Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (5)

In this chapter we will continue to examine the arguments that Elder Sylvester Hassell (1842-1928) put forth in defense of the Hardshell idea that neither the gospel or word of God nor faith in it are necessary means in the eternal salvation of sinners.

As we showed in the previous chapter, Hassell and his Hardshell brethren contradict themselves when they debate the question of "means." They also contradict the scriptures. It contradicts their set of creedal propositions, such as 1) there are no conditions for obtaining eternal life and salvation, and 2) the written word of God and the preaching of the gospel is not a means God uses in salvation from sin, and 3) faith in Christ is an evidence of having eternal life and is not necessary for obtaining eternal life. Since the Bible is abundantly against these propositions, the Hardshells should do as Spurgeon said and revise their creed to conform with the Bible rather than trying to twist the Bible to make it conform to their creed. 

In the previous chapter we cited from "Questions and Answers" published by Elder R.H. Pittman in 1935 which gave Hassell's answers to many bible questions given by Hassell through "The Gospel Messenger" periodical. We now return to that publication.

"Q. Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?

A. While it is true that the ministry is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, as the Spirit of God may direct them, and as the providence of God may open the way to them, and it is the duty of other members to help them on their way after a godly sort, and those to whom they minister in spiritual things should minister to them in carnal things, as the Scripture teach, it is at the same time true that all the elect and redeemed people of God, both infants and adults, will be saved. (Psalm 33:12; Isa. 35:10; 45:17; 53:11; Jer. 31-34; Matt. 1:21; 11:25-27; 16:16,17; John 5:25; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; 17:1-3, 24; Rom. 8:28-39; I Cor. 1:26-31; 12:3; Eph. 1:1-14; I Pet. 1-5; Rev. 5:9,10). Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3). (Questions and Answers-Part 11; See here)

This answer is quite interesting and revealing. In the previous chapters we saw how Hassell and his "anti-means" brethren in the late nineteenth century stated that the preaching of the gospel or word of God was no means in regeneration or in giving spiritual life to sinners. However, in the above Hassell says that all the people of God have the Gospel preached to them by Jesus himself and that for salvation. So, does he believe that hearing the gospel is a means of salvation or not? Answer: yes and no. He denies that the preaching by God sent men is a means of saving people but does not deny that the preaching Jesus personally does is a means. 

This seems to have been a position that many anti-means Hardshells began to promote in their debates with the "Primitive Baptists" who espoused means in the time of the division over the "means question" during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. So we have Elder C.H. Cayce, a fellow leader of the Hardshells in the time of Sylvester, who taught similarly to Hassell. In his editorial commenting upon Romans 10: 17 Cayce wrote: 

"So, then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."--Verse 17.

"The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)

In another editorial on 1 Peter 3:18-21 for October 23, 1906, Cayce wrote:

"By the same Spirit by which His body was quickened He went and preached unto the spirits in prison. This shows very clearly that there is a work upon spirit which is performed by the direct work of the Spirit. “And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” - (Ephesians 2:17-18). There is a preaching, or a work, which Jesus does by His Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit. This work is what is also called regeneration. Through the work of Jesus, His offering, both Jews and Gentiles have access to the Father by one Spirit in the work of regeneration. The Holy Spirit makes the application of the blood of Christ in the work of regeneration."

The contradiction in these two editorials is quite striking. Cayce, like Hassell, believes that it is the "speech of God" spoken directly to dead sinners that saves them and denies that God speaks through the preachers that he has sent. Yet, Cayce in interpreting I Peter 3: 18-21 says that "there is a preaching which Jesus does by the Holy Spirit" in the "work" of "regeneration." How did Christ preach in the work of regeneration to the antediluvians? Was it not through Noah? Further, how successful was the regenerative preaching of Jesus to the antediluvians? Did not all to whom Christ preached to through Noah die in the flood except seven members of Noah's family? Not only that, but most of the people who heard Christ preaching to them when Christ was here on earth rejected him and his preaching. 

Elder Hassell in his "Questions and Answers" answers this question. 

"Q. Who were “the spirits in prison” to whom Christ preached? (I Pet. 3:18-20).

A. The spirits in the prison of hell when Peter wrote his Epistle, but alive in their bodies on earth when Christ by His Spirit in Noah preached to them. (I Pet. 1:11; II Pet. 2:5)."

So, this shows that Hassell acknowledges that Christ preaches through human agents in the work of regeneration. He says "Christ preached by his Spirit in Noah." When Paul says that Jesus "came and preached peace to you which were afar off" (Eph. 2: 17-18) Cayce believes this was preaching Jesus did personally rather than though Paul or the other apostles. Ridiculous. Why can't the preaching of Christ through men like Noah and Paul not be a means in regeneration? 

Based upon what Hassell and Cayce have stated, you would think that they would believe that 1) a person must hear the gospel preached by Christ himself to be saved, and 2) a person will be made to believe and obey the preaching of Christ in regeneration. That being so, why do they deny that one must hear the gospel and believe it to be saved? So, did Hassell believe that a person had to believe in Christ to be saved from spiritual death, to be eternally saved? 

Elder Cayce wrote:

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through the gospel. God does not reach them in the work of regeneration though preaching. If He does, then that involves the idea that their eternal salvation is conditional." (Cayce's Editoria Writings, Volume 6, page 176)

These assertions raise a lot of questions. It certainly contradicts what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans chapter ten, as we have already demonstrated. Further, he and Hassell are on record as saying that Christ preaches the gospel to all the elect in regeneration and that it is this preaching that is the means whereby they obtain "saving knowledge and faith in Christ." So, if "saving knowledge and faith in Christ" does not come through the gospel, how then does it come? Is having that knowledge and faith a necessary condition for salvation or not? Trying to follow these men in their statements has your mind hopping all over the place. 

In the beginning of Volume Twenty of Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898), under the editorial titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION" (You can read it on page 12  here) Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"As is usually the case, the most of the controversy in regard to regeneration has been caused by the difference of meanings attached to the word. I will, therefore, at the outset, give these different meanings, concluding with the meaning which I shall adopt, which is the meaning of the word in the latest and fullest Scriptures treating of this subject, and which is also the meaning of the word adopted by the latest and ablest uninspired writers in dictionaries, cyclopaedias, theologies, and commentaries."

I have written numerous articles showing that the first Calvinists at the time of the Protestant Reformation defined "regeneration" broadly so as to include evangelical faith and repentance, or conversion, and that it was later "hair-splitting" Calvinists who began to strictly define or redefine "regeneration" so as to exclude evangelical conversion. Hassell, as we will see, even agrees with this. So, who was right in how they defined the work of regeneration? The original Calvinists or the later Calvinists? It is ironic that Hassell would say that the best definition of regeneration came later, being "adopted by the latest and ablest uninspired writers." So, how is he "old school" or "primitive" then? 

The larger question, of course, is how does the Bible define regeneration. When Paul speaks of believers experiencing the "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3: 5) does he have evangelical conversion in mind or not? Why did the great Calvinists of the Reformation think that this regeneration was the same as conversion? Is it not because they saw that this is what the Bible taught? Does the Bible teach that any unbeliever has been regenerated, quickened, born again, renewed, etc.? Did Paul not say that people are saved, quickened or regenerated, "by grace through faith"? (Eph. 2: 8) 

Hassell wrote further:

"The word Regeneration is derived from the Latin re- (meaning again) and generare (meaning to beget), and thus, according to its etymology, means a begetting again; otherwise called in the Scriptures a renewal, a new birth, or a new creation, a being born again or from above, a being born of God or of the Spirit."

This is good so far as it goes. But the Greek word palingenesia may also mean a renewal or renovation, or a re-creation, or reproduction. When Jesus spoke of "the regeneration" that will occur when he comes again to sit upon the throne of his glory, nearly all bible scholars agree that this is talking about what Paul wrote about in Romans chapter eight when he said:

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now." (Rom. 8: 19-22 nkjv)

The whole creation will experience a new birth when it is renewed and becomes new heavens and earth. They will then, to use the words of President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, experience a "new birth of freedom." It is also what is described in these words:

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3: 19-21 nkjv)

It is what we see occurring in Revelation chapter 21 with the creation of new heavens and earth. In biology a regeneration occurs when living tissue replaces dead tissue, so that there is a "restoration," as when a lizard or salamander grows a new tail or body part. 

Hassell wrote further:

"The ancient Jews used the term Regeneration to express the outward change of state or relation which took place when a heathen became a Jew; and many of the Catholic "Fathers" (or writers of the early centuries) used the term Regeneration similarly to denote the outward change from heathenism to a profession of Christianity; and many advocates of "baptismal regeneration" still so use this term. The Roman Catholic "Church" uses the term Regeneration to express, not only this outward change of state perceptible to men, but also the Divine justification and sanctification from sin; and declares that Regeneration is accomplished only through the instrumentality of baptism, by which they mean the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the head of a person." 

If the ancient Jews and the early church "fathers" saw regeneration as involving being converted, how can such a view then be called new? John Calvin and the Reformation Calvinists, including the Puritans, men such as John Owen (1616-1683), believed that regeneration was another name for evangelical conversion. They believed this because this is what the bible clearly shows to be the case. 

Hassell wrote further:

"The Protestant Reformers, in the sixteenth century, distinguished justification from sanctification, and used the term Regeneration to express the whole process of inward renovation, or sanctification, in all its stages. In the seventeenth century Protestant theologians still further narrowed the meaning of the term Regeneration, using it to express the opening stage of this inward work as distinguished from its continuance in sanctification. And in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the ablest Protestant and Baptist writers have used the term Regeneration to express the initial Divine act in this opening stage, the first infusion of spiritual life, the vital renewing of the soul by the power of the Holy Spirit, as distinguished from Conversion, which is the turning of man from sin to God, the conscious and manifest change from nature to grace or from a lower to a higher spiritual state, consisting in repentance, faith, hope, love, joy, and obedience."

So, did the "Protestant Reformers" teach that sanctification preceded justification, as the Catholics do? Did they not teach that justification preceded sanctification? Did they also not see regeneration as one of the elements of sanctification? I have written several articles on this question. In this post (here) I cited these words:

"Leroy Forlines says that there is a problem for the coherence of Calvinism when it places regeneration before faith, because, as the great Calvinist theologian Louis Berkhof states, “Regeneration is the beginning of sanctification” [1]. It is a problem, logically, to place regeneration prior to faith in the ordo salutis (order of salvation) because, if regeneration is the beginning of sanctification, and if justification results from faith, then logically Calvinism is placing sanctification prior to justification."  (here)

This page (here) will give you access to several of my articles on this question. The Reformers had this order: faith, justification, regeneration or sanctification. Later Calvinists who redefined "regeneration" came up with the same order as that of the Catholics, which is: regeneration and sanctification, faith, justification. Calvin placed justification before sanctification and regeneration. Of course, what Forlines says of "Calvinism" is not true of all Calvinists, certainly not of Calvin himself or the first Calvinists. Still, he shows the weakness in the position of those Hyper Calvinists who say regeneration (which is an act of sanctification) precedes faith and justification.

Hassell wrote further:

"In this strict and accurate sense of the term Regeneration, John Gill, in the second volume of his "Body of Divinity," makes Regeneration the subject of one chapter, Effectual Calling the subject of the next chapter, and Conversion the subject of the next chapter. And he very correctly says: "Regeneration is the sole act of God; conversion consists both of God's act upon men in turning them, and of acts done by men under the influence of converting grace; they turned, being turned. (Jer. xxxi. 18, 83; Prov. xxi. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Psalm ex. 3; John vi. 44, 45, 65). Regeneration is the motion of God towards and upon the heart of a sinner; conversion is the motion of a sinner towards God. In Regeneration men are wholly passive, as they also are in the first moment of conversion; but by it they become active: it is therefore sometimes expressed passively — Ye are returned or converted, 1 Pet. ii. 25; and sometimes actively —A great number believed and turned to the Lord, Acts xi. 21; and when it, the body of the people of the Jews, shall turn to the Lord, which has respect to their conversion in their latter day, 2 Cor. iii. 16. Effectual Vocation is the call of men out of darkness to light, and is sometimes by the ministry of the word, but sometimes without such ministry, as in the cases of the disciples of Christ, of the apostle Paul, and of Zaccheus, and others; and Conversion answers to that call, and is the actual turning of men from darkness to light; so that, with propriety, Conversion may be considered as distinct from Regeneration and Effectual Vocation." 

So, does Gill not say that a person is not regenerated till he experiences the effects of God's regenerating work? Does he define regeneration so as to exclude the actual "turning" of the sinner to God? Does he not say that regeneration is expressed both passively and actively? A man cannot be said to have been regenerated until he has actually turned to God? Was Lazarus quickened from the dead when Christ spoke the words "Lazarus come forth" or when he actually came forth? Does quickening and regeneration then not include the effects as well as the cause? In my articel "Regeneration - Devil in the Definition" (here) I wrote:

Princeton Seminary, Archibald Alexander, wrote:

"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."

This is in keeping with the view of Edwards.

Alexander wrote:

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."

This is what Gill was saying in the citation given by Hassell. Regeneration involves BOTH God's act in turning a sinner and in the sinner's actual turning. Also, "turning" is another term for repentance, and so Gill does not believe that anyone can be said to be regenerated who has not turned or repented. Gill gives Acts 11: 21 as an example of what regeneration or turning involves, which is that a "great number believed and turned to the Lord." Hassell leaves out this part of Gill's commentary on Regeneration, in his Body of Divinity:

"Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation; then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe: "received ye the Spirit", says the apostle, "by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith": (Gal. 3:2), that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."

"When" does "regeneration" occur? It is when "the word" is preached and becomes the "vehicle" through which "God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men" and is the time when people believe the word and then receive the Spirit. I would ask Hassell, if he were here today, whether the above is a "careless expression" or rather a "precise" statement of faith and ask whether Gill contradicted himself on this question? 

I have cited Jonathan Edwards much to show how the older Calvinists equated evangelical conversion with regeneration. In this post (here) I cited from "Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War" by E. Brooks Holifield who said (emphasis mine):

"To the Old Calvinists, one of the worst errors of the Hopkinsians was their failure to recognize that regeneration occurred through illumination of the mind by the means of grace. A recurring theme in Old Calvinist polemics was the assertion that "all judicious Calvinist divines" believed that "conversion or regeneration is wrought by light, by the moral power of divine truth." In the Old Calvinist order of salvation, the Spirit first illumined the mind with a "common doctrinal understanding and belief of truth." This truth brought a sense of guilt, a fear of punishment, and an affecting view of the holiness and mercy of God; and the assent to truth moved the will toward a heartfelt consent and faith. How, the Old Calvinists asked, could the will ever consent to anything without first understanding it? Only the conviction that faith came "through the truth" made such means of grace as sermons and meditations worth defending." (pg. 154-55)

In that same article I cited these words from Edwards:

"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that by regeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"

(pg. 471, from "THE W0RKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS, IN FOUR VOLUMES." A REPRINT OF TBE WORCESTER EDITION, WITH VALUABLE ADDITIONS AND A COPIOUS GENERAL INDEX. VOL. II.) 

You can read many other such quotations from Edwards in my post in the link provided above.

Hassell next wrote:

"Regeneration, thus strictly and accurately distinguished from not only Conversion but also from Effectual Calling, always coming first, and being followed by Effectual Calling and Conversion, is the Divine, miraculous, supernatural, irresistible, everlasting change, back of the will and below consciousness, not in the substance but in the state of the soul, in the prevailing and governing principles, dispositions, tastes, and habits of the soul, which constitute character and determine volitions and actions, by which change the understanding is illuminated, the affections consecrated, and the will rectified, so that the regenerated sinner habitually hates and puts away sin, and habitually loves and practices holiness."

Why is the word "regeneration" not used in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? Is it not because they used the term "effectual calling" to denote it? That being so, Hassell is way off base to say that effectual calling was something that came later after a person was regenerated. Did the old confession distinguish evangelical conversion from regeneration or effectual calling? 

Notice that Hassell in the above citation does not define "regeneration" by its cause alone, as he and his brethren often did, but defines it by the "change" that occurs in the person being regenerated. That is good. However, his description of the change is where the problem lies. He says that regeneration is: 

1. distinguished from "effectual calling" and "conversion."

2. a divine, miraculous, supernatural, irresistible, and everlasting change

3. what takes place "back of the will"

4. what takes place "below consciousness"

5. not a change in the substance but in the state of the soul 

6. a change in the dispositions, tastes, and habits, affections, and character of the soul

7. a change in the understanding, involving illumination

8. a rectifying of the will

If all these things occur in "regeneration," then it is hard to see how it could be "below consciousness." I also ask - where in the bible is initial salvation ever described as being below consciousness and apart from evangelical conversion? Why does Hassell think that such a drastic change in a person excludes a change in a person's views about God and salvation? That it excludes being brought to faith and repentance? Did he not say that regeneration involves "illumination"? Does he not believe that regeneration involves being "taught" and "drawn" by the Father and a "coming" to Christ per John chapter six? What was taught to the sinner by the Father? How can a person be taught, drawn, and come "below consciousness"? How can the "will" be divorced from this? 

What is Paul referring to when he says "for it is God who works in you to will" (Phil. 2: 13)? Is he not talking about that salvation that was worked in a person when he is saved or regenerated? Was the Psalmist not talking about regeneration when he said "your people will be willing in the day of your power"? (Psa. 110: 3) Is the "will" not involved in "receiving" Christ? How can "regeneration" be "back of the will" if it is a "rectifying" of the will? If "regeneration" changes the dispositions, tastes, habits, affections, and character of the soul, how could that occur below consciousness? 

If Christ preaches the gospel to all his chosen people when he regenerates their spirits, why do they not all then believe in him and the gospel? And, why does he not keep preaching personally to them apart from preachers? If he preaches the gospel personally to all, then why did he commission his servants to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"? (Mark 16: 15) Paul says that it was by Apollos and him that the Corinthians became believers. (I Cor. 3: 5) If Jesus had already preached to them and made them believers, then Paul was wrong, was he not? 

Elder C.H. Cayce is on record as saying that the Athenian idolaters who worshiped many gods were already "regenerated," had already had Jesus preach the gospel to them in their regeneration. Notice these words of Cayce:

"That verse, in full, and the 29th and 30th verses read, 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.' Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word."   ("The Spirituality Of The Gospel," Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99)

So, Jesus had regenerated the Athenians before Paul ever came there and preached the gospel, and Jesus had already preached the gospel to them, but they still did not know Jesus nor believe in him! Elder John R. Daily, a contemporary of Cayce and Hassell, and one of their champion debaters, in his debate with W.P. Throgmorton in 1912 said: "Men in heathendom are regenerated by the Spirit of God without the Gospel" (Daily-Throgmorton Debate, p. 273).

How could it be "without the gospel" if what Cayce and Hassell and others in his day were saying, i.e. that Christ preaches the gospel to the elect himself when he regenerates them?

Hassell wrote further:

"The word regeneration does not occur in the Old Testament Scriptures, but its equivalent is found in such passages as Dent. xxx. 6, Jer. xxxi. 33, Ezek, xi. 19, and xxxvi. 26, 27, in which God says that He —no sort of means or instruments being mentioned —will circumcise the hearts of Israel to love Him, will take away their stony hearts and give them hearts of flesh, will give them a new heart and a new spirit, even His own Spirit, put His law in their minds and hearts, and cause them to walk in His statutes. The verb translated "quicken" in the 71st, 80th, and 119th Psalms, does not, in these passages, mean the first communication of spiritual life, but the refreshing or revival of the life already communicated."

Hassell says that the scriptures he cites about regeneration, which he rightly equates with the experience of being "circumcised" in heart, do not mention "means or instruments" being used. However, that the bible affirms this is untrue. The word of God is the means of circumcision. Even physical circumcision requires a cutting instrument. Notice these words of scripture:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn."  (Deut. 10: 16)

"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)

It seems clear that this admonition or word of the Lord was intended to be a means in bringing those who were "uncircumcised in heart and ears" (Acts 7: 51) to cry out to God for this work to be done in them. Why did Stephen, who uttered these words to such lost sinners, say this to the unregenerate? Would any Hardshell Baptist do so today? 

Hassell says that the word "quicken" in the Psalms mentioned (where David says "your word has quickened me") does not mean to bring to life. Why not? Is it not because it contradicts his premise? And, rather than change his belief, he gives a different definition to the word. So, when it suits them, Hassell and his Hardshell brethren will change the meaning of words at any time when it is necessary to make scripture to agree with their theological paradigm. Paul told the Ephesian believers - "and you has he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2: 1) David says this quickening is through God's word. Ergo, Hardshellism is false. 

Yes, regeneration involves getting a heart transplant. But, how could that be "below consciousness"? 

Hassell wrote further:

"In the New Testament Scriptures the English word Regeneration occurs but twice, in Matt. xix. 28 and Titus iii. 5; in the first passage it means "the resurrection," or, as rendered in the old Syriac version of the second century, "the new world "; in the last of these two passages, it means the first infusion of spiritual life, and the Holy Ghost is mentioned as its sole author — "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 

But, the context of Titus 3: 5 shows that by the "washing of regeneration" that Paul has in mind what takes place in conversion, as a result of faith in Christ. To the Ephesians Paul said:

"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (5: 26-27 kjv)

Said Jesus to his followers: "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15: 3 kjv)

The apostle Peter, in speaking in the Jerusalem council, said: "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

So, we see how the scriptures say that sinners are quickened, regenerated, washed, etc., by the word of God, whether read or heard.

In the next chapter we will continue to review the polemical writings of Hassell on this question.