what leads many divines into this way of thinking, is the sense in which they understand the words of the Apostle, "Being born again not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Pet. i. 23. and elsewhere, "Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures." James i. 16. Whereas, this does not so much respect the implanting the principle of grace, as it does our being enabled to act from that principle; and it is as though he should say, he hath made us believers or induced us to love and obey him, by the word of truth, which supposes a principle of grace to have been implanted: otherwise the word of truth would never have produced these effects. Regeneration may be taken not only for our being made alive unto God or created unto good works, but for our putting forth living actions proceeding from that principle which is implanted in the soul. I am far from denying that faith and all other graces are wrought in us, by the instrumentality of the word; and it is in this sense, that some who treat on this subject, explain their sentiments when they speak of being born again by the word." Of consequence, according to the Dr. regeneration, strictly speaking, and the new birth, are quite distinct things, according to any conception we are to form of them; and the new birth is not to be referred to that change which takes place when the sinner is brought from nature to grace, nor to be restricted to any given period of time, but is a thing which is taking place every day; according as the believer is carried out by new supplies of grace, he obtains to the practice of duty. "It is (he says) our being enabled to act from that principle: and it is as though he should say, he hath made us believers or induced us to love and obey him by the word of truth:" which is but what God is doing by his Spirit upon his people every day, by means of his word, and various other ordinances of his grace. And lest we should misunderstand him and conclude that he intends only to show, that the Apostle meant, that only those who are born again can do good actions, but that he means something more than this, he adds, "Regeneration may be taken, not only for our being made alive to God, &c. but for our putting forth living actions," attempting to prove thereby, that these passages, if they respect regeneration at all, it must be

in this very extended sense of the word. It is some such a kind of new birth as the Arminians receive into their creed, which they may have and lose, and which rises and falls as they stand or fall from grace; for in the language of the Dr. being born again, may be taken, for our putting forth living actions, proceeding from that principle. But this the believer does not always, or at least sometimes he does it in so small a degree that it is scarcely perceptible. He is sometimes more, sometimes less active, spiritually, as the measure of grace is, which is given to him, according to the gift of Christ.

There is only one way by which, when he asserts that to be born again is, our being enabled to act from that principle implanted in regeneration, he can be supposed to mean, with any shade of consistency with himself, that the new birth is a work of God which takes place at one and the same moment of time, and that is by allowing him to consider it as an ability given by God, to exercise the principle implanted in regeneration, (for he says it is different from regeneration properly so called,) which man continues ever after, unaided of God, to put forth of himself, so that he is like a clock, that put together by its maker and set in motion, moves by a power inherent in itself; because, if the ability of the Christian to act from that principle, is by continued supplies of grace, and more or less, as these supplies are granted, it could not be one act of God, but a continued acting or a succession of acts, in the way of communicating that ability. But as he says it may be taken for the putting forth of living actions, this seems to put it beyond a doubt, that according to him, it is not to be confined to any given time, or particular act of God, towards the sinner. So much with respect to the Dr.

The Editor of the Philadelphia edition, in a foot note, defends the sentiment and advances some things equally as exceptionable concerning this first work of the Spirit of God upon the soul."No intervention (he says) of second causes seems necessary.The Spirit of God is the agent; the soul of man is the subject of influence; and he is said to open the heart, to give a new heart, to create anew, to enlighten the mind in the knowledge of the truth, to work in us to will and to do; or to give sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf. From such expressions, it may be gathered that sight, knowledge, new dispositions, and a change of inclinations, are the effect of regeneration, not the thing itself." Again: "If the holy Spirit acts no otherwise than by motives, angelic natures do this also, and no more power is ascribed to the Searcher of hearts than to them." He makes it to be entir ely a physical change, and seems to mistake the view of those