God, is a duty. But if the heart of sinners is depraved, if they hate the true character of God in whatever form it appears, they will hate it the more, the more it is seen, and light, so far from abating, will only rouse the enmity to stronger action. You may convince them of the justice of the divine administration; (that indeed will not rouse their enmity;) but while they love their own interest supremely, what can abate their hatred of a law which says, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God supremely or suffer eternal pain? Can the love of private interest regard more favourably the destruction of that interest because the destruction is just? And can selflove hold dominion and actually govern the heart, and not control every consideration suggested by conscience to oppose its power? without continuing to array the whole heart against the absolute destroyer of self-interest? In a word, can supreme love to one's own interest radically hate either more or less than it actually does, the destruction of that interest, or any arrangement for its destruction, while the capacity of the soul remains the same?

But you say again, may not the divine Spirit, before the love of God is implanted, bring the mind to a better frame by weakening its prejudices against religion and exciting reflections, desires, and resolutions which come nearer to a holy character? All that the Spirit does before regeneration, I suppose, is to pour light upon the mind; thus awakening remorse of conscience, alarming self-love, and occasioning various and strong actings of this principle. If this is all that the Spirit does before regeneration, the question has been already answered in what was said of the influence of light. But whatever the Spirit does he certainly does not perform impossibilities. If in the nature of things nothing can weaken the enmity that does not first dethrone the love of the creature, and if nothing can dethrone

that despot but the love of God, then no operation of the Spirit which does not introduce the love of God can weaken the empire of depravity. But I have another thing to say. The feelings of the convicted are holy or sinful or neither. If neither, they have no moral nature, that is, are deserving neither of praise or blame from the moral Governour of the world, and of course have nothing to do with our subject. If they are sinful, what approaches, I pray, can sin make to holiness? to the lowest degree of holiness? What approaches can total darkness make to the lowest degree of light? or total deadness to the lowest degree of life? Will you say then that they are holy? What, holy without love to God! without a particle of that "love" which "is the fulfilling of the law," which includes the whole that the law requires! What says the apostle? "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains, and have no love, I am NOTHING. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing."* Will you say then that the convicted sinner has some love to God though it is not supreme? What, while the

enmity remains? while the enmity prevails? for prevail it must while he loves himself supremely,-prevail it must therefore till his supreme affection is transferred to God. But once for all let an apostle decide whether any love to God can exist while the heart is supremely attached to another: "If any man love the world the love of the Father is not in him."+

*Rom. xiii. 10. 1 Cor. xiii. 1—3.

+ 1 John ii. 15.

In every view then it appears that there can be no approaches towards regeneration in the antecedent temper of the heart. The moment before the change the sinner is as far from sanctification as darkness is from light, as death is from life, as sin is from holiness. Admitting that his passions are somewhat allayed, and the actings of self-love not equally violent, (a concession by no means to be made, certainly not in every case, considering the strong light in which he views the objects of his aversion and dread,) still the least action of enmity to God is as far removed from the lowest degree of holiness, as an object which God infinitely hates from an object which he infinitely loves,-as far as a thing which deserves everlasting shame and contempt, from a grace that will receive endless and inconceivable rewards. And the two can never be brought nearer together.

I have now finished one train of reasoning and will enter on another. I prove that regeneration is instantaneous from the established truth that mankind by nature are destitute of holiness. Regeneration is nothing more nor less than the commencement of holiness in the soul,-the increase of that principle being not regeneration but sanctification. If the soul is wholly destitute of holiness there must be a moment when it first receives that principle, provided the principle itself is specifically different from any thing preexisting in the mind, and is not a compound gradually formed out of the natural affections. Even in that case there would be a moment when by increase, or by a perfect process of combination, it would first become entitled to the name of holiness. But not to insist on that, it is very apparent from what has been said of the nature of holiness, that however multitudinous it may be in its operations and effects, it is not a compound, but a property no less simple in its essence than universal

love, and that it is as specifically different from any thing preexisting in the mind, as parental affection is from humanity, or the love of science from the love of food. A property so simple and distinct from all others, may be reasoned upon with as much precision as any of the elementary substances of the chemist. Now the production of a new and simple property, like the power of attraction first communicated to a repellent body, must be instantaneous. The beginning of a thing, one would think, cannot be progressive.

This idea may be further illustrated by a recurrence to some of the images under which this change is represented. It is set forth by the figure of light struck out in the midst of total darkness: "God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." It is called the opening of blind eyes, and the unstopping of deaf ears. It is called a resurrection from the dead: "You hath he quicened who were dead in trespasses and sins." It is called a new creation: "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." "We are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works." "Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." It is called the removal of a heart of stone and introduction of a heart of flesh. It is called a new birth.* Now all these figures import an instantaneous change. There is a moment when the first ray of light enters a region of total darkness. There is a moment when the blind man begins to see. There is a moment when the deaf man hears the first sound. There is a moment when life begins to animate a dead body. The cre

* Ps. cxlvi. 8. Isai. xxix. 18. and xxxv. 5. and xlii. 16-19. and xliii. 8. Ezek. xi. 19. Luke iv. 18. John iii. 3. 2 Cor. iv. 6. and v. 17. Eph. ii. 1, 10. and iv. 24. 2 Pet. i. Rev. iii. 17.

9.

ation of a simple substance must be instantaneous. The formation of the various objects that were to compose a world, admitted of successive acts; and to this is analogous the new creation of the whole body of the elect in successive generations: but when a simple substance was to be produced, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light."* The removal of a heart of stone and substitution of a heart of flesh, must likewise be instantaneous, or according to the figure there is a time when either there are two hearts or no heart at all. And in regard to a birth, there is a moment in every case in which it may be first said, a child is born into the world.

Regeneration has sometimes been compared to the struggle of light with darkness and the gradual prevalence of the former at the dawn of day. But what do they mean by light? If they mean holiness, they assume what has been proved to be false, that there is holiness in the heart before the completion of regeneration. Show me a man in whom holiness and sin are struggling for dominion, and I will show you one who is already born again. But if they mean any thing besides holiness, any thing besides the identical principle whose prevalence is to constitute the change, the change itself bears no resemblance to the progress of the morning,-the progress of the same light that makes the day. It might more fitly be compared to the first ray that strikes the eastern horizon, or rather to the first ray that enters a region of total darkness. And between the last moment of total darkness and the first moment of commencing light, no time can elapse. But if by light in this comparison is meant speculative knowledge, and this was even allowed to be the cause of regeneration, still the change could not be progressive if any

* Gen. i. 3.