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:”