These were some of the last words of one who, as president of the Royal Society of London, had occupied the chair of Newton, and whose talents had received probably a more extensive homage than was ever paid to those of any man during his life time. How well the testimony accords with the declarations of the monarch of Israel! who, after having attained all that royal power, wealth, and magnificence could bestow, or wisdom could achieve, pronounced them vanity and vexation of spirit, and came to this conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments—a precept which the humble peasant can obey as well as Sir Humphry Davy.

ART. X.-REVIEW OF DR. TYLER'S STRICTURES ON THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR.

Strictures on the Review of Dr. Spring's Dissertation on the Means of Regeneration, in the Christian Spectator for 1829. By BENNET TYLER, D. D. Pastor of the Second Congregational church in Portland, Me. Portland: Shirley & Hyde. 1829. pp. 64.

We regret that Dr. Tyler should have prepared an answer to our remarks on the means of regeneration, before we had brought them to a close. The true intent and limitations of any principle under discussion, are usually laid open with the greatest clearness in those concluding statements, which are designed to obviate objections, and to present the subject in its practical results. Our readers will accordingly find, that most of the objections which Dr. Tyler has urged against our review, were met by anticipation in our closing number, and were shown to be founded in a misconception of the principles which we maintain. Seven "queries" particularly intended to present in a single view, the "legitimate consequences" of our system-to each of which Dr. Tyler seems to have supposed we must reply in the affirmative, were answered in direct terms, or by necessary implication, in the negative; and that in perfect accordance, as we hope to show, with the whole tenor of our preceding remarks. As to our real sentiments, therefore, there was no longer any room for doubt. With these explanations in his hands, that Dr. Tyler should still go forward to publish his strictures in their original shape, and thus create in the minds of hundreds who will never see our review, the settled conviction that we maintain opinions which we have unequivocally disclaimed; has excited in our minds, we acknowledge, no small degree of surprise. His decision to go on under these circumstances, it seems, was formed in haste. Had a longer period

been allowed him for consideration, we are sure he would have decided otherwise. His well known candor would have led him rather to reconsider the subject in all its bearings, than to add an "appendix" for the purpose of justifying a construction of our language, which, whether natural or not, we had explicitly declared to be contrary to our intention, and abhorrent to our feelings.

Called upon unexpectedly to resume the discussion, under these circumstances, we enter upon it, in its present shape, with unmingled regret. Not that we suppose any of our readers will think we ought to remain silent, under the imputation of sentiments, which are diametrically opposed to our whole system of belief. But we lament the necessity of giving a personal or polemical aspect to the discussions of the Christian Spectator. Nothing can be farther from our wishes or intentions, as to the character of this work. If we are forced to do so, in the present instance, we may say with the great orator of antiquity, in a similar case, "he who has arraigned us before the tribunal of the public, is justly to be considered as the cause?" We enter upon our defense, however, with unaltered sentiments of kindness and respect for Dr. Tyler; and if we shall find occasion in the progress of these remarks, to turn back upon him the consequences of his own opinions, and to examine into the consistency of his own statements, we are confident he will acquit us of acting from any other motive than that of establishing the truth."

In proceeding to an examination of Dr. Tyler's "Strictures," it will be proper briefly to state the leading principles of the Review, which has given rise to his remarks. These may be reduced to three positions.

I. That no acts performed under the influence of the selfish principle, can be properly considered as a "using of the means of regeneration."

II. That still, as the renewed soul is begotten "with the word of truth," that truth must be perceived or used by the mind, as a means to the end in question, viz. to a change of spiritual affections.

III. That divine truth is never, in fact, thus used, by the sinner, until the identical moment when he submits to God-when the selfish principle ceases to predominate in the soul, and when God is chosen as the supreme good, from that simple desire for happiness, which is inherent in the constitution of all percipient beings. We added moreover, that we had no predilection for the phrase, "using the means of regeneration," as applied to this perception of divine truth, in the act of turning to God. We used it because it was used in the essay, on which our remarks were founded-because it has been the customary language on this subject. We were anxious, not for words

but for things-to expose on the one hand the error of considering the selfish strivings of the sinner, as a using of the means in question-and to show, on the other, that man is not passive in regeneration; but that he makes the proper and only justifiable use of truth in the act of obeying it, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

To our first position, Dr. Tyler gives his unqualified assent; and unites with us in our opinion respecting "some inadvertences" on this subject, which we pointed out in the essay of Dr. Spring.

From our second position, he dissents in the most absolute terms; and declares, "that to represent sinners as using the means of regeneration, is an abuse of language-that it ought to be banished from the pulpit, and expunged from the system of theology." p. 7. With all Dr. Tyler's anxiety respecting a departure from received opinions, it is not a little extraordinary that he should thus array himself, at the very outset, against the great body of orthodox divines in this country and in Europe. Turn where we will, we find but one sentiment on this subject. Dr. Doddridge and Dr. Dwight, Dr. Griffin and Dr. Smalley, Dr. Strong and Dr. Spring, unite in maintaining that there are means of regeneration, and that sinners must use them in order to be saved. To the arguments of the Christian Spectator on this point, Dr. Tyler has attempted no direct reply. He contents himself with one brief statement, which seems to have had, in his mind, the force of absolute demonstration; and his reasoning unquestionably, if there is no error in it, not only convicts us, but a great body of orthodox divines, of having remained to this hour in the most serious error on this subject. We shall therefore

I. Examine the arguments by which Dr. Tyler endeavors to overthrow the generally received doctrine, that sinners use the means of regeneration.

To my mind, (says Dr. Tyler,) it is plain, that if sinners use the means of regeneration, they must use them with a holy heart, or an unholy heart, or no heart at all; that is, with right motives, or wrong motives, or no mo. tive at all. If with right motives, the change is already effected, and the end precedes the means--If with wrong motives, their actions are sinful, and sin is the means of holiness-If with no motive at all, they act without any design, and cannot be using means for the accomplishment of an end. How then can this scheme be maintained, without first denying the entire depravity of the unrenewed heart, and thus striking at the foundation of the doctrines of grace? p. 8.

Now we readily concede, that sinners never use the means of regeneration with a holy heart, nor with an unholy, or sinful heart. But does it therefore follow, that they never use them with any heart at all? What is that heart, with which God in his law requires sinners to love him? Surely, not a heart which is holy be

66

fore they love him. Still less with a sinful heart; and yet he requires them to love him with some heart, even their heart. Is this no heart at all?" We think, on the contrary, it is a real heart; a heart with which sinners can love God, even without the grace of the Spirit, and certainly, with it. We venture to say, that this heart consists in those powers and properties of moral agency, which qualify its subject to exercise moral affections. With these powers or properties, sinners, we believe, may so use the truth of God, and the motives which it presents, that, through grace, the result shall be the exercise of holy affections-a holy heart; and that thus they do in fact "purify their souls in obeying the truth, through the Spirit."

But the argument of Dr. Tyler may be thought more conclusive, when presented in the substituted phraseology, "with right motives, or wrong motives, or no motive at all." The word motive is here used in the sense of intention or design; for as Dr. Tyler says, "if with no motive at all, they act without design; and cannot be using means for the accomplishment of an end." Conceding then, that sinners cannot use the means of regeneration either with right or wrong motives, the question is, whether they cannot use them from an impulse of self-preservation-a simple desire for happiness, which is inherent in the constitution of every sentient being? This brings us at once to what we consider the turning point in the present discussion; viz. what is a free moral agent? What is he, aside from any choice, either right or wrong-what is he, considered abstractly from moral action? Is he not an agent, who can, i. e. who has natural ability so to use truth as to obey it? But how? Not with right or with wrong motives; i. e. not with good or with bad moral intention; for this would imply moral action before moral action. Can he choose "with no motive at all?" This Dr. Tyler justly considers as impossible. It follows therefore, (for Dr. Tyler admits the sinner's natural ability to do his duty,) that a moral agent can so use the truth as to obey it, with motives which are neither right nor wrong, i. e. from the simple impulse of his desire of good, or happiness. If it should be said that the sinner, though a free moral agent, is the subject of a moral inability; then we ask, what is a moral inability? Is it an inability which involves the want of any one of the powers or properties of a moral agent? If so, then it is a natural inability, and the distinction between natural and moral inability, is after all a distinction in words, and not in things. On the other hand, if a moral inability does not involve the want of any of the powers or properties of moral agency, then the sinner is, in respect to these powers, fully and perfectly able to perform his duty, or so to use the truth of God as to obey it.

We say then, that Dr. Tyler's argument subverts the laws of moral agency, and of course the foundation of human accountabil

ity. It rests on a triplet of physical impossibilities. The first is, that a sinner should use the means of regeneration, or conversion, with right i.e. holy motives; which involves this impossibility, that a sinner should be holy before he is holy. This of course is a physical impossibility. The second is, that of using these means with sinful motives; which involves another impossibility, viz. that abusing these means, should be using them; or as Dr. Tyler states it, that "sin should be the means of holiness." This is also a physical impossibility. The third is, that sinners should use these means with no motive at all; which is also a physical impossibility. According to this argument, then, one of these impossible things must take place, or the sinner never can use the means of regeneration. It follows therefore, that there are three physical impossibilities, that he should ever so use divine truth, that it shall become, even through the Spirit, the means of holiness.

But Dr. Tyler has furnished us with a farther argument on this point. He admits that regeneration (conversion) is "the first moral act of the new-born soul," that "it is an intelligent act, and consequently includes the perception of the intellect, as well as the act of the will or heart," that "there can be no volition without motive,"-"no act of choice without some object perceived by the mind." Now we ask when the sinner first chooses God as his portion, whether his perception of the divine character is not some thought voluntarily bestowed on that object? We ask again, what this intelligent act is, if not a voluntary act, in which the mind considers and estimates the excellence or worth of some object as compared with other objects? We ask especially what a motive is, (which is thus pronounced necessary to volition,) if it does not involve the mind's estimate or view of the object as desirable as the greatest good? And now, as Dr. Tyler says these acts of intellect are necessary to "the first moral act of the newborn soul, we ask, how they come to exist? Has their occurrence, to use his language, in reference to the same preliminary acts as described by us, "no cause; is it an accident which may or may not happen, and which nevertheless must happen in regard to every one of the human race, before he can be regenerated?" p. 16.

On this point Dr. Tyler will see, that he has the same questions to answer which he has urged upon us. Let him say then, whence comes this act of the intellect, which is indispensable to "the first moral act, of the new-born soul." He will not say that it is uncaused or accidental. It is an intelligent act-a perception of the object as desirable. It must therefore be voluntary, and arise from the impulse of some motive or desire of the mind. What is that motive? Not holy, nor sinful; for this would imply moral action, before" the first moral act of the new-born soul." Is there