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.