siglit of anything good in the subjects of this saving change. None of those whom Clirist healed, pretended to seek the exercise of his almighty power in their behalf on the ground of their peculiar goodness, much less did they dream of referring the restoration of their sight or health to any cooperation of their own with his om nipotence.
§ 5. Proof of the Doctrine. Common Consent.
1. The first argument in proof of the Augustinian doctrine of efficacious grace, is drawn from common consent. All the great truths of the Bible are impressed on the convictions of the people of God ; and find expression in unmistakable language. This is done in despite of the theologians, who often ignore or reject these truths in their formal teachings. There are in fact but two views on this subject. According to the one, regeneration is the effect of the mighty power of God ; according to the other, it is the re- sult of moral suasion. This latter may be understood to be noth- ing more than what the moral truths of the Bible are in virtue of their nature adapted to produce on the minds of men. Or, it may characterize the nature of the Spirit's influence as analogous to that by which one man convinces or persuades another. It is from its nature one which may be effectually resisted. All those, there- fore, who hold to this theory of moral suasion, in either of its forms, teach that this influence is effectual or not, according to the deternnnation of the subject. One chooses to yield, and another chooses to refuse. Every man may do either. Now, infants are confessedly incapable of moral suasion. Infants, therefore, cannot be the subjects of regeneration, if regeneration be effected by a process of rational persuasion and conviction. But, according to the faith of the Church Universal, infants may be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and must be thus born of the Spirit, in order to enter the kingdom of God. It therefore follows that the faith, the in- wrougiit conviction of the Church, the aggregate body of God's true and professing people, is against the doctrine of moral- suasion, and in favour of the doctrine that regeneration is effected by the immediate almighty power of the Spirit. There is no possibiHty of its operating, in the case of infants, mediately through the truth as apprehended by the reason. It is hard to see how this argument is to be evaded. Those who are consistent and sufficiently inde- pendent, admit its force, and rather than give up their theory, deny <:he possibility of infant regeneration. But even this does not much