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 [pg 254] 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 [pg 255] 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 [pg 256] College, as the “generally entertained one,” and the case is rendered increasingly difficult and perplexing.