CHAPTER XXXVII. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS IN RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.

The Augustinian system, assuming that true personal religion consists in the exercises of “a new nature,” tends to introverted mental efforts, in order to discover whether the signs of such a nature exist in ourselves.

As, on this theory, it is certain that man will do nothing to change his fallen nature until the Spirit of God is given to aid, the great attention and effort must be directed to those methods, which “the church” decides, or experience has proved, to be connected with the bestowal of this spiritual gift.

Not knowing clearly what the depraved nature is, which is to be changed, nor the certain signs of its existence or re‐creation, nor any certain mode of securing the desired change, there is a perplexing variety of vague instructions as to “what we must do to be saved?”

In illustration of this, the following from an article by the editor of the Methodist Quarterly, shows how Wesley and his followers instruct on this subject:

“I have continually testified, in private and in public,” says Wesley, “that we are sanctified as well as justified by faith.”

This being first stated, the great question follows, _what is that faith_ by which we are justified and sanctified? The answer is this:

“It is a divine evidence and conviction, first that God hath promised it in the holy Scriptures; secondly, that what God hath promised he is _able_ to perform; thirdly, that he is _able and willing_ to do it _now_. To this, is to be added one thing more: a divine conviction _that he doeth it_. In that hour it is done.”(18)

That is, in order to be justified and sanctified we must have a divine evidence and conviction that God is _able_ and _willing_, and actually _does now_ give the justification and sanctification we seek. In other words, in order to gain what we seek we must believe that we have gained it. In order to get a blessing we must believe that we possess it.

Thus it is, that one of the largest sects of our country is instructed by its founder and his most intelligent and learned followers, as to the way of salvation from everlasting and inconceivable misery. It will be remembered, that this class of divines teach that the depravity of man’s mind consists in the _deprivation_ of God’s Spirit, which is withheld from all the descendants of Adam on account of his sin.

The following presents the mode of instruction in which the author was educated. It is contained in a letter from Dr. Nettleton, a celebrated revival preacher, who often resided with the author’s father during revivals in which they were co‐laborers. This letter was written to oppose the views of the New Haven divines, who maintained that, although in consequence of Adam’s sin, there is a tendency or bias to evil so powerful as to insure “sin, and only sin” till regeneration occurs, yet that _the act_ of regeneration consists in a choice or purpose on the part of man himself.

In reference to these views of Dr. Taylor and others, Dr. Nettleton says:

“They adopt a _new theory of regeneration_. It has been said by some that regeneration consists _in removing this sinful bias_, which is anterior to actual volition; this they deny. But whether we call this propensity _sinful_ or not, all orthodox divines who have admitted its existence have, I believe, united in the opinion that regeneration _does_ consist in removing it,” [which the New Haven divines denying, they are excluded from the “orthodox” ranks, in the view of Dr. N.]

He continues thus:

“No sinner ever did or ever will make a holy choice prior to an _inclination_, _bias_ or _tendency_ to holiness.

“On the whole their [_i.e._, the New Haven divines] views of depravity, of regeneration and of the mode of preaching to sinners can not fail, I think, of doing very great mischief. This exhibition [_i.e._, that regeneration consists in _man’s choice_] overlooks the most alarming feature of human depravity and _the very essence of experimental religion_. It is directly calculated to prevent sinners from coming under conviction of sin....”

“The progress of conviction ordinarily is as follows: _Trouble and alarm_ first, on account of _outward_ sins; secondly, on account of hardness of heart, deadness and insensibility to divine things,—_tendency_, _bias_, _proneness_ or _propensity to sin_, both inferred and felt; and this the convicted sinner always regards, not merely as calamitous, but as _awfully criminal_ in the sight of God. And the sinner utterly despairs of salvation _without a change in this propensity to sin_. And while he feels this propensity to be thus criminal, he is fully aware that if God, by a sovereign act of his grace, does not interpose to remove or change it, he shall never give his heart to God, _nor make one holy choice_.”

The great point taught by Dr. Nettleton and his associates was, that man has a depraved nature consisting in a bias or propensity to sin, consequent on Adam’s sin, for which we are “awfully criminal in the sight of God,” and which man himself will never remedy; that regeneration consists in the change of this bias by God, and that until God does make this change man will “never give his heart to God nor make one holy choice.” And yet his sermons, as the writer heard them month after month, abounded in pungent addresses to sinners, commanding them in God’s name to “give their hearts to God,” and maintaining that their inability to do so was owing to their own fault and _unwillingness_ to do so.

At the same time, the New Haven divines, in the same pulpit, were urging _their_ views, showing that regeneration consisted in “choosing God and his service;” that man was fully able to do this, and yet that owing to his depraved nature, he never would do it, until that nature was in some way changed by God. Meantime, on their view also, every voluntary act, previous to regeneration, was “sin, and only sin.” Nor had God pointed out any sure mode of obtaining from him the gift of regenerating grace. They, however, urged that the results of _experience_ proved that regeneration, though not promised to unregenerate doings, is, as a matter of fact, bestowed more frequently on those who use “the means of grace,” such as prayer, reading the Bible and frequenting religious meetings, than on those who do not.

The points of difference between the New Haven theologians and their opponents, seemed to be, that the former taught that regeneration was the act of man himself in choosing God’s service; while Dr. Nettleton and his associates taught that it consisted in the change of man’s _nature_ by God, and not in what was done by man himself. The New Haven theologians have been more definite in their attempts to explain the exact nature of regeneration than any other class. They all agree, however, that man never will, in any case, become regenerated until God in some measure rectifies the injury done to human nature by Adam’s sin; that God points out no definite way to secure this aid; and that previous to regeneration every moral act of man is “sin, and only sin.”

As to the signs or evidence of regeneration, those who teach that man’s depravity consists in the _deprivation_ of God’s Spirit, on account of Adam’s sin, often lead to the expectation of some sudden “light and joy,” as the first evidence of regeneration. Such, also, follow Wesley’s direction, and try to believe that they _are_ justified and sanctified, in order to become so. Others point out certain emotions toward God or toward Jesus Christ as the proof of the commencement of a new nature.

Some divines lead to the impression that the new nature consists in a mysterious indwelling of God in the soul, or a union of our nature to his, so that when it takes place, there is a natural outflowing of good feelings and good works, as there was of evil before this union. But they point out no intelligible way of gaining this union.

The Catholic church teaches that regeneration is conferred by the rite of baptism, and that thus a seed or some mysterious principle is implanted, which is developed by use of the forms and rites of “the church,” and exhibited in “good works.” The Episcopal churches, more or less, retain this view in the teachings of their clergy.

“_Saving faith_,” or the “faith which justifies,” is described by religious teachers with most singular and inconsistent forms of expression. If any person will make a collection of the various diverse explanations of this indispensable requisite to eternal life, it would prove a most mournful illustration of vague teachings in reply to the great question, “What must we do to be saved?”

The following extract was prepared by a very intelligent theological student at the request of the author, in reference to the great question, “What must we do to be saved?” as set forth in a recent work, highly recommended for its clear and practical views on this great matter. This work, entitled “_The Higher Christian Life_,” exhibits not only the author’s views of what regeneration consists in, but his views of another subject that has greatly interested many minds in the religious world, under the name of _Christian Perfection_:

“I have examined, as you requested, the book entitled ‘_The Higher Christian Life_,’ with a view of gaining the author’s definition of ‘conversion,’ or ‘regeneration,’ and his directions for securing it, and also his idea of what the ‘second conversion’ consists in. His view of the first conversion, or regeneration, _is the generally entertained one_, _i.e._, _it is the pardon of our sins_. This pardon is instantaneous and entire. The moment a soul believes in Christ, and accepts his atonement, that moment it experiences _a complete sense of pardoned sin_.

“Luther experienced this when, after fasting, and watching, and struggling under the weight of sins unforgiven had brought him to the brink of the grave, these words were brought home to his mind, ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ From that moment ‘joy filled his soul, and he arose quickly from the depths of despair and the bed of sickness.’

“_Second conversion is the cleansing from sin_, which the author says ‘is a work of indefinite length,’ and in this particular alone differs from the first conversion.

“But, in the examples cited by him, the experience of this second conversion has been as instantaneous as the first. Luther, climbing Pilate’s stair‐case on his hands and knees, for the purpose of gaining holiness, was brought to his feet by the truth, ‘The just shall live _by faith_.’ ‘Then,’ Luther says, ‘I felt myself born again. As a new man I entered by an open door into the very Paradise of God.’

“So in all the other examples of this author, the apprehension of _Christ as the way_, is instantaneous; and yet he says ‘the work of Christ remains yet to be done in the future.’ In this point only does it differ from the first conversion, that it is not all done in an instant, although, as I have said before, his examples all make the impression that in both cases the work is instantaneous.”

This extract is not given as a _correct_ exhibition of the views of this author, for it may not do him justice. It is given to show how vague and indefinite are the teachings of religious writers and preachers on this subject. Here is a book recommended for its _clear views_ by the highest class of minds. It is read and re‐read by an intelligent, well‐educated young man, who is studying theology in one of our first seminaries. He then gives this author’s view of regeneration, as that which he supposes to be contained in that book, and also as “_the one generally entertained_.”

And what is this answer to the great question, “What must we do to be saved?”—a question on which the happiness of endless ages is suspended.

_It is the pardon of sin_, which “is instantaneous and entire.” This is something which God does, and this, as it would seem, is regeneration.

Next it is stated that “the moment a soul _believes in Christ and accepts his atonement_, that moment it experiences _a complete sense of pardoned sin_.” Here one must ask, “what is signified by believing in Christ and accepting his atonement? Is this also regeneration, and if so, does it consist in the intellectual assent to the proposition that Christ as God suffered and died, and by this act secured the pardon of our sin?” There is nothing given to decide these queries.

Next, it is stated that this act of faith is followed by “_a complete sense_ of pardoned sin.” Is _this_ regeneration, or is it a _part_ of it? There is nothing given to decide this question.

It is certain that the young man, totally failed in his efforts to secure any _clear_ and _definite_ conceptions of the author’s meaning, exactly as has been the case with the writer herself, for whom the above extract was prepared.

It has been the privilege of the writer, often to listen to the preaching of Dr. Bushnell, one of the most popular of all our religious teachers. On one such occasion during the present season, the object of his sermon seemed to be to teach what was that _true knowledge of God_, which he urged on his hearers.

He stated that it was not merely an intellectual apprehension of his character and deeds, but something which every soul must gain in order to secure eternal life, something, as it seemed, which he deemed _regeneration_.

He finally enunciated this, which seemed to be his idea of this indispensable experience: “_It is the return of God into the human soul_.”

In enlarging on this, he described something which was so vague and indefinite as to make it useless to attempt to state the impression made. Afterward, aid was sought from one of the preacher’s constant and most intelligent hearers. “Does Dr. Bushnell believe in a preëxistent state, when God, in the manner set forth, was _in_ the soul of each human being? If not, what does he mean by a ‘return of God into the soul?’ ” After some discussion, this intelligent parishioner concluded that his meaning probably was, that when we desire and intend wholly to submit our wills to that of God, and to be guided wholly by him, we become in this respect _one_ with God. And this is what is meant by God’s _return_ into the soul. At what _previous_ time this state of union was experienced, and then lost, so that regeneration is its “return,” seemed to remain, as it respects information to be gained from parishioners, a matter of hopeless speculation.

In a family of whom eight are ministers of religion, and several are theological professors, the one who has seemed most fully to agree with the writer in explaining the nature of regeneration, is the _Star contributor to the Independent_.

It has been shown that Phrenology is antagonistic to the Augustinian theory of implanted evil propensities, by teaching that every faculty, when developed and regulated aright, tends to the best good of the race, so that the extinction of any faculty or propensity would not be an improvement, but rather an injury to the constitution of mind.

In regard to this brother, here referred to, the system of Phrenology was embraced by him before his theological education was commenced, and was never relinquished. In consequence, his mode of explaining the nature of regeneration has been diverse from most accepted methods of theological schools. And yet, when the writer, applied both to his published articles and to some of his most intelligent, regular hearers, to ascertain if the common‐sense view of regeneration, as here stated, was in perfect agreement with her brother’s views, it seemed difficult to decide.

In reading some of the Star Papers, the common‐sense view of regeneration is clear and unmistakable; in others, there are statements as to the _distinctive_ nature of Christian character, which seem to be both additional and diverse. The result is, an uncertainty as to the exact idea of what regeneration consists in, as taught by this brother.(19)

The editors of the Independent quote the following sentence from _Common Sense Applied to Religion, or the Bible and the People_, as a statement of “the doctrine of the new birth,” which is “not materially different” from that held by “the fathers and mothers of New England for eight successive generations:”

“The ‘second birth’ is the sudden or the gradual entrance into a life, in which the will of the Creator is to control the self‐will of the creature, while under the influence of love and gratitude to him, and guided by ‘faith’ in his teachings, _living chiefly for the great commonwealth_ takes the place of _living chiefly for self_. For this, the supernatural aid of the Holy Spirit is promised to all who seek it, and without this aid, success is hopeless. But the grand instrumentality is _right training_ by parents and teachers.” (Common Sense, etc., p. 333.)

Let this statement, by the Independent, of what the new birth consists in, as held by the fathers and mothers of New England, be compared with the preceding account of “conversion,” given by a young theologian, born in Connecticut, and educated at Yale College, as the “generally entertained one,” and the case is rendered increasingly difficult and perplexing.

In the view of the author, _all_ theologians do so far hold the common‐ sense theory of regeneration, that when they find a person whose will seems to be entirely subjected to the will of God, while “under the influence of love and gratitude to Him, and guided by faith in his teachings, _living chiefly for the great commonwealth takes the place of living chiefly for self_”—such a person is regarded by them as _regenerated_. At the same time, bound by the Augustine system, they give other views of the nature of regeneration, which are vague and conflicting, as has been illustrated in the preceding pages.(20)

From all this results endless anxiety, doubt and distress, in conscientious minds, from uncertainty whether their depraved nature has been changed, and from perplexity in view of the multifarious modes of teaching in regard to the nature and signs of regeneration.

From this, too, results false confidence and indifference to right and wrong conduct, in those who imagine they discover in themselves the signs of a regenerated nature, which will, as they are led to believe, secure heaven without reference to the amount of good or evil deeds.

This same incertitude as to what regeneration is, has also tended to induce the fanaticism, extravagance and absurdities often connected with religious excitements.

The idea that there is to be some mysterious change in the soul by the gift of God’s Spirit; that this is to be gained by prayer; that the evidence of this change is to be found in sudden and great mental agitation; together with the belief that an _eternity_ of misery or bliss is depending on such a change; and that death is the end of all hope—all this tends to great extremes of distress and excitement.

Tendencies of the Common‐Sense System.

In contrast to these tendencies of the Augustinian system, in regard to individual religious experience, we notice those of the common‐sense system. According to the latter, the _first birth_ brings man into existence as an undeveloped being, with perfect and wonderful capacities of knowledge, enjoyment and self‐control. The first period of existence is necessarily a period of _experimenting_, in which mind is dependent on others for most of the knowledge indispensable to right action, and also for the training of the physical, social and moral habits. It is impossible to choose aright, intelligently, until a child learns _what is right_, and this is a slow and gradual process. In some cases, by a careful training, early virtuous principles and habits may be so induced, that there can not be any marked period in which the mind comes under the control of _a ruling purpose_ to obey all the rules of rectitude as disclosed by reason and experience, or by revelations from God.

In other cases, the child may grow up to manhood entirely unregulated by any such purpose, while self‐gratification, unrestrained by rules, is the perpetual aim. In such cases, a sudden change, in which the man forms and carries out a ruling purpose to act righteously and virtuously, in all his relations to man, to God and to himself, may take place. This change, in the language of common life, would be expressed thus: “The man has begun a new life; he is a new creature.” And by a figurative use of language, the change might be called “a new birth,” or, in theological language, “regeneration.” In such a case, the chief desire or ruling passion would be, to discover and to obey all the physical, social and moral laws of the Creator, as they are taught by reason and experience, or by revelations from God.

Such an experience would be properly expressed by the terms, _faith_ in God, _love_ to God, _repentance_ toward God, _as these terms are used by men in common life_. Thus “regeneration,” according to the common‐sense system, becomes an intelligible, rational and practical matter.

In case of a revelation from God by a prophet or messenger, confidence in, and obedience to, the teachings of that messenger, would be practical or saving faith, both in God and in his messenger also. Thus, if Christ is proved to be a messenger from God by miracles, whoever _practically believes_ in Christ, believes in God also. And just so far as a man understands Christ’s teachings _aright_, and _purposes_ to obey him, and _carries out_ this purpose, just so far he has faith, and love, and repentance toward God and toward Christ. And as men are named by the name of those they obey, every man is a _true Christian_ just so far as he understands Christ’s teachings _aright_ and _obeys_ them.

In this view of the case, the true “_signs of regeneration_” would be each person’s consciousness of the great end and purpose of his life, and the fruits or results of this purpose in an habitual obedience to the physical, social and moral laws of God, as learned by reason, experience and revelation. Thus the answer to the great question of life becomes clear, harmonious and practical, furnishing the means for every person to judge of his own character and prospects.