BX 8955 .W66 1855 
 
 Wood, James 
 
 Old and new theology 
 
/^ 
 

 iUN 9 195' 
 
 OLD AND NEW THEOm^^j.^^ st*^ 
 
 OR, 
 
 THE DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES 
 
 WHICH HAVE 
 
 AGITATED AND DIVIDED 
 
 THE 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 By JAMES WOOD, D. D. 
 
 The old is better. — Luke v. 39. 
 
 A NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION, 
 
 No. 265 CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
Eutered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by 
 
 A. W. MITCHELL, M. D., 
 
 in the Clerk's OfiBce of the District Court of the United States for 
 the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 STEKEOTYPED BY J. FAGAN. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Preface to the First Edition in 1838 page 5 
 
 Introduction to the Third Edition 15 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 The character and government of God 23 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 God's covenant with Adam and our relation to him as our fed- 
 eral head — involving the doctrine of imputation and origi- 
 nal sin 37 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The subject of the preceding chapter continued — exhibiting 
 the New Theology concerning God's covenant with Adam 
 as the federal head of his posterity, imputation, original 
 sin, &G 50 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Remarks on imputation, original sin, &c., with reference to the 
 views presented in the preceding chapter 65 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The sufferings of Christ and our justification through him .... 81 
 
 (3) 
 
4 CONTENTS. 
 
 I 
 
 CHAPTER VI. ^ 
 
 Justification — a continuation of the preceding chapter 116 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Human ability, regeneration, and the influences of the Holy- 
 Spirit 137 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Human ability, regeneration, &c., continued from the preced- 
 ing chapter 157 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 A contrast between the Old and New Theology, by way of re- 
 view, and a notice of the Perfectionism of Mr. Finney.... 175 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The measures adopted by the General Assembly for removing 
 these errors from the Presbyterian Church 197 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 The acts of the General Assembly in 1837 and 1838 217 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Present character and condition of the Old and New-school 
 bodies 249 
 
 Appendix 263 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION IN 1838. 
 
 In numerous instances, during the past year, the question 
 has been proposed to us, *' What is the difference between the 
 doctrinal views of the Old and New-school?'^ Though several 
 books and pamphlets have been written on a number of these 
 points, and though most if not all of them have been discussed 
 at various times in our periodicals, there are many in our 
 churches who are not sufficiently informed on the subject, par- 
 ticularly in those sections where the new doctrines have not 
 become prevalent, and where but few publications on the points 
 at issue have been circulated. Recent occurrences render it 
 peculiarly important that all in our connection should fully 
 understand the merits of the question. It has now become a 
 practical one. A decision is now being made whether we will 
 continue with the church of our former choice, or unite with 
 those who, without changing their name, have organized a new 
 body. With a view of giving information to such as desire to 
 ascertain on which side the truth lies, we shall present, in as 
 concise a manner as the case will admit, the distinfruishins: 
 features of the New Theology — comparing them, as we proceed, 
 with those doctrines which have, by way of contra^, been 
 denominated Old. For the sentiments of the Old-school we 
 1* (5) 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 shall refer to the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian 
 Church and to standard Calvinistic writers. We think this 
 cannot be reasonably objected to, even by our New-school 
 brethren, since they have never charged the former with de- 
 parting from the Confession of Faith. For the New-school 
 doctrines, we shall make quotations from the professors at New 
 Haven, Mr. Finney, and various ministers in the Presbyterian 
 Church. We quote from those first named, because Dr. Taylor 
 and his associates, though belonging to another denomination, 
 are regarded as the modern authors of these speculations; and 
 Mr. Finney, until within a few years past, belonged to our body, 
 and preached and published most of his sentiments on these 
 subjects before he left the church. 
 
 Some of the new doctrines began to be broached at New 
 Haven in 1821—22, which created much dissatisfaction in the 
 minds of a number who were made acquainted with the fact. 
 In 1826 Professor Fitch published his Discourses on the Nature 
 of SiU', and this was followed by a series of communications in 
 the Christian Spectator, on the Means of Regeneration. The 
 former were reviewed by Dr. Green in the Christian Advocate^ 
 and the latter called forth a controversy between Dr. Taylor and 
 Dr. Tyler. In 1828 Dr. Taylor delivered his Concio ad 67e- 
 Tum, which was the cause of Dr. Woods writing his Letters 
 addressed to Dr. Taylor; and the whole series taken together 
 drew from Dr. Griffin his Treatise on Divine Efficiency/, and 
 led to the establishment of the East Windsor Theological 
 Seminary. 
 
 Mr. Finney, who was hopefully converted and licensed to 
 preach a few years previous, became celebrated as an evangelist 
 in Western New York, in 1825-26. Thou2;h distinguished at 
 
 > (DO 
 
 first rather by '' new measures" than by new doctrines, he soon 
 adopted the views of Dr. Taylor; and he has probably done 
 more to give them currency in certain sections of the church 
 
PREFACE. 7 
 
 than any other individual. On some points he has gone further 
 than his archetype; and on all perhaps has expressed himself 
 with more frankness and less caution — asserting in positive 
 terms what the former taught only by ajfirming that the con- 
 trary could not he proved. His lectures and sermons were the 
 subject of animadversion in several periodicals; and as we happen 
 to know, a certain minister seriously urged one of his (Mr. 
 Finney's) co-presbyters to commence process against him; but 
 nothing of this kind, we believe, was ever attempted. 
 
 In 1829 Mr. Barnes preached and published his Sermon on 
 the Way of Salvation; which disclosed the fact that on a 
 number of points he agreed substantially with the new system; 
 and upon his being called, some months afterwards, to a pas- 
 toral charge in Philadelphia, some of the members of the 
 Philadelphia Presbytery objected to receiving and installing 
 him, on the ground that his sermon, which had been exten- 
 sively circulated in that city, contained important errors in doc- 
 trine. The action of the Presbytery, Synod, and Gleneral 
 Assembly, in 1830-31, the publication of his Notes on the 
 Romans in 1835, and the charges and trials for heresy during 
 that and the following year, are too familiar to all connected 
 with our church, to need any particular notice. The preceding 
 statements have been made merely to show the coincidence 
 between the rise and progress of the new divinity in New 
 England and its commencement and extension in the Presby- 
 terian Church. 
 
 It has been said that the controversy in the Presbyterian 
 Church does not respect doctrines at all, except as a secondary 
 thing. Some have told us it is a strife for power — others a 
 contest for the purse — and others a thrust at Congregationalism, 
 and through that at New England. With whatever view these 
 allegations have been made, the effect of them has been to pro- 
 duce distrust and disunion in many cases where there would 
 
8 PREFACE. 
 
 otherwise have been a hearty concurrence in most if not all of 
 the measures adopted for the reform of the church. This has 
 been particularly the case with some whose partialities are strong 
 in favour of New England. It w^ould seem that such had for- 
 gotten for the time, that in New England the same controversy 
 is going on which has agitated and ruptured the Presbyterian 
 Church. If it is a war against New England, how does it 
 happen that many of their ablest theologians have taken sides 
 with the assailants ; nay, that they were first in raising the note 
 of alarm ? The language of Dr. Green, in 1831, undoubtedly 
 expresses the feelings of a large majority, if not of all the 
 ministers in the Presbyterian Church. *' ' What V we have 
 heard it said, even by some who love us, ^ What! are you array- 
 ing yourselves against the whole Theology of New England?' 
 No — we have answered privately, and now answer publicly. 
 No — we are arraying ourselves against Taylorism, and Fitchism, 
 and Murdockism, and Emmonsism, and self-conversionism. 
 But we thank God, this is not ' the whole theology of New 
 England,' and we hope and believe it never will be. We know 
 that there is a host of men, sound in the faith, who dislike and 
 oppose most decidedly, this whole mass of error; and we hail 
 these men, and love them as fellow labourers in the cause of 
 truth, and bid them God speed with all our hearts." 
 
 Though in the progress of the difficulties some prominence 
 has been given of late to Congregationalism, it was only from 
 the circumstance that this was believed to have an important 
 connection with the main question at issue. It is not the Con- 
 gregationalism of New England that was the subject of dis- 
 cussion, but Congregationalism in the Presbyterian Church. 
 Against Congregationalism, as such, there exists no hostility; 
 but when, through the Plan of Union, it became the means, 
 like the Trojan horse, of introducing into our body many who 
 were unfriendly to our doctrines and government, it became 
 
PREFACE. 9 
 
 necessary, in self-defence, to free the churcli from this improper, 
 and to us, ruinous condition.* 
 
 The same remarks are applicable to the resolutions of the 
 General Assembly concerning certain benevolent societies. To- 
 wards the American Home Missionary Society and the American 
 Education Society, in their incipient stages, and considered 
 merely as organizations for doing goodj there was for a number 
 of years the greatest cordiality. This is evident from the fact 
 that they were repeatedly recommended by the General As- 
 sembly. But when it was found that their operations within 
 our bounds, besides interfering with the free action of our own 
 Boards, were made the instruments in the hands of those who 
 managed the various Presbyterian auxiliaries, of increasing and 
 extending our difficulties, and rendering them more unmanage- 
 able — the one by furnishing young men for our pulpits whose 
 sentiments did not accord with our standards, and the other by 
 directing and sustaining them in their fields of labour — the 
 Assembly of 1837 withdrew their former recommendations and 
 requested them to cease operating in our churches. As in 
 their action concerning the Plan of Union and the four Synods, 
 so in regard to these societies, the ground of their proceedings 
 was, that they believed them to be (to use their own language) 
 *' exceedingly injurious to the peace and purity of the Presby- 
 terian church" — and while they "hoped and believed that the 
 
 * According to our published statement, as corrected for the second 
 edition of a pamphlet entitled "Facts and Observations &c.," there are 
 in the four disowned Synods three hundred and thirty-four churches 
 nominally Presbyterian, and two hundred and eighty-six Congrega- 
 tional. A short time ago, a minister who was then a member of the 
 Otsego Presbytery, observed to us, " If you have reported as favourably 
 concei'ning all the Presbyteries as you have concerning ours, they have 
 no reason to complain. Instead of there being eight Presbyterian and 
 eight Congregational churches as reported by you, there are, he said, 
 but six Presbyterian churches and ten Congregational." 
 
10 PREFACE. 
 
 Assembly would not be behind the protesters, [the patrons of 
 those societies] in zeal for the spread of divine truth, they desire 
 that in carrying on those great enterprises, the church may not 
 be misled to adopt a system of action which may be perverted 
 to the spread of error." 
 
 It is not true, therefore, that the controversy has little or no 
 respect to doctrines. On the contrary, the principal and pri- 
 mary ground of it, has been a discrepancy in doctrinal senti- 
 ments. Its origin may be traced to the opinion so prevalent 
 of late, among certain classes of men, that we ought to expect 
 as great improvements in theology as have been made in the 
 arts and sciences — that those formularies of Christian faith, 
 which have been received for centuries as containing a correct 
 statement of Scripture doctrine, are too antiquated for this 
 enlightened age; and if received now, are to be explained 
 agreeably to certain philosophical principles which were unknown 
 in the days of our ancestors — and that the Bible itself is to be 
 so expounded as to accord with those theories of mind, of free 
 agency, and of moral government, which have been introduced 
 by the new philosophy. It is this which gives to their theology 
 the denomination of new. Considered chronologically, it is far 
 from being new. Similar sentiments were advanced on most 
 of the points in dispute, as long ago as the time of Pelagius, 
 and they have sprung up and flourished for a while at clifi"erent 
 periods since. Were this the proper place, we could easily sub- 
 stantiate this remark by a reference to documents. 
 
 The principles upon which these modern improvements in 
 theology profess to be based, appear to us to be radically erro- 
 neous. If the doctrines of religion were as difficult to be dis- 
 covered by a diligent reader of the sacred Scriptures, as the 
 laws and motions of the heavenly bodies are to an observer of 
 the planets, the march of mind might be expected to be as 
 visible in the development of new theological truths, as in the 
 
PREFACE. 11 
 
 new discoveries of astronomy. But the Bible, we have always 
 supposed, has recorded truth in order to reveal li] and not to 
 place it so far beyond the reach of common observation, as to 
 require the aid of a telescope to enable us to discern its character 
 and proportion. Truth is immutable. The Bible is, therefore, 
 not to be interpreted by a set of philosophical dogmas, which 
 vary, it may be, with every successive age; but by a careful 
 examination and comparison of its several words and phrases. 
 These obvious way-marks were the same in the time of Au- 
 gustine and Calvin, and the Westminster divines, as they are 
 now; and it is by a faithful adherence to these, that so much 
 uniformity has been preserved among Christians of every age, 
 in regard to the doctrines of our holy religion. Abstruse meta- 
 physical speculations have now and then held out their false 
 lights, and led portions of the church into error ; but whenever 
 the pride of intellect and learning has been humbled by the 
 Spirit of God, and there has been a return to that simple-hearted 
 piety, which is willing to receive the plain teachings of the 
 Bible, without stopping to inquire whether they are consistent 
 with certain new modes of philosophizing, it has uniformly 
 resulted in the revival of those old and venerable doctrines, 
 which have been the stability and glory of the church in every 
 period of her history. 
 
 We do not intend to convey the idea that all who are now 
 denominated New-school, or who have united in organizing the 
 new Assembly, embrace the new doctrines. Various reasons 
 have operated to produce in the minds of some, so much 
 sympathy for those who maintain these sentiments, that they 
 have taken sides with them, and hence have received their 
 name, though they disclaim all affinity for their peculiar views. 
 Others receive the new divinity in a modified form; and a 
 third class adopt some of its dogmas, while they reject others. 
 
12 PREFACE. 
 
 These last remarks apply to sOme of tbose from whose produc- 
 tions we design to make extracts in the following pages. 
 
 How large a proportion of the new Assembly embrace the 
 New Theology, we will not undertake to say. We might state 
 a number of facts, which appear to show that it is adopted, at 
 least, '■^ for substance of doctrine,'' by a very considerable ma- 
 jority. On the contrary, there are some who have expressed 
 opposition to these doctrines, but who have been influenced, it 
 is probable, by their local situation, or their connections and 
 sympathies, to join the new body. Our earnest wish is, that 
 they may exert a happj'' influence. We have no malignant 
 feelings to gratify — but shall rejoice to know that every error 
 has been corrected, every ground of complaint removed — that as 
 a body, they may regain that Christian confidence, to which a 
 portion of their number are now so justly entitled. It is to be 
 deeply regretted, that in one or two things they would not pur- 
 sue a difierent course. Twelve months ago, a committee ap- 
 pointed by that party, consented to take another name, and to 
 leave their brethren of the Old-school in the quiet possession 
 of their records, board of trustees, and certain invested funds. 
 An amicable division would doubtless have taken place at that 
 time, had it not been for the fact that the committee from the 
 New-school party, though they consented to the above reason- 
 able terms, insisted upon such other conditions as could not be 
 acceded to without jeoparding some of those very interests for 
 the securing of which a division had become necessary. Hence 
 the negotiation failed. But now they claim to be the true 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and have ap- 
 pealed to the civil courts to wrest, if possible, from the hands 
 of their brethren, what, they virtually acknowledged a year 
 ago, does not belong in equity to themselves, but to those whom 
 they have thus assailed. Such a procedure seems to us grossly 
 improper, as well as inconsistent. It is to be hoped, however, 
 
PREFACE. 13 
 
 that on further reflection, they will be induced to retrace their 
 steps and pursue a course more agreeable to their former pro- 
 fessions and to the spirit of the gospel. 
 
 But while we do not doubt that these suits, if prosecuted, 
 will be decided in favour of the defendants, provided law and 
 justice do not conflict with each other, we wish to remind the 
 reader that the question, which body is the true General As- 
 semhlt/^ does not depend upon any decision which is to be made 
 by the civil courts. They can decide who shall have the funds; 
 but beyond this their jurisdiction does not extend. The Gen- 
 eral x\ssembly was organized ten years before they had a board 
 of trustees; and their organization was as complete during that 
 time as it was afterwards. It had then its constitution — and 
 this constitution, be it remembered, makes the General As- 
 sembly, and not a civil court, the body of final resort in all 
 cases of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This board of trustees was 
 incorporated for the purpose of managing certain funds in 
 behalf of the Assembly, and for nothing else. If their charter 
 had been a limited one, its expiration would not have affected 
 the character of the General Assembly; and if it shall be taken 
 away, the only result which can follow, will be to deprive them 
 of their funds ; but as an ecclesiastical body, they remain unim- 
 paired. If they were the true General Assembly in 1789, and 
 for the ten following years before their charter was obtained, 
 they are the true General Assembly now, whatever becomes of 
 their property. 
 
 Though we shall be gratified to have them succeed in this 
 respect, we regard the result of these suits as of little import- 
 ance compared with other matters which have been involved in 
 the controversy, but which we trust are now finally settled. In 
 regard to the question of property, we feel very much like a 
 native Christian of the South Sea Islands who had lost his 
 house by fire, and who in the act of rushing into the flames to 
 
 2 
 
14 PREFACE. 
 
 secure a copy of the New Testament, was severely scorched by 
 the conflagration. As tlie missionaries were condoling with 
 him on the loss of his house, he put his hand under his gar- 
 ment, and taking out the sacred treasure which he had saved, 
 exclaimed with ecstasy, " True, I have lost my property, but I 
 have saved my gospels!" We may lose our property before 
 the civil tribunals; but if we have saved our "gospels,'' we 
 shall be infinite gainers, and ought therefore to " take joyfully 
 the spoiling of our goods." These remarks are made in view 
 of the prominence given in the New-school prints to a judicial 
 decision : but we are far from believing that aiiy professional 
 ingenuity or legal skill will be able to procure such a result as 
 they anticipate; even should they venture to bring the question 
 to trial. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 The following treatise is designed to demonstrate that 
 the issue between the two parties in the late controversy 
 in the Presbyterian Church was strictly a doctrinal one. 
 Hence the work consists mainly of a comparison of doc- 
 trinal views, as contained in the productions of Old and 
 New-school writers. Near the close of the volume we 
 remark, "It has been our aim, both in our statements 
 and quotations, to exhibit the doctrines of the New The- 
 ology, just as they are, without the least exaggeration. 
 For this purpose our extracts from New-school authors 
 have been numerous, and sufficiently extended as to 
 length, to give a correct view of their sentiments. But 
 if it can be made to appear that we have misrepresented 
 their views in a single important point, we shall cheer- 
 fully rectify the mistake." The first edition was pub- 
 lished in 1838 ; and the second in 1845. It has been 
 circulated widely ; but up to the present time, (1853), no 
 refutation has been attempted and no corrections pro- 
 posed. Is not this silence a virtual admission of the 
 fidelity of our quotations, and the essential verity of our 
 statements ? It has been denied, indeed, that the New- 
 school Presbyterians as a hody^ maintain the errors im- 
 puted to them by their Old-school brethren ; and yet the 
 existence of those errors among them, they themselves 
 acknowledge. 
 
 (15) 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In a volume recently prepared by a committee of the 
 Synod of New York and New Jersey, and published 
 under the sanction of the Synod, entitled "A History 
 of the Division of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America," is found the following: "Before 
 a refutation is attempted of the charges of gross errors 
 and irregularities against constitutional Presbyterians, 
 justice to them requires that it be stated and borne in 
 mind, that an overwhelming majority of them have never 
 denied that there were errors in doctrine and irregulari- 
 ties in practice in the churches, which required correction. 
 They believed there were, deplored their existence, and 
 were willing to co-operate in the employment of consti- 
 tutional and scriptural means for their removal. They 
 then resisted and have uniformly borne their testimony 
 against them. The evils complained of w^ere mainly 
 attributable to a class of reckless evangelists, and pastors 
 who admitted them to their pulpits, some of whom doubt- 
 less approved and adopted their doctrines and measures." 
 The exact number of those who embraced these errors, 
 we have never professed to state. We did not know ; 
 and could therefore only say, that so far as we could 
 infer from circumstances, we believed the number to be 
 considerable. In 1838, we thought it probable they 
 formed a majority of the new Assembly ; but if we were 
 mistaken, if "an overwhelming majority," were opposed 
 to those errors, and "deplored their existence," it affords 
 us the highest satisfaction to acknowledge our mistake. 
 But whether they were few or many, their number was 
 suiRcient to disturb the peace of the whole church ; and 
 so influential as to render the ordinary method of church 
 discipline ineffective and impracticable. 
 
 After the above admission of the existence of " errors 
 and irregularities which required correction," and the 
 declaration that they (the New-school) " deplored their 
 existence," that they "then resisted and have uniformly 
 borne their testimony against them," &c., we were pre- 
 pared to expect that due credit would be given to their 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 Old-scliool brethren for their laudable zeal in endeavour- 
 ing to remove ^'the evils complained of;" however 
 strongly they might object to the measures adopted for 
 this purpose. But so far from this, the author of this 
 volume, (strange to relate) does not give the Old-school 
 Assembly credit even for sincerity in assigning doctrinal 
 errors as the main ground of their proceedings in the 
 case. The existence of errors exerted, according to his 
 statement, a very subordinate influence in producing the 
 alarm which was felt by their Old-school brethren, and 
 in leading to those measures which resulted in a division 
 of the church. The real cause of anxiety, it is alleged, 
 was their waning influence in the church, by the rapid 
 increase of the New-school party ; and their urgency for 
 final action arose from a determination to gain a perma- 
 nent ascendency by excluding a portion of those who 
 stood in their way. The proof of this, as adduced in 
 this volume, consists mainly of a historical statement 
 concerning the controversy with regard to benevolent 
 operations — the Old-school believing it to be the duty 
 of the Presbyterian Church in her organized capacity, to 
 carry on the work of missions, &c. ; and the New main- 
 taining that this work could be prosecuted more efliciently 
 by voluntary societies, in the support of which all evan- 
 gelical churches should unite. 
 
 It is not our purpose to give the history of this con- 
 troversy. Before its termination, it had assumed a serious 
 aspect, considered merely as a question of benevolent 
 action. It had come to this — not whether ecclesiastical 
 Boards are preferable, but whether they should be tole- 
 rated. Our New-school brethren made repeated efforts 
 from 1828 to 1831, to secure a vote of the Assembly, 
 and the consent of the church at large, to merge the 
 Board of Domestic Missions in the American Home Mis- 
 sionary Society ; and in 1836, they refu^td (being a ma- 
 jority of the Assembly that year) to ratify the contract 
 entered into the year previous, with the Synod of Pitts- 
 burgh, bv which the Western Foreign Misi^ionarv Societv, 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ■wliich had been conducted sby the latter body, was to 
 become the Assembly's Board of Foreign Missions. This 
 refusal is denominated in the volume before us, a " signal 
 defeat" of the "ultraists;" meaning the Old-school 
 minority in the Assembly. If then, as is alleged, there 
 was on the part of the latter, "a contest for power,'' it 
 was for the power of choice in regard to the channel 
 through which their benevolence should flow ; the power 
 to exercise their Christian liberty as to the mode in which 
 they should endeavour to promote evangelical religion in 
 our country ; the power to act according to the dictates 
 of their own consciences in having our branch of the 
 church enrolled as a distinct and organized body among 
 the hosts of the Lord, while engaged in fulfilling the Sa- 
 viour's last command, " Go ye into all the world, and 
 preach the gospel to every creature." 
 
 But though this was a matter which was justly deemed 
 to be of great importance, it might have been adjusted, 
 if nothing else had been involved in it. With regard to 
 Domestic Missions, a compromise was effected in 1831, 
 and acquiesced in by both parties. But it was perceived 
 that the difficulty lay deeper than this — that the founda- 
 tion of their disagreement with regard to Ecclesiastical 
 Boards, was a discrepancy in doctrinal views ; and that 
 the evil, instead of being remedied by concession or delay, 
 would be likely to increase, through the influence of new 
 Presbyteries, which would be formed under the Plan of 
 Union, and the operation in our bounds of those socie- 
 ties, which had now become, in the hands of our New- 
 school brethren, a powerful instrument to control the 
 policy and modify ["Americanize"] the character of the 
 church. If, again, there was, on the part of the Old- 
 school, a " contest for poiver^'' it was for the power of 
 preserving the jjurity of the gospel, as expressed in our 
 Confession of Faith ; and of maintaining a wholesome 
 and necessary discipline of those who had introduced 
 into our heritage strange and unscriptural doctrines. If, 
 as this volume asserts, our New-school brethren " were 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 willing to co-operate in the employment of constitutional 
 and scriptural means for their removal," how did it hap- 
 pen that in every case of judicial process which came 
 before the Assembly, on charges of doctrinal errors, 
 they took sides with the accused ? under the convenient 
 plea that latitude in doctrinal belief was authorized by 
 the Adopting Act of 1729, and that the errors charged 
 were not ''^fundamental ;'' as though any doctrine, the 
 belief of which does not absolutely peril our personal 
 salvation, may be held and preached in our church with- 
 out censure. This may be regarded as liberal; but in 
 our judgment, it is more so than is consistent with the 
 precepts of the gospel, or compatible with the purity, 
 peace and prosperity of the church. 
 
 But we have no intention of reviewing the work 
 alluded to. The numerous documents contained in it 
 are doubtless a faithful transcript from the records, and 
 give, of course, as far as they go, a true history of the 
 case. If these had been published without notes or 
 comments, no objections could be reasonably made to 
 the book, either by Old-school or New. But the ac- 
 companying remarks are very different from the version 
 which is given of those transactions by Old-school men. 
 In the three concluding chapters of the following treatise, 
 (10th, 11th and 12th — not published in previous editions,) 
 we shall give our views concerning these matters, without 
 any particular reference, however, to the " History" 
 above noticed. 
 
 Though our observations and reasonings do not accord 
 with those of New-school writers, we see no occasion for 
 imitating some of them in the use of severe and oppro- 
 brious epithets. Our doctrinal differences form no apology 
 for personal abuse. The term New-school, which we 
 employ, is not designed as a reproach, but as a con- 
 venient and appropriate designation of a party, as dis- 
 tinguished from another, who are commonly denomi- 
 nated Old-school. The writer of the volume which we 
 have had occasion to mention, does not object to these 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 terms, but endeavours to show that, by a strange misno- 
 mer, they are applied exactly opposite to what they ought 
 to be. The manner in which they came to be employed 
 is well known. The first issue in the late controversy 
 was made in the case of the Rev. Albert Barnes, in 1830 ; 
 and his published errors were made, five years afterwards, 
 (1835) a ground of prosecution. Immediately parties 
 were arrayed — one resolved to make him amenable for 
 these errors ; the other equally resolved to defeat the 
 attempt and hold him guiltless. During the protracted 
 controversy which followed, the conflicting points of two 
 materially variant systems of theology were brought 
 prominently to view. The question was, Shall the doc- 
 trinal symbols of the Presbyterian Church be maintained 
 in their integrity, or shall every one be allowed to inter- 
 pret them according to his own caprice ? The party 
 maintaining these standards, agreeably to their obvious 
 and long settled meaning, were soon and justly charac- 
 terized as the Old-school ; while that which contended 
 for latitude of interpretation, and the allowance of novel 
 schemes of doctrine, were styled with equal propriety 
 New-school. In drawing the lines of demarcation, it was 
 never supposed or pretended that all the ministers, and 
 especially all the people who placed themselves under the 
 New-school array, really held the alleged errors of some 
 of their party ; but submitting to leaders who did hold 
 them, or who gave them their countenance, by shielding 
 such as had deserted the old landmarks, they necessarily 
 acquired the same name. How far these reasons exist 
 for appropriating to them this appellation at the present 
 time, will appear from Chapter xii. of this treatise. 
 
 We see no cause for altering the work as far as it was 
 published in former editions, notwithstanding the allega- 
 tion that we " quoted mostly from Congregational authors, 
 with whom, on these points, the New-school Presbyte- 
 rians have but little sympathy." This is a mistake. 
 Our quotations were mostly from authors who at the time 
 of the publication of the books quoted from, were min- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 isters in good standing in the Presbyterian Cliurcli ; and 
 with two or three exceptions they are now in the New- 
 school body. Mr. Finney, though now a Congregation- 
 alist, was for some time a minister in the Presbyterian 
 Church, during which period he preached with approba- 
 tion in numerous Presbyterian pulpits in Western New 
 York, the substance of those discourses which afterwards 
 appeared in print ; and their publication, for the most 
 part, was prior to his leaving the Presbyterian Church. 
 Since then he has published his " System of Theology," 
 in which there is scarcely one trace of Calvinism ; and 
 the extreme views which he now maintains, he alleges, 
 are the legitimate results of those doctrines. The proof 
 which we adduced from Congregationalist authors, though 
 indirect, was legitimate. New Haven was the foster 
 parent of these errors ; and the Quarterly issued there, 
 from which our quotations were chiefly made, was not 
 only read extensively by Presbyterian ministers, but was 
 the medium through which one of them (the Rev. Albert 
 Barnes) published some of his most objectionable matter. 
 It was not from a conviction of its irrelevancy that An- 
 dover was not also referred to. As many of the minis- 
 ters who sided with the New-school were alumni of the 
 Theological Seminary at Andover, the sentiments of one 
 of the Professors of that Institution might have been 
 quoted with propriety, as tending to show the essentially 
 anti-Presbyterian doctrines taught in that school. The 
 late Professor Stuart, who, with that party, was a kind 
 of oracle, repudiated, in some of its most important par- 
 ticulars, that form of sound words which has ever been 
 the glory of the Presbyterian Church. His pupils un- 
 doubtedly adopted many of his peculiar sentiments. 
 One of the present incumbents, Professor Park, has di- 
 verged still more widely from the doctrines of our church ; 
 and yet what New-school journal has condemned his 
 errors, or cautioned their candidates for the ministry to 
 avoid his teachings ? 
 
 In an anonymous pamphlet, the design of which is to 
 
22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 show that there is no essential difference between the 
 doctrines of the two schools, this treatise is barely alluded 
 to in two or three brief remarks, one of which is, that 
 we misunderstand the New-school Presbyterians whom 
 we quote. But as no intimation is given that the quota- 
 tions are incorrect, it is not very material how we under- 
 stand them.* Every reader can interpret them for himself. 
 Our office was rather that of a compiler than an expositor. 
 We submitted the question of agreement or disagreement 
 to an intelligent and candid public, to be decided by an 
 extended comparison of various authors. The decision 
 has been made Disinterested observers, whatever may 
 be their creed, have been generally forced to admit that 
 there are material variations in faith between the two 
 bodies. No softening words, no extenuating pleas, no 
 ingenious explanations can make the two systems one and 
 the same. 
 
 But though we dare not attempt by the aid of nice, 
 philosophical distinctions, to make those differences appear 
 insignificant, we are equally indisposed to magnify their 
 importance beyond what truth and candor require. It 
 is to us a source of pain, and not of pleasure, to record 
 the errors of Christian brethren ; and we shall be sin- 
 cerely gratified and thankful to God, when those which 
 are noticed in this treatise shall be known only in history. 
 
 * It is proper to observe that the italics and capitals in the 
 passages quoted are mostly our own. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE CHARACTER AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 
 
 In New England, the controversy on the subject of 
 the present chapter embraces some propositions which 
 have never been much discussed in the Presbyterian 
 church, and concerning which the great majority of our 
 ministers, we believe, have not expressed a decided opinion. 
 We refer to the following, which we give in the language 
 of Dr. Tyler : " Dr. Taylor maintains contrary to my 
 belief, that the existence of sin is not, on the whole, for 
 the best ; and that a greater amount of good would have 
 been secured had all God's creatures remained holy, than 
 will result from the present system." Again : " Dr. 
 Taylor maintains, contrary to my belief, that God, all 
 things considered, prefers holiness to sin, in all instances 
 in which the latter takes place." It has been a common 
 sentiment among New England divines, since the time of 
 Edwards, " that sin is the necessary means of the greatest 
 good, and as such, so far as it exists, is preferable, on 
 the whole, to holiness in its stead." The sentiment is 
 founded upon what has been denominated the Beltistian 
 
 (23) 
 
24 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Theory ; which, it is said, was first taught by Leibnitz, 
 about the commencement of the last century. This 
 theory maintains, that " of all possible systems, God, 
 infinitely wise and good, must adopt that which is best.'' 
 The present system, therefore, is preferable to every 
 other ; and since sin is a part of the system, " its exist- 
 ence is, on the whole, for the best." Not that " sin 
 must be good in itself," as Dr. Taylor disingenuously 
 insinuates that they hold — this is no part of their belief 
 — ^but that God will so overrule it, for the promotion of 
 his glory and the happiness of the universe, " that a 
 greater amount of good will result from the present 
 system, than would have been secured had all God's 
 creatures remained holy."* Concerning the principle 
 of Leibnitz, from which these conclusions are drawn, Dr. 
 Witherspoon remarks : " This scheme seems to me to 
 labour under two great and obvious difficulties — that the 
 infinite God should set limits, to himself, by the produc- 
 tion of a "created system — it brings creation a great deal 
 too near the Creator to say it is the alternative of Omni- 
 potence. The other difficulty is, that it seems to make 
 something which I do not know how to express otherwise 
 than by the ancient stoical fate, antecedent and superior 
 even to God himself. I would therefore think it best to 
 say, with the current of orthodox divines, that God was 
 perfectly free in his purpose and providence, and that 
 there is no reason to be sought for the one or the other 
 beyond himself." 
 
 * New England optimism, as it is sometimes denominated, arises 
 from the theory that virtue consists in benevolence — or that the 
 tendency of holiness to produce happiness, is that which gives it 
 its chief, if not its onlv excellence. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 25 
 
 Admitting, then, that there was no necessity on the 
 part of the Creator to form one particular system rather 
 than another, it becomes merely a question of fact, 
 whether more good will result to the universe from the 
 existence of sin, all things considered, than would have 
 been secured if sin had never been permitted. To this 
 question, most of the ministers in our church, we are dis- 
 posed to think, would reply by saying, " We cannot tell." 
 All agree that " the existence of sin under the divine gov- 
 ernment is a profound mystery ;" and also that God will 
 make use of it to display some of his illustrious perfec- 
 tions, and to communicate to his creatures rich and 
 eternal blessings. But whether he might not have formed 
 a system, if it had been his pleasure, by which his glory 
 would have been still more displayed, and a still greater 
 amount of happiness secured to his creatures, it is not 
 our province to decide. As he has nowhere told us that 
 he has made the best system possible, and as we cannot 
 perceive that his infinite goodness required him to do it, 
 we are disposed to leave the question to be contemplated 
 and solved (if a solution be desirable), when we shall 
 have the advantage of that expansion of mind, that in- 
 crease of knowledge, and that interchange of sentiment 
 with other created beings, which we shall enjoy in the 
 heavenly world. 
 
 But while in regard to these propositions we express 
 no opinion, we consider the reasoning of Dr. Taylor in 
 attempting to refute them as involving pernicious errors. 
 It is on this account that we have introduced the subject 
 in the present volume. Pressed with the difficulty that 
 if sin under the divine government will not on the whole 
 be for the best, why did God permit it ? he has taken the 
 3 
 
26 *OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 bold, not to say the impious ground, that God did all he 
 could to prevent the existence of sin, but could not, with- 
 out infringing on the moral agency of man — and that he 
 would make the world holier and happier now if he could, 
 without abridging human liberty. 
 
 His language on this subject is as follows : "It will 
 not be denied that free moral agents can do wrong under 
 every possible influence to prevent it. The possibility 
 of a contradiction in supposing them to be prevented 
 from doing wrong, is therefore demonstrably certain. 
 Free moral agents can do wrong under all possible pre- 
 venting influence." — Christian Spectator^ Sept. 1830, 
 p. 563.* 
 
 "But in our view it is a question whether it is not 
 essential to the honour of God to suppose that he has 
 done all he could to secure the universal holiness of his 
 accountable creatures ; and that nevertheless, some, in 
 defiance of it, would rebel. Such a proposition we think 
 neither violates the feelings of' enlightened piety, nor the 
 decision of revelation." — Christian Spectator, 1832, 
 p. 567. 
 
 " God not only prefers on the whole that his creatures 
 should for ever perform their duties rather than neglect 
 them, but purposes on his part to do all in his power to 
 promote this object in his kingdom." — Christian Specta- 
 tor, 1832, p. 660. 
 
 " It is a groundless assumption, that God could have 
 prevented all sin, or at least, the present degree of sin 
 in a moral system. If holiness in a moral system be 
 
 * As we have not all the numbers of the Christian Spectator 
 in our possession, we shall, in our quotations from that work, make 
 free use of a pamphlet written by the Rev. Daniel Dow. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 27 
 
 preferable to sin in its stead, why did not a benevolent 
 God, were it possible to him, prevent all sin, and secure 
 the prevalence of universal holiness ? Would not a moral 
 universe of perfect holiness, and of course perfect happi- 
 ness, be happier and better than one comprising ' sin and 
 its miseries ?' And must not infinite benevolence accom- 
 plish all the good he can ? Would not a benevolent God, 
 then, had it been possible to him in the nature of thifigs, 
 have secured the existence of universal holiness in his 
 moral kingdom?" Coneio ad Clerum. 
 
 It is not surprising that the publication of such senti- 
 ments created alarm among the orthodox clergy of New 
 England ; and that speedy efforts were made to arrest 
 their progress. 
 
 Unhappily, they soon found their way to New York, 
 and through the agency of Mr. Finney and others, ob- 
 tained considerable currency. Mr. Finney's views will 
 appear from the following quotation. In reply to an 
 objection that as God " is almighty, he could prevent sin 
 if he pleased," &c., he observes : " To say nothing of his 
 word and oath upon this subject, you have only to look 
 into his law to see that he has done all that the nature 
 of the case admitted to prevent the existence of sin. 
 The sanctions of his law are absolutely infinite: in them 
 he has embodied and held forth the highest possible mo- 
 tives to obedience. His law is moral and not physical ; 
 a government of motive and not of force. It is in vain 
 to talk of his omnipotence preventing sin. If infinite 
 motives cannot prevent it, it cannot be prevented under 
 a moral government, and to maintain the contrary is 
 absurd and a contradiction. To administer moral laws 
 is not the object of physical power. To maintain, there- 
 
28 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 fore, that the physical omnipotence of God can prevent 
 sin, is to talk nonsense." — Sermons on Important jSub- 
 jectSy p. 58. 
 
 Similar language is employed by him and other writers 
 of the same school with reference to the power of God 
 to convert sinners, and to make the world holier and 
 happier than it now is. Mr. Edward R. Tyler [not Dr. 
 Tyler] preached a sermon at New Haven, Oct. 1829 
 (published by request), in which occur the following sen- 
 tences :* " He [God] does not prefer the present system 
 to one which might have presented itself to his choice, 
 had it been possible to retain all moral beings in obedi- 
 ence ; but prefers it to the non-existence of a moral sys- 
 tem, notwithstanding sin is its unavoidable attendant." 
 " The nature of things, as they now exist, forbids, as far 
 as God himself is concerned, the more frequent existence 
 of holiness in the place of sin. How do you know that 
 the influence which He employs, even in respect to those 
 who perish, is not all which the nature of the case admits ? 
 How do you know that he can maintain his moral govern- 
 ment, or preserve moral agents in being as such, and 
 prevent sin ? Do you not pass the boundaries of human 
 knowledge in saying that he is able to prevent all sin, 
 while he preserves, unimpaired, the freedom of account- 
 able beings ? Such may be the nature of free agents 
 that they cannot be governed in a manner to exclude sin, 
 or to restrict it to a smaller compass than it actually pos- 
 sesses." "Such is the nature of free agents, that God 
 foresaw he could not create them without liability to err 
 and actual transgression. He knew at the same time, 
 
 * Mr. Tyler was at that time Pastor of the South Church in 
 Middletown, Conn. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 29 
 
 that the best possible system included such beings ; that 
 is, beings capable of knowing and loving him. He re- 
 gretted, as he abundantly teaches us in his word, that 
 some of those whom he was about to create would sin. 
 Had it been possible to secure them all in obedience, 
 more happiness would have been enjoyed by his creatures, 
 and equal glory would have surrounded his own throne. 
 But although the system which he saw to be best, could 
 not be realized in consequence of the anticipated perver- 
 sion of moral agency, he perceived a system such as he 
 has adopted, notwithstanding the evil attending it, to be 
 preferable to any which should exclude moral beings." 
 "It is to him a subject of regret and grief, yet men trans- 
 gress ; they rebel in spite of his wishes ; they persevere 
 in sin in spite of all which he can do to reclaim them." 
 
 A writer in the Christian Spectator [believed to be 
 Professor Fitch,] advances the same ideas. "Whatever 
 degree or kind of influence" says he, ^'is used with them, 
 to favour their return to him, at any given time, is as 
 strongly favourable to their conversion as it can be made 
 amid the obstacles which a world of guilty and rebellious 
 moral agents oppose to God's works of grace." — "Re- 
 view of Dr. risk's Discourse on Predestination and Elec- 
 tion." 
 
 In accordance with these sentiments, it was not uncom- 
 mon, a few years ago, in some parts of New York, to 
 hear from the pulpit and in the lecture room, that God is 
 doing all he can to convert and save sinners — that if he 
 could, he would convert many more than he does — that 
 he converts as many as he can persuade to yield their 
 hearts to him — and other expressions to the same effect. 
 Of very similar import is the remark attributed to a son 
 3* 
 
30 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 of Dr. Beecher, which, according to the Hartford ChriS' 
 tian Watchmaji, was one cause of Dr. Porter's anxiety 
 in relation to the father — it having been reported that 
 he approved of the sentiment, viz. "that though God is 
 physically omnipotent, he has not acquired moral power 
 enough to govern the universe according to his will." 
 
 How different these statements are from the old the- 
 ology, will appear by a reference to the Confession of 
 Faith ; which teaches that God " hath most sovereign 
 dominion over his creatures, to do by them, for them, 
 and upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth" — that he 
 is "Almighty, most absolute, working all things accord- 
 ing to the counsel of his own immutable and most right- 
 eous will, for his own glory." They are equally at vari- 
 ance with the word of God, which declares that "he 
 doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and 
 among the inhabitants of the earth ; and none can stay 
 his hand, or say unto him. What doest thou?" 
 
 The positions assumed by Dr. Taylor and others, 
 besides being unscriptural, are believed by many to in- 
 volve principles which are subversive of some important 
 Scripture doctrines. They place such limits upon the 
 power of God, as to be a virtual denial of his omnipo^ 
 fence. They make him so dependent upon his creatures, 
 as to render him liable to disappointment, and conse- 
 quently to a diminution of his happiness. Dr. Taylor, 
 or one of his friends, admits that his blessedness has been 
 diminished by the existence of sin. " It is admitted that 
 what men have done to impair the blessedness of God by 
 sin, has not failed of its results in the actual diminution 
 of his blessedness, compared with what it had been, had 
 they obeyed his perfect law." — Spirit of the Pilgrims, 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 31 
 
 Vol. V. p. 693. Mr. Tyler, wlio lias just been referred 
 to, makes the same admission. " This doctrine," he 
 remarks, " is said to be inconsistent with the happiness 
 of God. And we admit, that as far as his happiness id 
 affected by the conduct of his creatures, he w^ould have 
 been better pleased had angels and men always remained 
 steadfast in his fear and service." 
 
 They involve a denial of the divine decrees — for if 
 God does not possess such absolute control over his crea- 
 tures that he can govern them according to his pleasure, 
 how could he have decreed any thing unconditionally 
 concerning them, since it might happen, that in the ex- 
 ercise of their free agency, they would act contrary to 
 the divine purpose ? On the same principle, they virtu- 
 ally reject the Calvinistic doctrine of election, and make 
 election depend upon the foreknowledge of God and the 
 will of the creature. This is actually the way in which 
 Mr. Finney explains the doctrine. " The elect, then," 
 says he, " must be those who God foresaw could be con- 
 verted under the wisest administration of his government. 
 That administering it in a way that would be most bene- 
 ficial to all worlds, exerting such an amount of moral 
 influence on every individual as would result, on the 
 whole, in the greatest good to his divine kingdom, he 
 foresaw that certain individuals could, with this wisest 
 amount of moral influence, be reclaimed and sanctified, 
 and for this reason, they were chosen to eternal life." 
 *' The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God fore- 
 saw that in the perfect exercise of their freedom they 
 could be induced to repent and embrace the gospel." 
 " In choosing his elect, you must understand that he has 
 thrown the responsibility of their being saved upon them j 
 
82 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 tliat tlie whole is suspended upon their consent to the 
 terms ; you are perfectly able to give your consent, and 
 this moment to lay hold on eternal life. Irrespective of 
 your cwn choice, no election can save you, and no repro- 
 bation can damn you." — Sermons on Important Subjects, 
 p. 224, 25, 29, 33. Mr. Tyler, from whose sermon we 
 have already quoted, gives the same explanation of this 
 doctrine, or, in other words, virtually denies it. " God 
 foresees," he observes, "whom he can make willing in 
 the day of his power, and resolves that they shall be 
 saved." Prof. Fitch also advances the same idea in his 
 review of Dr. Fisk's discourses on Predestination and 
 Election, in the " Christian Spectator." 
 
 The same remarks may be made, substantially, con- 
 cerning the saints' perseverance, and even their stability 
 in heaven. If the free will of sinners may effectually 
 resist all the influence which God can use for their con- 
 version, why may not the free will of Christians, under 
 the counter influence of temptation, break through all the 
 moral influences which God can bring to bear upon them, 
 and they completely and eternally fall away ? And if 
 so, why may not the same catastrophe befall them after 
 they arrive at heaven ? To borrow the language of Dr. 
 Tyler ; "If his creatures are so independent of him that 
 he cannot control them at pleasure, what assurance can 
 he give us that every saint and every angel will not yet 
 apostatize and spread desolation through the moral uni- 
 verse ?" 
 
 Horrible as this thought is, it appears to be a legiti- 
 mate consequence from the reasoning of the New Haven 
 divines. " But this possibility that moral agents will sin, 
 remains (suppose what else you will) so long as moral 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 33 
 
 agency remains ; and how can it be proved that a thing 
 will not be, when, for aught that appears, it may be? 
 When in view of all the facts and evidence in the case it 
 remains true that it may be, what evidence or proof can 
 exist that it will not heV'—Ch. Spec. 1830, p. 563. 
 Again: "We know that amoral system necessarily im- 
 plies the existence of free agents, with the power to act 
 in despite of all opposing power. This fact sets human 
 reason at defiance in every attempt to prove that some of 
 these agents will not use that power and actually sin." 
 Ch. Spec, 1831, p. 617. If, then, the saints and angels 
 in heaven are ''free agents^'" they have, according to the 
 above reasoning, " the power to act in despite of all op- 
 posing power," and it cannot be proved "that some of 
 these agents will not use that power and actually sin." 
 
 On this subject we will quote some pertinent remarks 
 from "Views in Theology," a periodical published in 
 New York. "It is as true of angels and the spirits of 
 just men made perfect, that they are moral agents, and 
 that their powers are the same in kind that are known to 
 originate sin, as it is of us ; as clear that if God ' should 
 begin and pursue any method of providence and govern- 
 ment' over them, ' the causes which originate sin would 
 still exist in kind, under his providence,' as it is, that 
 they would among men ; and ' since under any system 
 of providence, the condition of his creatures must be con- 
 stantly changing ;' as clear, therefore — if the powers of 
 moral agency alone be considered — ' that among these 
 fluctuations, there may arise conjunctures under any pro- 
 vidence, in which temptations will rise and prevail to the 
 overthrow of some of those creatures,' as it is that they 
 may, under any providence, over such beings as ourselves. 
 
34 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 " On tte principles, then, on whicli his reasoning pro- 
 ceeds, we not only have no certainty of the continued 
 obedience of holy, angelic, and redeemed spirits, but 
 have an absolute probability of their universally yielding 
 to rebellion at some period of their existence, notwith- 
 standing every species and degree of preventing influence 
 that God can exert over them !" 
 
 To these, we will add the following from Dr. Griffin : 
 " If God could not have prevented sin in all worlds and 
 ages, he cannot prevent sin in any world or age, or in any 
 creature at any time, except by preventing the particular 
 occasion and temptation. If God could not have pre- 
 vented sin in the universe, he cannot prevent believers 
 from fatally falling ; he cannot prevent Gabriel and Paul 
 from sinking at once into devils, and heaven from turning 
 into a hell. And were he to create new races to fill the 
 vacant seats, they might turn to devils as fast as he created 
 them, in spite of any thing that he could do short of de- 
 stroying their moral agency. He is liable to be defeated 
 in all his designs, and to be as miserable as he is benevo- 
 lent. This is infinitely the gloomiest idea that was ever 
 thrown upon the world. It is gloomier than hell itself. 
 For this involves only the destruction of a part, but that 
 involves the wretchedness of God and his whole creation. 
 And how awfully gloomy as it respects the prospects of 
 individual believers ! You have no security that you shall 
 stand an hour. And even if you get to heaven, you have 
 no certainty of remaining there a day. All is doubt and 
 sepulchral gloom. And w^here is the glory of God? 
 Where the transcendent glory of raising to spiritual life 
 a world dead in trespasses and sins ? Where the glory 
 of swaying an undivided sceptre, and doing his whole 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 35 
 
 pleasure ^ in tlie army of heaven and among the inhabi- 
 tants of the earth?' " — Griffin on Divine Efficiency, pp. 
 180, 181. 
 
 The practical influence of these assumptions is be- 
 lieved to be no less objectionable than their tendencies to 
 error. 
 
 1. In relation to prayer. If we adopt the principle 
 that God has not supreme control over the hearts of all 
 men, how can we with confidence plead the fulfilment of 
 those promises which are to be accomplished by the in- 
 strumentality of his creatures ? However willing he may 
 be to answer our prayers, there may be found among the 
 various agents to be employed, some Pharaoh, so much 
 more obstinate than the king of Egypt, that no influence 
 which God can employ, will incline him to let his people 
 go — or some Ahithophel, so much more sagacious and 
 influential than the counsellor of Absalom, that the Lord 
 will not be able to " turn his counsel to foolishness," and 
 bring back his own anointed to the throne of Israel. 
 
 2. If we believe ourselves so independent of God, that 
 we can successfully resist any moral influence which he 
 can bring to bear upon our minds, how feeble will be the 
 incentives to the exercise of humility ! Tell a carnal, 
 unregenerate man, that though God had physical power 
 to create him, he has not moral power to govern him, and 
 you could not furnish his mind with better aliment for 
 pride and rebellion. Should you, after giving this lesson, 
 press upon him the claims of Jehovah, you might expect 
 to be answered, as Moses was by the proud oppressor of 
 Israel : "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?'* 
 
 3. The same may be said in regard to submission. Of 
 this, the case just referred to afibrds an ample illustra- 
 
36 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 tion. What a miserable reflection it would have been to 
 present to an enslaved Israelite, that he ought to submit 
 cheerfully to his bondage, because it was not in the power 
 of the Lord to prevent it ! Men are free agents : in the 
 exercise of that agency, your ancestors would settle 
 themselves in Egypt — and in the exercise of the same 
 agency, the Egyptians would enslave them ! God knew 
 that such would be the result, and he would have hindered 
 it if he could, but could not, without destroying their free 
 agency ! " Free moral agents can do wrong under every 
 possible influence to prevent it." 
 
 4. Such reflections aff'ord as little foundation for grati- 
 tude as for submission. Why do we feel grateful to God 
 for those favours which are conferred upon us by the 
 agency of our fellow men, except on the principle that 
 they are only instruments in his hand — who, without 
 " offering the least violence to their wills, or taking away 
 the liberty or contingency of second causes," "hath most 
 sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, 
 and upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth !" On any 
 other ground, tJiei/ would be worthy of the principal, and 
 he only of secondary praise. 
 
 In conclusion, we will observe, (adopting the language 
 of the "Views in Theology," already referred to), "The 
 great questions involved in this controversy, it is suffici- 
 ently apparent from the foregoing discussion, are not of 
 mere ordinary interest, but vitally important ; and the 
 decisions that are formed respecting them by the teachers 
 of religion, must exert a momentous influence on the 
 churches and religion of our country. The subjects to 
 which they relate — the attributes of God, the reality and 
 nature of his government, the doctrines of his word, the 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 37 
 
 nature of the mind, the laws of its agency, the causes 
 that influence it — if any are entitled to that rank, are 
 fundamental : and the problems which it is the object of 
 the controversy to solve, whether God is almighty as a 
 moral and providential Ruler as well as Creator, or weak 
 and liable to perpetual frustration ; whether he is wholly 
 able or wholly unable, to prevent moral beings from 
 sinning ; whether he can or cannot determine and foresee 
 the events of their agency, and thence whether his pre- 
 dictions, threatenings and promises are true or false — 
 indisputably involve all that is essential in Christianity ; 
 and the scheme which affirms the one is as diverse from 
 that which asserts the other, as light is from darkness, 
 and truth from falsehood." ^' The question between 
 them, is nothing less than the question — of two wholly 
 dissimilar and contradictory systems, which is it that is 
 the gospel of the grace of God ? and which therefore is it 
 that wholly contradicts and subverts the gospel ?" 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 god's covenant with ADAM, AND OUR RELATION TO HIM AS OUR 
 FEDERAL HEAD — INVOLVING THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION AND 
 ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 According to Witsius, "A covenant of God with man 
 is an agreement between God and man, about the method 
 of obtaining consummate happiness, with the addition of 
 a threatening of eternal destruction, with which the 
 despiser of the happiness oflered in that way is to be 
 4 
 
38 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 punislied." Such a covenant God made with Adam 
 before the fall ; and through him with all his posterity — 
 he acting as their federal head and representative. " The 
 first covenant made with man," says our Confession 
 of Faith, " was a covenant of works, wherein life was 
 promised to Adam, and in him, to his posterity, upon 
 condition of perfect and personal obedience" — (as our 
 Catechism adds), " forbidding him to eat of the tree of 
 knowledge of good and evil upon pain of death." This 
 has been the common sentiment among the Reformed 
 churches since the time of Luther and Calvin. It also 
 formed a part of the creed of the early Christian Fathers. 
 Some of the reasons for this doctrine are the following : 
 
 1. The law given to Adam in Gen. ii. 16, 17, con- 
 tained all the essential properties of a covenant; viz. 
 parties, a condition, a penalty, and an implied promise. 
 It is not essential to a covenant that the parties should 
 be equal — nor was it necessary in the present case, that 
 Adam should give a formal consent to the terms pro- 
 posed ; because they were binding upon him as a creature 
 of God, independent of his consent. But inasmuch as 
 he was created in the image of God, and had his law 
 written in his heart, there was undoubtedly a cordial 
 assent to the proposed condition. 
 
 2. That transaction is referred to by the prophet 
 Hosea, under the name of a covenant. '' But they hke 
 men [Heb. like Adam,] have transgressed the covenant." 
 Hosea vi. 7. Upon this passage Henry remarks, " Herein 
 they trod in the steps of our first parents; they, like 
 Adam, have transgressed the covenant ; (so it might very 
 well be read) ; as he transgressed the covenant of inno- 
 cency, so they transgressed the covenant of grace ; so 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 39 
 
 treacherously, so foolishly ; there in paradise, he violated 
 his engagements to God ; and there in Canaan, another 
 paradise, they violated their engagements. And by their 
 treacherous dealing they, like Adam, have ruined them- 
 selves and theirs." This text has no definite sense, un- 
 less it refers to Adam. 
 
 3. Christ is said to have been given " for a covenant 
 of the people ;" (Isa. xlii. 6), and since a parallel is 
 drawn by the apostles between Christ and Adam, the 
 latter being called the first, and the former the second 
 Adam, the analogy requires us to regard the first Adam 
 as a party to a covenant. 
 
 The representative character of Adam may be proved 
 by the following considerations. All the dispensations 
 of Jehovah concerning Adam before the fall, respected 
 his posterity as well as himself; such as dominion over 
 the creatures, liberty to eat of the productions of the 
 earth, the law of marriage, &c. When God made this 
 covenant with Adam, it does not appear that Eve was yet 
 formed — and yet it is manifest from her reply to the 
 tempter, (Gen. iii. 2, 3), that she considered herself as 
 included in the transaction. Again ; it is said (Gen. v. 
 2), that when God created man male and female, he called 
 their name Adam ; which indicates that the woman was 
 included federally in the man. Further ; the conse- 
 quences of Adam's transgression affected his posterity 
 as well as himself. Gen. iii. 16, 19 ; Rom. v. 12 ; 1 Cor. 
 XV. 22. The apostle also draws a parallel between Christ 
 and Adam ; in which he describes Christ as the represen- 
 tative of his spiritual seed, as Adam was of his natural 
 seed. Rom. v. 12, 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22. But how did 
 Christ represent his seed except in the covenant of grace ? 
 
40 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Adam, therefore, must haA^e represented his in the cove- 
 nant of works. 
 
 That covenant made with Adam, and through him with 
 his posterity, involves the doctrines of imputation and 
 original sin. Destroy that and you destroy these — they 
 must stand or fall together. And as they are both based 
 upon the same covenant, so they are closely connected 
 with each other. " So far as I know," says President 
 Edwards, " most of those who hold one of these have 
 maintained the other ; and most of those who have op- 
 posed one have opposed the other. And it may perhaps 
 appear in our future consideration of the subject, that 
 they are closely connected, and that the arguments which 
 prove the one, establish the other, and that there are no 
 more difficulties attending the allowing of one than the 
 other." 
 
 Upon these points the Confession of Faith teaches, 
 that our first parents " being the root of all mankind ; 
 the guilt of this sin [eating the forbidden fruit] was im- 
 puted, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature 
 conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by 
 ordinary generation" — and that ''from this original cor- 
 ruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and 
 made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, 
 do proceed all actual transgressions." The phrase "root 
 of all mankind," it is evident from the proof-texts, refers 
 not merely to natural relation, but also to covenant head- 
 ship ; the latter being the principal foundation upon which 
 the guilt of Adam's first sin is imputed to us ; while the 
 former is the channel through which our corrupted nature 
 is conveyed. " Original sin is conveyed from our first 
 parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 41 
 
 all that proceed from them in that way, are conceived and 
 born in sin." — Larger Catechism. Imputation regards 
 us as being responsible in law, for what Adam did as our 
 representative — and as a punishment for his sin, our origi- 
 nal righteousness was lost, and we are born with a corrupt 
 disposition. That is what is meant by original sin. 
 
 As President Edwards is often referred to as a standard 
 author on these points, we will quote a few sentences from 
 his work on original sin. " By original sin," says he, " as 
 the phrase has been most commonly used by divines, is 
 meant the innate sinful depravity of the heart. But yet 
 when the doctrine of original sin is spoken of, it is vul- 
 garly understood in that latitude, as to include not only 
 the depravity of nature, but the imputation of Adam's 
 first sin ; or, in other words, the liableness or exposed- 
 ness of Adam's posterity in the divine judgment, to par- 
 take of the punishment of that sin." 
 
 By the imputation of Adam's sin then, according to 
 President Edwards, is meant liability to punishment on 
 account of his sin — and by original sin, the inherent de- 
 pravity of our nature. This we believe is in exact ac- 
 cordance with our standards, as they are understood by 
 our most approved commentators. 
 
 Dr. Hodge, in his commentary on the Romans, observes, 
 " This doctrine [of imputation] does not include the idea 
 of a mysterious identity of Adam and his race ; nor that 
 of a transfer of the moral turpitude of his sin to his de- 
 scendants. It does not teach that his offence was person- 
 ally or properly the sin of all men, or that his act was, 
 in any mysterious sense, the act of his posterity." " The 
 sin of Adam, therefore, is no ground to us of remorse." 
 
 " This doctrine merely teaches that in virtue of the union, 
 4* 
 
42 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 representative and natural, between Adam and his pos- 
 terity, his sin is the ground of their condemnation, that 
 is, of their subjection to penal evils." In reference to 
 original sin, he says, " It is not, however, the doctrine of 
 the Scriptures, nor of the reformed churches, nor of our 
 standards, that the corruption of nature of which they - 
 speak, is any depravation of the soul, or an essential 
 attribute, or the infusion of any positive evil." " These 
 confessions [of the Reformers] teach that original right- 
 eousness was lost, and by that defect the tendency to sin 
 or corrupt disposition, or corruption of nature, is occa- 
 sioned. Though they speak of original sin as being first 
 negative, i. e. the loss of righteousness ; and secondly, 
 positive, or corruption of nature ; yet by the latter, they 
 state, is to be understood, not the infusion of any thing 
 in itself sinful, but an actual tendency or disposition to 
 evil resulting from the loss of righteousness." As some 
 of the strongest objections to these doctrines arise either 
 from misunderstanding or misrepresenting them, the only 
 answer which is necessary in many instances, is, to show 
 that the doctrines as held by those who embrace them, 
 are not what the objector supposes. The above quota- 
 tions will serve to show what are the true doctrines on 
 this subject. Some of the proofs by which they are sub- 
 stantiated, together with such remarks as may occur to 
 us, will be reserved for a subsequent chapter.* 
 
 * To any one who desires particular information on these points, 
 we recommend the commentary of the Rev. Dr. Hodge, from which 
 we have just quoted. There is no work within our knowledge, 
 which to us is so clear and satisfactory in its statements and rea- 
 sonings on this subject, and we believe it expresses the views which 
 are generally entertained by those who are denominated the " Old' 
 school,^' or " Orthodox^^ portion of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 43 
 
 We will now state with as mucli accuracy as we are 
 capable of, what we understand to be the New-school 
 doctrines in reference to this subject. According ^o the 
 New Theology, there was not, in the proper sense of the 
 word, any covenant made with Adam, but he was merely 
 placed under a law. He was not the federal head or 
 representative of his posterity, but only their natural 
 parent. Though, as his descendants, we feel the effects 
 of his sin, and become sinful ourselves in consequence of 
 it, the doctrine that his sin was imputed to us is unjust 
 and absurd. All sin and holiness consist in acts. To 
 speak of a sinful or holy nature, (except in a figurative 
 sense) is, therefore, absurd. When Adam was created, 
 he was neither sinful nor holy, but he acquired a holy 
 character by the performance of holy acts, i. e. by choosing 
 God as his supreme good, and placing his affections upon 
 him. Jesus Christ, though called holy at his birth, was 
 so merely in the sense of dedicated, and not as possessing 
 (morally considered) a holy nature. When we are born 
 we possess no moral character any more than brutes, but 
 we acquire a moral character as soon as we arrive at 
 moral agency, and put forth moral acts. In the sense in 
 "which it has been commonly understood, there is no such 
 thing as original sin, there being no other original sin 
 than the first sin a child commits after arriving at moral 
 agency. Children are born with the same nature as Adam 
 possessed at his creation — and the difference between us 
 and him is, that we are born in different circumstances ; 
 and that the inferior powers of our nature have obtained 
 greater relative strength ; from which it universally results 
 as a matter of fact, that our first acts are sinful, instead 
 of being holy, as his were ; i. e. we do not choose God as 
 
44 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 the object of our supreme affection, but the world — and 
 tbis choice of the world as our chief good is what consti- 
 tutes human depravity. 
 
 Before referring to our authorities, we wish to observe 
 that those who hold either wholly or in part to the above 
 doctrines, have not entirely laid aside the use of the terms 
 covenant, imputation, original sin, &c. — but they employ 
 them in a different sense from that which has been gene- 
 rally attached to them by Calvinistic writers. 
 
 Mr. Finney, for example, uses the term covenant, in 
 regard to the transaction between God and Adam ; and 
 yet he denies that Adam was the federal head of his pos- 
 terity. His doctrine appears to be that all mankind were 
 placed prospectively under the covenant of works, and 
 were to have a trial or probation, each one for himself, 
 similar to what Adam had ; and that from their connec- 
 tion with him as their natural parent, it so happens that 
 they all break the covenant as soon as they arrive at 
 moral agency, and thus become sinners. His language 
 is, "I suppose that mankind were originally all under a 
 covenant of works, and that Adam was not so their head 
 or representative, that his obedience or disobedience in- 
 volved them irresistibly in sin and condemnation, irre- 
 spective of their own acts." — Lectures to Professing 
 Christians, p. 286. Take these words in connection with 
 what precedes, and their import will be more obvious. 
 *' It has been supposed by many," says he, "that there 
 was a covenant made with Adam such as this, that if he 
 continued to obey the law for a limited period, all his pos- 
 terity should be confirmed in holiness and happiness for 
 ever. What the reason is for this belief I am unable to 
 ascertain: I am not aware that the doctrine is taught in 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 45 
 
 the Bible." Here he alhules in direct terms to the com- 
 mon doctrine, and expresses his dissent from it. But 
 what does he hold? "Adam," says he, ^' was the na- 
 tural head of the human race, and his sin has involved 
 them in its consequences ; but not on the principle that 
 his sin is literally accounted their sin." \_Qusere : Who 
 does maintain this opinion ?] " The truth," he adds, "is 
 simply this : that from the relation in which he stood as 
 their nattiral head^ as a matter of fact, his sin has re- 
 sulted in the sin and ruin of his posterity." Then follows 
 what we first quoted. Thus it appears that though he 
 employs the term "covenant of works," he rejects the 
 doctrine which is generally entertained by those who use 
 it. He intends one thing by it, and they another. 
 
 Mr. Barnes, in the seventh edition of his Notes on the 
 Romans, (p. 128), uses the word impute^ in reference to 
 the guilt of Adam's first sin ; though by a comparison 
 between his remarks here, and some which are found in 
 other parts of the book, it is evident he attaches a differ- 
 ent meaning to the word, from what is common among 
 Calvinistic writers. He says, (p. 95), " I have examined 
 all the passages," where the word occurs in the Old Tes- 
 tament, "and as the result of my examination, have 
 come to the conclusion that there is not one in which the 
 word is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a 
 man that which does not strictly belong to him ; or of 
 charging on him that which ought not to be charged on 
 him as a matter of personal right. The word is never 
 used to denote imputing in the sense of transferring, or 
 of charging that on one which does not properly belong 
 to him. The same is the case in the New Testament. 
 
 The word occurs about forty times, and in a similar 
 
46 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 signification. No doctrine of transferring^ or of setting 
 over to a man what does not properly belong to him, be 
 it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, from this 
 word." 
 
 The transfer of the moral turpitude of Adam's sin is 
 no part of the doctrine, as held by its advocates — but 
 this is not what Mr. Barnes intends to deny ; because he 
 expressly informs us, that by transferring he means 
 *' setting over to a man what does not properly belong to 
 him." The word iynjjute^ then, according to him, is never 
 used in the sense of " setting over to a man what does 
 not properly belong to him" — i. e. what " ought not to be 
 charged on him as a matter of personal right." Nor is 
 this doctrine taught in any of these passages. How dif- 
 ferent is this from the language of Turrettin and Owen, 
 as quoted by Dr. Hodge. " Imputation," says the former, 
 "is either of something foreign to us, or of something 
 properly our own. Sometimes that is imputed to us whiclx 
 is personally ours ; in which sense God imputes to sinners 
 their transgressions. Sometimes that is imputed to us 
 which is without us, and not performed by ourselves; 
 thus the righteousness of Christ is said to be imputed to 
 us, and our sins are imputed to him although he has neither 
 sin in himself, nor we righteousness. Here we speak of 
 the latter kind of imputation, not the former, because we 
 are talking of a sin committed by Adam, and not by us. 
 
 The foundation, therefore, of imputation, is not 
 
 only the natural connection which exists between us and 
 Adam, since, in that case, all his sins might be imputed 
 to us, but mainly the moral and federal, in virtue of which 
 God entered into covenant with him as our head." Owen 
 says, *' Things which are not our own originally, inhe- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 47 
 
 rently, may yet be imputed to us, ex justttia, by the rule 
 of righteousness. And this may be done upon a double 
 relation unto those whose they are. 1. Federal. 2. Na- 
 tural. Things done by one may be imputed unto others, 
 propter relationem foederalem, because of a covenant re- 
 lation between them. So the sin of Adam was imputed 
 to all his posterity. And the ground hereof is, that we 
 stood in the same covenant with him who was our head 
 and representative." .... ^'Nothing is intended by the 
 imputation of sin unto any, but the rendering them justly 
 obnoxious unto the punishment due unto that sin." 
 
 Though, therefore, Mr. Barnes uses the word impute, 
 lie does not mean with these authors, that Adam's pos- 
 terity were rendered legally liable to punishment on ac- 
 count of his sin ; but only that they are " subject to pain, 
 and death, and depravity, as the consequence of his sin;" 
 ^''subject to depravity as the consequence ;'* i. e. liable to 
 become depraved as soon as they arrive at moral agency, 
 on account of their being descended from Adam, who was 
 "the head of the race;" and who having sinned, "se- 
 cured as a certain result that all the race will be sinners 
 also ;" such being " the organization of the great society 
 of which he was the head and father." " The drunkard," 
 says he, " secures as a result, commonly, that his family 
 will be reduced to beggary, want and woe. A pirate, or 
 a traitor, will whelm not himself only, but his family in 
 ruin. Such is the great law or constitution, on which 
 society is now organized ; and we are not to be surprised 
 that the same principle occurred in the primary organi- 
 zation of human affairs." Is this the sense in which our 
 Confession of Faith uses the word impute ? We leave it 
 for the reader to judge. 
 
48 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Professor Fitch of New Haven has not laid aside the 
 phrase origi7ial sin, though the whole drift of his dis- 
 courses on the nature of sin is inconsistent with the com- 
 mon doctrine, and was doubtless intended to overthrow it. 
 If it be true, according to him, *' that sin, in every form 
 and instance, is reducible to the act of a moral agent, in 
 which he violates a known rule of duty," how can it be 
 possible that there is any such thing as is called by Presi- 
 dent Edwards, " the innate sinful depravity of the heart T^ 
 Professor Fitch does not pretend that there is — and yet 
 he would make his readers believe that he holds to origi- 
 nal sin, and he tells us in one of his inferences, that " the 
 subject may assist us in making a right explanation of the 
 doctrine." And what is it ? "Nothing can in truth be 
 called original sin, but his first moral choice or preference 
 being evil." One can hardly exculpate him from disin- 
 genuousness in retaining the terms, after having adopted 
 principles subversive of their clear import; and then 
 employing them in a sense materially different from com- 
 mon and long established usage. He must certainly have 
 known that his definition of original sin is strikingly at 
 variance with that of Calvin ; who describes it as " an 
 hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, dif- 
 fused through every part of the soul, which first makes 
 us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces 
 those works which the Scriptures denominate the works 
 of the flesh." 
 
 We have extended these remarks so much beyond what 
 we anticipated, that the quotations we intended to make 
 in proof of our statement concerning the New-school doc- 
 trines, must be reserved for another chapter. We will 
 therefore close the present chapter with a few appropriate 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 49 
 
 and forcible observations of the Kev. Dr. Miller, taken 
 from his Letters to Presbyterians. After enumerating 
 most of the New-school doctrines which are brought to 
 view in this chapter, and some others which we shall notice 
 hereafter, he says : "If Pelagian and semi- Pelagian 
 sentiments existed in the fifth century^ here they are in 
 all their unquestionable and revolting features. More 
 particularly in regard to the denial of original sin, and 
 the assertion of the doctrine of human ability, Pelagius 
 and his followers never went further than some of the 
 advocates of the doctrines above recited. To attempt to 
 persuade us to the contrary, is to suppose that the record 
 of the published language and opinions of those ancient 
 heretics is lost or forgotten. And to assert that these 
 opinions are reconcilable with the Calvinistic system, is 
 to offer a poor compliment to the memory of the most 
 acute, learned and pious divines, that ever adorned the 
 Church of God, from the days of Augustine to those of 
 the venerable band of Puritans, who, after bearing a noble 
 testimony against surrounding errors on the other side of 
 the Atlantic, bore the lamp of truth and planted the 
 standard of Christ in this western hemisphere." 
 
 These observations are not introduced with a view of 
 influencing the reader to receive the statement they con- 
 tain, on the mere authority of a venerable name ; nor of 
 forestalling his judgment with regard to the points under 
 consideration. All that we expect or desire is, that they 
 will influence him to consider the controversy not as con- 
 sisting (as some profess to believe) in a mere " strife about 
 words,'' but as involving important and dangerous errors; 
 and will induce him to give such attention to the proofs 
 we are about to exhibit, and to other sources of evidence 
 5 
 
50 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 to wliich he may have access, as will enable him to ascer- 
 tain to his entire satisfaction, whether these things are 
 so. If wise and good men now concur with the " most 
 acute, learned and pious divines that ever adorned the 
 Church of God" in former days, in judging these senti- 
 ments to be heretical and pernicious ; they claim the care- 
 ful examination of those who attach any importance to 
 religious truth, and desire to enjoy its invaluable and per- 
 manent benefits. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING CHAPTER CONTINUED, EXHIBITING 
 THE NEW THEOLOGY CONCERNING GOD's COVENANT WITH ADAM, AS 
 THE FEDERAL HEAD OF HIS POSTERITY, IMPUTATION, ORIGINAL SIN, 
 ETC. 
 
 Our statement in the last chapter concerning the New 
 Theology, though embraced under three or four general 
 heads, involves as many other points, which either grow 
 out of the former, or are so connected with them, that 
 our views of the one will materially affect our sentiments 
 concerning the other. Accordingly, in that statement, 
 these several particulars were presented ; but they are so 
 involved in each other, it will not be easy in our quota- 
 tions to keep them entirely distinct. AVe shall therefore 
 make no formal divisions, but introduce them in such 
 order as we find most convenient. 
 
 We will suppose ourselves in the company of several 
 prominent ministers, to whom a gentleman present by the 
 name of Querist, proposes the following questions : 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 51 
 
 Querist. — Mr Barnes, I have recently perused your 
 sermon on the Way of Salvation, and your Notes on the 
 Romans. Am I correct in supposing that you deny that 
 any covenant was made with Adam, as the federal head 
 or representative of his posterity ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — " Nothing is said of a covenant with 
 him. No where in the Scriptures is the term covenant 
 applied to any transaction with Adam. All that is es- 
 tablished here is the simple fact that Adam sinned, and 
 that this made it certain that all his posterity would be 
 sinners. Beyond this, the language of the Apostle does 
 not go ; and all else that has been said of this, is the 
 result of mere philosophical speculation." — Notes on the 
 Romans, 1st edition, p. 128. 
 
 Querist. — Was not Christ the covenant head of his 
 people, and does not the Apostle draw a parallel between 
 Adam and Christ ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — "A comparison is also instituted be- 
 tween Adam and Christ in 1 Cor. xv. 22 — 25. The rea- 
 son is, not that Adam was the representative or federal 
 head of the human race, about which the Apostle says 
 nothing, and which is not even implied, but that he was 
 the first of the race ; he was the fountain, the head, the 
 father ; and the consequences of that first act, introduc- 
 ing sin into the world, could be seen every where. The 
 words representative and federal head are never applied 
 to Adam in the Bible. The reason is, that the word 
 representative implies an idea which could not have ex- 
 isted in the case — the consent of those who are repre- 
 sented. Besides, the Bible does not teach that they acted 
 in him, or by him ; or that he acted for them. No pas- 
 
52 OLDAKDNEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 sage has ever yet been found that stated this doctrine." 
 — Notes on the Romans, 1st edition, pp. 120, 121. 
 
 Querist. — I perceive that in the later editions of your 
 Notes the above phraseology is considerably changed — • 
 have you altered your sentiments ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — " Some expressions in the former editions 
 have been misunderstood; some are now seen to have 
 been ambiguous ; a few that have given offence have been 
 changed, because, without abandoning any principle of 
 doctrine or interpretation, I could convey my ideas in 
 language more acceptable and less fitted to produce 
 offence." — Advertisement to the fifth edition. "My 
 views have never changed on the subject that I can now 
 recollect." — 3Ir. Barnes's Defence before the Second 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia, in June and July, 1835. 
 
 Querist. — Do you then deny the doctrine of imputa- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — " That doctrine is nothing but an effort 
 to explain the manner of an event which the Apostle 
 did not think it proper to explain. That doctrine is, in 
 fact, no explanation. It is introducing an additional dif- 
 ficulty. For, to say that I am blameworthy, or ill-de- 
 serving, for a sin in which I had no agency, is no expla- 
 nation, but is involving me in an additional difficulty, 
 still more perplexing, to ascertain how such a doctrine 
 can possibly be just." — Notes on the Romans, 7th edition, 
 pp. 121, 122. " Christianity does not charge on men 
 crimes of which they are not guilty. It does not say, as 
 I suppose, that the sinner is held to be personally answer- 
 able for the transgressions of Adam, or of any other 
 man." — Sermon on the Way of Salvation. 
 
 Querist. — You cannot be ignorant, sir, that these views 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 53 
 
 are at variance with the sentiments of Calvinistic writers. 
 The 5th chapter of Komans has been universally consid- 
 ered as teaching this doctrine. President Edwards says : 
 " As this place, in general, is very full and plain, so the 
 doctrine of the corruption of nature, derived from Adam, 
 and also the imputation of his fii^st sin, are both clearly 
 taught in it. The imputation of Adam's one transgres- 
 sion, is, indeed, most directly and frequently asserted. 
 We are here assured that by one man's sin, death passed 
 upon all ; all being adjudged to this punishment, as having 
 sinned (so it is implied) in that one man's sin. And it is 
 repeated over and over, that all are condemned, many 
 are dead, many made sinners, &c., by one man's oflfence, 
 
 by the disobedience of one, and by one offence." 
 
 *' Though the word impute is not used with respect to 
 Adam's sin, yet it is said, all have sinned ; which, re- 
 specting infants, can be true only of their sinning by this 
 sin. And it is said, by his disobedience many were made 
 sinners ; and judgment came upon all by that sin ; and 
 that by this means, death (the wages of sin) passed on all 
 men J &c., which phrases amount to full and precise ex- 
 planations of the word impute; and, therefore, do more 
 certainly determine the point really insisted on." — Ed- 
 wards on Original Sin, vol. 2, pp. 512, 517. 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — " It is not denied that this [my] lan- 
 guao-e varies from the statements which are often made 
 on the subject, and from the opinion which has been 
 entertained by many men. And it is admitted that it 
 does not accord with that used on the same subject in the 
 Confession of Faith, and in other standards of doctrine. 
 The main difference is, that it is difficult to affix any clear 
 and definite meaning to the expression ' we sinned in him. 
 5* 
 
54 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 and fell with him.' It Is manifest, so far as it is capable 
 of interpretation, that it is intended to convey the idea, 
 not that the sin of Adam is imputed to us, or set over to 
 our account ; but that there was a personal identity con- 
 stituted between Adam and his posterity, so that it was 
 really our act, and ours only, after all, that is chargeable 
 on us. This was the idea of Edwards. The notion of 
 IMPUTING sin is an invention of modern times ; and it is 
 not, it is believed, the doctrine of the Confession of 
 Faith." ..." Christianity affirms the fact, that, in con- 
 nection with the sin of Adam, or as a result, all moral 
 agents in this world will sin, and sinning, will die. — Rom. 
 V. 12 — 19. It does not affirm, however, any thing about 
 the mode in which this would be done. There are many 
 ways conceivable, in which that sin might secure the 
 result, as there are many ways in which all similar facts 
 may be explained. The drunkard commonly secures, as 
 a result, the fact, that his family will be beggared, illite- 
 rate, perhaps profane or intemperate. Both facts are 
 evidently to be explained on the same priyiciple as a part 
 of moral government." — Note to his Sermon on the Way 
 of Salvation. 
 
 Querist. — Are these the views of the other gentlemen 
 present ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — " If by [the union of representation] 
 is meant nothing more than that Adam did not act exclu- 
 sively for himself, but that his conduct was to determine 
 the character and conduct of those that should come after 
 him, we will not object. But if it is meant to designate 
 ony positive procedure of Grod, in which he made Adam 
 to stand, and required him to act, as the substitute of the 
 persons of his offspring, numerically considered, and by 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 55 
 
 name, head for head, so that they might be held, as in 
 commercial transactions, personally liable for this sin, as 
 being guilty copartners with him in it, we certainly may 
 require other and better proof than what is commonly 
 submitted." — Duffield on Regeneration, p. 391. 
 
 Querist. — I know of no one who holds the doctrine 
 precisely as you have stated it. But let me inquire whether 
 you believe there existed any legal union between Adam 
 and his posterity on account of his being their covenant- 
 head ; and that the guilt of his first sin was imputed to 
 them, or set over in law to their account, so that they 
 were thereby subjected to penal evils ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — " Whpn it is said, in the second com- 
 mandment, that God visits the iniquities of the fathers 
 upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation," 
 will it be contended that this is because the former stood 
 as the representatives of the latter, acting legally, in their 
 name, and for them? We presume not. And yet stronger 
 language cannot be employed to denote the results which 
 flow from Adam's sin, by virtue of our connection with 
 him. Why, then, must we suppose that there is a prin- 
 ciple in the one case different from that in the other ? 
 And that what seems to flow out of the natural relation 
 between parent and children, and to be the natural con- 
 sequence of such relation, must be attributed to a legal 
 U7iion or moral identity between Adam and his offspring V" 
 — Duffield on Regeneration, p. 392. 
 
 Querist. — According to this view, what becomes of the 
 old doctrine of original sin, as consisting in the corrup- 
 tion or depravity of our nature ? The doctrines of impu- 
 tation and a corrupt nature have been regarded as so 
 closely connected, that the denial of the former involved 
 
56 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 the rejection of the latter — and the same proofs which 
 have been relied upon to establish the one, have generally 
 been adduced to defend the other. Thus, President 
 Edwards, in the passage already referred to, says : "And 
 the doctrine of original dejjravity is also here taught, 
 [i. e. in Rom. v. 12 — 21,] where the Apostle says, hy one 
 7nan sin entered into the world ; having a plain respect 
 (as hath been shown) to that universal corrwption and 
 wickedness, as well as guilt, which he had before largely 
 treated of." Is original sin to be given up; or so modi- 
 fied as to become an entirely different doctrine ? 
 
 l)r. Beecher. — " The Reformers with one accord, 
 taught that the sin of Adam was imputed to all his pos- 
 terity, and that a corrupt nature descends from him to 
 every one of his posterity, in consequence of which in- 
 fants are unholy, unfit for heaven, and justly exposed to 
 future punishment. Their opinion seems to have been, 
 that the very substance or essence of the soul was de- 
 praved, and that the moral contamination extended alike 
 to all its powers and faculties, insomuch that sin became 
 a property of every man's nature, and was propagated 
 as really as flesh and blood." . . "Our Puritan fathers 
 adhered to the doctrine of original sin, as consisting in 
 the imputation of Adam's sin, and in a hereditary de- 
 pravity ; and this continued to be the received doctrine 
 of the churches of New England until after the time of 
 Edwards. He adopted the views of the Reformers on 
 the subject of original sin, as consisting in the imputa- 
 tion of Adam's sin, and a depraved nature, transmitted 
 by descent. But after him this mode of stating the sub- 
 ject was gradually changed, until long since, the pre- 
 vailing doctrine in New England has been, that men are 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 'ol 
 
 not guilty of Adams sin^ and that depravity is not of 
 the substance of the soul, nor an inherent or physical 
 quality, but is wholly voluntary, and consists in a trans- 
 gression of the law, in such circuynstances as constitute 
 accountability and desert of punishment." — Dr. Beecher's 
 Controversy with the editor of the Christian Examiner 
 in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, in 1828, as quoted in the 
 Biblical Repertory."^ 
 
 Querist. — Am I to understand by these remarks, that 
 the doctrine of a sinful or corrupt nature has been aban- 
 doned ? 
 
 Dr. Beecher. — " Neither a holy nor a depraved nature 
 is possible without understanding, conscience, and choice. 
 To say of an accountable creature, that he is depraved 
 by nature, is only to say that, rendered capable by his 
 Maker of obedience, he disobeys from the commencement 
 of his accountability." .... "A depraved nature can 
 no more exist without voluntary agency and accountabil- 
 ity, than a material nature can exist without solidity and 
 
 extension." "If, therefore, man is depraved by 
 
 nature, it is a voluntary and accountable nature which is 
 depraved, exercised in disobedience to the law of God." 
 . . . . "Native depravity, then, is a state of the affec- 
 tions in a voluntary accountable creature, at variance 
 with divine requirement, from the beginning of accoun- 
 tability." — Sermon on the Native Character of Man. 
 
 * Since writing this chapter, we have seen the number of the 
 Spirit of the Pilgrims, in which the above is found, with Dr. 
 Beecher's own signature. In his "Views in Theology," he appears 
 to speak a different language — language not easily reconciled with 
 the above quotation. But as he does not profess to have changed 
 his sentiments, the preceding must be regarded as expressing his 
 opinions. 
 
58 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGT. 
 
 Mr. Finney. — "All depravity [is] voluntary — consist- 
 ing in voluntary transgression. [It is] the sinner's own 
 act. Something of his own creation. That over which 
 he has a perfect control, and for which he is entirely 
 responsible. ! the darkness and confusion, and utter 
 nonsense of that view of depravity which exhibits it, as 
 something lying back, and the cause of all actual trans- 
 gression." — Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 139. 
 
 Querist. — Does all sin, then, consist in acts 9 
 
 Professor Fitch. — " Sin, in every form and instance, 
 is reducible to the act of a moral agent, in which he 
 violates a known rule of duty." — Discourses on the Ma- 
 ture of S{71. 
 
 Querist. — By parity of reasoning, all holiness must 
 likewise consist in acts. 
 
 Mr. Finney. — "All holiness in God, angels, or men, 
 must be voluntary, or it is not holiness." .... "When 
 Adam was first created, and awoke into being, before he 
 had obeyed or disobeyed his Maker, he could have had 
 no moral character at all ; he had exercised no affections, 
 no desires, nor put forth any actions. In this state he 
 was a complete moral agent ; and in this respect in the 
 image of his Maker : but as yet he could have had no 
 moral character ; for moral character cannot be a subject 
 of creation, but attaches to voluntary actions." — Sermons 
 on Important Subjects, pp. 7, 10, 11. 
 
 Querist. — If these views are correct, what must be 
 said concerning infants ? Are they neither sinful nor 
 holy? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — " It is a question alike pertinent and 
 important, whether in the incipient period of infancy and 
 childhood there can be any moral character whatever pos- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 59 
 
 sessed. Moral character is character acquired by acts 
 of a moral nature. Moral acts are those acts which are 
 contemplated by the law, prescribing the rule of human 
 conduct." . . . ^' It is obvious that in infancy and inci- 
 pient childhood, when none of the actions are deliberate, 
 or the result of motive, operating in connection with the 
 knowledge of law, and of the great end of all human ac- 
 tions, no moral character can appropriately be predicated.'* 
 . . " Properly speaking, therefore, we can predicate of it 
 neither sin nor holiness, personally considered." — Duf- 
 field on Regeneration, pp. 377, 378, 379. 
 
 Querist. — Was not Jesus Christ lioly from his birth ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — " Things inanimate have, in scriptural 
 parlance, sometimes been called lioly, as the inmost 
 chamber of the temple was called the holy of holies ; but 
 then it was because of some especial and peculiar rela- 
 tionship which it had to God. He dwelt in it. It was 
 set apart as pre-eminently and exclusively appropriate to 
 God. In this sense the yet unconscious human nature 
 of Christ may be denominated holy, for it was the habi- 
 tation of God, and singularly and exclusively appropriate 
 to him, differing in this respect essentially and entirely 
 from that of any of the descendants of Adam." — Duffield 
 on Regeneration, p. 353. 
 
 Querist. — If infants are not sinful before they arrive 
 at moral agency, and have no legal or covenant connec- 
 tion with Adam as their representative, how can you 
 account for their death ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — '^ There is no manner of necessity, in 
 order to account for the death of infants, to suppose that 
 the sin of Adam became their personal sin, either in 
 respect of its act, or its ill desert. Their death eventu- 
 
60 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 ates according to tliat law of dependence, whicli marks 
 the whole government of God in this world, by virtue of 
 which the consequences of the act of one man terminate 
 ofttimes on the person of another, when there is not the 
 union of representation." — Duffield on Regeneration^ p. 
 389. 
 
 Professor Goodrich, of New Haven. — '' Infants die. 
 The answer has been given a thousand times ; brutes die 
 also. But, .... animals are not subjects of the moral 
 government of God. Neither are infants previous to 
 moral agency ; for what has moral government to do with 
 
 those who are not moral agents ?" "Animals, and 
 
 infants previous to moral agency do, therefore, stand on 
 precisely the same ground in reference to this subject. 
 Suffering and death afford no more evidence of sin in the 
 one case than in the other." — Christian Spectator^ 1829, 
 p. 373 — attributed to Professor Goodrich. 
 
 Querist. — If infants do not possess a corrupt nature, 
 please to inform me by what process they become sinful 
 — and how it happens that not one of the human family 
 born in the ordinary way has ever escaped this cata- 
 strophe. 
 
 Professor Goodrich. — "A child enters the world with 
 a variety of appetites and desires, which are generally 
 acknowledged to be neither sinful nor holy. Committed, 
 in a state of utter helplessness, to the assiduity of pa- 
 rental fondness, it commences existence, the object of 
 unceasing care, watchfulness, and concession to those 
 around him. Under such circumstances it is that the 
 natural appetites are first developed, and each advancing 
 month brings them new objects of gratification. The 
 obvious consequence is, that self-indulgence becomes the 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 61 
 
 master principle in the soul of every child, long before it 
 can understand that this self-indulgence will interfere 
 with the rights or intrench on the happiness of others. 
 Thus, by repetition, is the force of constitutional pro- 
 pensities accumulating a bias towards self-gratification^ 
 which becomes incredibly strong, before a knowledge of 
 duty or a sense of right and wrong can possibly have 
 entered the mind. That moment — -the commencement 
 
 of moral agency, at length arrives." ^' Why then 
 
 is it so necessary to suppose some distinct evil propen- 
 sity — some fountain of iniquity in the breast of the child 
 
 previous to moral action?" ''But let us look at 
 
 facts. Angels sinned. Was the cause which led to their 
 first act of rebellion, in itself sinful ? Eve was tempted 
 and fell. Was her natural appetite for food, or her desire 
 for knowledge — to which the temptation was addressed — 
 a sinful feeling ? And why may not our constitutional 
 propensities now lead to the same result at the com- 
 mencement of moral agency, as was actually exhibited 
 in fallen angels and our first parents, even when advanced 
 in holiness?" .... "Did not vehement desire produce 
 sin in Adam's first act of transgression ? Was there any 
 previous principle of depravity in him ? Why then may 
 not strong constitutional desires be followed now by a 
 choice of their objects as well as in the case of Adam V 
 — Christian Spectator, 1829, pp. 366, 367, 368. 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — The infant "is placed in a rebellious 
 world, subject to the influence of ignorance, with very 
 limited and imperfect experience, and liable to the strong 
 impulses of appetite and passion." . . . . " Instinct, ani- 
 mal sensation, constitutional susceptibilities create an im- 
 pulse, which not being counteracted by moral considerar 
 6 
 
62 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 tions or gracious influence, lead the will in a wrong di- 
 rection and to wrong objects. It was thus that sin was 
 induced in our holy progenitors. No one can plead in 
 Eve an efficient cause of sin resident in her nature (any 
 prava vis) or operative power, sinful in itself, anterior to 
 and apart from her own voluntary acts. And if she was 
 led into sin, though characteristically holy, and destitute 
 of any innate propensity to sin, where is the necessity 
 for supposing that the sins of her progeny are to be re- 
 ferred to such a cause?" . . . . " Temptation alone is suf- 
 ficient under present circumstances." — Duffield on He- 
 generation, pp. 310, 379, 380. 
 
 Mr. Finney. — " If it be asked how it happens that 
 children universally adopt the principle of selfishness, 
 unless their nature is sinful, I answer, that they adopt 
 the principle of self-gratification or selfishness, because 
 they possess human nature, and come into being under 
 the peculiar circumstances in which all the children of 
 Adam are born since the fall ; but not because human 
 nature is itself sinful. The cause of their becoming 
 sinners is to be found in their nature being what it is, 
 and surrounded by the peculiar circumstances of tempta- 
 tion to which they are exposed in a world of sinners." . . 
 "Adam was created in the perfection of manhood, cer- 
 tainly not with a sinful nature, and yet an appeal to his 
 innocent, constitutional appetites led him into sin. If 
 Kdult Adam, without a sinful nature, and after a season 
 •^f obedience and perfect holiness, was led to change his 
 mind by an appeal to his innocent, constitutional propen- 
 sities, how can the fact that infants possessing the same 
 nature with Adam, and surrounded by circumstances of 
 still greater temptation, universally fall into sin, prove 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 63 
 
 ttat their nature is itself sinful ? Is such an inference 
 called for ? Is it legitimate ? What ! holy and adult 
 Adam is led, by an appeal to his innocent constitution, 
 to adopt the principle of selfishness, and no suspicion is 
 or can be entertained, that he had a sinful nature ; but 
 if little children under circumstances of temptation, 
 aggravated by the fall, are led into sin, we are to believe 
 that their nature is sinful ! This is wonderful philoso- 
 phy !" — Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 157. 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — " If no being can sin without a constitu- 
 tional propensity to sin, how came Adam to sin ? If one 
 being, as Adam, can sin, and did in fact sin without such 
 a propensity to sin, why may not others ?" — Spirit of the 
 Pilgrims, vol. 6, p. 13, as quoted by Dow. 
 
 Querist. — Do you accord. Dr. Taylor, with the senti- 
 ment just expressed by Mr. Finney, that " infants pos- 
 sess the same nature with Adam" at his creation? 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — " Mankind come into the world with the 
 same nature in kind as that with which Adam was created." 
 — Ibid. vol. 6, p. 5. 
 
 Querist. — What influence then has the fall exerted on 
 the posterity of Adam ? 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — "I answer, that it may have been to 
 change their nature, not in kind, but degree." — Ibid, 
 vol. 6, p. 12. 
 
 Querist. — On the supposition that the nature of Adam 
 and that of his posterity were alike in kind, why did not 
 he sin as soon as he commenced his moral existence ? 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — " I answer, that the reason may have 
 been, that his nature differed, not in kind, but in degree 
 from that of his posterity." — Ibid, 
 
 Querist. — On this principle, in what respect did the 
 
64 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 human nature of Christ diifer from that of other child- 
 ren ? — and if he possessed in his human nature, what 
 other children possess, why did he not exhibit the same 
 moral character ? 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — "I might answer as before, that his 
 human nature may have differed from that of other child- 
 ren not in kind, but degree.'' — Ibid, 
 
 We have given the preceding quotations at consider- 
 able length, that those readers who may not have attended 
 to the controversy, may perceive from their own state- 
 ments, its various bearings and tendencies ; and how far 
 those have gone who have been bold enough to follow out 
 their principles to their legitimate and full results. We 
 do not attribute to all whose names we have introduced, 
 every sentiment which has been advanced by some of 
 them — but it cannot fail, we think, to strike the mind of 
 the reader that there is such an affinity between the 
 several parts of the series, that the man who adopts one 
 of the doctrines in this category, will be in great danger 
 of ultimately embracing the whole. They all belong to 
 the same system ; and ought therefore to be introduced 
 in stating the distinguishing features of the New The- 
 ology ; though many who adhere to the system in part, 
 do not go to the ne plus ultra of the scheme, as it is here 
 exhibited. -^ 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 65 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 REMARKS ON IMPUTATION, ORIGINAL SIN, ETC., WITH REFERENCE TO 
 THE VIEWS PRESENTED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER. 
 
 The controversy respecting our connection with Adam, 
 and the influence produced upon us by the fall, com- 
 menced early in the fifth century, when Pelagius, a British 
 monk, published opinions at variance with the common 
 doctrines of the church. He and his followers enter- 
 tained substantially the same views which have been 
 exhibited in the preceding chapter ; though they adopted 
 a method somewhat different to account for the commis- 
 sion of sin by little children, and went fui-ther in their 
 views concerning the influence of Adam's sin upon his 
 descendants. They maintained that " the sin of Adam 
 injured himself alone, and did not affect his posterity ;" 
 and that we sin only by "imitation." But their senti- 
 ments concerning the nature of sin, original sin, and 
 imputation, were the same with those which distinguish 
 the New Theology. 
 
 Concerning the first, Pelagius says, "And here, in my 
 opinion, the first inquiry ought to be. What is sin ? Is 
 it a substance, or is it a mere name devoid of substance ; 
 not a thing, not an existence, not a body, nor any thing 
 else (which has a separate existence) but an act ; and if 
 this is its nature, as I believe it is, how could that which 
 is devoid of substance debilitate or change human na- 
 ture?" "Every thing, good or evil, praiseworthy 
 
 6* 
 
66 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 or censurable, wliicli we possess, did not originate with 
 us, but is done hy us ; for we are born capable both of 
 good and evil, but not in possession of these qualities ; 
 for in our birth we are equally destitute of virtue and 
 vice ; and previously to moral agency, there is nothing 
 in man but that which God created in him." — Biblical 
 Repertory. 
 
 This question concerning the nature of sin was re- 
 garded as decisive concerning the other two ; and it was 
 introduced by Pelagius with that view. Says he, "It is 
 disputed concerning this, whether our nature is debili- 
 tated and deteriorated by sin. And here, in my opinion, 
 the first inquiry ought to be, What is sin 9" &c. So it 
 is regarded at the present time. Says Mr. Finney, "In 
 order to admit the sinfulness of nature, we must believe 
 sin to consist in the substance of the constitution, instead 
 of voluntary action, which is a thing impossible." — Ser- 
 mons on Important Subjects, p. 158. 
 
 Mr. Duffield, after stating several things which he 
 supposes may be meant by the phrase original sin, gives 
 as the views of the Westminster divines, that it denotes 
 " something which has the power to originate sin, and 
 which is necessarily involved in our very being, from the 
 first moment of its origination." This he intimates was 
 intended by the expression in our Catechism, " the cor- 
 ruption of our whole nature." He then says, (after some 
 preliminaries) " It is strange that ever it should have been 
 made a question, whether sin may be predicated of being 
 or simple existence, since sin is undeniably an act of a 
 moral character, and therefore can only be committed by 
 one who is possessed of moral powers, i. e. one who is 
 capable of acting according as the law requires or pro- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 67 
 
 hibits." '^ Holiness, or sin, wliich is its opposite, 
 
 has a direct and immediate reference to those voluntary 
 acts and exercises, which the law is designed to secure or 
 
 prevent." "How very absurd, therefore, is it to 
 
 predicate sin of that which does not fall under cognizance 
 of law at all!" Though he uses the phrase "being or 
 simple existence," as that concerning which it is absurd 
 to predicate sin, he refers unquestionably to the expres- 
 sion in the Catechism which he had just quoted, and upon 
 which he was remarking, viz. " the corruption of our 
 whole nature." It is absurd, therefore, according to 
 him, to speak of our having a corrupt nature, since, as 
 he maintains, all sin consists in voluntary acts of a moral 
 agent, in violation of a known law. Hence the imputa- 
 tion of Adam's first sin to his posterity, and original sin, 
 are rejected as unphilosophical and absurd. 
 
 Says Pelagius, " When it is declared that all have 
 sinned in Adam, it should not be understood of any origi- 
 nal sin contracted by their birth, but of imitation." .... 
 " How can a man be considered guilty by God of that 
 sin which he knows not to be his own ? for if it is neces- 
 sary, it is not his own ; but if it is his own, it is volun- 
 tary; and if voluntary, it can be avoided." 
 
 Julian, one of the disciples of Pelagius, says, " Who- 
 ever is accused of a crime, the charge is made against 
 his conduct, and not against his birth," . . . "Therefore 
 we conclude that the triune God should be adored as 
 most just ; and it has been made to appear most irre- 
 fragably, that the sin of another never can be imputed 
 by him to little children." . . . " Hence that is evident 
 which we defend as most reasonable, that no one is born 
 in sin, and that God never judges men to be guilty on 
 
68 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 account of their birth." " Children, inasmuch as 
 
 they are children, never can be guilty, until they have 
 done something by their own proper will." — Biblical 
 Repertory. 
 
 How striking is the resemblance between these views 
 and the following remarks of Mr. Barnes : " When Paul," 
 says he, "states a simple fact, men often advance a 
 theory. ... A melancholy instance of this we have in the 
 account which the apostle gives (ch. 5), about the effect 
 
 of the sin of Adam They have sought for a theory 
 
 to account for it. And many sujopose they have found it 
 in the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set 
 over by an arbitrary arrangement to beings otherwise 
 innocent, and that they are held to be responsible for a 
 deed committed by a man thousands of years before they 
 were born. This is the theory ; and men insensibly for- 
 get that it is mere theory.'' .... "I understand it, there- 
 fore, [Rom. V. 12,] as referring to the fact that men sin 
 in their own persons, sin in themselves — as indeed how 
 can they sin in any other way?" — Notes on the Romans, 
 pp. 10, IIT. 
 
 We admit that this coincidence between the New-school 
 doctrines and Pelagianism, does not afford certain proof 
 of their being untrue. It is however a strong presump- 
 tive evidence, since Pelagianism has been rejected as 
 heretical by every Evangelical Church in Christendom. 
 
 Coelestius, a disciple of Pelagius, is said to have been 
 more zealous and successful in the propagation of these 
 errors than his master. Hence, in early times, they were 
 perhaps associated with his name, more than with that of 
 Pelagius. Among other Councils which condemned his 
 heresy, was the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431; which 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 69 
 
 " denominated it the wicked doctrine of Coelestius." — 
 Biblical lle'pertory. 
 
 In a number of the Confessions of Faith adopted by 
 different churches after the Reformation, Pelagianism is 
 mentioned by name. Thus, in one of the Articles of the 
 Episcopal Church, it is said, " Original sin standeth not 
 in the following oi Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly 
 talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of 
 every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring 
 of Adam.^ whereby man is very far gone from original 
 righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil." 
 
 Though in the Westminster Confession, this heresy is 
 not expressly named, there can be no doubt that the 
 framers intended to reject and condemn it. Compare 
 the preceding doctrines of Pelagius and his followers with 
 our quotations from the Confession of Faith in chap. iii. ; 
 also the following from the Larger Catechism : " The 
 sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth 
 in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that right- 
 eousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of 
 his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, 
 and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and 
 wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually : which 
 is commonly called original sin, and from which do pro- 
 ceed all actual transgressions." 
 
 We have said that the denial of the doctrine of impu- 
 tation and original sin, arises in part from the adoption 
 of the theory that all sin consists in acts. Upon this 
 point, therefore, it will be pertinent to make a few re- 
 marks. 
 
 1. Holiness and sin are predicated of the heart. Thus 
 the Bible speaks of an honest and good heart, a broken 
 
70 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 heart, a clean heart, an evil heart, a hard heart, &c., 
 ■which convey the idea that there is something in man of 
 a moral character, prior to his acts — something which 
 forms the basis from which his good and evil actions pro- 
 ceed ; and which determines the character of those actions. 
 Hence holiness and sin do not consist wholly in acts, but 
 belong to our nature. 
 
 2. We are said to be conceived and born in sin ; and 
 if so, we must be sinfi^l bt/ nature ; for we have not then 
 put forth any moral acts. 
 
 3. We are declared to be by nature the children of 
 "wrath — and if children of wrath by nature, then we must 
 be by nature, sinners, for sin alone exposes to wrath. 
 All sin therefore cannot consist in acts. 
 
 4. Adam was created in the image of God — which 
 according to our standards, consisted in " knowledge, 
 righteousness, and holiness." By the fall this image 
 was lost. In regard to spiritual things we became igno- 
 rant. — *'The natural man discerneth not the things of 
 the Spirit of God," &c. Our moral characters became 
 corrupt and wicked. In other words, we forfeited our 
 original righteousness and became prone to e\dl. By 
 regeneration this image is restored. Col. iii. 10 : "And 
 have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge 
 after the image of him that created him." Eph. iv. 24: 
 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is 
 created in righteousness and true holiness." These texts 
 are decisive as to what the image of God consisted in, 
 viz. "knowledge, righteousness and true holiness." Yet 
 in this image man was created; and of course possessed 
 it before he put forth moral acts. Consequently all holi- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 71 
 
 ness and sin do not consist in acts^ but maj be predicated 
 of our nature. 
 
 The manner in which this argument has been disposed 
 of, is truly singular. On the principle that all holiness 
 consists in acts, it cannot be created. This the advocates 
 of the New Theology admit. Since then, Adam was 
 created in the image of God, a new theory must be de- 
 vised as to what that image was. In this, however, there 
 is not a perfect agreement. According to Mr. Finney, 
 it consisted in moral agency. " In this state," says he, 
 [i. e. when Adam was first created,] '' he was a complete 
 moral agent, and in this respect in the image of his 
 Maker.'' — Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 11. Mr. 
 Duffield makes it consist principally in some imaginary 
 resemblance to the Trinity. " There is, however," says 
 he, " one important respect in which this resemblance iu 
 man to God may be seen, which, indeed, is generally 
 overlooked, but which we are disposed to think is of 'prin- 
 cipal consequence. It is not one person of the Godhead 
 only who is represented as speaking at the formation of 
 man, but the whole three. Jehovah, the ever blessed 
 Three in One, said, " Let us make man in our image" — 
 not in the image of any one person, nor of each dis- 
 tinctly, but of all conjointly. How admirably are the 
 distinct personality and essential unity of the Godhead 
 represented or imaged in man possessing three distinct 
 kinds of life, and yet constituting but one moral being ! 
 In him are united the vegetable, the animal, and the 
 moral or spiritual life, each having and preserving its 
 distinct character, but all combined in one responsible 
 individual." — Duffield 07i Regeneration, p. 143. 
 
72 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 What a pity tlie apostle Paul had not understood and 
 embraced this improved theory concerning the nature of 
 sin and holiness, before he penned those passages de- 
 scribing the image of God in which man was created, and 
 to which we are restored by divine grace ! How much 
 more rational and philosophical, are these new views, 
 than the old theology of that apostle ! 
 
 5. It will be perceived by the preceding remarks, that 
 this doctrine involves also a new theory of regeneration. 
 This is not denied — and hence the sentiments which have 
 long prevailed on this subject are rejected, and the notion 
 of gradual regeneration by moral suasion, is substituted 
 in their place. But as we intend to exhibit this feature 
 of the New Theology more at length in a subsequent 
 chapter, w^e will not dwell upon it here. 
 
 6. This doctrine places those who die in infancy in a 
 most unenviable position. If all sin and holiness consist 
 in the voluntary acts of a moral agent, infants, before 
 arriving at moral agency, have no moral character ; but 
 stand in respect to moral government on the same level 
 with brute animals. This is the New-school doctrine. 
 Since, therefore, thousands die in infancy, where do they 
 go ? If they have no moral character, the blessings of 
 the gospel are no more adapted to them, than to the 
 brutes. Hence if they die before they become moral 
 agents, they must either be annihilated, or spend an eter- 
 nity in some unknown and inconceivable state of existence 
 — neither in heaven nor hell, but possibly between the 
 two — in some limhus infantum, similar, perhaps, to that 
 of the Papists ; yet with this advantage in favour of the 
 latter, that their infants, possessing moral character, may 
 be renewed and saved. What a comfortless doctrine 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 73 
 
 must tliis be to parents, when weeping by the cradle of ' 
 expiring infancy !* 
 
 7. The death of infants affords strong proof of the 
 doctrine of imputation and original sin. If there is no 
 legal connection between us and Adam, if his sin is not 
 imputed to us, and we are 7iot horn with a corrupt nature, 
 where is the justice of inflicting upon infants who have 
 never committed actual transgression, a part of the 
 penalty threatened upon Adam for his disobedience ? 
 
 8. The doctrine of imputation aifords the only evidence 
 we can have, that those dying in infancy are saved. If 
 Adam's sin was not imputed to them for their condemna- 
 tion, how can the righteousness of Christ be imputed to 
 them for their justification ? Christ came to " seek and 
 save that which was lost" — "to save sinners" — he saves 
 no others. If, therefore, they were not lost in Adam — 
 if they were not made sinners by his sin — Christ did not 
 come to save them. But he did come to save such. He 
 says, '' Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid 
 them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." They 
 are therefore sinners — and as they lost their original 
 righteousness through the first Adam, the foundation was 
 laid for their restoration and salvation through the second. 
 On any other principle there would be no hope in their 
 
 * The manner in which the advocates of the New Theology 
 attempt to relieve themselves from this difficulty, is the following, 
 viz. that the atonement places those who die in infancy in such 
 ch'cum stances in the next world, as to result in their becoming holy 
 at the commencement of moral agency. But this supposition has 
 no foundation in Scripture. Christ is never represented as enter- 
 ing our world to prevent men from becoming sinners, but to savo 
 those who were sinners already. 
 
 7 
 
74 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 case. But here is ground for consolation. In the lan- 
 guage of Dr. Watts, 
 
 "A thousand new-born babes are dead, 
 By fatal union to their head : 
 But -whilst our spirits, filled with awe, 
 Behold the terrors of thy law, 
 We sing the honours of thy grace, 
 That sent to save our ruined race : 
 Adam the second, from the dust 
 "Raises the ruins of the first." 
 
 9. The doctrine of imputation is essential to a correct 
 view of the plan of salvation. As Dr. Hodge has well 
 expressed it : " The denial of this doctrine involves also 
 the denial of the scriptural view of the atonement and 
 justification. It is essential to the scriptural form of 
 these doctrines that the idea of legal substitution should 
 be retained. Christ bore our sins ; our iniquities were 
 laid upon him ; which, according to the true meaning of 
 Scripture language, can only signify, that he bore the 
 punishment of those sins ; not the same evils indeed 
 either in kind or degree ; but still penal, because judi- 
 cially inflicted for the support of law This idea of 
 
 legal substitution enters also into the scriptural view of 
 justification. In justification, according to Paul's lan- 
 guage, God imputes righteousness to the ungodly. This 
 righteousness is not their own ; but they are regarded 
 and treated as righteous on account of the obedience of 
 Christ. That is, his righteousness is so laid to their 
 account, or imputed to them, that they are regarded and 
 treated as if it were their own, or as if they had kept 
 the law." — Hodge on the Romans^ pp. 127, 128. 
 
dLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 75 
 
 The connection of imputation with the work of Christ, 
 gives to this doctrine its chief importance. The same 
 principle is applied in the Bible both to Adam and Christ. 
 If, therefore, we deny our legal connection with Adam, 
 and the imputation of his first sin to his posterity, we 
 must necessarily adopt views concerning the method of 
 salvation by Jesus Christ, materially different from those 
 above given. On the supposition that the principle of 
 representation is inadmissible in the case of Adam, it 
 must be equally so in reference to Christ. If we cannot 
 be condemned in law by the disobedience of the one, we can- 
 not be justified by the obedience of the other. A blow 
 is thus struck at the foundation of our hope ; — a blow, 
 which, if it destroys our connection with Adam, destroys 
 also our connection with Christ, and our title to heaven. 
 
 Says Owen, " By some the imputation of the actual 
 apostacy and transgression of Adam, the head of our 
 nature, whereby his sin became the sin of the world, is 
 utterly denied. Hereby both the ground the apostle pro- 
 ceedeth on, in evincing the necessity of our justification, 
 or our being made righteous by the obedience of another, 
 and all the arguments brought in confirmation of the doc- 
 trine of it, in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Bo- 
 mans, are evaded and overthrown. Socinus confesseth 
 that place to give great countenance unto the doctrine of 
 justification by the imputation of the righteousness of 
 Christ ; and therefore he sets himself to oppose with 
 sundry artifices the imputation of the sin of Adam unto 
 his natural posterity. For he perceived well enough that 
 upon the admission thereof, the imputation of the right- 
 eousness of Christ unto his spiritual seed would unavoid- 
 ably follow, according unto the tenor of the apostle's dis- 
 
76 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 course." ..." Some deny the depravation and corruption 
 of our nature, which ensued on our apostacy from God, 
 and the loss of his image. Or if they do not absolutely 
 deny it, yet they so extenuate it, as to render it a matter 
 of no great concern unto us." . . . . " That deformity of 
 soul which came upon us in the loss of the image of God, 
 wherein the beauty and harmony of all our faculties, in 
 all their actings, in order unto their utmost end, did con- 
 sist ; that enmity unto God, even in the mind which 
 ensued thereon ; that darkness with which our under- 
 standings were clouded, yea, blinded withal ; the spirit- 
 ual death which passed on the whole soul, and total alien- 
 ation from the life of God; that impotency unto good, 
 that inclination unto evil, that deceitfulness of sin, that 
 power and efficacy of corrupt lusts, which the Scriptures 
 and experience so fully charge on the state of lost na- 
 ture, are rejected as empty notions, or fables. No wonder 
 if such persons look upon imputed righteousness as the 
 shadow of a dream, who esteem those things which evi- 
 dence its necessity to be but fond imaginations. And 
 small hope is there to bring such men to value the right- 
 eousness of Christ, as imputed to them, who are so unac- 
 quainted with their own unrighteousness inherent in them." 
 10. The Scripture proofs relied upon to establish the 
 doctrine of imputation and original sin, are such as the 
 following. John iii. 3, 6 : " Except a man be born again 
 he cannot see the kingdom of God. That which is born 
 of the flesh is flesh, and that wliich is born of the Spirit 
 is spirit." Here our first or natural birth is contrasted 
 with our second or spiritual birth. If at the first we are 
 unfit for the kingdom of heaven, and are qualified only 
 by the second, then it is clear we are horn sinners. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 77 
 
 Rom. V. 12 — 21. ^'As by one man sin entered into the 
 world and death by sin, so death passed upon all men, 
 for that all have sinned," &c. We have already quoted 
 some remarks on this passage from President Edwards, 
 in the last chapter, to which we refer the reader. The 
 quotation commences as follows : " The doctrine of the 
 corruption of nature, derived from Adam, and also the 
 imputation of his first sin, are both clearly taught in it," 
 &c. The phrases, " for that, or in whom all have sinned,'' 
 "through the offence of one many be dead,'' "the judg- 
 ment was by one to condemnation,'' "by one man's offence, 
 death reigned by one," " by one man's disobedience many 
 were made sinners,'' and other similar ones, contain so 
 exact a description of the doctrine, that the proof which 
 they furnish would not be more conclusive, if the very 
 words impute and original sin had been introduced." 
 
 Rom. vii. 18 — 23. " For I know that in me (that is in 
 my flesh) dwelleth no good thing ; for to will is present 
 with me ; but how to perform that which is good, I find 
 not," &c. This struggle between the old and new 
 man, between indwelling sin and the principle of grace, 
 affords strong evidence of the natural propensity of man 
 to sin. "" 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 22. " For as in Adam all die, even so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive." By simply reversing the 
 order of the passage, its relevancy to our present purpose 
 will be manifest. As all who shall be made alive will 
 enjoy this blessing by virtue of their connection with 
 Christ as their covenant head ; so all who die, experience 
 this calamity in consequence of a similar connection with 
 Adam ; who " being the root of all mankind, the guilt of 
 [his first sin] was imputed, and the same death in si7i, 
 7* 
 
78 OLDANDNEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 and corrupted nature, conveyed to all his posterity, de- 
 scending from him by ordinary generation." 
 
 Eph. ii. 3. "And were by nature the children of wi'ath, 
 even as others." This has been generally understood, 
 both by ancient and modern commentators, as teaching 
 the doctrine that we are born in a state of sin and con- 
 demnation. If we are children of wrath by nature, we 
 must have been horn in that condition ; and if born chil- 
 dren of wrath, we must have been born in sin. 
 
 In the Old Testament, the following among others may 
 be referred to. Gen. vi. 5 : "And God saw that the 
 wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every im- 
 agination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con- 
 tinually." This is descriptive not of one man only, but 
 of -the race ; and how can this universal corruption be 
 accounted for except on the principle of original sin ? 
 Job xiv. 4 : " Who can bring a clean thing out of an un- 
 clean ? not one." If, then, parents are "unclean," if 
 they are universally sinful, children inherit from them 
 the same character. Psalm li. 5 : " Behold, I was shapen 
 in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." This 
 is an express declaration that the Psalmist was conceived 
 in sin ; and if it was true of him, it is true of all others. 
 These three passages, taken in connection, form a com- 
 plete syllogism in support of this doctrine. If the first 
 of them is applicable to all mankind, as appears from the 
 similarity of that description and those given by David 
 and Paul ; and if the two latter exhibit the fountain from 
 w^hich the evil imaginations of the heart take their rise, 
 as they appear clearly to indicate ; then all men possess a 
 depraved and sinful nature, inherited from their parents. 
 
 As the chief object of the present volume is to exhibit 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 79 
 
 the difference between the Old and New Theology, we 
 have not thought it expedient to enter largely upon the 
 proofs in favour of the former. But what has been 
 adduced is sufficient, we think, to show the truth of the 
 Old system, in opposition to the New, and to serve as a 
 kind of index to a more minute and extensive examina- 
 tion of the subject. 
 
 Before closing the chapter we will make a few remarks 
 on the charge of injustice, which is brought against the 
 views entertained by the Old-school divines, with regard 
 to this subject. We believe it to be wholly unfounded ; 
 but against the opposite theory it might be made to lie 
 with great force. Does any one pronounce it unjust for 
 a man to be held liable for a debt contracted by one of 
 his ancestors, provided, in becoming his heir, that was 
 made one of the legal conditions by which he should in- 
 herit his estate ? But suppose he had no legal connection 
 with him at all, but simply the relation of natural descent 
 — which, according to the New-school doctrine, is our only 
 connection with Adam — where would be the justice in 
 holding him responsible for the payment of his ancestor's 
 debts ? He sustains to him, remember, no legal connec- 
 tion, but is held responsible, merely because he is his 
 descendant. Is this just ? — Since then all are obliged to 
 admit that we suffer evils in consequence of Adam's sin, 
 w^hy not adopt the scripture doctrine, that being included 
 with him in the covenant of ivorks, we became legally/ 
 involved in the ruin brought upon the world by his sin ? 
 This covenant or legal connection, renders it just that 
 we should inherit these calamities — but on any other 
 principle their infliction upon us cannot be easily ex- 
 
80 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 plained, without bearing painfully upon the justice of 
 God's dispensations. 
 
 Such is the organization of human governments, that 
 "we are usually connected in law with those from whom 
 we have descended — and there is a fitness and propriety 
 in this arrangement. Hence, unless special provision is 
 made to the contrary, the natural descendant becomes 
 the legal heir. Such also is the divine economy with 
 regard to man. The appointment of Adam as our federal 
 head was not altogether arbitrary, as it would have been, 
 had he been appointed the federal head of angels — but it 
 was according to the fitness of things. Hence, our na- 
 tural relation is made use of as the medium of bringing 
 about those results which have their origin in om: federal 
 relation. Original sin flows to us through the channel of 
 natural descent — and various evils which now flow from 
 parent to child, descend in the same way: — but their 
 foundation must be traced back to the covenant made 
 with our first father, as the representative of his posterity ; 
 the guilt of whose first sin being imputed to us, a corrupt 
 and depraved nature and other penal evils follow as the 
 consequence. Is any one disposed to say, I never gave 
 my consent to that covenant, and therefore it is unjust 
 to punish me for its violation ? We ask in return, whether 
 the individual whose case has been supposed, gave his 
 consent that his ancestor should leave the estate which 
 he has inherited from him, encumbered with debt. And 
 yet, no sane man would ever think of calling in question 
 the propriety of his being held responsible. If, however, 
 he had no legal connection with that ancestor, his natural 
 relation would not be suflicient to bind him. He is his 
 heir, not merely because he has descended from him, but 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. SI 
 
 because the law of the land has made him such. The 
 latter and not the former, imposes upon him the liabilities 
 which his ancestor incurred ; and though he never gave 
 his consent, he regards it as just and right. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST AND OUR JUSTIFICATION THROUGH HIM. 
 
 The nature and design of Christ's sufferings are gen- 
 erally described by theological writers of the present 
 day, under the name of Atonement — a term not found in 
 our standards, and but once in the English version of the 
 New Testament. For a considerable time after the Re- 
 formation, the mediatorial work of Christ was commonly 
 expressed by the words, reconciliation^ redemption, and 
 satisfaction, which are the terms employed in our Con- 
 fession of Faith. This accounts for the fact that the 
 word atonement does not occur in that volume. The 
 mere use of a term is of little consequence, provided the 
 true doctrine is retained. But many have not only laid 
 aside the ancient phraseology, but with it, all that is valu- 
 able in the atonement itself. Instead of allowing it to be 
 any proper satisfaction to divine justice, by which a 
 righteous and holy God is propitiated, some affirm that 
 it was designed merely to make an impression on intelli- 
 gent beings of the righteousness of God, thus opening 
 the way for pardon ; and others, that it was intended 
 only to produce a change in the sinner himself, by the 
 influence which th^ scenes of Calvary are calculated to 
 
82 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 exert on liis mind. The latter is the Socinian view, and 
 the second that of the New-school. 
 
 It is proper to remark that the view first alluded to, 
 includes the other two. While it regards the atonement 
 as primarily intended to satisfy the justice of God, by 
 answering the demands, and suffering the penalty of his 
 law, it was designed and adapted to make a strong im- 
 pression both upon the universe and upon the sinner him- 
 self. But though the first view includes the others as the 
 greater does the less, these do not include the first, but 
 reject it. By making the atonement consist wholly in the 
 second or third view, there is involved a denial that Christ 
 endured the penalty of the law, or assumed any legal 
 responsibility in our behalf, or made any satisfaction, 
 strictly speaking, to the justice of God — thus giving up 
 what has been regarded by most, if not all evangelical 
 churches since the Reformation, as essential to the atone- 
 ment. 
 
 We wish to observe further, by way of explanation, 
 that by Christ's enduring the penalty of the law, is not 
 meant that he endured literally the same suffering either 
 in kind or duration which would have been inflicted upon 
 the sinner, if a Saviour had not been provided. In a 
 penalty, some things are essential — others incidental. 
 It was essential to the penalty, that Christ should suffer 
 a violent and ignominious death — but whether he should 
 die by decapitation or by crucifixion, was incidental. It 
 was essential that he should suffer for our sins — but how 
 long his sufferings should continue, was incidental. If 
 inflicted upon us, they must necessarily be eternal — 
 because sin is an infinite evil, and finite beings cannot 
 endure the punishment which is due to it, except by an 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 83 
 
 eternal duration. But from the infinite dignity of Christ's 
 character, the penal demands of the law could be fully 
 answered by his suffering ever so short a time. A similar 
 remark may be made concerning the remorse of con- 
 science which forms a part of the torments of the wicked. 
 The imputation of our sins to Christ does not involve a 
 transfer of moral character, but only of legal responsi- 
 bility. In being "made sin for us," Christ did not be- 
 come personally a sinner — but "was holy, and harmless, 
 and undefiled." Of course he could have no remorse of 
 conscience, such as a convicted sinner suffers in view of 
 his guilt. But this is merely incidental, and depends 
 upon circumstances. Some sinners never appear to feel 
 remorse at all — and no sinner, probably, feels it at all times. 
 What is intended then by Christ's suffering the penalty 
 of the law as our substitute is, that in law he assumed 
 our place, and endured all that was essential in its penal 
 demands — whereby he fully satisfied divine justice ; and 
 those who are united to him by faith, are, as an act of 
 justice to Christ, but of free unbounded mercy to theniy 
 "redeemed from the curse of the law," he "being made 
 a curse for them." This doctrine, the Old Theology 
 maintains — the New denies. 
 
 The following quotations will exemplify the New-school 
 views. Dr. Beman,* in his " Sermons on the Doctrine 
 of the Atonement," observes (p. 34): "The law can 
 have no penal demand except against the offender. With 
 a substitute it has no concern ; and though a thousand 
 substitutes should die, the law, in ilself considered, and 
 
 * Dr. Beman has not, we believe, published his sentiments on 
 the other points embraced in the New Theology, and therefore we 
 cannot state with certainty what they are. 
 
84 OLDANDNEWTHEOLOGY. 
 
 left to its own natural operation, would have the same 
 demand upon the transgressor which it always had. 
 This claim can never be invalidated. This penal demand 
 can never be extinguished." Speaking of those who 
 entertain opposite views, he says (p. 45), " They contend 
 that the real penalty of the law was inflicted on Christ ; 
 and at the same time acknowledge that the sufferings of 
 Christ were not the same, either in nature or degree, as 
 those sufferings which were threatened against the trans- 
 gressor. The words of our text [Gal. iii. 13,] are con- 
 sidered by many as furnishing unequivocal testimony to 
 the fact, that Christ endured the penalty of the law in 
 the room of his people. ' Christ hath redeemed us from 
 the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.*^ But 
 it is, in no shape, asserted here, that Christ suffered the 
 penalty of the law. The apostle tells us in what sense 
 he was " made a curse for us.' ' Cursed is every one 
 that hangeth on a tree.' Believers are saved from the 
 curse or penalty of the law by the consideration, that 
 Christ was 'made a curse' for them in another and a 
 very different sense. He was ' made a curse' inasmuch 
 as he suffered, in order to open the door of hope to man, 
 the pains and ignominy of crucifixion. He hung upon a 
 tree. He died as a malefactor. He died as one accursed." 
 In a note on the next page, with reference to some remarks 
 in a sermon by Dr. Dana, of Londonderry, he observes : 
 "But why is it necessary to support the position, that 
 the curse of the law was inflicted on Christ ? If it should 
 be said, the divine veracity was pledged to execute the 
 law — we reply that the divine veracity can find no sup- 
 port in that kind of infliction of the curse which is here 
 supposed. A substantial execution of the law — an en- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 85 
 
 durance of the penalty so far as the nature of the case 
 admitted or required — an infliction of suffering, not upon 
 the transgressor, but upon a surety, when the law had 
 not made the most distant allusion to a surety, certainly 
 has much more the appearance of evasion than execution 
 of the law." He says (p. 51), "As to imputation, we do 
 deny that the sins of men, or of any part of our race, 
 were so transferred to Christ, that they became his sins, 
 or were so reckoned to him, that he sustained their legal 
 responsibilities." * Again (p. 68), " There is nothing in 
 the character of Christ's sufferings which can affect or 
 modify the penalty of the law. These sufferings were 
 not legal. They constituted no part of that curse which 
 was threatened against the transgressor." 
 
 What then, according to him, was the nature of Christ's 
 sufferings ? He says (pp. 35, 36), " He suffered and 
 died, the just for the unjust ;" and those sufferings which 
 he endured as a holy being, were intended, in the case 
 of all those who are finally saved, as a substitute for the 
 infliction of the penalty of the law. We say a substitute 
 for the infliction of the penalty ; for the penalty itself, 
 if it be executed at all, must fall upon the sinner, and 
 upon no one else." Again (pp. 50, 51), "The atone- 
 ment was a substitute for the infliction of the penalty of 
 the law — or the sufferings of Christ were a substitute for 
 the punishment of sinners This*is vicarious suf- 
 fering. It is the suffering of Christ in the place of the 
 endless suffering of the sinner." Once more (pp. 64, 
 Qb)\ " The penalty of the law, strictly speaking, was not 
 
 * The Old Theology does not maintain that our sins " became his 
 gins" — but only that he sustained our legal responsibilities. 
 
 8 
 
86 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 inflicted at all ; for this penalty, in which was [were] 
 embodied the principles of distributive justice, required 
 the death of the sinner, and did not require the death of 
 Christ. As a substitute for the infliction of this penalty, 
 God did accept of the sufierings of his Son." 
 
 Was there then no satisfaction made to divine justice ? 
 Says Dr. Beman (p. 65), " The law, or justice, that is, 
 distributive justice, as expressed in the law, has received 
 no satisfaction at all. The whole legal system has been 
 suspended, at least for the present, in order to make way 
 for the operation of one of a difl"erent character. In 
 introducing this system of mercy, which involves a sus- 
 pension of the penal curse, God has required a satisfac- 
 tion to the principles of general or public justice — a satis- 
 faction which will efiectually secure all the good to the 
 universe which is intended to be accomplished by the 
 penalty of the law when inflicted, and, at the same time, 
 prevent all that practical mischief which would result 
 from arresting the hand of punitive justice without the 
 intervention of an atonement." But what does he mean 
 by '^ general or public justice P'' He says (pp. 63, 64), 
 " It has no direct reference to law, but embraces those 
 principles of virtue or benevolence by which we are bound 
 to govern our conduct ; and by which God himself governs 
 the universe. It is in this sense that the terms 'just' 
 and 'righteousness' occur in our text. [Bom. iii. 26.] 
 .... This atonement was required, that God might be 
 'just,' or righteous, that is, that he might do the thing 
 which was fit and proper, and best and most expedient to 
 be done ; and at the same time be at perfect liberty to 
 justify him which believeth in Jesus." 
 
 Let us now inquire, is this what is meant in the Con- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 8T 
 
 fesslon of Faith, where it reads, " The Lord Jesus Christ, 
 by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which 
 he through the Eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, 
 hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father T' We think 
 not. No intimation of this kind is given. The framers 
 of our standards do not appear to have learned that God 
 governs the universe by one kind of justice, viz. by the 
 "principles of virtue or benevolence;" and punishes sin- 
 ners for rebelling against his government, by another and 
 a different kind, viz. the justice which is " expressed in 
 the law." 
 
 Are these two kinds of justice in conflict with each 
 other ? or is not God's justice " as expressed in the law," 
 the same kind of justice by which he " governs the uni- 
 verse?" Was not the law founded on the "principles 
 of virtue or benevolence ?" Why then could not Jehovah 
 exhibit those principles, by the obedience and sacrifice 
 of Christ in our behalf, in conformity to the laiv ? "But 
 when . the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth 
 his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem 
 them that were under the law, that we might receive the 
 adoption of sons." Gal. iv. 4, 5. Does this mean that 
 those "under the law," were exposed to the retribution 
 of one kind of justice, and that Christ, who was " made 
 under the law, to redeem them," rendered satisfaction to 
 another and a different kind — to a species of justice un- 
 known to the law, and contrary to it ? Does not the law 
 embody those things which " are fit and proper, and best 
 and most expedient to be done?" If so, why was it 
 necessary to "suspend" it, in order to introduce a code 
 of justice, which "has no direct reference to law," but 
 belongs to a system possessing " a different character ?" 
 
88 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 These positions, it appears to us, involve the sentiment, 
 that the divine government and law, as the former is now 
 administered, are not in harmony with each other — that 
 the government of God could not be administered accord- 
 ing to the "principles of virtue or benevolence," in a 
 manner " fit and proper, and best and most expedient to 
 be done" — without a suspension of " the whole legal sys- 
 tem ;" or, which is the same thing, a disregard of his law. 
 And if the atonement proceeded on this principle, we can- 
 not perceive why it might not have been dispensed with 
 altogether — for if " the penalty of the law was not in- 
 flicted at all," but a system was introduced "which in- 
 volves a suspension of the legal curse," why might not 
 God as moral Governor, in the exercise of that " virtue 
 or benevolence, by which he governs the universe," and 
 in pursuance of what "was fit and proper, and best and 
 most expedient to be done," have suspended " the whole 
 legal system," and extended pardon to sinners without an 
 atonement ? 
 
 Dr. Beman assigns three reasons why the atonement 
 was necessary ; all of which lose their force on the sup- 
 position that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law. 
 He says, " the atonement was necessary as an expression 
 of God's regard for the moral law." But how could it 
 express his regard for the law, provided the law has re- 
 ceived no satisfaction at all ; " but the whole legal system 
 was suspended in order to make way for the operation of 
 one," which "has no direct reference to law?" Again, 
 he says, " the atonement was necessary in order to evince 
 the divine determination to punish sin, or to execute the 
 penalty of the law." On the principle that Christ acted 
 as our surety, and sustained in our stead those penal evils 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 89 
 
 ■wMch were essential to tlie execution of the threatening 
 contained in the law, we can perceive how " the divine 
 determination to punish sin" was evinced. Not so, how- 
 ever, if we " den J that the sins of men were so reckoned 
 to Christ, that he sustained their legal responsibilities ;" 
 and view the atonement as " a system of mercy," in which 
 the " sufferings of Christ were not legal, and constituted 
 no part of that curse which was threatened against the 
 transgressor." This makes the atonement an. entire de- 
 parture from law, and could therefore never be adduced 
 to show that God has determined to execute its penalty. 
 
 The other reason which he assigns for the necessity of 
 the atonement, is liable, on his principles, to the same 
 objection. '' The necessity of the atonement, (says he), 
 will further appear, if we contemplate the relations of this 
 
 doctrine with the rational universe." "We may 
 
 naturally suppose, that it was the intention of God, in 
 saving sinners, to make a grand impression upon the uni- 
 verse." .... "What effect would the salvation of sinners 
 without an atonement, probably have upon the angels of 
 heaven ?"...." This example has taught them to revere 
 the law, and to expect the infliction of the penalty upon 
 
 every transgressor." " Every angel feels the 
 
 impression which this public act is calculated to make ; 
 and while he dreads, with a new sensation, the penalty, 
 he clings more closely to the precept of the law. But 
 suppose the provisions of this law were entirely set aside, 
 in our world, as would be the case if sinful men were to 
 be saved without an atonement, and, in the estimaiion of 
 fallen angels, you create war between God and his own 
 eternal law." 
 
 Let us now ask, are not " the provisions of the law 
 8* 
 
90 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY^ 
 
 entirely set aside in our world," according to lils sclieme ? 
 Not, it is true, " by saving sinful men without an atone- 
 ment;" but by saving them through that hind of atone- 
 ment, which '' has no direct reference to law," and ''in- 
 volves a suspension of its legal curse." If the law "has 
 no concern with a substitute ;" and if Christ's " sufferings 
 constituted no part of that curse, which was threatened 
 against the transgressor," how can a view of his sufferings 
 teach the angels *' to revere the law, and to expect the 
 infliction of the penalty upon every transgressor !" 
 Would it not, on the contrary, produce the impression 
 that the law was given up, and its " provisions entirely 
 set aside in our world?" and if this would be the im- 
 pression upon holy angels, it would be the same upon 
 devils. To use his own language, "in the estimation of 
 fallen angels, you create war between God and his own 
 eternal law." On the principle that Christ suffered the 
 penalty of the law as our substitute, all is plain — but if 
 not, neither man nor angel can tell satisfactorily, how 
 " God can he just while he justifies him that believeth;" 
 or why, if he can be just in bestowing pardon with an 
 atonement, he might not be just in bestowing it witJiout 
 any. 
 
 Another work on the atonement, said to have been 
 founded on Dr. Beman's Sermons, has been published 
 in England, by Mr. Jenkyn, and republished in this 
 country, with an introductory recommendation by Dr. 
 Carroll. On these two accounts it may be properly 
 referred to as a specimen of the new views.* Mr. 
 
 * Concerning Dr. Beman's Discourses, Mr, Jenkyn says : — " This 
 little -work is a rich nursery of what Lord Bacon calls ' the seeds 
 of things.' It abounds in living theological principles, each of 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 91 
 
 Jenkyn introduces seven arguments to prove that Christ 
 did not suffer the penalty of the law — but that his suffer- 
 ings were a substitute for the penalty. According to 
 him, the very idea of an atonement involves a suspension 
 of the penalty. "An atonement, (says he), is a measure 
 or an expedient, that is a satisfaction for the suspension 
 of the threatened penalty. A suspension or a non-exe- 
 cution of the literal threatening is always implied in an 
 atonement." (p. 25.) "If a man transgress a law, he 
 must, in a just and firm government, be punished. Why? 
 Lest others have a bad opinion of the law and transgress 
 it too. But suppose that this end of the law be secured 
 without punishing the transgressor ; suppose that a mea- 
 sure shall be devised by the governor, which shall save 
 the criminal, and yet keep men from having a bad opinion 
 of the law. Why, in such case, all would approve of it, 
 both on the score of justice and on the score of benevo- 
 lence. For public justice only requires that men should 
 be kept from having such a bad opinion of the law as to 
 break it. If this can be done without inflicting what, in 
 distributive justice, is due to the criminal, public justice 
 is satisfied, because its ends are fully answered. The 
 death of Christ secures this end." (pp. 140, 141.) Again : 
 " The truth of any proposition or declaration consists 
 
 which, if duly cultivated and reared, \\'ouId unfold great and ample 
 truths, illustrative of this great doctrine.'' Concerning Jenkyn's 
 work, Dr. Carrell uses similar language : — "As a treatise, (says he), 
 on the grand relations of the atonement, it is a book vehich may be 
 emphatically said to contain 'the seeds of things' — the elements of 
 mightier and nobler combinations of thought respecting the sacri- 
 fice of Christ, than any modern production." "We believe 
 
 that its influence on the opinions of theological students and min- 
 isters will be great and salutary, beyond computation." 
 
92 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY.' 
 
 more in the spirit than in the letter of it. Truth in a 
 promise and truth in a threatening^ are diiferent, especi- 
 ally in measures of government. Truth in a promise 
 obliges the promiser to perform his word, or else to be 
 regarded as unfaithful and false. But truth in a threat- 
 ening does not, in the administration of discipline or gov- 
 ernment, actually oblige to literal execution ; it only 
 makes the punishment to be due and admissible. A 
 threatened penalty does not deprive the lawgiver of his 
 sovereign and supra-legal power to dispense with it, if he 
 
 can secure the ends of it by any other measure." 
 
 *' This supra-legal prerogative of suspending punishment, 
 God has exercised in many instances, as in the sparing 
 of Nineveh, and I believe in the sparing of our first pa- 
 rents. The identical penalty of the Eden constitution 
 "was not literally executed either on man or on Christ. 
 It was not executed on onan, for then there would have 
 been no human race. The first pair would have been 
 destroyed, and mankind would never have come into being. 
 It was not executed on Christ. He did no sin ; he vio- 
 lated no constitution, and yet he died. Surely no law or 
 constitution under which he was, could legally visit him 
 with a penalty. If it be said that he suffered it for 
 others, let it be remembered that immutable verity as 
 much requires that the penalty should be inflicted on the 
 literal sinner onl^, as that it should be inflicted at all." 
 (pp. 64, 65.) 
 
 In addition to the remarks already made on Dr. Be- 
 man's views, which will answer equally well for those of 
 Mr. Jenkyn, we wish to notice a sentiment not before 
 alluded to. It is contained in the last paragraph quoted 
 from Jenkyn, and is as follows, viz : that though God is 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 93 
 
 bound to fulfil his promises, he is not bound to execute 
 his threatenings. This distinction is resorted to for the 
 purpose of avoiding the difficulty, that if God does not 
 inflict the penalty of the law either on the sinner or upon 
 Christ as his substitute, his veracity is thereby impeached. 
 "VVe admit that the divine veracity does not require the 
 execution of a coyiditional threatening, as in the case of 
 Nineveh ; but no one will pretend that God's law threat- 
 ened punishment for disobedience conditionally. The 
 moment the law was violated, the transgressor fell under 
 the curse. And he must either endure it eternally, or be 
 released by having satisfaction paid to divine justice in 
 gome other way. " Cursed is every one that continueth 
 not in all things written in the book of the law, to do 
 them." " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely 
 die." Accordingly, as soon as Adam transgressed, he 
 began to feel the curse. He lost God's image and favour 
 — he became spiritually dead — and he would have suf- 
 fered temporal and eternal death, had they not been 
 averted by the interposition of a substitute.* The pe- 
 nalty of the law must be substantially executed. 
 
 "Die he or justice must, unless for him, 
 Some other able and as willing, pay 
 The rigid satisfaction — death for death." 
 
 * It is sometimes said that God did not execute his threatening 
 upon Adam, because he did not die a temporal death that very day. 
 But the threatening began to be inflicted that very day — and this 
 was all which was intended by it. From the nature of the case, 
 eternal death cannot be inflicted in a day, because it requires an 
 endless duration. Even in the case of the wicked in hell — it has 
 only begun to be inflicted— and yet who doubts that they are suf- 
 fering the penalty of the law ? 
 
94 OLDANDNEWTHEOLOGT. 
 
 If God Is not bound to fulfil his threatenings, how can 
 it be proved that the punishment of the wicked will be 
 eternal ? Though it is distinctly and frequently asserted 
 in the Bible that such will be the doom of the finally im- 
 penitent, yet if God's veracity does not require the exe- 
 cution of this threatening, there is no certainty that it 
 will be inflicted : nay, there is much reason to believe the 
 contrary ; because, if there is nothing in God's character 
 or law, which requires him to punish sin, we may be sure, 
 that his infinite goodness w^Ill lead him to release the sin- 
 ner from condemnation ; and thus, atonement or no atone- 
 ment, all mankind will be saved. But if the nature of 
 God requires him to punish sin, and if when he has 
 threatened to punish it, his veracity requires him to exe- 
 cute that threatening ; then either Christ endured what 
 was essential in the penalty of the law, as our substitute, 
 or our union to him by faith cannot shelter us from its 
 penal demands. Its threatenings still lie against us, and 
 must ere long be inflicted. It is not true, therefore, that 
 " there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ 
 Jesus." He is not "a hiding-place from the wind; a 
 covert from the tempest." 
 
 Mr. Barnes, in his sermon on the Way of Salvation, 
 and in his Notes on the Romans, gives substantially the 
 same view of the atonement with Dr. Beman and ]\Ir. 
 Jenkyn. But in another production of his, viz. : an In- 
 troductory Essay to Butler's Analogy, which was first 
 published in the Qhristian Spectator, and afterwards pre- 
 fixed to a new edition of the Analogy, he presents the 
 subject in a manner still more exceptionable. If we mis- 
 take not, it is such a view as any Unitarian in the United 
 States would subscribe to. His language is as follows : 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 95 
 
 " Now, in recurring to the analogy of nature, we have 
 only to ask, whether calamities which are hastening to 
 fall on us, are ever put back by the intervention of an- 
 other. Are there any cases in which either our own crimes 
 or the manifest judgments of God, are bringing ruin upon 
 us, where that ruin is turned aside by the interposition 
 of others ? Now we at once cast our eyes backward to 
 all the helpless and dangerous periods of our being. Did 
 God come forth directly^ and protect us in the defenceless 
 period of infancy ? Who watched over the sleep of the 
 cradle, and guarded us in sickness and helplessness ? It 
 was the tenderness of a mother bending over our slum- 
 bering childhood, foregoing sleep, and rest, and ease, and 
 hailing toil and care that we might be defended. Why 
 then is it strange, that when God thus ushers us into ex- 
 istence through the pain and toil of another, he should 
 convey the blessings of a higher existence by the groans 
 and pangs of a higher Mediator ? God gives us knowledge. 
 But does he come forth to teach us by inspiration, or 
 guide us by his own hand to the fountains of wisdom ? 
 It is by years of patient toil in others that we possess the 
 elements of science, the principles of morals, the endow- 
 ments of religion. He gives us food and raiment. Is 
 the Great Parent of benevolence seen clothing us by his 
 own hand, or ministering directly to our wants ? Who 
 makes provision for the sons and daughters of feebleness, 
 gaiety, or idleness ? Who but the care-worn and anxious 
 father and mother, who toil that their offspring may re- 
 ceive these benefits from their hands ? Why then may 
 not the garments of salvation and the manna of life come 
 through a higher Mediator, and be the fruit of severer 
 toil and sufferings ? Heaven's highest, richest benefits are 
 
96 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 thus conveyed to the race through thousands of hands 
 acting as mediums between man and God. It is thus 
 through the instrumentality of others, that the great 
 Giver of life breathes health into our bodies, and vigour 
 into our frames. And why should he not reach also the 
 sick and weary mind — the soul languishing under a long 
 and wretched disease, by the hand of a Mediator ? Why 
 should he not kindle the glow of spiritual health on the 
 wan cheek, and infuse celestial life into our veins, by him 
 who is the great Physician of our souls ? The very earth, 
 air, waters, are all channels for conveying blessings to us 
 from God. Why then should the infidel stand back, and 
 all sinners frown, when we claim the same thing in re- 
 demption, and affirm that in this great concern, ' there is 
 one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all V 
 
 " But still it may be said, that this is not an atonement. 
 We admit it. We maintain only that it vindicates the 
 main principle of atonement, and shows that it is accord- 
 ing to a general law^ that God imparts spiritual blessings 
 to us through a Mediator. What, we ask, is the precise 
 objectionable point in the atonement, if it be not that 
 God aids us in our sins and woes, by the self-denial and 
 sufferings of another ? And we ask, whether there is any- 
 thing so peculiar in such a system, as to make it intrinsi- 
 cally absurd and incredible. Now^ we think there is no- 
 thing more universal and indisputable than a system of 
 nature like this. God has made the whole animal world 
 tributary to man. And it is by the toil and pain of crea- 
 tion, that our wants are supplied, our appetites gratified, 
 our bodies sustained, our sickness alleviated — that is, the 
 impending evils of labour, famine, or disease, are put 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 97 
 
 away by these substituted toils and privations. By the 
 blood of patriots he gives us the blessings of liberty — 
 that is, by their sufferings in our defence we are delivered 
 from the miseries of rapine, murder, or slavery, which 
 might have encompassed our dwellings. The toil of a 
 father is the price by Avhich a son is saved from igno- 
 rance, depravity, want, or death. The tears of a mother, 
 and her long watchfulness, save from the perils of infancy, 
 and an early death. Friend aids friend by toil ; a parent 
 foregoes rest for a child ; and the patriot pours out his 
 blood on the altars of freedom, that others may enjoy the 
 blessings of liberty — that is, that others may not be 
 doomed to slavery, want, and death. 
 
 " Yet still it may be said, that we have not come, in 
 the analogy, to the precise point of the atonement, in 
 producing reconciliation with God by the sufferings of 
 another. We ask then, what is the Scripture account of 
 the effect of the atonement in producing reconciliation ? 
 Man is justly exposed to suffering. He is guilty, and it 
 is the righteous purpose of God that the guilty should 
 suffer. God is so opposed to him that he will inflict suf- 
 fering on him, unless by an atonement it is prevented. 
 By the intervention of an atonement, therefore, the 
 Scriptures affirm that such sufferings shall be averted. 
 The man shall be saved from the impending calamity. 
 Sufficient for all the purposes of justice and of just gov- 
 ernment, has fallen on the substitute, and the sinner may 
 be pardoned and reconciled to God. Now, we affirm that 
 in every instance of the substituted sufferings, or self- 
 denial of the parent, the patriot, or the benefactor, there 
 occurs a state of things so analogous to this, as to show 
 that it is in strict accordance with the just government 
 9 
 
98 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 of God, and to remove all the objections to the peculiarity 
 of the atonement. Over a helpless babe ushered into the 
 world, naked, feeble, speechless, there impend hunger, 
 cold, sickness, sudden death — a mother's watchfulness 
 averts these evils. Over a nation impend revolutions, 
 sword, famine, and the pestilence. The blood of the 
 patriot averts these, and the nation smiles in peace. 
 Look at a single instance : Xerxes poured his millions on 
 the shores of Greece. The vast host darkened all the 
 plains, and stretched towards the capital. In the train 
 there followed weeping, blood, conflagration, and the loss 
 of liberty. Leonidas, almost alone, stood in his path. 
 He fought. Who can calculate the effects of the valour 
 and blood of that single man and his compatriots in 
 averting calamities from Greece, and from other nations 
 struggling in the cause of freedom ? Who can tell how 
 much of rapine, of cruelty, and of groans and tears it 
 turned away from that nation?" 
 
 It is due to Mr. Barnes to state, that he observes in 
 the words immediately following the above extract, "Now 
 we by no means affirm that this is all that is meant by an 
 atonement, as revealed by Christianity." Yet in his 
 subsequent remarks he does not advance a single idea 
 which gives a higher view of that great transaction, than 
 is presented above : and in the passage we have quoted, 
 he affirms that the view which he has given, " vindicates 
 the main principle of atonement." If his illustrations 
 vindicate the main principle of atonement, they must 
 convey a correct idea of what the atonement is. But if 
 the reader is left to obtain his knowledge on this subject 
 from these statements, he would adopt a scheme unworthy 
 the name of atonement. Indeed, Mr. Barnes admits, 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 99 
 
 wltli reference to the first part of his statement, that it 
 is not an atonement ; though at the same time he asserts 
 that the "main principle of atonement" is vindicated by 
 the view which he had presented. But if the " main 
 principle' of atonement is exhibited in any part of the 
 above extract, or in the whole taken together, we can see 
 no reason for the necessity of a divine Mediator ; and 
 should be disposed seriously to inquire whether Socinian- 
 ism is not all the Christianity that we need.* 
 
 We shall give but one more specimen of the New 
 Theology on this subject. It will be taken from a ser- 
 mon of Dr. Murdock, preached before the students at 
 Andover in 1823. He was at that time a professor in 
 the Andover Theological Seminary. 
 
 "In this text [Rom. iii. 25, 26,] Paul declares ex- 
 plicitly, what was the immediate object of Christ's atoning 
 sacrifice ; that is, what efiect it had in the economy of 
 
 * The Christian Examiner, a Unitarian periodical published at 
 Boston, contains a review of Mr. Barnes's Notes on the Romans, 
 in which the writer observes, " On the atonement, our author's 
 views are far in advance of those of the church to which he belongs. 
 Though he maintains that Christ was in some sense a substitute in 
 the place of sinners, he denies a strictly and fully vicarious atone- 
 ment, and makes the Saviour's death important chiefly as an illus- 
 tration of the inherent and essential connection between sin and 
 suffering." With regard to the book, the reviewer says, " While, 
 for the most part, we would advise no additions, were the work re- 
 edited under Unitarian supervision, we should note exceedingly few 
 omissions. Indeed, on many of the standard and Trinitarian proof- 
 texts, Mr. Barnes has candidly indicated the inadequacy of the text 
 to prove the doctrine." . . . . " Sometimes Mr. Barnes does not so 
 much as suggest a Trinitarian idea in commenting on texts which 
 have been deemed decidedly and irresistibly Trinitarian in their 
 bearing." 
 
100 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 redemption, or how it laid a proper foundation for the 
 pardon and the salvation of sinful men. It was the im- 
 mediate object of this sacrifice to declare the righteous- 
 ness of God : in other Avords, to display and vindicate the 
 perfect holiness and uprightness of his character as a 
 moral Governor. This display being made, he can with^ 
 propriety forgive all that believe in Christ Jesus." .... 
 *' To enable God righteously to pardon the repenting sin- 
 ner, the atonement must give the same support to law, or 
 must display as impressively the perfect holiness and 
 justice of God, as the execution of the law on transgres- 
 sors would. It must be something different from the 
 execution of the law itself; because it is to be a substi- 
 tute for it, something which renders it safe and proper to 
 suspend the regular course of distributive justice." .... 
 *'Now such an expedient, the text represents the sacrifice 
 of Christ to be. It is a declaration of the righteousness 
 of God; so that he might be just" — might secure the 
 objects of distributive justice, as it becomes a righteous 
 moral governor to do — ^ and yet might justify,' or acquit 
 and exempt from punishment him that believeth in Jesus. 
 It was in the nature of it, an exhibition or proof of the 
 righteousness of God. It did not consist in the execution 
 of the law on any being whatever ; ^r it was a substi- 
 tute for the execution of it." ... . "Its immediate influ- 
 ence was not on the character and relations of men as 
 transgressors, nor on the claims of the law upon them. 
 Its direct operation was on the feelings and apprehen- 
 sions of the beings at large, who are under the moral gov- 
 ernment of God. In two respects it coincided precisely 
 with a public execution of the law itself : its immediate 
 influence was on the same persons ; and that influence 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 101 
 
 was produced in the same way — by means of a public 
 exhibition." . . . *' The only difficulty is to understand 
 how this exhibition was a display of the righteousness of 
 God. To solve it, some have resorted to the supposition 
 that the Son of God became our sponsor, and satisfied 
 the demands of the law by suffering in our stead. But 
 to this hypothesis there are strong objections. To sup- 
 pose that Christ was really and truly our sponsor, and 
 that he suffered in this character, would involve such a 
 transfer of legal obligations and liabilities and merits, as 
 is inadmissible ; and to suppose anything short of this, 
 will not explain the difficulty. For if, while we call him 
 a sponsor, we deny that he was legally holden or respon- 
 sible for us, and liable in equity to suffer in our stead, we 
 assign no intelligible reason why his sufferings should 
 avail anything for our benefit, or display at all the right- 
 eousness of God." . . . "We must, therefore, resort to 
 some other solution. And what is more simple, and at 
 the same time satisfactory, than that which is suggested 
 by the text ? The atonement was an exhibition or dis- 
 play ; that is, it was a symbolical transaction. It was a 
 transaction in which God and his Son were the actors ; 
 and they acted in perfect harmony, though performing 
 different parts in the august drama." . . . . " The object 
 of both, in this affecting tragedy, was to make an im- 
 pression on the minds of rational beings everywhere and 
 to the end of time. And the impression to be made was, 
 that God is a holy and righteous God ; that while inclined 
 to mercy he cannot forget the demands of justice and the 
 danger to his kingdom from the pardon of the guilty ; 
 that he must show his feelings on this subject ; and show 
 them so clearly and fully that all his rational creatures 
 
102 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 shall feel that he honours his law while suspending its 
 operation, as much as he would by the execution of it. 
 But how, it may be asked, are these things expressed or 
 represented by this transaction ? The answer is — sym- 
 bolically. The Son of God came down to our world to 
 do and suJBfer what he did ; not merely for the sake of 
 doing those acts and enduring those sorrows, but for the 
 sake of the impression to be made on the minds of all 
 beholders, by his labouring and suffering in this manner." 
 
 The principal difference between these views and those 
 of Dr. Beman and others of the same school, is that Dr. 
 Murdock has laid aside the usual orthodox terms, and ex- 
 pressed his sentiments in other language. Perhaps this 
 was one reason why such a sensation was produced in the 
 community by the appearance of the sermon. Professor 
 Stuart published two discourses, (if we remember cor- 
 rectly), with a view to counteract its influence ; and Dr. 
 Dana, of Londonderry, preached a sermon (probably for 
 the same end), before the jConvention of Congregational 
 and Presbyterian Ministers of New Hampshire, which 
 was published by their request. From this sermon we 
 shall give some extracts as expressive of the Old Theology 
 on this subject. His text is in Isa. liii. 4, 5, 6 ; concern- 
 ing which he observes : 
 
 " Jehovah, the just, the benevolent Jehovah, is pleased 
 to bruise him and to put him to grief. Unparalleled mys- 
 tery ! How shall it be explained ? One fact, and that 
 alone, explains it. He suffered as a substitute. He suf- 
 fered not for himself, but for those whom he came to save. 
 This the prophet unequivocally declares in the text ; and 
 declares in such variety and accumulation of language, 
 as is calculated to make the very strongest impression on 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 103 
 
 the mind." ... "A moment's reflection may convince 
 us that if any of our sinful race are to be pardoned and 
 saved, an atonement is absolutely necessary. God is holy 
 and just ; infinitely and immutably holy and just. These 
 attributes imply that he has a perfect and irreconcilable 
 aversion to all sin ; and must manifest to his creatures 
 this aversion. But how can this be done if sin be par- 
 doned without an atonement ? Would not the great Je- 
 hovah in this case, practically deny himself ? Would not 
 the lustre of his glorious attributes be awfully eclipsed 
 and tarnished ? Further, as the Sovereign of the uni- 
 verse, God has given his intelligent creatures a law. This 
 law, while it requires perfect obedience, must likewise be 
 enforced by penalties. Nor is it enough that these penal- 
 ties be merely denounced. They must be executed on 
 those who incur them by transgression ; or on a surety. 
 Otherwise, where is the truth of the Lawgiver ? Where 
 is the stability of the law ? Where is the dignity of gov- 
 ernment?" .... " Still further, it is easy to see that 
 satisfaction, if made by a surety, must correspond with 
 the debt due from those in whose behalf it is rendered. 
 Mankind universally owe to their heavenly Sovereign, a 
 debt of perfect, undeviating obedience." . . . . " We have 
 likewise contracted a debt of punishment. This results 
 from the penal sanction of the law, and is proportionate 
 to the evil of sin. It corresponds with the majesty and 
 glory of the Lawgiver, and with our own obligations to 
 obedience. Now if a surety undertake for us, he must 
 pay our debt in both these regards." .... "As to his 
 sufferings, we contend not that the Redeemer endured 
 precisely the same misery, in kind or degree, to which 
 the sinner was exposed, and which he must otherwise have 
 
104 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 endured. This was neither necessary nor possible. In- 
 finite purity could not know the tortures of remorse. In- 
 finite excellence could not feel the anguish of malignant 
 passions. Nor was it needful that the Saviour, in making 
 atonement for human guilt, should sustain sufferings with- 
 out end. Such, it is admitted, must have been the 
 punishment of the sinner, had he borne it in his own per- 
 son. But this necessity results, not directly from the 
 penal sanction of the law, but from the impossibility that 
 a finite transgressor should, within any limited period, 
 render satisfaction for his sins. But the infinite dignity 
 of the Saviour imparted an infinite value and efiicacy to 
 his temporary sufferings. Indeed it cannot be doubted 
 that he endured as much of that same misery to which 
 the sinner stands exposed, as consisted with the perfect 
 innocence, dignity, and glory of his character. He suf- 
 fered not only the united assaults of human cruelty and 
 infernal rage, but the far more torturing pains of divine 
 dereliction. And inasmuch as the Scripture expressly 
 declares that in redeeming us from the law he was mad« 
 a curse for us, we are constrained to conclude that his 
 sufferings were a substantial execution of the threatening 
 of the law ; a real endurance of its penalty, so far as the 
 nature of the case admitted or required." 
 
 With reference to Dr. Murdock's* views, Dr. Dana 
 observes : '^ In the first place, it tends, apparently at 
 least, to subvert the law. It declares that ' the atone- 
 ment is something different from the execution of the law, 
 and a substitute for it;' that 'it did not fulfil the law, or 
 satisfy its demands on transgressors.' In accordance 
 with these views, it declares that ' the justification of be- 
 
 * Dr. Murduck is not meutioned by name. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 105 
 
 lievers is not founded on the principles of law and dis- 
 tributive justice ;' and further, that it is a real departure 
 from the regular course of justice ; and such a departure 
 from it, as leaves the claims of the law on the persons 
 justified for ever unsatisfied. Without commenting at 
 large on these suggestions, so peculiar and so grating (as 
 I apprehend) to the ears and hearts of most Christians, 
 I will simply set before you the Saviour's own intentions, 
 in his advent and mediation ; and these as declared in his 
 own words : ' Think not (says he) that I am come to 
 destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to de- 
 stroy, but to fulfil. Eor verily I say unto you, till heaven 
 and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass 
 from the law till all be fulfilled.' Surely then his atone- 
 ment was not ^ a substitute for the execution of the law.' 
 On the contrary, his obedience and sufferings were a sub- 
 stantial fulfilment of its precept and its penalty; and 
 were designed to procure the justification and salvation 
 of men, not through a ' departure from the regular course 
 of justice;' not by 'leaving the claims of the law for 
 ever unsatisfied;' but in perfect accordance with the 
 immutable and everlasting principles both of law and 
 justice." .... 
 
 2. '' This scheme gives us such views of the divine 
 character, as are equally inexplicable and distressing." 
 . . . . "A Being of spotless innocence, and divine dignity; 
 a Being adored by angels and dear to God ; a Being, in 
 short, the most lovely and glorious that the intelligent 
 creation ever saw, is subjected to suiferings more com- 
 plicated and severe than were ever before endured in our 
 world ; and all this not by way of substitution ; not by 
 
106 OLD AND NEW THEOLOaT, 
 
 "way of satisfaction for the sins of others ; but of exhihi' 
 tion or disj)lay V 
 
 3. " It is a serious question whether the theory in view 
 does not comprise a virtual denial of the atonement itself. 
 It leaves us the name ; but what does it leave of the 
 reality ? An exhibition is not an atonement. A display 
 is not an atonement. A mere symbolical transaction is 
 not an atonement." .... 
 
 " Where, then, let it be asked in the fourth place, is 
 the foundation of the believer's hope ? It is a notorious 
 fact, that the great body of Christians in every age have 
 embraced the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings and obe- 
 dience of their Saviour. Pressed with a sense of guilt, 
 they have taken refuge in his atoning blood. Conscious 
 of the imperfection of their best obedience, they have 
 trusted in his righteousness alone. United to their Re- 
 deemer by living faith, they have assured themselves of 
 a personal interest in his atonement and righteousness. 
 And they have exulted in the thought that this method 
 of salvation met all the demands, and secured all the 
 honours, of the divine law and justice. Shall Christians 
 now be told that this is mere dream and delusion ; that 
 no proper satisfaction for their sins has ever been made ; 
 that their justification is nothing but an absolute pardon; 
 and that even this is a ' departure from the regular course 
 of justice V Doctrine like this is calculated to appal the 
 believer's heart, and plant thorns in his dying pillow. It 
 is even calculated to send a pang to the bosoms of the 
 blest ; to silence those anthems of praise which the re- 
 deemed on high are ofiering * to Him that loved them and 
 washed them from their sins in his own blood.' " 
 
 A further expression of Old-school views is contained 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 107 
 
 in the following language of Dr. Alexander : " The 
 penalty of a holy, violated law, was the only thing which 
 stood in the way. Mere sufferings of any one are of no 
 value, except in relation to some end. The sufferings of 
 Christ could no otherwise open a way of pardon but by 
 removing the penalty of the law ; but they could have no 
 tendency to remove the penalty but by his enduring it. 
 Sufferings not required by law and justice must have been 
 unjust sufferings, and never could effect any good. Such 
 exhibition could not have the effect of demonstrating 
 God's hatred of sin, for it was not the punishment of sin ; 
 nor could it make the impression on the world, that the 
 Ruler of the universe would hereafter punish sin ; for, 
 according to this theory, sin goes unpunished, and dread- 
 ful sufferings are inflicted on the innocent, to whom no 
 sin is imputed. This scheme as really subverts the true 
 doctrine of atonement, as that of Socinus ; and no reason 
 appears why it was necessary that the person making this 
 exhibition should be a divine person." — Treatise on Jus- 
 tification. 
 
 Che whole controversy concerning the nature of the 
 atonement, may be resolved into two questions : 1. Is 
 God bound to punish sin ? and 2. Does this necessity 
 arise from the nature of God, or from circumstances which 
 lie without him ? In other words, do his holiness and 
 justice require him to manifest his abhorrence to sin by 
 inflicting upon it deserved punishment ? or does the ne- 
 cessity for manifesting this abhorrence lie only in " rea- 
 sons of state," as civilians say — i. e. in the necessity of 
 making a salutary impression upon his moral govern- 
 ment ? 
 
 That the veracity of God requires him to execute the 
 
108 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 threatenings of his law, we have already shown. But 
 why do we find such a law in existence — a law binding 
 him to punish sin ? '' The opposition of God's law to 
 sin," says Symington, is "just the opposition of his na- 
 ture to sin ; his nature, not his will, is the ultimate stan- 
 dard of morality. His determination to punish sin is not 
 voluntary^ but necessary. He does not annex a punish- 
 ment to sin because he wills to do so, but because his 
 nature requires it. If the whole of such procedure could 
 be resolved into mere volition, then it is not only sup- 
 posable that God might not have determined to punish 
 sin, but, which is blasphemous, that he might have deter- 
 mined to reward it. This is not more clearly deducible 
 from the nature of a being of perfect moral excellence, 
 than plainly taught in Scripture : " He will by no means 
 clear the guilty. The Lord is a jealous God, he will not 
 forgive your transgressions nor your sins. Thou art not 
 a God that hath pleasure in wickedness, neither shall evil 
 dwell with thee. God is angry with the wicked every 
 day. The Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, 
 and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Who can st^d 
 before his indignation ? and who can abide in the fierce- 
 ness of his anger ? Is God unrighteous who taketh ven- 
 geance? Our God is a consuming fire." (Exod. xxiv. 7; 
 Josh. xxiv. 19; Psa. v. 4; vi. 11; Neh. i. 2, 6; Rom. 
 ai. 5; Heb. xii. 29). "We may confidently appeal to 
 every unprejudiced mind whether such descriptions as 
 these do not fully bear us out in the view we have taken 
 of God's retributive justice. And if this view is correct, 
 sin cannot go unpunished ; it cannot be pardoned without 
 a satisfaction ; God cannot but take vengeance on ini- 
 quity ; to do otherwise would be to violate the perfection 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 109 
 
 of his nature. Just he is, and just he ever must be ; and 
 there is only one way, that of an atoning sacrifice, by 
 which he can be at once a just God and a Saviour." — 
 Symington on the Atonement. 
 
 If the only reason why God is bound to punish sin 
 arises from the effect to be produced upon the universe, 
 then if he had created no other intelligent beings except 
 man, no atonement would have been necessary — because 
 no moral beings would exist, upon whom to make this 
 impression — and of course he might have forgiven us, 
 irrespective of an atonement, without doing any injury 
 to his government. But, if the necessity of punishing 
 sin lies primarily in his nature, an atonement would be 
 as necessary for the redemption of a single sinner, if he 
 had been the only being in the universe, as it was under 
 the circumstances in which this scheme of mercy was 
 devised. And this we believe to be the fact. Otherwise 
 God does not possess esse7itially , that holiness, which the 
 Scriptures represent as constituting the glory of his 
 character. 
 
 If then the question be asked. Why is God bound to 
 punish sin ? the first answer is, because it is right — sin 
 being opposite to his nature — and his nature therefore 
 requires him to manifest towards it his abhorrence. Is 
 the question repeated ? We reply, it is from a regard to 
 his la^v and government. Though the former is the pri- 
 mary reason, the latter is of great importance, and must 
 never be forgotten. Taken together they show not only 
 the necessity of an atonement in order to the pardon of 
 sin, but that the atonement must consist in a substantial 
 endurance of the penalty of the law. On any other 
 principle, sin goes unpunished ; and we are driven to the 
 10 
 
110 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 conclusion before adverted to, that God is not " glorious 
 in hoUfiess" — '^ a just God," who *'will by no means 
 clear the guilty." 
 
 The following extract from Dr. Bellamy will show how 
 nearly the above views correspond with the sentiments 
 prevalent in New England a hundred years ago : "It 
 was fit, if any intelligent creature should at any time 
 swerve at all from the perfect will of God, that he should 
 for ever lose his favour and fall under his everlasting dis- 
 pleasure, for a thing so infinitely wrong : and in such a 
 case it was fit the Governor of the world should be infi- 
 nitely displeased, and publicly testify his infinite dis- 
 pleasure by a punishment adequate thereto, inflicted on 
 the sinning creature. This would satisfy justice ; for 
 justice is satisfied when the thing which is wrong is 
 punished according to its desert. Hence, it was fit, when 
 by a constitution, holy, just, and good, Adam was made 
 a public head, to represent his race, and act not only for 
 himself, but for all his posterity — it was fit, I say, that 
 he and all his race, for his first transgression, should lose 
 the favour, and fall under the everlasting displeasure of 
 the Almighty. It was fit that God should be infinitely 
 displeased at so abominable a thing — and that as Gov- 
 ernor of the world, he should publicly bear testimony 
 against it, as an infinite evil, by inflicting the infinite 
 punishment the law threatened ; i. e. by damning the 
 whole world. This would have satisfied justice ; for jus- 
 tice is satisfied when justice takes place — when the guilty 
 are treated with that severity they ought to be — when sin 
 is punished as being what it is. Now Jesus Christ, the 
 Son of God, has, by his Father's appointment and appro- 
 bation, assumed our nature — taken the place of a guilty 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. Ill 
 
 world — and had not only Adam's first transgression, but 
 the iniquities of us all laid upon him, and in our room 
 and stead, hath suffered the wrath of God, the curse of 
 the law, ofiering up himself a sacrifice to God for the sins 
 of men : and hereby the infinite evil of sin and the right- 
 eousness of the law are publicly owned and acknowledged, 
 and the deserved punishment voluntarily submitted unto 
 by man, i. e. by his representative : and thus justice is 
 satisfied ; for justice is satisfied when justice takes place ; 
 and sin is now treated as being what it is, as much as if 
 God had damned the whole world ; and God, as Governor, 
 appears as severe against it. And thus the righteousness 
 of God is declared and manifested, by Christ's being set 
 forth to be a propitiation for sin ; and he may now be just 
 and yet justify him that believes in Jesus." — True Re- 
 ligion Delineated, pp. 332, 333. 
 
 Similar to the views here expressed, were those of the 
 early European divines. " There was no defect in the 
 payment he made. We owed a debt of blood to the law, 
 and his life was offered up as a sacrifice ; otherwise the 
 law had remained in its full vigour, and justice had been 
 unsatisfied. That a divine person hath suffered our 
 punishment, is properly the reason of our redemption." 
 
 "The blood of Christ shed, (Matt. xxvi. 28), 
 
 poured forth from his veins and offered up to God, in 
 that precise consideration, ratifies the New Testament. 
 The sum is, our Saviour by his death suffered the male- 
 diction of the law, and his divine nature gave a full value 
 
 to his sufferings." "And God, who was infinitely 
 
 provoked, is infinitely pleased." — Bates. 
 
 "A surety, sponsor, for us, the Lord Christ was, by 
 his voluntary undertaking out of his rich grace and love, 
 
112 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 to do, answer, and perform all that is required on our 
 parts, that we may enjoy the benefits of the covenant^ 
 the grace and glory prepared, proposed, and promised in 
 it, in the way and manner determined on by divine 
 wisdom. And this may be reduced unto two heads : 1. 
 His answering for our transgressions against the first 
 covenant. 2. His purchase and procurement of the grace 
 of the new. He was made a curse for us, that the bless- 
 ing of Abraham might come upon us. Gal. iii. 13 — 15. 
 .... That is, he underwent the punishment due unto our 
 sins, to make atonement for us, by offering himself a pro- 
 piatory sacrifice for the expiation of our sins." — Owen. 
 
 " Christ hath redeemed us who believe in his name from 
 the terrible curse of the law, and bought us ofi" from that 
 servitude and misery to which it inexorably doomed us, 
 by being himself made a curse for us, and enduring the 
 penalty which our sins had deserved." — Doddridge. 
 
 " I wonder that Jerome and Erasmus should labour and 
 seek for I know not what figure of speech, to show that 
 Christ was not called accursed. Truly in this is placed 
 all our hope : in this the infinite love of God is mani- 
 fested: in this is placed our salvation, that God properly 
 and without any figure, poured out all his wrath on his 
 own Son ; caused him to be accursed, that he might re- 
 ceive us into his favour. Finally, without any figure, 
 Christ was made a curse for us, in such a manner that 
 unless lie had been truly God, he must have remained 
 under the curse for ever, from which, for our sakes, he 
 emerged. For, indeed, if the obedience be figurative and 
 imaginary, so must our hope of glory be." — Beza as 
 quoted by Scott. 
 
 These several quotations all proceed on the principle 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 113 
 
 that the necessity of the atonement lay primarily in the 
 nature of God : that his justice must be appeased by a 
 true and proper satisfaction^ before it was possible for 
 him to regard sinners with favour ; and that this satisfac- 
 tion having been made by the vicarious and expiatory 
 sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who "hath given himself for us 
 an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling 
 savour," pardon and salvation are freely bestowed upon 
 believing sinners, in perfect harmony with all the divine 
 attributes. With the work which Christ performed, God 
 the Father was infinitely well pleased, and through him 
 he looks with complacency upon all who are united to 
 him by faith. He was well pleased, because Christ per- 
 formed all that law and justice required — for, as Bellamy 
 observes, "justice is satisfied when justice takes place.'* 
 "I have finished the work," said Christ, "which thou 
 gavest me to do." And again, just before he expired he 
 said, "It is finished." His work oi active obedience was 
 finished when he uttered the first ; and when he spake 
 the last, his work of suffering was also completed. We 
 behold him now as "the Lamb of God," sacrificed to pro- 
 pitiate the divine favour ; John i. 29 : as " the propitia- 
 tion for our sins ;" 1 John ii. 2 : as a " sin-offering'' pre- 
 sented to God for a sacrifice or expiation ; 2 Cor. v. 21, 
 Gr. : as "a ransom," or redemption-price, to "redeem 
 us from the curse of the law;" Matt. xx. 28; Gal. iii. 
 13 : as " the man, God's fellow ;" "on whom was laid the 
 iniquity of us all;" who "bare our sins in his own body 
 on the tree;" Zech. xiii. 7; Isa. liii. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 24: 
 as, in fine, both the offering and the priest, who having 
 "appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," 
 "offered himself without spot to God," and, "by his own 
 10* 
 
114 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 blood, entered into the holy place, having obtained eter- 
 nal redemption for us ;" Heb. ix. 12, 14, 26. How ex- 
 plicit are these passages with regard to the nature ol 
 Christ's sufferings ! If Christ did not offer himself a sac- 
 rifice for our sins ; if he did not endure substantially the 
 penalty of the law in order to make satisfaction to divine 
 justice in behalf of those who should believe in him, we 
 know not how to interpret the plainest language. 
 
 It has been objected that the idea of punishment was 
 not involved in the Jewish sacrifices, and hence that those 
 passages which describe Christ's mediatorial work by allu- 
 sions to those sacrifices, do not teach that his sufferings 
 were penal. By a reference to Magee on "Atonement 
 and Sacrifice," it will be seen that the Jews regarded the 
 victims offered in sacrifice as " bearing the guilt" of the 
 people ; which is the same thing as saying that they bore 
 their 2^unishment, because guilt and punishment are cor- 
 relates of each other. The following remarks of Patrick 
 in his Commentary on Lev. xvi. 21, 22, are to the same 
 effect : " Laying of the hand upon the head of the beast 
 was a rite used in all sorts of sacrifices, whether burnt- 
 offerings, peace-offerings, or sin-offerings." .... "This 
 rite signifies as much as if they had said, Whatever we 
 have done amiss, let not us, but this sacrifice be charged 
 with it ; that is, let it bear the punishment which we de- 
 serve." .... ''By putting his hand on the head of the 
 goat and confessing their sins over him, (with prayer to 
 God to remit them,) they were all charged upon the goat, 
 and the punishment of them transferred from the Israel- 
 ites unto it." . . . . "And it appears by the form of all 
 other sin-offerings, which were occasionally offered at 
 other times, that he who brought them put off the guilt 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 115 
 
 ■which he had contracted, from himself, and laid it on the 
 sacrifice which was to die for him." Again ; " This [i. e. 
 the goat's bearing upon him all their iniquities,] shows 
 more fully still the nature of this sacrifice, on which all 
 their iniquities, i. e. the punishment of them was laid, 
 that he might carry them away. For this goat was not 
 capable to bear their sins, but only their punishment ; a3 
 Christ also did, who knew no sin, and yet was made sin, 
 by having the punishment of our sins laid on him." 
 Other commentators express the same views. Henry on 
 this passage remarks, " One of these goats must be slain 
 in token of a satisfaction to be made to God's justice for 
 sin." . . . . " He [the high-priest] is next to confess the 
 sins of Israel, with both his hands on the head of the 
 scape-goat." .... "By this confession he must put the 
 sins of Israel ' upon the head of the goat ;' that is, acting 
 faith upon the divine appointment, which constituted such 
 a translation, he must transfer the punishment incurred, 
 from the sinner to the sacrifice." Says Scott, " He [the 
 high-priest] confessed over it [the scape-goat] all the sins 
 of Israel, of every kind, with their various aggravations. 
 Thus the guilt was typically transferred to it in respect 
 to the temporal punishment, &c." .... ''When the sins 
 of Israel had thus been ' put upon the head of the goat,' 
 a proper person was sent to lead him away into the wild- 
 erness, to a place sufficiently distant from the habitations 
 of men ; and there to let him go at liberty, bearing upon 
 him their sins, never more to be heard of. Christ ' bore 
 our sins in his own body on the tree;' they were imputed 
 to him, and he bore the punishment due to them." 
 
 We have indeed met with no commentary, which is 
 regarded as evangelical, that disconnects the idea of vica- 
 
116 OLD AND NEW THEOLOaY. 
 
 rious punishment from the sacrificial rites of the Old Tes- 
 tament dispensation, or denies the analogy between that 
 and the penal nature of Christ's sufferings. So clearly 
 is this doctrine taught, and so adapted is it to remedy the 
 guilt and misery of our fallen condition, that we doubt 
 whether a mind truly enlightened can fail to perceive it, 
 or an awakened conscience be insensible to its value. In 
 view of it, the redeemed sinner can exclaim with grateful 
 emotion, " Lord, I will praise thee : though thou wast 
 angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou com- 
 fortedst me." "God is in Christ reconciling the world 
 unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." 
 *' Whosoever belie veth on him shall not be confounded." 
 
 "With joy, with grief, that healing hand I see ; 
 Alas ! how low ! how far beneath the skies, 
 The skies it formed, and now it bleeds for me — 
 But bleeds the balm I want — 
 There hangs all human hope ; that nail supports 
 The falling universe : that gone, we drop ; 
 Horror receives us, and the dismal wish 
 Creation had been smothered in her birth." 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION A CONTINUATION OF THE PRECEDING CHAPTER. 
 
 Intimately connected with the doctrine of atonement, 
 is that of justification. The different views, therefore, 
 with regard to the former, which have been exhibited in 
 the last chapter, will give a corresponding complexion to 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 117 
 
 our «ientiments concerning the latter. Those who main- 
 tain that Christ obeyed the law and suffered its penalty 
 in our stead, and thereby made a true and proper satis- 
 faction to divine justice, believe that his obedience and 
 sufferings, constituting what is usually styled his right- 
 eousness, are imputed to the believer for his justification ; 
 Christ's righteousness being received by faith as the in- 
 strument. Accordingly, justification consists not only in 
 the pardon of sin, or, in other words, in the release of 
 the believing sinner from punishment ; but also in the 
 acceptance of his person as righteous in the eye of the 
 law, through the obedience of Christ reckoned or imputed 
 to him ; by which he has a title to eternal life. 
 
 On the contrary, those who deny that Christ obeyed 
 the law and suffered its penalty as our substitute, deny 
 also the imputation of his righteousness for our justifica- 
 tion ; and though they retain the word justification, they 
 make it consist in mere pardon.^ In the eye of the law, 
 the believer, according to their views, is not justified at 
 all, and never will be through eternity. Though on the 
 ground of what Christ has done, God is pleased to forgive 
 the sinner upon his believing, Christ's righteousness is 
 
 * " The pardon of sin alone can with no propriety be denomi- 
 nated justification. Pardon and justification are not only distinct, 
 but in common cases, utterly incompatible. A culprit tried and 
 condemned may among men be pardoned, but it would be a sole- 
 cism to say, that such a man was justified." . . . . " But by the y)laa 
 of salvation through Christ, there is not only a ground for pardon, 
 but there is rendered to the law a righteousness, which lays the 
 foundation for an act of justification. By pardon the sinner is freed 
 from condemnation ; by justification he is entitled to the heavenly 
 inheritance." — Dr. Alexander. 
 
118 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 not reckoned in any sense as his, or set down to his ac- 
 count. He believes, and his faith or act of believing, is 
 accounted to him for righteousness ; that is, faith is so 
 reckoned to his account, that God treats him as if he were 
 righteous. 
 
 That the views first given accord with the general sen- 
 timents of the church since the Reformation is capable 
 of abundant proof. Though in the time of the Reformers 
 the opponents of the true doctrine did not take the same 
 ground, in every respect, which has been taken since, 
 and which is described in the statement just made con- 
 cerning the views entertained by the advocates of the 
 New Theology, in one particular they are all agreed, 
 viz : in rejecting the imputation of Christ's righteousness ; 
 the adoption or denial of which is the basis of all the 
 other differences that exist on this subject. To this doc- 
 trine, therefore, the Reformers clung, as the sheet-anchor 
 of the Christian faith. Justification by faith, through the 
 imputed righteousness of Christ — this was their doctrine* 
 And so important did they regard it, that Luther was 
 accustomed to denominate it, (as is well known), articulus 
 stantis vel eadentis ecclesise ; the very pillar on which the 
 church rests, a denial of which must result in her ruin. 
 The manner in which his mind was brought to entertain 
 clear views on this subject is highly interesting. " Three 
 days and three nights together he lay upon his bed with- 
 out meat, drink, or any sleep, like a dead man, (as some 
 do write of him), labouring in soul and spirit upon a cer- 
 tain place of St. Paul in the third chapter of the Romans, 
 "to declare his righteousness," [or justice,] thinking 
 Christ to be sent for no other end but to show forth 
 God's justice, as an executor of his law ; till at length 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 119 
 
 being assured and satisfied by the Lord, touching the 
 right meaning of these words, signifying the justice of 
 God to be executed upon his Son to save us from the 
 stroke thereof, he immediately upon the same, started up 
 from his bed, so confirmed in faith, as nothing afterwards 
 could appal him." — Life of Luther^ prefixed to his Com- 
 mentary on the Galatians. 
 
 The following extracts from Owen on Justification will 
 show the nature of the controversy soon after the Refor- 
 mation. " There are two grand parties by whom the 
 doctrine of justification by the imputation of the right- 
 eousness of Christ is opposed, namely, the Papists and 
 the Socinians. But they proceed on different principles, 
 and unto different ends. The design of the one is to 
 exalt their own merits ; of the other, to destroy the merit 
 of Christ." . . . . " Those of the Roman church plainly 
 say, that upon the infusion of a habit of grace, with the 
 expulsion of sin and the renovation of our natures thereby, 
 which they call the first justification, we are actually jus- 
 tified before God, by our own works of righteousness." 
 
 " They say, ' that this righteousness of works 
 
 is not absolutely perfect, nor in itself able to justify us in 
 the sight of God, but owes all its worth and dignity unto 
 this purpose unto the merit of Christ.' .... But ' Christ 
 hath only merited the first grace for us, that we there- 
 with, and thereby, may merit life eternal.' Hence 
 
 * those other ingredients of confession, absolution, pen- 
 ances, or commutations, aids from saints and angels, espe- 
 cially the blessed Virgin, all warmed by the fire of pur- 
 gatory, and confidently administered unto persons sick 
 of ignorance, darkness, and sin.' " " The Socin- 
 ians, who expressly oppose the imputation of the right- 
 
120 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 eousness of Clirist, plead for a participation of its effects 
 
 or benefits only." " He [Socinus] supposeth, that 
 
 if all he did in a way of obedience, was due from himself 
 on his own account, and was only the duty which he owed 
 unto God for himself in his station and circumstances, as 
 a man in this world, it cannot be meritorious for us, nor 
 any way imputed imto us. And in like manner to weaken 
 the doctrine of his satisfaction, and the imputation thereof 
 unto us, he contends that Christ offered as a priest for 
 himself, in that kind of offering which he made on the 
 
 cross." " Hereby he excludes the church from any 
 
 benefit by the mediation of Christ, but only what consists 
 in his doctrine, example, and the exercise of his power in 
 heaven for our good." 
 
 "We grant an inherent righteousness in all that do 
 believe." . . . . " Tor the fruit of the Spirit is in all 
 goodness, and righteousness, and truth.' Eph. v. 9. 
 * Being made free from sin, we became the servants of 
 righteousness,' Rom. vi. 18. And our duty it is to 'follow 
 after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, meekness,' 1 
 Tim. ii. 22." .... "But although this righteousness of 
 believers be on other accounts like the fruit of the vine, 
 that glads the heart of God and man, yet as unto our 
 justification before God, it is like the wood of the vine — 
 a pin is not to be taken from it to hang any weight of 
 this cause upon." . . . . " That righteousness which neither 
 answereth the law of God, nor the end of God in our jus- 
 tification by the gospel, is not that whereon we are jus- 
 tified. But such is this inherent righteousness of believers, 
 even of the best of them." .... "It is imperfect with 
 respect unto every act and duty of it, whether internal 
 or external. There is iniquity cleaving unto our holy 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 121 
 
 things, and all our ^ righteousnesses are as filthy rags.* 
 Isa. Ixiv. 6." 
 
 " That which is imputed, is the righteousness of 
 Christ ; and briefly I understand hereby, his whole obe- 
 dience unto God in all that he did and suffered for the 
 church. This I say is imputed unto believers, so as to 
 become their only righteousness before God unto the jus- 
 tification of life.'.' .... "The judgment of the Reformed 
 churches herein is known unto all." .... "Especially 
 the Church of England is in her doctrine express as unto 
 the imputation of tlie righteousness of Christ, both active 
 and passive, as it is usually distinguished. This hath 
 been of late so fully manifested out of her authentic wri- 
 ings, that is, the Articles of religion, and books of Homi- 
 lies, and other writings publicly authorized, that it is 
 altogether needless to give any further demonstration of 
 it." .... " The law hath two parts or powers ; 1. Its 
 
 preceptive part 2. The sanction on supposition of 
 
 disobedience, binding the sinner unto punishment." .... 
 " The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the whole law for us ; 
 he did not only undergo the penalty of it due unto our 
 sins, but also yielded that perfect obedience which it did 
 require." . . . . " Christ's fulfilling the law in obedience 
 unto its commands, is no less imputed unto us for our jus- 
 tification, than his undergoing the penalty of it is." . . . 
 " Eor why was it necessary, or why would God have it so, 
 that the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant, should 
 undergo the curse and penalty of the law, which we had 
 incurred the guilt of, by sin, that we may be justified in 
 his sight ? Was it not that the glory and honour of his 
 righteousness, as the author of the law, and the supreme 
 Governor of all mankind thereby, might not be violated 
 11 
 
122 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 in the absolute impunity of tlie infringers of it ? And 
 if it was requisite unto the glory of God, that the penalty 
 of the law should be undergone for us, or suffered by our 
 surety in our stead, because we had sinned, wherefore is 
 it not as requisite unto the glory of God, that the pre- 
 ceptive part of the law be complied wdthal for us, inas- 
 much as obedience thereunto is required of us ? And as 
 we are no more able of ourselves to fulfil the law, in a 
 way of obedience, than to undergo the penalty of it, so 
 as that we may be justified thereby ; so no reason can be 
 given, why God is not as much concerned in honour and 
 glory, that the preceptive power and part of the law be 
 complied withal by perfect obedience, as that the sanction 
 
 of it be established by undergoing its penalty." 
 
 " The conscience of a convinced sinner, who presents him- 
 self in the presence of God, finds all practically reduced 
 unto this one point, viz. : whether he will trust unto his 
 own personal inherent righteousness, or in a full renun- 
 ciation of it, betake himself unto the grace of God, and 
 the righteousness of Christ alone." . . . . " The latter is 
 the true and only relief of distressed consciences, of sinners 
 who are weary and heavy laden — that which alone they 
 may oppose unto the sentence of the law, and interpose 
 between God's justice and their souls, wherein they may 
 take shelter from the storms of that wrath which abideth 
 on them that believe not." 
 
 These views of Owen accord with the doctrine of our 
 Confession of Faith and with the sentiments of other 
 standard writers. The language of our Confession is as 
 follows : '' Those whom God effectually calleth, he also 
 freely justifieth ; not by infusing righteousness into them, 
 but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 123 
 
 accepting their persons as righteous, not for any thing 
 wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake 
 alone : not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, 
 or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their 
 righteousness ; but by imputing the obedience and satis- 
 faction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting 
 on him and his righteousness by faith." Says Calvin, 
 " He is said to be justified in the sight of Crod, who in 
 the divine judgment is reputed righteous, and accepted 
 on account of his righteousness." . . . "He must be 
 said, therefore, to be justified hy worhs^ whose life dis- 
 covers such purity and holiness as to deserve the charac- 
 ter of righteousness before the throne of God ; or who, 
 by the integrity of his works, can answer and satisfy the 
 divine judgment. On the other hand, he will be justified 
 hy faith^ who being excluded from the righteousness of 
 works, apprehends by faith the righteousness of Christ, 
 invested in which he appears in the sight of God, not as 
 a sinner, but as a righteous man. Thus we simply 
 explain justification to be an acceptance by which God 
 receives into his favour and esteems us as righteous per- 
 sons ; and we say that it consists in the remission of sins 
 and the imputation of Christ's righteousness." — Oalvins 
 Institutes, vol. 2, pp. 203, 204. 
 
 These remarks, let it be remembered, refer to our rela- 
 tion to God in point of laiv. " Imputation is never repre- 
 sented as afiecting the moral character, but merely the 
 relation of men to God and his law. To impute sin, is 
 to regard and treat as a sinner ; and to impute righteous- 
 ness is to regard and treat as righteous." — Hodge on the 
 Romans, pp. 225, 226. Though personally considered, 
 we are sinners, and as such, wholly undeserving, yet when 
 
124 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 •we are united to Christ by faith, his righteousness is so 
 imputed to us, or reckoned in law to our account, that 
 God regards and treats us as righteous — " the righteous- 
 ness of the law being" considered as "fulfilled in us," 
 because Christ has fulfilled it for us. It is therefore no 
 ground for self-complacencj, but of humiliation and 
 gratitude. 
 
 With reference to those to whom Christ's righteousness 
 is imputed for their justification, our standards say, "Yet 
 inasmuch as he [Christ] was given by the Father for 
 them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their 
 stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their 
 justificatioii is only of free grace ; that both the exact 
 justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the 
 justification of sinners." Thus, according to this view 
 of the doctrine, justice and mercy are harmoniously and 
 sweetly blended. While the sinner is saved without con- 
 flicting with the claims of God's law, it is " all to the 
 praise of his glorious grace." We have other quotations 
 to make on this subject, but shall reserve them until we 
 present a few specimens of the New Theology. 
 
 Says Mr. Finney, " Gospel justification is not by the 
 imputed righteousness of Christ. Under the gospel, sin- 
 ners are not justified by having the obedience of Jesus 
 Christ set down to their account, as if he had obeyed the 
 law for them or in their stead. It is not an uncommon 
 mistake to suppose that when sinners are justified under 
 the gospel they are accounted righteous in the eye of the 
 law, by having the obedience or righteousness of Christ 
 imputed to them. I have not time to go into an exami- 
 nation of this subject now. I can only say that this idea 
 is absurd and impossible, for the reason that Jesus Christ 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 125 
 
 was bound to obey tlie law for liimself, and could no more 
 perform works of supererogation, or obey on our account, 
 than any body else." * . . . . ''Abraham's faith was im- 
 puted to him for righteousness, because it was itself an 
 act of righteousness, and because it worked by love, and 
 therefore produced holiness. Justifying faith is holiness, 
 so far as it goes, and produces holiness of heart and life, 
 and is imputed to the believer as holiness, not instead of 
 holiness." — Lectures to Professing Christians, pp. 215, 
 216. 
 
 Mr. Barnes says, "' The phrase righteousness of Crod is 
 equivalent to God's 'plan of justifying men' — in regard 
 to which, he observes, "It is not that his righteousness 
 becomes ours. This is not true ; and there is no intelli- 
 gible sense in which that can be understood. But it is 
 God's plan for 'pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we 
 had not committed it." — Notes on the Romans, pp. 28, 
 29. Again (p. 94), in reference to the phrase, ''Abra- 
 ham believed God, and it was counted unto him for right- 
 eousness," he remarks, " The word 'it' here, evidently 
 refers to the act of believing. It does not refer to the 
 righteousness of another — of Gfod, or of the 3Iessiah ; but 
 the discussion is solely of the strong act of Abraham's 
 faith, which in some sense was counted to him for right- 
 eousness. In what sense this was, is explained directly 
 after. All that is material to remark here is, that the act 
 of Abraham, the strong confidence of his mind in the 
 promises of God, his unwavering assurance that what God 
 had promised he would perform, was reckoned for right- 
 
 * This is a Socinian objection ; and on Socinian jprinciples it is 
 valid ; but if Christ be divine, it has no force. 
 11* 
 
126 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 eousness. The same thing is more fully expressed, verses 
 18, 22. When, therefore, it is said that the righteous- 
 ness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us ; when it is 
 said that his merits are transferred and reckoned as ours ; 
 whatever may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be 
 defended by this passage of Scripture. Eaith is always 
 an act of the mind." .... '•'God promises ; the man 
 believes ; and this is the whole of it.'' It is manifest that 
 Mr. Barnes intended in these passages to deny that we 
 are justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness ; 
 and with regard to the manner in -which we «re justified, 
 he is directly at variance with the Confession of Faith. 
 He teaches that the act of believing is imputed for right- 
 eousness ; and the Confession of Faith declares expressly 
 to the contrary — " not by imputing faith itself, the act 
 of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, 
 as their righteousness." The Confession teaches, more- 
 over, that we are justified on principles of law and justice, 
 as well as of grace and mercy — all of them harmoniously 
 meeting together in the cross of Christ. He intimates 
 that legal principles have nothing to do in the matter. 
 *' It [Rom. i. 17,] does not touch the question, whether it 
 is by imputed righteousness or not ; it does not say that 
 it is on legal principles." — Notes on the Romans, p. 28. 
 This sentence, though it does not amount to a positive 
 denial, was designed, we have no doubt, to convey this 
 idea. Similar forms of expression often occur in this 
 volume, where it is evident from the connection, he means 
 to be understood as denying the doctrine. 
 
 The New Haven divines appear to' entertain the same 
 sentiments ; as the following from the Christian Spectator 
 will serve to show : " What then is the ground on which 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 127 
 
 the penitent sinner is pardoned ? It is not that the suf- 
 ferings of Christ were of the nature of punishment ; for 
 being innocent, he had no sins of his own to be punished 
 for ; and as he was a distinct being from us, he could not 
 be strictly punished for ours." .... " It is not that by 
 his death he satisfied the penal justice of God ; for if he 
 did, punishment could not be equitably inflicted on sin- 
 ners, whether penitent or not. Nor indeed is it that the 
 righteousness of Christ is imputed to those who are par- 
 doned, either as a personal quality, or in such a manner 
 as to be accounted to them as if it were theirs. Nothing 
 can be imputed but that which is their own personal 
 attribute or act. Hence, though Dr. B.* does in one 
 place speak of the imputation of Christ's righteousness 
 to believers, he obviously refers not to its transfer, but to 
 the enjoyment of its consequences ; and he more com- 
 monly speaks 'of faith,' a personal quality of the saints, 
 * as imputed for righteousness.' What then is the ground 
 on which forgiveness is bestowed ? It is simply this, that 
 the death of Christ removed the difficulties which would 
 otherwise have eternally barred the exercise of pardoning 
 mercy." — Christian Spectator^ September, 1830. 
 
 How radically diflferent are these sentiments from the 
 doctrine of justification as held by most evangelical 
 churches ! If they are scriptural, then multitudes of 
 Christians have mistaken the way of salvation. But if 
 they are erroneous, (as we believe them to be), then those 
 
 * The person referred to here is not Dr. Beman ; but if one will 
 turn to Beman on the Atonement, p. 51, he will perceive that most 
 of what is here said is more applicable to him than to Dr. Bellamy 
 whom it is believed the reviewer has treated unfairly. See quota- 
 . tions from Dr. Bellamy in subsequent pages. 
 
128 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 who embrace them have reason to examine anew the foun- 
 dation of their hopes for eternity. The two systems can 
 never be made to harmonize with each other. If the one 
 is scriptural, the other must fall ; and they involve points 
 which affect so seriously the great and everlasting inter- 
 ests of man, that no one ought to be indifferent with 
 regard to them. Indifference here would be highly 
 criminal. 
 
 For the purpose of showing how fully the Old The- 
 ology on this subject accords with the general voice of 
 the church since the Reformation, we shall introduce a 
 few additional quotations. 
 
 Bates. — '' There are but two ways of appearing before 
 the righteous and supreme Judge : 1. In sinless obedi- 
 ence Whoever presumes to appear before God's 
 
 judgment-seat, in his own righteousness, shall be covered 
 with confusion. 2. By the righteousness of Christ. This 
 alone absolves from the guilt of sin, saves from hell, and 
 can endure the trial of God's tribunal. This the apostle 
 prized as his invaluable treasure, (Phil. iii. 9), in com- 
 parison of which all other things are but dross and dung, 
 * that I may be found in him, not having mine own right- 
 eousness, which is of the law, but that which is through 
 the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
 faith.' That which he ordained and rewarded in the 
 person of our Redeemer, he cannot but accept. Now 
 this righteousness is meritoriously imputed to believers.'' 
 — Harmony of the Divine Attributes, pp. 298, 299. 
 
 Bellamy. — " By the first covenant, the constitution with 
 Adam, his perfect obedience through his appointed time 
 of trial, would, by virtue of that constitution or covenant, 
 have entitled us to everlasting life. By the second cove- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 129 
 
 nant, the perfect righteousness of Christ, the second 
 Adam, entitles all true believers to everlasting life, by 
 and according to this new and living way. A perfect 
 righteousness was necessary according to the law of 
 nature, and a perfect righteousness is insisted upon in 
 both covenants. According to the law of nature, it was 
 to be performed personally ; but according to both cove- 
 nants it is appointed to be performed by a public head. 
 According to the first covenant we were to have been 
 interested in the righteousness of our public head, by 
 virtue of our union to him as his posterity, for whom he 
 was appointed to act. According to the second cove- 
 nant, we are interested in the righteousness of Christ, 
 ojir public head, by virtue of our union to him by faith." 
 — True Religion Delineated, pp. 421, 422. 
 
 Edwards. — " It is absolutely necessary, that in order 
 to a sinner's being justified, the righteousness of some 
 other should be reckoned to his account ; for it is declared 
 that the person justified is looked upon as (in himself) 
 ungodly ; but God neither will nor can justify a person 
 without a righteousness ; for justification is manifestly a 
 forensic term, as the word is used in Scripture, and a 
 judicial thing, or the act of a judge. So that if a person 
 should be justified without a righteousness, the judgment 
 would not be according to truth. The sentence of justi- 
 fication would be a false sentence, unless there be a right- 
 eousness performed, that is by the judge properly looked 
 upon as his. To say that God does not justify the sin- 
 ner without sincere, though an imperfect obedience, does 
 not help the case ; for an imperfect righteousness before 
 a judge is no righteousness." . . . . " God doth in the 
 sentence of justification pronounce a sinner perfectly 
 
130 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 righteous, or else lie would need a further justification 
 after he is justified." . . . . " By that [Christ's] right- 
 eousness being imjmted to us, is meant no other than this, 
 that the righteousness of Christ is accepted for us, and 
 admitted instead of that perfect inherent righteousness 
 which ought to be in ourselves. Christ's perfect obedi- 
 ence shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall 
 have the benefit of it, as though we had performed it our- 
 selves. And so we suppose that a title to eternal life is 
 
 given us as the reward of this righteousness." 
 
 " There is the very same need of Christ's obeying the law 
 in our stead, in order to the reward, as of his suffering 
 the penalty of the law in our stead, in order to our 
 escaping the penalty; and the same reason why one 
 should be accepted on our account, as the other." .... 
 " Faith justifies, or gives an interest in Christ's satisfac- 
 tion and merits, and a right to the benefits procured 
 thereby, as it thus makes Christ and the believer one in 
 the acceptance of the supreme Judge." .... "What 
 is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the 
 foundation of what is legal ; that is, it is something really 
 in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the 
 ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as 
 one by the judge." . . . . " God does not give those 
 that believe, a union with or an interest in the Saviour 
 as a reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul's 
 active uniting with Christ, or is itself the very act of union, 
 on their part." 
 
 Concerning the opinion of those who believe justifica- 
 tion to be nothing more than pardon, Edwards observes : 
 *^ Some suppose that nothing more is intended in Scrip- 
 ture by justification than barely the remission of sins. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGtY. 131 
 
 If SO, it is Yery strange, if we consider the nature of the 
 case ; for it is most evident, and none will deny, that it 
 is with respect to the rule or laiv of God, we are under, 
 that we are said in Scripture to be either justified or con- 
 demned. Now, what is it to justify a person as the sub- 
 ject of a law or rule, but to judge him as standing right 
 with respect to that rule ? To justify a person in a par- 
 ticular case, is to. approve of him as standing right, as 
 subject to the law in that case ; and to justify in general, 
 is to pass him in judgment, as standing right in a state 
 correspondent to the law or rule in general ; but cer- 
 tainly, in order to a person's being looked on as standing 
 right with respect to the rule in general, or in a state 
 corresponding with the law of God, more is needful than 
 not having the guilt of sin ; for whatever that law is, 
 whether a new or an old one, doubtless something positive 
 is needed in order to its being answered. We are no 
 more justified by the voice of the law, or of him that 
 judges according to it, by a mere pardon of sin, than 
 Adam, our first surety, was justified by the law at the 
 first point of his existence, before he had fulfilled the 
 obedience of the law, or had so much as any trial, whether 
 he would fulfil it or no. If Adam had finished his course 
 of perfect obedience, he would have been justified ; and 
 certainly his justification would have implied souiething 
 more than what is merely negative ; he would have been 
 approved of, as having fulfilled the righteousness of the 
 law, and accordingly would have been adjudged to the 
 reward of it. So Christ, our second surety, was not jus- 
 tified till he had done the work the Father had appointed 
 him, and kept the Father's commandments through all 
 trials ; and then in his resurrection he was justified. 
 
132 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 When lie had been put to death in the flesh, but quick 
 ened by the Spirit, 1 Pet. iii. 18, then he that was mani 
 fest in the flesh was justified in the Spirit, 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 
 but God, when he justified him in raising him from the 
 dead, did not only release him from his humiliation for 
 sin, and acquit him from any further suff"ering or abase- 
 ment for it, but admitted him to that eternal and im- 
 mortal life, and to the beginning of that exaltation that 
 was the reward of what he had done. And, indeed, the 
 justification of a believer is no other than his being ad- 
 mitted to communion in the justification of this Head and 
 Surety of all believers ; for as Christ sufiered the punish- 
 ment of sin, not as a private person, but as our Surety ; 
 so when, after this suffering, he was raised from the dead, 
 he was therein justified, not as a private person, but as 
 the Surety and Representative of all that should believe 
 in him." . ..." To suppose that all Christ does is only 
 to make atonement for us by suffering, is to make him our 
 Saviour but in part. It is to rob him of half his glory 
 as a Saviour. For if so, all that he does is to deliver us 
 from hell; he does not purchase heaven for us." — Dis- 
 course on dust ijlcat ion. 
 
 • Alexander — " Some have attempted to evade the doc- 
 trine [of the imputation of Christ's righteousness] by 
 allesinsr, that not the righteousness of Christ but its eff'ects 
 are imputed to us. They who talk thus do not seem to 
 understand what they say. It must be by the imputation 
 of the righteousness that the good effects are derived to 
 us ; but the imputation of the eff'ects themselves cannot 
 be. To talk of imputing pardon — of imputing justifica- 
 tion — imputing peace, &c., is to use words without mean- 
 incr. What we are inquiring after, is the reason why 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 133 
 
 these blessings become ours. It cannot be on account of 
 our own righteousness, which is of the law ; it must be on 
 account of the righteousness of Christ. The next question 
 is, how does that righteousness avail to obtain for us par- 
 don and justification and peace with God? The answer 
 is, by imputation ; that is, it is set down to our credit. 
 God accepts it on our behalf; yea, he bestows it upon us. 
 If there be any such thing as imputation, it must be of 
 the righteousness of Christ itself, and the benefits con- 
 nected with salvation flow from this imputation. We 
 conclude, therefore, that the righteousness of Christ can 
 only justify us, by being imputed to us." 
 
 In reply to the objection that this doctrine "makes 
 the sinner's justification a matter of justice and not of 
 grace," he says, "All theories which suppose that grace 
 is exercised at the expense of justice, or that in order to 
 the manifestation of grace, law and justice must be sus- 
 pended, labour under a radical mistake in theology, which 
 cannot but introduce darkness and perplexity into their 
 whole system. Indeed, if law and justice could have been 
 set aside or suspended, there had been no occasion for the 
 plan of redemption. The only reason why sinners could 
 not be saved was, that the law and justice of God stood 
 in the way ; but if, by a sovereign act, these obstacles 
 could have been removed, salvation might have been 
 accomplished without an atonement. But though the 
 Scriptures, everywhere, ascribe salvation to grace, free 
 GRACE, yet they never teach that this grace requires God 
 to deny himself, as to his attribute of justice ; or that 
 law and justice are at all interfered with, or for a mo- 
 ment suspended. On the contrary, the idea is continu- 
 ally kept in view, that grace reigns through righteous- 
 ly 
 
134 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 ness ; that the propitiation of Christ is necessary, that 
 God may be just and yet the justifier of the ungodly. 
 Redemption is the obtaining deliverance by paying a 
 price ; and yet redemption and grace, so far from being 
 inconsistent, are constantly united, as parts of the same 
 glorious plan, according to the Scriptures. ' In whom we 
 have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of 
 sins, according to the riches of his grace.' (Eph. i. 7). 
 The only way in which it was possible for grace to be 
 exercised, was by a plan which made provision for the 
 complete satisfaction of law and justice. This was the 
 great problem, to the solution of which no finite wisdom 
 was competent ; but which the infinite wisdom of Jehovah 
 has accomplished by the mission and sacrifice of his own 
 dear Son. What is objected, therefore, is a thing essen- 
 tial to the exercise of grace. And the whole appearance 
 of plausibility in the objection arises from not distin- 
 guishing between God's dealings with our substitute and 
 with us. To him there was no mercy shown ; the whole 
 process was in strict execution of law and justice. The 
 last farthing due, so to speak, was exacted of our Surety, 
 when he stood in our place, under the holy and sin-aveng- 
 ing law of God. But this exercise of justice towards him 
 was the very thing which opened the way for super- 
 abounding mercy towards us. And this cost at which 
 the sluices of grace were opened, so far from lessening, 
 constitutes its riches and glory." * 
 
 * This extract from Dr. Alexander, and those which have been 
 before given from his pen, are contained in a short and able Trea- 
 tise on Justification by Faith, written by him for the Presbyterian 
 Tract Society, now the Board of Publication of the Presbyterian 
 Church. This tract, and the other tracts published by that Board, 
 we recommend to the perusal of our readers. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 135 
 
 We will close our extracts by a few sentences bearing 
 upon the New-school doctrine, that the act of believing is 
 imputed for righteousness. They shall be from the pen 
 of Dr. Doddridge, in his note on the phrase, "imputed 
 to him [Abraham] for righteousness;" which is the prin- 
 cipal text relied upon to prove the new doctrine. He 
 says, " I think nothing can be easier than to understand 
 how this may be said in full consistence with our being 
 justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, 
 that is, our being treated by God as righteous, for the 
 sake of what he has done and sufi"ered : for though this 
 be the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God, yet 
 faith may be said to be imputed to us, in order to our 
 being justified, or becoming righteous : that is, according 
 to the view which I have elsewhere more largely stated, 
 as we are charged as debtors in the book of God's account, 
 what Christ has done in fulfilling all righteousness for us 
 is charged as the grand balance of the account ; but that 
 it may appear that we are according to the tenor of the 
 gospel entitled to the benefit of this, it is also entered in 
 the book of God's remembrance " that we are believers :" 
 and this appearing, we are graciously discharged, yea, 
 rewarded, as if we ourselves had been perfectly innocent 
 and obedient." 
 
 In concluding the present chapter, we again call the 
 attention of the reader to the intimate connection which 
 exists between the doctrine of justification and most of 
 the other doctrines which have been brouo-ht to view in 
 the preceding pages. Though this has been already 
 alluded to, when speaking of imputation and original sin, 
 the truth of the remark was not, perhaps, so obvious as 
 it must be now. The federal headship of Adam, the im- 
 
136 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 putation of the guilt of his first sin to his posterity, ori- 
 ginal sin, the atonement and justification, are so closely 
 connected, that if we have incorrect views with regard to 
 the one, we shall err respecting the others. The views 
 concerning these doctrines which wo i •. gard as scriptural, 
 and which we have endeavoured to substantiate, so far as 
 the design of the work would permit, are all different 
 parts of the same system. If one of them be materially 
 modified or denied, it involves a similar modification or 
 denial of the whole. "While men are disputing," says 
 Dr. Bellamy, "against the original constitution with 
 Adam,* they unawares undermine the second constitu- 
 tion, which is the foundation of all our hopes. Eager to 
 avoid Adam's first sin, whereby comes condemnation, 
 they render of none effect Christ's righteousness, whereby 
 comes justification." .... "What remains, therefore, 
 but deism and infidelity ?" 
 
 Truth is harmonious. The several doctrines of the 
 Bible, like the stones in Solomon's temple, unite together, 
 without the use of an "axe or hammer," to pare down 
 their edges. But if one be rejected, there is not only a 
 vacancy left in the building, which no art or ingenuity 
 can supply, but the edifice itself is in danger of falling. 
 
 * Dr. Bellamy's views concerning God's covenant with Adam, 
 original sin, Soc, are the same with those of President Edwards ; 
 from whom extracts on this subject have been given. — See True 
 Eeliyion JJelineated, pp. 269, 271. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 137 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 HUMAN ABILITY, REGENERATION, AND THE INFLUENCES OF THE 
 
 HOLT SPIRIT. 
 
 That the fall of man has not released us from obli- 
 gation to love and obey God, is maintained by all. This, 
 however, it is believed, is perfectly consistent with the 
 doctrine, that from our " original corruption, we are 
 utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all 
 good, and wholly inclined to all evil." As our inability 
 is not only our misfortune, but our sin, it can never 
 destroy moral obligation. Upon these points Calvinistic 
 writers are generally agreed. But as the subject is 
 attended with difficulties, which some have been anxious 
 to avoid, a distinction has been resorted to between na- 
 tural and mo7'al inability ; the latter of which, it is sup- 
 posed, is the inability under which the sinner lies; and 
 that he still possesses natu7'al ability to do his duty. 
 By this it is meant that he merely has the physical 
 pozvers, or the faculties of mind, which are requisite to 
 enable him to do what God requires — but that his mind 
 is, nevertheless, wliolly disinclined to that which is good ; 
 or, in other words, that he is morally unable to exercise 
 holy affections. This distinction, it might be easily 
 shown, is not without foundation ; and yet when applied 
 to the subject of religion, it is doubted by many, whether 
 its use really solves any difficulties, or is productive of 
 12* 
 
138 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 any practical good ; chiefly from the arabiguity of the 
 terms, and their liability to be misunderstood. 
 
 It is no part of our present purpose to discuss this 
 question. We have introduced it in order to prepare the 
 way for the observation, that those whose sentiments we 
 are now considering, retain the term natural in connec- 
 tion with ability ; and thus appear to accord with those 
 who are in the habit of making the distinction to which 
 we have referred ; though in reality they occupy very 
 different ground. Though when they speak of ability, 
 they frequently annex to it the word natural, they seldom 
 speak of z?zability at all — but produce the impression 
 that the ability which they preach is fully adequate to 
 enable the sinner, independently of divine grace, to do 
 all that God requires. 
 
 This was the opinion of Dr. Porter concerning Dr. 
 Beecher's preaching, prior to 1829. In a letter addressed 
 to him which has been published in various papers, he 
 says, " You exalt one part of Calvinism, viz : human 
 agency, so as virtually to lose sight of its correlate 
 human dependence, and thus make regeneration so much 
 a result of means and instrumentality, that the sinner is 
 born rather ' of blood or of the will of man than of 
 God.' " 
 
 A similar opinion has been formed by some concerning 
 his "Views in Theology," published in 1836. Dr. Har- 
 vey says concerning them, " Dr. Beecher's Yieivs, it is 
 true, have many shades and shadows of orthodoxy. The 
 superstructure looks fair and imposing ; but the philo- 
 sophy is Pelagian, and all the orthodoxy in his ' Views* 
 is undermined by a false theory of moral agency, on 
 which the whole is founded." — Harvey on Moral Agency^ 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 139 
 
 p. 6. The following quotations will show what founda- 
 tion Dr. Harvey had for this opinion. 
 
 Dr. Beecher says (pp. 30, 31), " That man possesses 
 Bince the fall the powers of agency requisite to obliga- 
 tion, on the ground of the 'possibility of obedience^ is a 
 matter of notoriety. Not one of the powers of mind 
 which constituted ability before the fall has been oblite- 
 rated by that event. All that has ever been conceived, 
 or that can now be conceived, as entering into the con- 
 stitution of a free agent, capable of choosing life or death, 
 or which did exist in Adam when he could and did obey, 
 yet mutable, survived the fall." He says (pp. 31, 32), 
 " Choice, in its very nature, implies the possibility of a 
 different or contrary election to that which is made. 
 There is always an alternative to that which the mind 
 decides on with the conscious power of choosing either.'* 
 
 " The question of free will is not whether man 
 
 chooses — this is notorious, none deny it ; but whether his 
 choice is free as opposed to a fatal necessity." Again 
 (p. 35), " Choice, without the possibility of other or con- 
 trary choice, is the immemorial doctrine of fatalism :" 
 and further (p. 47), " This doctrine of the natural ability 
 of choice, commensurate with obligation, has been, and is, 
 the received doctrine of the universal orthodox church, 
 from the primitive age down to this day." 
 
 The first of these propositions speaks without any 
 qualification of the '^possibility of obedience," in refer- 
 ence to fallen man — and makes this essential to obliga- 
 tion. The second and third predicate this possibility of 
 obedience upon the possession of a self-determining power 
 of the ivill, by which we can not only choose but alter our 
 volitions at pleasure. This, according to his view, is 
 
140 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 essential to free agency. The third affirms that "this 
 natural ability of choice^'' by which we understand him 
 to mean the power which we naturally possess as free 
 agents, over our volitions, " ib commensurate with obliga- 
 tion.'' If these are the Ideas which he Intends to con- 
 vey, it follows, that man since the fall possesses all the 
 powers which are requisite to enable him to change his 
 sinful volitions for those which are holy ; or, to use the 
 language of Dr. Harvey, " that man possesses, since the 
 fall, the powers of agency requisite to obligation, on the 
 ground of possessing a power of contrary choice, by 
 which he can recover himself from perfect sinfulness to 
 perfect holiness." — Harvey on Moral Agency, pp. 80, 
 81. " Natural ability of choice, commensurate with obli- 
 gation," says Dr. Harvey, "must mean something more 
 than the mere power of choice ; it means natural ability 
 not only to do right, if one Is disposed, but natural ability 
 to overcome every moral Impediment. In other words, 
 it means natural ability to overcome moral inability, or 
 natural ability which can produce ability enough to over- 
 come moral inability. Thus, as I have before had occa- 
 sion to remark, the great object is to render man, in his 
 fallen state, independent of the grace of God. To ac- 
 complish this purpose. Dr. Beecher introduces the extra 
 power of contrary choice as an addition to the simple 
 power of choice, and which he deems sufficient to equal 
 obligation, and if so, to bring the sinner out of darkness 
 into light, to raise him from death to life. Thus Dr. 
 Beecher, in effect, coincides with Pelaglus, who denied all 
 moral inability. Pelaglus takes the city by undermining 
 and sinking the wall ; Dr. Beecher by building an em- 
 bankment which shall overtop the wall. One sinks the 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 141 
 
 wall to the surface, the otlier raises the surface to the 
 wall's top ; and in both cases, the obstacle of moral in- 
 ability is annihilated." — Harvey on Moral Agency^ pp. 
 115, 116. 
 
 We have exhibited Dr. Beecher's views in the above 
 form, because the language of his several propositions is 
 such, that the sentiments intended to be conveyed are not 
 perfectl}^ obvious .upon a simple perusal. The deductions 
 which we have made, or which we have quoted from Dr. 
 Harvey, we do not, of course, ascribe to Dr. Beecher, as 
 expressing what he believes — but if we have not mistaken 
 his views, they appear to lead, by legitimate consequence, 
 to these conclusions — and to some of them it is probable 
 he would not refuse his assent ; since it would be going 
 no further than has been expressed by two or three who 
 belong to the same school. 
 
 Says Mr. Duffield — "Not much less deluding are the 
 system and tactics of those who, fearing to invade the 
 province of the Spirit, are careful to remind the sinner, 
 that he is utterly unable by his own unassisted powers 
 either to believe or to repent to the saving of his soul. 
 It might as truly be said, that he cannot rise and walk, 
 by his own unassisted powers." — Duffield on Regenera- 
 tion, p. 542. 
 
 Mr. Finney's language is that " as God requires men 
 to make themselves a new heart, on pain of eternal death, 
 it is the strongest possible evidence that they are able to 
 do it — to say he has commanded them to do it, without 
 telling them they are able, is consummate trifling." . . . 
 " If the sinner ever has a new heart, he must obey the 
 
 command of the text, and make it himself." 
 
 " Sinner ! instead of waiting and praying for God to 
 
142 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 change your heart, you should at once summon up your 
 powers, put forth the effort, and change the governing 
 preferences of your mind. But here, some one may ask, 
 Can the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, change 
 itself? I have already said that this text in the original, 
 reads, ' The minding of the flesh is enmity against God.* 
 This minding of the flesh then, is a choice or preference 
 to gratify the flesh. Now it is indeed absurd to say, that 
 a choice can change itself ; but it is not absurd to say, 
 that the agent who exercises this choice can change it. 
 The sinner that minds the flesh, can change his mind, 
 and mind God." — Sermons on Important Subjects, pp. 
 18, 37, 38. 
 
 This exposition of the "carnal mind" is a favourite 
 one with writers of this class. Says Mr. Barnes, " The 
 amount of his [Paul's] affirmation is simply, that the 
 minding of the flesh, the supreme attention to its dictates 
 and desires, is not and cannot be subject to the law of 
 God. They are wholly contradictory and irreconcilable." 
 . . . . " But whether the man himself might not obey the 
 law, whether he has, or has not, ability to do it, is a 
 question which the Apostle does not touch, and on which 
 this passage should not be adduced." — Notes on the Ro- 
 mans, p. 164. In commenting on the phrase, " neitbor 
 indeed can be," he repeats the same sentiment concern- 
 ing ability which is expressed above. Also in his expo- 
 sition of the passage, " when we were without strength 
 Christ died for the ungodly." " The remark of the 
 Apostle here," says he, "has reference only to the con- 
 dition of the race before an atonement was made. It 
 does not pertain to the question whether man has strength 
 to repent and to believe, after an atonement is made, 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 143 
 
 which is a very different inquiry." Though Mr. Barnes 
 expresses himself with much more caution than Messrs. 
 Finney and Duffield, it is apparent that he favours their 
 sentiments. 
 
 There is so striking a similarity between the views of 
 these men and those of Dr. John Taylor of Norwich, 
 England, a Socinian, that it will be appropriate to refer 
 to the latter, with the remarks of President Edwards upon 
 them, showing what he thought of their tendency. They 
 are contained in his work on Original Sin. '' It will fol- 
 low," says he, "on our author's principles [Dr. Taylor's 
 principles] not only with respect to infants, but even adult 
 persons, that redemption is needless, and Christ is dead 
 in vain. Not only is there no need of Christ's redemp- 
 tion in order to deliverance from any consequences of 
 Ada7ns sin, but also in order to perfect freedom from 
 personal sin, and all its evil consequences. For God has 
 made other sufficient provision for that, viz., a sufficient 
 fower and ability, in all mankind, to do all their duty 
 and wholly to avoid sin. Yea, he insists upon it, that 
 ^ when men have not sufficient power to do their duty, 
 they have no duty to do. We may safely and assuredly 
 conclude, (says he), that mankind in all parts of the world, 
 have SUFFICIENT power to do the duty which God requires 
 of them ; and that he requires of them NO more than 
 they have sufficient powers to do.' And in another 
 place, ' God has given powers equal to the duty which 
 he expects.' And he expresses a great dislike at R. E,'s 
 supposing ' that our propensities to evil and temptations 
 are too strong to be effectually and constantly re- 
 sisted ; or that we are unavoidably sinful IN A degree ; 
 that our appetites and passions will be breaking out, not? 
 
144 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 withstanding our everlasting watchfulness.' These things 
 fully imply that men have in their own natural ability 
 sufficient means to avoid sin, and to be perfectly free from 
 it ; and so from all the bad consequences of it. And if 
 the means are sufficient^ then there is no need of more ; 
 and therefore there is no need of Christ's dying in order 
 to it. What Dr. Taylor says, fully implies that it would 
 be unjust in God to give mankind being in such circum- 
 stances, as that they would be more likely to sin, so as to 
 be exposed to final misery, than otherwise. Hence then, 
 without Christ and his redemption, and without any grace 
 at all, MERE JUSTICE makes sufficient provision for our 
 being free from sin and misery by our own power." 
 
 " If all mankind, in all parts of the world, have suffi- 
 cient power to do their whole duty, without being sinful 
 in any degree, then they have sufficient power to obtain 
 righteousness by the law: and then, according to the 
 apostle Paul, Christ is dead in vain. Gal. ii. 21. ' If 
 righteousness come by law, Christ is dead in vain ;' — by 
 law, or the rule of right action, as our author explains 
 the phrase. And according to the sense in which he 
 explains this very place, ^it would have frustrated, or 
 rendered useless, the grace of God, if Christ died to ac- 
 complish what was or might have been effected by law 
 itself without his death.' ' So that it most clearly follows 
 from his own doctrine, that Christ is dead in vain, and 
 the grace of God is useless. The same apostle says. If 
 there had been a law which COULD have given life-, verily 
 righteousness should have been by the law. Gal. iii. 21 ; 
 i. e. (according to Dr. Taylor's own sense), if there was 
 a law, that man, in his present state, had sufficient power 
 to fulfil. For Dr. Taylor supposes the reason why the 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 145 
 
 law could not give life, to be ' not because it was weak 
 in itself, but through the weakness of our flesh, and the 
 infirmity of human nature in the present state.' But he 
 says, ' We are under a mild dispensation of grace making 
 allowance for our infirmities.' By our infirmities^ we 
 may, on good ground, suppose he means that infirmity 
 of human nature, which he gives as the reason why the 
 law cannot give life. But what grace is there for making 
 that allowance for our infirmities, which justice itself 
 (according to his doctrine), most absolutely requires, as 
 he supposes divine justice exactly proportions our duty 
 to our ability ? 
 
 "Again, if it be said, that although Christ's redemp- 
 tion was not necessary to preserve men from beginning 
 to sin, and getting into a course of sin, because they have 
 sufiicient power in themselves to avoid it ; yet it may be 
 necessary to deliver men, after they have by their own 
 folly brought themselves under the dominion of evil 
 appetites and passions ; I answer, if it be so, that men 
 need deliverance from those habits and passions which 
 are become too strong for them, yet that deliverance, oa 
 our author's principles, would be no salvation from sin, 
 For the exercise of passions which are too strong for us, 
 and which we cannot overcome, is necessary : and he 
 strongly urges, that a necessary evil can be no moral 
 evil. It is true it is the effect of evil, as it is the effect 
 of a bad practice, while the man had power to have 
 avoided it. But then, according to Dr. Taylor, that evil 
 cause alone is sin ; for he expressly says, ' the cause of 
 every effect is alone chargeable with the effect it pro- 
 duceth, or which proceedeth from it.' And as to that 
 sin which was the cause, the man needed no Saviour from 
 13 
 
146 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 that, having had sufficient poiver in himself to have 
 avoided it. So that it follows by our author's scheme, 
 that none of mankind, neither infants nor adult persons, 
 neither the more nor less vicious, neither Jews nor Gen- 
 tiles, neither heathens nor Christians, ever did or ever 
 could stand in any need of a Saviour ; and that with 
 respect to all, the truth is, Christ is dead in vain. 
 
 " If any should say, although all mankind in all ages 
 have sufficient ability to do their whole duty, and so may 
 by their own power enjoy perfect freedom from sin, yet 
 God foresaw that they would sin, and that after they had 
 sinned they would need Christ's death ; I answer, it is 
 plain, by what the apostle says in those places which were 
 just now mentioned, (Gal. ii. 21, and iii. 21), that God 
 would have esteemed it needless to give his Son to die for 
 men, unless there had been a prior impossibility of their 
 having righteousness by any law ; and that if there had 
 been a law which could have given life, this other way 
 by the death of Christ would not have been provided. 
 And this appears agreeable to our author's own sense of 
 things, by his words which have been cited, wherein he 
 says, ' It would have frustrated or rendered useless 
 the grace of God, if Christ died to accomplish what was 
 or MIGHT HAVE BEEN effected by law itself, -without his 
 death.' " 
 
 The new views concerning human ability have an exact 
 counterpart in the description which is given by different 
 writers of this school, of the work of regeneration, and 
 the agency of the Holy Spirit. According to them, 
 regeneration consists in the mere change of the govern- 
 ing purpose or preference of the soul — by which the sin- 
 ner renounces the world as the supreme object of pursuit, 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 147 
 
 and makes choice of God and heavenly things. Prompted 
 by self-love, or in other words, by a constitutional desire 
 for happiness, which is neither sinful nor holy, and the 
 selfish principle in his heart being suspended, he enters 
 upon a serious consideration and comparison of the vari- 
 ous objects of happiness, until he discovers the infinite 
 superiority of God and divine things to every other object. 
 Then, by " desperate efibrts," he fixes his heart upon 
 them, and thus becomes a Christian. The part which 
 the Holy Spirit performs in the work is, to present truth 
 powerfully before the mind in the form of motives, like 
 an advocate arguing a cause before a jury ; or as one man 
 influences and persuades another in the common affairs 
 of life ; though with infinitely greater skill and force than 
 can be employed by any human agent. His attention is 
 thus arrested — he revolves in his mind the points at issue 
 — and at length being convinced where his true interest 
 lies, he is prevailed upon -by the moral suasion of the 
 Spirit, to change the governing purpose or preference of 
 his mind, and to choose God as his supreme portion. 
 
 The language of Dr. Taylor is as follows: "We pro- 
 ceed to say then, that before the act of the will or heart 
 in which the sinner first prefers God to any other object, 
 the object of the preference must be viewed or estimated 
 as the greatest good. Before the object can be viewed 
 as the greatest good, it must be compared with other 
 objects, as both are sources or means of good. Before 
 this act of comparing, there must be an act dictated not 
 by selfishness but self-love, in which the mind determines 
 to direct its thoughts to the objects for the sake of con- 
 sidering their relative value, of forming a judgment 
 
148 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 respecting it, and of choosing one or the other as the 
 chief good." — Christian Spectator, 1829, pp. 19, 20. 
 
 *' Divine truth does not become a means to this end, 
 until the selfish principle so long cherished in the heart 
 is suspended ; and the mind is left to the control of that 
 constitutional desire of happiness which is an original 
 principle of our nature. Then it is, we apprehend, that^ 
 God and the world are contemplated by the mind as 
 objects of choice, substantially as they would be by a 
 being who had just entered on existence, and who was 
 called upon for the first time to select the one or the 
 other as his supreme good." — Christian Spectator, 1829, 
 p. 210. 
 
 " Now we readily concede that sinners never use the 
 means of regeneration with a holy heart, nor with an 
 unholy or sinful heart. But does it therefore follow that 
 they never use them with any heart at all ? What is 
 that heart with which God in his law requires sinners to 
 love him ? Surely not a heart which is holy before they 
 love him. Still less with a sinful heart; and yet he 
 requires them to love him with some heart, even their 
 heart. Is this no heart at all ? We think on the con- 
 trary it is a real heart, a heart with which sinners can 
 love God, even without the grace of the Spirit, and cer- 
 tainly with it." — Christian Spectator, 1830, pp. 149, 150. 
 
 Concerning the nature of the Spirit's agency, we 
 believe Dr. Taylor has not published his views. But the 
 author of '' Letters on the New Haven Theology" informs 
 us that his sentiments correspond with those of Mr. 
 rinney. 
 
 Mr. Finney says, " The Spirit pours the expostulation 
 home with such power, that the sinner turns. Now, in 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 149 
 
 speaking of this change, it is perfectly proper to say, 
 that the Spirit turned him, just as you would say of a 
 man who had persuaded another to change his mind on 
 the subject of politics, that he had converted hira and 
 
 brought him over." " He does not act by direct 
 
 physical contact upon the mind, but he uses the truth as 
 his sword to pierce the sinner ; and the motives presented 
 in the gospel are. the instruments he uses to change the 
 sinner's heart. Some have doubted this, and supposed 
 that it is equivalent to denying the Spirit's agency alto- 
 gether to maintain that he converts sinners by motives. 
 Others have denied the possibility of changing the heart 
 by motives. But did not the serpent change Adam's 
 heart by motives ? and cannot the Spirit of God with 
 infinitely higher motives exert as great power over mind 
 
 as he can?" ''From these remarks it is easy to 
 
 answer the question sometimes put by individuals who 
 seem to be entirely in the dark on this subject, whether 
 in converting the soul the Spirit acts directly on the 
 mind, or on the truth. This is the same nonsense as if 
 you should ask w^hether an earthly advocate who had 
 gained his cause, did it by acting directly and physically 
 
 on the jury or on his argument." " The power 
 
 which God exerts in the conversion of a soul is moral 
 power ; it is that kind of power by which a statesman 
 sways the mind of a senate ; or by which an advocate 
 moves and bows the heart of a jury." — Sermons on Im- 
 portant Subjects, pp. 21, 27, 28, 30. 
 
 As to what regeneration consists in, Mr. Finney ob- 
 serves : "A change of heart, then, consists in changing 
 the controlling preference of the mind in regard to the 
 end of pursuit. The selfish heart is a preference of self- 
 13* 
 
150 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 interest to the glory of God and the interests of his king- 
 dom. A new heart consists in a preference of the glory 
 of God and the interests of his kingdom to one's own 
 
 happiness." ''It is a change in the choice of a 
 
 Swpreme Ruler.'' — Ihid. pp. 9, 10. In describing the 
 process by which the sinner effects this change, he occu- 
 pies nearly a whole sermon, which we cannot, of course, 
 with propriety, transfer to these pages. It corresponds 
 substantially with the views already given from Dr. 
 Taylor. 
 
 Mr. Duffield's account of regeneration is as follows : 
 "It is going altogether beyond the analogy*in the case, 
 to assert that there is in regeneration the injection, infu- 
 sion, or implantation, or creation of a new principle of 
 
 spiritual life.'' "Whenever the Spirit of God 
 
 excites and secures in the mind and heart of man those 
 acts and emotions which are appropriate to his rational 
 soul, i. e. when they are directed to God, as his supreme 
 good and chief end, he is renewed, regenerated, born 
 again." — Work on Regeneration, pp. 202, 203, 204. 
 But how does the Spirit produce this result ? According 
 to him it is done by moral suasion. He has two whole 
 chapters, occupying thirty-five pages, entitled " The 
 Moral Suasion of the Spirit." In one of these he illus- 
 trates his views of the nature of the Spirit's agency by 
 the power of persuasion exerted by one man over another, 
 and the greater success which a man of "practical know- 
 ledge and tact and particular acquaintance with disposi- 
 tions," &c., has above one who is less skilful. " Shall we 
 suppose, (says he), that God cannot do with sinners in 
 reference to himself what one man has done with another ? 
 — that a physical efiiciency is necessary to make the sin- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 151 
 
 Tier willing to confide in him and repent of his rebellion ? 
 To suppose this, is in fact to attribute a moral influence 
 to a man more potent than that ^vhich, in such a case, it 
 would be requisite God should exert ! It would in effect 
 be to say that man can subdue Jiis foe, and by an appro- 
 priate moral influence convert him into a friend ; but that 
 God cannot convert his enemy, and bring him to believe, 
 except he puts forth his physical power and literally 
 creates him over again." pp. 492, 493.* 
 
 During the progress of the discussion concerning the 
 New Theology, it was alleged by some, by way of objec- 
 tion to the new theory, that it involved the principle that 
 regeneration is not an instantaneous but a gradual work. 
 
 This allegation, so far as we recollect, was for a time 
 neither admitted nor denied. But recently the doctrine 
 oi gradual regeneration has been avowed. Mr. Gilbert,f 
 of Wilmington, Delaware, published in the P hiladelj^hian, 
 in 1833, a number of communications on this subject ; 
 which were afterwards revised and enlarged, and in 1836, 
 at the "earnest request" of the "members of the Min- 
 isters' Meeting of New Castle County, Delaware," were 
 
 * This power of moral suasion is the kind of influence referred 
 to by a certain preacher, who said, "If I were as eloquent as the 
 Holy Ghost, I could convert sinners as well as He." In the Na- 
 tional Preacher for February, 1832, a sermon furnished by Dr. GriflBn 
 commences by quoting the above remark. It being attributed by 
 some to a Presbyterian minister of our acquaintance, we asked him 
 whether he had ever used this expression. He replied that he had, 
 and vindicated its correctness; though he said it did not appear in 
 the connection in which he used it, as it does when standing by 
 itself. 
 
 f In the organization of the New-school General Assembly in 
 May, 1838, Mr. Gilbert was chosen permanent clerk. 
 
152 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 published in a pamphlet form, under the title of " Moral 
 Suasion; or Regeneration not a Miracle," &c. It is 
 dedicated to the members of the Ministers' Meeting, and 
 to the elders of the churches under their pastoral charge. 
 These facts appear to show that Mr. Gilbert's views 
 accord with the sentiments of the other ministers with 
 whom he is associated in that State, and that they desire 
 to have them prevail throughout their churches. 
 
 Mr. Gilbert affirms that " the Bible knows no instan- 
 taneous regeneration ; this is a refinement of theological 
 philosophers. Being born again, and changing the heart 
 of stone to a heart of flesh, is a gradual process ; although 
 under some circumstances it may be a very sliort one.'* 
 The remark of Dr. Griffin, that " motives can never 
 change an unholy temper,'" &c. he calls "strange philo- 
 sophy ; flying not only in the face of Scripture, but of 
 every day matters of fact." "How often," (says he), 
 " do we see enmity to a neighbour, corrected, moderated, 
 .subdued and turned to love, by proper motives presented 
 to the mind ? And enmity to God is restrained and sub- 
 dued in the same manner." These motives, he maintains, 
 are presented in the latter case by the Holy Spirit, who 
 convicts, converts, and sanctifies, " by the influence of 
 truth presented to the mind, and in no other way." In 
 one place, he says ; " Regeneration cannot he wrought 
 without the truth. It is in view of the truth, through 
 the truth, and by the truth, the soul is convicted, con- 
 verted, and sanctified from beginning to end." 
 
 To illustrate his views he has furnished a diagram 
 consisting of an arc of a circle, in the centre of which 
 he has placed the Holy Spirit. From this centre are 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 153 
 
 drawn straight lines to various points in the arc, repre- 
 senting truth as employed by the Spirit. A sinner 
 pursuing his way to hell is represented as being met by 
 one of these lines, through the influence of which he 
 is persuaded to diverge a little from the path he was 
 pursuing, and proceeding at an angle of about forty-five 
 degrees, he passes gradually through the several steps 
 of conviction, regeneration, and sanctification, describ- 
 ing in his progress the arc of the circle ; until arriving 
 at a point directly opposite from where he started, he 
 becomes perfect and ascends to heaven. 
 
 That the reader may see for himself this new and 
 improved method of regeneration by attraction, we 
 will give the diagram with the author's explanation.* 
 We ought to remark, however, that he uses the terms 
 conviction and sanctification in accommodation to the 
 views and language of others. According to his own 
 views the whole process from beginning to end be- 
 longs to the work of regeneration. '' By regenera- 
 tion,'^ says he, "is understood the divine agency in 
 the whole process of a sinner's conviction and conver- 
 sion ; but in this discussion I use it as it is used by 
 Dr. Griffin, Mr. Smith and others, in the restricted 
 sense as distinguished from previous conviction and sub- 
 sequent sanctification." "It [the Bible] knows of no 
 regeneration as distinct from conviction and the begin- 
 ning of sanctification." 
 
 * As a matter of taste we would exclude this diagram from our 
 pages — but other considerations which we regard as paramount, 
 induce us to insert it. 
 
154 
 
 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 THE AUTHOR S EXPLANATION. 
 
 *' Let the semicircle, ABC, represent the sinner's 
 course from sin to holiness. Let D E represent the road 
 to hell, in which the impenitent sinner is found by the 
 Holy Spirit, and influenced at the point A by a new 
 presentation of truth, to stop and turn gradually from 
 his downward course, through the curve of conviction, 
 towards the point B, when his conviction becoming perfect 
 and irresistible, he yields and turns from his downward 
 course, through the process of sanctification, until at 
 (or at death), becoming perfect, he flies off", if you please, 
 in a tangent to heaven. Till he reaches the point B, 
 though turning gradually from the more direct road to 
 hell, he is still in the downward course, and should the 
 Spirit let go of him, at any point, he flies ofi", by his own 
 centrifugal force, in a moment towards perdition. The 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 155 
 
 point B represents what these writers call ' Regenera- 
 tion: " 
 
 " The Hoi J Spirit, like the sun in the centre, is the 
 source of all right motion ; and the power by which he 
 attracts or influences the sinner, is the power of truth, 
 or moral motive ; by which the moral agent is checked 
 at A, and moved and controlled through the whole course 
 from A to C. It is understood, of course, that the whole 
 process may be longer or shorter, according to circum- 
 stances ; may begin and be perfected, as with the thief 
 on the cross, in a single day ; or as in the case of Me- 
 thuselah, may occupy nine hundred or one thousand years. 
 Conviction, also, may be short, and sanctification long, 
 or the reverse. But conviction must, from the nature of 
 the case, precede regeneration, or regeneration cannot be 
 a rational change. A physical change may take place 
 without conviction ; but physical regeneration is a thing 
 which I cannot comprehend, any more than physical con- 
 viction or physical sanctification. The doctrine of the 
 moral suasionists is, that the influence which convicts, 
 also regenerates and sanctifies; that the same power 
 which moves the sinner from A to B, moves him through 
 the point B and along the line to C ; and that the whole 
 change is wrought through appropriate means, without a 
 miracle, by the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Agreeably to these ideas of gradual progress from the 
 first point to the last, he says : " There is very little dis- 
 tinction between the last degree of sin and the lowest 
 degree of holiness ; between the last exercise of an un- 
 converted and the first of a converted man ; between the 
 last feeble struggle of selfishness and the first feeble ex- 
 ercise of love." . . *' There is a great difference between 
 
156 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 supreme selfishness and supreme love in their extremes ; 
 but between the last feeble influence of selfishness and 
 the first feeble exercise of love to Grod, the difference is 
 as imperceptible, as between the adjacent sides of the 
 equatorial line.'' . . " The point B on the diagram repre- 
 sents the transition line. And it may be asked, Is it not 
 an important one ? I answer. Yes. Important on many 
 accounts, but not because of any special influence used 
 then, but like the equator, as a measure of relative pro- 
 gress, and as the era of a great change in all our moral 
 relations and circumstances. Like the equatorial line, 
 however, it is in itself oi no consequence at all." 
 
 If this were not a subject too serious for ridicule, Mr. 
 Gilbert might be successfully assailed by this weapon. 
 He has fairly exposed himself to this mode of attack. 
 But if we possessed a talent for the humorous, and were 
 disposed to indulge in it, we feel too much shocked at his 
 method of illustration to treat it with ridicule. He ap- 
 pears to have felt himself, that he would run '' the risk 
 of being counted very presumptuous ;" and we doubt not 
 he was correct in his apprehensions. A majority of his 
 readers, it seems to us, (unless they belong to a particu- 
 lar class) will feel that he has " trodden on holy ground," 
 without " taking his shoes from off his feet ;" that he has 
 *'put forth his hand and touched ihe ark of God," with- 
 out "sanctifying himself;" or, in other words, that he 
 has so presented the subject, as to make him appear almost 
 profane. 
 
 This very circumstance, however, serves to show the 
 fallacy of these new doctrines. Mr. Gilbert uses no 
 irreverent language — he does not caricature the New The- 
 ology. The views expressed by different writers as 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 157 
 
 quoted in the present chapter, if carried out to their full 
 extent, and illustrated by a diagram, could not perhaps 
 be exhibited more accurately than by that which has been 
 presented. But a description given in words, which have 
 often an equivocal or doubtful import, produces not only 
 a less vivid, but a less accurate impression than that which 
 is made by a figure faithfully drawn and presented to the 
 eye. This remark is true not only in reference to land- 
 scapes, &c., but to a certain extent in regard to moral 
 and religious truth. Mr. Gilbert has shown by his dia- 
 gram, that it is capable of being employed in the present 
 instance ; and possibly it may be of service to the cause 
 of truth, by showing in a more striking manner than can 
 be exhibited by quoting their language, the dangerous 
 extremes to which those men are tending. Give not only 
 words but visibility to their doctrines — let them be seen 
 as well as heard — and they will arouse the feelings of 
 many who have not before been seriously alarmed. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 HUMAN ABILITY, REGENERATION, ETC., CONTINUED FROM THE PRE- 
 CEDING CHAPTER. 
 
 We observed in chapter fifth that the New Theology 
 concerning the nature of sin and holiness, viz. : that 
 they consist in acts, involves a new theory of regenera- 
 tion. What this theory is may be learned from the state- 
 ments made in the preceding chapter. It is the follow- 
 14 
 
158 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 ing: That in regeneration no princij:)^ of holiness is 
 implanted in the soul, prior to the exercise of holy acts, 
 from which principle, or "moral state of the soul," those 
 acts proceed : but that the whole change consists in the 
 acts of the soul itself ; which from having been sinful now 
 become holy. A previous holy relish or taste, which, 
 according to the old doctrine, is essential in order to give 
 to these acts a holy character, is regarded by these new 
 system-makers, as unphilosophical and absurd ; involving 
 what they term physical regeneration, passivity, &c. 
 
 If by physical regeneration is meant a mechanical 
 change in the substance of the soul, it forms no part of 
 the Old Theology. But if it mean a direct agency of 
 the Spirit upon the soul, by which its faculties are so 
 renewed, that it receives the principles of a new and 
 holy life, and therefore may be properly said to possess 
 a new nature, it is what we understand to be the true 
 doctrine. " The scriptural representations of conversion, 
 (says President Edwards), strongly imply and signify a 
 change of nature ; such as being born again ; becoming 
 new creatures ; rising from the dead ; being renewed in 
 the spirit of the mind ; dying to sin, and living to right- 
 eousness ; putting off the old man and putting on the 
 new man ; being ingrafted into a new stock ; having a 
 divine seed implanted in the heart ; being made partakers 
 
 of the divine nature," &c "He [God] gives his 
 
 Spirit to be united to the faculties of the soul and to 
 dwell there as a principle of spiritual life and activity. 
 He not only actuates the soul, but he abides in it. The 
 mind thus endued with grace is possessed of a new na- 
 ture." — Edivards on the Affections. 
 
 That the soul is passive in regeneration, is the doctrine 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 159 
 
 of our standards — and it necessarily results from the 
 preceding view concerning the nature of the change. In 
 the chapter on Effectual Calling, both are presented in 
 connection with each other. The change itself is de- 
 clared to consist in " enlightening the minds [the minds 
 of those whom he effectually calls] spiritually and savingly, 
 to understand the things of God, taking away their heart 
 of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh ; renew- 
 ing their wills," &c. It is then added, in the next section, 
 *' This effectual call is of God's free and special grace 
 alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is 
 altogether passive therein, until being quickened and 
 renewed by the Holy Spirit," &c. The former part of 
 this quotation exhibits the implantation of a holy prin- 
 ciple, or the change of our natures, by conferring spirit- 
 ual illumination, removing the heart of stone and giving 
 a heart of flesh, and by renewing the will. The latter 
 affirms that this new nature was not imparted to us by 
 our own agency, but by God, who works upon us by his 
 Holy Spirit, to quicken and renew us ; and that we must 
 of course, as to this particular point in the history of the 
 change, be the passive recipients of divine grace — not 
 bringing it about by our own acts, but being acted upon 
 by the renovating power of God. 
 
 This doctrine, however, does not imply that we are not 
 to be active beforehand in the diligent use of the means 
 of grace — nor that we are inactive at the time, with 
 respect to the effects of the change. Simultaneously 
 with this change, and as the immediate consequence of it, 
 the sinner is " persuaded and enabled to embrace Jesus 
 Christ, as he is freely offered to him in the gospel." In 
 this he is not passive, but active. When God " by his 
 
160 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 almighty power determines the sinner to that which is 
 good," or in other words, gives him an apprehension of 
 the excellence of divine things, and of the all-sufficiency 
 of Christ as his Saviour, and thus " effectually draws" 
 him to Christ, he comes, not reluctantly, but " most 
 freely, being made willing by his grace." Regeneration, 
 or the implanting of a holy principle, is the cause ; and 
 our conversion, or turning to God, is the effect. In the 
 former we are passive, in the latter active. Though in 
 the order of time they are simultaneous, in the order of 
 nature the former is the antecedent, the latter the con- 
 sequent ; just as breathing, though simultaneous with the 
 existence of life, is nevertheless the effect of it, and 
 would never occur, unless life had been previously com- 
 municated. 
 
 Dr. Cox, who does not appear to have adopted all the 
 principles of the New Theology, has expressed himself 
 on the subject of regeneration in a manner very different 
 from what has been customary among Calvinistic writers.* 
 To the doctrine that " God creates or inserts some holy 
 principle in us, which constitutes regeneration, and in 
 which we are entirely passive, but that thereafter we 
 actively do our duty," he strongly objects, and says "it 
 can command the confidence of no well disciplined mind." 
 He adds, it is true, "till we have both a definition of 
 what is meant by holy principle, and a demonstration of 
 
 * Since the publication of the first edition, Dr. Cox has pub- 
 lished a series of numbers in the New York Evangelist, entitled 
 "The Hexagon," in which he has discussed at length several im- 
 portant points of difference between the Old and New Schools, and 
 sided strongly with the latter, maintaining their particular views 
 of doctrine. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 161 
 
 its existence," &c. ; and he wishes to have it understood 
 that he does not object to its use, if explained in a par- 
 ticular way — but the doctrine, as it has been commonly 
 received, he does not embrace. In his letter to the con- 
 ductors of the Biblical Repertory, in reply to their re- 
 view of his sermon, he asks, " Is not a Christian active 
 in all his moral relations, — in believing and obeying 
 God ? Certainly active in the total progress of religion, 
 in the soul and life : then why not also in its rise ? If 
 active progressively, then why not initially too ? If 
 active in the work of sanctification, why not in the whole 
 of it, in its commencement as well as its continuance ; in 
 regeneration as well as sanctification ? How is a man 
 regenerated, but as he believes and obeys the gospel? 
 Is he regenerated before he does this ? Is he more de- 
 pendent in regeneration one whit than in sanctification ?" 
 What he terms the passivity doctrine, or the doctrine of 
 passive regeneration, he explicitly and freely disavows. 
 
 The remarks of the editors of the Repertory, in their 
 review of his sermon, are so much in point, that we shall 
 transcribe a paragraph of considerable length, in the 
 place of any further observations of ours upon this subject. 
 
 "As to the point which Dr. Cox thinks so ' intrinsically 
 absurd,' and about which he says so much, whether a man 
 is passive in regeneration, it will be seen that, for its own 
 sake, it does not merit a moment's discussion. It depends 
 entirely on the previous question. If regeneration be 
 that act of the soul by which it chooses God for its por- 
 tion, there is an end of all debate on the subject. Eor 
 no one will maintain that the soul is passive in acting. 
 But if there be any change in the moral state of the 
 soul, prior to its turning unto God, then it is proper to 
 14* 
 
162 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 say, that the soul is passive as to that particular point ; 
 that is, that the Holj Spirit is the author, and the soul 
 the subject of the change. For all that is meant by the 
 soul's being passive, is, that it is not the agent of the 
 change in question. Its immediate and delightful turning 
 unto God is its own act ; the state of mind which leads 
 to this act is produced directly by the Spirit of God. 
 The whole question is, whether any such anterior change 
 is necessary ; w^hether a soul polluted and degraded by 
 sin, or in Scripture language, carnal, needs any change 
 in its moral taste before it can behold the loveliness of 
 the divine character. For that this view must precede 
 the exercise of afifection, we presume will not be denied. 
 If this point be decided, the propriety of using the word 
 '' passive" to denote that the soul is the subject and not the 
 agent of the change in question, need not give us much 
 trouble. Sure it is that this change is in Scripture 
 always referred to the Holy Spirit. It is the soul that 
 repents, believes, hopes and fears ; but it is the Holy 
 Spirit that regenerates. He is the author of our faith 
 and repentance by inducing us to act, but no man regen- 
 erates himself. The soul, although essentially active, is 
 still capable of being acted upon. It receives impres- 
 sions from sensible objects, from other spirits, and from 
 the Holy Ghost. In every sensation, there is an impres- 
 sion made by some external object, and the immediate 
 knowledge which the mind takes of the impression. As 
 to the first point, it is passive, or the subject ; as to the 
 second, it is active, or the agent. These two are indeed 
 inseparably connected, and so are regeneration and con- 
 version. . . And if the Holy Spirit does make such an 
 impression on the mind, or exert such an influence as 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 163 
 
 induces it immediately to turn to God, then it is correct 
 to say that it is passive in regeneration, though active in 
 conversion. However, this is a very subordinate point ; 
 the main question is, whether there is not a holy * relish,' 
 taste, or principle produced in the soul prior, in the order 
 of nature, to any holy act of the soul itself. If Dr. Cox 
 can show this to be 'intrinsically absurd,' we shall give 
 up the question of ' passivity' without a moment's demur. 
 To relinquish the other point, however, will cost us a 
 painful struggle. It will be giving up the main point in 
 debate between the friends and opposers of the doctrine 
 of grace from Augustine to the present day. It will be 
 the renunciation of what Calvinists, old and new, have 
 believed to be the scriptural doctrine of original right- 
 eousness, original sin, and efficacious grace. It will be 
 the rejection of that whole system of mingled sovereignty 
 and love which has been the foundation, for ages, of so 
 many hopes, and of so much blessedness to the people of 
 God." 
 
 We mentioned in the last chapter that the New The- 
 ology involves the doctrine of gradual regeneration ; and 
 we quoted from Mr. Gilbert's pamphlet to show that this 
 sentiment is now avowed by some of the advocates of the 
 new system. On this point Dr. Griffin remarks, " The 
 evidence of the change may be earlier or later in its 
 appearance, and more or less rapid in its developments, 
 but the change itself is always instantaneous. Is not 
 such an idea more than implied in the text ? [Ezek. xi. 
 19.] What is the blessing promised ? Not the gradual 
 improvement of an old temper, but 'a new spirit;' — 
 * the stony heart' not softened hy degrees into flesh, but 
 by one decisive effort removed, and a heart of flesh sub- 
 
164 OLD AND NEW THEOLOaT.' 
 
 stituted in its room." "This doctrine, however, 
 
 does not militate against the idea of an antecedent pre- 
 paration in the conscience, wrought by the means of 
 grace and the enlightening influences of the Spirit." — 
 Park Street Lectures^ pp. 91, 101. 
 
 These means, according to our standards, are "the 
 word, sacraments, and prayer." In answer to the ques- 
 tion, How is the word made effectual to salvation ? the 
 following answer is given : " The Spirit of God maketh 
 the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an 
 effectual means of enlightening, convincing and humbling 
 sinners, of driving them out of themselves, and drawing 
 them unto Christ," &c. Thus the law is said to be " our 
 schoolmaster to lead us to Christ ;" " The law of the 
 Lord is perfect, converting the soul;" "Of his own will 
 begat he us, by the word of truth." But the word, let 
 it be remembered, is only the means, which the Holy 
 Spirit can employ or not as he pleases ; and which when 
 he does employ (as is usually the case) does not become 
 effectual to salvation, till he by a direct influence upon 
 the heart, prepares it to receive and embrace the truth. 
 Lydia did not attend to the things spoken by Paul, until 
 "the Lord opened her heart." In order that David 
 might behold wondrous things out of God's law, he prayed 
 that God would open Ms eyes. The primitive Chris- 
 tians had access by faith into God's grace, and rejoiced 
 in the hope of the glory of God, exercising the grace of 
 patience in their tribulations, " because the love of God 
 was shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost given 
 unto them." 
 
 Though all these texts do not refer to regeneration in 
 the restricted sense, they prove the doctrine of the direct 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 165 
 
 influence of the Spirit upon the heart — and it is for this 
 purpose we have adduced them. If the Spirit exerts an 
 immediate influence upon the hearts of believers, in order 
 to make the word efi'ectual to their sanctification, much 
 more on the hearts of sinners to make it effectual to their 
 conversion. In the mind of the believer there is some- 
 thing congenial with the spirit of the gospel ; something, 
 therefore, for divine truth to act upon in the form of mo- 
 tives : but, to use the language of Dr. Griffin, "motives 
 can never change an unholy temper; there is no tendency 
 in truth to change a depraved ' taste.' The change must 
 take place before light can act." 
 
 This doctrine of the direct agency of the Spirit, and 
 the implantation of a principle of holiness in the heart, 
 is inseparably connected with the sentiment that the 
 change is instantaneous. Motives operate gradually upon 
 the mind ; but the communication to the soul of a new 
 spiritual taste, is the work of a moment. We either pos- 
 sess this holy temper or we do not ; there is no point of 
 time when we have neither enmity nor love ; or when our 
 affections are suspended in equilibrio between the two. 
 Our souls are necessarily either in one state or its oppo- 
 site ; and our transition, therefore, from one to the other 
 must be instantaneous ; as when God said, '^^ Let there 
 be light, and there was light." 
 
 It may, perhaps, be thought by some that the differ- 
 ence between instantaneous and gradual regeneration is 
 not important, since both recognize the necessity of be- 
 coming holy. But a little reflection will show the con- 
 trary. Gradual regeneration is founded on the principle 
 that there is something good in the unregenerate man, 
 which needs only to be fostered and cherished, in order 
 
166 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 to make him holy. Of course it involves a denial of total 
 depravity, and of the necessity of an entire radical change 
 of character. It fosters pride and self-righteousness ; 
 and produces hostility to those doctrines of grace which 
 distinguish the gospel from the religion of nature. It is, 
 in short, taking a step toward infidelity. 
 
 In regard to human ability, our Confession of Faith 
 uses the following language : " Man, by his fall into a 
 state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any 
 spiritual good accompanying salvation ; so as a natural 
 man being altogether averse from that which is good, 
 and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to con- 
 vert himself, or prepare himself thereunto." Some have 
 endeavoured to prove from this passage that, according 
 to the Confession of Faith, depravity belongs exclusively 
 to the will. But this, it appears to us, is not a correct 
 exposition. As the design of the chapter was to treat 
 "Of Free Will," it would of course state explicitly what 
 effect the fall had upon the will, without speaking as a 
 matter of course, concerning the other powers of the soul. 
 There is, however, a clause introduced, which was evi- 
 dently designed to refer to the whole moral man : '•''Dead 
 in sin.'' The preceding clause, viz. "so as a natural 
 man being altogether averse from that which is good," 
 refers to the will ; but to this, the other is superadded — 
 ^' and dead in sin' — which was intended to convey an 
 additional idea, embracing, perhaps, the former, but 
 amplifying and extending it, so as to include the de- 
 pravity of our whole nature. This will appear by a 
 reference to the chapter on the " Fall of Man ;" where 
 it reads as follows : " By this sin they [our first parents] 
 fell from their original righteousness, and communion 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY, 167 
 
 witli God, and so become dead in sin. and wholly defiled 
 in all the faculties and parts of soul and body." It will 
 also appear, by a reference to the chapter on " Effectual 
 Calling;" where, in describing the manner in which we 
 are brought "out of that state of sin and death," it is 
 not only said that our wills are renewed, but our minds 
 spiritually and savingly enlightened to understand the 
 things of God ; and our heart of stone taken away and a 
 heart of flesh given us. If depravity belongs to the will 
 only, that alone needs to be operated upon in effectual 
 calling. It is evident, therefore, that our standards teach 
 the doctrine not only that the will is depraved, but like- 
 wise " all the faculties of the soul." 
 
 This view also accords with Scripture. " There is 
 none th3;t under sta7ideth.'' Horn. iii. 11. "Having the 
 understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of 
 God through the ignorance that is in them, because of 
 the blindness of their heart." Eph. iv. 18. "But the 
 natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 
 for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know 
 them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 
 14. Here it is manifest that our depravity affects the 
 understanding. Hence in conversion it is necessary that 
 we be enlightened to discern spiritual things. " The eyes 
 of your understanding being enlightened." Eph. i. 18. 
 " For God who commanded the light to shine out of dark- 
 ness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the 
 knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus 
 Christ." 2 Cor. iv. 6. "And have put on the new man, 
 which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him 
 that created him." Col. iii. 10. 
 
 Depravity is also predicated of the heart and con- 
 
168 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 science. " The heart is deceitful ahove all things, and 
 desperately wicked." Jer. xvii. 9. "But unto them that 
 are defiled and unbelieving, is nothing pure ; but even 
 their mind and conscience is defiled." Tit. i. 15. Do 
 these texts refer exclusively to the will ? or do they not 
 include also the other moral powers ? As the heart is 
 the seat of the affections, to say that the heart is wicked, 
 is equivalent to declaring the affections to be depraved 
 and alienated from God. Accordingly, to change the 
 heart is to give us a holy temper — to renew our affections. 
 " The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and tho 
 heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God." Deut. xxx. 
 6. "And I will put a new spirit within you, and I will 
 take the stony heart out of their flesh and will give them 
 a heart of flesh." Ezek. xi. 19. When this is done, our 
 conscience will likewise be rectified : " Having our hearts 
 sprinkled from an evil conscience." Heb. x. 22. Then, 
 too, the will which is controlled by the state of the heart, 
 is sweetly inclined by the same Spirit to choose and rest 
 upon Christ as the portion of the soul. " My people 
 shall be willing in the day of thy power." Psa. ex. 3. 
 
 From this view of the subject, it appears that the fall 
 has affected the whole moral man. What God says of 
 Judah is applicable to all mankind. " The whole head 
 is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the 
 foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it." Isa. 
 i. 5, 6. This doctrine, we admit, is very humiliating, 
 and calculated to make the sinner feel his dependence 
 upon God. But this, instead of being an objection, is a 
 proof of its correctness. While it must not be so inter- 
 preted as to annihilate or even impair the sinner's obli- 
 gation, or form any excuse for his impenitence and un- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 169 
 
 belief, it is a doctrine which is pre-eminently adapted to 
 drive him from those refuges of self-righteousness and 
 self-sufficiency, which prove the ruin of so many souls, 
 and lead him to seek salvation only through the grace 
 and righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is, indeed, the 
 very point to which sinners always come before they em- 
 brace the Saviour. 
 
 On this subject Dr. Witherspoon uses the following 
 language : "On a conviction of our own inability, one 
 would think we should but the more humbly and the more 
 earnestly apply to Him, who is all-sufficient in power and 
 grace. The deplorable and naturally helpless state of 
 sinners, doth not hinder exhortations to them in Scrip- 
 ture ; and therefore takes not away their obligation to 
 duty. See an address, where the strongest metaphors 
 are retained, the exhortation given in these very terms, 
 and the foundation of the duty plainly pointed out : 
 ' Wherefore he saith. Awake thou that sleepest, and arise 
 from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.' From 
 which it is very plain, that the moral inability, under 
 which sinners now lie, as a consequence of the fall, is 
 not of such a nature as to take away the guilt of sin, the 
 propriety of exhortation to duty, or the necessity of en- 
 deavours after recovery." . . . " I make no scruple to 
 acknowledge, that it is impossible for me, nay, I find no 
 difficulty in supposing that it is impossible for any finite 
 mind, to point out the bounds between the ' dependence' 
 and ' activity' of the creature." ..." The new birth is 
 a ' supernatural change ;' it is the effect of the power of 
 God ; it is the work of the Holy Ghost. I have been at 
 the more pains to establish this truth, because I am per- 
 suaded, that until it be truly received there may be a 
 15 
 
170 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 form, but there can be nothing of the power of godliness.** 
 . . . "But what shall we say? Alas! the very subject 
 we are now speaking of affords a new proof of the blind- 
 ness, prejudice, and obstinacy of sinners. They are self- 
 condemned ; for they do not act the same part in similar 
 cases. The affairs of the present life are not managed 
 in so preposterous a manner. He that ploughs his ground, 
 and throws in his seed, cannot so much as unite one grain 
 to the clod ; nay, he is not able to conceive how it is done. 
 He cannot carry on, nay, he cannot so much as begin 
 one single step of this wonderful process towards the 
 subsequent crop; the mortification of the seed, the re- 
 surrection of the blade, and gradual increase, till it come 
 to perfect maturity. Is it, therefore, reasonable that he 
 should say, ^ I for my part can do nothing ; it is, first and 
 last, an effect of divine power and energy : and God can 
 as easily raise a crop without sowing as wdth it, in a 
 single instant, and in any place, as in a long time by the 
 mutual influence of soil and season ; I will therefore spare 
 myself the hardship of toil and labour, and wait with 
 patience till I see what he will be pleased to send V 
 Would not this be madness ? Would it not be universally 
 reputed so ? And would it not be equal madness to turn 
 the grace of God into licentiousness ? Believe it, the 
 warning is equally reasonable and equally necessary, in 
 spiritual as in temporal things. ' Be not deceived, God 
 is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall 
 he also reap : for he that soweth to the flesh, shall of the 
 flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the Spirit, 
 shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.' " — Practical 
 Treatise on Regeneration^ Sect. 4. 
 But while the doctrine of human inability and depen- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 171 
 
 dcnce upon God, as understood and believed by those who 
 adhere to the Old Theology, does not destroy accountable- 
 ness, nor impair obligation, nor discourage effort, but 
 brings the sinner to his proper place before the throne 
 of divine mercy, we think the doctrine of ability, as main- 
 tained by the advocates of the New Theology, is calcu- 
 lated to produce such independence of feeling, with regard 
 to the Spirit's influences, as to be a serious obstacle to 
 genuine conversion. Among the " false comforts for sin- 
 ners," which Mr. Finney enumerates, one is, ''telling the 
 sinner to pray for a new heart.'' He asks, " Does God 
 say. Pray for a new heart ? Never. He says, ' Make you 
 a new heart.' And the sinner is not to be told to pray 
 to God to do his duty for him, but to go and do it him- 
 self." — Lectures on Revivals, p. 318. Thus it appears, 
 we must not direct sinners to seek God for renewing 
 grace, because they have sufficient ability of their own to 
 perform the work. To preach to them the necessity of 
 the Spirit's influences, while exhorting them to duty, 
 would be according to him " unphilosophical." We must 
 tell them "to go and do it themselves." What kind of 
 conversions is such instruction as this calculated to pro- 
 duce ? * It is no wonder that the revivals of religion 
 
 * Let the reader judge of the probable effect upon the sinner of 
 preaching such doctrines as are developed in the following conver- 
 sation between a licentiate, a student from New Haven, and two 
 highly respectable ministers, in 1832. It was taken down at the 
 time by one of the ministers, as he has informed us, " the paper 
 sealed up, and has been kept since a secret." In communicating 
 it to us a few weeks ago, he observes : " If you judge it to be pro- 
 per, you are now at liberty to use the document in your forthcoming 
 book ; suppressing the names for the present, but considering me 
 
172 OLD AND NEW THEOLOaT. 
 
 "which have occurred within the last ten years, under the 
 ministry of such men, should furnish so many examples 
 of apostasy. In a discourse delivered by Mr. Finney in 
 
 as responsible for the statement, and ready to give the names here- 
 after if necessary." 
 
 " Mr. , [one of the ministers,] in the course of general 
 
 conversation, alluded to New Haven as a school of Theology, and 
 
 asked finally that Mr. , [the licentiate,] would state what 
 
 were the peculiarities of Professor Fitch's scheme of natural de- 
 pravity. Mr. avowed himself a believer in that scheme, 
 
 and stated among other things, in substance as follows: (many of 
 the following views, he said, however, were his own, and not charge- 
 able upon any others, or any particular school): that ' moral char- 
 acter was predicated entirely on choice between good and evil : that 
 man was not regarded with displeasure in the sight of God, either 
 "by imputation of original sin, or as having a disposition to evil. 
 He was in no sense a sinner, until of sufficient age and capacity to 
 choose for himself; and if there was a period in his existence pre- 
 vious to that, during that period he was an innocent being.' " 
 
 *' The bearing of this on the doctrine of regeneration was then 
 
 suggested ; whereupon Mr. stated in substance, that he did 
 
 not regard the saying of Christ to Nicodemus, ' that which is born 
 of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,' 
 as implying anything like a new moral nature, opposite to his first 
 nature, as given to him in regeneration. He believed that subject 
 had been misunderstood. There was indeed a necessity for regen- 
 eration, but it consisted not in the implantation of new principles, 
 but the rational turning of the same principles to a new course. 
 As to the way in which it was produced, God's help was indeed 
 necessary, but no more so than in every other action of man. He 
 presented motives, and when a man sincerely made up his resolu- 
 tion to follow them, and did decide to do so, that was the beginning 
 
 of a new life.' Mr. asked him if any sinner ever did come 
 
 to Christ without feeling his helpless and lost condition? Mr. 
 said * he thought, yes ; and mentioned his own case.' " 
 
 *' The bearing of the subject on atonement and justification was 
 
 next alluded to ; and Mr. [the licentiate,] observed 'that it 
 
 •was a scheme which did indeed run through the whole. As to 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 173 
 
 Chatham street chapel, in 1836, are found such sentences 
 as the following:* ''You profess that you want to have 
 
 atonement, he believed in it, but he seemed to consider it as con- 
 sisting in what lay between God and his intelligent universe exclu- 
 sively, and that for laying a ground of justifying his own proceed- 
 ings; as such, a man ought to trust in or believe the atonement: 
 but in [the] matter of personal experience we had nothing to do 
 with it; the righteousness of Christ is in no sense imputed to us: 
 we must be accepted on the ground of our own obedience.' " 
 
 "Much was said also of the practical influence of such a stylo 
 
 of preaching; and it was objected to Mr. 's scheme, that 
 
 taking men as they are, they would be likely to interpret his views 
 of their own powers and independency as even more favourable 
 
 to themselves than he probably intended : and Mr. [one of 
 
 the ministers] remarked that as the gospel was represented * to be 
 a seeking and saving that which was lost;' ' to kill and make alive ;'-^ 
 he had always felt it to be more necessary to show men their help- 
 lessness connected with their guilt, and a way of hope, than to per- 
 suade them of their own powers. Mr. [the licentiate,] 
 
 held the opposite opinion. He seemed to think that the reason 
 why many more were not pious, was, that too many and unneces- 
 sary difficulties were left in the way. They ought to be reasoned 
 with more : show them that this work is not so hard and unreason- 
 able : they could be persuaded to make a choice if you would only 
 present the thing as rational ; and many were thus won, where 
 this scheme was now adopted. He said much of the figurative 
 language of Scripture, and seemed to think that such passages as 
 ' the carnal mind is enmity against God,' did not apply to men at 
 the present age of the world, but peculiarly to the Jews, on account 
 of their prejudices. The opposition which we have often witnessed 
 against religion in natural men is not so much against God or reli- 
 gion itself, as against the prejudiced representations of it by mis- 
 taken teachers.'^ 
 
 This individual, who is denominated by our correspondent " a 
 respectable young man," was at that time, as we infer from his 
 letter, seeking a settlement in a Presbyterian congregation. 
 
 * We qiKjte from the Literary and Theological Review. Tho 
 15* 
 
174 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 sinners converted. Eut what avails it if they sink right 
 back again into conformity to the world ?" . . . "Where 
 are the proper results of the glorious revivals we have 
 had?" . . . "The great body of them [the converts of 
 the last ten years] are a disgrace to religion." ..." Of 
 what use is it to convert sinners and make them such 
 Christians as tliese ?" This is an acknowledgment that 
 the fruits of those revivals are not such as were antici- 
 pated — and so long as converts are made under the in- 
 fluence of such doctrines, and that system of measures 
 which corresponds with them, we must expect similar 
 results. Their goodness will be as the morning cloud, 
 and as the early dew it will pass away. 
 
 The following remarks of Dr. Reed, one of the dele- 
 gates from England to the American churches, accord 
 with the sentiments and observation of very many in 
 America, who have been "witnesses of these things." 
 " The New Divinity and the New Measures have greatly 
 coalesced, and they have given for the time, currency to 
 each other. Many pious and ardent persons and preachers, 
 from the causes to which I have adverted, were disposed 
 to think that the new opinions had all the advantage in a 
 revival, and this gave them all the preference in their 
 judgment. Where they in connection with the New 
 Measures have been vigorously applied, there has, indeed, 
 been no want of excitement. The preacher who firmly 
 believes that the conversion of men rests on the force of 
 moral suasion, is not unlikely to be persuasive. And 
 the hearer who is told 'he can convert himself,' that it is 
 
 sermon it appears was reported in the New York Evangelist, Feb- 
 ruary 13, 1836. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 175 
 
 *as easy for him to do so as to walk,' that he has only 
 * to resolve to do it and it is done,' is not unlikely to be 
 moved into self-complacent exertion. But it may be 
 asked, does either the preacher or the hearer possess 
 those sentiments which are likely to lead to a true 
 conversion, and to bring forth fruits meet for repent- 
 ance ? 
 
 "By their fruits ye shall know them. There has 
 certainly been good done where there has been much 
 evil, for with this evil there has been a large portion of 
 divine truth. But I fear not to say, that where there has 
 been the largest infusion of the Ncav Divinity into the 
 New Measures, there has been the greatest amount of 
 unwarrantable extravagance. There has been great ex- 
 citement, much animal emotion and sympathy, high re- 
 solves, and multiplied conversions, hut time has tested 
 them and they have failed.'' 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW" THEOLOGY, BY WAY OF 
 REVIEW, AND A NOTICE OF THE PERFECTIONISM OF MR. FINNEY. 
 
 That the reader may see at a single view the most 
 prominent points of difference between the Old and New 
 Theology, we shall exhibit them in few words by way of 
 contrast : — in doing which we shall take a kind of retro- 
 spect of the subject, and exemplify some of the princi- 
 ples which have been noticed, by a few additional quota 
 tions. 
 
176 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY/ 
 
 1. The Old Theology places God upon the throne of 
 the universe, and makes him competent to say, concern- 
 ing all creatures and events, '' My counsel shall stand, 
 and I will do all my pleasure." The New makes him so 
 dependent upon the volitions of moral agents, that he is 
 Hable to suffer disappointment, and to have his happiness 
 iiminished, by the uncontrollable agency of men : — and 
 this not only in the present world, but in the next. Prof. 
 Fitch affirms that God's " purpose was to confer on the 
 beings composing his moral kingdom, the power of voli- 
 tion and choice, and to use the best influence God could 
 use on the whole to secure the holiness and prevent the 
 sin of such beings, who themselves, and not he, were to 
 have immediate power over their volitions." Again ; 
 " We affirm that the causes in kind which originate sin, 
 being inseparably inherent in a moral universe, may so 
 accumulate in degree under every system of providence 
 and government which can be pursued, as to render sure 
 the occurrence of sin. If in a universe of such beings, 
 no possible system of providence adopted and pursued 
 through eternity can shut out all occasions of the out- 
 breakings of sin, it is easy to see, that as to his prevent- 
 ing it, sin is unavoidably incidental to the acts of the 
 Creator in creating and governing such a kingdom." . . 
 " The causes in kind which are known to originate sin in 
 the present universe, must necessarily be present in any 
 possible universe of moral beings." . . . "If the causes 
 of defectibility are thus inseparable from the existence 
 of a universe of moral beings, is there not a ground of 
 probability that they will lead to actual defection in every 
 possible system as well as in this?" — ''Review of Dr. 
 risk's Discourse on Predestination and Election, and a 
 
OLD AND NEW TIIEOLOGT. 177 
 
 Defence of that Review in the Christian Spectator." 
 What low and unworthy views does this statement convey 
 concerning the Deity ! What dismal prospects it pre- 
 sents to the expectant of future and eternal hliss ! 
 
 2. The Old Theology regards the fall of man as a 
 catastrophe so direful in its effects, that no power less 
 than Omnipotence is adequate to " quicken sinners who 
 are dead in trespasses and sins." The New treats it as 
 a calamity, which the sinner is able, since the introduc- 
 tion of a system of mercy through Jesus Christ, to repair 
 himself. Says Mr. Finney, " Now suppose God to have 
 come out upon Adam with the command of the text, 
 *Make you a new heart, for why will ye die?' Could 
 Adam have justly answered, ' Dost thou think that I can 
 change my own heart ? Can I, who have a heart totally 
 depraved — can I change that heart ?' Might not the 
 Almighty have answered him in words of fire, ' Rebel, you 
 have just changed your heart from holiness to sin, now 
 change it back from sin to holiness.' " — Sermons on Inv- 
 portant Subjects, p. 13. See also Mr. Barnes's remarks 
 on the text, "When we were without strength, Christ 
 died for the ungodly," in Chap. vii. We shall likewise 
 give one or two additional quotations in the present chap- 
 ter, under the head of Ability. 
 
 8. The Old Theology maintains that Adam was the 
 federal head of his posterity, and that, by breaking the 
 covenant under which he was placed, he involved not 
 only himself, but all his posterity, in sin and misery — the 
 guilt of his first sin being imputed to them, or set over 
 in law to their account; so that they all come into the 
 world with depraved and sinful natures. The New denies 
 that we sustain a covenant relation to Adam ; and main- 
 
178 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGT. 
 
 tains tliat he was only our natural head and father — from 
 whose sin it results as a matter of fact, according to the 
 common laws of human society, that all his posterity 
 become sinners when they arrive at moral agency ; before 
 which time they are neither sinful nor holy ; and that 
 they become sinners by their own voluntary act, after a 
 trial, it would seem, similar to what Adam had. Says 
 Dr. Taylor, in reply to a supposed objection, "Why 
 render this universal sinfulness of a race, the consequence 
 of one man's act ? why not give to each a fair trial for 
 himself?" " I answer, God does give to each a fair trial 
 for himself. Not a human being does or can become thus 
 sinful or depraved but by his own choice. God does not 
 compel him to sin by the nature he gives him. Nor is 
 his sin, although a consequence of Adam's sin, in such a 
 sense its consequence as not to be a free, voluntary act of 
 his own. He sins freely, voluntarily. There is no other 
 way of sinning. God, (there is no irreverence in saying 
 it), can make nothing else sin but the sinner's act." — 
 Concio ad Clerum. 
 
 Mr. Barnes observes : " If it were a dogma of a pre- 
 tended revelation, that God might at pleasure, and by an 
 arbitrary decree, make crime pass from one individual to 
 another — striking onward from age to age, and reaching 
 downward to ' the last season of recorded time' — punished 
 in the original offender ; repunished in his children ; and 
 punished again and again by infinite multiples, in count- 
 less ages and individuals ; and all this judicial infliction, 
 for a single act, performed cycles of ages before the 
 individuals lived, we see not how any evidence could shake 
 our intrinsic belief that this is unjust and improbable." 
 . . . . " We never can adopt that system which tramples 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 179 
 
 on the analogies wliich actually exist, and holds men to 
 be personally ansiverable, and actually punished by a just 
 God, for an act committed thousands of years before they 
 were born. Such a doctrine is nowhere to be found in 
 the Scriptures." — Introductory JEssay to Butler s An- 
 alogy^ pp. 35, 39. 
 
 All that we deem it necessary to say concerning the 
 views contained in these extracts, is, that Unitarians 
 consider them ^^ sound and lucid.'' In the Review of 
 Mr. Barnes's Notes on the Romans, in the Christian Ex- 
 aminer, already referred to, [a Unitarian Quarterly] the 
 reviewer says : " On the subject of man's nature, capaci- 
 ties, and duty, our author is sound and lucid. The idea 
 of hereditary depravity he spurns, as unworthy of even, 
 a passing notice. He asserts repeatedly that men sin 
 only in their own person, in themselves, as indeed how 
 can they sin in any other way? The imputation of 
 Adam's transgression he treats as a scholastic absurdity." 
 . ..." Of the figment of Adam's federal headship and 
 the condemnation of his posterity for partnership in his 
 sin, Mr. Barnes says ' there is not one word of it in the 
 Bible.'"* 
 
 * The views of Socinus are as follows : 
 
 Quest. 1. " Is it in our power fully to obey the commandments 
 of God?" 
 
 Answ. " Certainly ; for it is evident, that the first man was so 
 formed by God, that he was endued with free will ; and no reason 
 existed why he should be deprived of this power after the fall; 
 nor was it consistent with the justice of God, that man should be 
 deprived of free will. Accordingly, in the punishment inflicted on 
 his sin, there is no mention made of any such loss.'' 
 
 Quest. 2. "But is not the will of man vitiated by original sin V* 
 
 Answ. " There is no such thing as original sin : the Scripture 
 
180 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 4. The Old Theology maintains that the atonement 
 consisted in rendering satisfaction to divine justice by the 
 vicarious sufferings of Christ, who endured in oui' stead 
 the penalty of the law, and offered up himself an accept- 
 able sacrifice to God : by which offering God's '' favour 
 was propitiated for us," his law magnified, and his gov- 
 ernment sustained : so that without doing violence to his 
 holy nature, or relinquishing the claims of his law, or 
 dishonouring his government, he secured the salvation of 
 those who were given to Christ ir the covenant of redemp- 
 tion ; John xvii. 2 ; Isa. liii. 11, 12 ; and laid the founda- 
 tion for a free offer of mercy to all who hear the gospel. 
 Mark xvi. 15 ; John iii. 16. 
 
 The New Theology considers the atonement as involv- 
 ing a suspension of the penalty of the law, and as con- 
 sisting in a "symbolical display" to the universe, for the 
 purpose of producing such an impression of God's hatred 
 to sin, as would render it safe and proper for him as moral 
 Governor, to bestow pardon upon sinners : and as to sin- 
 ners themselves, it is an "experiment," made by God for 
 their salvation ; which, through his impotency to control 
 moral agents, may fail of its intended result.* Among 
 
 teaches no such doctrine ; and the will of man could not be vitiated 
 by a cause which had no existence. The sin of Adam, being a 
 single act, could not corrupt his own nature, much less had it power 
 to deprave the nature of all his posterity. That this sin should be 
 charged on them, is, as has been said, a doctrine unknown to the 
 Scriptures ; and it is utterly incredible, that God, who is the foun- 
 tain of equity, should be willing to impute it to them." Racovian 
 Catechism, compiled from the writings of Socinus, and published 
 A. D. 1606 ; translated for the Biblical Repertory ; q. v. 
 
 ^ We have not met with any writer who expressed himself in 
 this revolting form, except Mr. Jenkyn, in his work on the Atone- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 181 
 
 other relations of the atonement discussed by Mr. Jenkyn, 
 lie considers it in relation to the purposes and providences 
 of God. Under the former he observes, " The various 
 dispensations of probation are various experiments in 
 moral government, in which God submits his own plans 
 and ways to the acceptance and for the use of free agents. 
 If any object to the word * experiment,' I beg to refer 
 them for the meaning of it, to the parable of the barren 
 fig-tree, and to that of the husbandman sending his ser- 
 vants, and afterwards his son to the vineyard. These 
 dispensations or experiments are capable of failure. The 
 Eden experiment failed — and the Sinai experiment failed. 
 Such susceptibility of failure has been shown to be inci- 
 dental to a moral government and a state of trial." Un- 
 der its relation to providence he says, " The measures of 
 providence are liable to failure. A medicine may fail, 
 notwithstanding the virtue which providence has given it. 
 The crop of the husbandman may fail, notwithstanding 
 the provision that seed-time and harvest-time shall con- 
 tinue. The morbid fear of acknowledging such a liable- 
 ness to failure in the measures of providence is unaccount- 
 able, w^hen God declares his own government of the Jews, 
 under the theocracy, to have failed of its end. ' In vain 
 have I smitten them, they have refused to receive correc- 
 tion.' Jer. ii. 30. The word of God distinctly and ex- 
 pressly recognizes the same liableness to failure in the 
 great measure of atonement. Are you sure that it is not 
 attachment to system rather than attachment to the truth 
 
 ment. But this is a correct statement, it appears to us, of the doc- 
 trine, as held by those (if they are consistent) who, in connection 
 with the New-school view of atonement, adopt also the new theory 
 concerning the character and government of God. 
 
 16 
 
182 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 that makes you hesitate to avow it ?" pp. 97, 168. Quere. 
 If GocVs "plan" or "experiment," or "measure of atone- 
 ment," is liable to failure; and if it does fail in numer- 
 ous instances, as Mr. Jenkyn intimates, and elsewhere 
 admits, what security have we that it will not fail alto- 
 gether ? What if it should happen, that when " submitted 
 to the acceptance of free agents," they should all object 
 to it, and refuse to comply with its conditions ! Has God 
 power to control the exercise of their free agency and 
 persuade them to change their minds ? or may they not, 
 in despite of his mightiest influence, persist in rejecting 
 Christ, and so despoil him of his mediatorial reward ? 
 
 5. The Old Theology arrays the believer in the robe 
 of Christ's righteousness ; which being imputed to him 
 and received by faith, is the ground of his justification 
 before God. " This is his name whereby he shall be 
 called. The Lord our Righteousness." Jer. xxiii. 6. 
 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteous- 
 ness, which is of the law, but that which is through the 
 faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith." Phil, 
 iii. 9. "And to her [the Lamb's wife, the Church,] was 
 granted, that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean 
 and white : for the fine linen is the righteousness of 
 saints." Kev. xix. 8. "You have here," says Henry, 
 " a description of the bride, how she appeared ; in fine 
 linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of 
 saints ; in the robes of Christ's righteousness, both im- 
 puted for justification, and imparted for sanctification." 
 
 The New Theology discards the doctrine of imputed 
 righteousness, and maintains that the believer's faith, 
 being an act which God approves, and which leads to 
 other holy acts, is reckoned to him for righteousness ; and 
 
OLD'AND NEW TH-EOLOGY. 183 
 
 in consequence of it God pardons his sin and receives him 
 into favour. "Faith," says Mr. Finney, "is the ap- 
 pointed instrument of our justification, because it is the 
 natural instrument of sanctification. It is the instru- 
 ment of bringing us back to obedience, and therefore is 
 designated as the means of obtaining the blessings of that 
 return. It is not imputed to us by an arbitrary act, for 
 what it is not, but for what it is, as the foundation of all 
 real obedience to God. This is the reason why faith is 
 made the medium through which pardon comes. It is 
 simply set down to us for what it really is ; because it 
 first leads us to obey God from a principle of love to him." 
 — Lectures to Pi^ofessing Christians, p. 221. 
 
 Which of these doctrines is more calculated to humble 
 the creature and to honour Christ ? "If faith itself is 
 our justifying righteousness, then it justifies as a work, 
 as truly as any other works could; and" ... "if a man 
 is justified on account of the act of believing, and that 
 act he can perform by the power of free will, he has as 
 much ground of boasting as he could possibly have, if he 
 had been justified by other works." — Dr. Alexander. 
 
 6. The Old Theology places the sinner at the thresh- 
 old of sovereign mercy, a dependent though guilty sup- 
 pliant for grace and salvation. The New gives him suffi- 
 cient ability to do all that God requires of him, without 
 divine aid. In a review of Watson's Institutes in the 
 Christian Spectator , are found the following : " He [Mr. 
 Watson] repeatedly speaks of the power of the will, by 
 which he intends, of course, its ^ gracious ability' before 
 the fall, as being lost by Adam, ' for himself and for his 
 descendants.' " . . . . "Admitting it to be true in Adam's 
 case, that by sinning he was shorn of his power to obey 
 
184 OLD AND' NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 God, what has this to do with his posterity ? The prin- 
 ciple assumed in the argument, renders it impossible that 
 their moral agency should be unhinged, until they exist 
 and sin ; therefore Adam's sin could have no more tend- 
 ency to destroy their poAver to choose good, or to set their 
 teeth on edge, than it had to produce the same effects 
 upon Satan and his apostate host." .... *' We should 
 like to know, whether the admirers of Mr. Watson believe 
 it impossible for God to create a being, possessing in him- 
 self the ability to choose good and be holy, without the 
 gift of the Spirit ? and if so, where is his omnipotence ? 
 If it is admitted that he can create such a being, we ask 
 whether the principles of divine government do not fully 
 demonstrate, that man is such a being ? If he is not, is 
 God's government adapted to him ? What notion can be 
 formed of a subject of moral government, who is desti- 
 tute of moral liberty ? or in other words, who, in every 
 instance of obedience or disobedience, does not act with 
 inherent power to the contrary choice?"* — Christian 
 Spectator, 1835, pp. 376, 377. 
 
 7. The Old Theology makes regeneration a radical 
 change — a change in the disposition and temper of the 
 sinner, as well as in his acts. The New regards it as 
 merely giving a different direction to our constitutional 
 desires ; but appears to make little or no difference be- 
 tween the principles of action, in converted and uncon- 
 verted men. They differ only as to the "end of pursuit." 
 In reference to a sentiment advanced by Dr. Griffin, that 
 the sinner has no taste for holiness, and therefore cannot 
 
 * Concerning the power of contrary choice, see Dr. Beecher's 
 Views, and Dr. Harvey's remarks upon them in Chapter vii. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 185 
 
 be regenerated by motives, Mr. Gilbert remarks, ^^ The 
 impenitent sinner has no ' taste' for conviction ; his un- 
 holy temper is as really opposed to truth as to holiness; 
 and this philosophy would make it as impossible to con- 
 vict as to convert him ; to sanctify as to regenerate him. 
 The unconverted man has no ' taste' for conviction, nor 
 the converted man for more sanctification." Mark, 
 " The unconverted man has no taste for conviction, nor 
 the converted man for more sanctification !" What then 
 is the difference between the taste or temper, or disposi- 
 tion of an impenitent sinner, and a child of God ? For 
 aught we can perceive, they are precisely the same. 
 
 8. The Old Theology gives honour to Christ and the 
 Holy Spirit — the New has a tendency to throw them, 
 particularly the latter, into the shade. " You see (says 
 Mr. Finney) how unphilosophical it is, while pressing the 
 sinner to submission, to divert his mind and turn his 
 attention to the subject of the Spirit's influence. While 
 his attention is directed to that subject, his submission is 
 impossible." — Sermons on Important Subjects^ p. 61. 
 Of course, those who would be instrumental in converting 
 sinners, must say little or nothing about the Spirit.* 
 
 * We have in our possession a written statement, communicated 
 to us by a very respectable minister, which affords another illus- 
 tration of this sentiment. Says he, " In the summer of 1832, while 
 travelling in the valley of the Mississippi, I spent a few weeks in 
 
 the city of , and gave assistance, as I was able, by request of 
 
 the pastor in church of that place. Unusual attention to 
 
 religion existed when I arrived, and continued for some time. A 
 strong tendency was manifested both to new doctrines and new 
 measures. One evening when on the way to the church with the 
 pastor, where I had engaged to preach, he requested I should say 
 nothing in my preaching, concerning the influences of the Spirit, 
 
 16* 
 
186 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 And it is true, as a matter of fact, that the class of 
 preachers to which we now refer, say almost as little 
 about Christ as about the Spirit. They preach much 
 about submitting to God ; but they seldom exhibit the 
 second person of the Trinity, in his mediatorial character, 
 and the duty of embracing him as a Saviour. The apos- 
 tolic direction, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," is 
 exchanged for a phraseology which is calculated to con- 
 vey the impression that conversion consists in the mere 
 choice of God as a moral Governor. This indeed is Mr. 
 Finney's account of it. " It [a change of heart] is a 
 change in the choice of a Supreme Ruler." . . . "The 
 world is divided into two great political parties ; the dif- 
 ference between them is, that one party choose Satan as 
 the God of this world ;" . . . " the other party choose 
 Jehovah for their Governor." Jesus Christ, as a distinct 
 person in the Godhead, and faith in him as our Redeemer, 
 appear to have little to do in the process.* 
 
 as he had new views on repentance. He did not deny the work of 
 the Spirit, but thought it should not be preached. He -was then, 
 and still remains a leading member of his Synod." To this we 
 will add the following : 
 
 A former student of Dr. Taylor has informed us, verbally, that 
 he heard Dr. Taylor advance the sentiment in two different ser- 
 mons, " that sinners must act in the work of conversion just as if 
 there was no Holy Ghost." To prove the truth of his remark, he 
 alluded to Acts xix. 2. " We have not so much as heard whether 
 there be any Holy Ghost." He had heard, also, through others, 
 of Dr. Taylor's advancing the same sentiment at different times; 
 and he believed he was in the habit of doing it where he preached 
 a course of revival sermons. 
 
 * In the summer of 1834, we heard a sermon from Professor 
 , of New Haven. We do not recollect that there was a sen- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 187 
 
 9. The Old Theology honours the Holy Scriptures, hy 
 drawing its doctrines and proofs from this source alone, 
 without calling in the aid of philosophy. The New 
 resorts to the latter, in order to obtain its first principles ; 
 and then interprets the former so as to make them accord 
 with these philosophical opinions. This remark, we are 
 aware, may be called in question. The leaders in the 
 New-school party have had much to say concerning the 
 ^^ facts" of Scripture, and have charged their brethren 
 of the Old-school with resorting to philosophy. But a 
 little investigation of this subject will show the statement 
 first made to be strictly true. In Mr. Finney's two ser- 
 mons on the duty of sinners to change their own hearts, 
 he uses the words philosophy, philosophical, unphilosophi- 
 cal, &c., at least fourteen times. He tells us about " the 
 philosophy of conversion," '^ the philosophy of self-ex- 
 amination," and "the philosophy of specical efibrts to 
 promote revivals of religion." Every step in the change 
 is brought to the test of philosophy ; and the failure of 
 the sinner to submit to God is ascribed in one instance to 
 his not understanding the philosophy of the process. 
 *' He, therefore, (says he) who does not understand the 
 philosophy of this ; who does not understand the use and 
 power of attention^ the use and power of conscience, and 
 
 timent in it to which we took exceptions ; and yet there was such 
 an absence of what a Christian desires and expects to find, in a ser- 
 mon which professed to teach us how we may approach God with 
 acceptance, as to afford too much reason for the observation of a 
 pious and intelligent lady soon after, viz : " that he kept Christ and 
 the Holy Spirit so much out of view, she could not help thinking 
 that he was a deist." This lady had not yet heard the name or 
 residence of the preacher ; and of course could not have been influ- 
 enced by any considerations of this kind. 
 
188 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 upon what to fix his mind, to lead him to a right decision, 
 will naturally complain that he does not know how to 
 submit." The Scriptures are also brought forward and 
 compared by this rule. When he [Joshua] assembled the 
 people of Israel and laid their duty before them, and said, 
 * choose you this day whom ye will serve,' he did not 
 unphilosophically remind them at the same time of their 
 dependence upon the Spirit of God." Thus we have 
 philosophical preaching, philosophical protracted meet- 
 ings, philosophical self-examination, philosophical sub- 
 mission, and philosophical conversion. May not the 
 result of the whole be a merely philosophical Christian ? 
 Other proofs which might be adduced, from different wri- 
 ters, we must leave to those who desire to examine this 
 subject. 
 
 It may possibly be said that we have given more pro- 
 minence to Mr. Finney than was proper ; since he goes 
 further than most of his brethren, and is not, therefore, 
 a fair specimen of their views. We admit he has ex- 
 pressed himself more freely than perhaps any one else ; 
 but if we compare the quotations made from various 
 authors, we shall perceive they all belong to the same 
 family. It has been our aim both in our statements and 
 quotations, to exhibit the doctrines of the New Theology, 
 just as they are, without the least exaggeration. For 
 this purpose our extracts from New-school authors have 
 been numerous, and sufficiently extended as to length, to 
 give a correct view of their sentiments.* But if it can 
 be made to appear that we have misrepresented their 
 
 * In the succeeding chapters, not found in the first two editions, 
 additional facts are given touching their views — also other impor- 
 tant matters. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 189 
 
 views in a single important point, we shall cheerfully 
 rectify the mistake. 
 
 PERFECTIONISM OF MR. FINNEY. 
 
 There is one extreme into which Mr. Finney has 
 fallen, that we by- no means charge upon the New-school, 
 as a body — and we have therefore as yet entirely omitted 
 it. We mean his pe?/(?c^/onzs??2. In this we presume he 
 has few followers. We will however bestow upon it a 
 little attention, that it may serve as a beacon to admonish 
 those who have embarked on the voyage of religious 
 discovery. 
 
 In his ''Lectures to professing Christians," he has two 
 on Christian Perfection ; and he adverts to the subject 
 in several others. He defines perfection in the following 
 words: "It is to love the Lord our God with all our 
 heart and soul and mind and strength, and to love our 
 neighbour as ourselves." This he maintains is attainable 
 in the present life. " 1. God wills it. 2. All the pro- 
 mise* and prophecies of God that respect the sanctifica- 
 tion of believers in this world, are to be understood of 
 course of their perfect sanctification. 3. Perfect sancti- 
 fication is the great blessing promised throughout the 
 Bible. 4. The perfect sanctification of believers is the 
 very object for which the Holy Spirit is promised. 5. 
 If it is not a practicable duty to be perfectly holy in this 
 world, then it will follow that the devil has so completely 
 accomplished his design in corrupting mankind, that 
 Jesus Christ is at a fault, and has no way to sanctify his 
 people, but to take them out of the world. 6. If perfect 
 
190 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 sanctification Is not attainable in this world, it must be, 
 either from a want of motives in the gospel, or a want of 
 Bufficient power in the Spirit of God." 
 
 In another lecture he appears to teach perfection in 
 "knowledge as well as in holiness ; amounting to an illu- 
 mination little short of divine inspiration. " The man- 
 ner in which the Spirit of God does this," says he, i. e. 
 communicates ideas to the mind without the use of words, 
 " is what we can never know in this world. But the fact 
 is undeniable, that he can reach the mind without the use 
 of words, and can put our minds in possession of the 
 ideas themselves, of which the types, or figures, or words, 
 of the human teacher, are only the signs or imperfect 
 representatives." ..." The needed influences of the Spi- 
 rit of God may be possessed by all men freely under the 
 gospel." . . . . " They [ministers] should not attempt to 
 explain passages of which they are not confident they 
 have been taught the meaning by the Holy Spirit. It is 
 presumption. And they need not do it, for they may 
 always have the teachings of the Spirit by asking." . . . 
 " This is applicable both to preachers and to teachers in 
 Sabbath schools and Bible classes." . . . "Will you lay 
 your hearts open to God, and not give him rest, till he 
 has filled you with divine knowledge ?" 
 
 In other lectures he goes further still, and maintains, 
 if we understand his language, that when the Christian 
 has thus given himself up entirely to Christ, to be taught 
 and governed by him, he becomes so identified with Christ, 
 that his spirit and Christ's Spirit are, morally considered, 
 one — Christ becomes responsible for his acts; and of 
 course he not only ceases from sin, but he canriot commit 
 sin. Whatever he does, Christ is responsible for it. This 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 191 
 
 lie calls entering Into rest. " When one ceases from his 
 own works, he so perfectly gives up his own interest and 
 his own will, and places himself so perfectly under the 
 dominion and guidance of the Holy Spirit, that whatever 
 he does is done by the impulse of the Spirit of God." . . 
 " They are in one sense our works, because we do them 
 by our voluntary agency. Yet in another sense they are 
 his works, because he is the moving cause of all." .... 
 " He [Christ] is just as absolutely your sanctification, as 
 your justification. If you depend upon him for sanctifi- 
 cation, he will no more let you sin than he will let you 
 go to hell." ..." The reputation of the wife is wholly 
 united to that of her husband, so that his reputation is 
 hers, and her reputation is his. What affects her char- 
 acter affects his ; and what affects his character affects 
 hers. Their reputation is one, their interests are one. 
 So with the church ; whatever concerns the church is just 
 as much the interest of Christ, as if it was personally his 
 own matter." ... "If any actions or civil liability come 
 against the wife, the husband is responsible. If the wife 
 has committed a trespass, the husband is answerable. It 
 is his business to guide and govern her, and her business 
 to obey, and if he does not restrain her from breaking 
 the laws, he is responsible." . . . "In like manner, Jesus 
 Christ is Lord over his church, and if he does not actually 
 restrain his church from sin, he has it to answer for." . . 
 "It is his business to take care of the church, and con- 
 trol her, and keep her from sin ; and for every sin of 
 every member, Jesus Christ is responsible, and must 
 answer." ..." ! if believers would only throw them- 
 selves wholly on Christ, and make him responsible, by 
 
192 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 placing themselves entirely at his control, they would 
 know his power to save, and would live without sin." 
 
 We have given these extracts at some length, that 
 those who have not access to his Lectures, may ohtain a 
 full view of his sentiments. It is scarcely necessary to 
 remark, that the sentences last quoted are Antinomian, 
 The history of Antinomianism does not furnish many 
 expressions, more licentious in their tendency than these. 
 This heresy is more frequently the result of an abuse of 
 the doctrines of grace ; but in the present instance, it 
 appears to have originated in an opposite cause, viz. : in 
 those views of human ability, which render grace in a 
 measure superfluous.* "There is," says he, "no more 
 moral inability to be perfectly/ holy, than there is to be 
 holy at all." On the same principle, therefore, that he 
 could preach to the sinner the practicability of changing 
 his own heart, he might argue that the Christian can 
 arrive at perfect holiness in this life. He actually adopts 
 the same mode of reasoning in both cases. It is there- 
 fore very natural to conclude, that the frequent discussion 
 
 * It is supposed by some that there is no logical connection be- 
 tween Mr. Finney's former and present views — but that he has got 
 upon a new track. Formerly, as one observes, " he left Christ .and 
 the Holy Spirit almost out of view; he hardly preached the gospel 
 at all ; but now Christ and the Holy Spirit are everything. He 
 pushes union with Christ, imputation, covenant relation, &c., into 
 Antinomianism.'' The only connection, he says, between the latter 
 and his Pelagianism, is that he "is a fanatic now as he was before." 
 But as others think differently, we shall state the probable process 
 by which it is supposed he was led into these errors. Yet whether 
 they are the " logical sequence" of his former views or not, they 
 furnish an instructive lesson to those who are disposed to counte- 
 nance error. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 193 
 
 of the subject of ability in reference to the sinner, hatl 
 much to do in forming his opinions with regard to Chris- 
 tian perfection. Having arrived at this point, he applied 
 his ideas of perfection, not only to our sanctification, but 
 to all our relations to God. In a lecture from the text, 
 " Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, 
 and sanctification, and redemption ;" he considers eaoft 
 of the terms a& conveying an idea equally expressivw. 
 Since then, according to the views which h'^ had pre- 
 viously adopted, sanctification was to be taken as imply 
 ing perfect holiness, the perfectibility of wisdom would 
 seem to follow as a consequence. Hence he says ia 
 regard to this, "As he [Christ] ia cLe infinite source of 
 wisdom, how can it be said that he is made unto us wisdom, 
 unless we are partakers of his wisdom, and have it guar- 
 antied to us ; so that, at any time, if we trust in him, 
 we may have it as certainly, and in any degree we need, 
 to guide us as infallibly, as if we had it originally our- 
 selves ?" Thus we are brought into the field of fana- 
 ticism. 
 
 The only condition required in order to obtain either 
 wisdom or sanctification, is faith. " The act of the 
 mind," says he, "that thus throws the soul into the hand 
 of Christ for sanctification, is faith. Nothing is wanting, 
 but for the mind to break off from any confidence in it- 
 self, and to give itself up to him, to be led and controlled 
 by him absolutely." Then Christ assumes the responsi- 
 bility ; he undertakes to do all for him that he needs ; he 
 becomes accountable for his conduct. Says he, " Until 
 an individual receives Christ, he does not cease from his 
 own works. The moment he does that, by this very act 
 he throws the entire responsibility upon Christ. The mo- 
 17 
 
194 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 ment the mind does fairly yield itself up to Christ, the 
 responsibility comes upon him, just as the person who 
 undertakes to conduct the blind man is responsible for 
 his safe conduct. The believer by the act of faith pledges 
 Christ for his obedience and sanctification. By giving 
 himself up to Christ, all the veracity of the Godhead is 
 put at stake, that he shall be led aright, or made holy." 
 Here we have the final result of the whole process. By 
 the proper exercise of our free will, we can first change 
 our own hearts, or in other words, put forth the " act" 
 of saving faith upon Jesus Christ. By the proper ex- 
 ercise of the same free will, we can put forth a stronger 
 "act" of faith, and make him our wisdom and sanctifica- 
 tion : — our wisdom, in such a sense, that he will " guide 
 us infallibly, as if we had it originally ourselves :" — and 
 our sanctification, so entire and absolute, that Christ be- 
 comes responsible for our conduct, and "if he does not 
 restrain us from sin, he has it to answer for." 
 
 In the March number of the Literary and Theological 
 Review for the year 1838, there is an able article on this 
 subject, from which we will make the following extract. 
 " In the works before us [referring to Mr. Finney's Ser- 
 mons and Lectures,] we have an authentic genealogy of 
 a family of errors. We are not obliged, as in other in- 
 stances, to trace them through successive generations of 
 men. They are all found in the same mind, and Pelagi- 
 anism, as contained in the preceding extracts, is the ven- 
 erable ancestor of them all. From his infancy it was 
 remarked that he was an uncommon child. Unlike other 
 children, he was by nature neither 'sinful nor holy.' 
 Unhappily, however, very soon after his birth, he 'fell 
 into a state of supreme selfishness,' from which even the 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 195 
 
 * physical power of God' could not extricate him. But 
 lie had rare abilities, and a ^ giant strength' of will, which 
 he could hardly refrain from calling 'the strength of 
 Omnipotence.' And therefore, he always believed him- 
 self to be one of those who could be recovered ' with the 
 wisest amount of moral influence.' He had elevated 
 notions of human virtue, and would suffer no change to 
 be made in his condition, which was not produced by 'his 
 own act.' He was willing, indeed, that the Holy Spirit 
 should operate on him, provided it were only as an earthly 
 advocate acts on a jury. He was willing that ' motives 
 should be gathered from all worlds and poured in a focal 
 blaze on his mind.' He was anxious to receive good 
 counsel from his friends, and reverently to hear divine 
 truth ; but the change from ' supreme selfishness' he de- 
 clared to be his own ' appropriate work ;' and he was at 
 length accustomed to say, that he had effected it by ' his 
 own act.' It was natural to suppose, that the theologi- 
 cal children of such a system would have some remark- 
 able characteristics. In Pelagius and Coelestius it had 
 produced Perfectionism, and there was reason to fear that 
 in the mind of Mr. Finney it would generate the same 
 progeny. In various parts of the land the system had 
 been earnestly inculcated. Its most sagacious disciples 
 were beginning to declare themselves to 'be perfect,' to 
 have ' rolled the responsibility of their future and eternal 
 obedience on an everlasting arm ;' to receive ' immediate 
 communications from God;' to be ' personally united to 
 him,' and to have ' entered into rest.' " 
 
 " These heresies were early demonstrated to have had 
 their origin in the system itself. As Mr.- Finney had 
 been the apostle of this system in these latter days, it 
 
196 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 TVas intimated that his doctrines, as inculcated in his 
 preaching and bj the press, had tended to produce these 
 impieties. This view of the subject was indignantly 
 repelled even by the candid ones among his followers. 
 The thought that his doctrines had produced such results, 
 they could not for a moment entertain. Although others 
 had no doubt that Mr. Finney was the true parent of 
 Perfectionism, they had more opinion of his caution, than 
 to suppose he could soon be induced openly to own and 
 adopt it. But, to the amazement of all, he now comes 
 forth, bringing with him for induction into the church, 
 the doctrine of the perfection of the saints in this life, 
 of the responsibility of Christ for his people, of imme- 
 diate communications to them from God, and of their 
 entrance into rest even in this world. These last views 
 were not developed till he had abandoned the Presbyte- 
 rian Church. Ever since their publication, it is almost 
 inconceivable by those who have heard of him chiefly as 
 a promoter of revivals, and have been unwilling to listen 
 to the notes of warning, so long honestly and responsively 
 sounded by individuals — it is almost inconceivable, that 
 he has inculcated these fanatical doctrines. Even the 
 Christian Spectator, though it fears ' he may be liable to 
 misconstruction, and injure the consciences of many weak 
 and pious persons,' declares, 'we do not believe he 
 means anything more than we should fully admit — the 
 possibility and duty of obedience to God in all things 
 commanded.' But this view of his meaning it is impos- 
 sible to sustain, either by individual sentences, or the 
 evident design of his Lectures on these subjects. His 
 errors are written so legibly, that he who runs may read. 
 Mr. Finney now stands before the community as a prac- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 197 
 
 tical illustration of tlie effects of rejecting the doctrine, 
 that hiunan nature is depraved: and of believing, that 
 in regeneration and sanctification, the work of the Spirit 
 is confined chiefly to the understanding." 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR REMOVING 
 THESE ERRORS FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 On the supposition that the errors specified in the pre- 
 ceding chapters were prevalent in any portion of the 
 Presbyterian Church, it is no wonder that many should 
 feel alarmed. Some of these doctrines had been made 
 the ground of discipline at different times before this 
 period. In 1798, the case of Rev. H. Balch came before 
 the Assembly, by way of reference from the Synod of 
 the Carolinas. The following is a part of the minutes 
 of the Assembly on this subject : " With regard to his 
 doctrine of original sin, it is to be observed, that he is 
 erroneous in representing personal corruption as not de- 
 rived from Adam ; making Adam's sin to be imputed to 
 his posterity, in consequence of a corrupt nature already/ 
 possessed, and derived from, we know not what ; thus in 
 effect setting aside the idea of Adam's being the federal 
 head, or representative, of his descendants, and the whole 
 doctrine of the covenant of works." 
 
 " It is also manifest that Mr. B. is greatly erroneous, 
 in asserting that the formal cause of a believer's justifi- 
 cation is the imputation of the fruits a7id effects of 
 17* 
 
198 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Christ's righteousness, and not that righteousness itself ; 
 because righteousness, and that alone, is the formal de- 
 mand of the law, and consequently the sinner's violation 
 of the divine law can be pardoned only by virtue of the 
 Redeemer's perfect righteousness being imputed to him 
 and reckoned as his. It is also not true that the benefits 
 of Christ's righteousness are, with strict propriety, said 
 to be imputed at all, as these benefits floiv to, and are 
 possessed hy, the believer, as a consequence of his justi- 
 fication and having an interest in the infinite merits of the 
 Saviour." 
 
 In 1810, a work of the Rev. William C. Davis, en- 
 titled the "Gospel Plan," came before the Assembly, by 
 an overture from the Synod of the Carolinas. Among 
 the doctrines contained in the book, of an exceptionable 
 character, and which the Assembly condemned, are the 
 following : " That the active obedience of Christ consti- 
 tutes no part of that righteousness by which a sinner is 
 justified;" that "God could not make Adam, or any 
 other creature, either holy or unholy ;" and that " if God 
 has to plant all the principal parts of salvation in a sin- 
 ner's heart, to enable him to believe, the gospel plan is 
 quite out of his reach, and consequently does not suit 
 his case ; and it must be impossible for God to condemn 
 a man for unbelief, for no just law condemns or crimi- 
 nates any person for not doing what he cannot do." 
 Concerning these doctrines the Assembly resolved that 
 they are " contrary to the Confession of Faith of our 
 church." — Assembly's Digest, pp. 130, 145-147. 
 
 The first of these cases was adjudicated ten years, and 
 the second twenty-two years, after the organization of 
 the General Assembly ; and they show that for twenty- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 199 
 
 two years after that event, those doctrines which led to 
 the division of the church in 1837, were regarded and 
 treated as heretical and dangerous. They serve also as 
 a key to the received interpretation of the Confession of 
 Faith prior to that period, and to the proper understand- 
 ing of the famous * 'Adopting Act" of 1729. 
 
 CHARACTER OF THE ADOPTING ACT. 
 
 The act denominated the "Adopting Act," which was 
 unanimously agreed to by the Synod of Philadelphia, in 
 1729, required " that all the ministers of this Synod, or 
 that shall hereafter be admitted to this Synod, shall de- 
 clare their agreement in and approbation of the Confes- 
 sion of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms 
 of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being, in 
 all essential and necessary articles, good forms and sound 
 words, and systems of Christian doctrine ; and [we] do 
 also adopt the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms 
 as the confession of our faith. And we do also agree 
 that the Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take 
 care not to admit any candidate for the ministry into the 
 exercise of the sacred functions, but who declares his 
 agreement in opinion with all essential and necessary 
 articles of said Confession, either by subscribing the said 
 Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by verbal decla- 
 ration of his assent thereto, as such minister or candidate 
 shall think best. And in case any minister of this Synod, 
 or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruples 
 with regard to any article or articles of said Confession 
 of Faith or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his 
 making such declaration, declare his sentiments to the 
 
200 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit 
 him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, 
 and to ministerial communion, if either the Presbytery or 
 Synod shall judge his scruples or mistakes to be only 
 about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, 
 worship, or government." 
 
 This provision appears to be understood by some of our 
 New-school brethren as giving so wide a latitude for di- 
 versity of sentiment, that, in their opinion, it was only 
 by a departure from the design and spirit of that instru- 
 ment, and the introduction into the church of a narrow 
 and intolerant spirit, that the new theology was not allowed 
 to remain quietly, and spread itself throughout our bounds. 
 How utterly unfounded this opinion is, will appear from 
 the manner in which the Synod carried the "Adopting 
 Act" into effect. On the same day in which it was passed, 
 all the ministers present, except one who was not then 
 prepared, but who subsequently acceded to the resolution, 
 " after proposing all the scruples that any of them had to 
 make against any articles and expressions in the Confes- 
 sion of Faith, and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the 
 Assembly of Divines at Westminster, unanimously agreed 
 in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the 
 said Confession and Catechisms to be the confession of 
 their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth 
 and twenty-third chapters ; concerning which clauses the 
 Synod unanimously declared that they did not receive 
 those articles in any such sense as to suppose the civil 
 magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods, with 
 respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority, or 
 power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 201 
 
 contrary to the Protestant succession to the throne of 
 Great Britain." 
 
 The following year, and again in 1736, the Synod 
 adopted a resolution explanatory of their former action. 
 In the latter they say, ''that the Synod have adopted 
 and still do adhere to the Westminster Confession, Cate- 
 chisms, and Directory, without the least variation or 
 alteration." . . . "And we do further declare this was our 
 meaning and true intent in our first adopting of the said 
 Confession." 
 
 In 1741 a schism took place, by which two Synods 
 were formed, and an unhappy alienation existed between 
 them for seventeen years. During this separation both 
 parties adopted resolutions to the effect that they adhered 
 "to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, 
 and Directory, without the least variation or alteration," 
 agreeably to the action of the Synod in 1729 — and neither 
 party charged the other with practising or desiring any 
 unwarranted latitude of interpretation. The division did 
 not originate in doctrinal differences. Hence, when the 
 overture was made for a re-union, the Synod of New York 
 say to the Synod of Philadelphia, " We esteem mutual 
 forbearance a duty, since we all profess the same Con- 
 fession of Faith and Directory." The latter Synod, in 
 reply to the former, employed similar language. " Upon 
 these terms (viz. the terms specified in their letter) we 
 heartily agree with the Synod of New York, that since 
 we profess the same Confession of Faith and Directory 
 for worship, all our former differences be buried in per- 
 petual oblivion." Accordingly, one of the terms of union 
 unanimously adopted by the two bodies was the following : 
 " Both Synods having always approved and received the 
 
202 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter 
 Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of Chris- 
 tian doctrine, founded upon the word of God, we do still 
 receive the same as the confession of our faith, and also 
 adhere to the plan of worship, government, and discipline, 
 contained in the Westminster Directory : strictly enjoin- 
 ing it on all our ministers and probationers for the min- 
 istry, that they preach and teach according to the form 
 of sound words in the said Confession and Catechisms, 
 and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto." 
 
 In 1786, two years before the organization of the 
 General Assembly, a plan of union was proposed be- 
 tween the Presbyterian, Dutch, and Associate Reformed 
 Churches. The committee on the part of the Synod of 
 New York and Philadelphia, were instructed to say, that 
 the Synod '' adopt, according to the known and estab- 
 lished meaning of terms, the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith as the confession of their faith, save that every 
 candidate for the gospel ministry is permitted to except 
 against so much of the twenty-third chapter as gives au- 
 thority to the civil magistrate in matters of religion.'* 
 For a full account of the Adopting Act, see Hodge's 
 Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church, vol. 
 i., chap. iii. 
 
 From these several particulars, it is very evident that 
 the liberty granted in the Adopting Act, to any minister 
 or candidate, to state his " scruples with regard to any 
 article or articles of the Confession of Faith and Cate- 
 chisms," and that he should be admitted "to the exercise 
 of the ministry," if either the Presbytery or Synod shall 
 judge his scruples or mistakes to be only about articles 
 not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or gov- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 203 
 
 eminent," was restricted practically to a very few things; 
 and that with regard to these and all others, the scruples 
 of the minister or candidate were not to be confined to 
 his own breast, nor even stated in general terms, but par- 
 ticularized before the Presbytery or Synod ; and that his 
 brethren were to judge, not the applicant himself, whether 
 his scruples or mistakes were a valid bar to his reception 
 as a member. How widely different from this, is that 
 mode of assenting to the Confession of Faith, which pro- 
 fesses to receive it only for "substance of doctrine," and 
 which requires of the candidate no statement of his 
 "scruples" to the Presbytery, but leaves it wholly to his 
 own decision whether they are such as are " essential and 
 necessary," or otherwise. It is evident, from the cases 
 adjudicated by the Assembly in 1798 and 1810, already 
 referred to, that that body did not so understand the 
 "Adopting Act," as to allow this mode of receiving the 
 Confession of Faith, nor interpret it in such a manner as 
 to permit the new theology to exist in the church without 
 censure. They arraigned and condemned some of those 
 very errors which have been enumerated in the preceding 
 chapters — and in doing this they did not depart in the 
 least from the provisions of the "Adopting Act," nor 
 from the views expressed concerning it by successive 
 Synods, up to the time of the formation of the General 
 Assembly — but were carrying out those views in the way 
 which had been definitely stipulated and agreed to, by 
 the articles of union between the Synods of New York 
 and Philadelphia, in 1758, viz. : " strictly enjoining it on 
 all their ministers and probationers for the ministry, that 
 they preach and teach according to the form of sound 
 
204 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 words in the said Confession and Catechisms, and avoid 
 and oppose all errors contrary thereto." 
 
 PREVALENCE OF ERRORS. 
 
 The question now arises, did those errors prevail in the 
 "bounds of the Presbyterian Church for some years prior 
 to 1837 ? and if so, to what extent ? The answer is 
 found partly in the statements contained in the preced- 
 ing chapters. But as the action of the Assembly, at 
 that time, was directed chiefly towards the three Synods 
 of Western New York, and the Synod of the Western 
 Reserve, it will be proper to state some facts with special 
 reference to them. 
 
 At the Auburn Convention,* in 1837, (composed of 
 ministers and elders called together to consider the As- 
 sembly's acts), a distinguished member observed, that " he 
 must say there had been hitherto a disposition to conceal ; 
 that errors and irregularities in this section of the church 
 have been greater than we have been willing to acknow- 
 ledge." At the same meeting the committee on doctrines 
 reported a paper similar in its statements to one agreed 
 upon in 1797, by a committee of the Presbyterian, Re- 
 formed Dutch, and Associate Reformed Churches, as the 
 basis of an agreement for uniting in sending missionaries 
 to the new settlements ; accompanied by a list of errors, 
 the same as those specified by the preceding General As- 
 sembly. One member proposed, as a substitute for the 
 
 * We were present at that Convention and published soon after- 
 wards, in the Presbyterian, what we now state concerning its de- 
 bates, &c. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGT. 205 
 
 paper, the protest of the minority of the preceding As- 
 sembly. A second did nol think that some of the errors 
 there specified were fundamental, and he could not, there- 
 fore, solemnly pledge himself (as the report recommended) 
 to discipline those whom he might know to hold them. 
 A third said, he was persuaded that the Convention could 
 not agree, either in the statement of doctrine in detail 
 made in the report of the committee, or in that of the 
 protestants in the last Assembly. A fourth expressed 
 his concurrence with the one last referred to, and pro- 
 posed that they should adopt the first part of the report 
 of the committee without going into detail ; which was 
 accordingly done. 
 
 During the discussion of the above report, a prominent 
 elder objected to the report, ^' because some of the errors 
 there specified he did not consider to be errors — for ex- 
 ample, he did not believe that Adam's sin was imputed 
 to his posterity. He was satisfied they never could agree 
 on any creed as extensive as this ; while we agree in sub- 
 stantial, we cannot agree in minor points; here every 
 man must be allowed to have his own creed. This is the 
 fault of our Confession of Faith — it is too extensive for 
 agreement. State a few general points involving that we 
 are sinners and are saved by the grace of God, through 
 Jesus Christ and the agency of the Holy Ghost, and we 
 can agree ; but when you come to speak of the quo modo 
 we cannot be expected to agree. We have a right to dif- 
 fer ; if we agree on these points, woe to him who pro- 
 nounces such men heretics — we must have the riMit of 
 private judgment. There are two opposite doctrines in 
 the church ; I can agree to receive as Christians those 
 who hold to either, and sit under their ministry, though I 
 18 
 
206 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 differ from some of them. There are some who hold that 
 
 • 
 
 "we are born sinners before we arrive at moral agency ; 
 and they carry out the system to Antinomianism. Others 
 hold Grod to be a moral governor, who governs man in a 
 manner analogous to what is done in other governments. 
 They are both substantially true — both contain the gos- 
 pel, yet they are opposite." 
 
 Another member of the Convention (a minister) ob- 
 served to us, in private conversation, " We are so tram- 
 melled and shackled, and under tyranny by Confessions 
 of Faith, that if we advance anything new, we are sus- 
 pected of heresy. We ought to be making improvements 
 in theology as much as in other matters." While, there- 
 fore, he would have a Confession of Faith, it should not 
 be a permanent and fixed one, but subject to be modified 
 with every additional light that should be thrown on the 
 subject. Every minister, every church, and every Pres- 
 bytery, should write a new confession of faith as often as 
 once a year, and then, by comparing it with the old, see 
 what changes (if any) were necessary to be made. We 
 asked him whether he would not recommend the same 
 course to the General Assembly, and have our Confession 
 of Faith undergo a revision. He said he thought it ought 
 to be altered in a number of particulars. We asked him 
 how he could adopt it while entertaining such views. He 
 replied, " I adopt it only as a system, without intending 
 to subscribe to the whole of it. As a system I believe 
 it ; and provided I hold doctrines belonging peculiarly to 
 another system — such as Arminian or Pelagian — I could 
 not consistently, I confess, adopt the Confession, unless I 
 stated my exceptions at the time of adopting it. When 
 I first adopted it, I entertained different views on several 
 
OLD'AND NEW THEOLOGY. 207 
 
 points from what I do now, viz. : atonement, the moral 
 government of God, imputation, and original sin — but I 
 believe I am as near the Confession now as I was then. 
 I believe substantially as I did then, and I suppose that 
 all the changes which might be required from time to time, 
 with the addition of new light, would not alter it so as to 
 make it another system. When it was written, a different 
 philosophy prevailed from what does now — a false philo- 
 sophy — through which some expressions were introduced 
 into the Confession which are not true — e. g. ' sinned in 
 him and fell with him in his first transgression' — which 
 conveys a false idea." " Do you mean," we asked, " that 
 it contains a false idea, as the framers of the Confession 
 understood it?" "Yes, he said, as they understood it. 
 Their philosophy was false — they held that we were really 
 there in the garden, and partook of the forbidden fruit ; 
 he would, therefore, have this clause altered so as to make 
 it accord with modern philosophy.* On the subject of 
 God's moral government, he thought the Confession de- 
 fective — he would have a whole chapter added on this 
 
 * A similar caricature of Old-school views has been recently put 
 forth, in a volume published by a committee of the Synod of New 
 York and New Jersey. " Some of them believe in the identity of 
 the posterity of Adam with him in his first transgression ; others, 
 that there was a literal transfer of his sin to them, as also of the 
 righteousness of Christ to his people." "We presume it will not be 
 pretended that any portion of the church since the beginning of 
 the present century, have gone further in maintaining these phases 
 of doctrine than was done previous to that time. In the case 
 adjudicated by the General Assembly in 1798, already noticed in 
 this chapter, the Assembly say, " that the transferring of personal 
 sin or righteousness has never been held by Calvinistic divines, nor 
 by any person in our church, as far as is known to us." 
 
208 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 subject." This is a specimen of a conversation which 
 was continued in a similar strain for half an hour. 
 
 After these statements the reader will not be surprised 
 that the report of the committee on doctrine was amended, 
 by expunging from it "all the details" both of what the 
 Convention believed, and what they regarded as errors. 
 The paper as adopted was good as far as it went, but it 
 was brief, and expressed in general terms. Some of the 
 members would have been glad to adopt the report with- 
 out alteration or abridgment, but they were overruled by 
 others who thought differently. How many of them 
 actually entertained the views narrated above, we cannot 
 say ; but w^e have reason for believing that these two were 
 not the only ones — and also that there were ministers 
 and laymen in considerable numbers, belonging to those 
 Synods, but not present at the Convention, whose the- 
 ology was of the same stamp. In a letter, understood to 
 have been written by a member of the Synod of Geneva, 
 and published in the Hartford Ohristian Watchman, soon 
 after the meeting of the General Assembly in 1837, the 
 writer states : " I declared more than once before the 
 Assembly, that the errors against which the Convention 
 testified, do exist" — meaning the Convention which had 
 been sitting for several days previous in Philadelphia. 
 Another minister belonging to that Synod, wrote the 
 same year to the author of this volume : "A considerable 
 number of members, and two ministers (alluding to his 
 own Presbytery), incline strongly to Taylorism — I should 
 say are Taylorites — more are not sound Calvinists of the 
 Edwards stamp. Our theology has many shades." From 
 personal intercourse with different ministers in the Synod 
 of Utica, and from other reliable testimony, we are war- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 209 
 
 ranted in saying that some of the ministers in each of the 
 Presbyteries connected with that Synod, from 1830 to 
 1837, embraced the New Haven Theology ; and that it 
 prevailed to a considerable extent in their churches. A 
 letter now in our possession, written by one of their min- 
 isters in 1833, to a clerical friend, contains the following : 
 " my dear brother, beware of that doctrine of a limited 
 atonement. I hope I do not go too far, when I say it 
 had its rise from the devil." . . . " It is astonishing, that 
 at the present day of light and knowledge, men's under- 
 standings should be so blinded. For my part, I am 
 awfully prejudiced against the Old-school divinity." . . . 
 " I want you candidly to answer the following questions. 
 Do you believe infants have a moral character ? Are we 
 to be accountable for the moral act of our first parents ? 
 What do you think of the New Haven Theology ? Do 
 you acquiesce in Dr. Taylor's notions ? Do you consider 
 them agreeable with the Scriptures? His divinity is 
 
 spreading very widely." . . . '' I am really glad that 
 
 has commenced his studies," .... "I hope he will not 
 imbibe the principles of the Princeton Divinity." * 
 
 A minister in the Synod of Genessee, in a letter penned 
 in 1837, wrote thus : " Ministers and churches in this 
 section have become so much disposed to favour Armlnlan 
 doctrines, and are so fond of new things, that it is diffi- 
 cult to preach the doctrine of our Confession, or even to 
 use our endeavours to correct abuses and extravagances 
 in measures, without hearing the cry of Old-school, op- 
 
 * The above and most of the statements which follovr, in relation 
 to those Synods, were published in 1837, in a pamphlet entitled 
 " Facts and Observations," &c. 
 18* 
 
210 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 posed to revivals," &c. Another minister wrote as fol- 
 lows : " New Theology and new measures have received 
 a number of checks in our Presbytery, and, indeed, in 
 this region generally — especially since the Old-school in 
 the Assembly began to be so earnest for reform. Though 
 I do not by any means suppose but what the roots of the 
 evil remain among us yet, ready to spring up when per- 
 mitted. Indeed, in one sense, almost the entire theology 
 of this whole region is *New,' if strictly compared with 
 our standards." At a protracted meeting in one of their 
 churches in May, 1837, the officiating minister, after 
 preaching a sermon on the ability of Christians to keep 
 the law of God, called upon them to confess their sins, 
 and promise to keep the law. Most of them were willing 
 to confess, but when they came to make promises, there 
 was a reluctance ; as but few were prepared to fall in 
 practically with the doctrine of the sermon. Some said, 
 We will try — others, We will endeavour by God's assist- 
 ance, &c. ; but this did not satisfy him — he called it An- 
 tinomianism — and told them he wished them to promise, 
 not that they would try to keep the law, but that they 
 would keep it. Perfectionism existed to some extent in 
 several of their churches, and also in some churches be- 
 longing to the Synods before named — but it was discoun- 
 tenanced, and made a ground of discipline by some of 
 the Presbyteries, perhaps by all where it was known to 
 exist. The same cannot be stated concerning the Synod 
 of the Western Reserve, a majority of whose ministers 
 and cluirches, we have reason to believe, accorded in doc- 
 trine with Mr. Finney. This is inferred concerning the 
 ministers, from the fact, that in 1834 or 1835, a paper 
 was signed by fifty ministers or more, inviting Mr. Fin- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 211 
 
 ney to become Professor of Theology in the Western Re- 
 serve College ; and concerning ministers and people both, 
 it may be inferred from the fact that the labours of Mr. 
 Foote, as an evangelist, (who preached extensively among 
 them) were generally approved. Mr. Foote, it was un- 
 derstood, agreed substantially with Mr. Finney, but went 
 further than the latter in some points, from what is called 
 Old-school theology. 
 
 ATTEMPTS TO CHECK THESE ERRORS. 
 
 Attempts were made to check these errors as early as 
 1829 or 1830, and were continued every year till the 
 occurrence of those decisive measures adopted by the 
 Assembly in 1837. Individual efforts were made through 
 the press, by the publication of books, pamphlets, and 
 periodicals. Besides the able Quarterly at Princeton, 
 which had been commenced a little previous, and a monthly 
 Magazine at Philadelphia, both of which did good service 
 in defence of the truth, four weekly newspapers were 
 either established or resuscitated for the special purpose 
 of counteracting these errors, and those "new measures" 
 which were generally associated with them — one in Utica, 
 a second in Albany, a third in Philadelphia, and a fourth 
 in Pittsburgh. The last two have been continued to this 
 day. Prosecutions for heresy were instituted in two in- 
 stances, against distinguished individuals before their 
 Presbyteries, on the charge of holding and teaching some 
 of those errors. The Board of Missions refused to com- 
 mission men as missionaries, who were suspected of enter- 
 taining those views. The gratuitous distribution of the 
 Confession of Faith " among the more remote and des- 
 
212 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 titute churches," was provided for by vote of the As- 
 sembly. That body enjoined on Presbyteries to take 
 special care to require of candidates for licensure and 
 ordination, and of ministers entering our Church from 
 other ecclesiastical connections, to give their assent to 
 the " Constitution of the Presbyterian Church;" and a 
 paper was adopted by the Assembly to the effect, that an 
 assent to this constitution had always been considered as 
 a reception and adoption of the Westminster Confession 
 of Faith, and Larger and Shorter Catechisms as the con- 
 fession of our faith. Particular attention was directed to 
 the operation of the Plan of Union of 1801,* between 
 Presbyterians and Congregationalists ; and the Synod of' 
 the Western Reserve was especially directed to examine 
 the state of the churches under its care, with reference to 
 alleged departures from the Constitution of the Church, 
 in ordaining ministers and receiving them from other 
 churches " without being required by the Presbyteries to 
 receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of the Pres- 
 byterian Church." (See 3fmutes of Assembly for 18S2 
 and 1833). Appeals from lower judicatories were also 
 brought before the Assembly, containing charges of doc- 
 trinal error, and efforts were made (though unsuccessful) 
 to secure the suspension of the persons on trial, from the 
 office of the ministry. — Minutes of Assembly 1886. 
 
 The inefficiency of these measures was owing to seve- 
 ral causes. One was, the earnest desire for peace, which 
 induced many sound men to favour a conciliatory and 
 compromising policy, so long as there was in their judg- 
 ment any reasonable hope that the evils complained of 
 would gradually cure themselves, without a resort to ex- 
 
 * See Appendix for this plan. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 213 
 
 treme measures. A second was the effect of the Plan of 
 Union to introduce into our body many ministers who 
 regarded themselves as having a right under the pro- 
 visions of that Plan, to receive our Confession of Faith 
 only for substance of doctrine ; and being men of loose 
 doctrinal views (in the strict Presbyterian sense of this 
 term) they were opposed to the exercise of discipline for 
 doctrinal errors. By the operation of the same Plan 
 (though by its perversion) hundreds of Congregational 
 and mixed churches, claimed the right of being repre- 
 sented in our Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assem- 
 bly, by men who were not ruling elders, and had never 
 assented to, and did not profess to receive (except in the 
 largest sense) the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. A 
 third was the influence of the Home Missionary and 
 American Education Societies, particularly the former, 
 in introducing into our pulpits unsound men, who in some 
 localities became so numerous as to form majorities in our 
 church courts. These last two points may require some 
 illustration. 
 
 OPERATION or THE PLAN OF UNION. 
 
 As the Plan of Union permitted churches formed under 
 it to enjoy their preferences either to be organized as 
 Presbyterian or Congregational churches, or to be a mix- 
 ture of the two, as circumstances might seem to render 
 expedient ; and as a large portion of the material for the 
 churches in Western New York and Northern Ohio, 
 called the Western Reserve, was composed of immigrants 
 from New England, where most of the churches were 
 Congregational, it was to be expected that there would 
 
214 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 exist very extensively a partiality for the Congregational 
 form of government. Hence it is not surprising that in 
 1837 about one half of the churches in those Synods, 
 taken as a whole, were Congregational, and that portions 
 of many others preferred that kind of organization — some 
 of them to such a degree as to be quite restive under the 
 government of a church session. In the Synod of Utica 
 the churches were about equally divided with respect to 
 organization ; in the Synods of Geneva and Genessee, 
 about two-thirds were nominally Presbyterian, and in the 
 Synod of the Western Reserve about three-fourths were 
 Congregational. In all of them, though there was an 
 understanding that as churches they received in a very 
 general manner the Confession of Faith of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, there was no formal adoption of it by the 
 churches even as a "system," or for ''substance of doc- 
 trine." The Assembly's Shorter Catechism was under- 
 stood to be an epitome of the Presbyterian Confession of 
 Faith, and that Catechism was held in high estimation in 
 the New England churches, and hence those who left 
 them and settled in Western New York and the Western 
 Reserve, felt no objection on doctrinal grounds to be con- 
 nected with the Presbyterian body. Yet they did not 
 feel themselves committed even to the Catechism, as 
 their confession of faith. Each church had its own con- 
 fession, and this might be enlarged or abbreviated, 
 changed or modified, at the pleasure of the communicants. 
 Through the influence of those evangelists called " revival 
 men," who laboured extensively among them for eight or 
 ten years, commencing in 1826, many of these confes- 
 sions were altered, some in one way and some in another, 
 so as to meet (in the judgment of their advisers) the de- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 215 
 
 mands of Christian charity, or to keep pace with the In- 
 creasing light of the age. We state these facts, not con- 
 jecturally, but from the most reliable testimony. Many 
 of their ministers were also from New England, and pro- 
 fessed to receive the Confession of Faith only as a " sys- 
 tem;" while some of them entered the Presbyterian 
 Church without any formal adoption of our Standards. 
 This is admitted by the Synod of the Western Reserve 
 in its communication to the General Assembly in 1833. 
 (See Assembly's Minutes for that year.) From these 
 facts it is manifest, that in a Presbytery or Synod com- 
 posed largely of such men, there would exist but little 
 disposition to call any of its members to account for a 
 departure from our Confession of Faith ; — and that should 
 they be admitted to seats In the General Assembly, they 
 might be expected to oppose any measure brought for- 
 ward in that body, having in view the prosecution either 
 of ministers or churches for doctrinal error. 
 
 THE AMERICAN EDUCATION AND HOME MISSIONARY 
 
 SOCIETIES. 
 
 The injurious influence of the American Education 
 Society in our Church, arose chiefly from the nature of 
 its organization. It aided Congregationalists, Presbyte- 
 rians, Lutherans, &c., but exercised no ecclesiastical con- 
 trol over its candidates. This enlarged and liberal policy 
 was often held up in certain quarters, by way of contrast 
 with the rigid and sectarian course pursued by the Board 
 of Education, which required Its beneficiaries to subscribe 
 a pledge containing their assent to the Confession of 
 Faith, and their purpose to become preachers of the gos- 
 
216 '.OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 pel in the Presbyterian Church. The tendency of this 
 comparison, in its influence upon the Presbyterian bene- 
 ficiaries of the American Education Society, was to di- 
 minish their attachment to their own church ; to make 
 them feel that its doctrinal standards, according to their 
 obvious and commonly received sense, were too rigid, 
 unfriendly to revivals, and to the spirit of the age ; and 
 that these formularies must be understood in a lax sense, 
 in order to enable those who adopt them to preach the 
 gospel with sincerity, earnestness, and success. 
 
 The Home Missionary Society exerted an unfriendly 
 influence among us in several ways. The policy of that 
 Society, and perhaps its Constitution also, were antago- 
 nistic to strict Presbyterianism. It was at first the rival, 
 and then the opponent of our own Board of Missions. 
 What the latter was authorized and required to do, in 
 order to check the progress of error, by refusing to com- 
 mission unsound men, the former either could not consti- 
 tutionally do, or did not attempt. Many of those sent 
 out by this Society to labour in our churches, were more 
 or less favourable to the " New Theology." Circum- 
 stances appeared also to indicate that in some instances 
 their location was selected for them with reference to their 
 "liberal" views concerning doctrine and polity. It was 
 spoken of at the time, as being no uncommon event, for 
 the majority in small Presbyteries to become, in a few 
 months, the minority, by the accession of three or four 
 missionaries of that Society. And in most cases, as 
 members of our judicatories, whether in the majority or 
 minority, they were found, on questions of doctrinal con- 
 troversy, to argue and vote against the Old-school, and 
 in favour of the New. From these particulars, it is easy 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 217 
 
 to see what a powerful influence that Society was exert- 
 ing over the several judicatories of the Presbyterian 
 Church ; and how difficult it was, under these circum- 
 stances, to obtain a verdict against the errors and irregu- 
 larities which existed within our bounds. After a struggle 
 of several years, the crisis at length arrived, and the 
 General Assembly of 1837 adopted those decisive meas- 
 ures, which were condemned by one party as unconstitu- 
 tional and oppressive, but regarded by the other as being 
 authorized by the Constitution of the Church, and de- 
 manded by the necessity of the case. To those acts we 
 will now direct our attention. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 THE ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 1837 AND 1838. 
 
 As the Plan of Union agreed to in 1801 by the Gen- 
 eral Assembly and the General Association of Connecti- 
 cut, was believed to be a prolific source of the errors 
 which had for some years disturbed the peace of our 
 Church, the first act of the Assembly, touching the sub- 
 ject of reform, was the abrogation of that Plan. This 
 was done in the following terms : "But as the 'Plan of 
 Union' adopted for the new settlements, in 1801, was orig- 
 inally an unconstitutional act on the part of that Assem- 
 bly — these important standing rules having never been 
 submitted to the Presbyteries — and as they were totally 
 destitute of authority as proceeding from the General 
 Association of Connecticut, which is invested with no 
 19 
 
218 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 power to legislate in such cases, and especially to enact 
 laws to regulate churches not within her limits ; and as 
 much confusion and irregularity have arisen from this 
 unnatural and unconstitutional system of union ; there- 
 fore, it is resolved, that the Act of the Assembly of 1801, 
 entitled a 'Plan of Union,' be, and the same is hereby 
 abrogated." 
 
 As this resolution was the basis of others which suc- 
 ceeded, it is important to correct two or three mistakes 
 which appear to be current in certain quarters with re- 
 gard to the Plan of Union. One of these relates to its 
 origin. It has been often asserted that the General As- 
 sembly proposed the plan. This is a mistake. It has 
 probably arisen from the fact, that the only authority 
 which has been relied upon for the history of the affair, 
 is the Assembly's Digest, which unfortunately contains 
 only a part of the record. The minutes of the Assembly 
 for 1800 and 1801, show that the plan was proposed by 
 the General Association of Connecticut, and not by the 
 General Assembly. 
 
 In the minutes for 1800, is the following : " The Rev. 
 Dr. Jonathan Edwards, the Rev. Asa Hillyer and Jona- 
 than Freeman were appointed delegates from this Assem- 
 bly to the General Association of Connecticut," kc. Not 
 a word is said about instructing them to negotiate a plan 
 of union. In the minutes of 1801 we find their report 
 as follows : " The delegates from the General Assembly 
 to the General Association of Connecticut report, that 
 they all attended according to appointment through the 
 whole course of the session of the General Association. 
 That besides the business peculiar to the churches of 
 Connecticut, the General Association appointed a com- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 219 
 
 mittee to confer with a committee that may be appointed 
 by the General Assembly, on measures which may pro- 
 mote union among the inhabitants of the new settlements 
 and the missionaries to those settlements, as appears by 
 the enclosed paper." Immediately after the committee 
 had reported, the paper referred to above was read, the 
 minute concerning which is as follows : "A communica- 
 tion was read from the General Association of the State 
 of Connecticut, appointing a committee to confer with a 
 committee of the Presbyterian Church, to consider the 
 measures proper to be adopted by the General Associa- 
 tion and the General Assembly, for establishing a uni- 
 form system of church government between the inhabi- 
 tants of the new settlements who are attached to the 
 Presbyterian form of government, and those who prefer 
 the Congregational form. Ordered that the said commu- 
 nication lie on the table. Succeeding this, on the same 
 page, is the following : " The Rev. Drs. Edwards, Mc- 
 Knight and Woodhull, the Rev. Mr. Blatchford and 
 Hutton, were appointed a committee to consider and digest 
 a plan of government for the churches in the new settle- 
 ments, agreeably to the proposal of the General Asso- 
 ciation of Connecticut, and report the same as soon as 
 convenient." 
 
 Again — it has been often affirmed, that during the 
 whole period of thirty-six years, in which this plan was 
 in operation [prior to 1837,] no objection was made to it ; 
 and consequently it is to be considered as having received 
 during this long period the silent approbation of the 
 whole church. But this is a mistake. First, it is not 
 true, in the sense intended by those who revert to it, that 
 the Plan had been in operation for so long a time — we 
 
220' OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 mean in such a sense as to give to the fact that force 
 ■which it is supposed to have in determining its validity. 
 For ten or twelve years after it was formed, its influence 
 upon the church was scarcely felt ; and for as many more, 
 the evils growing out of it had not developed themselves 
 as they did after that time. The Plan was originally 
 intended not as a medium through which Congregation- 
 alism would be perpetuated in the Presbyterian Church, 
 but to afford opportunity for Congregationalists, (if after 
 learning the character of our system they approved of it) 
 to becoqjje Presbyterians. This remark applies to both 
 parties in the arrangement. The ministers of Connecti- 
 cut were favourable to the Presbyterian form of govern- 
 ment ; one feature of it was already in existence in their 
 churches, and they were willing (not to say desirous) to 
 have their people, who should emigrate to other States, 
 become Presbyterians. This idea, we think, is clearly 
 implied in the account which has been published of the 
 interview of the committee of the Assembly with a com- 
 mittee of the Association in 1826. "As to the union, 
 they said, (the Connecticut committee) that it had not 
 been gone into for their accommodation, but for ours ; 
 that they had agreed to it for two reasons : first, because 
 it was a help to many New England people in the infant 
 settlements towards obtaining gospel ordinances: and 
 secondly, because it assisted the Assembly in spreading 
 Presbyterianism through that region." But instead of 
 spreading Presbyterianism, it spread, in a large number 
 of cases Congregationalism under the Presbyterian name. 
 Presbyteries were not only formed of Congregational 
 materials, but with an express stipulation placed at the 
 beginning of their Records, that they might always re- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 221 
 
 main so, and yet continue in the Presbyterian Church. 
 And then, by such a construction of the Plan of Union 
 as was never intended by the original framers, they 
 claimed the right of sending commissioners, who were 
 not ruling elders, to the General Assembly. This is the 
 point of time at which the Plan ought to be dated, if it is 
 designed to have any bearing on the constitutional ques- 
 tion ; because at this time, and not before, were its effects 
 upon our church order fully manifest ; and this would be 
 not thirty-six years, but less than twenty. 
 
 We are now prepared to observe, secondly, that as soon 
 as these effects of the Plan of Union were perceived, ob- 
 jections began to be made to it, and they were repeated 
 at different times, and in one form or another, until its 
 abrogation. In 1826, a commissioner from the Rochester 
 Presbytery was received by the Assembly, who was not a 
 ruling elder ; but a protest was immediately entered 
 against it, signed by forty-two members. In 1831, a 
 committee-man was received by the Assembly as a com- 
 missioner from the Grand River Presbytery, against 
 which sixty-seven members entered their protest. A part 
 of this protest is as follows : " The articles of agreement 
 alluded to in the beginning of this paper, (referring to 
 the Plan of Union of 1801), are supposed to give this 
 individual, and all others similarly situated, a seat in this 
 Assembly. That agreement is altogether anomalous to 
 our form of government, and, so far as it does extend, is 
 in derogation of it." . . . " Those articles can never cover 
 this case, because they expressly stipulate the church 
 session and Presbytery, as the church courts to which 
 these ' committee-men' may have access, in the character 
 of ruling elders, and mention no others." . . . "If, how- 
 19=^ 
 
222 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 ever, they are so construed as to place members here who 
 are, by our constitution, forbidden to be here, or as in 
 any degree to aifect the principles of the organization of 
 this house, as clearly defined in our books, then it is 
 manifest that the articles must be considered utterly null 
 and void.'' 
 
 Though the Assembly received the commissioner above 
 referred to, they adopted a resolution that " the appoint- 
 ment, by some Presbyteries, as has occurred in a few 
 cases, of members of standing committees to be members 
 of the General Assembly, is inexpedient, and of question- 
 able constitutionality, and therefore ought not, in future, 
 to be made." The next year, that same Presbytery dele- 
 gated two committee-men as commissioners to the As- 
 sembly ; but their commissions, after having been placed 
 in the hands of a committee, were withdrawn. At the 
 same meeting, there was a commissioner from a Presby- 
 tery in Western New York, who was neither an elder nor 
 a committee-man ; but being commissioned as an elder, 
 and no one present being acquainted with the circum- 
 stance, or disposed to make it known, he was received as 
 a member. The year following a committee-man appeared 
 from the Presbytery of OsAvego, and would have been 
 received, (as his commission did not specify his true char- 
 acter), had not a member* who had incidentally become 
 acquainted with the fact, made it knoAvn to the house, 
 when leave was given him to withdraw his commission. 
 These facts show with what tenacity those Presbyteries 
 which were formed in pursuance of the Plan of Union, 
 persisted in the practice of sending up commissioners, 
 even after the Assembly had adopted a resolution against 
 
 * The author of this volume. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 223 
 
 it ; and the course which the Assembly pursued in regard 
 to them, was an expression of disapprobation against 
 their interpretation of the Plan, if not against the Plan 
 itself. In 1835, the Assembly resolved that no more 
 churches should be organized on the Plan of Union, and 
 in 1837 the Plan was abrogated. Thus for eleven years 
 previous to this last act, there was evidently a growing 
 dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Plan of 
 Union was found to operate ; its constitutionality was 
 more than once called in question, and intimations were 
 given, in no doubtful language, that the Assembly ought 
 either to "amend or annul" it. 
 
 With regard to the measure itself — it has been objected 
 that the Assembly were bound, before passing such an 
 act, to ask the consent of the other contracting party — 
 meaning thereby either the General Association of Con- 
 necticut, or the churches formed on the Plan of Union. 
 Were they bound to ask the consent of the Association ? 
 For an answer to this question, we refer the reader to 
 the opinion of George Wood, Esq., a distinguished lawyer 
 of New York, given in 1837, at the request of some of 
 our New-school brethren. " I do not think that this Plan 
 of Union formed, or was the result of, a compact between 
 the General Assembly and the Association of Connecti- 
 cut, so as to render it obligatory upon the General As- 
 sembly to carry into effect the measure, or to continue its 
 operation any longer than they should deem proper." . . 
 " It may be questioned whether the assent of the Asso- 
 ciation to the adoption by the Assembly of this Plan was 
 necessary. The Congregationalists to be affected by this 
 Plan were out of the jurisdiction of that Association, and 
 beyond their control ; but they no doubt felt themselves 
 
224 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 under a moral influence, which rendered it a matter of 
 delicacy and expediency on the part of the General As- 
 sembly to obtain the assent of that Association. But 
 supposing the assent of the Association to have been in- 
 dispensable when it was given, they had nothing further 
 to do with the Plan. It then became the measure of the 
 General Assembly alone, to be dropped, or acted upon, 
 or modified as they should deem advisable." If this 
 opinion be correct, then the churches alone, if any body, 
 were the party to be consulted. On this point we need 
 only observe, that if there is obligation on either side to 
 ask the consent of the other before the connection might 
 be dissolved, this obligation must be equally binding upon 
 both. But did the churches ever feel any obligation of 
 this kind ? Did they not always consider it as optional 
 with them, either to continue their connection with the 
 Presbyterian Church, to become independent, or join an 
 Association, without asking the consent of the General 
 Assembly ? As a matter of courtesy, they usually noti- 
 fied the Presbytery to which they belonged, that they 
 were about to change their ecclesiastical connection ; but 
 not from a belief of the existence of any contract with 
 the Presbytery, which obliged them to do so ; and it fre- 
 quently happened that the Presbyteries had no knowledge 
 of their intention, until after the formation of their new 
 alliances. If, therefore, the churches formed on the Plan 
 of Union did not understand the Plan as involving any 
 obligation upon themselves of the kind supposed, it would 
 be unreasonable in them to maintain that any such obli- 
 gation rested on the Assembly, or to expect that an over- 
 ture should have been made to them by the Assembly, 
 askinsr their consent for a dissolution of the union. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 225 
 
 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 The bond ^hich connected the three Synods of Western 
 New York and the Synod of the Western Reserve with 
 the General Assembly being now sundered, it was a grave 
 question for the Assembly to consider, whether they 
 should proceed to declare this fact, and thence regard 
 and treat those Synods as being separated from the Pres- 
 byterian Church, and of course no longer amenable to 
 the Assembly ; or whether the separation of the Congre- 
 gational from the Presbyterian materials, should be^ifected 
 through the action of Presbyteries and churches. There 
 were in those Presbyteries ministers and churches, or at 
 least parts of churches, thoroughly Presbyterian, whose 
 rights and privileges were in some way to be provided 
 for; but the number of Congregationalists was so large 
 as to render it very difficult, if not impracticable, to carry 
 out the views of the Assembly through the action of 
 Presbyteries or churches. On the other hand, there were 
 in some Synods not owing their existence to the Plan of 
 Union, a few Congregational churches, whose future rela- 
 tions were to be determined by some method of proceeding 
 to be adopted by the Assembly ; and would it not be best 
 to pursue a uniform course with regard to all ? These 
 were questions which demanded serious deliberation. 
 Accordingly no further action was taken on this subject 
 for a day or two ; and the Assembly resolved to introduce 
 judicial process against " such inferior judicatories as 
 should appear to be charged by common fame with the 
 toleration of gross errors in doctrine and disorders in 
 practice." This resolution was carried by a majority of 
 
226 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 6 only — 122 voting in the negative and 102 entering their 
 protest against it ! What hope was there that citations 
 issued under such circumstances would be of any avail ? 
 This vote, and the previous one abrogating the Plan of 
 Union, (on which 110 voted in the negative), showed also 
 how ineffectual would be the attempt to reach the evils 
 complained of, by directing the Presbyteries or churches 
 to take action based on the abrogation of that Plan. A 
 determination was manifested by the commissioners from 
 those Synods, and by the New-school party in general, 
 to adhere to the Plan, and to preserve the integrity of 
 the churches which had been formed under it. 
 
 Judicial proceedings appearing to be impracticable, a 
 proposition was next made, on the part of the Old-school, 
 for a voluntary separation of the two parties in the 
 church, and a committee of ten was appointed, five on 
 each side, to confer together and report to the Assembly 
 a plan for an amicable division. This committee agreed 
 upon "the propriety of a voluntary separation," "the 
 corporate funds, the names to be held by each denomina- 
 tion,* the records of the church, and its boards and in- 
 stitutions." But they differed "as to the propriety of 
 entering at once by the Assembly upon the division ;" 
 "as to the power of the Assembly to take effectual initi- 
 ative steps, as proposed by the majority" — i. e. by the 
 Old-school members ; the New wishing to refer the ques- 
 tion to the Presbyteries ; and " as to the breaking up of 
 the succession of that General Assembly, so that neither 
 
 * The committee agreed that the Old-school body should retain 
 the name Presbyterian, and the New bo called American Presby- 
 terian. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 227 
 
 of the New Assemblies proposed, be considered that pro- 
 per body continued ;" wliicb was the plan of the New- 
 school portion of the committee ; but in regard to which 
 the Old-school portion " could not consent to anything 
 that should even imply the final dissolution of the Pres- 
 byterian Church as now organized in this country ;" 
 though they "were perfectly disposed to do all that the 
 utmost liberality Could demand, and to use in all cases 
 such expressions as should be wholly unexceptionable.'* 
 The committee failing to agree, each portion presented to 
 the Assembly a separate report, and the subject was 
 dropped. 
 
 The Assembly then proceeded to carry into effect the 
 resolution before adopted, abrogating the Plan of Union. 
 They declared first, the Synod of the "Western Reserve 
 to be " no longer a part of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States of America ;" and afterwards adopted 
 a similar resolution with regard to the Synods of Utica, 
 Geneva, and Genessee. Though the Assembly assigned 
 as their reason for this course, and their " urgency for 
 the immediate decision of it," the "gross disorders which 
 were ascertained to have prevailed in those Synods ;" 
 they nevertheless affirmed as to their present action, that 
 they had "no intention, by these resolutions," .... "to 
 aff*ect in any way the ministerial standing of any mem- 
 bers of either of said Synods ; nor to disturb the pastoral 
 relations of any church ; nor to interfere with the duties 
 or relations of private Christians in their respective con- 
 gregations ; but only to declare and determine according 
 to the truth and necessity of the case, and by virtue of 
 the full authority existing in [the Assembly] for that pur- 
 pose, the relation of all said Synods and all their constit- 
 
228 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 nent parts to that body, and to the Presbyterian Church 
 in the United States." The Assembly also provided that 
 any ministers and churches in those Synods that were 
 strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, might be ex- 
 empted from the operation of these resolutions, by apply- 
 ing to the Presbyteries in our connection most convenient 
 to them ; and that Presbyteries of this character might 
 be exempted, by making, a statement of their case to the 
 next General Assembly. 
 
 The Assembly likewise dissolved the Third Presbytery 
 of Philadelphia, and "recommended" that the American 
 Home Missionary Society and the American Education 
 Society " should cease to operate within any of our 
 churches." These measures require no special vindica- 
 tion at present — as the authority of the Assembly to 
 adopt them was not denied by our New-school brethren ; 
 though for other reasons they were opposed to their 
 adoption. The motives w^hich influenced the Assembly 
 to their action with regard to those Societies, have been 
 alluded to already in the preceding chapter, and also in 
 the Preface to the first edition, published in 1838. 
 
 With regard to the propriety of those acts, styled 
 opprobriously, in New-school prints, the "exscinding" 
 acts, the discussion of two questions will embrace all that 
 is necessary to a correct decision of the case. The first 
 is. Was it a legitimate and constitutional mode of pro- 
 ceeding, for the Assembly to act upon Synods as such ? 
 And the second, Had those four Synods any such con- 
 nection with the Plan of Union, as to be virtually sepa- 
 rated from the Assembly and the Presbyterian Church, 
 by its abrogation ? As to the first — According to our 
 form of government, the higher judicatories possess the 
 
OLD AND NEWTHEOLOGT. 229 
 
 power of review and control over the lower ; and in 
 carrying out this principle, the ordinary mode of action 
 is for the next higher to take cognizance of that which is 
 immediately below it. The Presbytery acts on the church, 
 by directing the session ; and the Synod on both the ses- 
 sion and church, by an order directed to the Presbytery. 
 In like manner, the General Assembly usually acts on 
 the lower judicatories through the Synods. Though that 
 body is not bound invariably to this course, it will not be 
 denied by any acquainted with our Constitution, that this 
 is not only a legitimate one, but that it ought not to be 
 departed from, except for special reasons. Suppose, in 
 the case under consideration, the Assembly had attempted 
 to act upon the Presbyteries, or (as some maintained they 
 ought to have done) directly upon the churches. In the 
 former case it might have been said, they had assumed 
 the prerogatives of the Synod, and in the latter, that 
 they had taken into their hands a work which belonged 
 exclusively to the Presbyteries. Those who opposed the 
 measures of the Assembly, would have objected with as 
 much earnestness, we have reason to believe, to the other 
 course. Many of them did virtually object to it soon 
 after in their Presbyteries, by the adoption of resolutions 
 " assuring the churches under their care, that the Plan 
 of Union, so far as they were concerned, was still in force, 
 and its stipulations would be preserved by them invio- 
 late." 
 
 It was urged against the application of the vote to 
 Synods, that those bodies, as such, could not have been 
 formed on the Plan of Union, but were regularly consti- 
 tuted according to the directions of the Book ; and there- 
 fore they could not be affected by the abrogation of the 
 20 
 
230 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Plan. As to the manner in wliich Synods are brought 
 into existence, we admit that all of them except the first, 
 must necessarily be organized alike, viz. : by the division 
 of other Synods — and again, that they all must necessarily 
 be alike, in being composed of at least three Presbyte- 
 ries. But suppose one or two of the three Presbyteries 
 of which a particular Synod is composed, though they 
 bear the name of Presbyteries, are in reality Congrega- 
 tional Associations — would the Synod in this case be 
 regularly constituted ? Or suppose the Presbyteries 
 generally of which it is composed, though consisting in 
 part of Presbyterian churches, have in them so large a 
 number of Congregationalists, as to give to the Presby- 
 teries a Congregational character — would a Synod com- 
 posed of such Presbyteries be a regular Synod according 
 to our Constitution ? Must it not, on the contrary, be 
 styled, speaking in strict propriety, a Congregational 
 Synod^ however agreeable to the Constitution may have 
 been the 7nere form of its erection ? On the same prin- 
 ciple, though churches alone, in the first instance, could 
 be organized on the Plan of Union, yet as churches, in 
 connection with their pastors, compose Presbyteries, and 
 Presbyteries compose Synods, if such a number of the 
 churches are formed on this Plan as to control the action 
 and policy of the Presbyteries and Synods, the latter, 
 for aught we can perceive to the contrary, must also be 
 regarded as organized on the Plan of Union. 
 
 Again : — it is objected that this mode of applying the 
 act operated unjustly ; as many of the churches in those 
 Synods were strictly Presbyterian. If this objection be 
 valid, it would eflfectually have closed the door against 
 any action whatever ; except by dissolving the churches 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 231 
 
 formed on the Plan of Union, and directing them to 
 organize anew — at least, all such churches as are partly 
 composed of Presbyterian members. There would be 
 the same reason to complain of the injustice of an act, 
 which disowns a Presbyterian member, as of one that dis- 
 owns a church. It is true that the mode of remedying 
 an evil by acting upon communities, often if not always 
 subjects individuals among them to temporary inconveni- 
 ence, who, if they were not thus connected, could not 
 justly be brought into such circumstances. But, if the 
 measure is necessary for the public good, and provision 
 is made by which (if they avail themselves of it) they 
 will not in the end be affected injuriously, they ought not 
 to complain — especially if the evil to be remedied could 
 not be reached in any other way. 
 
 In order to ascertain whether those acts were ^wsf, it 
 is important to understand their true nature. Were they 
 acts of excommunication as some affirm ? or did they leave 
 the disowned Synods in this respect, just as they stood 
 before ? The effect of excommunication is to suspend 
 ministers from their clerical functions, and church mem- 
 bers from Christian communion. Was this done, or de- 
 signed to be done by the General Assembly ? If their 
 disclaimer at the time of adopting those resolutions be 
 not deemed sufficient, the uniform conduct of the Old- 
 school towards the New in their official and Christian 
 intercourse with them, has been from that time to the 
 present, a standing rebuke to those who attempt to excite 
 popular indignation against the Assembly, on the ground 
 that those Synods have been "exscinded," "cut off," 
 "expelled," without citation or trial. Those acts, it is 
 true, implied some censure. But its severity was greatly 
 
232 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 softened, and with regard to the sound portion of them, 
 entirely removed by the form in which it was adminis- 
 tered. There was no citation or trial, because all judicial 
 proceedings were dropped ; and the Assembly simply 
 said to them, " We will not disturb your ecclesiastical 
 relations as they exist among yourselves ; but we cannot 
 consent to have the Presbyterian Church revolutionized 
 and remodelled through your instrumentality ; especially, 
 as you came into it at first only by courtesy and compro- 
 mise ; and we therefore regard it as right and proper to 
 inform you, that from this time forward, you shall not be 
 represented in our body." Is not this a fair statement 
 of what the Assembly did ? If so, (and we believe it 
 cannot be successfully controverted), we cannot perceive 
 any substantial reason for the charge of injustice — es-, 
 pecially as the individuals and chui-ches who (as is alleged) 
 ought to have been excepted, were expressly informed, 
 that the door was left open for them to reunite with the. 
 Assembly, if they should think this to be more for their 
 edification and for the glory of God, than to remain con- 
 nected with those Synods. Chief Justice Gibson, in 
 giving the opinion of the Court in banc in 1839, observed 
 as follows : " The apparent injustice of the measure arises 
 from the contemplation of it as a judicial sentence, pro- 
 nounced against parties who were neither cited nor heard, 
 which it evidently v^as not. Even as a legislative act, it 
 may have been a hard one, though certainly constitu- 
 tional, and strictly just." 
 
 If then the Assembly acted constitutionally and justly 
 in applying those resolutions to Synods taken as a body, 
 the only question which remains to be settled is. Had 
 those four Synods such a connection with the Plan of 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 233 
 
 Union, that their separation from the General Assembly 
 and the Presbyterian Church was a legitimate consequence 
 of its abrogation ? With regard to the Synod of the 
 Western Reserve, there is no ground for doubt. A mem- 
 ber of that Synod, the Rev. J. Seward, in an article 
 communicated to the Ohio Observer, in 1837, wrote as 
 follows : " The Presbytery of Grand River, agreeably to 
 the order of the Synod of Pittsburgh, was organized in 
 the autumn of 1814, and as it covered ground on which 
 a union had been established between Presbyterians and 
 Congregationalists, according to the regulations adopted 
 by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, it 
 was deemed necessary that this Presbytery should be so 
 organized as to consolidate and perpetuate this union, 
 and thus carry out the recommendations and injunctions 
 of the General Assembly. To accomplish this object, a 
 number of articles, adapted to the peculiar situation of 
 the churches in this region, were adopted by the Presby- 
 tery, and afterwards by the Presbyteries of Portage and 
 Huron, as they were respectively organized. The design 
 of these articles was to secure to all connected with these 
 Presbyteries the rights and privileges pledged in the 
 regulations adopted by the General Assembly and the 
 General Association in 1801." .... "At a meeting of 
 the General Assembly in 1825, a petition was presented 
 for a division of the Synod of Pittsburgh, and the erec- 
 tion of a new Synod, to be composed of the three Pres- 
 byteries above named, and to be known by the name of 
 the Synod of the Western Reserve. This request was 
 granted." .... From this statement it will be perceived 
 that the three Presbyteries of which this Synod was com 
 posed, were formed explicitly on the Plan of Union 
 20* 
 
234 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Had It not been for that Plan, neither they nor the Synod 
 could have been organized. 
 
 The oldest of the three Synods in Western New York 
 is Geneva ; which was constituted in 1812, by a division 
 of the Synod of Albany, and consisted at that time of 
 three Presbyteries, viz. : Geneva, Cayuga, and Onon- 
 daga. The Geneva Presbytery was formed from the Pres- 
 bytery of Oneida in 1805 ; at which time the latter Pres- 
 bytery reported twenty churches, about one-half of which 
 appear to have been Congregational ; and as that part 
 of its territory which was set off to form the Geneva 
 Presbytery, was particularly intended for the operation 
 of the Plan of Union, it is reasonable to infer that a large 
 proportion of the churches belonging to the new Presby- 
 tery were Congregational. But our information with 
 regard to it, is not so definite as concerning the other two 
 Presbyteries. In 1808, the Synod of Albany, by per- 
 mission of the General Assembly, received the Middle 
 Association of the Western District, as a constituent part 
 of that Synod. In 1809^ it reported to the Synod twenty- 
 one congregations ; and in the Minutes of the General 
 Assembly for that year and the year following, the Asso- 
 ciation is named in the statistical account. In 1810, the 
 Presbytery of Geneva and the *' Middle Association" 
 made a joint request to Synod to be organized into three 
 Presbyteries, which was accordingly done. By this ar- 
 rangement, that part of Geneva Presbytery which lay 
 east of Cayuga lake, was detached from it (containing, 
 however, but a single church), and in connection with the 
 churches belonging to the Association, two Presbyteries 
 were formed, viz. : Cayuga and Onondaga ; the former 
 having fifteen and the latter thirteen churches. Eight 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 235 
 
 years afterwards (1819) these two Presbyteries were 
 doubled by accessions from the Onondaga Association, 
 which was dissolved and its ministers and churches re- 
 ceived into these Presbyteries on the Plan of Union. 
 
 Several of the Presbyteries which were subsequently 
 added to the Synod had a similar origin. One of them 
 (Cortland) can be traced to the Middle Association. Two 
 others, viz. : Chenango and Delaware, derived their ma- 
 terials from the Union Association ; which was dissolved, 
 or rather "broken up," by the action of its ministers; 
 who without the consent or knowledge of their churches, 
 joined the Otsego Presbytery ; immediately after which, 
 the Presbytery applied to the General Assembly, to form 
 them into a new Presbytery, to be called Chenango ; 
 which request being granted, the Presbytery was formed 
 in 1826, consisting of ministers only. A plan of union 
 was adopted by the new Presbytery on the basis of the 
 action of the General Assembly in 1808, soon after 
 which most of their churches united with the Presbytery. 
 The Delaware Presbytery was formed from a part of 
 Chenango, and of course had the same origin. 
 
 From these facts, it appears that the Synod of Geneva 
 not only grew out of the Plan of Union, but that when 
 it was organized, it bad not sufficient materials to form a 
 Con§titutio7ial Synod. Two of its three original Presby- 
 teries, were the twin daughters of the Middle Associa- 
 tion, whose name had been dropped, but the organization 
 of its churches continued to be substantially the same as 
 before. Nor did the growth of the Synod for fifteen 
 years afterwards materially change its character in this 
 respect. Two other Congregational associations were 
 dissolved during this period, and without any change in 
 
236 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY.' 
 
 their form of government as churclies, or with very slight 
 ones it may be in some cases, were received into the dif- 
 ferent Presbyteries of this Synod. The reader must 
 recollect that we do not mention these things as a crime, 
 but only to show what is the constitutional relation of 
 this Synod to the Presbyterian Church, 
 
 The Synod of Genessee was constituted in 1821, by a 
 division of the Synod of Geneva, and consisted of four 
 Presbyteries, viz. : Niagara, Ontario, Genessee, and Ko- 
 Chester. We name them in the order of their organiza- 
 tion. The first two were formed in 1817, from the Pres- 
 bytery of Geneva ; and the last two in 1819, from the 
 Presbytery of Ontario. The Genessee Presbytery, at 
 the time or soon after it was formed, adopted a paper 
 containing an exposition of the Plan of Union, and tran- 
 scribed it in their Presbyterial Records, for the informa- 
 tion of the churches under their care. Whether any of 
 the other Presbyteries adopted a similar course on this 
 subject, we are not informed. But from the testimony 
 of personal friends and acquaintances, who then resided 
 in the bounds of this Synod, we feel no hesitation in say- 
 ing, that the prevailing impression in all the Presbyteries 
 was, that they grew up under the Plan of Union ; and 
 that previously to 1837, the churches in general were so 
 much attached to this Plan, viewed as a modification of 
 Presbyterian government, that rather than give it up, 
 they would have seceded from the Presbyterian Church, 
 and have become wholly Congregational. 
 
 The Synod of Utica was constituted in 1829, by a 
 division of the Synod of Albany, and consisted of five 
 Presbyteries, viz. : Oneida, Watertown, Otsego, St. Law- 
 rence, and Oswego. Though this Synod is the youngest 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 237 
 
 of the three in Western New York, one of its Presbyte- 
 ries, viz. : Oneida, is the oldest of all. It was formed 
 from a part of the Presbytery of Albany in 1802, one 
 year after the date of the Plan of Union. It consisted 
 at that time of six ministers. No churches are named ; 
 but from an examination of the statistical reports of the 
 Presbytery of Albany up to this time, it will appear that 
 there were five or six churches embraced in the territory 
 assigned to the new Presbytery. In 1803 it had seven- 
 teen, and in 1805, twenty churches, about one-half of 
 which were Congregational. The next year it reported 
 but eight, the others having been detached to form the 
 Presbytery of Geneva. From this time there was a 
 gradual increase till 1816, when there was an accession 
 of twelve ministers and nine churches. All the ministers 
 except one were from Congregational Associations ; and 
 all the churches, it is believed, were Congregational. 
 This large accession was owing to the dissolution of the 
 Oneida Association, which has been represented as an 
 interesting and flourishing body ; but as the Plan of Union 
 opened a door for their admission into the Presbyterian 
 Church, and as the ministers were desirous of forming 
 such a connection, the people were persuaded to yield. 
 The Association was accordingly dissolved, and most of 
 its ministers and churches joined the Presbytery. 
 
 The Presbytery of Watertown (called at first St. Law- 
 rence) was constituted from the Oneida Presbytery in 
 1816, consisting of five ministers and two churches.* In 
 1819, the number of churches reported to the General 
 Assembly was eleven, seven of which were Congrega- 
 tional. Their history in this respect, from that time on- 
 ward, we are unable to give. But the Congregational 
 
238 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY.: 
 
 character of the Presbytery taken as a body, may be in- 
 ferred from a fact related to us in 1834 or 1835, by a 
 clerical brother who had resided ten or twelve months in 
 that section of the State ; viz. : that a number of minis- 
 ters in that Presbytery belonged to a Congregational As- 
 sociation, and were acting members both of the Presby- 
 tery and Association at the same time ; that in one case 
 a candidate, who was refused license by the Presbytery, 
 applied immediately afterwards to a part of the same 
 men, who, laying aside their Presbyterial character, and 
 acting in the capacity of Congregational ministers, made 
 out and subscribed his licensure. The Otsego and Oswego 
 Presbyteries were also constituted from the Presbytery 
 of Oneida ; the former in 1819, and the latter in 1822. 
 As the materials for these Presbyteries were derived 
 mainly from the Oneida Association, an account of which 
 has just been given, their connection with the Plan of 
 Union is sufficiently manifest, without any particular 
 statement concerning their churches. In 1837, one-half 
 of those in Otsego Presbytery were Congregational, and 
 in the Oswego Presbytery two-thirds. 
 
 The St. Lawrence Presbytery (called at first Ogdens- 
 burg) was constituted in 1821, by a division of the Pres- 
 bytery of Champlain. The latter Presbytery, previous 
 to this time, extended over the whole territory of Northern 
 New York, and was in a great degree missionary ground. 
 Many of the churches in that region were organized by 
 an excellent and laborious Congregational missionary,* 
 whom we have heard relate many thrilling incidents con- 
 cerning his labours, his discouragements, and his success. 
 We heard him also, at the same time, express his partial- 
 
 * He belonged to the Northern Associated Presbytery. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 239 
 
 ity for the Congregational mode of government ; and 
 listened to one of his sermons, which he read to several 
 persons present, and which had been delivered by him on 
 a former occasion, a part of which was designed to show, 
 by way of contrast, the superior excellence of Congrega- 
 tionalism. Some of the churches which he formed were, 
 perhaps, Presbyterian ; but the major part were undoubt- 
 edly Congregational ; and as those churches composed 
 afterwards (at least in part) the St. Lawrence Presbytery, 
 it is highly probable that it had for its basis the Plan of 
 Union. 
 
 We have thus noticed each of the Presbyteries belong- 
 ing to this Synod, and the result is, that all of them except 
 one were Congregational in their origin, and continued 
 to be more or less so in their elements, form and spirit, 
 after they were constituted as Presbyteries. And the 
 same we have found to be true concerning the other two 
 Synods. If this statement needs corroborating by other 
 proof, we can adduce the testimony of one of the oldest 
 ministers in Western New York, the Rev. Mr. Hotchkin, 
 author of a History of the Churches there, and a mem- 
 ber of the Auburn Convention in 1837. In a speech 
 made by him on that occasion, he said that " the churches 
 in the three Synods of Western New York (with the ex- 
 ception of two or three which were formed on the plan 
 of 1801) came in on the plan of 1808, when the Northern 
 Associated Presbytery, and the Middle Association of the 
 Western District, were received by the Synod of Albany.* 
 
 * The action of that Synod, so far as it related to the Northern 
 Associated Presbytery, did not go into effect for many years. The 
 older ministers belonging to this body were opposed to the change; 
 and out of regard to their feelings, the Presbytery was not dissolved 
 
240 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGT. 
 
 In 1809, the delegates from the Middle Association were 
 Teceived in the General Assembly, and their names, to- 
 gether with the name of the Association, appear on the 
 minutes of the Assembly of that year. But the Asso- 
 ciation soon lost its name, and in connection with the 
 Presbytery of Geneva, which was organized several years, 
 three Presbyteries were formed out of it, viz. : Geneva, 
 Cayuga, and Onondaga. The Onondaga Association 
 was afterwards dissolved, by the advice of the Rev. Mr. 
 Chapman, and received by the Synod of Geneva on the 
 same plan." Speaking of these churches having for 
 several years waived their right (as he regarded it) to be 
 represented in the General Assembly, in order to avoid 
 difficulty, he said " that he had great influence in bring- 
 ing about the change ; and that if he had not exerted 
 his influence in the case, instead of there being three 
 Synods, there would probably have been now (1837) but 
 one Presbytery." 
 
 The connection of those four Synods with the Presby- 
 terian Church, on the basis of the Plan of Union, having 
 been (as we think) sufficiently established, it follows, that 
 the action of the General Assembly concerning them was 
 authorized, if not required, by the operation of the pre- 
 vious resolution adopted by the Assembly abrogating that 
 Plan. In this conclusion we are sustained by the Court 
 in banc for the State of Pennsylvania, whose opinion was 
 
 until they had either died or consented to join some other Congre- 
 gational Association ; at which time, (not earlier than 1815 or 
 1816), the one or two ministers that remained, united with the 
 Presbytery of Albany. Not long afterwards, eight or ten of the 
 churches joined the same Presbytery — about half of them having 
 previously changed their organization, by appointing ruling eldera. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 241 
 
 delivered by Chief Justice Gibson, in 1839. His language 
 is as follows : '' Surely this [Plan of Union] was not in- 
 tended to outlast the inability of the respective sects to 
 provide separately for themselves, or to perpetuate the 
 innovations on Presbyterian government which it was 
 calculated to produce. It was obviously a missionary 
 arrangement from the first ; and they who built up Pres- 
 byteries and Synods on the basis of it, had no reason to 
 expect that their structures would survive it, or that Con- 
 gregationalists might, by force of it, gain a foothold in 
 the Presbyterian Church, despite of Presbyterian dis- 
 cipline. They embraced it with all its defeasible proper- 
 ties plainly put before them ; and the power which con- 
 stituted it might fairly repeal it, and dissolve the bodies 
 that had grown out of it, whenever the good of the church 
 should seem to require it." 
 
 As we have quoted a part of the opinion of the Court 
 in this case, it may not be amiss to make a remark or two 
 concerning its final decision. The trial before the Court 
 of Nisi Prius resulted in favour of the New-school party ; 
 in view of which the closing words of the opinion delivered 
 by the Court in banc were—" Rule for a new trial made 
 absolute." This has been represented in New-school 
 publications as deciding nothing in favour of the Old- 
 school except to grant them an opportunity for another 
 hearing ; whereas it was a virtual decision of the whole 
 case in their favour. Every important principle involved 
 in it was fully discussed, and the concluding sentences, 
 preceding the grant for a new trial, were as follows : 
 " Other corroborative views have been suggested ; but it 
 is difficult to compress a decision of the leading points in 
 this case into the old fashioned limits of a judicial opinion. 
 21 
 
242 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 The preceding observations, however, are deemed enough 
 to show the grounds on which we hold that the Assembly 
 which met in the First Presbyterian Church [i. e. the 
 New-school Assembly) was not the legitimate successor 
 of the Assembly of 1837, and that the defendants (the 
 Old-school) are not guilty of the usurpation with which 
 they are charged." Were these words intended to decide 
 nothing touching the merits of the case ? The New-school, 
 and not the Old, w^ere the plaintiffs ; and hence the 
 former, and not the latter, were the party to renew the 
 prosecution, if a new trial was ever to be had. Why did 
 they not recommence the suit ? For this obvious reason, 
 that there was no hope of success. Every point on which 
 the decision of the case depended, was ruled in favour of 
 the Old-school Assembly. 
 
 In 1838 the commissioners appointed by the Presbyte- 
 ries belonging to the four Synods above named, and those 
 from other Presbyteries who chose to act with them, 
 formed a separate General Assembly, and appealed to 
 the civil court to sustain them in their new position. The 
 result of the suit we have just noticed. There being now 
 two bodies, the Old-school Assembly, in order to perfect 
 those measures of reform which had been commenced the 
 preceding year, and to make special provision for the 
 future, adopted a paper containing three acts ; which pro- 
 vided for the reception of all such ministers and church 
 members as were thrown by circumstances with the Pres- 
 byteries represented in the new Assembly, but who might 
 desire to remain with the Old-school body ; and directed 
 them particularly what course to pursue in order to be 
 recognized by the Assembly. These acts were designed 
 to operate, on the one hand, as a check to the continu- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 243 
 
 ance in our communion of any who might entertain loose 
 doctrinal views ; and on the other, as an expression of 
 cordial welcome to the admission of all w^ho adopted the 
 Confession of Faith according to its obvious sense. Some 
 words and phrases which they contained, were unfortu- 
 nately ambiguous ; on which account objections were made 
 to them by various persons, who understood them as re- 
 quiring those who adhered to the Old-school Assembly to 
 express their approbation of the acts of the Assembly in 
 1837 and 1838. Objections were also made to them on 
 other grounds. An explanatory resolution was accord- 
 ingly adopted in 1843, declaring that '' in requiring an 
 adherence to our church on the basis of the Assembly of 
 1837 and 1838, they (the Assembly) did not create nor 
 introduce any new basis of Presbyterianism, but required 
 an adherence to the true and only basis of our organiza- 
 tion and communion, viz. : the doctrinal standards and 
 constitution of our church, as founded on the word of 
 God, a deplorable departure from which had been suffered 
 through the operation of the Plan of Union." And fur- 
 ther, " that it was not then, and is not now, required of 
 those who would adhere to us as a branch of the church 
 of Christ, that, as a term of membership in this church, 
 they should approve the acts of the Assembly of 1837 
 and 1838 ; but simply that they should recognize the 
 church as then and subsequently constituted as the Pres- 
 byterian Church in the United States of America, and 
 acknowledge their subjection to its judicatories." This 
 explanation was intended partly to disabuse the minds of 
 those who desired to unite with us, but could not assent 
 to the required conditions, according to their understand- 
 ing of the acts of the Assembly of 1838, and partly to 
 
244 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 vindicate the Assembly from the charge which had been 
 opprobrious! J made against them, of establishing a " new 
 basis" wholly unknown to the constitution. Our New- 
 school brethren maintained that there could not be a con- 
 stitutional General Assembly without admitting the com- 
 missioners from the four Synods of Western New York 
 and the Western Reserve. The acts of the Assembly of 
 1838, assuming that what had been done the preceding 
 year on this subject was " constitutional and just," re- 
 quired of those who would unite with us, an adherence to 
 the Assembly as then constituted, and a recognition of it 
 as the true General Assembly. They could not have 
 required less than this without receding from the ground 
 which they had taken, re-enacting the Plan of Union, 
 and restoring those Synods to their former connection 
 with the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 The question, which of the two Assemblies of 1838 
 was the true General Assembly, the legitimate and legal 
 successor of the Assembly of 1837 may be easily deter- 
 mined. Our New-school brethren admit that the acts of 
 the Assembly of 1837 excluding the four Synods, did not 
 destroy that body or render their subsequent acts during 
 the same sessions invalid. They found their claim to the 
 succession on the manner of constituting the Assembly of 
 1838. The standing committee of commissions, agree- 
 ably to the instructions of the preceding Assembly, re- 
 fused at the opening of the sessions of 1838, to enrol the 
 names of the commissioners from the Presbyteries belong- 
 ing to these four Synods, and the moderator declared it 
 out of order to put to the house a motion which was offered, 
 touching this subject; until the Assembly should be or- 
 ganized by the election of a new moderator ; whereupon 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 245 
 
 the New-school commissioners, bj the advice, as they 
 said, of "counsel learned in the law," proceeded immedi- 
 ately to appoint a new moderator and clerks, and then 
 adjourned to meet in another house, leaving the Old-school 
 portion in the quiet occupancy of their seats. By this 
 manoeuvre they claim to have deposed the moderator and 
 to have elected another in his place ; and then after 
 having in like manner elected new clerks, to have carried 
 with them as they left the house the true and legal suc- 
 cession. The silence of the Old-school commissioners 
 while these hasty and disorderly proceedings were going 
 on, is construed by them as having been a legal acqui- 
 escence in this extraordinary movement. A few consid- 
 erations will place this matter in its true light. 
 
 1. If the acts of the Assembly of 1837 disowning the 
 four Synods were "constitutional and strictly just," as 
 was affirmed by the Court in banc for the State of Penn- 
 sylvania, then the exclusion of the commissioners from 
 those Synods in 1838, was constitutional and just, be- 
 cause this was nothing more than adhering to what had 
 been done the preceding year. 
 
 2. The refusal of the clerks to enrol the names of those 
 commissioners, whether right or wrong, did not prevent 
 the Assembly of 1838 from being validly constituted, our 
 New-school brethren themselves being judges. The tender 
 of those commissions to the house through the moderator, 
 by one of their number, and his motion to have their 
 names enrolled, assumed that there was a regular mode- 
 rator in the chair, and a judicatory thus far validly con- 
 stituted ; for otherwise they were not competent to re- 
 ceive and act upon his motion. 
 
 3. If, then, the legal existence of the body was de- 
 
 21* 
 
246 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 stroyed at all, tins was done by the suicidal act of the 
 moderator who refused to put the motion, on the ground 
 that it was out of order. On this point let it be remem- 
 bered, that though at the time these commissions were 
 offered, he had just called for additional commissions, if 
 there were any in the house which had not been presented 
 to the clerks, this call applied exclusively to those con- 
 cerning whose right to seats there was no doubt, and not 
 to commissions refused by the clerks. Contested rights 
 could not properly be debated and settled at that time, 
 as the next business in order was to elect a new modera- 
 tor ; after which, commissions of this description might 
 either be considered by the Assembly, or referred to a 
 special committee on elections to examine and report 
 thereon. The moderator was therefore not at fault in 
 this particular. But on the supposition that it was his 
 duty to put the motion (which we do not admit) his re- 
 fusal to do so did not depose him from office. This could 
 be done, (even though it should be conceded that he de- 
 served deposition) in no other way than by a distinct 
 motion to this effect, and a vote of the house upon such 
 motion ; which it is not pretended was done or attempted. 
 4. It follows, therefore, that the proceedings of the 
 New-school commissioners, which were based on the 
 assumption that the moderator's chair was virtually 
 vacated by his own act, had no foundation in truth ; and 
 hence those proceedings did not possess either ecclesias- 
 tical or legal validity to effect the end which their mem- 
 bers who participated in them had in view. The body 
 which they thought proper to leave, contained at the 
 time, and after the New-school members left the house, 
 all the regularly constituted officers of the Assembly, 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 247 
 
 and a majority of all the commissioners in attendance. 
 The New-school members organized a General Assembly ; 
 but it was another and a different body from the General 
 Assembly of 1837-38 ; the constitutional links of con- 
 nection between the two not being possessed by them ; 
 while in the organization of the Old-school Assembly 
 were found all the requisite elements of a true and legal 
 succession. 
 
 The following extract from the opinion of the Court in 
 banc already referred to, fully sustains us in these views. 
 " It appears, therefore, {i. e. it follows from the preced- 
 ing argument) that the commissioners from the exscinded 
 Synods, were not entitled to seats in the Assembly, and 
 that their names were properly excluded from the roll. 
 The inquiry might be rested here ; for if there was no 
 colour of right in them, there was no colour of right in 
 the adversary proceedings which were founded on their 
 exclusion. But even if their title w^ere clear, the refusal 
 of an appeal from the decision of the moderator, would 
 be no ground for the degradation of the officer at the call 
 of ar- minority ; nor could it impose on the majority an 
 obligation to vote on a question put unofficially, and out 
 of the usual course. To all questions put by the estab- 
 lished organ, it is the duty of every member to respond, 
 or be counted with the greater number, because he is sup- 
 posed to have assented beforehand to the result of the 
 process pre-established to ascertain the general will ; but 
 the rule of implied assent is certainly inapplicable to a 
 measure which, when justifiable even by extreme neces- 
 sity, is essentially revolutionary, and based on no pre- 
 established process of ascertainment whatever. 
 
 " To apply it to an extreme case of inorganic action, 
 
248 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 as was done here, might work the degradation of any pre- 
 siding officer in our legislative halls, bj the motion and 
 actual vote of a single member, sustained by the con- 
 structive votes of all the rest ; and though such an en- 
 terprise may never be attempted, it shows the danger of 
 resorting to a conventional rule, when the body is to be 
 resolved into its original elements, and the rules and con- 
 ventions to be superseded, by the very motion. For this 
 reason, the choice of a moderator to supplant the officer 
 in the chair, even if he were removable at the pleasure 
 of the commissioners, would seem to have been uncon- 
 stitutional. 
 
 " But he was not removable by them, because he had 
 not derived his office from them ; nor was he answerable 
 to them for the use of his power. He was not their mo- 
 derator. He was the mechanical instrument of their 
 organization ; and till that was accomplished, they were 
 subject to his rule — not he to theirs. They were chosen 
 by the authority of his mandate, and with the power of 
 self-organization, only in the event of his absence at the 
 opening of the session. Corporally present, but refusing 
 to perform his functions, he might be deemed construc- 
 tively absent, for constitutional purposes, insomuch that 
 the commissioners might proceed to the choice of a sub- 
 stitute without him ; but not if he had entered on the 
 performance of his task ; and the reason is that the de- 
 cision of such questions as were prematurely pressed here, 
 is proper for the decision of the body when prepared for 
 organic action, which it cannot be before it is fully con- 
 stituted, and under the presidency of its own moderator ; 
 the moderator of the preceding session being functus 
 officio It seems, then, that an appeal from the de- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 249 
 
 cision of the moderator did not lie ; and that he incurred 
 no penalty by the disallowance of it. The title of the 
 exscinded commissioners could be determined only by the 
 action of the house, which could not be had before its 
 organization was complete ; and in the mean time, he was 
 bound, as the executive instrument of the preceding As- 
 sembly, to put its ordinance into execution ; for to the 
 actual Assembly, and not to the moderator of the pre- 
 ceding one, it belonged to repeal it." 
 
 CHAPTER XIL 
 
 PRESENT CHARACTER AND CONDITION OF THE OLD AND NEW- 
 SCHOOL BODIES. 
 
 As several years have transpired since the division 
 of the Presbyterian Church into two bodies, there has 
 been sufficient opportunity for judging whether those 
 causes which contributed to produce the separation were 
 real or imaginary, temporary or permanent. It has 
 never been denied that a subordinate cause of the di- 
 vision was the difference in the views of the two parties 
 concerning voluntary societies and ecclesiastical boards ; 
 though this of itself could not have resulted in the for- 
 mation of two distinct churcheg. No better evidence of 
 this could be required than the fact, that since that time 
 our New-school brethren have so nearly approximated to 
 the views of the Old-school church on this subject, that 
 if this were all, or even the chief cause of our separation, 
 
250 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 the union of the two divisions could at present be very 
 easily eifected. But, though in this respect we now 
 occupy nearly the same ground, no approach has been 
 made to a coalescence of the separated parts. On what 
 principle can this be accounted for, except that the main 
 cause, which produced the division still exists, viz. : the 
 more serious and less reconcilable difference on doctrinal 
 subjects ? 
 
 The same difference exists as formerly, with regard to 
 what is implied in adopting our Confession of Faith. In a 
 recent work authorized by the Synods of New York and 
 New Jersey, a notice of which is found in our Introduction, 
 the writer acknowledges that the New-school party, which 
 he represents, admits " of diversity of views on points 
 not affecting the integrity of the system," and that "per- 
 fect uniformity in reference to a system so comprehensive 
 and minute in its details, is not to be expected, and ought 
 not to be required." In this acknowledgment we have 
 the starting point of the differences between the two 
 schools. The Old-school requires an honest, full and 
 hearty subscription to the creed of the church ; the New 
 leaves every one to judge what is essential to the system ; 
 and under this convenient subterfuge, the protean forms 
 of new theology have crept into the church. Again, the 
 same difference exists as in former years, on several im- 
 portant points of Scripture doctrine. The extravagant 
 manner of speaking which was then common in some 
 sections of our country is now unknown ; and there are 
 indications of a sounder faith in a number of ministers 
 who were once of questionable orthodoxy. But several 
 of those men whose published errors were the main ground 
 of our former troubles, are now in the New-school body, 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 251 
 
 take a prominent and leading part, and maintain and teach 
 the same doctrines as in years past. The Rev. Albert 
 Barnes, as Moderator of the New-school General As- 
 sembly of 1851, delivered a discourse before that body, 
 in which he not only reaffirmed his former errors, but 
 caricatured those doctrines which from time immemorial 
 have been esteemed orthodox, and which are known to be 
 held by the Old-school. When a motion was made to 
 print it, one or two members (perhaps more — we write 
 from recollection) expressed their dissent from some 
 points contained in it, and objected to its being published 
 under the sanction of the Assembly, The motion was 
 withdrawn, but with the understanding that the discourse 
 should be printed, which was accordingly done. How 
 many of that Assembly dissented from its teachings we 
 have no means of knowing ; but not an individual pro- 
 tested against them, or even expressed disapprobation 
 except in the manner above mentioned. We are not 
 aware that the accredited organs of that body contained 
 any strictures on the sermon after it came from the press ; 
 and in one section of the country (we cannot speak for 
 all) we happen to know that pains were taken by persons 
 belonging to that church to circulate it among the people. 
 The periodicals alluded to, as for example the Biblical 
 Repository, the New York Evangelist, and the Philadel- 
 phia Christian Observer, furnish also positive evidence, 
 from the character of some of their articles, that those 
 errors are held by some, we fear a considerable number, 
 in that connection. 
 
252 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 EFFECTS OF THE DIVISION. 
 
 The necessity for a division of the church was depre- 
 cated by all ; and by none more sincerely than the Old- 
 school. It was anticipated that temporary evils and in- 
 conveniences would result from it, which no legislation 
 could wholl}'' prevent. But it was deemed preferable to 
 submit to these evils, for the sake of avoiding still greater 
 ones which appeared to be inevitable, if the two parties 
 in the church should continue any longer in the same 
 body. To use the language of an excellent and distin- 
 guished brother in the ministry, " We were reduced to 
 this simple question, Is the Presbyterian Church worth an 
 effort to save V The effort was made, and in the good 
 providence of God it has been crowned with success. 
 Our condition as a Church, we are persuaded, is far 
 better than it would have been if the division had not 
 occurred, unless (an event not to have been expected) our 
 New-school brethren had materially modified their former 
 views. 
 
 One beneficial effect of the separation has been the 
 enjoyment of greater harmony and peace. However 
 humiliating the acknowledgment, it is nevertheless true, 
 that for seven years or more previous to the division, so 
 heterogeneous were the materials which composed the 
 highest judicatory of our church, that the floor of the 
 General Assembly had become an arena of strife and 
 controversy. Irrespective of the question which of the 
 two parties were in the wrong, the simple facts that they 
 were at variance, and that their differences could not be 
 reconciled, were sufficient reasons, as in the case of Abra- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOOT. 253 
 
 ham and Lot, (Gen. xiii. 8, 9) not only for justifying but 
 demanding separation. The removal of these discordant 
 elements, and the organization of another body by that 
 portion of the church which differed from us, restored to 
 our Assembly that harmony of action which characterized 
 its early history. 
 
 Another effect of the division has been the restoration 
 to our body of its former unity in doctrinal views. A 
 half century ago it was sufficient to know that a man was 
 a Presbyterian minister, in order to feel assured that he 
 was sound in the faith, according to the Calvinistic sense 
 of this phrase. But for ten years previous to 1837, this 
 test was quite insufficient. Under the Presbyterian 
 name, and with Presbyterian credentials, ministers passed 
 from congregation to congregation in certain parts of our 
 country, and promulgated Arminian and even Pelagian 
 tenets. At the former period, in changing one's minis- 
 terial connection from one Presbytery to another, a cer- 
 tificate of good and regular standing was deemed suffi- 
 cient, without a personal examination. But during the 
 latter, the presenting of "clean papers" was found to be 
 no certain evidence of soundness in the faith. Distrust 
 and suspicion took the place of confidence. Some Pres- 
 byteries began to examine applicants for admission to 
 their bodies from other Presbyteries, however satisfactory 
 might be their written credentials. This practice being 
 objected to, the question was brought before the General 
 Assembly. In 1834, the right to re-examine was denied. 
 But in 1835, (the Old-school being in the majority), the 
 Assembly decided that "it is the right of every Presby- 
 tery to be entirely satisfied ©f the soundness in the faith 
 of those ministers who apply to be admitted into the 
 22 
 
254 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Presbytery as members." This was a partial remedy of 
 the evil ; but our former unity of sentiment was not re- 
 stored, until the separate organization of the New-school 
 body. 
 
 The " History of the Division" already referred to, 
 after quoting the Adopting Act of 1729, observes : " This 
 instrument does immortal honour to its authors, and those 
 who receive it as a bond of Christian union and fellow- 
 ship. It provides for the preservation, * pure and entire,* 
 of the system of doctrine" (the italics are not in the 
 Adopting Act) " embraced in the Confession of Faith and 
 Catechism. To errors which are subversive of this sys- 
 tem, it gives not the least approval or even toleration, 
 and at the same time admits what is undoubtedly true of 
 every human symbol of doctrinal belief, equally exten- 
 sive and minute in its details, that it embraces some things 
 in regard to which those who sincerely adopt it, may law- 
 fully differ. It likewise bound those who adopted it, to 
 treat each other, their minor differences notwithstanding, 
 with Christian courtesy and brotherly affection. It is 
 difficult to conceive how it could have been better adapted 
 to keep ' the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.* 
 Had the Presbyterian Church in this country been gov- 
 erned by the pacific and magnanimous principles of this 
 act, she would, at this time, have been a united body." 
 To this last remark we give our assent. It was to pre- 
 serve the unity which is here so much lauded, that the 
 Old-school made such strenuous efforts before the division 
 of the church. They have not, to our knowledge, either 
 before or since, taken any higher ground than that re- 
 quired by the Adopting Aot of 1729. A reference to 
 Chapter X. of this treatise will show that our New-school 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 255 
 
 brethren contended for much greater latitude than was 
 authorized by that act. The errors which they refused 
 to condemn, were believed by their Old-school brethren 
 to be "subversive" of the "system of doctrine embraced 
 in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms ;" and hence, 
 according to the author's own showing, that act did " not 
 give them the least approval or even toleration." If the 
 New-school had co-operated with the Old in adopting 
 efficient measures to counteract those errors when they 
 first made their appearance, they might have been recti- 
 fied without a division, and the church "have been at 
 this time a united body." The truly catholic spirit of 
 the Adopting Act is felt and manifested as heartily and 
 consistently by the Old-school body as the New. The 
 cases alluded to in the " History" for a different purpose, 
 show that there is among us no disposition to place our 
 ministers on the "bed of Procrustes," and require them, 
 on pain of excommunication, to be exactly conformed to 
 this iron model. Uniformity in Christian doctrine is not 
 understood as requiring a perfect agreement in " minor* 
 points ; but it is equally removed from that false liberal- 
 ity which includes under the head of minor points, im- 
 portant and dangerous errors. The Bible rule is, " first 
 pure, then peaceable." To secure this purity, and the 
 peace that succeeds it, was the end which the Old-school 
 hoped to obtain by the separation ; it having become 
 apparent that neither was practicable while the two parties 
 remained together. And as far as we are able to judge 
 by a reference to the past history of the church, there is 
 now as much unity of doctrinal views in the Old-school 
 body as at any former period since the organization of 
 the Presbyterian Church in this country. The present 
 
256 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 character of the New-school church in this respect, we 
 shall not attempt to describe. At the Auburn Conven- 
 tion in 1837, a prominent member observed to us, " You 
 find us here of all colours ;" but we trust they have be- 
 come more homogeneous in sentiment since that time. 
 
 A third result of the division has been the existence 
 of more harmony and efficiency in benevolent action. 
 Above a century ago, the work of sending missionaries 
 to our frontier settlements and the Indian tribes received 
 the attention of the church ; and simultaneously with this, 
 the education of pious and talented young men for the 
 gospel ministry. The records of old Synods of New York 
 and Philadelphia, before and after the union, show that 
 a great deal w^as accomplished in these several depart- 
 ments ; and after the organization of the General As- 
 sembly, in 1789, these objects occupy a prominent place 
 in the minutes of that body. In 1802, the Assembly 
 appointed a Standing Committee of Missions ; and in 
 1817 they constituted the Board of Missions, with en- 
 larged powers and a permanent organization. An over- 
 ture was sent down to the Presbyteries in 1805, respect- 
 ing the education of pious youth for the gospel ministry, 
 and action was taken on the subject at the following and 
 one or two subsequent meetings of the Assembly, till 
 1819, when the Board of Education was constituted, to 
 superintend and carry on this department in behalf of 
 the Assembly. But for some time these Boards were 
 rather bonds of union between the different judicatories 
 of the church, than the sole agents to prosecute the work. 
 Presbyteries and Synods, in many instances, conducted 
 both missions and education in their own bounds, and 
 reported their doings annually, either to the Boards or 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 257 
 
 directly to the Assembly. Important good, however, was 
 accomplished by the direct agency of these Boards, both 
 in training candidates and in sending missionaries to des- 
 titute white settlements, to the coloured population of the 
 South, and to different Indian tribes. In 1809, the As- 
 sembly adopted a resolution, " earnestly recommending 
 that each Synod take measures for establishing as many 
 religious tract societies within their bounds, by the asso- 
 ciating of one or more Presbyteries, as may be most con- 
 venient for this purpose." One such society was subse- 
 quently organized by the Synod of Philadelphia, denomi- 
 nated the Presbyterian Tract Society, which published 
 fifteen or twenty valuable tracts, forming two volumes of 
 the series of works now issued by the Assembly's Board 
 of Publication. 
 
 The formation of the American Boar4 of Commission- 
 ers for Foreign Missions, the American Education So- 
 ciety, the American Home Missionary Society, and the 
 American Tract Society, modified the policy and divided 
 the action of the Presbyterian Church, with regard to 
 these several objects. Except the Synod of Pittsburgh, 
 who carried on the missionary work among several tribes 
 of Indians, our efforts for Foreign Missions were made 
 principally through the American Board. The mission 
 among the Cherokees, which had been commenced by the 
 Committee of Missions appointed by the Assembly, and 
 conducted successfully for seven years, at an expense of 
 eight or ten thousand dollars, was placed under the care 
 of that Board ; and the Synods of Virginia and North 
 Carolina formed therewith a direct auxiliary connection ; 
 though with the condition incorporated in their constitu- 
 tion, that they might withdraw from it without offence, or 
 22* 
 
258 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 a breacli of courtesy, whenever the General Assembly 
 should think proper to resume the work of Foreign Mis- 
 sions. The American Education Society had a Presby- 
 terian Branch, and the American Tract and Home Mis- 
 sionary Societies were allowed free access to our churches 
 for the collection of funds to carry on their operations. 
 In the department of Domestic Missions and Ministerial 
 Education, for the promotion of which our own Boards 
 were operating at the same time, difficulties and collisions 
 were found to result from the action of two independent 
 organizations for these objects in the same field, to say 
 nothing of the doctrinal errors which were incidentally 
 introduced among us through the operation of those so- 
 cieties. The action of our Boards was restrained and 
 embarrassed, and far less was accomplished than would 
 have been under more favourable circumstances. This 
 was one source of the difficulty between the two parties 
 in the church, some particulars of which have been al- 
 ready given. The resolutions adopted by the last New- 
 school Assembly on this subject, are a virtual admission 
 that the Old-school were right in that contest. 
 
 Since the division, these four objects, viz. : Domestic 
 Missions, Foreign Missions, Ministerial and General 
 Education, and the Publication of Evangelical Books and 
 Tracts, have been all conducted by as many distinct but 
 co-ordinate Boards, under the supervision of the Gene- 
 ral Assembly. We regard them as wisely adapted to 
 accomplish the ends which they have in view. For har- 
 mony and energy in action, for efficiency and usefulness 
 in their results, they are unsurpassed by any similar 
 organizations in our country. Next to the stated minis- 
 try of the gospel, they constitute the power and glory of 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 259 
 
 our church. Their success and usefulness afford pleasmg 
 evidence of the divine favour. We record it, not with 
 boasting, but with gratitude, that (as we verily believe) 
 the Holy Spirit is with these Boards of the church, and 
 that the providence of God is over them — the former to 
 impart to them unity and vitality ; the latter to defend 
 and prosper them. We have now no pretext for inaction. 
 While we rejoice in the zeal and success of every branch 
 of Christ's church who are engaged in promoting his 
 cause, let us not be behind them, either in the expansive- 
 ness or efficiency of our benevolence. 
 
 Finally ; we have enjoyed as a church greater pros- 
 perity and enlargement since the division, than could 
 have been reasonably anticipated, if the two parties had 
 continued together. Had there been a unanimity of sen- 
 timent in the whole church, our growth, like that of our 
 nation, might have been constant ; and our prosperity 
 increased rather than diminished, by preserving the in- 
 tegrity of the body, and " consecrating our united ener- 
 gies to the advancement of Christ's kingdom." But we 
 were virtually divided, for several years before the organ- 
 ization of two separate bodies — divided in sentiment 
 though nominally acting in concert. Under these cir- 
 cumstances, a merely nominal union added nothing either 
 to the beauty or strength of the church ; and our con- 
 tinuance in the same body gave no promise of future 
 prosperity. After the separation, each party was in a 
 position to act more unitedly and efficiently than before. 
 We have since experienced no hinderance from our New- 
 school brethren or they from us. As to which of the 
 two bodies has enjoyed greater prosperity, or received a 
 larger number to its communion, we shall make no par- 
 
260 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 ticiilar estimate. Comparisons of this kind may be re- 
 garded as invidious ; and besides, numerical increase is 
 not a sure test of the divine approbation. But so far as 
 an appeal to this circumstance is admissible, we have 
 abundant reason to be satisfied and thankful to God for 
 our present relative position. A detailed statistical ac- 
 count would show that in the increase of numbers, in the 
 extension of territory, and in whatever else constitutes 
 external prosperity we have made great and pleasing 
 progress. But in the present connection we are not dis- 
 posed to particularize. There is an apostolic caution, 
 "Be not high minded but fear." Since we are so highly 
 favoured in outward circumstances, let it be our earnest 
 prayer and diligent effort to enjoy in an equal degree 
 internal prosperity. Our growth in grace and holiness 
 should be in grand parallel with our progress in numbers 
 and influence. 
 
 PROPER TREATMENT OF EACH OTHER. 
 
 As we are now two distinct bodies, it is obvious that 
 the same principles should govern us in our intercourse 
 with each other, as are applicable to all evangelical 
 churches. The circumstance that we have recently been 
 one church, has a tendency (such is human nature) to 
 make us more cold in exchanging ordinary Christian 
 courtesies, than we should be, if we had never belonged 
 to the same body. This tendency has been counter- 
 acted, in a great degree, by the lapse of years ; and it 
 will be ere long removed, unless a vindictive and jealous 
 spirit is fostered and kept alive by those who control pub- 
 lic sentiment. The Old-school, as far as we are acquaint- 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 261 
 
 ed, are generally disposed to treat their New-school breth- 
 ren with kindness ; to throw no obstacle in the way of 
 their prosperity ; to hold with them occasional communion ; 
 to supply their pulpits when invited, and to extend to 
 their ministers who may be known to be sound in the 
 faith, ministerial fellowship and confidence. The>e feel- 
 ings are reciprocated by some of the New-school body. 
 But others among them continue to reiterate, in censori- 
 ous and even abusive language, the charge of injustice 
 and oppression, in the measures adopted by the General 
 Assembly of 1837 ; to accuse us of an intolerant and 
 bigoted spirit in not now consenting to a reunion of the 
 two bodies ; and yet insinuate that we contemplate a union 
 at no distant day, by the " absorption of their ministers 
 and churches." We refer to these things, not to discuss 
 their merits, but for' the purpose of remarking, (1) that 
 it is a singular preparation for reunion, to abuse the party 
 with whom it is proposed to unite ; (2) that if we were 
 to form a reunion, and if such a spirit as is here mani- 
 fested towards the Old-school body should be exhibited 
 ivithin it, a second division would be as necessary as the 
 first ; (3) that when the chief causes which produced the 
 separation shall cease to exist, the Old-school church will 
 unquestionably be as cordial in listening to an overture 
 for reunion from the New-school division, as they always 
 have been when receiving similar applications from other 
 churches of the same faith and order with ourselves ; (4) 
 that we never have been distinguished as a j^^oseli/ting 
 church, are not so now, and of course are not accustomed 
 to make any attempts to " absorb the ministers and 
 churches" of other denominations; yet we always open 
 our doors to receive those, whether ministers, churches, 
 
262 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 or individual members, who embrace the doctrines con- 
 tained in our standards, and express a desire to enter 
 our communion ; (5) that though for a number of years 
 before the separation, we were unhappily too often coming 
 into collision, it becomes us now to lay aside former jeal- 
 ousies, and " study the things which make for peace.'* 
 There is no good reason why "Ephi'aim should envy 
 Judah, or Judah vex Ephraim." 
 
 It is on the whole no disadvantage that there are dif- 
 ferent Christian denominations. The numerical unity 
 of the Papal church, or even its boasted unity of religi- 
 ous faith, is very dissimilar to the catholic unity which is 
 commended and enjoined in the Holy Scriptures. The 
 Reformed churches in the days of Luther and Calvin, 
 Cranmer and Knox, though not in every respect identi- 
 cal in creed, form of government, or mode of worship, 
 were characterized by as much real unity as though they 
 had all acknowledged one visible head ; and they pro- 
 bably acted with greater eflSciency in their separate, yet 
 harmonious, efforts to advance the Redeemer's kingdom. 
 The same may be true now ; and hence it should be re- 
 garded as an object of less importance to secure an or- 
 ganic union of all evangelical churches in the same body, 
 than to see them all faithfully and zealously performing 
 the work of the Lord under their own banners ; while 
 towards each other they keep " the unity of the Spirit in 
 the bond of peace." This idea carried out to perfection, 
 with the additional one of the glorious presence of Christ 
 with his people, contains the chief elements in those sub- 
 lime descriptions recorded in God's word, of the future 
 Btate of the Church during her best and brightest period 
 on earth. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 REFERRED TO, p. 212. 
 
 " The Rev. Drs. Edwards, McKuigh't, and Woodhull, the 
 Rev. Mr. Blatchford, and Mr. Hutton, were appointed a com- 
 mittee to consider and digest a plan of government for the 
 Churches in the new settlements, agreeably to the proposals of 
 the General Association of Connecticut, and report the same 
 as soon as convenient. 
 
 " The report of the committee appointed to consider and di- 
 gest a plan of government for the Churches in the new settle- 
 ments, was taken up and considered, and after mature delibera- 
 tion on the same, approved, as follows : 
 
 " Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the 
 Presbyterian Church in America, and by the General Associa- 
 tion of the State of Connecticut, (provided said Association 
 agree to them,) with a view to prevent alienation, and to pro- 
 mote union and harmony in those new settlements which are 
 composed of inhabitants from these bodies. 
 
 "1. It is strictly enjoined on all their missionaries to the 
 new settlements, to endeavour, by all proper means, to promote 
 mutual forbearance, and a spirit of accommodation between 
 those inhabitants of the new settlements who hold the Presby- 
 terian, and those who hold the Congregational form of Church 
 government. 
 
 *' 2. If in the new settlements any Church of the Congrega- 
 tional order shall settle a Minister of the Presbyterian order, 
 that Church may, if they choose, still conduct their discipline 
 according to the Congregational principles, settling their diffi- 
 culties among themselves, or by a council mutually agreed 
 upon for that purpose. But if any difficulty shall exist between 
 the Minister and the Church, or any member of it, it shall be 
 
 (2G3} 
 
264 APPENDIX. ^ 
 
 referred to the Presbytery to whicli the Minister shall belong, 
 provided both parties agree to it; if not, to a council consist- 
 ing of an equal nun)ber of Presbyterians and Congregationalists, 
 agreed upon by both parties. 
 
 "3. If a Presbyterian Church shall settle a Minister of Con- 
 gregational principles, that Church may still conduct their dis- 
 cipline according to Presbyterian principles, excepting that if 
 a difficulty arise between him and his Church, or any member 
 of it, the cause shall be tried by the Association to which the 
 said Minister shall belong, provided both parties agree to it ; 
 otherwise by a council, one-half Congregationalists and the 
 other Presbyterians, mutually agreed upon by the parties. 
 
 '^4. If any Congregation consist partly of those who hold 
 the Congregational form of discipline, and partly of those who 
 hold the Presbyterian form, we recommend to both parties that 
 this be no obstruction to their uniting in one Church and 
 settling a minister ; and that in this case the Church choose a 
 standing committee from the communicants of said Church, 
 whose business it shall be to call to account every member of 
 the Church, who shall conduct himself inconsistently with the 
 laws of Christianity, and to give judgment on such conduct. 
 That if the person condemned by their judgment be a Pres- 
 byterian, he shall have liberty to appeal to the Presbytery ; if 
 he be a Congregationalist, he shall have liberty to apjjeal to 
 the body of the male communicants of the Church. In the 
 former case, the determination of the Presbytery shall be final, 
 "unless the Church shall consent to a further appeal to the 
 Synod, or to the General Assembly; and in the latter case, if 
 the party condemned shall wish for a trial by a mutual council, 
 the case shall be referred to such a council. And provided 
 the said standing committee of any Church shall depute one 
 of themselves to attend the Presbytery, he may have the same 
 right to sit and act in the Presbytery, as a Kuling Elder of 
 the Presbyterian Church." — Minutes, 1801, pp. 221, 224. 
 
 [The plan was ratified by the General Association.] — Minutes, 1802, p. 237 
 
 THE END. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 .......^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kt^.-- -.,. 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A.