AVING now presented the Scripture account of regeneration, and obtained a clear view of the different parts of the process, it will be proper to consider more fully that which is the first, and obviously the most important of these, viz., the begetting "through the word of truth." In reference to the accomplishment of this, there are, as usual, two opposite theories, one attributing the entire efficiency to the Spirit, and the other, to the word. The former, as before intimated, makes here little or no account of the word or gospel, conceiving it to have no power "of itself," and to be effective only as life or energy may be infused into it, in some mysterious way by the Spirit. Its advocates urge the doctrine of "total depravity," and consequent human inability, as explanatory of the fact that, where the gospel is preached, a certain number alone receive it. They suppose that on these individuals a special illuminating or quickening power of the Spirit has been directly exerted, by which they have been regenerated, [275] so that they attend to the things spoken, to which they had been previously indifferent. Many contend that man is so utterly and absolutely depraved, and so entirely dead to the things of the Spirit, that nothing short of a power capable of raising the dead can change his heart, and enable him to receive the gospel. These theorists of course suppose the gospel not to be adapted to man as he is, but to require a special and independent force to enable it to reach the heart and mind.

      It is, indeed, this "special operation" which they conceive to be regeneration itself, confounding, as we have seen, the work of the Spirit which relates to sinners, with the "gift of the Holy Spirit," promised only to believers. From their teaching, it is impossible to draw any other conclusion than that they consider the new birth and the reception of the Holy Spirit as simultaneous and equivalent; the former being an instantaneous result of the latter, and accomplished only by the direct power of the Spirit then and there specially present.¹ [276]

      It is apparent, from all their teachings, that they conceive the Spirit to be imparted before faith, and for the very purpose of "working faith in the heart." Whatever refined distinctions respecting faith theologians may attempt to make, it is certain that such is the prevailing and popular view, so far as it has any definite character at all. Hence it is, that in reference to "revivals" and conversions, we have constantly prayers that God would "pour out his Spirit upon the people;" that there might be "a Pentecostal season;" that "showers of grace" might descend from heaven upon "unconverted sinners;" that they might be "baptized in the Holy Spirit and fire," etc. In the accounts published of successful meetings, also, the conversions are constantly attributed to the "shedding forth of the Holy Spirit;" to [277] "a powerful work of grace;" a "surprising work of God," and this work is represented as occasional and fitful, like showers of rain. "This shower of Divine blessing," says President Edwards,^d speaking of the "great awakening," "has been yet more extensive; there was no small degree of it in New Jersey," etc. According to this theory, then, the Holy Spirit is given to those who do not believe; to the people of the "world," in order to produce faith by special "power;" yet Christ plainly and emphatically says of the Holy Spirit, and in direct reference, too, to the distinction between the disciples and the world, "Whom the world can not receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John xiv: 17. Surely a doctrine which comes thus into direct conflict with the plain teachings of Christ, demands reconsideration on the part of its advocates. Surely they are not justified in urging it, as they do, as though its truth were unquestioned or unquestionable, and in making the acceptance of such a theory essential to religious fellowship.

      For this notion is not only expressly confuted by our Saviour's words, but by the recorded facts of the conversions in the Acts of Apostles. The most ordinary reader of the account given of that "Pentecostal season," in Acts ii, for a renewal of which prayer is often so earnestly offered, must perceive, that the Holy Spirit, on that occasion, was poured out on the disciples only, and that it was promised by Peter to those among the multitude who believed and [278] asked what they should do, only on condition of their repentance and submission to the commands of the gospel. "Repent," said he, "and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There is not a single case of conversion mentioned in the New Testament where the Holy Spirit is represented as given to any one destitute of faith, or in order to produce faith, according to the requirements of this modern human theory.

      The opposite extreme view or error, held by others, (the "word alone theory" to which I recently referred,) is, that the first step in regeneration, the "begetting," is accomplished entirely by "the word" itself; and that this needs no superadded power of any sort whatever, in order to enable it to accomplish the purpose intended. The advocates of this view affect to rely accordingly upon the "word alone" for the conversion of sinners; and, fortifying themselves with Locke's Philosophy of Human Nature, deny that man can be influenced in any other way than by "motives;" by "words and arguments," presented to his mind. They, accordingly, do not believe that any Holy Spirit is imparted even to believers. They endeavor to explain away the Scriptures which affirm this, as referring merely to that "holy temper" or disposition induced by the reception of the written word; and, in entire harmony with their principles, are sometimes found to deny even that prayer has any influence, except upon the praying individual himself; or, that the soul has any separate existence [279] between death and the resurrection; and to attempt, in other respects likewise, to reduce Christianity to a mere system of Rationalism or Materialism. These views, which are adapted to a certain class of skeptical and philosophical minds, and which constitute, in part, what is called Socinianism, though held, in various degrees and in modified forms, by individuals here and there, have happily made but little progress in religious society; but, so far as they do prevail, are found to be fatal to piety, and utterly destructive of the power of godliness, however clamorous their advocates may be for religious reforms.

      There is, however, a view quite different from both of these, which, while it recognizes the gospel as "the power of God for salvation," regards it as the instrument or means, rather than as the efficient cause. Teaching that though a Paul may plant, and an Apollos water, it is God who gives the increase; it forbears to make a separation between God and His word, or to affirm, with the different theorists above-mentioned, either that God operates directly upon the soul independently of the gospel, or that the word has inherent in itself the power to reach and change the heart. It considers both the "word alone" and the "Spirit alone" theories as equally unscriptural, and deprecates the adoption of any theory whatever, as to the particular manner in which either the word or the Spirit accomplishes its work. Affirming that theories on this subject have nothing to do with the preaching of the gospel, it esteems [280] it the duty of the evangelist simply to preach the word, and leave the event to God; without presuming to adopt, much less urge upon others, any particular philosophy or dogma, in regard to Divine "influence" and "operations," especially as believing in these, or preaching these, has no tendency to promote the conversion of sinners, and they formed no part of the commission given to the apostles, or of the preaching of the primitive evangelists.

      To the individual who is guided by the word of God, and who longs to see an end of the unprofitable controversies which have divided religious society on this question, it will not be difficult to decide which one of the above views of the subject should be chosen. That the last mentioned, and practical view of this matter, ought to be acceptable to all, will appear more fully if it be considered that

      1. It accords with Scripture, in admitting that a Divine agency attends the gospel, and that it is proper for Christians, therefore, to pray for the conversion of sinners in the confident hope that God will, in His own good time and way, grant their requests. It leaves, accordingly, abundant room for the exercise of the prayer of faith, and encourages human effort on behalf of perishing sinners, by a constant dependence upon Divine assistance. The apostles always recognized the Divine power and presence with them in all their labors--the successful issue of which they attributed to God. In setting out upon a mission, they were hence "recommended to the grace of God," and on their return, "they [281] rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." Acts xiv: 27; xv: 4, 7, 14; xvi: 14; xviii: 9, 10, etc.

      2. It does not, like the first theory, presume to dictate and to define, with dogmatic positiveness, that a "special operation of the Spirit" is the one thing, or the only thing needed in order to render the gospel effective. The doctrine of "total hereditary depravity," in its popular acceptation, on which this theory really rests, requires, as a matter of course, this immediate and miraculous exercise of power in every case of conversion alike. The supposed depravity being "total," there are no degrees of it.² [282] The same remedy is demanded equally for all, and the gospel, however it may be presented, is supposed to be so ill adapted to man's condition, that it can [283] produce no saving effect, and can not even be believed, until this "spiritual operation" has been first performed. It is true, indeed, that no one has ever [284] been able to define precisely the nature of this "operation," and there are not a few, who, without having experienced it at all, are, like the eminent Dr. Francis [285] Wayland, admitted to have been converted. Still, the doctrine continues to be insisted on, and is preached to sinners as if it were a most necessary part of the gospel proclamation, and an indispensable preliminary to true belief; and as though it were easier to believe the doctrines of men in regard to this theory, than the testimony of God respecting the gospel. The correct view, on the other hand, while admitting man's alienation from God, embodies in it no such extreme theory of human inability as makes him incapable of believing the gospel upon the Divine evidences which sustain it. Recognizing him truly, as "dead in sins," and in a state of separation from God, it does not conceive him "dead" as respects that reason and understanding to which the gospel [286] addresses itself, and through which it has power to reach the moral nature, if not willfully rejected.³ It regards the power of the gospel as residing in its facts--its truths--in the love of God which it reveals--in the great and precious promises it presents--in the Divine authority which resides in it. An increase of its power would be hence impossible, unless new facts and truths and promises and authority could be added, giving a still higher demonstration of God's love for men, or right to guide them. But as this can not be, the gospel can receive no actual or absolute augmentation of power.

      Prof. Phelps, in his treatise on the "New Birth,"^b has the following just observations in the section treating of "Truth as a Power." "It is difficult," says he, "to mistake the import of the text: 'Of his own will begat He us with the word of, truth.' To [287] the same effect is the psalmist's declaration: 'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.' The entire burden of the 119th Psalm is a tribute of adoration to Truth, as an instrument of Divine purposes. Why was Paul 'not ashamed of the gospel of Christ?' Because 'it is the power of God unto salvation,'" (p. 105.) Upon the instrumentality of Truth as a fact in regeneration, he says. "So far as we can know, God never dispenses with the agency of Truth in renewing the hearts of men. If a question be raised here, it should concern, not the power of God, but the facts of his working. So far as any essential doctrine of Theology is concerned, it may or may not be true that infinite power can regenerate a soul by other instrumentalities, or without the intervention of instrument. For the purposes of a practical faith it may, or may not be true that, in the nature of things, regeneration is an act which, apart from the instrumentality of truth, sustains no relation even to omnipotence. Be it so or be it not, that to the Divine Mind, truth and regeneration--the instrument and the effect--stand in relations of necessity immutable and eternal, like the laws of numbers or of diagrams, we need not affirm or deny. The theological question, if any exists, is a simple question of fact. Does God, in the renewal of a human soul, ever dispense with truth as the instrument of the change?

      "The answer to this question is not wholly unimportant to consistency of faith. It can be given in [288] few words. It is comprised in two positions, which a moment's reflection will establish.

      "One is, that if God does, in any, instance, dispense with, truth as his moral instrument in the new birth, the evidence of this fact must be a subject of pure revelation. Experience, from the nature of the case, can not prove it. No man can intelligently affirm himself to be conscious of a Divine fiat thrilling his nature, making a new man of him, with no instrumental agency, or with other instrumentality than that of truth. The only evidence any man can have from experience, that his heart is changed, is the evidence of actual exercises of heart in view of truth. Divine power in the change is, to all consciousness, so blended with the force of truth,--in other words, the efficient cause so interpenetrates the instrumental cause,--that no mind can intelligently separate them. Indeed, consciousness gives us no hint of the Divine Cause, except through the success of the instrument. I can not go back of my own conscious exercises in view of truth, and affirm that God has changed my heart by sheer will, independently of truth. It is plainly impossible; as absolutely so as that my eye should detect the undulations of sound or my ear those of light. Regeneration, the Divine act, is evidenced to consciousness only by conversion, the human change; and this, again, discloses itself only in responses of the soul to truth. Experience can go no further back than this; and if experience can not, observation can not. If, then, God has ever wrought the renewal of a soul in such [289] anomalous manner as that implied in the inquiry before us, the evidence of the fact must be a subject of direct and supernatural revelation; we can know it only from the Scriptures.

      "The second position, then, in answer to this inquiry, is, that the Scriptures are silent as to the occurrence of any such instance in the history of redemption. They do not explicitly deny, but neither do they affirm. They inform us of many instances of regeneration by means of truth; and of not one without the truth. They proclaim, indubitably, the law of Divine working in this phenomenon of human experience; and they neither, by assertion nor hint, point us to a solitary exception. They record none in the world's history; they predict none in its future. Here, therefore, argument on this topic may legitimately end. In all our positive reasonings upon it we must assume that no such exception exists. In our practical uses of the doctrine we must assume that none will exist to the end of time. We can not logically found any article of our faith on the hypothetical position that the fact is otherwise." Pp. 112-115.

      Prof. Phelps insists, nevertheless, that power is superadded to truth; that truth is "energized by the will of God;" that "over and above all natural tendencies and finite agencies, God performs an act of sovereign power in every change of character from sin to holiness." This is the usual theological view, upon which we need only remark here that since, according to the above reasoning of Prof. P., this [290] special act of Divine power, supposed to be exerted upon the heart, can not be recognized by consciousness or by observation, and is not a matter of revelation, it is, therefore, a mere assumption, a proposition confessedly incapable of proof. Why, then, should this dogma be insisted on, to the disturbance of religious peace and fellowship?

      In another part of his treatise, Prof. P. speaks thus philosophically of the "change of heart:" "This Divine renewal falls into the same plane with other phenomena, in which cause and instrument work blended to one end. The greatness of the change is not violence of change. Supernaturalness of cause is not unnaturalness in effect. Deity in the power is not miracle in the result. In material nature are not the most profound phenomena the most simple? The mightiest forces in the universe are silent forces. Who ever heard the budding of an oak? Who was ever deafened by the falling of the dew? Who was ever stunned by a solar eclipse? So it is with the august phenomena of a change of heart. So far as we know, it is the most radical change a human spirit can experience. Still a change of heart is not an unnatural change. It is never miraculous. It is not necessarily convulsive. It is not necessarily destructive of self-possession. God employs in it an instrument exquisitely adjusted to the mind of man as an intelligent and free being. Truth may act in it with an equipoise of forces as tranquil as that of gravitation in the orbits of the stars." p. 127. If all this be so, then where, I would [291] ask, is the need or utility of the dogma of special spiritual operations? If the Divine influence in regeneration is similar to that exerted in the phenomena of nature, there would be as much propriety in supposing a special superadded influence in the case of every seed that germinates in the earth, as in the case of every one that believes the gospel. If we say that the gospel can not be believed without added power, we would be equally justified in asserting that we can not hear or see, in any case whatever, without added Divine power. Is the sun's light and the human eye so imperfectly adjusted to each other that a special operation is needed in order to see any object ? And if a special act of Divine power is required in every case of regeneration, what is the meaning of the above language that "God employs in it an instrument exquisitely adjusted to the mind of man as an intelligent and free being"? Or of this, that "Divine power in the change is, to all consciousness, so blended with the force of truth, that no mind can intelligently separate them." It may be equally affirmed of every phenomenon of the material universe, of which God is admitted to be the efficient cause, that his adjustments of means to ends are perfect, and that we can not separate the Divine power or presence from the instrumentalities he employs. And if the "phenomenon" of regeneration occupies a similar position, the doctrine of special superadded power in each particular case, would seem wholly to disappear from view, and give place to the regular action of cause and effect, means and ends, under the [292] general influence of that mysterious omnipresent One who sustains the universe, and in whom "we live and move and have our being."

      This, indeed, would be quite a modification of the popular doctrine, but would, really, almost seem to be the view taken by Prof P., from various statements which he makes, as when he avers that "regeneration is never miraculous," and that it is not "an unnatural change," etc. That it really occurs in perfect harmony with the laws of the human mind he, in fact, plainly and interestingly shows, as follows, when speaking of the manner in which Truth acts: "Assuming," says he, "the fact of the invariable instrumentality of Truth in regeneration as far as we know, we are prepared to observe further such intimations as the Scriptures give us respecting the mode in which Truth operates in the change.

      "Here, again, the Bible can scarcely be said to affirm any thing except by implied assumption. One vital principle is thus affirmed: It is that of the coincidence of the operation of truth with the laws of the human mind. Truth is every-where used in the Bible precisely as men are wont to use it in persuasive speech. There is a freedom in its use; there is a skill in its use; there is a mingling of boldness and adroitness in its use; there is a studious care to adjust it to its use; there is a wise control of it, now by utterance, now by reserve, in its use by inspired minds; and there is a confidence, yes, a triumph, in their assertions of its power, which appear to assume that truth has intrinsic fitness to move a human [293] mind; and if to move it, to move it aright; and if to move it aright, to move it in genial consistency with its own laws.

      "Where do we find in the Scriptures disparagement of Truth as a power over unregenerated mind? Where is the proof that the Divine choice of it as an instrument was arbitrary? Where is a hint given of its being a fictitious or a factitious means to the end it is used for? Why should we search for it as for hidden treasure, if intrinsically it has no worth, or if any other instrument divinely chosen could be as worthy? That is not a salutary faith which depreciates the inherent potency of truth. Divine sovereignty gains no honor, and needs none, from the reproach of its instrument. Are God and Truth rivals in our esteem? That is not a rational fear, then, which shrinks from 'means' of regeneration, and especially from 'natural means.' Not so do we read the word of God.

      "The usages of scriptural appeal are conclusive in their implications on this topic. How do inspired men preach? They reason with men; they invite men; they instruct men; they urge men; they entreat men; they warn men; they accumulate and reiterate all the legitimate arts of persuasion in addressing men; as if men, regenerate or unregenerate, elect or non-elect, were proper subjects of persuasion; as if they were complete men in their endowments; and therefore as if it were the normal action of their being to obey the truth. The Bible assumes that man every-where, under all conditions [294] of probation, has intellect which can receive truth, sensibilities which can respond to truth, a will which can act in view of truth and act aright. So far as the philosophy of the operation of truth is concerned, we can not see that the Scriptures make any distinction between fallen and unfallen mind. We can not discover that the methods of speech chosen by Isaiah, Paul, John, are not precisely the same in addressing men before regeneration as after. What is the difference? Where is the proof of it?

      "Nothing but the necessities of a philosophical theory can extract from the Scriptures the dogma that truth is an instrument arbitrarily chosen by divine wisdom, or chosen for unknown reasons, or chosen for no perceptible fitness to move, and move aright, the most guilty and hopeless specimen of depraved mind. True, inspiration preserves a wise silence, in direct instruction, on the whole subject of the philosophy of regeneration; but its assumptions of the correspondence between truth and mind are as unqualified as the boldest assertions could be. So versatile is its use of truth, so many-sided does truth appear in inspired forms, so affluent in its resources, so intricate in its evolutions, yet so direct in its aim, and so exultant in its consciousness of power, that we can not but infer the existence of versatile and profound susceptibilities to that power in the soul to which it is addressed. So exquisite is the mutual adjustment of mind and truth as represented in the biblical forms of speech, that the entire science of persuasion might be illustrated by those [295] forms, even by such as are addressed to fallen, depraved, unregenerate, non-elect souls. The theory of all that the world has felt to be eloquent is realized in them.

      "From the scriptural uses of truth, therefore, we can not but infer that in regeneration its action is perfectly normal to the soul. Truth and mind, in this divine change, come together not as metals held in a vice and riveted; they come as light and the optic nerve. Like seeks its like. Truth acts thus not by contravention, not even by suspension, of the laws of fallen mind. It acts in harmony with those laws, in obedience to those laws, by means of those laws. They are laws which no fall can dislocate. No degree of guilt can suspend them."

      These eloquent utterances of Prof. Phelps, I have given in full, on account of their philosophical justness, and their bearing on the question under consideration. From these, we should certainly infer, that, as truth and mind 'come together, like light and the optic nerve;' and, that as Truth acts 'in harmony with the laws of mind,' and in obedience to these laws, all that is in any case, needed, is to bring mind and Truth into communication, in order to the accomplishment of all desired results. Prof. Phelps, however, is careful to add: "Truth is then God's instrument in effecting a change which it never could of itself effect:" But where is the necessity of such a reservation as this? Is it to make room for the popular notion of superadded Divine power in regeneration, without which all the [296] adaptations and delicate adjustments of mind and truth are supposed to be unavailing? Instrument and agent are here considered apart, just as we might consider the instrumentalities through which God works in Nature, apart from God. So far as any practical question is concerned, there can be no necessity for such a separation, and no utility in it. Especially is it out of place where truth, the instrument in regeneration, is directly addressed, by God himself, to intelligent and moral beings; and when the power, the authority, the wisdom, the veracity, and the revealed love of God, constitute, as in the gospel, the very truth itself by which the effect is to be produced. The gospel is a revelation of God, deriving its power from the very fact that it embodies in it the power, wisdom, goodness,, and authority of God. From these, it is utterly impossible to separate the Gospel, as a proclamation of pardon to guilty rebels, on the part of the King, eternal, immortal, and invisible. The authority from whence it issues, is an essential part of the proclamation itself, and that alone which can give meaning or significance to its terms. Whatever separation may be made in the mind or otherwise, as to truths natural, or mathematical, there is certainly no place for any separation here, and no room for any philosophy which implies superadded power to that which is already "the power of God," or imagines an "energizing of that truth, which, could it be conceived as in any degree devoid of energy, would, that very moment, to the same extent, equally cease to be truth. It is well and truly observed by [297] Prof. Phelps, that "inspiration preserves a wise silence in direct instruction on the whole subject of the philosophy of regeneration," and it is a thousand pities that theology had not imitated this wise reserve. Had it even, in propounding its philosophy, claimed for it nothing more than the human authority on which it rests; had it set it forth merely as an opinion or hypothesis, designed to connect or explain certain facts, its introduction and discussion would have been less injurious. It is, however, by far the worst feature connected with this speculation of "special spiritual operations," that it is brought forward, not as a mere philosophy, but as a dogma; that it is insisted on often as a part of Divine truth itself; made prominent on all occasions; dragged into all discussions; injected into the most irrelevant treatises, and so urged upon the attention of the religious community, as largely to monopolize the interest which attaches to the gospel itself, and even to induce those who earnestly advocate it, to arrogate to themselves almost an exclusive claim to the title of "evangelical." It is a pity that men's minds should have been so perverted by this theory, or that they should with so much complacency take it for granted that it is the only philosophy which can explain regeneration. If certain facts connected with this subject could be explained upon this theory alone, there might be some apology for the persistency with which it is urged. These, however, are explicable upon principles of a different nature, entirely consonant with scripture, reason, and experience. [298]

[OHS 275-298]