Memoir of the Rev. Joseph Stibbs Christmas. By E. Lord [pp. 256-269]

Memoir of Rev. J. 8. Christmas.
honourable testimonials of the piety and talents of their author.
With some of the theology, however, of the "Discourse on
Inability," we are not able to concur. To pass over some
common-place remarks on the much vexed question of "natu ral and moral ability," into the discussion of which we have
no desire, at present, to enter, we were greatly surprised to
see, from the pen of Mr. C. the following remarks:
"If men possess natural ability to do and to be all that God re quires, it follows that they are not passive in regeneration. The
common opinion, that depravity consists in a depraved heart, existing anterior to depraved feeling; that it is a constitutional and
physical depravity independent of our will; and that regeneration, which remedies it, is a miraculous creation of a new nature,
from which holy feelings spring; the production of a new faculty,
which the sinner never possessed before; and the infusion of a new
principle, which must be possessed in order to render him capable
of holy feelings, is inconsistent with man's natural ability to do all
that God requires; or, shall we not rather say, that the doctrine
of man's natural ability is subversive of such an idea of his pas.
sivity in regeneration. God commands men to make them new
hearts, and a new spirit. He makes it their duty to be regenerate.
And men have natural ability to do and to be all that God commands. But if regeneration be the creation of a new physical
faculty, an operation in which man is passive, he has no ability
to be regenerate. Nay, if God requires that of us in which we
are passive, he requires nothing of us. He requires that we should
be acted upon, not that we should act," &c. &c.
On this passage, taken in connexion with some of the sentiments which precede and follow it, we have three remarks to
offer. We offer them with the most unfeigned respect for
the memory of the beloved and lamented youth whose opinions we are constrained to question. But while we shed
a paternal tear over the early grave, and the blighted promises
of "a choice young man and a goodly," fidelity to his Master
and ours compels us to be faithful in maintaining what we
deem truth in relation to an important point in Christian theology. In truth, the more excellent, and the more worthy
of admiration and love his character was, the more likely will
be any erroneous opinion which he may have patronized to
exert a baneful influence.
The first remark we have to make is, that the opinion here
opposed is not fairly stated. Nothing is more certain than
that the amiable author intended to state it fairly and correct
266