process of fermentation begins, which continues, ever enlarging the sphere of its operation, until the whole lump is leavened. So in the act of regeneration a principle of new and spiritual life is lodged, or hidden, in the centre of human personality, which is destined to penetrate and leaven the whole lump of human nature, and to eradicate and destroy all that is corrupt and sinful therein. Thus the new must grow at the expense of the old, until the old has been wholly abolished and the new has become all in all. The Catechism calls this entire process conversion or repentance. We may, however, distinguish two stages within it, according as it is either spontaneous or voluntary. At first, and for a considerable time afterwards, the process is undoubtedly spontaneous, for we can not conceive of the new life as at any time wholly inactive. But it can not always remain spontaneous, for the reason that man is essentially a free creature and is not saved against his will. It must, therefore, at length be taken up into the consciousness of the mind and become a voluntary process. And now, up to and including, the point where the process becomes voluntary, we call it conversion; from this point forward sanctification. The two determinations of the mind, namely penitence and conscious faith, reached in conversion, are however continued and become the principal subjective factors in the process of sanctification; and in this respect conversion and sanctification are one and the same process. We, therefore, define conversion as the transition of the life of grace into the sphere of mind or consciousness, forming here penitence and conscious faith; and sanctification as the transition of the life of grace, through penitence and faith, into the sphere of the affections, desires, inclinations and passions.

Conversion, as now defined, is not an instantaneous act of the mind, but a gradual process. To demand that every true Christian must know the place and the hour where and when he was converted, would therefore be like demanding of every grown man that he should know where and when he passed from a state of unconsciousness to consciousness. Every one who has attained to a state of consciousness is aware of the fact,

though he cannot trace the steps or degrees through which he passed in attaining to this state. So every converted Christian will and must know that he is converted, though he may not be able to tell when and where this came to pass. Every one can know whether he is truly and sincerely penitent on account of sin, and whether he truly and sincerely renounces the world, the flesh, and the devil; and every one can know whether he truly and sincerely believes in "God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son," &c. And whoever is truly penitent and truly believing, is converted, whether he knows when and where he became so or not. There must be a time, of course, where the process becomes complete, and where then it passes over into the other process of sanctification, but if the process has been at all normal, no one will be able to tell that time. The flower opens gradually and slowly; no one can perceive the movement of the sepals and petals as they expand, and yet there must be a time when it may be said that the flower is now fully open. So it is with conversion in its normal process. If in any case it be sudden and abrupt, it is also abnormal. Thus it will always be, of course, where the process is hindered in its progress by adverse influences. If a man were born blind, and if then, when he is of full age, his eyes were opened by a surgical operation or by a miracle, the development of his sense of vision would, of course, be comparatively sudden, and he would be able to tell something about it. But that is not the normal way of the development of the perceptive faculties; nor is it the normal way of the development of faith. It will, however, always be the way more or less in the case of persons who, instead of being brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, are left to grow up in ignorance of the Gospel and in the service of sin, and who then lead a careless and ungodly life, until they are arrested by some special providence, or some miracle of grace, that causes them to "come to themselves," and to say with the prodigal that had squandered his substance, "I will arise and will go to my father, and will say, Father, I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight." Cases

of this kind will, of course, always occur; but to make these the rule, and to suppose that it is necessary for all the children of the Church to have been prodigals before they can become saints, as Methodism virtually does, we think, would be like insisting that all men ought to be born blind and remain so until they are of full age in order that then they may have a lively sense of the joy of receiving sight. We regard this sentiment, which however prevails widely at the present time, as exceedingly pernicious in its effects upon the interests of Christianity and the Church. Who can tell how many children of the Church are lost in consequence of it? There are members of the Church enough everywhere, who, while pretending to superior piety themselves, make no effort to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, assuming that, although they may be baptized, they are still no better than heathen, and indeed can be no better until they are old enough to be converted and "get religion," which may all be brought to pass, if things go well, in the brief space of some winter's night. We regard this notion as one of the many delusions of Satan, by which the Church is afflicted at the present time, and against which we of the Reformed Church are bound, now as well as in the past, to bear our solemn testimony.

ART. IX.--THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN.

A GOOD deal has been said by those in the Reformed Church, who are opposed to its reigning theology, in regard to a lecture of Dr. Harbaugh, on "The Church Doctrine of the Forgiveness of Sin," published in the January number of this Review for the year 1868. It seems, that some of the statements contained in this lecture had found their way to some of these opponents of the theology taught in our Seminary, before it was published, and use was made of them to prejudice the minds of the people. It was said, that the Professors in our Seminary taught that no one can have an assurance of pardon, except through the absolution of the minister; that this was Romanism, &c., &c. In order to correct these misrepresentations, the lecture itself was published in this Review after Dr. Harbaugh's death. It was thought that its publication would silence these defamers. But such was not the effect. This continues to be the chief objection, urged by the party referred to, to the teachings of the Seminary. It is the only article, against which these attacks are made.

Now we desire to bring before the readers of the Review once more, what Dr. Harbaugh's lecture really did contain. Upon turning to that lecture, it will be found, that one main point in it is, that forgiveness of sin is to be obtained in, not outside of, the Church. "The sentiment is common-but as it is common, so is it false-that the forgiveness of sin is to be obtained outside of and separate from the Church, and without its intervention-and that this boon is to be enjoyed before the Church is entered. Where this idea is held, it is supposed, that the forgiveness of sin is a gift from the Holy Ghost direct, and without the medium of the Church. In that case the Creed ought to run: 'I believe in the Holy Ghost, the forgiveness of sin.' But it does not so run, &c."

Then come the Scripture passages in support of this general position, and then the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are held up as signs and seals of our pardon, according to the teaching of the Reformers, among whom Calvin and Ursinus are quoted. Now comes the language, to which so much objection is made, and which is paraded on all occasions, as an instance of the false teaching in our Seminary. Here it

is:

"Without such an act" (as Baptism, to which the author refers in the preceding paragraph,)—" Without such an act, in which our pardon is certified to us, our hearts cannot possess a full and satisfying sense of forgiveness." This is the offending language in one paragraph. It is remarkable how well guarded it is. It does not say, that pardon is conveyed through the Sacraments, but that without them, we "cannot possess a full and satisfying sense of forgiveness." What Reformed teacher can say less?

"A sinner may be penitent for his sins, but until he has received Baptism as God's act of remission to him, he has no true assurance of remission; and when, after baptism, he sins through infirmity, he cannot be sure of pardon till his absolution is spoken, signed and sealed by Christ, by means of a divine act through the Church."

This passage, we believe, is chiefly referred to. The use of the word absolution in the latter clause of the sentence has evidently been understood as meaning the office called absolution in the Liturgy. It is clear, however, that the word is used with no such reference to this particular service. The connection will show this. Substitute the word pardon, and what for many is offensive will be removed. And this is just what is meant, for absolution is pardon; and one reason, perhaps, why this latter word was not used is because it occurs just before in the sentence.

Let us look further into this matter. The illustration. brought forward in the succeeding portion of the paragraph is that of the Prodigal Son. The design of the passage is to show how a baptized child, who, like the Prodigal Son, has wandered away from God, and is brought to return in the way