Chapter IX: Section II: The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Actual (3)

J. D. Robertson, The Holy Spirit and Christian Service,
57—“Emerson says that the gate of gifts closes at birth. After a
man emerges from his mother’s womb he can have no new endowments,
no fresh increments of strength and wisdom, joy and grace within.
The only grace is the grace of creation. But this view is deistic
and not Christian.” Emerson’s saying is true of natural gifts, but
not of spiritual gifts. He forgot Pentecost. He forgot the all‐
encompassing atmosphere of the divine personality and love, and
its readiness to enter in at every chink and crevice of our
voluntary being. The longing men have to turn over a new leaf in
life’s book, to break with the past, to assert their better
selves, is a preliminary impulse of God’s Spirit and an evidence
of prevenient grace preparing the way for regeneration. Thus
interpreted and yielded to, these impulses warrant unbounded hope
for the future. “No star is ever lost we once have seen; We always
may be what we might have been; The hopes that lost in some far
distance seem May be the truer life, and this the dream.”

The greatest minds feel, at least at times, their need of help
from above. Although Cicero uses the term “regeneration” to
signify what we should call naturalization, yet he recognizes
man’s dependence upon God: “Nemo vir magnus, sine aliquo divino
afflatu, unquam fuit.” Seneca: “Bonus vir sine illo nemo est.”
Aristotle: “Wickedness perverts the judgment and makes men err
with respect to practical principles, so that no man can be wise
and judicious who is not good.” Goethe: “Who ne’er his bread in
sorrow ate, Who ne’er the mournful midnight hours Weeping upon his
bed has sate, He knows you not, ye heavenly Powers.” Shakespeare,
King Lear: “Is there a reason in nature for these hard hearts?”
Robert Browning, in Halbert and Hob, replies: “O Lear, That a
reason out of nature must turn them soft, seems clear.”

John Stuart Mill (see Autobiography, 132‐142) knew that the
feeling of interest in others’ welfare would make him happy,—but
the knowledge of this fact did not give him the feeling. The
“enthusiasm of humanity”—unselfish love, of which we read in “Ecce
Homo”—is easy to talk about; but how to produce it,—that is the
question. Drummond, Natural Law in the Spiritual World,
61‐94—“There is no abiogenesis in the spiritual, more than in the
natural, world. Can the stone grow more and more living until it
enters the organic world? No, Christianity is a new life,—it is
Christ in you.” As natural life comes to us mediately, through
Adam, so spiritual life comes to us mediately, through Christ. See
Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 220‐249; Anderson,
Regeneration, 51‐88; Bennet Tyler, Memoir and Lectures, 340‐354.

3. The Efficient Cause of Regeneration.

Three views only need be considered,—all others are modifications of these. The first view puts the efficient cause of regeneration in the human will; the second, in the truth considered as a system of motives; the third, in the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit.

John Stuart Mill regarded cause as embracing all the antecedents
to an event. Hazard, Man a Creative First Cause, 12‐15, shows
that, as at any given instant the whole past is everywhere the
same, the effects must, upon this view, at each instant be
everywhere one and the same. “The theory that, of every successive
event, the real cause is the whole of the antecedents, does not
distinguish between the passive conditions acted upon and changed,
and the active agencies which act upon and change them; does not
distinguish what _produces_, from what merely _precedes_, change.”

We prefer the definition given by Porter, Human Intellect,
592—Cause is “the most conspicuous and prominent of the agencies,
or conditions, that produce a result”; or that of Dr. Mark
Hopkins: “Any exertion or manifestation of energy that produces a
change is a cause, and nothing else is. We must distinguish cause
from occasion, or material. Cause is not to be defined as
‘everything without which the effect could not be realized.’ ”
Better still, perhaps, may we say, that efficient cause is the
competent producing power by which the effect is secured. James
Martineau, Types, 1: preface, xiii—“A cause is that which
determines the indeterminate.” Not the light, but the
photographer, is the cause of the picture; light is but the
photographer’s servant. So the “_word of God_” is the “_sword of
the Spirit_” (_Eph. 6:17_); the Spirit uses the word as his
instrument; but the Spirit himself is the cause of regeneration.

A. The human will, as the efficient cause of regeneration.

This view takes two forms, according as the will is regarded as acting apart from, or in conjunction with, special influences of the truth applied by God. Pelagians hold the former; Arminians the latter.

(_a_) To the Pelagian view, that regeneration is solely the act of man, and is identical with self‐reformation, we object that the sinner’s depravity, since it consists in a fixed state of the affections which determines the settled character of the volitions, amounts to a moral inability. Without a renewal of the affections from which all moral action springs, man will not choose holiness nor accept salvation.

Man’s volitions are practically the shadow of his affections. It
is as useless to think of a man’s volitions separating themselves
from his affections, and drawing him towards God, as it is to
think of a man’s shadow separating itself from him, and leading
him in the opposite direction to that in which he is going. Man’s
affections, to use Calvin’s words, are like horses that have
thrown off the charioteer and are running wildly,—they need a new
hand to direct them. In disease, we must be helped by a physician.
We do not stop a locomotive engine by applying force to the
wheels, but by reversing the lever. So the change in man must be,
not in the transient volitions, but in the deeper springs of
action—the fundamental bent of the affections and will. See
Henslow, Evolution, 134. Shakespeare, All’s Well that Ends Well,
2:1:149—“It is not so with Him that all things knows, As ’tis with
us that square our guess with shows; But most it is presumption in
us when The help of heaven we count the act of men.”

Henry Clay said that he did not know for himself personally what
the change of heart spoken of by Christians meant; but he had seen
Kentucky family feuds of long standing healed by religious
revivals, and that whatever could heal a Kentucky family feud was
more than human.—Mr. Peter Harvey was a lifelong friend of Daniel
Webster. He wrote a most interesting volume of reminiscenses of
the great man. He tells how one John Colby married the oldest
sister of Mr. Webster. Said Mr. Webster of John Colby: “Finally he
went up to Andover, New Hampshire, and bought a farm, and the only
recollection I have about him is that he was called the wickedest
man in the neighborhood, so far as swearing and impiety went. I
used to wonder how my sister could marry so profane a man as John
Colby.” Years afterwards news comes to Mr. Webster that a
wonderful change has passed upon John Colby. Mr. Harvey and Mr.
Webster take a journey together to visit John Colby. As Mr.
Webster enters John Colby’s house, he sees open before him a
large‐print Bible, which he has just been reading. When greetings
have been interchanged, the first question John Colby asks of Mr.
Webster is, “Are you a Christian?” And then, at John Colby’s
suggestion, the two men kneel and pray together. When the visit is
done, this is what Mr. Webster says to Mr. Harvey as they ride
away: “I should like to know what the enemies of religion would
say to John Colby’s conversion. There was a man as unlikely,
humanly speaking, to become a Christian as any man I ever saw. He
was reckless, heedless, impious, never attended church, never
experienced the good influence of associating with religious
people. And here he has been living on in that reckless way until
he has got to be an old man, until a period of life when you
naturally would not expect his habits to change. And yet he has
been brought into the condition in which we have seen him to‐
day,—a penitent, trusting, humble believer.” “Whatever people may
say,” added Mr. Webster, “nothing can convince me that anything
short of the grace of Almighty God could make such a change as I,
with my own eyes, have witnessed in the life of John Colby.” When
they got back to Franklin, New Hampshire, in the evening, they met
another lifelong friend of Mr. Webster’s, John Taylor, standing at
his door. Mr. Webster called out: “Well, John Taylor, miracles
happen in these latter days as well as in the days of old.” “What
now, Squire?” asked John Taylor. “Why,” replied Mr. Webster, “John
Colby has become a Christian. If that is not a miracle, what is?”

(_b_) To the Arminian view, that regeneration is the act of man, coöperating with divine influences applied through the truth (synergistic theory), we object that no beginning of holiness is in this way conceivable. For, so long as man’s selfish and perverse affections are unchanged, no choosing God is possible but such as proceeds from supreme desire for one’s own interest and happiness. But the man thus supremely bent on self‐gratification cannot see in God, or his service, anything productive of happiness; or, if he could see in them anything of advantage, his choice of God and his service from such a motive would not be a holy choice, and therefore could not be a beginning of holiness.

Although Melanchthon (1497‐1560) preceded Arminius (1560‐1609),
his view was substantially the same with that of the Dutch
theologian. Melanchthon never experienced the throes and travails
of a new spiritual life, as Luther did. His external and internal
development was peculiarly placid and serene. This Præceptor
Germaniæ had the modesty of the genuine scholar. He was not a
dogmatist, and he never entered the ranks of the ministry. He
never could be persuaded to accept the degree of Doctor of
Theology, though he lectured on theological subjects to audiences
of thousands. Dorner says of Melanchthon: “He held at first that
the Spirit of God is the primary, and the word of God the
secondary, or instrumental, agency in conversion, while the human
will allows their action and freely yields to it.” Later, he held
that “conversion is the result of the combined action
(_copulatio_) of three causes, the truth of God, the Holy Spirit,
and the will of man.” This synergistic view in his last years
involved the theologian of the German Reformation in serious
trouble. Luthardt: “He made a _facultas_ out of a mere
_capacitas_.” Dorner says again: “Man’s causality is not to be
coördinated with that of God, however small the influence ascribed
to it. It is a purely _receptive_, not a productive, agency. The
opposite is the fundamental Romanist error.” Self‐love will never
induce a man to give up self‐love. Selfishness will not throttle
and cast out selfishness. “Such a choice from a selfish motive
would be unholy, when judged by God’s standard. It is absurd to
make salvation depend upon the exercises of a wholly unspiritual
power”; see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:716‐720 (Syst. Doct.,
4:179‐183). Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:505—“Sin does not first stop,
and then holiness come in place of sin; but holiness positively
expels sin. Darkness does not first cease, and then light enter;
but light drives out darkness.” On the Arminian view, see Bib.
Sac., 19:265, 266.

John Wesley’s theology was a modified Arminianism, yet it was John
Wesley who did most to establish the doctrine of regeneration. He
asserted that the Holy Spirit acts through the truth, in
distinction from the doctrine that the Holy Spirit works solely
through the ministers and sacraments of the church. But in
asserting the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual soul, he
went too far to the opposite extreme of emphasizing the ability of
man to choose God’s service, when without love to God there was
nothing in God’s service to attract. A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith:
“It is as if Jesus had said: If a sailor will properly set his
rudder the wind will fill his sails. The will is the rudder of the
character; if it is turned in the right direction, all the winds
of heaven will favor; if it is turned in the wrong direction, they
will oppose.” The question returns: What shall move the man to set
his rudder aright, if he has no desire to reach the proper haven?
Here is the need of divine power, not merely to coöperate with
man, after man’s will is set in the right direction, but to set it
in the right direction in the first place. _Phil. 2:13_—“_it is
God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
pleasure._”

Still another modification of Arminian doctrine is found in the
Revealed Theology of N. W. Taylor of New Haven, who maintained
that, antecedently to regeneration, the _selfish_ principle is
suspended in the sinner’s heart, and that then, prompted by _self‐
love_, he uses the means of regeneration from motives that are
neither sinful nor holy. He held that all men, saints and sinners,
have their own happiness for their ultimate end. Regeneration
involves no change in this principle or motive, but only a change
in the governing purpose to seek this happiness in God rather than
in the world. Dr. Taylor said that man could turn to God, whatever
the Spirit did or did not do. He could turn to God if he would;
but he could also turn to God if he wouldn’t. In other words, he
maintained the power of contrary choice, while yet affirming the
certainty that, without the Holy Spirit’s influences, man would
always choose wrongly. These doctrines caused a division in the
Congregational body. Those who opposed Taylor withdrew their
support from New Haven, and founded the East Windsor Seminary in
1834. For Taylor’s view, see N. W. Taylor, Revealed Theology,
369‐406, and in The Christian Spectator for 1829.

The chief opponent of Dr. Taylor was Dr. Bennet Tyler. He replied
to Dr. Taylor that moral character has its seat, not in the
purpose, but in the affections back of the purpose. Otherwise
every Christian must be in a state of sinless perfection, for his
governing purpose is to serve God. But we know that there are
affections and desires not under control of this
purpose—dispositions not in conformity with the predominant
disposition. How, Dr. Tyler asked, can a sinner, completely
selfish, from a selfish motive, resolve not to be selfish, and so
suspend his selfishness? “Antecedently to regeneration, there can
be no suspension of the selfish principle. It is said that, in
suspending it, the sinner is actuated by self‐love. But is it
possible that the sinner, while destitute of love to God and every
particle of genuine benevolence, should love himself at all and
not love himself supremely? He loves nothing more than self. He
does not regard God or the universe, except as they tend to
promote his ultimate end, his own happiness. No sinner ever
suspended this selfishness until subdued by divine grace. We can
not become regenerate by preferring God to the world merely from
regard to our own interest. There is no necessity of the Holy
Spirit to renew the heart, if self‐love prompts men to turn from
the world to God. On the view thus combated, depravity consists
simply in ignorance. All men need is enlightenment as to the best
means of securing their own happiness. Regeneration by the Holy
Spirit is, therefore, not necessary.” See Bennet Tyler, Memoir and
Lectures, 316‐381, esp. 334, 370, 371; Letters on the New Haven
Theology, 21‐72, 143‐163; review of Taylor and Fitch, by E. D.
Griffin, Divine Efficiency, 13‐54; Martineau, Study, 2:9—“By
making it a man’s interest to be disinterested, do you cause him
to forget himself and put any love into his heart? or do you only
break him in and cause him to turn this way and that by the bit
and lash of a driving necessity?” The sinner, apart from the grace
of God, cannot see the truth. Wilberforce took Pitt to hear Cecil
preach, but Pitt declared that he did not understand a word that
Cecil said. Apart from the grace of God, the sinner, even when
made to see the truth, resists it the more, the more clearly he
sees it. Then the Holy Spirit overcomes his opposition and makes
him willing in the day of God’s power (_Psalm 110:3_).

B. The truth, as the efficient cause of regeneration.

According to this view, the truth as a system of motives is the direct and immediate cause of the change from unholiness to holiness. This view is objectionable for two reasons:

(_a_) It erroneously regards motives as wholly external to the mind that is influenced by them. This is to conceive of them as mechanically constraining the will, and is indistinguishable from necessitarianism. On the contrary, motives are compounded of external presentations and internal dispositions. It is the soul’s affections which render certain suggestions attractive and others repugnant to us. In brief, the heart makes the motive.

(_b_) Only as truth is loved, therefore, can it be a motive to holiness. But we have seen that the aversion of the sinner to God is such that the truth is hated instead of loved, and a thing that is hated, is hated more intensely, the more distinctly it is seen. Hence no mere power of the truth can be regarded as the efficient cause of regeneration. The contrary view implies that it is not the truth which the sinner hates, but rather some element of error which is mingled with it.

Lyman Beecher and Charles G. Finney held this view. The influence
of the Holy Spirit differs from that of the preacher only in
degree,—both use only moral suasion; both do nothing more than to
present the truth; both work upon the soul from without. “Were I
as eloquent as the Holy Ghost, I could convert sinners as well as
he,” said a popular preacher of this school (see Bennet Tyler,
Letters on New Haven Theology, 164‐171). On this view, it would be
absurd to pray to God to regenerate, for that is more than he can
do,—regeneration is simply the effect of truth.

Miley, in Meth. Quar., July, 1881:434‐462, holds that “the will
cannot rationally act without motive, but that it has always power
to suspend action, or defer it, for the purpose of rational
examination of the motive or end, and to consider the opposite
motive or end. Putting the old end or motive out of view will
temporarily break its power, and the new truth considered will
furnish motive for right action. Thus, by using our faculty of
suspending choice, and of fixing attention, we can realize the
permanent eligibility of the good and choose it against the evil.
This is, however, not the realization of a new spiritual life in
regeneration, but the election of its attainment. Power to do this
suspending is of grace [grace, however, given equally to all].
Without this power, life would be a spontaneous and irresponsible
development of evil.”

The view of Miley, thus substantially given, resembles that of Dr.
Taylor, upon which we have already commented; but, unlike that, it
makes truth itself, apart from the affections, a determining
agency in the change from sin to holiness. Our one reply is that,
without a change in the affections, the truth can neither be known
nor obeyed. Seeing cannot be the means of being born again, for
one must first be born again in order to see the kingdom of God
(_John 3:3_). The mind will not choose God, until God appears to
be the greatest good.

Edwards, quoted by Griffin, Divine Efficiency, 64—“Let the sinner
apply his rational powers to the contemplation of divine things,
and let his belief be speculatively correct; still he is in such a
state that those objects of contemplation will excite in him no
holy affections.” The Scriptures declare (_Rom. 8:7_) that “_the
mind of the flesh is enmity_”—not against some error or mistaken
notion of God—but “_is enmity against God_.” It is God’s holiness,
mandatory and punitive, that is hated. A clearer view of that
holiness will only increase the hatred. A woman’s hatred of
spiders will never be changed to love by bringing them close to
her. Magnifying them with a compound oxy‐hydrogen microscope will
not help the matter. Tyler: “All the light of the last day will
not subdue the sinner’s heart.” The mere presence of God, and
seeing God face to face, will be hell to him, if his hatred be not
first changed to love. See E. D. Griffin, Divine Efficiency,
105‐116, 203‐221; and review of Griffin, by S. R. Mason, Truth
Unfolded, 383‐407.

Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 239—“Christianity puts
three motives before men: love, self‐love, and fear.” True, but
the last two are only preliminary motives, not essentially
Christian. The soul that is moved only by self‐love or by fear has
not yet entered into the Christian life at all. And any attention
to the truth of God which originates in these motives has no
absolute moral value, and cannot be regarded as even a beginning
of salvation. Nothing but holiness and love are entitled to be
called Christianity, and these the truth of itself cannot summon
up. The Spirit of God must go with the truth to impart right
desires and to make the truth effective. E. G. Robinson: “The
glory of our salvation can no more be attributed to the word of
God only, than the glory of a Praxiteles or a Canova can be
ascribed to the chisel or the mallet with which he wrought into
beauty his immortal creations.”

C. The immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, as the efficient cause of regeneration.

In ascribing to the Holy Spirit the authorship of regeneration, we do not affirm that the divine Spirit accomplishes his work without any accompanying instrumentality. We simply assert that the power which regenerates is the power of God, and that although conjoined with the use of means, there is a direct operation of this power upon the sinner’s heart which changes its moral character. We add two remarks by way of further explanation:

(_a_) The Scriptural assertions of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and of his mighty power in the soul forbid us to regard the divine Spirit in regeneration as coming in contact, not with the soul, but only with the truth. The phrases, “to energize the truth,” “to intensify the truth,” “to illuminate the truth,” have no proper meaning; since even God cannot make the truth more true. If any change is wrought, it must be wrought, not in the truth, but in the soul.

The maxim, “Truth is mighty and will prevail,” is very untrue, if
God be left out of the account. Truth without God is an
abstraction, and not a power. It is a mere instrument, useless
without an agent. “_The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of
God_” (_Eph. 6:17_), must be wielded by the Holy Spirit himself.
And the Holy Spirit comes in contact, not simply with the
instrument, but with the soul. To all moral, and especially to all
religious truth, there is an inward unsusceptibility, arising from
the perversity of the affections and the will. This blindness and
hardness of heart must be removed, before the soul can perceive or
be moved by the truth. Hence the Spirit must deal directly with
the soul. Denovan: “Our natural hearts are hearts of stone. The
word of God is good seed sown on the hard, trodden, macadamized
highway, which the horses of passion, the asses of self‐will, the
wagons of imaginary treasure, have made impenetrable. Only the
Holy Spirit can soften and pulverize this soil.”

The Psalmist prays: “_Incline my heart unto thy testimonies_”
(_Ps. 119:36_), while of Lydia it is said: “_whose heart the Lord
opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul_”
(_Acts 16:14_). We may say of the Holy Spirit: “He freezes and
then melts the soil, He breaks the hard, cold stone, Kills out the
rooted weeds so vile,—All this he does alone; And every virtue we
possess, And every victory won, And every thought of holiness, Are
his, and his alone.” Hence, in _Ps. 90:16, 17_, the Psalmist says,
first: “_Let thy work appear unto thy servants_”; then “_establish
thou the work of our hands upon us_”—God’s work is first to
appear,—then man’s work, which is God’s work carried out by human
instruments. At Jericho, the force was not applied to the rams’
horns, but to the walls. When Jesus healed the blind man, his
power was applied, not to the spittle, but to the eyes. The
impression is prepared, not by heating the seal, but by softening
the wax. So God’s power acts, not upon the truth, but upon the
sinner.

_Ps. 59:10_—“_My God with his lovingkindness will meet me_”; A.
V.—“_The God of my mercy shall prevent me_,” _i. e._, go before
me. Augustine urges this text as proof that the grace of God
precedes all merit of man: “What didst thou find in me but only
sins? Before I do anything good, his mercy will go before me. What
will unhappy Pelagius answer here?” Calvin however says this may
be a pious, but it is not a fair, use of the passage. The passage
does teach dependence upon God; but God’s anticipation of our
action, or in other words, the doctrine of prevenient grace, must
be derived from other portions of Scripture, such as _John 1:13_,
and _Eph. 2:10_. “The enthusiasm of humanity” to which J. R.
Seeley, the author of Ecce Homo, exhorts us, is doubtless the
secret of happiness and usefulness,—unfortunately he does not tell
us whence it may come. John Stuart Mill felt the need of it, but
he did not get it. Arthur Hugh Clough, Clergyman’s First Tale:
“Would I could wish my wishes all to rest, And know to wish the
wish that were the best.” Bradford, Heredity, 228—“God is the
environment of the soul, yet man has free will. Light fills the
spaces, yet a man from ignorance may remain in a cave, or from
choice may dwell in darkness.” Man needs therefore a divine
influence which will beget in him a disposition to use his
opportunities aright.

We may illustrate the philosophy of revivals by the canal boat
which lies before the gate of a lock. No power on earth can open
the lock. But soon the lock begins to fill, and when the water has
reached the proper level, the gate can be opened almost at a
touch. Or, a steamer runs into a sandbar. Tugs fail to pull the
vessel off. Her own engines cannot accomplish it. But when the
tide comes in, she swings free without effort. So what we need in
religion is an influx of spiritual influence which will make easy
what before is difficult if not impossible. The Superintendent of
a New York State Prison tells us that the common schools furnish
83 per cent., and the colleges and academies over 4 per cent., of
the inmates of Auburn and Sing Sing. Truth without the Holy Spirit
to apply it is like sunshine without the actinic ray which alone
can give it vitalizing energy.

(_b_) Even if truth could be energized, intensified, illuminated, there would still be needed a change in the moral disposition, before the soul could recognize its beauty or be affected by it. No mere increase of light can enable a blind man to see; the disease of the eye must first be cured before external objects are visible. So God’s work in regeneration must be performed within the soul itself. Over and above all influence of the truth, there must be a direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart. Although wrought in conjunction with the presentation of truth to the intellect, regeneration differs from moral suasion in being an immediate act of God.

Before regeneration, man’s knowledge of God is the blind man’s
knowledge of color. The Scriptures call such knowledge
“_ignorance_” (_Eph. 4:18_). The heart does not appreciate God’s
mercy. Regeneration gives an experimental or heart knowledge; see
Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:495. _Is. 50:4_—God “_wakeneth mine ear to
hear_.” It is false to say that soul can come in contact with soul
only through the influence of truth. In the intercourse of dear
friends, or in the discourse of the orator, there is a personal
influence, distinct from the word spoken, which persuades the
heart and conquers the will. We sometimes call it “magnetism,”—but
we mean simply that soul reaches soul, in ways apart from the use
of physical intermediaries. Compare the facts, imperfectly known
as yet, of second sight, mind‐reading, clairvoyance. But whether
these be accepted or not, it still is true that God has not made
the human soul so that it is inaccessible to himself. The
omnipresent Spirit penetrates and pervades all spirits that have
been made by him. See Lotze, Outlines of Psychology (Ladd), 142,
143.

In the primary change of disposition, which is the most essential
feature of regeneration, the Spirit of God acts directly upon the
spirit of man. In the securing of the initial exercise of this new
disposition—which constitutes the secondary feature of God’s work
of regeneration—the truth is used as a means. Hence, perhaps, in
_James 1:18_, we read: “_Of his own will he brought us forth by
the word of truth_” instead of “he begat us by the word of
truth,”—the reference being to the secondary, not to the primary,
feature of regeneration. The advocates of the opposite view—the
view that God works _only_ through the truth as a means, and that
his _only_ influence upon the soul is a moral influence—very
naturally deny the mystical union of the soul with Christ. Squier,
for example, in his Autobiog., 343‐378, esp. 360, on the Spirit’s
influences, quotes _John 16:8_—he “_will convict the world in
respect of sin_”—to show that God regenerates by applying truth to
men’s minds, so far as to convince them, by fair and sufficient
arguments, that they are sinners.

Christ, opening blind eyes and unstopping deaf ears, illustrates
the nature of God’s operation in regeneration,—in the case of the
blind, there is plenty of _light_,—what is wanted is _sight_. The
negro convert said that his conversion was due to himself and God:
he fought against God with all his might, and God did the rest. So
our moral successes are due to ourselves and God,—we have done
only the fighting against God, and God has done the rest. The sand
of Sahara would not bring forth flowers and fruit, even if you
turned into it a hundred rivers like the Nile. Man may hear
sermons for a lifetime, and still be barren of all spiritual
growths. The soil of the heart needs to be changed, and the good
seed of the kingdom needs to be planted there.

For the view that truth is “energized” or “intensified” by the
Holy Spirit, see Phelps, New Birth, 61, 121; Walker, Philosophy of
Plan of Salvation, chap. 18. _Per contra_, see Wardlaw, Syst.
Theol., 3:24, 25; E. D. Griffin, Divine Efficiency, 73‐116;
Anderson, Regeneration, 123‐168; Edwards, Works, 2:547‐597;
Chalmers, Lectures on Romans, chap. 1; Payne, Divine Sovereignty,
lect. 23:363‐367; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 3:3‐37, 466‐485. On the
whole subject of the Efficient Cause of Regeneration, see Hopkins,
Works, 1:454; Dwight, Theology, 2:418‐429; John Owen, Works,
3:282‐297, 366‐538; Robert Hall, Sermon on the Cause, Agent, and
Purpose of Regeneration.

4. The Instrumentality used in Regeneration.

A. The Roman, English and Lutheran churches hold that regeneration is accomplished through the instrumentality of baptism. The Disciples, or followers of Alexander Campbell, make regeneration include baptism, as well as repentance and faith. To the view that baptism is a means of regeneration we urge the following objections:

(_a_) The Scriptures represent baptism to be not the means but only the sign of regeneration, and therefore to presuppose and follow regeneration. For this reason only believers—that is, persons giving credible evidence of being regenerated—were baptized (Acts 8:12). Not external baptism, but the conscientious turning of the soul to God which baptism symbolizes, saves us (1 Pet. 3:21—συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα). Texts like John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Col. 2:12, Tit. 3:5, are to be explained upon the principle that regeneration, the inward change, and baptism, the outward sign of that change, were regarded as only different sides or aspects of the same fact, and either side or aspect might therefore be described in terms derived from the other.

(_b_) Upon this view, there is a striking incongruity between the nature of the change to be wrought and the means employed to produce it. The change is a spiritual one, but the means are physical. It is far more rational to suppose that, in changing the character of intelligent beings, God uses means which have relation to their intelligence. The view we are considering is part and parcel of a general scheme of mechanical rather than moral salvation, and is more consistent with a materialistic than with a spiritual philosophy.

_Acts 8:12_—“_when they believed Philip preaching good tidings
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were baptized_”; _1 Pet. 3:21_—“_which also after a true likeness
doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the interrogation_ [marg.—‘_inquiry_’,
‘_appeal_’] _of a good conscience toward God_” = the inquiry of
the soul after God, the conscientious turning of the soul to God.

Plumptre, however, makes ἐπερώτημα a forensic term equivalent to
“examination,” and including both question and answer. It means,
then, the open answer of allegiance to Christ, given by the new
convert to the constituted officers of the church. “That which is
of the essence of the saving power of baptism is the confession
and the profession which precede it. If this comes from a
conscience that really renounces sin and believes on Christ, then
baptism, as the channel through which the grace of the new birth
is conveyed and the convert admitted into the church of Christ,
‘saves us,’ but not otherwise.” We may adopt this statement from
Plumptre’s Commentary, with the alteration of the word “conveyed”
into “symbolized” or “manifested.” Plumptre’s interpretation is,
as he seems to admit, in its obvious meaning inconsistent with
infant baptism; to us it seems equally inconsistent with any
doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Scriptural regeneration is God’s (1) changing man’s disposition,
and (2) securing its first exercise. Regeneration, according to
the Disciples, is man’s (1) repentance and faith, and (2)
submission to baptism. Alexander Campbell, Christianity Restored:
“We plead that all the converting power of the Holy Spirit is
exhibited in the divine Record.” Address of Disciples to Ohio
Baptist State Convention, 1871: “With us regeneration includes all
that is comprehended in faith, repentance, and baptism, and so far
as it is expressive of birth, it belongs more properly to the last
of these than to either of the former.” But if baptism be the
instrument of regeneration, it is difficult to see how the
patriarchs, or the penitent thief, could have been regenerated.
_Luke 23:43_—“_This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise._”
Bossuet: “_This day_”—what promptitude! “_With me_”—what
companionship! “_In Paradise_”—what rest! Bersier: “ ‘_This
day_’—what then? no flames of Purgatory? no long period of
mournful expiation? ‘_This day_’—pardon and heaven!”

Baptism is a condition of being outwardly in the kingdom; it is
not a condition of being inwardly in the kingdom. The confounding
of these two led many in the early church to dread dying
unbaptized, rather than dying unsaved. Even Pascal, in later
times, held that participation in outward ceremonies might lead to
real conversion. He probably meant that an initial act of holy
will would tend to draw others in its train. Similarly we urge
unconverted people to take some step that will manifest religious
interest. We hope that in taking this step a new decision of the
will, inwrought by the Spirit of God, may reveal itself. But a
religion which consists only in such outward performances is
justly denominated a cutaneous religion, for it is only skin‐deep.
On _John 3:5_—“_Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God_”; _Acts 2:38_—“_Repent ye,
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto
the remission of your sins_”; _Col. 2:12_—“_buried with him in
baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith_”;
_Tit. 3:5_—“_saved us, through the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Spirit_”—see further discussion and
exposition in our chapter on the Ordinances. Adkins, Disciples and
Baptists, a booklet published by the Am. Bap. Pub. Society, is the
best statement of the Baptist position, as distinguished from that
of the Disciples. It claims that Disciples overrate the externals
of Christianity and underrate the work of the Holy Spirit. _Per
contra_, see Gates, Disciples and Baptists.

B. The Scriptural view is that regeneration, so far as it secures an activity of man, is accomplished through the instrumentality of the truth. Although the Holy Spirit does not in any way illuminate the truth, he does illuminate the mind, so that it can perceive the truth. In conjunction with the change of man’s inner disposition, there is an appeal to man’s rational nature through the truth. Two inferences may be drawn:

(_a_) Man is not wholly passive at the time of his regeneration. He is passive only with respect to the change of his ruling disposition. With respect to the exercise of this disposition, he is active. Although the efficient power which secures this exercise of the new disposition is the power of God, yet man is not therefore unconscious, nor is he a mere machine worked by God’s fingers. On the other hand, his whole moral nature under God’s working is alive and active. We reject the “exercise‐system,” which regards God as the direct author of all man’s thoughts, feelings, and volitions, not only in its general tenor, but in its special application to regeneration.

Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:503—“A dead man cannot assist in his own
resurrection.” This is true so far as the giving of life is
concerned. But once made alive, man can, like Lazarus, obey
Christ’s command and “_come forth_” (_John 11:43_). In fact, if he
does not obey, there is no evidence that there is spiritual life.
“In us is God; we burn but as he moves”—“Est deus in nobis;
agitante calescimus illo.” Wireless telegraphy requires an attuned
receiver; regeneration attunes the soul so that it vibrates
responsively to God and receives the communications of his truth.
When a convert came to Rowland Hill and claimed that she had been
converted in a dream, he replied: “We will see how you walk, now
that you are awake.”

Lord Bacon said he would open every one of Argus’s hundred eyes,
before he opened one of Briareus’s hundred hands. If God did not
renew men’s hearts in connection with our preaching of the truth,
we might well give up our ministry. E. G. Robinson: “The
conversion of a soul is just as much according to law as the
raising of a crop of turnips.” Simon, Reconciliation, 377—“Though
the mere preaching of the gospel is not the _cause_ of the
conversion and revivification of men, it is a necessary
_condition_—as necessary as the action of light and heat, or other
physical agencies, are on a germ, if it is to develop, grow, and
bear its proper fruit.”

(_b_) The activity of man’s mind in regeneration is activity in view of the truth. God secures the initial exercise of the new disposition which he has wrought in man’s heart in connection with the use of truth as a means. Here we perceive the link between the efficiency of God and the activity of man. Only as the sinner’s mind is brought into contact with the truth, does God complete his regenerating work. And as the change of inward disposition and the initial exercise of it are never, so far as we know, separated by any interval of time, we can say, in general, that Christian work is successful only as it commends the truth to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).

In _Eph. 1:17, 18_, there is recognized the divine illumination of
the mind to behold the truth—“_may give unto you a spirit of
wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of
your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his
calling_” On truth as a means of regeneration, see Hovey,
Outlines, 192, who quotes Cunningham, Historical Theology,
1:617—“Regeneration may be taken in a limited sense as including
only the first impartation of spiritual life ... or it may be
taken in a wider sense as comprehending the whole of that process
by which he is renewed or made over again in the whole man after
the image of God,—_i. e._, as including the production of saving
faith and union to Christ. Only in the first sense did the
Reformers maintain that man in the process was wholly passive and
not active; for they did not dispute that, before the process in
the second and more enlarged sense was completed, man was
spiritually alive and active, and continued so ever after during
the whole process of his sanctification.”

Dr. Hovey suggests an apt illustration of these two parts of the
Holy Spirit’s work and their union in regeneration: At the same
time that God makes the photographic plate sensitive, he pours in
the light of truth whereby the image of Christ is formed in the
soul. Without the “sensitizing” of the plate, it would never fix
the rays of light so as to retain the image. In the process of
“sensitizing,” the plate is passive; under the influence of light,
it is active. In both the “sensitizing” and the taking of the
picture, the real agent is not the plate nor the light, but the
photographer. The photographer cannot perform both operations at
the same moment. God can. He gives the new affection, and at the
same instant he secures its exercise in view of the truth.

For denial of the instrumentality of truth in regeneration, see
Pierce, in Bap. Quar., Jan. 1872:52. _Per contra_, see Anderson,
Regeneration, 89‐122. H. B. Smith holds middle ground. He says:
“In adults it [regeneration] is wrought most frequently by the
word of God as the instrument. Believing that infants may be
regenerated, we cannot assert that it is tied to the word of God
absolutely.” We prefer to say that, if infants are regenerated,
they also are regenerated in conjunction with some influence of
truth upon the mind, dim as the recognition of it may be.
Otherwise we break the Scriptural connection between regeneration
and conversion, and open the way for faith in a physical, magical,
sacramental salvation. Squier, Autobiog., 368, says well, of the
theory of regeneration which makes man purely passive, that it has
a benumbing effect upon preaching: “The lack of expectation
unnerves the efforts of the preacher; an impression of the
fortuitous presence neutralizes his engagedness. This antinomian
dependence on the Spirit extracts all vitality from the pulpit and
sense of responsibility from the hearer, and makes preaching an
_opus operatum_, like the baptismal regeneration of the
formalist.” Only of the first element in regeneration are Shedd’s
words true: “A dead man cannot assist in his own resurrection”
(Dogm. Theol., 2:503).

Squier goes to the opposite extreme of regarding the truth alone
as the cause of regeneration. His words are none the less a
valuable protest against the view that regeneration is so entirely
due to God that in no part of it is man active. It was with a
better view that Luther cried: “O that we might multiply living
books, that is, preachers!” And the preacher is successful only as
he possesses and unfolds the truth. John took the little book from
the Covenant‐angel’s hand and ate it (_Rev. 10:8‐11_). So he who
is to preach God’s truth must feed upon it, until it has become
his own. For the Exercise‐system, see Emmons, Works, 4:339‐411;
Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:439.

5. The Nature of the Change wrought in Regeneration.

A. It is a change in which the governing disposition is made holy. This implies that:

(_a_) It is not a change in the substance of either body or soul. Regeneration is not a physical change. There is no physical seed or germ implanted in man’s nature. Regeneration does not add to, or subtract from, the number of man’s intellectual, emotional or voluntary faculties. But regeneration is the giving of a new direction or tendency to powers of affection which man possessed before. Man had the faculty of love before, but his love was supremely set on self. In regeneration the direction of that faculty is changed, and his love is now set supremely upon God.

_Eph. 2:10_—“_created in Christ Jesus for good works_”—does not
imply that the old soul is annihilated, and a new soul created.
The “_old man_” which is “_crucified_”—(_Rom. 6:6_) and “_put
away_” (_Eph. 4:22_) is simply the sinful bent of the affections
and will. When this direction of the dispositions is changed, and
becomes holy, we can call the change a new birth of the old
nature, because the same _faculties_ that acted before are acting
now, the only difference being that now these faculties are set
toward God and purity. Or, regarding the change from another point
of view, we may speak of man as having a “new nature,” as
“recreated,” as being a “new creature,” because this _direction_
of the affection and will, which ensures a different life from
what was led before, is something totally new, and due wholly to
the regenerating act of God. In _1 Pet. 1:23_—“_begotten again,
not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible_”—all materialistic
inferences from the word “_seed_,” as if it implied the
implantation of a physical germ, are prevented by the following
explanatory words: “_through the word of God, which liveth and
abideth_.”

So, too, when we describe regeneration as the communication of a
new life to the soul, we should not conceive of this new life as a
_substance_ imparted or infused into us. The new life is rather a
new direction and activity of our own affections and will. There
is, indeed a union of the soul with Christ; Christ dwells in the
renewed heart; Christ’s entrance into the soul is the _cause_ and
_accompaniment_ of its regeneration. But this entrance of Christ
into the soul is not _itself_ regeneration. We must distinguish
the effect from the cause; otherwise we shall be in danger of a
pantheistic confounding of our own personality and life with the
personality and life of Christ. Christ is indeed our life, in the
sense of being the cause and supporter of our life, but he is not
our life in the sense that, after our union with him, our
individuality ceases. The effect of union with Christ is rather
that our individuality is enlarged and exalted (_John 10:10_—“_I
came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly._” See
page 799, (_c_)).

We must therefore take with a grain of allowance the generally
excellent words of A. J. Gordon, Twofold Life, 22—“Regeneration is
the communication of the divine nature to man by the operation of
the Holy Spirit through the word (_2 Pet. 1:4_).... As Christ was
made partaker of human nature by incarnation, that so he might
enter into truest fellowship with us, we are made partakers of the
divine nature, by regeneration, that we may enter into truest
fellowship with God. Regeneration is not a change of nature, _i.
e._, a natural heart bettered. Eternal life is not natural life
prolonged into endless duration. It is the divine life imparted to
us, the very life of God communicated to the human soul, and
bringing forth there its proper fruit.” Dr. Gordon’s view that
regeneration adds a new substance or faculty to the soul is the
result of literalizing the Scripture metaphors of creation and
life. This turning of symbol into fact accounts for his tendency
toward annihilation doctrine in the case of the unregenerate,
toward faith cure and the belief that all physical evils can be
removed by prayer. E. H. Johnson, The Holy Spirit: “Regeneration
is a change, not in the quantity, but in the quality, of the
soul.” E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 320—“Regeneration
consists in a divinely wrought change in the moral affections.”

So, too, we would criticize the doctrine of Drummond, Nat. Law in
the Spir. World: “People forget the persistence of force. Instead
of transforming energy, they try to create it. We must either
depend on environment, or be self‐sufficient. The ‘cannot _bear
fruit of itself_’ (_John 15:4_) is the ‘_cannot_’ of natural law.
Natural fruit flourishes with air and sunshine. The difference
between the Christian and the non‐Christian is the difference
between the organic and the inorganic. The Christian has all the
characteristics of life: assimilation, waste, reproduction,
spontaneous action.” See criticism of Drummond, by Murphy, in
Brit. Quar., 1884:118‐125—“As in resurrection there is a physical
connection with the old body, so in regeneration there is a
natural connection with the old soul.” Also, Brit. Quar., July,
1880, art.: Evolution Viewed in Relation to Theology—“The
regenerating agency of the Spirit of God is symbolized, not by the
vitalization of dead matter, but by the agency of the organizing
intelligence which guides the evolution of living beings.”
Murphy’s answer to Drummond is republished. Murphy’s Natural
Selection and Spiritual Freedom, 1‐33—“The will can no more create
force, either muscular or mental, than it can create matter. And
it is equally true that for our spiritual nourishment and
spiritual force we are altogether dependent on our spiritual
environment, which is God.” In “dead matter” there is no sin.

Drummond would imply that, as matter has no promise or potency of
life and is not responsible for being without life (or “dead,” to
use his misleading word), and if it ever is to live must wait for
the life‐giving influence to come unsought, so the human soul is
not responsible for being spiritually dead, cannot seek for life,
must passively wait for the Spirit. Plymouth Brethren generally
hold the same view with Drummond, that regeneration _adds_
something—as _vitality_—to the substance of the soul. Christ is
transsubstantiated into the soul’s substance; or, the πνεῦμα is
added. But we have given over talking of vitality, as if it were a
substance or faculty. We regard it as merely a mode of action.
Evolution, moreover, uses what already exists, so far as it will
go, instead of creating new; as in the miracle of the loaves, and
as in the original creation of man, so in his recreation or
regeneration. Dr. Charles Hodge also makes the same mistake in
calling regeneration an “origination of the principle of the
spirit of life, just as literal and real a creation as the
origination of the principle of natural life.” This, too,
literalizes Scripture metaphor, and ignores the fact that the
change accomplished in regeneration is an exclusively moral one.
There is indeed a new entrance of Christ into the soul, or a new
exercise of his spiritual power within the soul. But the effect of
Christ’s working is not to add any new faculty or substance, but
only to give new direction to already existing powers.

(_b_) Regeneration involves an enlightenment of the understanding and a rectification of the volitions. But it seems most consonant with Scripture and with a correct psychology to regard these changes as immediate and necessary consequences of the change of disposition already mentioned, rather than as the primary and central facts in regeneration. The taste for truth logically precedes perception of the truth, and love for God logically precedes obedience to God; indeed, without love no obedience is possible. Reverse the lever of affection, and this moral locomotive, without further change, will move away from sin, and toward truth and God.

Texts which seem to imply that a right taste, disposition,
affection, logically precedes both knowledge of God and obedience
to God, are the following: _Ps. 34:8_—“_Oh taste and see that
Jehovah is good_”; _119:36_—“_Incline my heart unto thy
testimonies_”; _Jer. 24:7_—“_I will give them a heart to know
me_”; _Mat. 5:8_—“_Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall
see God_”; _John 7:17_—“_If any man willeth to do his will, he
shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God_”; _Acts
16:14_—of Lydia it is said: “_whose heart the Lord opened to give
heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul_”; _Eph.
1:18_—“_having the eyes of your heart enlightened._” “Change the
centre of a circle and you change the place and direction of all
its radii.”