19th Century Baptist Quarterly

In my regular daily research and historical studies, I ran across this article by a Baptist pastor from Springfield, Illinois and written in the mid 19th century in the American Baptist Publication Society's periodical - the "Baptist Quarterly."

I was surprised to see this writer defending, in this Missionary Baptist publication, the Hardshell or "anti-means" view of the new birth! I know that J. M. Peck would no doubt have been greatly displeased! This periodical was first edited by Prof. Lucius E. Smith and assisted by Drs. Alvah Hovey, E. G. Robinson, A. N. Arnold, and J. M. Gregory.

Wrote Armitage:

"In 1867 the Baptist Publication Society began the issue of the 'Baptist Quarterly,' with Dr. L. E. Smith as editor-in-chief, and Drs. Hovey, Robinson, Arnold and Gregory as associates. At the end of vol. ii, Dr. Weston took the editorial chair, and eight volumes were issued, when its publication was discontinued. Dr. Baumes, of Cincinnati, began the publication of the 'Baptist Review' - a quarterly, in 1878, but sold it in 1885, when its name was changed to the 'BAPTIST QUARTERLY,' and it is now under the editorial control of Dr. McArthur and Henry C. Vedder, Esq., New York. Many of the successive editors named performed their duties with remarkable ability, and won for the 'Review' a recognition in the religious literature of the land. The contributors, also were amongst the best scholars and thinkers of America, but our Churches had not reached an appreciation of its learned discussions and withheld their support. The present editors of the 'Quarterly' have somewhat popularized the character of the articles, and it bids fair to maintain its existence. The number of educated and scholarly persons in our Churches is constantly increasing, and the best thought of the finest minds in them is likely to receive generous encouragement in such a desirable enterprise." ("Early American Baptist Newspapers - A History of the Baptists," 1890, By Thomas Armitage)

http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/newspapers.bapt.early.am.html

The Baptist pastor who wrote the following piece in the original "Baptist Quarterly," was named Nehemiah Pierce. I have not been able to find much information about him. He wrote this article in the 1872 issue, which also had an article by Hovey. Did Hovey and the other editors agree with this view? Why did they allow it to be published? Did they also share the "three stage" view of the new birth as the Hardshells, many Regular Baptists, and many Presbyterians?

In any case I am recording excerpts from his article and plan to respond to it in the very near future. But anyone want to comment on it? Does anyone know about the views of Hovey and others of the American Baptists on regeneration and means?

Please note that this writer upholds the Old Regular Baptist view that makes the initial "begetting" to be of the Father alone and without means, but the later conception, birth, or delivery (salvation), comes later through means.

In the article, titled - "Is Truth An Instrument In Regeneration?" - Pastor Pierce wrote:

"In speaking of the truth as an instrument of regeneration, obviously we refer to "religious truth," the "gospel." "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes." I certainly do not refer to Christ, who is the truth personified, as he said, "I am the truth." I wish to prove just this, that God in the person of the Holy Spirit does regenerate the souls of men without the employment of religious truth as an instrument. I use the term regenerate in its technical and restricted sense, as I understand Dr. Phelps to say in his New Birth: "Regeneration, the divine act, is evidenced to consciousness only by conversion, the human change."

Was this view held by Baptist groups outside of the Hardshells? It seems so. Also, who is the Dr. Phelps that Pierce cites? Also, does the view of Pierce reflect the view of the American or Northern Baptists? Or is the view of Pierce a minority opinion that was allowed freedom to express it itself in the Quarterly?

Pierce continues:

"Once more, Paul says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Salvation is rather the process of saving men than the act of saving. Regeneration is an act, a "divine act." Salvation is a process divisible into many parts. It embraces conviction of sin, regeneration by the Spirit, and the subsequent development of the regenerate soul or sanctification, the perfecting of the saint, and the final reception of the Christian at the court of heaven.

That religious truth, the gospel, is an instrument of salvation I grant, of course. I would say more, "God never dispenses with truth" in the salvation of men so far as we know, it being understood that I affirm nothing here with respect to the salvation of infant children. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth."

With the question, therefore, of the instrumentality of truth in salvation, I have nothing whatever to do in this article. I will simply confine myself to the subject as stated. What regeneration is I have perhaps stated sufficiently clearly above. It is a simple act of God by which a human soul is changed from evil to good. It is not a complex act, divisible into parts and stages, to perform which an indefinite amount of time is employed. It is one creative act, by which a soul that was dead is made alive. As Christ stood over the grave of Lazarus, and "cried with a loud voice, Lazarus come forth, and he came," so now the Spirit speaks new life into the dead in trespasses and sins, and they live. The previous taking away of the stone had nothing to do with the simple act of reinvigorating the dead body of Lazarus, nor was the subsequent work of loosing him and letting him go a part of the act of imparting life. There are several steps in this process. Those standing by took away the stone from the sepulchre, Jesus cried "Lazarus come forth," and simultaneously, by the fiat of his own almighty power, he thrilled the putrefying body with vigor and life. Then the overjoyed sisters and friends removed his grave-clothes and let him go. The act of Christ is not complex. It is not mediate, no instrument whatever is employed.

We look from this at of (sic) Christ to the work of bringing to life those who are dead in sin, and very properly inquire, is there no analogy between the regeneration of a soul and the revivifying of a dead body. We do not forget that the operations in the two instances will have many points of dissimilarity. One is bringing to life a dead body, and the other is bringing to life a dead soul. Dr. Phelps says, "God performs an act of sovereign power in every change of character from sin to holiness;" and further, "we portray this unspeakable change as a resurrection. We cry out in despair, 'Who shall deliver us from the body of this death?' But our despair must be eternal, if we have no other hope than such an act of Deity as the raising of Lazarus." All of which I heartily endorse. Regeneration is an act of sovereign power, a creative act, but it differs from the raising of Lazarus from the dead. There is one particular, however, in which these two acts are similar, and similar to all other creative acts of God, so far as I can conceive of God's mode of working. He simply speaks and it is done. He did not apply restoratives to the body of Lazarus, nor use an electro-magnetic instrument. Neither does he, so far as I am able to understand the mode of working, in the simple primary act of "changing the heart," use truth as an electrifying instrument. That he uses truth for the previous conviction and the subsequent edifying, I do not for a moment doubt. But what service truth can render I do not clearly see, since to be effective it must be believed, and it cannot be believed because "the natural man receiveth not the things of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them because they are spiritually judged." The gospel to him is utterly distasteful. He spurns it from him. "The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it does not submit itself to the law of God, neither indeed can it." Truth can have no effect upon him whatever. He is senseless to its appeals, for he is dead in tresspasses and sins. If this be an accurate photograph of man's natural heart, how, I ask, can he be regenerated by the instrumentality of truth?"

"It is further apparent that this is the only legitimate construction which can be put upon those passages which speak of regeneration as a new birth. "Ye must be born again. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Unless we rob these passages of every vestige of naturalness, they teach the doctrine we hold. From the necessities of nature that which is born of the Spirit cannot be developed by the action of truth. Truth is the food upon which the soul feeds after it is born, but the soul unborn has no use for food. Unregenerate mind, I repeat, repels gospel truth by virtue of its own nature, "Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do ye;" and no holding the two in contact will force the one to imbibe the other till the nature of one or the other is changed. The truth remains always the same, but old things in the heart pass away and all things become new by the effectual working of the grace of God. "By grace are ye saved;" and every good thought, every holy emotion, every righteous action, is the fruit of this grace; for "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

It is not to be denied that the gospel affects men who hear it before the change of heart has taken place. It often times affects them in a very marked and wonderful manner, stirring up the virus of their old nature to a terrible degree. The plainer the truth is revealed to them the more bitter and intense is their hatred of it. The whole history of Christ on earth is the history of the truth personified and thrown into a world of sin. The manner in which he was received and handled is precisely analogous to the manner in which the world receives and handles the truth of God. They despised, rejected, mocked, spit upon, and crucified the Son of God, numbering him with thieves and malefactors. Thus, and thus only, does the unregenerate mind use the truth of the gospel. But it is said that the word of God is the "sword of the spirit," and with it men are slain. Truth, therefore, is the instrument with which this is effected. True, but it is the province of the Spirit to convict men of sin as much as to regenerate the convicted sinner. Peter teaches that obedience to the truth by which our souls are purified is "through the Spirit."

"But let us turn from this aspect of the subject and look at one or two instances of regeneration given in the word of God. We are told by Dr. Phelps that the Scriptures "inform us of many instances of regeneration by means of truth, and of not one without the truth." Those instances are not named or even hinted at, but it is said that the Scriptures "proclaim indubitably the law of divine working in this phenomenon of human experience; and they neither by assertion or hint point us to a solitary exception. They record none in the world's history; they predict none in its future.

It may be presumption to appeal from this decision and attempt to bring any witnesses to prove that this is not true. But I propose to attempt it, nevertheless.

It is expressly stated in so many words that God opened the heart of a certain woman named Lydia, that she should attend unto the things wheich were spoken by Paul. This is the order of things in this experience as is fully attested by "pure revelation," and it does not appear that there was anything in her case which was peculiar. The exercise of the divine power upon her heart in order that she might be prepared to receive the truth appears to be but the usual mode of working. It is not the effect of truth which opens the heart, but a previous opening of the heart by the Spirit, which is an act distinct from the natural effect of truth."

"What I contend for is this from the teachings of Scripture. The heart of man is naturally unfitted to be acted upon favorably by the truth. From the nature of the case, therefore, the soil of the heart must be fitted by the Holy Spirit before the seed of truth can be germinated there. Further, it is contrary to all laws of nature to emply the truth for that purpose. Again, Scripture history confirms me in the position taken. The instances cited point unmistakably to the fact that God works immediately upon the heart, and so prepares it to receive and be benefited by truth. Prof. Atwater, of Princeton, says:

"What we and the great body of Christians hold is that the work of the Spirit on the soul in regeneration is immediate, producing an immediate change in its moral state or dispositions, so that it freely and sweetly is persuaded and attracted by the objective evangelical truth and motives which it previously rejected. This is in opposition to the doctrine of regeneration by the mere suasory influence of such external truth and motives without an antecedent interior change in the soul itself.

This, in precise terms, is what I contend for, and what Andrew Fuller contends for when he says the truth cannot "operate effecually till it is believed," and it cannot be believed while the sinner is "utterly averse to the gospel."

But then it will be contended that we argue for a point in direct antagonism to the positive declaration of Scripture, which say, "Of his own will he begot us with the word of truth," and that we are "born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the word of God."

These and other passages, it is objected, teach positively that the word of God, the truth, is an instrument in the new birth. It is but the part of candor to confess that they appear to teach this doctrine, and that possibly, when I shall get more light on the subject, I may be able to see that in a manner which I now cannot see. God uses the truth itself in the primary act of changing a sinner's heart so that he will lovingly embrace truth. Till I have more light, however, I must be indulged in the belief that these passages are susceptible of an interpretation in harmony with the view expressed, that there is a primary change in the heart antecedent to the effectual operation of truth as a motive for good. With regard to the passage in James, I would simply say that the word rendered "begot" is the same word as that used in the fifteenth verse, speaking of lust, which when it hath conceived, "bringeth forth" sin, and sin when it is completed "brings forth" death. Now if it be allowed that the word shall be used in that sense, my point is carried in so far as this passage is concerned. What I assert is that the conception, the beginning of spiritual life in the soul, is effected by the Spirit of God, without instrumentality. Then it is "brought forth" by the word of truth.

With regard to the second passage, I Peter 1: 23, Andrew Fuller says, "that there is a divne influence in this change which is immediate, or without any instrument whatever, is supposed in a former communication;" but I do not consider this as expressive of the whole change denoted by the term regeneration. I admit regeneration to be by the word of God, and that this truth is taught by the passage in question and also in James 1:18; nor does this concession appear to clash with the above position. When God created man, he breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul. And in procreation, unless we maintain that souls are generated by human instrumentality, there is an immediate divine agency, very similar to that in creation, and which is expressed by "forming the spirit of man within him." Now as this is consistent with man's being brought into existence by the instrumentality of man, why should not an immediate influence from Him who "quickeneth all things," be consistent with the instrumentality of the word in regeneration? I ask again, why not? The only exception to this argument of the distinguished writer is in the use of the term regeneration. He makes it too broad a term. He makes it to include regeneration proper, and the subsequent "bringing forth" of which James speaks, which, as I look upon the subject, it cannot properly embrace. The "bathing of regeneration," of which Paul speaks is antecedent to the "bringing forth" to which James refers.

I have now completed what I proposed to say as respects the teachings of Scripture upon this subject. I shall close the article by stating a few arguments drawn from other sources.

1. From the definition of the term regeneration. Fuller, in the above extract, it appears to me, gives to the word an unwarrantable signification as stated. Andrews Latin English Lexicon gives as the first definition of genero,--to beget, procreate. I conceive, therefore, that generation, strictly speaking, is the simple primary act by which animal life is originated, and which is anterior to and distinct from the bringing forth, or outward birth, of which I have spoken. Coming now from the realm of the physical into the realm of the spiritual, we are prepared to state the re-generation is the simple act of begetting again. It is an act primary and unique in its character, by which spiritual life is originated in the soul of a man, and which is anterior to and distinct from all subsequent growth and development.

2. From the natural working of truth upon the mind...There must be a change wrought in the mind itself before this truth will be accepted. On the other hand if we proceed upon the hypothesis that regeneration is by the agency of the truth, and that there is no previous operation of the Spirit upon the mind by which it is prepared to receive the truth, then must we acknowledge that the natural mind can receive the things of God, and so reduce the regeneration of a soul to the level of a process of development according to the natural law of belief induced by evidence."

"Dr. Kendrick is regarded as good authority on questions of this character. He says:

"The sinner is saved through faith; the sinner is saved through regeneration, being born from above by the implanting of a germ of spiritual life in his soul. Faith and regeneration, both denoting one and the same essential process, are yet logically distinguishable. Regeneration is the divine, faith is the human side of the process. Regeneration is the act of God, faith is the act of man. Regeneration is faith in principle, faith is regeneration in development. Which then is anterior? Chronologically, we may say neither. For faith is regeneration acting itself out. But logically and efficiently one precedes and conditions the other. The act of God antedates and originates the act of man. God precedes, man follows. We are not born because we breathe, but we breathe because we are born. We are not born again because we exercise faith, but we exercise faith because we are born again. It is not "the will of the flesh, nor the will of man," but the will and act of God that initiates the spiritual life. We are, indeed, commanded to believe on Christ, but we never should believe upon him, and we never do believe upon him, except through the quickening work of the Spirit in the soul. The sinner, dead in tresspasses and sins, never really and spiritually hears the message of salvation so that it becomes vitally sufficient, andy more than the unconscious infant. Hence we suppose that a man may be, and that thousands of men are, regenerated in sleep; they may be regenerated and sanctified like John the Baptist, from the womb; nay, even before the light has ever dawned upon their earthly being. And at any period the regenerating act may first indicate itself in some other way than in direct perception and reception of Christ. Its one invincible characteristic in all cases is, that on account of the redemption wrought by Christ, the Spirit of God works in the soul a divine change, which will always infallibly draw it to Christ whenever he is revealed to it, and will lead it to rest joyfully in him as the author of its salvation.

On the principle which Dr. Phelps advocates, that God never regenerates a soul without the use of truth as an instrument, all that class of person who die in infancy must be lost, and the awful saying of a former day will have at least a semblance of truth in it, which affirms that "hell is paved with skulls of infants whose bodies were hardly a span long." They cannot be effected by the word of truth. They cannot receive and accept the message of truth, which is able to make them wise unto salvation. This certanly cannot be previous to the soul's separation from the body. But the celebrated writer above affirms that "God regenerates the infant before it dies...But the fruit of regeneration is developed only in the separated soul." So far, therefore, as truth is concerned in regeneration, in these instances it is put beyond a peradventure. The child is as unconscious of the existence of a gospel as it is ignorant of the science of astronomy.

I have simply to say that the distinguished writer to whom I have referred, admits that the regeneration of the soul is an act of sovereign power. I understand this act to be simply the changing of the heart so that it will receive and be benefited by the truth. The heart is utterly averse to this truth previous to this change. I submit, therefore, that it is utterly repugnant to sound reason that this truth should be the instrument of the change. In the simple primary act of regeneration, changing a soul from hatred of God to the love of God, the Spiritr needs and employs no instrument whatever."

Nehemiah Pierce, Springfield, Illinois

http://www2.blogger.com/%3Ca%20href=">http://books.google.com/books?id=hJNLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=baptist+regeneration+conversion&source=web&ots=jiQgvXuycs&sig=tcixLXEw3aBMQRtc2VsGs7nsAq8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA53,M1