CHAPTER XXVIII

CHRISTIAN SONSHIP

Christian sonship, mvolving as it does, both regener­ation and adoption, is vitally related to Christian right­eQusness. There are, however, real points of difference between them. The necessity for justification lies in the fact of guilt and penalty, while that of regeneration is due to the moral depravity of human nature ~after~the fall. The former cancels guilt and removes penalty; the latter renews the moral nature and re-establishes the privileges of sonship. The two, however, are coincident in time, for they are accomplished in answer to the same act of faith. We may say, then, that Christian righteous­ness and Christian sonship, involving justification, re­generation, adoption and initial sanctification, are con­comitant in personal experience, that is, they are offered as inseparable blessings and occur at the same time. The regenerate man is justified, and the justified man is re­The leading blessings concomitant with justification are regenera­tion and adoption; with respect to which we may observe generally, that although we must distinguish them as being different from each other, and from justification, yet they are not to be separated. They occur at the same time, and they all enter into the experience of the same person; so that no man is justified without being regenerated and adopted, and no man is regenerated and made a son of God, who is not justified. Whenever they are mentioned in Scripture, they, therefore, involve and imply each other.—Watson, Theological Institutes, II, p. 266.

No terms are more strictly correlative than regeneration and adop­tion. They describe the same blessing under two aspects: the former referring to the filial character, the latter to the filial privilege. But they are not thus closely connected as cause and effect: they are co-ordinate, and the link between them is the common sonship. The assurance of filial adoptioa does not produce the regenerate life nor does the infusion of tha perfect life of regeneration of itself invest the children of God with all the prerogatives of heirship. Moreover, they are as distinct from the other leading blessings in the economy of grace as they are themselves united. The justified state does not involve of necessity the special privileges of adoption; nor does regeneration as such imply the specific relation to God which sanctification signifies. The two terms we now consider embrace in their unity an entirely distinct department of the Spirit’s administration of the New Covenant; they lead us into the household of faith and the family of God. Touching at many points those other departments, they are nevertheless perfect and complete in themselves.—Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., III, pp. 3, 4.

generated. The terms are not, however, synonymous, and in the development of theological thought gradually became more sharply defined—justification being limit­ed to a change in relations, and regeneration to a change in the moral state. Regeneration and adoption are more nearly correlative terms than regeneration and justffi­cation. The former describes sonship in reference to its filial character, while the latter presents it from the viewpoint of filial privilege. However, these terms are not related as cause and effect, but find their union in the common fact of sonship. Our study will embrace the following subjects, (1) Regeneration; (2) Adoption; and (3) The Witness of the Spirit.

 

REGENERATION

The term regeneration is derived from the Greek word palingenesia (7raXwyEvw-ta or ‘n-aXLyy€vEo-t’a) which is compounded of ~-Aw “again” and ye’veo-Lc “to be,” so that the word means literally “to be again.” It is, there­fore, to be understood as a reproduction or a restoration. Theologians and biblical commentators have generally applied the term to the moral change set forth in the Scriptures as “born again” (John 3: 3, 5, 7; 1 Peter 1: 23); “born of God” (John 1: 13; 1 John 3: 9; 4: 7;

5:   1, 4, 18); “born of the Spirit” (John 3: 5, 6); “quick­Crowther in his portraiture of the Wesleyan positions says “that

all who repent and believe, are, (I) Justified, and have peace with God; that we are accounted righteous, only through the sacrifice and intercession of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But although faith, receiving and resting upon Christ, is the sole condition and instrument of justification; yet this faith in the justified person, worketh by love,’ and produces inward and outward holiness. They believe (2) That all persons who are thus justified, are adopted into the family of God, have a right to all the privileges of His children, and may come b.ldly to the throne of grace; receiving the spirit of adoption, they are en­abled to cry, Abba, Father; and, as His children are loved, pitied, chastened, protected, and provided for; they are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ; and that continuing in this state they shall in­herit all the promises, and obtain everlasting life. They believe also,

(3)      That those who are thus justified and made children of God, are assured of this; and that this blessed assurance arises from ‘The Spirit of God bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God.’ They believe that no person, under the gospel dispensation is excluded from this privilege, except through unbelief, lukewarmness, the love of the world, or some other sin. . . . But they believe that every person possessed of this justification, adoption, and witness of the Spirit, hun­gers and thirsts after righteousness.”—Crowther, Portraiture, pp. I 71, I 72.

ened” (Eph. 2: 1, 5; Col. 2: 13); and “passed from death unto life” (John 5: 24; 1 John 3: 14). In the conversa­tion with Nicodemus, Jesus uses the words y€vv’qO~ awvo.OEv which mean literally, “to be born from above.” St. John indicates also, that the change wrought by the Spirit in regeneration is, like that of justification and adoption, conditioned on faith. Thus, to as many as re­ceived him, to them gave he power [Eovo-tav or author­ity] to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1: 12). St. Paul uses more indirect terms than St. John, but his meaning is the same. Thus if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (2 Cor. 5: 17). And you, being dead in your sins and the uncir­cumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses (Col. 2: 13). In all his epistles, St. Paul stresses faith as the sole condi­tion of salvation.

The word regeneration occurs but twice in the New Testament. The first use of the term is in our Lord’s conversation concerning future rewards, where He said to His disciples, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judg­ing the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19: 28). Commen­tators generally admit the correctness of the punctuation as found in the Authorized Version and, therefore, con­nect the word regeneration with that which immedi­ately follows. They differ, however, as to the applica­tion—some referring it to the millennial state, and oth­ers to the resurrection or the general judgment. Dr. Ralston refers it to the perfected gospel dispensation. However the passage be interpreted, it cannot be made to refer to the moral and spiritual renovation by which men are constituted the children of God. The second

Regeneration, like justification, is a vital part of Christian soteri­ology. It must be such, since native depravity is a reality, and regenera­tion a necessity to a truly spiritual life. It follows that a truthful doc­trine of regeneration must be profoundly important. Yet it is one re­specting which error has widely prevailed, and greatly to the detriment of the Christian life. However, as between evangelical systems, the doctrine of regeneration has been far less in issue than that of justifica­tion. mostly because it is less directly concerned in the doctrinal view of the atonement.—Miley, Syst. Tb., II, p. 327.

use of the term is found in the statement of St. Paul to the effect that men are saved by the washing of re­generation, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3: 5). Here the “washing of regeneration” is an allusion to the rite of baptism, although in a narrower sense, the “wash­ing” may refer to the rite, and the “regeneration” to the spiritual renovation which it symbolizes. The “renew­ing of the Holy Ghost” must be regarded as a compre­hensive term, referring in one sense to the basic work of regeneration, and in another to the subsequent work of entire sanctification. As related to regeneration, this renewing is a restoration to the moral image of God in which man was originally created and, therefore, the re-establishment of the primal pattern. But it is more than this. It is also the renewing of the original purpose of man’s life in its full devotement to God. Hence we are exhorted by St. Paul to put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:24); and again to put on the new man, which is

Dr. Shedd points out that the term “regeneration” has been used in a wide, and in a restricted sense. “It may signify the whole process of salvation, including the preparatory work of conviction and the con­cluding work of sanctification. Or it may denote only the imparting of spiritual life in the new birth, excluding the preparatory and con­cluding processes. The Romish Church regards regeneration as com­prehending everything in the transition from a state of condemnation on earth to a state of salvation in heaven, and confounds justification with sanctification. The Lutheran doctrine, stated in the Apology for the Augsburg Confession and in the Formula Concordi~, employs re­generation in the wide meaning, but distinguishes carefully between justification and sanctification. In the Reformed Church, the term re­generation was also employed in the wide signification. Like the Lutheran, while carefully distinguishing between justification and sanc­tification, the Reformed theologian brought under the term ‘regenera­tion’ everything that pertains to the development as well as to the origination of the new spiritual life. Regeneration thus included not only the new birth, but all that issues from it.” “The wide use of the term passed into the English theology. The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms.” “But this wide use of the term regeneration led to confusion of ideas and views. Consequently. there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration, and its discrimination from conversion. Turretin defines two kinds of con­version, as the term was employed in his day. The first is ‘habitual’ or ‘passive’ conversion, It is the production of a habit or disposition in the soul. The second kind is ‘actual’ or ‘active’ conversion. It is the acting out in faith and repentance of this implanted habit or disposi­tion.” This shows the manner in which Calvinism was led to adopt such a sharp distinction between regeneration and conversion. (Cf. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, pp. 41.494).

renewed in knowledge after the image of him that creat­ed him (Col. 3: 10). Here it is evident that man is “re­newed” or created anew in regeneration (r~w Kara O~ov KTto-OEVTa); and that the subsequent knowledge, right­eousness and holiness is the end for which he was re­newed. He is, therefore, exhorted to “put on the new man” of perfect inward holiness and righteousness. We may note in this connection also, that the word dva~aZvcxrtc translated “renewing” is found only twice in the New Testament—once the “renewing of the Holy Ghost” as here used (Titus 3: 5); and once as the “re­newing of your mind” (Rom. 12: 2). While the former as indicated, bears a relation to regeneration, the latter can refer only to the transformation effected by the Holy Spirit in entire sanctification.

Deftnitioiof~Rege~ne.r.atio~ Mr. Wesley defines re­generation as “that great change which God works in the soul when He brings it into life; when He raises it from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. It is the change wrought in the whole soul by the Almighty Spirit of God, when it is created anew in Christ Jesus; when it is renewed after the image of God in righteous­ness and true holiness” (WESLEY, Sermon on the New Birth). According to Mr. Watson, “Regeneration is that mighty change in man, wrought by the Holy Spirit, by which the dominion which sin had over him in his natural state, and which he deplores and struggles against in his penitent state, is broken and abolished; so that with full choice of will and the energy of right affections, he serves God freely, and runs in the way

The change in regeneration consists in the recovery of the moral image of God upon the heart; that is to say, so as to love him supremely and serve him ultimately as our highest end, and to delight in him super­latively as our chief good. . . . Regeneration consists in the principle be­ing implanted, obtaining the ascendancy, and habitually prevailing over its opposite. . . . It is all effected by the word of truth, or the gospel of salvation, gaining an entrance into the mind, through divine teaching, so as to possess the understanding, subdue the will, and reign in the affections. In a word, it is faith working by love that constitutes the new creature, the regenerate man. - . . Regeneration is to be distinguished from our justification, although it is connected with it. Everyone who is justified, is also regenerated; but the one places us in a new relation, and the other in a new moral state.”—Watson, Dictionary, Art. Re­generation.

of His commandments” (WATSON, Th. Inst., II, p. 267). “Regeneration,” says Dr. Pope, “is the final and decisive work wrought in the spirit and moral nature of man when the perfect principle of spiritual life in Christ Jesus is imparted by the Holy Ghost” (POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., III, p. 5). Dr. Ralston says that “Regeneration may be defined to be a radical change in the moral char­acter from the love and practice, and dominion of sin, to the love of God, and to the internal exercise and ex­ternal practice of holiness” (RALSTON, Elements of Di­vinity, p. 420). Dr. Hannah defines regeneration as “that spiritual change which is wrought in believing man by the Holy Spirit of God, and which, though it may be mysterious and inexplicable in its process, is sufficiently plain and obvious in its effects” (Cf. FIELD, Handbook of Chr. The., p. 217). We prefer the following simple definition, “Regeneration is the communication of life by the Spirit, to a soul dead in trespasses and sms”

Characteristics of Regeneration. What is ~tTi~ nature of the new birth? “We are not,” says Mr. Wesley, “to expect any minute, philosophical account of the manner of this. This our Savior told Nicodemus, when he said, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit (John 3: 8). Thou mayest be as absolutely assured of

Dr. Julius Kafton says, “Regeneration is the entrance of the new life that is connected with the rise of the Christian faith. This is the conception of regeneration in the narrower 8ense; in the wider sense, it includes justification and sanctification.” This definition has in it some­thing of the confusion which attaches to the Roman Catholic position, especially in its wider aspect. Kafton is usually classified as Ritschlian in his Theology.

The Calvinistic position is shown in the following definitions: “Re­generation is that act of God by which the governing disposition of the soul is made holy, and by which, through the truth as a means, the first holy exercise of this disposition is secured.”—Dr. A. H. Strong. “Regeneration may be defined as that work of the Holy Spirit in man by which a new life of holy love, like the life of God, is initiated.”— William Newton Clarke,

Dr. A. M. Hills defines regeneration as “the work of God and man co-operating, by which man resolutely turns from a life of self-gratifi­cation, and makes the supreme choice to live for the glory of God and the good of being; having been previously incited thereunto by the convicting and enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit who graciously inclined him to the love of God and holiness.”—H,lls, Fund, Chr. Th., II, p. 200.

the fact, as of the blowing of the wind: but the precise manner how it is done, how the Holy Spirit works this in the soul, neither thou nor the wisest of the children of men are able to explain” (WESLEY, Sermon on the New Birth). The subject may be approached from a twofold point of view, (1) that of the oper~atiQxLQLQQd; and (2) the nature of the work wrought in t~.gejier­ate.

From the viewpoint of the operation of God there are three terms used to denote the work of regeneration.

(1) The first and simplest is that of~ a begetting, as in 1 John 5: 1—every one that loveth him that begat ~­o-avra] loveth him also that is begotten of him y€y€vv~p~vov] .“ St. Peter (1, 1: 3) uses the expression begotten us again ~~racI; while St. James de­clares that Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth (James 1: 18). While it is veiled in the translation, the word used by St. James is expressive of the maternal ~iaiijo-€vJ rather than the paternal function. The word is the same as that translated “bring­eth forth” in verse 15. (2) Another term~ ~ in this connection is that of a “quickening” or “making alive.” Thus, the Son quickeneth {~pioirot€Z or makes alive] whom he will (John 5:21); and again, He hath quick-

Professor Burwash says that it is the soul’s entrance on the new life which Mr. Wesley specifically regards as the new birth. In the latter part of the sermon, he allows that the term “new birth” is used in all the standards of the Church of England in a different sense from this, to designate the new relationship in which a man is placed before God and the Church in the ordinance of baptism. But whatever may have been his interpretation of the church formulary, he puts it aside and preaches only the Arminian doctrine of the new birth and this is “an inward change of nature, inseparably associated with a change of rela­tion to God, and a profound crisis of religious experience.” Professor Burwash also maintained that it was to “this view of regeneration, with the corresponding views of justification, justifying faith,” and assurance, that the power of revival preaching was largely due. He says, “This entire system of doctrine of salvation sets before men 8omething so definite as the test of their moral and religious condition that every man’s conscience must respond with a definite ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question, ‘Am I saved?’ It is throughout the doctrine of a present and conscious salvation. Any doctrine of an election from all eternity, or of a personal redemption completed unconditionally in Christ, or of a sacramental salvation, the germ of which is implanted in baptism, and which is gradually and unconsciously carried forward to perfection by the means of grace, can never be made the basis of such appeal to the unconverted as is founded upon the doctrine before us” (Cf. Harrison, Weelcyan Standards, I p. 364).

ened us together {a-vv€~oo1Tot’qo-€] with Christ (Eph. 2:5). (3) The third term presents.this~ work~as~a-.~ere­atmg” or “á ~~tion.” Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature TIO-tc creation 1 (2 Cor. 5: 17); and again, we are his workmanship, ²q/.La, creation] created {KTLO-OE’vTec] in Christ Jesus unto good works (Eph. 2: 10). In this connection, Dr. Pope reminds us that “we must remember the analogy of the genesis of all things at the beginning: there was an absolute creation of matter, or calling that which was not into being; and there was a subsequent fashioning of that matter into forms which constitute the habitable cosmos. The latter is the creation on which the scripture most dwells: whether it regards the physical or spiritual order. Just as the sleeper is dead, and the dead is only asleep—awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead—so creation is only a renewal, while the renewal is no less a creation. The two are sometimes united” (POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., III, p. 6).

As viewed from the nature of the work wrquglit in the souls of men, regeneration is described in the Scrip­tures by a series of terms comparable to those which express the operation of God. Hence instead of the terms begetting, quickening and creating, we have such terms as the new birth, a spiritual resurrection, and a new creature. (1) Thefirst of these, or the p.ewJ~j~” is taken from the conversation of our Lord with Nicode­mus. The statement is emphatic, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3: 3, 6,

7). This is His only formal statement on this subject and must, therefore, be given pre-eminence. As previ­ously indicated in our discussion of the work of the Holy Spirit (Chapter XXV), regeneration must be regarded as that impartation of life to the souls of men, which sets them up as distinct individuals in the spiritual realm. Evidently our Lord intended by His use of the term “born from above,” to make a distinction between the prevenient grace which is given to all men, and the mysterious issue of this grace in individual regeneration. That regeneration is thus a distinct and completed act

is shown by St. John’s use of the term. The word for born is ~ y€y€vv~voc, and being used in the perfect form, denotes the completion of a process. Our Lord also emphasizes the distinct moral quality of the new birth. He says, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6). This “new birth” carries with it, therefore,ilig idea of a bestowment of life, and is the result ~fli~at divine ope­ration by which the souls of men are r~estorej~Lta fellow­ship with God. (2) The second term used to describe the regenerate life is that of a spirituaL4uiekening~or resurrection While the “newi5iiih” carries with it the idea of the origin and moral quality of the new life, the “resurrection” in a spiritual sense, sets this new life in contrast with the previous state of sin and death. St. Paul emphasizes this contrast in a twofold manner. He

Mr. Wesley points out the analogy between the natural and spiritual birth as follows: “A man’s being spiritually born again, bears a near analogy to the natural birth. Before a child is born, it has eyes, but does not see: and ears, but it does not hear. It has a very imperfect use of any other sense. It has no knowledge of anything, nor any under­standing. To that existence we do not even give the name of life. It is only when a child is born that it begins to live. He then begins to see the light, and the various objects which surround him. His ears are opened, and he hears sounds. And all the other senses begin to be ex­ercised upon their proper objects, and he breathes and lives in a manner, very different from what he did before. In like manner, before a man is born of God, he has eyes, but in a spiritual sense, does not see. Hence he has no knowledge of God, or of the things of God, either of spiritual or eternal things, But, when he is born of God, the eyes of his under­standing are opened. He sees the light of the knowledge of the glory of God. He is conscious of a peace that passeth all understanding, and feels a joy unspeakable and full of glory. He feels the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is given to him. And all his spiritual senses are exercised to discern spiritual good and evil. Now he may be properly said to live: God having quickened him by his Spirit, he is alive to God through Jesus Christ.”—Wesley, Sermon on the New Birth.

Regeneration is for the individual man, what the coming of Christ is for the human race: it is the absolute turning point, where the earlier development of character is broken off and terminated, and a new and holy development of life begins; a turning point which has been heralded by a series of external and internal workings of preparatory grace. Regeneration may be described as the breaking out of grace in the man; or, with equal propriety, as the breaking out of freedom in the man, for regeneration denotes precisely that these two factors have

henceforward found their living point of union, and that a new per­sonality is established, a copy of the divine and human personality of Christ. “If any man be in Christ, ‘ says the apostle, “he is a new crea­ture: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new,”

—Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, p. 383.

says, You hath he quickened, who were dead in tres­passes and sins (Eph. 2:1); and you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quick­ened together with him, having forgiven you all tres­passes (Col. 2: 13). In the former, the contrast is be­tween the new life, and death under the condemnation of the law; in the latter, between the new life, and the idea of death as a defilement. Regeneration, then, is a spiritual quickening, by which the souls of men dead in trespasses and sins are raised to walk in newness of life. It is an introduction into a new world, where there are new tastes, new desires and new dispositions. St. Paul exhorts them, therefore, to yield themselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and declares that sin shall not have dominion over them (Rom. 6: 13, 14). From this it is evident that while regeneration is the in­fusion of divine life into the soul, it must not be re­garded as the removal of anything infused by sin into the nature of the spirit. (3) T~e third term used in this connection, is that of a “new ~creation” br~a “new creature.” If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (2 Cor. 5: 17). As a “birth from above” regeneration must be understood to be a sharing of the life of Christ. I am come, He said, that they might have life (John 10: 10). As a quickening or spiritual resurrection, re­generation is the communication of the life of Christ glorified. St. Paul declares that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6: 4). As a new creature, man is restored to the original image in which he was created. Christ is the great pattern or

Dr. Miley lays it down as a principle, that “the offspring is in the likeness of the parentage.” “This is the principle,” he says, “which opens the clearer view of regeneration. As by natural generation we inherit from the progenitors of the race a corruption of the moral na­ture, so by the new birth we receive the impress and likeness of the Holy Spirit. This is our interpreting principle, Nor is it fetched from afar, but is right at hand in the classical passage on regeneration: ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.’ In the first part the truth is deeper than the derivation of a body of flesh in the form and likeness of the parental body: it means the inheritance of a corrupt nature. As the depravity of the original parentage is transmitted through natural generation, so through re­generation we are transformed into the moral likeness of the Holy Spirit.”—Miley, Syst. Th., II, pp. 330-331.

archetype, and man is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him (Col. 3: 10, 11).

Errors respecting regeneration. Before beginning a systematic discussion of the errors respecting regenera­tion, it may be well to note briefly, some of the more popular misconceptions of this basic experience. (1) Regeneration is not a stage in naturalistic evolution. The assertion that regeneration is merely the unfolding of previously existing spiritual elements in a man is false. Man apart from the grace of God, is destitute of spiritual life. A power from above must enter his soul. A wholly new beginning must be made. (2) Regeneration is not the transition from childhoo.d to manhood,~ as..Js..Jre­quently advocated by certain psychologists. It is true that the period of adolescence is one of marked changes, but this does not in itself produce spiritual life. The lat­ter is not merely a process of natural development, but a special work of the Spirit in creating the soul anew in Christ. (3) Regeneration is~ not.achange oLthe h~igh­er in distinction from the lower powers of the soul It is not a partial work but a change in the entire nature of the being. (4) Regeneration is not repentance. The latter is a preparatory process leading to regeneration, but must not be identified with it. Regeneration is such a renewal of the whole heart, as to bring dominion over sin. With penitents, this is still the object of search, and, therefore, confessedly unattained. (5) Regeneration is not water baptism. Baptism is the outward sign of an inward grace, and for this very reason cannot be regen­eration. St. Peter tells us that baptism is not the putting

Those who have attempted to explain the work of regeneration on the ground of trichotomy. have fallen into the error of partial regenera­tion. Trichotomy as an assumption of three distinct and essential ele­ments in the constitution of man, holds that the first is material, the second animal and the third spiritual. As it respects regeneration, one class holds that sin has its seat in the soul, and regards the ~rpe~j.~a as uncorrupted by the fall. Another class regards the soul and body as without moral quality, and places sin in the ~rpei3~a or spirit. This they regard as paralyzed by the fall. In either case, regeneration consists in restoring the 7rPei~a to its place as the controlling factor. This it is readily seen is only a partial regeneration. In reply to this objection. we say that trichotomy as above held is not accepted in the church. There are not two spiritual essences in man, one sinful and the other holy. Furthermore, it makes the human 7rpeDaa the controlling principle instead of the Holy Spirit.

away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3: 21); and this good conscience cannot be attained apart from an inward spiritual renewal. (5) Regeneration is not to beidenti­fled with either justificatiöfi öi~inttiaI ~anctiflcation It is true that they are concomitant, but they are not identi­cal. This is the error of the Roman Catholic Church.

The theological errors respecting regeneration may be systematically treated under the following general heads: (1) Sacramentarianism; (2) Pelagianism; and

(3)  Calvinistic monergism. Philosophically considered, these errors arise from an ~ upon one as­pect of personality, either that of the mystical, thëT~­tional or the volitional.

1.   Sacramentarianism represents, perhaps, the ear­liest error respe~tIngregene~ation. Since the inner spir­itual transformation and the outward symbolic represen­tation of it were so closely related in thought, early pa­tristic literature came to identify the two. In this, Jew­ish influence was prominent. During the intertesta­mental period, the convert to Judaism was said to be “born again.” As such, he became a proselyte, either of the gate, which admitted him to the civil privileges and a place in the court of the Gentiles; or of righteousness, which bound him to the whole law. It is thus seen that regeneration was used in the sense of adoption, or an induction into the outward privileges of the covenant. It was in this sense that the idea of regeneration was in­troduced into the church. This is shown by our Lord’s use of the term as referring to the future regeneration of all things. In the development of the doctrine, the fol­lowing stages may be noted: (1) As in the case of Jew­ish proselytes, the “new birth” came~ ta repr~sj~j.~jpitia­tion by baptism into the mysteries of the Christian~ate. While the inner spiritual renewal was faithfully taught, it was not always connected with. the term, and hence regeneration came to be used in the sense of adoption. Baptism, therefore, was looked upon as the completing act in the appropriation of Christianity, and the seal of positive adoption into the family of God. (2) Re-

generation being confused with adoption, the latter came to be viewed as the precursor of the new life, instead of being concomitant with it. It was held to be the state out of which the new life should flow if pre­liminary grace was used aright. Hence regeneration came to be regarded as sacramentally pledged by virtues of the grace preveniently bestowed upon all men. Bap­tism, then, was the sign of the blessing into which this grace was expected to mature. It was in this sense that infant baptism was generally understood. As such, it was the seal of adoption into the privileges of the cove­nant by virtue of Christian parentage, and the pledge of divine grace which should later prompt them to per­sonal dedication. They were thus regarded as being made outwardly holy, and given the sign and seal of the impartation of inward blessings in so far as they were capable of receiving them. To adults, baptism was the sign and seal of pardon and renewal. (3) Baptism.be­ing so closely related to adoption and regeneration, came to be further regarded as the instrument by which ~the inner transformation was effected. As early as the mid­dle of the second century, it may be said that baptismal regeneration had become prevalent in the teachings of the church. Furthermore, baptism was regarded as se­curing the “remission of sins” and, therefore, regenera­tion was not only confused with adoption, but with justi­fication and sanctification as well. Thus according to the Nicene Creed, there is “one baptism for the remis­sion of sins,” and this was interpreted as being unto par­don, regeneration and sanctification. The confusion of this position was more or less removed by the Reform­ers, especially as it concerned the distinction between justification and sanctification.

Dr. Pope gives the following in defense against the error of bap­tismal regeneration. (I) It should be remembered that baptism is the seal of all the blessings of the covenant, and not of the new birth apart and alone; the term baptismal may as well be applied to justification and sanctification as to regeneration. (2) Scripture connects the new birth with baptism, which is its ordained seal and pledge; but the covenant seal may assure the believer of a past fact, a present gift, or of a bless. ing yet to come. Union with Christ is 8ymbohzed in this sacrament, which, however, is like circumcision, of no avail apart from faith. in Christianity there is no grace “cx opere operato” or dependent upon official acts.—Pope, Higher Catechism, p. 249.

2.  Pelagianism represents the rationalistic tendency m the eár1~y church Durmg the fifth century, the con­troversy between Pelagianism and Augustinianism marked the extremes of thought concerning the doc­trines of grace. The former was synergistic, but stressed the human element almost to the exclusion of the divine; the latter was monergistic, emphasizing the divine to the exclusion of the human. Between these extremes were various mediating positions, such as Semi-Pelagianism and Semi-Augustinianism. (1) Pelagianism regarded the change effected by regeneration as an act of the human will. Regeneration was not, therefore, a renewal of the will by the operation of the Holy Spirit, but the illumination of the intellect by the truth. God’s grace was designed for all, but man must make himself worthy, by choosing the right and fully fixing his purpose on the good. As we are imitators of Adam in sin, so we must become imitators of Christ in order to salvation. (2) Semi-Pelagianism maintained that fallen man was g~a­ciously restored by the redemptive work of Christ to that extent, that the will was given its freedom and power. Hence regeneration was regarded as the divine blessing upon human volition. (3) At a later time, the Latitudinarians held that all men were regenerated in Christ, and, therefore, no subsequent regeneration was necessary. (4) In.~ ode~txL times, this rationalistic tendency is found in those churches which hold that regeneration is effected by the power of truth~ alone. The error in all these positions is to be found in the de­Pelagianism which denied original sin, regarded regeneration as

merely the renewal of human nature through Christian discipline. Semi­Pelagianism taught that man’s power was only weakened by the fall, and this finds expression in some modern theories which hold that re­generation is the right exercise of our own faculties under the influence of grace.

Lutheran Synergism rightly taught that there is a co-operation of the human will with divine grace, but it did not trace this with suffi­cient distinctness to the special grace of the Spirit restored in redemp­tion. Wesleyanism, even more than earlier Arminianism developed the doctrine of prevenient grace, asserting that man is not now found in the fallen 8tate of nature simply, but that very nature itself is grace; that the Spirit works through the word with His own preliminary influ­ences, deepening and bringing them to perfection; and that this con­tinuous prevenient grace is in salvation consummated by the gift of regenerate life (Cf. Pope, Higher Catechism, p. 220).

thai of the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, who alone can effect the new birth.

3.   Calvinistic monergism represents the opposite extreme of thought in relation to the work of regenera­tion. It holds that regeneration is the first step in the ordo salutis, or order of salvation; that this is effected unconditionally by the Holy Spirit apart from any pre­paratory steps; and that the mind of man is, therefore, perfectly passive in its reception. Thus the Westminster Confession of Faith declares that “this effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to em­brace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” So also Witsius, after defining regeneration as “that supernat­ural act of God whereby a new and divine life is in­fused into the elect person spiritually dead,” states that “there are no preparations antecedent to the first begin­ning of regeneration; because, previous to that, nothing but mere death, in the highest degree is to be found in the person of the regenerated.” “You will say, then, that there are no preparatory dispositions to the first regen­eration? I confessedly answer, there are none.” It is evident that if regeneration is the first effect of saving grace on the heart, then it precedes both repentance and faith. The Calvinistic order is (1) regeneration; (2) faith; (3) repentance; and (4) ~onyersion.

Against this position, Arminianism has always strenuously objected, on both theologic Fàhcj ~piàctical grounds (1) It objectsto making regener~t~n~the~.rst step in the process- of salvation, in-that this is a virtual denial of any gracious influence upon the heart previous

In Buck’s Theological Dictionary, under the article “Conversion,” the position of Calvinism is stated as follows: “In regeneration, man is wholly passive; in conversion, he is active. The first reviving in us is wholly the act of God, without any concurrence of the creature; but af­ter we are revived, we do actively and voluntarily live in His sight. Regeneration is the motion of God in the creature; conversion is the motion of the creature to God, by virtue of that first principle: from this principle all the acts of believing, repenting, mortifying, quickening. do spring. In all these a man is active; in the other he is merely pas­sive.

to regeneration. Nothing is clearer in the Scriptures than this, that before one can be made the child of God by regenerating grace, he must first make use of preven-. ient grace by repenting, believing and calling upon God. As many as received him, to them gave he power to be­come the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1: 12); For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26); and Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blot­ted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3: 19). Since this doc­trine, therefore, conflicts with the Bible doctrine of prevenient grace, we cannot admit its truth. (2) Clqsely related to this, is the objection that Calvir ism does in. fact, identify regeneration with incipieflt grace instea4 of m~king it concomitant with justification and adoption It maintains that the first act of grace upon the heart of the sinner regenerates him. Following this are faith, repentance and conversion. Thus we have according to this system, a regenerated person who has not yet re­pented, who has not been pardoned, and hence is still a sinner. The mere statement of this position is its own refutation. (3) Objection is further made to the Calvin­istic idea of passivity. That regeneration is solely the

The work of regeneration is synergistic and not monergistic, as is affirmed by the Augustinian anthropology. From the standpoint in which the above discussion places us, the controversy between monergists and synergists is reduced to narrow limits, is confined to a single view. Monergism affirms that the work of regeneration is the sole work of the Spirit. Synergism affirms that the will of man co-operates in this work. Now, of course, to affirm that the Spirit does what He does, is an identical proposition; there can be no controversy so far. Again, that creating anew is a divine work; that the only agency competent to effect the change we call regeneration is the omnipotent will of God is also evident; all evangelical Christians are agreed on this point. The point of controversy is found in the question, “Is the work of regeneration conditioned upon any volition of the human mind, or is it wholly un­conditioned?” The work is divine—wholly divine—but whether the doing, the fact of its being done, depends solely upon the sovereign will of God, entirely separate from, and independent of, the human will, or is made dependent upon the co-operating consent of both the human and the divine will, is the question. The human agency is not employed in the work of regenerating—this is God’s work—but in the perform­ance of antecedent conditions; in hearing the word and giving good heed thereto, in repenting of sin and doing works meet for repentance, and in believing and trusting in the grace and mercy of God through Jesus Christ.—Raymond, Syst. Th., II, pp. 356, 357.

work of the Spirit is not denied, but that it is absolutely so, apart from all conditions, is not according to the Scriptures. We are commanded to seek, to ask, to re­pent, to open the heart, and to receive Christ. These are requisites which cannot be met apart from human agency. There can be no regeneration without them, and yet they are not possible to the unaided resources of fallen human nature. While this help is graciously bestowed upon man by the Spirit, yet with every com­munication of saving grace, there must be the co-opera­tion of the human will. The soul may resist and be lost, or it may accept and be born of the Spirit. This is the uni­form testimony of Scripture. (4) To deny all conditions as prerequisites to regeneration, is to link the doctrine with unconditional election. Hence all the five, points of Calvinism follow immediately, predestination~1imit~d atonement, natural inability, irresistible grace ancL6.nal perseverance. These we trust have been sufficiently dis­cussed in connection with the atonement and prevenient grace. (5) There is a final objection drawn -froni~prac­tical considerations. If men are made to feel that there are no conditions to regeneration on their part, they are led into either carelessness or despair. Only as men have been made sensible of the presence of the Holy Spirit, and the necessity of obedience to His awakening and convicting influences, have revivals been promoted, and the work of salvation accomplished. We are, there­fore, exhorted to seek the Lord while He may be found, and to call upon Him while He is near.

Summary of~.the A .rn~inia~.Doctrine. The doctrine of regeneration as held by Arminian theologians may be summarized under two general heads as follows: (1) It is a work wrought in the souls of rien by. ..the efficient Operation of the Holy Ghost. (2) The Holy Spirit~ex­Through the whole process of salvation, man receives grace for

grace; the grace of faith is given when the grace of repentance has been improved; and the power to believe given by grace, being used, the grace of justification, regeneration, and adoption succeeds; each suc­ceeding is conditioned upon the proper improvement of antecedent grace. Man works out what God works in, and on condition of his so working, God works farther, and thus man grows in grace, from the first enlightening of the understanding, to the full completion of the preparation for heaven.—Raymond, Syst. Th., II, p. 358.

erts His regenerating power only on certain conditions, that is, on the conditions of repentance and faith. These positions may be amplified to cover the following state­ments of belief.

1.   Regeneration is a moral change wrought in the~ hearts of men by the H¹y Spirit. This change is neither physical nor intellectual, although both the body and the mind may be affected by it. It is not a change in the substance of the soul, nor is it the addition of any new powers. Regeneration is not a metamorphosis of human nature. Man does not receive a new ego. His personal identity is the same in essence after regeneration as be­fore. He has the same powers of intellect, feeling and will, but these are given a new direction. God does not undo in the new creation what He did in the first crea­tion. The change is, therefore, not in the natural consti­tution of man, but in his moral and spiritual nature. Furthermore, it is important to believe that the whole man,, and not merely certain powers of his being, is the subject of this spiritual renewal.

2.   This radical change is wrought by the efficient agency of the Holy Spirit It is an act of God Whatever means may be used to bring the soul to Christ, the work itself is wrought solely by the direct, personal agency of the Spirit. The nature of the work indicates this. It

Dr. Pope in his Higher Catechism, thus sums up some of the less prevalent errors concerning regeneration. (I) The ancient Gnostic heresy, still found in its subtle influence, that the spirit in man was not affected by sin, and that the sensuous soul only is renewed. (2) The modern theory that regeneration is itself the gift of a spirit through the Spirit: here, as the opposite of the former, the loss of the spirit is held to have been the effect of sin, which virtually reduced man to a mere body and soul. These two are together refuted as follows: “Regeneration is the spirit of new life imparted by the Spirit to the entire personality and nature of man.” (3) Another error is that of those who suppose the Holy Spirit to give such an ascendancy to the renewed spirit that no sin remains in the regenerate, supposed to preserve his union with Christ. This is refuted by “the Apostle’s testimony that the flesh lust­eth against the Spirit, and the Spirit

 

giveness of qur sins and in the changing of the relation wlh~i bear to Him; regeneration is the renewal of our fallen nature through the bestowment of iifeonithe ground of this new relationship; while adqption. i~_the restoration of the privileges of sonship by virtue of the new birth. The necessity for justification is found in the fact of guilt; that of regeneration in the fact of depravity; that of adoption in the loss of privilege. Arminianism holds that all three, while distinct in nature and perfect in their kind, are nevertheless bestowed by the same act of faith and consequently concomitant in personal experience.

5.  Regeneration is accomplished through the instru­mentality of the Word. The Holy Spirit uses means, for St. James declares specifically, that Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures (James 1: 18). We need to guard against an error which has frequently been cur­rent in the church, namely, that it is the power of truth alone which regenerates. We need to grasp and hold

It is true that some theologian8, especially of the strict Calvinistic school, have preferred to under8tand by regeneration the primary act of God in man’s spiritual recovery, in which almighty power operates upon a purely passive subject, and creates therein a new spiritual sensibility. But this view, as will be shown a little farther on, is not in harmony with the scriptural representation, which assumes a conditioning agency in man, or a consenting rather than a purely passive subject of regenera­tion. The office of awakening is to produce the sense of need and the measure of aspiration and desire which are requisite to make one a will­ing subject in the consummation of his spiritual sonship.”—Sheldon, Sys. Chr. Doct., p. 454.

Regeneration must not be confounded with awakening, though there is a striking similarity between them, and they are often blended together in real life. Awakening precedes regeneration, but it does not constitute it. Awakening is certainly a work of grace, affecting the en. tire personality of the man, raising his consciousness to a higher religious state, a state to which he could not raise himself by his own natural powers. The awakened man is as yet only aroused by grace, he is not actually endowed with grace: he is still one of the called, not the chosen. There i8 still wanting a decided resolve on his own part. Awak­ening, as such, is only a state of religious distress, a pathos, in which the man is involuntarily influenced; it must be viewed as analogous to those congenial circumstances in a person’s life, which must not be identified with his own free discretion and action. Grace cannot advance toward its goal except through a voluntary act of surrender on the part of the man himself.—Martensen, Chr. Dogm., p. 384.

 

Mr. Wesley says that “Justification relate8 to that great work which God does for us, in forgiving our sins; and that regeneration relates to the great work which God does in us, in renewing our fallen nature.”

clearly in mind that it is not the truth apart from the operation of the Spirit which regenerates, nor is it the action of the Spirit apart from and independently of the truth. That the Spirit uses the truth as the instrument in both regeneration and sanctification is clearly set forth in the Scriptures (Cf. Acts 16: 14; Eph. 6: 17; 1 Peter 1: 23). Perhaps one of the best guarded statements con­cerning the relation of the Spirit and the truth in regen­eration is that of Dr. Daniel Fiske, published in the Bibliotheca in 1865. He says, “In regenerating men, God in some respects acts directly and immediately on the soul, and in some respects He acts in connection with and by means of the truth. He does not regenerate them by the truth alone, and He does not regenerate them with­out the truth. His mediate and immediate influences cannot be distinguished by consciousness, nor can their respective spheres be accurately determined by reason.”

6.  Regeneration is related to sanctification. The life bestowed in regeneration is a holy life. It is for this reason that Mr. Wesley spoke of it as the gateway to sanctification. In its relation to regeneration, however, a distinction must be made between initial and entire sanctification. Initial sanctification is, in the Wesleyan scheme, concomitant with justification, regeneration and adoption, while entire sanctification is subsequent to

it.     The distinction arises from the fact that guilt which as condemnation for sin is removed by justification, carries with it also, an aspect of pollution which can be removed only by cleansing. For this reason Wesley­anism has always held that sanctification begins with regeneration, but it limits this “initial sanctification” to the work of cleansing from the pollution of guilt and acquired depravity, or, the depravity which necessarily attaches to sinful acts. Entire sanctification, then, is sub­sequent to this, and from the aápect-of~puri1ication~ is. a cleansing of the heart from original sin or inherited depravity. The distinction, therefore, is grounded in the twofold character of sin—sin~ as an act, and sin~ as a state. Those who hold to the doctrine of entire sancti­fication frequently take a position concerning regenera­

tion which is logically opposed to it. They regard regen­eration as such a “change of heart” as amounts to only a renovation of the old life. This renovation is regarded as complete, and hence no place is found for a further work of grace, But this is a misconception of the work of regeneration. It is not a remaking of the old life, but an impartation of new life. Regeneration, therefore, “breaks the power of cancelled sin and sets the prisoner free,” but it does not destroy the inbeing of original sin. “What has occurred,” says Dr. Raymond, “is not a com­plete removal of what is called the flesh, or its weakness, not an entire removal of the carnal mind, but a bestow­ment of power to conquer it, to walk not after it, but to walk after the Spirit, and so to conquer the flesh and live after the Spirit as to maintain a constant freedom from condemnation. The thing done is salvation from the reigning power of inbred or original sin; it is deliv­erance from captivity; he is free whom the Son maketh free; it is a bestowment, by the grace and power of God by which man is empowered to volitionate obedience” (RAYMOND, Syst. Th., II, p. 358).

Regeneration in Its Larger Relations. The Christian privilege of sonship, whether regarded as regeneration or adoption, connects the Holy Trinity in a particular

The relation of regeneration to the order of grace and other privi­leges, is thus stated by Dr. Pope: (I) As to the Christian life generally, regeneration takes the middle place between the life of release from condemnation and the life everlasting which follows the resurrection. (2) As to preliminary grace, regeneration is not merely its full develop­ment, but a new gift of life in Christ, for which that grace only pre­pares: the preparation may be mistaken for the gift, inasmuch as it shows many signs of a life of its own. (3) As to original sin, regenera­tion brings entire freedom from its power: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). (4) To justification and sanctification it is related as the new life is related to the righteousness and holiness of that life. (5) It ii the substratum of all ethics, which are in this relation viewed as the growth of the new man, or fruits of a new nature, or the gradual re­newal into the original image of God lost or defaced through sin. As to the conditions and means of regeneration, he gives the following:

(I)       The preliminary grace of repentance and faith, used under the influence of the Spirit, is the condition. (2) The efficient cause is the Spirit using the Word of God. (3) The sacraments are the seals and pledges of the new life: baptism of its bestowment, and the Eucharist of its continuance and increase. Channels, strictly speaking, they are not. (4) But the formal cause is the formation of Christ in the soul as the principle and element of its new life.”—Pope, Higher Catechism, pp. 244, 245.

manner with the administration of redemption. Each of the Persons is vitally involved. It is said of the Father, that Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth (James 1: 18); of the Son, I am come that they might have life (John 10: 10); and of the Holy Spirit, That which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3: 6). The Fa­ther is the pattern of all true paternity, and His relation to the eternal Son, becomes in some sense, the type of His relation to His created sons. The Son as the Logos of creation takes on a new aspect in respect to the filial creation, in that we are regenerated by the life of Christ imparted through the Holy Spirit; while the Holy Spirit himself becomes in the truest and deepest sense, “the Lord and Giver of life.” That we may understand how central this doctrine is, it must be considered briefly in relation to the other great doctrines of the gospel.

1.   Regeneration rnake&~possible to mankindtle~p~r­sonal kn~wledg~oLGod. The regenerated soul is àhanged fundamentally in moral and spiritual quality, and this change becomes the ground of a new personal relationship. Tue life communic~1ed~by~.the~Spii4t iw a reproduction~ cf the life of Ch~t in_man. Its quality is of the nature of God. Hence only as man becomes the partaker of the divine nature, does he learn through experience the kind of a being God is. Previous to this he may have had a theoretical knowledge of God; or he may have been given to metaphysical speculation as to the nature of the reality back of all phenomenal experi­We cannot review these various aspects of the new life without be.

ing impressed with the feeling that it is in some sense the central bless­ing of the Christian covenant. Justification is unto life, and this life is devoted to God in sanctification. But the life, as the life is in Jesus, is the unity of all. . . . This specific blessing is in relation to justification and sanctification what the Son is in relation to the Father and the Holy Ghost. . . . He who is the Logos to creation generally is the Son toward the filial creation. But this special relation to the Son extends to both as­pects of sonship as adoption and regeneration. We are adopted into the relation which the Son occupies eternally: hence the term which expresses this prerogative is vZoO,oiw, where the pA?,, is preserved as the solitary word that is ever used to signify the Son’s relation to the Father. We are regenerated by the life of Christ imparted through the Spirit: hence it is ,raX,-~ yrpkia, and we are r€’,cpa, both terms as it were reproducing in time the eternal generation. Our regeneration answers to the eternally Begotten, our adoption to the eternally Beloved.’ —Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., Ill, pp. 4, II.

ence, but only through the character and quality of the life given in regeneration, can man have a positive ac­quaintance with God. It is through this experience, that we taste and see that the Lord is good (Psalm 34: 8).

2.  Regeneration is vitally related to the ~ of God in Christ Jesus Christ is the supreme revelation of God. In Him the truth of God becomes visible, as if projected for us upon the screen of humanity. He may be viewed as a Teacher, a Prophet or a Revealer, but He is more. He is our life (Col. 3: 4). It is for this reason that men miss the true conception of the gospel when they view it merely as a system of ideas instead of a series of spiritual forces. It is indeed, a system of truth, but it is truth vitalized into reality. The doctrinal system is but an attempt to give expression to this reality in a unified and systematic manner. Since Christ is the su­preme revelation of God, it is evident that the truth remains outside and apart from man experientially, until Christ is revealed in him as the hope of glory. This explains the fact that unregenerate man frequently fails to accept the revelation of Christ as set forth in the Holy Scriptures. With such it is purely a matter of intellectual investigation, but Christ can be understood only as we are made spiritually like Him. Hence these rationalists have closed the spiritual avenues of ap­proach to the truth, and shut themselves off from that inner affirmation which comes solely through the new birth. It is for this reason that St. Paul declares that if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the eyes of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them (2 Cor. 4:3, 4).

3.  Regeneration is also related to the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. He not only reproduces the life of Christ in the regenerate as a Revealer, but also as the Agent of enabling grace. The life bestowed in regeneration is not only manifested in new light but in new power. It is a new spiritual beginning for man. It is an ethical change. It is a revitalizing of truth. It

lifts the whole process out of the realm of theory into the realm of reality. Not only is a new goal set for man’s

Bishop Merrill endeavors to explain the change in the soui made by regeneration, by a distinction between the technical use of the “soul” and the “spirit.” He assumes the unity of our spiritual nature and the oneness of our essential selfhood. The ego in which consciousness inheres is not an aggregation of distinct substances or essences, but is simple and uncompounded. We call this entity the soul, and then it is the soul that remembers, wills and imagines. It is the soul acting in dif­ferent directions,or exercising its different powers. Thus all the natural faculties, attributes and powers of the soul, have a common nature, es­sence and being. Now it is possible, he says, to conceive of the soul as existing with all its natural attributes, and yet as destitute of moral char­acter. The soul does not so exist in fact, but when we so conceive by abstracting in the mind, everything from the soul that gives it character, leaving it possessed only of its natural attributes, we leave it in posses­sion of all that the word “soul” expresses, when that word is used in connection with the word “spirit,” so as to require in thought a distinc. tion between soul and spirit, But since the soul does not exist without something to give it character, we must recognize as belonging to it a different set of powers, or attributes, distinct and yet not separate, in quality and manifestation. These additional are moral, and determine character, because they give bent or inclination to all the powers of the soul and determine the life and conduct of the person with reference to goodness or badness. They are qualities in the natural faculties, giving them tone, inclination, impulse and affinity. They are to the soul what temper is to steel, or fragrance to the flower, or heat to the sunlight. We describe them as passions, impulses, desires and affections. They are not the soul but its vesture, its tone, its character. Any change in them is a change in the soul, for they are the soul’s properties. As distinct from the “soul” they are the “spirit.” “Do the Scriptures sustain this distinction?” he inquires. “When the word ‘soul’ occurs in the Bible without the word ‘spirit,’ or any other term conjoined with it requiring a limitation of its meaning, to its exact import, it expresses all that be­longs to our spiritual nature, including the natural attributes and moral qualities and dispositions. So also, when the word ‘spirit’ occurs alone, or unconnected with the soul, or any other word that suggests or re­quires limitation to its more specific meaning, it expresses all that is in­cluded in soul and spirit both. It then denotes all our nature that is not material, expressed by the word body. But when the two words are conjoined in the same sentence, each has its own meaning, and must be restricted to its specific import. The word ‘soul’ means the conscious self, the substratum of being, including the natural attributes; and the ‘spirit’ means the tone or disposition of the soul, with its leanings, aver­sions, and affinities, with reference to the eternal law of righteousness.” He points out also that the words “mind” and “heart” are used in the same manner, either of the terms when used alone referring to the im­material part of our nature, but when used together, the word “mind” refers more especially to the intellectual powers, and the “heart” to the moral and passional elements within us, Consequently he argues, that the change is in the “spirit” and the “heart,” which are the subjects of cleansing, renewal and change. “The soul with its natural attributes re­mains the same through all the experiences of sin and pardon, of pollu­tion and washing, or death and life, retaining its identity and its essential aptitudes and powers; but the spirit, the seat and sphere of depravity, and of renewing and sanctifying influences, passes through these changes of character and condition, determining always the moral state of the man. A new soul is impossible, but a new heart and a new spirit are plainly promised, and graciously realized” (Cf. Merrill, Aspects of Chris. tian Experience, pp. II 7ff). -

attainment, but power is also given to free him from the bondage of sin, and to cause him to always triumph in Christ. This new life is devoted to God in sanctifica­tion, and he needs now to advance to the goal of entire sanctification, in which the heart is purified from all sin by the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

 

ADOPTION

Adoption is the declaratory act of God, by which upon~being justified by faith m Jesus Christ, we are received into the family of God and reinstated in the privileges of sonship. Adoption as we have previously indicated, is concomitant with justification and regenera­tion, but in the order of thought, logically follows them. Justffication removes our guilt, regeneration changes our hearts, and adoption actually receives us into the fam­ily of God. Like the term regeneration, adoption has a wider application in the Scriptures, than that which is concerned immediately with the restoration of the indi­vidual. St. Paul uses the term broadly to express, (1) the special election of Israel from among the nations, to whom pertaineth the adoption (Rom. 9: 4); (2) the purpose of the incarnation, that we might receive the adoption of sons (Gal. 4: 5); and (3) the full assur~ce of a future inheritance, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8: 23). It will be no­ticed that this last scripture bears a close relation to

Adoption is an act of God’s free grace, whereby, upon the forgive­ness of sins, we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of the sons of God.—Wesleyan Catechism, Adoption is the term occasionally used to signify the divine declaratory act by which those who are accepted in Christ are reinstated in the privileges of forfeited sonship for the sake of the Incarnate Son. It is used also of the state to which these privileges belong.—Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., III, p, 13. Adoption is “that act of God’s free grace by which, upon our being justified by faith in Christ, we are received into the fam­ily of God, and entitled to the inheritance of heaven.”—Ralston, Elem. of Divinity, p. 435.

In civil government sonship by adoption is sonship by provision of law, not on the ground of parentage. In the absence of such ground, adoption is the only mode of sonship. Now there is a sense in which we are alien from God; out of filial relation to Him, Hence, when we are so viewed as the subjects of a gracious affiliation, our sonship may very properly be represented as in the mode of adoption. But it is never really such in fact. The new birth always underlies this sonship.—Miley, Syst. Theology, II, pp. 337, 338.

Matt. 19: 28, where our Lord speaks of the final regener­ation of all things. Both terms refer to man’s restora­tion to his original estate. The word adoption is char­acteristic of St. Paul, and is used to express the privileges to which regeneration introduces believers under the terms of the new covenant. He uses both the words v~⁶c and ‘rE’Kvov of the Christian, while St. John, who is concerned with the community of life, uses only 7’€Kvov, reserving the word vi_c for the sonship of Christ. The term v~oO&rt’a or ado ptio meant in ordinary usage, the act of a man in taking into his household as his own, chil­dren which were not born to him. Civil adoption, how­ever, always required the consent of the person to be adopted, which was publicly demanded and expressed.

&neftts of Adoption. The blessings which flow from adoption into the family of God are many and de­sirable. These may be summarized as follows: (1) The privilege of sonship. We become the children of God by

Dr. Wakefield includes in his treatment of this subject, the following interesting account of the ceremony of adoption. He says, Among the Romans the ceremony of adoption consisted in buying the child to be adopted from his parents for a sum of money formally given and taken. The parties appeared before the magistrate in the presence of five Roman citizens: and the adopting father said to the child, ‘Art thou willing to become my son?’ to which the child replied, ‘I am willing.’ Then the adopter, holding the money in his hand, and at the same time taking hold of the child, said, ‘I declare this child to be my son according to Roman law, and he is bought with this money,’ which was given to the father as the price of his son,” “Thus the relation was formed according to law; and the adopted son entered into the family of his new father, assumed his name, became subject to his authority. and was made a legal heir to the whole of the inheritance, or to a share of it if there were other sons.” “Of the same nature is that trans­action in the divine economy by which men are acknowledged to be the children of God. We may, therefore, define adoption, according to the scriptural sense of the term, to be that gracious act of God by which we are acknowledged to be of the number and become entitled to all the privileges of His children.”—Wakefleld, Chr. Th., p. 483,

“Betwixt civil and sacred adoption,” says John Flavel, “there is a twofold agreement and disagreement. They agree in this, that both flow from the pleasure and good will of the adoptant; and in this, that both confer a right to the privileges which we have not by nature; but in this they differ; one is an act imitating nature, the other transcends nature; the one was found out for the comfort of them that had no children, the other for the comfort of them that had no Father. Divine adoption is in Scripture either taken properly for that act or sentence of God by which we are made sons, or for the privileges with which the adopted are invested. We lost our inheritance by the fall of Adam; we receive it by the death of Christ, which restores it again to us by a new and better title.”

faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3: 26); And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8: 17); And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son; then an heir of God through Christ (Gal. 4: 6, 7). The kingdom of heaven has been described as “a parlia­ment of emperors, a commonwealth of kings; every humble saint in that kingdom is coheir with Christ, and hath a role of honor and a scepter of power and a throne of majesty and a crown of glory.” (2) Filial confidence towariLGod For ye have not received the spirit of bond­age again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father (Born, 8: 15). The Spirit of adoption brings deliverance from the bond­age of sin. Condemnation is removed, spiritual darkness dispelled, and God’s approval placed upon the soul. (3) The unity of the soul with Christ. For both he that sanc­tifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for the which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren (Heb. 2: 11). This unity is wrought by the Holy Spirit, a gift promised by our Lord to all His disciples. Those who have been born of the Spirit become candidates for the baptism with the Spirit. Through Him as the Comforter or Paraclete, we are to be blessed with all spir­itual blessings in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1: 3).

(4) A proprietary right in all that Christ has and is. All things are yours. . . . And ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3: 21, 23). (5) The right and .title to an eternal inheritance. St. Peter speaks of this inheritance as incorruptible, and unde filed, and that fadeth not away (1 Peter 1: 4). It is called a “kingdom” (Luke 12: 32; Heb. 12: 28); a “better country” (Heb. 11: 16; a “crown of life” (James 1: 12); a “crown of righteousness” (2 Tim. 4: 8); and an “eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4: 17). “Whatever God now is to angels and glorified saints,” says Dr. Dick, “and whatever He will be to them through an endless duration, for all this the adopted sons of God are authorized to hope. Even in this world, how happy does the earnest of the inheritance make

them! How divine the peace which sheds its influence upon their souls! How pure and elevating the joy which in some select hour, springs up in their bosoms! How are they raised above the pains and pleasures of life, while, in the contemplations of faith, they anticipate their future abode in the higher regions of the universe! But these are only an earnest” (Lecture 73).

The Evidence of Adoption. The doctrine of assurance is one of the precious doctrines of the gospel. Nor is there any doctrine more clearly taught in the Scriptures than that of experiential religion. As in the case of the new birth, we may not understand the Spirit’s opera­tions, yet we may and can know the fact, Theologians sometimes make a distinction between the “witness of the Spirit” and the doctrine of “assurance,” yet in the conscious experience of the believer, they are substan­tially the same. We shall, therefore, follow the practice common to Arminian theologians, and treat this subject under the head of the “Witness of the Spirit.”

 

THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT

By the Witness of the Spirit, is meant that inward evidence of acceptance with God which the Holy Spirit reveals directly to the consciousness of the believer, This doctrine is held by the great majority of evangelical Christians, but may be said in a peculiar sense to have been revived in modern times by Mr. Wesley and his coadjutors. Mr. Wesley in turn, received it from the Moravians, although it was contained in the doctrinal standards of his own church. When, however, his mind was fully awakened to the truth, he found he could no longer follow the Moravian guides, and so turned to the Scriptures, which he studied with that tireless energy which was so characteristic of his labors. He had proved beyond question that the earlier fathers taught this doc­trine, and sustained his position by quotations from Origen, Chrysostom, Athanasius and Augustine; but it was only in the Scriptures that he found the true prin­ciples of its defense. “The Methodists, in proof of the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit,” wrote Dr. Adam

 

Clarke, “refer to no man, not to Mr. John Wesley him­self ‘~They appeal to none—they appeal to the Bible, where this doctrine stands as inexpügñable as the p11-lars of heaven.” Added to this was the practical and experiential aspects of the doctrine which they so fully developed. “There is nothing more usual,” continues Dr. Clarke, “among even the best educated and enlight­ened of the members of the Methodist society, than a distinct knowledge of the time, place and circumstances, when and where, and in which way, they were deeply convinced of sin, and afterward had a clear sense of God’s mercy to their souis, in forgiving their sins, and giving them the witness in themselves that they were born of God” (CLARKE, Chr. Th., p. 169). It is for these reasons that the best in the literature on this subject must be drawn from the writings of the fathers of Meth­odism.

The Scripturai. sis~ofJib~,Doctr4ne. The Scriptures afford many illustrations of men who enjoyed the wit­ness of the Spirit. In the Old Testament we have the record of Abel (Heb. 11: 4); Enoch (Heb. 11: 5); Job (19:25); David (Psalm 32:5; 103:1, 3, 12); Isaiah (6: 7); and Daniel (9: 23). The New Testament likewise abounds with references to this doctrine (Cf. Acts 2: 46; 8: 39; 16: 34). As proof texts supporting this position, the following may be mentioned, The Spirit itself ~?. In/EU/La or the same Spirit] beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God (Rom. 8: 16); ye

Of this doctrine Mr. Wesley wrote, “It more nearly concerns the Methodists, to call, clearly to understand, explain, and defend the doc. trine; because it is one great part of the testimony which God has given them to bear to all mankind. It is by His peculiar blessing upon them in searching the Scriptures, confirmed by the experience of His chil­dren, that this great evangelical truth has been recovered, which had been for many years well-nigh lost and forgotten.—Wesley, Works, Vol. I, p. 93.

The direct teaching of Mr. Wesley upon this subject is found in Ser­mon X on the Witness of the Spirit, written in 1747. Sermon XII on the Witness of Our Own Spirit, was written in I 767, twenty years later. Sermon XI, likewise on the Witness of the Spirit was written in 1771. and interposed between Sermons X and XII, in order to present the aspect of the continuous state of assurance, arising Out of the initial assurance described in Sermon X. Mr. Watson deals at length with this doctrine in his Institutes, and with “assurance” in his Theological Dic­tionary. Dr. Adam Clarke emphasizes the witness of the Spirit in his Christian Theology and in his commentaries.

have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father (Rom. 8: 15); God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father (Gal. 4: 6); He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself (1 John 5: 10); And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth (1 John 5: 6). These passages clearly teach that the Spirit testi­fies concerning the relation of the believers to God.

The Twofold Witness of the Spirit. The classical pas­sage on this subject is that found in Romans 8: 16, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. It is evident that the apostle teaches here, a twofold testimony, th wijncss of the divine Spir~­it, and the witness of our own spirit. The first is com­monly knöwii ‘as the direct witness, the second as the indirect witness. In addition, the use of the Greek word ~rv,..q.Laprvp€~ seems to imply a conjoint testimony of these two witnesses, the Spirit itself (c~T~ r~ flv€I~a or the same Spirit), being a fellow-witness with our own spirit. The word o-vj.qi.apTvp€2 means literally, “to testify or bear witness together, or at the same time with another, or to add one’s testimony to another” (Cf. WAKEFIELD, Chr. Th., p. 437). The passage is sometimes rendered “bear witness to” instead of “bear witness with” our spirit. This, however, does not change the meaning, but rather strengthens the former position. In maintaining the doc­I 8hOUld never have looked for the “witness of the Spirit,” had I

not found numerous scriptures which most positively assert it, or hold it out by necessary induction; and had I not found that all the truly godly of every sect and party, possessed the blessing, a blessing which is the common birthright of all the sons and daughters of God. Wherever I went among deeply religious people, I found this blessing. All who had turned from unrighteousness to the living God, and sought re­demption by faith in the blood of the cross, exulted in this grace. It was never looked on by them as a privilege with which some peculiarly favored souls were blessed: it was known from the scripture and experi­ence to be the common lot of the people of God. It was not persons of a peculiar temperament who possessed it; all the truly religious had it, whether in their natural dispositions sanguine, melancholy or mixed. I met with it everywhere, and met with it among the most simple and illiterate, as well as among those who had every advantage which high cultivation and deep learning could bestow. Perhaps I might with the strictest truth say that, during the forty years I have been in the min­istry, I have met with at least forty thousand who have had a clear full evidence that God, for Christ’s sake, had forgiven their sins, the Spirit himself bearing witness with their spirit that they were the sons and daughters of God.—Dr. Adam Clarke, Christian Theology, p. 163.

trine of the direct witness of the Spirit, Wesleyanism has had to contend against the mediate or single witness theory. This position is that the Holy Spirit does not bear direct or immediate testimony to the human con­sciousness, but only mediately through our own spirit. It is argued that the Holy Spirit works certain moral changes in the heart, such as “illuminating our under­standing, and assisting our memory in discovering and recollecting those arguments of hope and comfort within ourselves,” and that these are the evidence of our son-ship. But it will be seen that this but reduces the testi­mony to that of our own spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not brought in at all except to qualify our own testimony. This theory does in fact do away with the direct testi­mony of the Holy Spirit, and reduces the whole process to mere inference from subjective changes.

1.   The Witness of the Divine Spirit. Mr. Wesley held that “the ~té~ith fthSjiiiifl~ an inward im­pression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit that I am the child of God: that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given Himself for me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God” (Sermon X). He points out that the question is not whether there is a testimony of the Spirit, but whether or not this is a direct testimony; “whether there is any other than that which arises from a con­sciousness of the fruit of the Spirit. We believe there is . . . because, in the nature of the thing, the testimony

It must be evident from what has been already said that to the fact of our adoption two witnesses and a twofold testimony must be allowed. But the main consideration is, whether the Holy Spirit gives His testi­mony directly to the mind by impression, suggestion, or otherwise, or mediately by our own spirit, in some such way as is described by Bishop Bull in the extract above given; by “illuminating our understanding, and assisting our memory in discovering and recollecting those argu­ments of hope and comfort within ourselves,” which arise from “the graces which he has produced in us.” But to this statement of the doc­trine, we object, that it makes the testimony of the Holy Spirit, in the point of fact, nothing different from the testimony of our own spirit; and that by holding but one witness it contradicts St. Paul, who, as we have seen, holds two. For the testimony is that of our own conscious­ness of certain moral changes which have taken place no other is ad­mitted; and, therefore, it is but one testimony. Nor is the Holy Spirit brought in at all except to qualify our own spirit to give witness.— Wakefield, Chr. Tb., p. 437.

must precede that which springs from it. . . . Does not the Spirit cry, ‘Abba, Father,’ in our hearts the moment it is given, antecedently to any reflection upon our sincerity? Yes, to any reasoning whatsoever! And is not this the plain natural sense of the words which strikes anyone as soon as he hears them? All these texts, then, in their most obvious meaning, describe a direct testimony of the Spirit” (Wesley, Sermons, pp. 94, 99). The value of absolute certainty in matters of such vital importance as the eternal salvation of the soul, cannot be overestimated. Here we must have the high­est form of testimony. If there be no direct witness of the Holy Spirit, then the whole matter becomes one of mere inference. But God has not left His people in darkness. He has given us of His Spirit that we may know the things that are freely given to us of God. For this reason Mr. Wesley exhorted his people not to “rest in any supposed fruit of the Spirit without the witness. There may be foretastes of joy, peace and love, and those not delusive, but really from God, long before we have the witness in ourselves: before the Spirit of God witnesses with our spirits that we have ‘redemption in the blood of Jesus, even the forgiveness of sins.’” “If we are wise,” he continues, “we shall be continually crying to God, until his Spirit cry in our heart, Abba, Father! This is the privilege of all the children of God, and without this we can never be assured that we are His children. Without this we cannot secure a steady peace, nor avoid perplexing doubts and fears, but when we have once received the Spirit of Adoption, this ‘peace

Meantime let it be observed, I do not mean hereby that the Spirit of Cod testifies this by any outward voice; no, nor always by the inward voice, although He may do this sometimes. Neither do I suppose that He always applies to the heart (though He often may) one or more texts of scripture. But He so works upon the soul by His immediate influence, and by a strong though inexplicable operation that the stormy wind and troubled waves subside, and there is a sweet calm, the heart resting as in the arms of Jesus, and the sinner being clearly satis­fled that God is reconciled that all His “iniquities are forgiven, and his sins all covered , . - Now what is the matter of dispute concerning this? Not whether there be a witness or testimony of the Spirit; not whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit, that we are the children of Cod; none can deny this, without flatly contradicting the Scriptures, and charging a lie upon God.”—Wesley, Sermons, 11, p. 94.

which passes all understanding,’ will ‘keep our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.’” (Wesley, Sermons, II, p. 100)

2.   The Witness, of QurQi~Spirit. This is the in­direct witness of theSpirit, and consists in4heeonseions-ness that individually we possess the character of the children of God. Mr. Wesley held that “it is nearly, if not exactly, the same with the testimony of a good con­science toward God; and is the result of reason and re­flection on what we feel in our own souls. Strictly speaking, it is a conclusion drawn partly from the Word of God and partly from our own experience. The Word of God says everyone who has the fruit of the Spirit is a child of God; experience or inward conscious­ness tells me that I have the fruit of the Spirit; and hence I rationally conclude, therefore I am a child of God.

Now, as this witness proceeds from the Spirit of God, and is grounded on what He works in us, it is sometimes called the Spirit’s indirect witness, to distinguish it from the other testimony, which is properly direct” (Sermon XI). Furthermore, this indirect witness is confirmatory, rather than fundamental, “We love him because he first loved us” (1 John 4: 19). “Since, therefore, this testi­mony of His Spirit must precede the love of God and

Referring to the Spirit’s cry in the soul, Dr. Adam Clarke says that “crying” is not only the participle of the present tense, denoting the continuation of the action; but, being neuter, it agrees with th~ Spirit of his Son; so it is the divine Spirit which continues to cry, ‘Abba, Father!’ in the heart of the true believer. And it is ever worthy to be remarked that when a man has been unfaithful to the grace given, or has fallen into any kind of sin, he has no power to utter this cry. The Spirit is grieved and has departed, and the cry is lost I Were he to utter the words with his lips, his heart would disown them.”—Clarke, Chr. Th.,p. 161.

To suppose that through the infinite love of God the eternal Logos became incarnate, suffered and died; that the eternal Spirit visits man with enlightening, sanctifying, guiding, comforting, and saving influ­ences; that holy angels are commissioned to minister unto men; that the Scriptures have been divinely inspired; that the Christian ministry has been divinely appointed; and that the Church, with all its ordi. nances and appliances is divinely employed—all for the accomplishment of man’s personal salvation—and at the same time to suppose that at best the result of all this in the mind of man is but a doubtful impres­sion—a ground for only an uncertain hope—is, to say the least, a great incongruity, and precisely the opposite of all reasonable expecta­tions.—Raymond, Syst. Th., II, p. 362.

all holiness, of consequence it must precede our inward consciousness thereof, or the testimony of our spirit concerning them.” Filial love springs from the knowl­edge of filial relationships, and the direct witness of the Spirit must therefore, precede the indirect, But the in­direct is not thereby of less consequence. It is as indis­pensable as the first, for by it the direct testimony of the Spirit is fully confirmed. “How am I assured,” con­tinues Mr. Wesley, “that I do not mistake the voice of the Spirit? Even by the testimony of my own spirit; by ‘the answer of a good conscience toward God.’ Hereby I shall know that I am in no delusion, that I have not deceived my own soul. The immediate fruits of the Spirit, ruling in the heart, are ‘love, joy, peace, bowels of mercies, humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering.’ And the outward fruits are the doing of good to all men, and a uniform obedience to all the com­mandments of God” (Wesley, Works, I, p. 92). We may

“These fruits (love, joy, and peace) cannot result from anything but manifested pardon; they cannot themselves manifest our pardon, for they cannot exist till it is manifested, God, conceived of as angry, cannot be the object of filial love; pardon unfelt supposes guilt and fear still to burden the mind; and guilt, and ‘joy,’ and ‘peace’ cannot co­exist.’ “—Watson, Institutes, II, Chapt. XXIV.

“Again, it is asked if a man be conscious of love, joy and peace, may he not infer therefrom that he is a child of God? We answer, a consciousness of the fruits of the Spirit is the testimony of our own spirit and not of the divine Spirit. It is confirmatory, but it is not pri­mary—not first in order—not basal or fundamental, The love which evidences adoption is filial love; but filial love is conditioned upon a knowledge of filial relations; one does not love God as his father, until he knows God as his father; when the Spirit is given, and the recipient in heart says Abba, Father, then, and not until then, he loves as a child, The witness of the Spirit, then must be antecedent to filial affec. tions. The same may be said of joy and peace. These spring from a sense of salvation; they do not arise till the assurance of adoption has been given; they are evidences of adoption, but evidently do not render the divine testimony useless; so far from rendering a divine testimony unnecessary, they are founded upon and flow from it.”—Raymond, Syst. Tb., ii, p. 370.

Our own spirit can take no cognizance of the mind of God as to our actual pardon, and can bear no witness to that fact. The Holy Spirit only, who knows the mind of God, can be this witness; and if the fact that God is reconciled to us can be known only to him, by him only can it be attested to us. But we are competent witnesses, from our own consciousness, that such moral effects have been produced within us as it is the office of the Holy Spirit alone to produce; and thus we have the testimony of our own spirit that the Holy Spirit is with us and in us, and that he who bears witness to our adoption is, in truth, the Spirit of God.—Wakefield, Chr. Tb., p. 441.

say, then, that these two witnesses taken together, establish the assurance of salvation. The one cannot exist without the other, and taken together, no higher evidences can exist.

The Common Privileg~e of Believers. We have gone carefully over the scriptural grounds for belief in the witness of the Spirit; have shown that this testimony is inseparably connected with the Spirit of Adoption; that it is indeed essential to filial love; and therefore, that it is as much a part of the common salvation as adoption itself. For this reason, we may safely affirm. that the witness of the Spirit is the common privil~ge of all be­lievers. It is in some peculiar sense, their divine birth­right, Closely related to this is the question as to whether or not, the witness of the Spirit can be held in uninter­rupted enjoyment. As a matter of observation, it is well known that there are wide differences in the spiritual experiences of believers. Consequently, we should ex­pect the assurance of sonship to vary accordingly. This whole subject, Mr. Wesley reviews with his usual spirit­ual insight, in his sermon on “The Wilderness State.” Finally, the Scriptures speak of the “full assurance of understanding” (Col. 2: 2); the “full assurance of hope”

This doctrine has been generally termed the doctrine of assurance; and perhaps the expressions of St. Paul, “the full assurance of faith,” and “the full assurance of hope” may warrant the use of the word. But as there is a current and generally understood sense of this term among persons of the Calvinistic persuasion, implying that the assur­ance of our present acceptance and sonship is an assurance of our final perseverance, and of our indefeasible title to heaven, the phrase, a comfortable persuasion or conviction of our justification and adoption, arising out of the Spirit’s inward and direct testimony, is to be preferred; for this has been held as an indubitable doctrine of holy writ by Chris­tians who by no means receive the doctrine of assurance in the sense held by the followers of Calvin. There is also another reason for sparing the cautious use of the term assurance, which is that it seems to imply, though not necessarily, the absence of all doubt, and shuts out all those lower degrees of persuasion which may exist in the experience of Chris­tians. For, as our faith may not at first, or at all times, be equally strong, the testimony of the Spirit may have its degrees of strength, and our persuasion or conviction be proportionally regulated. Yet if faith be genuine, God respects its weaker exercises, and encourages its growth, by affording measures of comfort, and degrees of this testimony. Never. theless, while this is allowed, the fullness of this attainment is to be pressed upon everyone that believes, according to the Word of God:

“Let us draw near,” says St. Paul to all Christians, “with full assurance of faith.”—Watson, Institutes, II, pp. 407, 408.

(Heb. 6: 11); and the “full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10: 22). These refer to a perfect persuasion of the truth as it is in Christ, the fulfillment of the promise of a heavenly inheritance, and entire trust in the blood of Christ. From these Scriptures we must conclude, there­fore, that the full assurance of understanding, faith and hope is the privilege of every Christian, and that none ought to rest short of his high calling in Christ Jesus.