Dr. George Duffield on the Doctrines of New-School Presbyterians [pp. 655-675]

186T~] Doctrines of New-school ~resbyterian~. 667
Owen in the chapter so much quoted by Dr. Duffleld, "The
power which the lloly Ghost puts forth in our regeneration, is
such in its acting or exercise, as our minds, wills, and affections
are suited to be wrought upon, and to be affected by it, according to their natures and natural operations.... lle doth not
act in them any otherwise than they themselves are meet to be
moved, and move, to be acted and act according to their own
iiature, power, and ability... lle offers no violence or compulsion to the will."
So, in language still more explicit and felicitous, our ~onfes
sion of Taith, chap. x. 1, 2, represents the Spirit in Effectual
Calling, as "enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly
to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of
stone and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their
wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that
which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;
yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his
grace. 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 ~uickened and renewed by
the lIoly Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and
to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it."
The other view denies any agency of the Spirit otherwise
than in the presentation of truth and motive with a suasory
power beyond that of man, even as God is mightier than man.
But Ijowever powerful, it is still in the way of moral suasion,
and only by the vivid and powerful presentation of the truth,
which it is the prerogative of the sinner 5 will to yield to or
resist, and which many do effectually resist.
The only possible medium betweeu these two views is the
synergistic theory, according to which man coo~perates with
God in regeneration. This is in reality only a form of the
moral suasion theory, such coo~peration of the sinner being
wholly inconceivable and irrelative on any other hypothesis.
Now, of these views, it has already been made evident enough
that Dr. Duffield and the New-school Presbyterians represented
by him, reject the first. But if there be any doubt, the following extracts will dispel it.
"They [the more astute Old-school Presbyterians] talk of a