nge," young English preachers] admonished the people, and, to the
detriment of the Church and the depreciation of the older ministers, by
their bold and arrogant actions indicated, that they understood the
business of converting the people better than the old preachers, and
this without being called to order by their superiors. Since that time
impudence and lust of ruling have greatly increased, so that the fruit
of it appears at public synods." (B. 1821, 35.) The Methodistic doctrine
of conversion, as related above, was a point of dispute also between the
North Carolina and Tennessee Synods. The Tennessee Report of 1820 states
this difference as follows: "Since our opponents [of the North Carolina
Synod] refuse to admit that regeneration is wrought in the manner taught
by our Church, we infer that they believe it must be effected in an
altogether different way. For almost all religionists of this time teach
most frequently and diligently and urge most earnestly that one must
_experience_ regeneration, or be eternally lost. We are also accused by
many that we deny the doctrine of regeneration. Our answer is: We do not
deny the doctrine of regeneration at all; moreover, we teach it as well
as our opponents. But that regeneration is effected in the manner and by
the means such as they teach and pretend, this we cannot believe, nor do
we admit that it is possible in this way. Some of them teach and
maintain that regeneration cannot be wrought in any other way than by
fear and terror, when one, experiencing true contrition and sorrow of
sin, is moved to pray and cry anxiously, beseeching the Holy Ghost to
perform in him the work of regeneration. They hold that the Holy Ghost
can operate this in such only as are previously brought into this state
of fear and terror. As a natural birth cannot be effected without pain,
in like manner, they argue, no one could be born anew without
previously, through anguish and fear, having experienced pains of the
soul, more or less. Such teachers, however, fail to observe that by this
example they contradict themselves. For in a natural birth, as everybody
knows, only the mother has pain, not the child, while according to their
doctrine the child ought to have the pain. Who, therefore, does not see
that their teaching is most absurd and questionable? Now, in order to
bring about regeneration in the manner they teach, it is the rule to
preach the Law and its curse. To produce the required pangs