tihvavy of trhe t:heclo0ical ^eminarjo 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 Donation of Samuel Agnew 
 of Philadelphia 
 March 15, l855 
 
 BX 8931 .H623 18A0 
 Hodgson, Francis, 1805-1877. 
 An examination of the system 
 of new divinity 
 
AN EXAMINATION I . 9 :^7t 
 
 SYSTEM OF NEW DIVINITY; 
 
 NEW SCHOOL THEOLOGY. 
 
 BY REV. FRANCIS HODGSON, 
 
 OF THE NEW-YOKK CONFERENCE. 
 
 " It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort vou that v« 
 ?h'rsl^tt:ri^4rS^°^ '""^ faith whik was once' dSe'Sl^^ 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY GEORGE LANE, 
 
 FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. AT THE CONFERENCE OFFICE, 
 
 200 MTJJLBERRY-STREET. 
 
 J. Collord, Printer. 
 
 .1840. 
 
" Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1 839, 
 by T. Mason and G. Lane, in the Clerk's Office of the Dis- 
 trict Court of the Southern District of New-York." 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO 
 
 NEW DIVINITY. 
 
 To the subjects of the following pages, the author has 
 devoted much careful reading and patient investigation. 
 Observing, some years since, that there was an exciting 
 controversy in the leading Calvinistic denominations, he 
 was anxious to know what doctrinal changes were taking 
 place. It was reported that some of their eminent preach- 
 ers had renounced Calvinism, and embraced Arminianisra. 
 Although he never had any confidence in this report, 
 yet it served. to stimulate inquiry. While eagerly seek- 
 ing for information, and not knowing how to obtain it, 
 on account of his remoteness from the scene of disputa- 
 tion, he accidentally met with several numbers of the 
 Philadelphian, a paper published by the Rev. Dr. Ely. 
 They contained the sermon of the Rev. Albert Barnes, on 
 " The Way of Salvation ;" the protest against the leave 
 granted by the Presbytery of Philadelphia, to the First 
 Presbyterian Church, to prosecute a call for Mr. B. to 
 become their pastor; Mr. B.'s answer to the protest, with 
 several other articles on both sides of the controversy. 
 This was a timely and important acquisition The sub- 
 ject was now fairly laid open to him — the mystery ex- 
 plained. From that time he felt an increasing interest in 
 the subject, and carefully treasured up whatever informa- 
 tion he received, respecting the doctrines of the New 
 School party. 
 
 Meantime, public attention was called to the unscriptural 
 character and dangerous tendency of some of the New 
 School doctrines, by correspondents of the Christian Ad- 
 vocate and Journal. The keen and well-directed strictures 
 of a writer over the signature of " More Anon," in reply to 
 
NEW DIVINITY PREFACE. 
 
 a series of assaults on Methodism, and the very seasonable 
 appearance of the able articles on the " Calvinistic Con- 
 troversy," by the late and lamented Dr. Fisk, served to 
 increase inquiry, and diffuse information. 
 
 Notwithstanding what had been written, it appeared that 
 something more was needed, namely, an exhibition of the 
 New School doctrines in their relations as a system. 
 Many of these doctrines are brought out prominently, and 
 are triumphantly refuted by Dr. Fisk ; but his work re- 
 lates to the Calvinistic controversy in general, rather than 
 to New Divinity as a system. Prompted by these con- 
 siderations, a series of numbers was commenced, in the 
 Christian Advocate and Journal. The design was to sup- 
 ply this apparent deficiency — to present, without entering 
 largely into the argument, an outline of this novel theology 
 as a system, and especially to aid in correcting the im- 
 pression that it is identical with Methodism. It was 
 thought that a few brief articles would accomplish this 
 purpose, but as the writer proceeded, the magnitude of the 
 work increased. He was apprehensive that it would be dif- 
 ficult, without very strong proof, to convince many who are 
 sincere inquirers, that certain doctrines are held by those 
 to whom they are imputed. It was also supposed that it 
 would be unsatisfactory, if not unjust, to rely on a single 
 passage to prove a doctrine held by one individual, and 
 much more so, by a large class of theologians. Hence he 
 was led, not only to quote a number of authors, but also to 
 multiply quotations from the same authors. Many of the 
 quotations were found to contain not only the doctrine, but 
 likewise arguments in support of it, so blended with the 
 statement as to render them inseparable. This imposed 
 a necessity of going more extensively into the argument 
 than was at first designed. Thus the articles extended to 
 more than thirty in number, and some of them were quite 
 long. 
 
NEW DIVINITY PREFACE. 5 
 
 These numbers were not considerecl wholly unsuccess- 
 ful, and the author has been solicited, by private commuT 
 nications, and resolutions of several Annual Conferences(, 
 to publish them in a volume. 
 
 The author finds it difficult to preclude the conviction 
 that the providence of God has been propitious to this un- 
 dertaking. Be this as it may, he cannot but think it re- 
 markable that, while in situations where the study of this 
 controversy could have no immediate bearing on his 
 ministerial labours, he could not be satisfied to lay it aside. 
 It continued to interest his feelings more and more ; when 
 very unexpectedly, he was removed to this city, and placed 
 in stations which furnished, for the time, the most favour- 
 able situation for pursuing the inquiry — affording, among 
 other advantages, access to books and periodicals which 
 were previously unknown to him, or beyond his reach. 
 
 In the course of an extensive, and as careful a revision 
 as numerous and pressing duties would allow, considerable 
 changes have been made in the arrangement of the topics 
 and arguments. This circumatance, in addition to the 
 fact that much new matter has been added, has induced 
 the author to name the divisions of the book chapters, in- 
 stead of numbers. 
 
 While the writer cannot but hope that the work will be 
 of service to the cause of truth and holiness, he has no 
 doubt that it contains imperfections ; but he trusts that the 
 importance of the subjects will divert attention from what- 
 ever defects may appear. 
 
 Is an apology deemed necessary for entering the arena 
 of religious controversy ? The writer is free to confess 
 that he has no ambition to be numbered among those 
 whose superabundant charity would suffer the truth to fall 
 in the streets, rather than buckle on the harness in its de- 
 fence ; or with those who profess a freedom from sectarian- 
 ism which they fail to exemplify. 
 
6 NEW DIVINITY PREFACE. 
 
 "With sincere prayers for the blessing of God on his 
 labours, and on the persons and interests of those whose 
 doctrines he has reviewed, he now commits this work to 
 the public. 
 
 F. Hodgson. 
 
 New-York, May 16, 1839. 
 
 Resolutions of the Michigan Annual Conference. 
 
 Resolved, That we highly approve of the articles on New Divinity, 
 now being published in the Christian Advocate and Journal, and 
 deem them well calculated to counteract the progress of error ; and 
 that the author be respectfully requested to finish the subject as 
 soon as possible, and to submit the same for publication in book 
 form. 
 
 Resolved, That the Agents be respectfully requested to publish, 
 in book form, the articles on New Divinity, over the signature of 
 F. H., in case the author shall comply with the above resolution ; 
 believing, as we do, that such a work is very much needed, and 
 will, by God's blessing, prove an effectual antidote against a dan- 
 gerous error prevailing in our country. , 
 
 Resolution of the Georgia Annual Conference. 
 Resolved, That the Book Agents at New- York be requested to 
 publish the pieces of F. H. in book form. 
 
 Resolution of the New-Jersey Annual Conference. 
 
 Whereas, a correspondent of the Christian Advocate and Journal, 
 tinder the signature of F. II., has furnished a series of numbers on 
 New Divinity, in which, with distinguished ability, the errors of that 
 system are exposed and refuted ; and whereas we believe their ex. 
 tensive circulation, in a revised and durable form, will subserve the 
 mterests of truth : — 
 
 Therefore, Resolved, That this Conference respectfully request 
 their republication by our Book Agents at New-York, pledging our 
 influence to give the work a widely extended circulation. 
 
NEW DIVINITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ABILITY. 
 
 Notwithstanding all that has been said and written 
 on the subject of New Divinity within the last few years, 
 the question is frequently asked, and it is one of increasing 
 interest, "What are the peculiar tenets of the New School 
 party ?" There is considerable anxiety to know wherein 
 they differ from those which are held by the Old School 
 party, and also, wherein they differ from Methodism. 
 (^ Some are of the opinion, that the difference between the 
 advocates of the Old and New School theories is trivial — 
 that they are engaged in a war of words. Others suppose 
 that they are completely antipodes to each other : that the 
 New School theologians have wholly discarded the leading 
 tenets of Calvinism, as set forth in the Westminster Con- 
 fession of Faith,^ and other creeds of kindred sentiment ; 
 and adopted, with very few and almost unnoticeable ex- 
 ceptions, the doctrines of the Methodists. 
 
 It is of the utmost importance to the cause of truth that 
 the latter impression be corrected and obviated. Method- 
 ism and New School Calvinism have no affinities for each 
 other. There is, decidedly, less agreement between them 
 than there is between Methodism and Old School Calvin- 
 ism ; and yet it cannot be denied that the manner of 
 preaching of New School divines, especially during times 
 of religious excitement, and where the influence of Me- 
 
8 NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY. 
 
 thodism is not inconsiderable, is strongly calculated to 
 originate and confirm that supposition. 
 
 They assert, that every man is free to choose life or 
 death, — that all may be saved, if they will, — that God sin- 
 cerely offers salvation to all men, — that all men have an 
 ability to comply vrith the terms of the gospel, — and that 
 every man determines his own final doom. These pro- 
 positions are invested with all the importance of leading 
 and fundamental doctrines. They often constitute the main 
 topics of sermons, and essays, and exhortations, and are 
 maintained with elaborate argument, and enforced by 
 powerful persuasion. 
 
 It is not uncommon for these preachers to assail the 
 opposite notions, and belabour them without mercy ; some- 
 times greatly to the offence of the more orthodox members 
 and ministers of their own denomination. 
 
 Whether they intend to produce the belief that they 
 hold the doctrines of Methodism, in opposition to those 
 of Calvinism, or not, it is very extensively produced. And 
 one thing is certain, that very little pains, if any, are taken 
 by them, to remove it when it exists, or to prevent it when 
 it is likely to take place. 
 
 What, then, is the true state of the case ? It is this : — 
 The New School Calvinists hold as tenaciously as do 
 those of the Old School, the leading distinctive tenets of- 
 Calvinism, as exhibited in its standards. That " God, from 
 all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his 
 own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever 
 comes to pass ;" that " by the decree of God, for the 
 manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are pre- 
 destinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to 
 everlasting death;" that "these angels and men, thus pre- 
 destinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchange- 
 ably designed ; and their number is so certain and definite 
 that it cannot be either increased or diminished." They 
 
NEW mvimry — ability. 9 
 
 are equally pledged and concerned for the maintenance of 
 them ; and there is reason to believe that they are equally 
 anxious for their universal prevalence. 
 
 It is true, they do not usually assert these doctrines in 
 public. They do not exhibit them plainly and distinct! velv 
 in their sermons. They are considered unprofitable topics 
 for sermonizing, and laid aside, under the pretext that 
 preaching should be practical rather than doctrinal ; that 
 preachers should be satisfied with exhibiting the great 
 facts of Christianity ; that the world is to be converted by 
 preaching, not sectarian, but substantial Christianity ; just 
 as if the great Head of the Church had revealed and at- 
 tested great and fundamental doctrines, which his minis- 
 ters are authorized to label with the odious inscription, 
 *' sectarian Christianity," and keep out of sight in their 
 preaching, as unprofitable or pernicious. They are re- 
 served to be inculcated in Bible-classes, at the fire-side, 
 and in occasional discourses, when it becomes necessary 
 to offer up a sacrifice on the altar of a jealous or offended 
 orthodoxy. 
 
 The New School men, however, have not been peculiar 
 in studiously keeping those doctrines out of sight in their 
 public ministrations. This has, for years, been the com- 
 mon policy. They have continued to constitute the basis 
 of the discourses delivered from Calvinistic pulpits ; but 
 have been so expressed, or implied, as generally to escape 
 the detection of the inexperienced observer. Some preach- 
 ers, of this class, have succeeded so admirably in this 
 work of concealment, that many of their hearers, and mem- 
 bers of their churches, are offended and indignant when 
 it is alleged that they hold Calvinistic doctrines. 
 
 The peculiarities of New School Calvinism, then, are 
 not to be found in a denial of those articles by which the 
 creeds of the Calvinistic churches are distinguished, and 
 an adoption of the tenets of Methodism, but in one of the 
 
 !• 
 
10 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 metaphysical theories, by which it is attempted to recon- 
 cile the well-known doctrines of Calvinism with the offers 
 of a free salvation, and the obligation of all men to repent 
 and believe the gospel. It has been extensively dis- 
 covered, that the doctrines of a free salvation are the only 
 doctrines which secure revivals of religion. Calvinistic 
 theologians have found, that while they were engaged in 
 opposing these doctrines, as preached by the Methodists 
 and others, as anti-scriptural, tending to universalism and 
 infidelity, and entirely subversive of the doctrines of grace 
 and the plan of salvation, God was rendering the doctrines 
 which they opposed instrumental in the conversion of 
 many souls, and, in some instances, of almost whole neigh- 
 bourhoods. They likewise discovered a desperate revolt- 
 ing of the public mind against the exclusive doctrines 
 which they attempted to force on its acceptance. This 
 attitude of revolt, notwithstanding they very self-compla- 
 cently attributed it to the opposition of unregenerate na 
 ture to the truth, they found very difficult to withstand ; 
 and the only alternative that presented itself was that of 
 adopting and preaching the doctrines of a free salvation. 
 This must be done, or infidelity and irreligion on the one 
 hand, or an equally abhorred Arminianism, alias Method- 
 ism, on the other, will take the field. 
 
 But here arises a difficulty of no small magnitude. 
 The doctrines that salvation is free for all ; that it is sin- 
 cerely offered to all ; and that all may accept it ; are directly 
 and obviously at war with the doctrines that " by the 
 decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some 
 men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, 
 and others foreordained to everlasting death ;" " that these 
 angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are 
 particularly and imchangeably designed ; and their num- 
 ber is so certain and definite that it cannot be either in- 
 creased or diminished ;" " that the elect, and none other, 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 11 
 
 are redeemed by Christ." They have occupied the field 
 against each other in determined and protracted hostility. 
 The latter doctrines these divines were not prepared to 
 surrender. They firmly believed them, and were pledged 
 to their support. 
 
 What, then, is to be done 1 An attempt must be made to 
 reduce these conflicting propositions to an agreement. The 
 doctrines of a free salvation must be preached, and yet the 
 opposite doctrines must be retained, and must constitute 
 the standard of orthodoxy. Hence some ground must be 
 sought out on which they can be united. How shall this 
 be accomplished ? This has been styled by the late Rev. 
 Robert Hall, "The great question." Its solution has been 
 attempted, and to this attempt we are indebted for the 
 theory which constitutes New School Calvinism. 
 
 This theory has its commencement in certain definitions 
 and distinctions on the subject of ability/. The reason of 
 these definitions and distinctions is as follows : — If men 
 have not power to repent and believe the gospel, it is use- 
 less to offer salvation to them, or to enjoin on them re- 
 pentance and faith ; and sinners are in possession of a 
 A'alid and unanswerable excuse for living in impenitence 
 and unbelief. It must, therefore, be allowed, that all men 
 have ability to perform these exercises and accept salva- 
 tion. But, if this be gTanted without some qualification, 
 what becomes of the doctrine of the eternal and unchange- 
 able foreordination of every event that comes to pass 1 
 Will it not plainly follow, that men have power to act 
 otherwise than as God ordained from all eternity, and that 
 doctrine be endangered or exploded ? What will become 
 of the doctrine that God has elected a certain number of 
 angels and of men to eternal life, and that the number is 
 so definite that it cannot be added to ©r diminished? Will 
 it not follow that the non-elect may accept the offer of sal- 
 vation, and be saved, in despite of tiieir non-election, and 
 
12 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 thus frustrate the immutable decrees of sovereign and dis- 
 tinguishing grace and wrath ? 
 
 The speculations to which we have referred are de- 
 signed to meet and obviate this difficulty. It is concluded 
 that all men must be supposed to have ability, in some 
 sense, to perform what is required of them in order to sal- 
 vation. And yet, there must be some insuperable diffi- 
 culty in the way of the reprobate portion of mankind. We 
 are, therefore, notified, that all men have a natural, or 
 physical ability, but the possession of this is supposed to 
 be compatible with the absence of another kind of ability, 
 which is equally. indispensable. The distinction of ability 
 into natural and moral is resorted to, and we are told, that 
 all have the natural, but all have not the moral ability. 
 Or, if the term, " moral ability" be rejected, as it is by 
 some, there is supposed to be a disinclination, which no- 
 thing but the special grace of God ever did, or ever can 
 overcome. On the ground of natural ability, they offer 
 salvation to all ; urge on all the obligation to repent and be- 
 Keve the gospel ; and vindicate the justice of the divine go- 
 vernment in the condemnation and everlasting punishment 
 of the impenitent. On the gromid of the moral inability, 
 or the disinclination which none ever did, or can over- 
 come, Avithout special grace, they erect the entire struc- 
 ture of rigid, old-fashioned Calvinism. No man has the 
 indispensable moral ability, or the will, to repent and be- 
 lieve, unless God gives it to him, and he gives it to whom 
 he pleases : he gives it to none but those who were elected 
 to salvation from all eternitj-. This doctrine may not al- 
 ways be brought out prominently in their discourses on 
 human ability. It is often placed as a sentinel to guard 
 the doctrines of grace from violation, wliile the doctrine of 
 natural ability is mainly insisted upon. 
 
 Some of the advocates of the New Divinity have like- 
 wise, for the purpose of reconciling a free salvation with 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITV. 13 
 
 Calvinism, a distinction on the subject of atonement. It 
 is perceived, at a single glance, that if the atonement be 
 limited — if Christ did not die for all — it is absolutely im- 
 possible that all should be saved ; and therefore it is use- 
 less to offer salvation to all. On the other hand, if Christ 
 died for all without any reserve or qualification, their doc- 
 trine of election is exploded. A distinction is therefore 
 made between the atonement and the application of it — 
 between atonement and redemption. 
 
 The atonement, it is said, was made for all, and is 
 equally applicable to all, but its actual application, which 
 is absolutely necessary to salvation, is restricted, by an 
 eternal decree, to the elect. They alone are the objects 
 of redemption. 
 
 The bearing of this distinction is readily perceived. 
 Put the natural ability and the general atonement toge- 
 ther, and you have the ground of their offers of salvation 
 to all, and appeals to the consciences of sinners. Stand- 
 ing on this ground, they can preach as though they had 
 verily renounced Calvinism ; and many of their hearers 
 may go away, gravely and earnestly affirming that there 
 is not the least difference between their preaching and 
 that of the Methodists ; and yet they are decided Calvin- 
 ists, and view the doctrines of Methodism with abhorrence. 
 They secure their Calvinism by the doctrines of moral 
 inability, and a limited application of the atonement, or a 
 limited redemption. 
 
 Whether this distinction is held by all who are classed 
 with the New School party or not, the writer is uncertain. 
 It is not held by all who hold the distinction on ability. 
 The Rev. Dr. Ely, for instance, is a warm advocate for the 
 doctrines of natural ability and moral inability ; and yet he 
 holds the doctrine of limited atonement, as will appear by 
 a reference to the files of the Philadelphian. How he 
 reconciles the doctrine, that all may be saved if they will, 
 
14 NEW DIVINITY — -ABILITY. 
 
 with the doctrine that Christ did not die for all, is a some- 
 what puzzling question. 
 
 Perhaps he thinks that if any one for whom Christ has 
 not died has a disposition to be saved, Christ will yet die 
 for him! Or, perhaps, this subject is too profound for 
 Methodist preachers, every one of whom, he some time 
 since affirmed, preaches all he knows to his congregation 
 twice every two years. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ABILITY CONTINUED. 
 
 Having, in the preceding chapter, referred the New 
 School theory to its source, we shall now proceed to de- 
 velope it more fully, and attempt its refutation. 
 
 The doctrine of the natural ability of fallen and de 
 praved man, to do Avhatever is required of him by the 
 'divine government, leads, by a course of easy and obvious 
 inference, to the doctrines, that all depravity is in the will; 
 that depravity and holiness consist solely in voluntary ac- 
 tion ; that infants have no moral character ; that regene- 
 ration consists in a voluntary change of purpose ; that the 
 Holy Spirit, in regenerating a sinner, operates by " moral 
 suasion" merely; that the first movement of a sinner 
 toward God — the very first obedient act — constitutes sub- 
 mission, or regeneration ; that the sinner converts himself, 
 or changes his own heart ; that for a sinner to pray to 
 God before submission, or regeneration, is not only 
 useless but rebellious, and adds to his condemnation ; 
 that the sinner has no right to use any of the means of 
 grace, as conducing to his salvation ; that painful convic- 
 tions for sin, and anxiety for the favour of God, are not 
 only unnecessary, but wholly indicative of rebellion, and 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 15 
 
 render the condition of those who are so exercised worse 
 than before ; and that the comdcted sinner is entitled to 
 no sympathy, on account of his distress of mind, inas- 
 much as he can terminate it, by submission, whenever he 
 pleases. 
 
 These consequences, and others which may hereafter 
 be brought to light, have been acknowledged and adopted, 
 and form so many articles in the creed of the thoroughly 
 indoctrinated New School Calvinist. We shall defer the 
 task of proving that these consequences are held as doc- 
 trines, by those to whom we ascribe them, and of tracing 
 their logical connection, imtil we come to take them up 
 separately for refutation. Our first effort will be directed 
 to the investigation of those views of ability on which the 
 fabric is based. 
 
 As the scheme of New Divinity is grossly contradictory 
 in itself, and the manner in which its advocates sometimes 
 assert the doctrine of the sinner's dependance on spiritual 
 influence leads many to suppose that the doctrine of a 
 natural ability to repent and believe the gospel is not only 
 not held, but positively denied, it may not be unimportant 
 to prepare our way by adducing a few examples, in con- 
 firmation of what we have asserted on this subject. 
 
 The Rev. George Duffield, who occupies a prominent 
 position in the ranks of New Divinity, having written a 
 considerable volume in exposition and support of its prin- 
 ciples, distinctly avows the doctrine under consideration. 
 " That men are destitute of the natural ahility, that is, the 
 constitutional capacities requisite to believe and repent, 
 &c., none will explicitly aflirm." — Duffield on Regenera- 
 tion, p. 317. 
 
 Again : — " 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, at every turn, that 
 he is utterly unable, by his own unassisted powers, either 
 
16 NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY. 
 
 to believe or repent to the saving of his soul. It might as 
 truly be said, that he cannot rise and walk by his own un- 
 assisted powers, &;c." — Ibid., 542. 
 
 It is thus asserted by the Rev. Albert Barnes, of Phila- 
 delphia, in his Sermon on " The Way of Salvation :" — 
 " In the representation of this scheme, I proceed to re- 
 mark, in the third place, that while God thus sincerely 
 offers the gospel to men, all mankind, while left to them- 
 selves, as sincerely and cordially reject it. It is not to 
 any want of physical strength, that this rejection is owing; 
 for men have power enough in themselves to hate both 
 God and their fqllow-men ; and it requires less physical 
 \ power to love God than to hate him." — Barnes^ Defence, p. 24. 
 ' In a note to the preceding passage, he remarks, " The 
 distinction, then, between natural and moral ability referred 
 to here is not one of mere speculation. It enters into all 
 preaching ; and this single distinction will give a com- 
 plexion to all a man's theology, and to all his efforts to 
 save men." 
 
 ' A comparison of these passages will show that he uses 
 the terms physical and natural as synonymous, in this ap- 
 plication of them, and that he means by natural, or physi- 
 cal ability, that " men have power enough in themselves" 
 to love God. Indeed we are told that it is more difficult 
 to hate God than to love him. 
 / The Rev. Dr. Beecher, after quoting a number of au- 
 
 (thorities in support of his opinion, says, " I now add : — 
 That the Bible teaches the free agency and natural ability 
 of man to obey or disobey. 
 And on page eighty-four he remarks, " On this argument 
 we observe : — That these implications of the Bible do 
 clearly, and in the strongest possible manner, treat the 
 doctrine of man's free agency and Jiatural ability to obey 
 or disobey the gospel, as the foundation of his obligation." 
 It is thus avowed by the Rev. Charles G. Finney : — 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 17 
 
 «< In the light of this subject, you can see the nature and 
 degree of the sinner's dependance on the Spirit of God. 
 The Spirit's agency is not needed to give him power, but 
 to overcome his voluntary obstinacy. Some persons seem 
 to suppose that the Spirit is employed to give the sinner 
 power — that he is unable to obey God without the Spirit's 
 agency. I am alarmed when I hear such declarations as 
 these ; and were it not that I suppose there is a sense in 
 which a man's heart may be better than his head, I should 
 feel boimd to maintain, that persons holding this sentiment 
 were not Christians at all." — Sermons, p. 24. 
 
 The Quarterly Christian Spectator, formerly published 
 at New-Haven, but recently merged in the American Bib- 
 lical Repository, published in New-York, speaks out ex- 
 plicitly on this subject ; and as this has been the leading 
 periodical in the interests of New Divinity, the reader will 
 pardon us if we make one or two extensive quotations from 
 its pages. In an extract from a work entitled " Edson's 
 Letters to the Conscience," which is reviewed with ap- 
 probation, especially that part to which our attention is 
 now called, we have the following sentiments : — 
 
 " But it is asked, can a sinner repent without the influ- 
 ence of the Holy Spirit 1 
 
 " I reply, in answer, that the Spirit is not necessary to 
 give power or capacity to repent ; but to make the sinner 
 willing to repent, — ^willing to use the power he has to be 
 sorry, in actually being sorry. Here, you perceive, that 
 the only difficulty in the way is obstinacy, — the sinner will 
 not yield to God ; will not come to Christ for life. This 
 is the whole difficidty. - It is of precisely the same na- 
 ture with that of the stubborn child, who will not be sorry 
 for having voluntarily and wilfully disobeyed his parent. 
 And it may be that he will continue to stand out, until the 
 parent takes some effectual measure to subdue his obsti- 
 nacy. But still, this does not prove that he could not have 
 
18 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 yielded before. No new power was needed, which he did 
 not before possess. And the fact that the sinner never 
 will yield to God, and repent of sin, without the influences 
 of the Holy Spirit, docs not touch the question in regard 
 to capacity or power." — Vol. vii, No. 4, p. 635. 
 
 This subject is brought up in a review of " Sprague on 
 Revivals." In this article, as in several others to which 
 we might refer, not only is the doctrine of natural ability 
 affirmed, but its opposition to the doctrine of Methodism, 
 on this subject, is distinctly recognised : — 
 
 " That God should command what man has no power 
 to perform is irreconcilable with all our conceptions of 
 the divine character. Ability to do his duty he must pos- 
 sess, either in himself considered, as a moral agent, or in 
 the promised influences of the Holy Spirit, raising his 
 'lapsed powers' to a capacity for obedience. The former 
 of these suppositions is New-England Calvinism, the latter 
 is evangelical Arminianism. We need not say to which 
 , party Dr. Sprague belongs. In common with his New- 
 England brethren, he describes the whole difficult}' of the 
 sinner as consisting in a ' settled aversion' to his duty. 
 But an aversion, we all know, implies no real inability, 
 and receives the name only in a figurative sense to de- 
 scribe its strength and permanence." — Vol. v, No. l,p. 37. 
 
 Here we have two theories presented. One is, that 
 man possesses ability to do his duty, in himself, as a moral 
 agent ; the other, that he has the ability, not in himself, 
 however, but in the promised influence of the Holy Spirit, 
 raising his ' lapsed powers.' The former is claimed as 
 New-England Calvinism. The latter is rejected as evan- 
 gelical Arminianism. 
 
 There is a similar passage, but more full and copious, 
 on page 39, in which reference is made to some doctrinal 
 statements of Dr. Griffin, which are considered excep- 
 tionable. 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 19 
 
 " This statement of Dr. Griffin is followed by another, 
 which brings him, as far as we can see, directly on the 
 ground of evangelical Arminianism. ' They (sinners) are 
 bound to go forth to their work at once, but they are not 
 hound to go alone : it is their duty to cast themselves in- 
 stantly on the Holy Ghost, and not take a single step in 
 their own strength. — App. p. 161. Now it is not possi- 
 ble, we apprehend, to invent a statement more directly 
 contradictory than this, to the fundamental principle of 
 New-England Calvinism. That principle is, that man is, 
 in himself, a free agent, and not made such by the influ- 
 ence of the Spirit : that he is bound, as a free agent, to ' go 
 forth at once to the work' of obeying God, in the exercise 
 of power conferred in creation, and not superinduced by 
 grace, that is, to go ' ALONE :' that as a complete moral 
 agent in /jtwi^e^ considered, he is bound to obey God in 
 his ' own strength^ this being made in the law the very 
 measure of his obedience : that there is no promise, grant, 
 or ' privilege' belonging to the unconverted, and no ' duty' 
 which they can perform short of giving their hearts to 
 God ; and, therefore, that it is not, as Arminians teach, 
 ' their privilege and duty to cast themselves on the Holy 
 Ghost' to be made holy, but to become holy at once, by the 
 exercise of repentance and faith in Christ. These, un- 
 deniably, are the views of all New-England Calvinists, in 
 opposition to the scheme of Evangelical Arminians." 
 
 This passage needs no comment. It asserts strongly 
 that man is able, and bound, to do what is required of him, 
 without the influences of the Holy Spirit; and it as strongly 
 contradicts the opposite opinion. 
 
 We beg leave to present another quotation to show how 
 this subject is viewed by the New School Calvinists in 
 England. It is from the pen of John Howard Hinton, 
 A. M., an eminent writer among the Baptists, and con- 
 tained in a treatise on " The Work of the Holy Spirit in 
 
20 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 Conversion.'* After arguing, at some length, the question 
 of the sinner's ability, he announces, in italics, the following 
 conclusion : " The means of repentance, therefore, and all 
 the means of repentance, are possessed by a sinner without 
 the Spirit ; but the possession of the means of repentance 
 constitutes the potoer of repentance ; therefore, a sinner has 
 power to repent without the Spirit." — Page 126. 
 
 Were we to adduce all the testimonies on this point that 
 are within our reach, they would fill a volume ; but the 
 foregoing are sufficient. 
 
 It is not designed to make the impression that the New 
 School party ar6 alone in asserting, and maintaining, this 
 doctrine of natural ability. It was maintained by the dis- 
 tinguished President Eidwards, who is almost canonized 
 as a theologian, by the Old School party, and also by Owen, 
 Witherspoon, and others, who are counted among the 
 princes of Old School theology. These men, in the emer- 
 gencies to which the arguments of Arminianism subjected 
 them, sowed the wind of doctrine from which the whirl- 
 wind has grown, that now shakes and rends the Calvin- 
 istic churches. 
 
 The question now in dispute is one which must be 
 settled by the authority of the holy Scriptures, and to their 
 arbitration every Christian controversialist will cheerfully 
 appeal and submit. If they give their sanction to the theory 
 we oppose, we shall feel bound to forego our opposition. 
 We turn, therefore, " to the law and the testimony." Do 
 they teach that the sinner has the ability, naturally and 
 independently of grace, to perform, at any moment, those 
 acts of holiness which are necessary to salvation, and that 
 all he wants is the will to do so ? Just the contrary. The 
 Apostle Paul says, " The carnal mind is enmity against 
 God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed 
 can be," Rom. viii, 7. It is here plainly affirmed of the 
 carnal mind, that it cannot obey the law of God. The ad- 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 21 
 
 vocates of New Divinity, however, profess to consider this 
 passage in favour of their theory rather than against it. 
 Mr. Duffield tells us that " when Paul says of the ' carnal 
 mind,' that it ' is not subject to the law of God, neither 
 indeed can be,' he is not speaking of the essential mind, 
 but that mind's exercises, as any Greek scholar will at 
 once perceive : so that, instead of furnishing an objection, 
 this passage is a strong confirmation of that for which we 
 contend." And suppose we admit that he is spealdng of 
 the " mind's exercises," and not the " essential mind ;" is 
 there no contradiction between the doctrine, that the sin- 
 ner has a natural ability to subject the exercises of his 
 mind to the law of God, and the apostle's declaration, first 
 of the fact, that the exercises of his mind " are not subject 
 to th« law of God," and, secondly, that they cannot be 
 subject to it ? "What is to hinder their subjection to the 
 law of God, if the " essential mind" can subject them to 
 it at pleasure ? Is the apostle's declaration, that the "ex- 
 ercises" of the sinner's mind are not subject to the law of 
 God, and cannot be subject to it, a " strong confirmation" 
 of the doctrine of the sinner's natural ability to subject 
 them to the law whenever he will ? Then, verily, the laws 
 of evidence must have undergone some great change, or 
 Mr. Duffield is not very scrupidous as to the nature of the 
 evidence on which he relies. 
 
 But whether the apostle affirms that the " essential 
 mind" is carnal, and at enmity with God, or not, it is not 
 difficult to infer that this is the case, from what Mr. Duf- 
 field supposes him to affirm. These carnal exercises are 
 put forth by the " essential mind." They are exercises 
 of the mind. But if all the exercises of the " essential 
 mind" are carnal, and enmity against God, what shall we 
 say of the mind which puts forth these exercises ? Is it 
 not carnal ? To assert that all the exercises of the essen- 
 tial mind are carnal, and enmity against God, and yet that 
 
22 NEW DIVINITY— ABILITY. 
 
 the mind itself is not carnal, would be just as consistent 
 as to assert, that a man may invariably perform wicked 
 actions, and not be a wicked man. According to this 
 mode of interpretation, when the apostle charges some 
 with being enemies to the cross of Christ, we are not to 
 understand him, that the individuals themselves — the "es- 
 sential" men and women, are the enemies in question, but 
 merely that their actions are enemies of the cross of Christ. 
 Now, it is of that which is carnal that the apostle predi- 
 cates, that it " is not subject to the law of God, neither 
 indeed can be." 
 
 Equally adverse to the tenet we oppose, is the declara- 
 tion of the apostle, " The natural man discemeth not the 
 things of the spirit of God ; neither can he know them, be- 
 cause they are spiritually discerned," 1 Cor. ii, 14. The 
 doctrine of this text is, that there are spiritual things, with 
 respect to which the natural man is so situated, that while 
 he remains in that condition, he neither discerns them, 
 nor can discern them. To be able to discern them, he 
 must undergo a great change. He must become a spirit- 
 ual man. 
 
 Similar is the eftect of these words of our Lord, " How 
 can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and 
 seek not the honour which cometh from God only," John 
 V, 44. The state of mind, in which the honour which com- 
 eth of men is preferred to the honour which cometh from 
 God, is represented as rendering its possessors imable to 
 exercise the faith that is required of them. 
 
 An attempt is made to dispose of many of those pas- 
 sages in which the inability of the sinner is asserted, by 
 affirming that the terms can, and cannot, do not always 
 imply ability, and inability, but often disinclination, or want 
 of will, merely. That these terms are frequently used 
 figuratively, to signify inconvenience, or strong disinclina- 
 tion, and their correlatives, is imdeniable. But in their 
 
NEW DIVmiTY— ABILITY. 23 
 
 literal and proper application, they invariably express the 
 idea of power. How is the idea of inability to be more 
 strongly expressed than by the following passages : — " Can 
 we go on hot coals and not be burnt ?" Prov. vi, 28. " Can 
 any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him, 
 saith the Lord," Jer. xxiii, 24. " Can the fig-tree, my 
 brethren, bear olive-berries ? either a vine, figs ? So can 
 no fountain both yield salt water and fresh," James iii, 12. 
 To infer that this language does not import inability, when 
 appHed to other subjects, merely because the term can, 
 and its correlative, are sometimes used figuratively to sig- 
 nify something else than ability and inability, is to reason 
 - as soundly as the Universalist does, when he contends that 
 the term "hell" does not represent a place of future and 
 eternal pimishment, because it is also used to signify the 
 grave, or the place of departed spirits. And yet our op- 
 ponents seem to think that they have fairly disposed of 
 these texts, by saying that the terms under consideration 
 do not always convey the idea of power. But who needs 
 that information ? Let them prove that these terms, in the 
 texts we have adduced, or may adduce, are intended to 
 express willingness or unwillingness merely, and we will 
 give them up. Nor will it answer for them to interpret the 
 texts by their theory— to say that they cannot mean ina- 
 bihty because it is contrary to the nature of things ; for that 
 is the very point in dispute. Whether their views of the 
 nature of things are correct, is to be determined by the 
 authority of Scripture, and will depend on their agreement 
 with its dictates. And when they choose to affirm that 
 man has a natural ability to do that which the Scriptirres 
 as plainly affirm he cannot do, whose authority, as to the 
 nature of things, is to be decisive ? 
 
 We do not rely on these Scripture testimonies, as co- 
 vering the whole ground in dispute. They directly con- 
 tradict the doctrine, that the sinner has a natural ability, 
 
24 NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY. 
 
 at any moment, to do whatever may be required of him in 
 order to salvation. They instruct us that the performance 
 of many of these things requires a state of mind directly 
 opposite to that by which he is characterized ; so that, 
 while he remains in his present state of mind, he can no 
 more perform the exercises of holiness than he can see 
 from the depths of the valley the objects that can be seen 
 only from the summit of the mountain. But then, we 
 readily admit that they determine nothing as to his ability 
 to bring about a change in the state of his mind. If it be 
 affirmed that he has a natural ability to enter upon, and 
 go through with, that process which will bring him into 
 another state of mind, and to uphold himself in that con- 
 dition, we do not depend on these texts to prove the con- 
 trary. 
 
 The Scriptures, however, do not desert us at this inte- 
 resting point in our inquiries. They furnish the most 
 explicit avowals on the subject. Our Saviour spoke de- 
 cisively when he said, " No man can come unto me, except 
 the Father, which hath sent me, draw him," John vi, 44. 
 There can be no question as to what is meant by coming 
 to Christ. For the power to do this, we are declared to be 
 dependant on divine influence. Mr. Barnes endeavours 
 to shield his theory from the stroke which this passage 
 inflicts, by the old standing contrivance of insisting that 
 the phraseology employed does not always signify inability. 
 He tells us that the Saviour did not intend to assert any 
 thing as to the ability of the sinner, but merely that, as a 
 historical fact, " No man ever did or will repent, except as 
 influenced by the Spirit." — Defence, p. 158. But where 
 is the proof of this ? The interpretation of Mr. Barnes is 
 perfectly gratuitous. It is suggested solely by his theory. 
 The inability of the sinner to come to Christ, without aid, 
 could not be more strongly affirmed. 
 
 Mr. Hinton endeavours to evade the force of this text by 
 
NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY. 25 
 
 Commenting on the word " draAV." " Draioing,^^ he says, 
 " is a process not any way adapted to the need of a man 
 who has no power ; it pertains rather to one who wants in- 
 clination." — Page 226. We are at a loss to determine 
 what idea Mr. Hinton attaches to the term " draw." To 
 our mind it does not determine specifically the mode of the 
 influence used which is exerted. Besides, it is not used 
 with reference to one who has " no power" but who has 
 not power to come to Christ. Because a man cannot do 
 every thing, it does not follow that he cannot do any thing. 
 And since the Saviour has plainly assured us of the ina- 
 bility of the sinner to come to him, without the Spirit's 
 influence, we care not to dispute about the propriety of 
 the term he has selected to represent the influence which 
 is necessary. 
 
 But our interpretation of this passage is abundantly con- 
 firmed by other passages. Our Lord on another occasion 
 said to his disciples, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the 
 branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the 
 vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the 
 vine, ye are the branches : he that abideth in me, and I 
 in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit : for without 
 me ye can do nothing," John v, 4, 5. In this text the 
 ability to "bear fruit," or obey God, is made to depend on 
 abiding in Christ, and the influence which that union se- 
 cures, just as much as the fruitfulness of the branch de- 
 pends on its connection with the vine, and the influence 
 which the -vine imparts. It is therefore directly at va- 
 riance Avith the doctrine of New Divinity on this sub- 
 ject. Will it be pretended that the words can and cannot, 
 do not, in this instance, refer to power ? Then it is impos- 
 sible to place them in any connection which will give 
 them, determinately, that meaning. The bearing wliich 
 this text has on the point in controversy, is not affected, in 
 the least, by the consideration that it respects the ability 
 
 2 
 
26 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 of the Christian to perform tlie duties of holiness. For 
 if the regenerate man cannot bear the fruits of holiness of 
 himself — if his ability to do this depends on his spiritual 
 connection with Christ — it would be absurd enough to ima- 
 gine that the unregenerate man is, of himself, competent 
 to the task. 
 
 The declaration, " "Without me ye can do nothing," is 
 supposed, by Mr. Duffield, to refer to that divine energy 
 by which we are upheld in being, and in the exercise of 
 our facxdties, and not to the additional gracious influences 
 necessary to holiness. It is important to ascertain what 
 is the mind of the Spirit, in any inspired communication, 
 but it is a matter of perfect indifference to our argument 
 whether we adopt Mr. DufReld's interpretation or not. 
 Supposing it to be correct, the Saviour enforces his ex- 
 hortation to abide in him by two considerations. One, is 
 the necessity of abiding in him, in order to be able to bring 
 forth fruit. The other, is the fact that we are also de- 
 pendant on him, who claims our services, for the continu- 
 ance of our lives. 
 
 The doctrine of a natural ability, to repent and believe 
 the gospel, is pointedly contradicted by the following 
 words : " Can the Ethiopian change his skin and the leo- 
 pard his spots ? Then may ye also do good that are ac- 
 customed to do evil," Jer. xiii, 23. This is felt by the 
 advocates of that doctrine to be an important passage. 
 Mr. Hinton makes a resolute, yet ineffectual effort to carry 
 his theory over the difficulty it interposes. He lays down 
 the following rule for the interpretation of metaphorical 
 passages : " We have only to notice the features in lohich 
 the objects compared agree or disagree : in those iii which 
 they agree, the ordinary import which is now metaphorically 
 used will apply ; in those in which they do not agree, its ap- 
 plication is not to be attempted." To this rule we have no 
 objection, but it fails to render Mr. Hinton any service 
 
NEW DIVINITY — AB1LIT7. 37 
 
 in this instance. He proceeds to its application, and we 
 ask the attention of the reader to the process. He first 
 decides, authoritatively, that there is no agreement between 
 the objects compared, namely, the sinner, and the Ethio- 
 pian, and leopard, with respect to power, and then his rule 
 requires that he should look elsewhere for the point of 
 agreement. Accordingly, after having assured us that " It 
 is evident that there is no similarity in the two cases in re- 
 spect of capability of change, and on this point therefore 
 nothing can be learnt from the comparison," he decides 
 that, " the aspect in which the cases are similar is the 
 actual nonproduction of the result, and the certainty that it 
 will not be produced.'^ But we would suggest to Mr. Hin- 
 ton that there is a difference of opinion, as to whether the 
 objects may be compared in respect to " capability of 
 change." This is the very point in question. Nor can 
 we consent that it shall be settled in so summary a man- 
 ner. We have appealed from the philosophy of New 
 Divinity, and brought the question to be settled by the au- 
 thority of inspiration, and have found a text expressly de- 
 signed to assert the similarity which Mr. Hinton denies. 
 It teaches, in plain terms, that the wicked man can no 
 more make himself a good man than the Ethiopian caa 
 change his skin, or the leopard his spots. But the advo- 
 cates of New Divinity seem determined that the Scriptures 
 shall give us no information on this subject, but such as 
 accords with their theory. If Christ himself declares, in 
 plain, literal terms, that no man can come unto him, with- 
 out divine influence, they tell us that he means nothing 
 more than that no man will come vmto him without such 
 influence ; that he says nothing about the power. If he 
 assures us that it is impossible for men, unaided, to repent 
 and believe, Mr. Hinton says that, " when the matter 
 comes to be examined, it will be found that, with whatever 
 force we may use the terms cannot and impossible, we do 
 
Bo NEW DIVINITV— ABlLlTir. 
 
 not mean that we are destitute of power." This therefore 
 is no proof of inability. If, to make the matter still more 
 definite, comparisons are instituted, and the word of inspi- 
 ration assures us that the sinner can no more do, with- 
 out divine assistance, what is required of him, than the 
 Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots, 
 or the branch bear fruit of itself, separated from the vine, 
 these theorists insist that there is no similarity between 
 the objects compared in respect to ability ; that the sinner 
 is able, without the Spirit's influences, to do whatever God 
 demands of him ; that the comparison must refer to some- 
 thing else than ability, and therefore " indicates nothing 
 respecting the sinner's ability." Such criticism sets all 
 authority on the subject at defiance. 
 
 It is universally imderstood that the term cannot is fre- 
 quently used to signify strong disinclination ; but it is 
 dotxbtful whether it is used to state, as a matter of fact 
 merely, that an event will not take place. When we say 
 of a friend, that he cannot go to a certain place at a cer- 
 tain time, we have reference to an impediment in some 
 form. We mean that there is an insuperable hinderance 
 to his going, or that it is very inconvenient for him to go, 
 or that he is strongly disinclined to go. We do not use 
 the term cannot to signify merely that, as a matter of fact, 
 he will not go. Mr. Hinton, therefore, takes a greater 
 hberty with the text than appears at the first glance. He 
 not only decides, without any evidence, that the word can 
 is used in this instance figuratively, but gives it a mean- 
 ing that it never bears. However, he does not abide by 
 any one interpretation. He tells us, in the same para- 
 graph, that the metaphor " does nothing more than express 
 emphatically the fixedness of a sinner\<t determination.^^ It 
 appears, then, that it does something more than state the 
 fact that the change will not be produced. It specifies 
 the cause of that fact, — the fixedness of a sinner's deter- 
 
NEW DIVINITY ^ABILITY. 29. 
 
 niination. Are we to understand, then, that this is the 
 point of agreement ? The Ethiopian may, possibly, have 
 a fixed determination not to change his skin. The leopard 
 may have obstinately made up his mind not to change his 
 spots. But the text gives us no information to this effect. 
 It tells us, in plain terras, that they cannot do these things, 
 and definitely specifies the inability as the point of simili- 
 tude. 
 
 The following passage also bears decisively on the sub- 
 ject of controversy : " Verily, I say vmto you, that a rich 
 man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And 
 again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through 
 the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the king- 
 dom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were ex- 
 ceedingly amazed, saying, "Who then can be saved 1 But 
 Jesus beheld them, and said unto them. With men this is 
 impossible, but with God all things are possible," Matt. 
 xix, 23-26. 
 
 In these words the Saviour, in the first instance, in- 
 structs his disciples that the difficidty of entering the king- 
 dom of God is increased by the circumstances in which 
 riches place their possessors. He then goes further, and 
 asserts an impossibility in the case. This he does by a 
 very strong comparison — " It is easier for a camel to go 
 through the eye of a needle." That he meant to affirm 
 an impossibility by these words is plain, from the subse- 
 quent declaration — " With men it is impossible." The 
 reply of the disciples indicates that they so understood 
 him. It cannot, however, be supposed that ^this impossi- 
 bility is created by the possession of riches — that while it 
 is impossible for the rich, it is possible for the poor to 
 enter the kingdom of God. For then, we must conclude, 
 either that no rich men enter the kingdom of God, or that 
 God employs an influence to enable them, which is not 
 necessary in the case of others. If the first supposition 
 
3t) NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 were adopted, it would be contradicted by facts, as re- 
 corded in Scripture, If the second, all rich men would 
 be admitted exceptions to the doctrine of a natural ability 
 to repent and believe. The meaning of the Saviour's as- 
 sertion of impossibility is explained by the declaration, 
 " With men it is impossible" — men in general — all men. It 
 is also sufficiently evident that our Lord did not intend to 
 affirm an absolute impossibility, but merely so far as un- 
 aided human power is concerned. " With men it is im- 
 possible." This impossibility is and must be removed by 
 divine influence. " With God all things are possible." 
 
 Will it be objected here that the Saviour restricts the 
 comparison to rich men, and therefore our interpretation 
 involves the absurdity that there are degrees of impossi- 
 bility — that it is more impossible for a rich than for a poor 
 man ? We reply that he did not intend to restrict it to 
 rich men. When the disciples, astonished at his words, 
 asked who then could be saved, he confirmed the impres- 
 sion produced, by applying the declaration to men in ge- 
 neral. He applied it to rich men in the first instance, 
 because he was speaking of rich men. He may also have 
 had some special design in giving the general principle 
 this particular application. Besides, if we were to adopt 
 the principle of interpretation which New Divinity prefers, 
 and understand the words as teaching, merely, that a camel 
 will sooner go through the eye of a needle than a rich man 
 will enter the kingdom of God without divine influence, 
 nothing would be gained, for they xmderstand this to be 
 equally true of all men, and are therefore as much exposed 
 to the objection as their opponents. 
 
 Perhaps it may be objected, that, allowing that there is 
 an impossibility affecting all men in this matter, it is ab- 
 surd to talk of the difficulty being greater in the case of 
 the rich than of the poor. But the objection would not be 
 valid. For, when grace has removed the impossibility. 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 51 
 
 there may be various degrees of difficulty, according to 
 the habits of men, and the circumstances in which they 
 are placed. 
 
 The doctrine of the text tinder consideration is, that it 
 is impossible for men, rich or poor, to do, without divine 
 influence, Avhat is necessary to their entering the kingdom 
 of God ; that, when the impossibility is thus removed, the 
 performance of the exercises required may still be attend- 
 ed with difficulty, which may be increased or diminished 
 by circumstances ; and that the possession of riches con- 
 stitutes a great difficulty, so that a rich man shall hardly 
 enter the kingdom of God. 
 
 The attention of the reader is now asked to a third 
 class of Scriptures, bearing still more decisively, if possi- 
 ble, on the point in question. The apostle, in the epistle 
 to the Galatians, uses this language: " For the flesh lust- 
 eth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh ; 
 and these are contrary the one to the other ; so that ye 
 CANNOT do the things that ye would," v, 17. Had the 
 apostle foreseen the heresy we are combating, and de- 
 signed to record his decision against it, he could not have 
 used language more expressive of his design. He not 
 only uses terms which convey the idea of inability, but 
 expressly cuts off the pretence that the difficulty is solely 
 a want of will. He asserts inability to do that to which 
 the will is favourable. An attempt to confonn this text 
 to the New School theory would make it say, Ye would 
 not do the things that ye would. 
 
 There is a parallel passage in the epistle to the Ro- 
 mans : — " For we know that the law is spiritual ; but I 
 am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do, I allow 
 not ; for what I would, that do I not ; but what I hate, 
 that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent 
 unto the law, that it is good. Now, then, it is no more I 
 that do it, but sin that dwelleth ia me : for I know that in 
 
32"* NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 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 ; for the good that I would, I do not ; but 
 the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that 
 I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwell- 
 eth in me. I find then a law that when I would do good, 
 evil is present with me. For I deUght in the law of God, 
 after the inward man ! But I see another law in my mem- 
 bers warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me 
 into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 
 O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the 
 body of this death?" Chap, vii, 14, &c. 
 
 Here is the most direct and explicit contradiction of the 
 doctrine, that the sinner is subject to no other inability, 
 respecting the law of God, than mere unwillingness, that 
 could possibly be framed. 
 
 But the advocates of New Divinity are so accustomed 
 to reconciling contradictions, that they do not readily aban- 
 don a favourite theory on account of them. It requires 
 but a flourish of Mr. Duflield's pen to sweep these for- 
 midable difficulties aside, and press the scriptures which 
 originate them into his service. On the passage from 
 Galatians he thus comments : — When the English trans- 
 lation makes the same apostle say, 'the flesh lusteth 
 against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, and 
 these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot 
 do the things that ye would,^ it will be seen by every one 
 acquainted with the original, that the word cannot is not 
 used by the apostle himself. He merely states the fact, 
 that those in whom the conflict between the flesh and 
 Spirit is waged, do not the tilings they Avould." 
 
 Admitting the propriety of this criticism, there is nothing 
 gained by it. The doctrine which the text is brought for- 
 ward to disprove is, that the sole reason why the law of 
 God is not kept, is the want of a will to keep it ; that this 
 
KBW DIVINITY ABILITY. 3* 
 
 is the only obstacle. But, according to Mr. Duffield's 
 own rendering, the will is present, and yet the things that 
 are willed are not done. "Ye do not the things that ye 
 would." So that we are compelled to assign some other 
 cause for the failure than want of will. The explanation 
 Mr. Duffield gives is, " Such is the activity of the conflict, 
 that a present purpose of will is succeeded and counter- 
 acted by another, before it is executed." But in this ex- 
 planation the author contradicts, first himself, and then the 
 apostle. He grants that there " is a present purpose of 
 will," which, according to his theory of ability, is all that 
 is necessary, and yet admits the failure ; thus contradict- 
 ing himself. He then contradicts the apostle by persist- 
 ing to assign the want of will as the sole cause of the 
 failure. The " present purpose of will" is so temporary 
 and powerless, that before the things willed have time to 
 be executed, it is absent. It is " succeeded and counter- 
 acted" by a purpose of will not to do, which is the reason 
 why the things are not done, whereas the apostle says, 
 " Ye cannot do," or ye do not, " the things that ye would." 
 The author, however, is not sure of what character the 
 will is, of which the apostle speaks ; whether it is sinful 
 or holy. He says, " The Greek particle, translated so 
 that, sometimes denotes design ; and if in this sense it is 
 to be here understood, the apostle's meaning is, that the 
 influence of the Spirit in the believer is vouchsafed to 
 counteract and frustrate his evil inclinations. This we 
 prefer, as being most agreeable to the apostle's assurance, 
 expressed in the previous verse." But this interpretation 
 does not extricate him from his difficnlties. It forces upon 
 him a doctrine which, it is to be presumed, he is by no 
 means prepared to adopt — ^that the believer has not a 
 natural ability to commit sin. He has a will to sin, but 
 the influence of the Spirit is vouchsafed to counteract and 
 frustrate his sinfu! inclinations, so that he cannot do, or 
 
 2* 
 
34 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 does not, the things that he would. Now, as there are but 
 two kinds of ability concerned in this matter, according to 
 the statements of Mr Duffield and his New Divinity asso- 
 ciates, and the will is the moral ability, it clearly follows, 
 that whatever prevents, when there is a will, must be a 
 natural inability. This, then, is the position in which our 
 interpreter places himself. The believer wills to perform 
 the works of the flesh. All that he wants is the natural 
 ability. The Spirit is given to " frustrate his sinful incli 
 nations," so that he fails to do what he wills to do, which 
 is of course to destroy the natural ability respecting those 
 things. It is to be hoped, for consistency's sake, that Mr. 
 Duffield will not be found among those who hold that no 
 Christian can, or ever could, or ever did, or ever will, live 
 without sin. 
 
 But he is not yet satisfied. " If it," the Greek particle, 
 we suppose, " denotes merely the result eventually, no- 
 thing more can be inferred from it, than that the influence 
 ' of the Spirit, which generates a holy inclination, is coun- 
 teracted by corrupt desires and affections, so that it does 
 not issue in the accomplishment of that to which he was 
 inclined, or which he willed." Nothing more can be in- 
 ferred from it ! Who would wish to infer any more from 
 it ? The inference which Mr. Duffield affects to consider 
 so harmless, is death to the doctrine that the want of the 
 will is the only obstacle in the way of keeping the com- 
 mandments. It states that " the influence of the Spirit 
 generates a holy inclination," and yet the holy inclination 
 " does not issue in the accomplishment of that to which 
 he was inclined, or which he willed," and attributes the 
 failure, not to want of will or inclination, as docs the New 
 School doctrine of ability, but to sometliing which Mr. 
 Duffield styles " corrupt desires and affections," and which 
 the apostle styles " the lusts of the flesh," by which the 
 holy inclinatiott or will is frustrated. Docs this comport 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 35 
 
 with the doctrine that every man has a natural abiUty to 
 keep the law — that all that he wants is the will or 
 moral ability — that when he has the will, he has both 
 the natural and moral ability? Does not this inference 
 plainly imply, that not only must there be the will or in- 
 clination, but likewise, that those " corrupt desires and 
 affections," which are represented as distinct from the 
 will, and which defeat it, must be overcome by the influ- 
 ence of the Holy Spirit ? The author professes to be in- 
 different as to " which, if either, of the two constructions 
 should be exclusively preferred," as neither view militates 
 against the doctrine he has advanced. He may well be 
 indifferent on this point, not because neither view mili- 
 tates against his doctrine, but because they equally militate 
 against it. His utmost efforts to wrest the text from liis 
 opponents, and bribe it to bear testimony in his favour, 
 have been succeeded by the most fatal responses. 
 
 Having disposed of this passage in so summary and 
 masterly a style, he proceeds to that from Romans, and 
 affirms that nothing can be inferred from it unfavourable 
 to his views of human ability. Let us compare them. 
 The view of ability which he' advocates is, that man has 
 naturally the ability to keep the law, and that nothing is 
 wanted but the will. The apostle says, " For to will is 
 present with me ; but how to perform that which is good, 
 I find not. For the good that I would, I do not ; but the 
 evil which I would not, that I do." Can nothing be in- 
 ferred from this language of the apostle unfavourable to 
 the proposition with which it is collated ? It must be, then, 
 because they so directly and positively contradict each 
 other, that there is no room for inference in the case. But 
 so far from finding this text in his way, he derives from it, 
 also, " confirmation of the views" he has advanced. It is 
 certainly worth while to inquire how. The process will 
 no doubt be highly instructive to those who have not been 
 
36 NEW DIVINITY-^— ABILITV. 
 
 fully initiated into the mysteries of New School criticism 
 " It is evident," lie says, " that the apostle cannot here use 
 the word ' will' to denote a simple volition ; for no one 
 ever acts or does any thing without some volition. The 
 word is sometimes used to denote the main and efRcient, 
 the leading and controlling purpose ; and in this sense we 
 suppose the apostle used it in the context first quoted. 
 His meaning is therefore very plain. If he does not 
 voluntarily and deliberately purpose to do evil, but on the 
 contrary, if it is his fixed and abiding, and studious pur- 
 pose to do what the laAv of God reqiures, it shows that 
 the moral being, the I, whose character was to be esti- 
 mated by this, its leading feature, did fully approve of the 
 law of God ; and that, therefore, of whatever deviations 
 from it he was guilty, they were to be attributed to the 
 influence of sin, which he personifies, and not to the deep 
 and fixed principles of his renovated character. His will, 
 in the main, was right, but it was resisted, counteracted, 
 and ofttimes overpowered by various considerations, of 
 which he did not cordially and deliberately approve, nor 
 of that Avhich they led him to do. Here again we derive 
 a confirmation of the views advanced, from the very ob- 
 jections urged against them." We, will venture to ex- 
 amine this triumphant reasoning. The author supposes 
 the apostle to be speaking of his own experience, in this 
 passage. This assumption it is not necessary to call in 
 question in the present argument. According to his ex- 
 planation, the word " will," denotes the main and efiicient, 
 the loading and controlling purpose ; and it Avas the fixed, 
 abiding, and studious purpose of the apostle, to do what the 
 law requires, which, according to the natural ability theory, 
 is all that is neccssaiy to secure its fulfilment ; and that 
 the moral being, the I, is to be estimated by this, its lead- 
 ing feature. And yet the apostle did not perform what 
 the law requires. *' The deviations" of Avhich he *' was 
 
NEW DIVINITY— ABILITY. 37 
 
 guilty," however, '* are not to be attributed to a voluntary 
 and deliberate purpose to do evil." " His w^ill, in the 
 main, was right." They are to be " attributed to the in- 
 fluence of sin, which he personifies." " His will" to do 
 right " was resisted, counteracted, and ofttimes over- 
 powered by various considerations, of which he did not 
 cordially and deliberately approve, nor of that which they 
 led him to do." And this is not only consistent with the 
 doctrine that the apostle had a, natural ability to keep the 
 law, and that nothing was necessary to secure obedience 
 but the will, but also a confirmation of the doctrine ! Most 
 admirable ! ! But while we may be almost mute with ad- 
 miration, we can hardly avoid asking, Was the apostle 
 destitute of the " will," while it was his fixed, abiding, 
 studious, efficient, and controlling purpose to keep the 
 law ? And what became of the natural ability, while the 
 "will" — "the /" — the "moral being" — "the fixed pur- 
 pose," &c., was engaged in the unequal and unsuccessful 
 conflict with " the personified influence of sin," and the 
 " various considerations" by " which it was resisted, coun- 
 teracted, and overpowered?" 
 
 There is a feature in Mr. Duffield's explanation of this 
 text which deserves to be more fully developed. It as- 
 sumes a very modest and retiring aspect in this instance, 
 but old acquaintance leads to a ready recognition. We 
 have looked upon it before now. The apostle he sup- 
 poses to be speaking of his own experience. The word 
 '* will" is sometimes used to denote the main and efficient, 
 the leading and controlling purpose ; and in this sense he 
 supposes the apostle used it. It appears, then, that the 
 apostle was alternately under the influence of two pur- 
 poses — one a purpose to do what the law requires, the 
 other a purpose to do what the law forbids. This, ac- 
 cording to the New School doctrine, was the character 
 of the Apostle Paul. He had a natural ability to obey the 
 
38 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 law of God, or to disobey it. All that was necessary in 
 either case was the will. He had a fixed, studious, abid- 
 ing, leading, controlling purpose to obey, and this consti- 
 tuted "the deep and fixed principles of Iris renovated 
 character." But he had, at the same time, a secondary 
 and inferior purpose to commit sin ; and the leading pur- 
 pose frequently gave way to the inferior purpose ; so that 
 when he was inclined to keep the law, he kept it, and 
 when he was inclined to violate it, he violated it. He was 
 inclined to violate the law so frequently, that he was in 
 bondage to the inferior and sinful purpose ; and so strong 
 and determined was his inclination to sin, that when the 
 holy inclination, generated by the Spirit of God, the main 
 and controlling pm-pose, conflicted with the inferior pur- 
 pose, the inferior purpose overcame, and became of course 
 the " controlling" purpose ; and, on retrospecting his 
 course, he was led to exclaim, " O wretched man that I 
 am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death !" 
 T^his is shocking ! I would be afraid of being posted for a 
 slanderer, if I were to give such an account of the reli- 
 gious character of the Rev. George Duffield. 
 
 The impossibility of conforming this text to the doc- 
 trines of New Divinity is made more and more apparent, 
 by each additional efibrt to that end. Mr. Hinton employs, 
 substantially, the same interpretation with Mr. Duffield. 
 He tells us that " These expressions represent his dispo- 
 sition, or the habitually prevailing state of his heart, which 
 dictated a holy and devoted conduct, and gave this main 
 character to his life. He found, however, ' another law 
 in his members,' an inclination to sin, ' Avarring against 
 the law of his mind,' and the emotions produced in conse- 
 quence of this were sometimes strong enough to prevent 
 the fulfilment of his holy and devoted purposes." — Page 
 '^G4. Here, then, is a prevailing state of the heart, dic- 
 tating holy and devoted conduct-— producing holy and 
 
NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY. 39 
 
 devoted purposes, and efforts to carry them into effect, 
 and yet the good that is purposed is not executed. Why ? 
 Because depravity produces emotions strong enough to 
 prevent their fulfilment. And all this is perfectly consist- 
 ent with the doctrine that every man has a natural ability 
 to do the good that is required of him, and is prevented 
 only by a criminal unw^illingness ! Indeed, the " whole 
 passage appears" to Mr. Hinton "to be remote from the 
 question of power." The fact that another is " strong 
 enough" to overcome me, it seems, is no proof that I am 
 not " strong enough" to overcome him. But there is an- 
 other view of this subject. If depravity is sometimes 
 strong enough, in the estimation of these writers, to over- 
 come and defeat efforts to do good produced by holy pur- 
 poses, which are dictated and sustained by holy prevalent 
 dispositions, what must be the state of the case when the 
 depraved emotions and inclinations are sustained by a 
 settled and prevailing disposition to sin ? Mr. Hinton shall 
 answer this question. He says, in the preceding page, 
 " If the emotions excited should be always in harmony 
 with the existing disposition, then there would be no possi- 
 bility of an action in any degree contrary to the disposition 
 itself.'^ This is conclusive. It places the unregenerate 
 man in this condition, that unless the Holy Spirit, or some 
 other power, excite emotions at variance with what is 
 known to be the settled disposition of every unregenerate 
 man, there would be no possibility of any other than sinful 
 action. 
 
 Mr. Barnes also fails to explain this passage v/ithout 
 flatly contradicting his theory. On the words, " but how 
 to perform that which is good I find not," he remarks, " I 
 do not find it in my power ; or I find strong obstacles, so 
 that I fail of doing it." He adds, " The obstacles are not 
 natural, but such as arise from long indulgence in sin ; the 
 strong native propensity to evil." This appears to be 
 
40 KEW DIVINITY — ABILITT. 
 
 designed to leave the impression that his doctrine of na- 
 tural ability is not contradicted ; and we suppose it must 
 appear very plain to Mr. B.'s readers, at least those who 
 are capable of understanding such nice discriminations, 
 that obstacles which arise from a " strong native pro- 
 pensity" " are not natural." 
 
 In perfect harmony with the inspired testimonies which 
 we have cited, and equally at variance with the New School 
 theory of ability, are those prayers for help and strength 
 which are recorded in the Scriptures. The imsuccessful 
 conflict, described in the seventh chapter to the Romans, 
 leads to the affecting appeal, " O wretched man that I am, 
 who shall deliver me from the body of this death." How 
 absurd ! — yea, worse — how insulting to Jehovah, is this 
 call for deliverance, if the petitioner possesses a natural 
 ability to do all the good that is required of him, and is 
 prevented wholly by a criminal unwillingness ! ! Who 
 would be surprised if God shovdd answer such a call, from 
 the secret place of his thunder, in terms of blasting re- 
 buke ? The apostle writes to the Ephesians : — " For this 
 cause I bow my knees unto the God and Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, &c., that he woidd grant you, accord- 
 ing to the riches of his grace, to be strengthened with 
 might, by his Spirit, in the inner man." For the Colos- 
 sians, he prays that they might be " strengthened Avith all 
 might, according to his glorious power, imto all patience 
 and long-suffering with joyfulness." The Apostle Peter 
 prays thus : " The God of all grace, &c., make you per- 
 fect, stablish, strengtJien, settle you." But why do the 
 apostles pray to God that he would strengthen believers, 
 if every man possesses a natural ability to do whatever is 
 required of him ? 
 
 To the same conclusion do those passages tend which 
 speak of strength as actually communicated. " Like- 
 wise," says Paul, " the Spirit helpeth our infiroiities." 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 41 
 
 Again : " And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for 
 thee : for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most 
 gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in mine infirmities, 
 that the power of Christ may rest upon me." Again : 
 " Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling ; 
 for it is God which worketh in you to will and to do of his 
 good pleasure." The Psalmist says, " In the day when 
 I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with 
 strength in my soul." Why is this strength imparted, if 
 all men are naturally able to do what is required of them? 
 
 The same consequence results from the declarations 
 which are given respecting the sufficiency of grace. "My 
 grace is sufficient for thee ;" " I can do all things through 
 Christ who strenglheneth me." Why these declarations 
 of the sufficiency of grace, if men are able, without it, to do 
 what God requires of them. 
 
 If, then, the Scriptures assure us that the grace of God 
 is absolutely necessary to enable us to do the will of God 
 — if they inform us that the apostles prayed that grace 
 might be ■ imparted for that very purpose — if they inform 
 us that for this very purpose grace is actually communi- 
 cated — if they emphatically assure us of the sufficiency 
 of grace for that purpose — and if they clearly state that 
 the inability which grace is intended to remove is not vm- 
 willingness merely, but an inability which exists after the 
 will is brought over to the side of obedience, and while it 
 is making repeated and desperate effiarts to keep the com- 
 mandments — what stronger evidence can be imagined 
 against the doctrine, that all men have a natural ability to 
 do what is required, as indispensable to salvation? "What 
 need we any further witnesses ?" 
 
42 NEW DIVINITY-»-ABrLITY. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ABILITY CONTINUED. 
 
 Unscriptural as is this doctrine, its advocates are 
 elaborate in its defence. We proceed, therefore, to ex- 
 amine the arguments by which they endeavour to sus- 
 tain it. 
 
 f Mr. Barnes distinguishes ability into kinds, and as- 
 sumes that he has gained his point when he has shown 
 that man must be supposed to possess some kind of ability, 
 or ability in some sense. " It is certainly possible," he 
 says, " that a man reading the word unable in the confes- 
 sion, may have learned to suppose that it meant all kinds 
 of inability." — Defence, p. 79. Again : " There are two 
 kinds of inability ; one arising from the want of physical 
 power, the other from a want of inclination or will." — 
 p. 153. Again : " If Dr. Junkin charges me with error in 
 this," that is, in holding the doctrine of natural ability to 
 repent and believe, " he holds the contrary, that is, ' that 
 unrcgenerate men are not able to keep the commandments 
 of God ; that there is no ability of any kind to yield obe- 
 dience, &c.' " It is here assumed, evidently, that to deny 
 that man has a natural ability, is to deny that he has any 
 kind of ability ; and, of course, that to prove that he has a 
 kind of ability, is to prove that he has a natural ability. 
 In answering this argument we shall not object to the prac- 
 tice of distinguishing ability into kinds. It is based on 
 the common distribution of the faculties of our nature into 
 physical or corporeal, intellectual, and moral. It is sup- 
 posed that each class of faculties has its own peculiar 
 energy. Hence metaphysicians speak of physical, intel- 
 lectual, and moral power. From this reasonable classifi- 
 cation the distinction of ability into natural and moral de- 
 rives all its plausibility. But the latter distinction is very 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 43 
 
 different from the former, and is wholly arbitrary, as will 
 be shown hereafter. It is contrived for theological pur- 
 poses. 
 
 Is it not, however, grossly absurd to pretend that an 
 individual has a natural ability to perform a particular ac- 
 tion, or a certain series of actions, merely because he 
 possesses a kind of power, while he may be destitute of 
 other kinds, equally indispensable ? Does it not require all 
 the kinds of power requisite to the performance of an ac- 
 tion, to constitute the ability to perform it 1 Besides, power 
 may be divided into degrees as well as kinds ; and it takes 
 all the kinds and all the degrees of power, necessary to 
 the performance of an action, to constitute the ability in 
 question. If there be absent any one of the kinds of power 
 which may be requisite, or if there be a defect as to the 
 degree of power, the ability to perform the action does not 
 exist. To assert the existence of ability to perform a 
 specific action, in the absence of one or more of the essen- 
 tial constituents of that ability, is as absurd as to assert 
 the existence of a whole in the absence of several of its 
 component parts. 
 
 Samson possessed power to sunder the green withs 
 with which the Philistines bound him, and to carry off the 
 ponderous gates of Gaza. Now, admitting that ability is 
 distinguishable into kinds, the ability of Samson must have 
 included all the kinds and degrees of ability, which the 
 performances alluded to necessarily called into action. 
 Had he been destitute of any one of the requisite kinds ; 
 or, possessing all the kinds, had he been destitute of the 
 requisite degree, he could not have burst the withs, he 
 could not have upheaved the gates. It is not merely a 
 kind of ability that is wanted, but the ability itself. The 
 case is plain. I have all the kinds of ability that Samson 
 had, namely, physical, intellectual, and moral, and yet I 
 have not ability to perform feats of strength equal to those 
 
44 I^EW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 which he performed. Why? Simply because I have not 
 the degree of power which he had. Were I to publish 
 that I am able to perform achievements equal to those re- 
 corded of Samson, and when called upon to give evidence 
 of it, reply, that I have a kind of ability, and all that I want 
 is another kind, equally indispensable, would I not there- 
 by render myself ridiculous ? Just as ridiculous do these 
 sage theologians make themselves, when they assert that 
 the sinner has a natural ability to repent and believe the 
 gospel ; and is, therefore, under obligation to repent and 
 believe, merely because he possesses a Hnd of ability, 
 while he is yet destitute of another kind, which is es- 
 sentially requisite. 
 
 Take another illustration. An individual in distress 
 solicits your charity. You have the disposition to relieve 
 him, and you have all the intelligence that is necessary ; 
 but, in searching your pockets, you find that you have no 
 money. Now, although you have two of the kinds of power 
 which are requisite, moral and intellectual, there is one 
 kind which you have not, and the absence of that, renders 
 you wholly unable. But suppose some one in company 
 with you should insist on your giving money to the indi- 
 vidual, or being stigmatized as unfeeling and penurious ; 
 and affirm that if you had " no sort of ability" you would 
 be excusable ; but having " some kind of ability," you 
 are fully able, and under a moral obligation, to give him 
 money, although you have not a single cent at your dis- 
 posal, would you not laugh at the absurdity of his reason- 
 ing T Equally absurd is the doctrine that the sinner is able 
 to love God, because he has " a kind of ability," called 
 natural, or any thing else, while he is destitute of another 
 kind, without which no man ever did, or ever will, or ever 
 can, love God, and which God gives to, and withholds 
 from, whom he pleases. The cases are precisely parallel. 
 
 It is also supposed, that a denial of the doctrine of a 
 
NEW DlVlNITy — ABILITT, 45 
 
 natural ability to serve God, is equivalent to the assertion 
 that men are utterly unable to do v^fhat is required of them. 
 Hence the advocates of that doctrine exhibit in its support, 
 with great satisfaction and triumph, those scriptures and 
 arguments which prove that God does not demand of us 
 what we are absolutely incapable of perfonning. That 
 great summary of law, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
 with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
 strength, and with all thy mind," is brought forward to 
 prove that man has the ability naturally to obey the divine 
 law. The opposite doctrine, we are told,makes God atyrant. 
 That this and similar texts, and the reasonings founded on 
 them, abundantly disprove the doctrine that man is wholly 
 unable to love and obey God, is imdeniable. Exit they do 
 not prove that he has a natural ability to do these things. 
 It is not the case, that denying the doctrine of a natural 
 ability to obey God involves the consequence that we are 
 totally unable to obey him. Methodism is equally opposed 
 to the doctrine of the entire inability of man to do any thing 
 toward his salvation, as held by Calvinists of the Old 
 School, and to the doctrine of a natural ability to obey God, 
 as held by those of the New School, and Pelagians gene- 
 rally. These doctrines are equally distant from the truth. 
 We hold that while no man has naturally the ability to 
 repent and believe the gospel, the grace of God is vouch- 
 safed to every man to enable him to take the steps neces- 
 sary to his salvation. When, therefore, our New School 
 brethren suppose that they have established the doctrine 
 by these argximents, they are wholly mistaken. They 
 have only proved man's ability, in opposition to the doc- 
 trine of his entire and absolute inability. Whether that 
 ability is natural or not, is a question which remains to be 
 settled. They have not advanced a step toward the proof 
 of it. The searguments they have borrowed from the theo- 
 logy of Methodism ; and while they fail to establish their 
 
46 NEW DIVINITY- ABILITY. 
 
 doctrine of natural ability, they can easily be turned with 
 fatal effect against their doctrine of moral inability. 
 
 Another fallacy resorted to, for the .purpose of proving 
 the doctrine in dispute, consists in confounding power with 
 powers or faculties, and identifying the question — Does 
 man possess naturally the ability to repent and believe the 
 gospel ? with the question — Is he in possession of all the 
 constitutional faculties of our nature ? Accordingly, some 
 of their most confident arguments are directed to the 
 object of proving that man has not lost any of his con- 
 stitutional faculties. Dr. Beecher, in his work entitled 
 " Views in Theology," written in vindication of his 
 orthodoxy, remarks, " I commence with the subject of free 
 agency, or the natural ability of man, as the foundation of 
 obligation and moral government." This natural ability 
 he explains to be " the intellectual and moral faculties, 
 which God has given to man commensurate with his re- 
 quirements ;" — " the plenary powers of a free agent." — 
 p. 67. His reasonings are based on this definition. 
 
 He remarks, '* That nothing has been subtracted by the 
 fall from the powers of agency requisite to the possibility 
 of obedience, is strongly evident from the fact that no one, 
 by the most careful analysis of the mind, has ever been 
 able to detect and name the fatal deficiency. The motive 
 to make such an exculpatory discovery, and throw off 
 hated obligation and feared punishment, has been power- 
 ful as the terrors of eternity, and the effort as constant as 
 the flow of ages, and urged with all that talent, and inge- 
 nuity, and learning could apply, and the wisdom from be- 
 neath inspire, to establish the excusable impotency of 
 man ; and to this day the effort has proved abortive. To 
 appearance, the powers of the mind, and the law of God, 
 and the glorious gospel, and the providence of God, are, 
 as they should be, to render obedience a reasonable ser- 
 vice, and impenitence and unbelief without excuse ; and 
 
NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY, 47 
 
 where, amid the constitutional powers of agency, the de- 
 fect lies, has never been discovered ; what it is has never 
 been told, or that there is any such defect proved." — 
 P. 31. 
 
 Mr. Duffield, in his work on regeneration, says, " The 
 terms ability and power may denote, either the effective 
 force or energy, or the particular faculty or capacity for 
 exerting that force." In explaining natural ability he 
 adopts the latter sense ; he explains it to be " the con- 
 stitutional capacities requisite to believe and repent." 
 In this definition it is perceived at once that the words 
 ability and faculties are used as synonymous, and that the 
 " natural ability" is identified with the constitutional 
 faculties of our nature. 
 
 Mr. Barnes, in his reply to that part of the protest 
 against his sermon which relates to the ability of sin- 
 ners, says, " The design of these passages Avas to affirm 
 that salvation was offered to all men — that they were un- 
 der no compulsory means — no physical force, to ruin them 
 — that they were not under a defect of any natural power of 
 intellect, judgment, or conscience to do this duty — that the 
 duty which God required had been measured by the na- 
 ture of the human faculties — and that if he went beyond 
 that limit it must be unjust." — P. 75. 
 
 Although Mr. Hinton does not formally define ability to 
 consist in the possession of constitutional faculties, he con- 
 founds it with faculties, when it suits his argument. In 
 attempting to prove that the Holy Spirit does not impart 
 additional power in regeneration, he remarks, " Birth and 
 creation, it will be admitted, do involve the production of 
 new powers. But when these terms are applied to the 
 conversion of a sinner, we are immediately met by the fact 
 that the powers of moral action are already in existence, 
 namely, his intelligent faculties. Here is no room there- 
 fore for the production of 7iew powers ; and hence, of ne- 
 
"?8 NEW DIVINITY— ABILITV. 
 
 cessity, the analogy and the force of the metaphor are 
 confined to the production of new action." — -p. 227. 
 
 A striking example of this fallacy is found in a recent 
 English work, entitled " Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, 
 Election, &c., by George Payne, LL. D." He attempts 
 to refute the doctrine that man is indebted to supernatural 
 influence for his ability to keep the law of God, and com- 
 plains loudly, that neither the Rev. Richard Watson, in his 
 Theological Institutes, nor Bishop Tomline, defines the 
 term poiver. His " decided impression is, that neither they 
 nor Arminians in general attach any definite meaning to 
 the tenn. They write as if their conceptions w^ere very 
 loose and indefinite, and yet as if they did not suspect this 
 to be the case." He tells his readers that " these are not 
 the times when loose and ambiguous statements can be 
 permitted to go unexamined and unsifted." " I can," says 
 he, " conceive of two senses only, in which the term power 
 ' can be used in this connection ; if there are more than 
 two, I shall consider myself indebted to any individual 
 who will point them out. The two senses of -which only 
 I am at present cognizant are those which have been more 
 than once referred to, namely, disposition and physical 
 capacity. When, therefore, Mr. Watson afl!irms that man 
 has lost both his will and his power to obey God, the lan- 
 guage is, to my apprehension, equivalent with the decla- 
 ration that he has lost his disposition and physical capacity 
 to obey God." What Mr. Payne means by physical ca- 
 pacity, as distinguished from will or disposition, will be 
 made manifest as he proceeds. " I now seek for informa- 
 tion," he adds, " whether, in the judgment of the x\rminian, 
 Adam did lose his physical capacity to obey his Creator ? 
 Should he reply in the negative,\hcn I would further inquire, 
 Since the loss was by hypothesis more than disposition, 
 and yet was not physical power, what is that strange ter' 
 tium quid between will and physical power — partaking of 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 49 
 
 the properties of neither, or rather, perhaps, being an un- 
 natural mixture of both — which completes the amount of 
 his loss 1 Will any one attempt to explain it ? Is it ex- 
 plicable ? Can it even be conceived ? Should the reply be 
 in the ajjirmative, should it be said that he lost physical 
 power, I would ask whether he lost the whole of his 
 physical powers, or some of them only. Had the former 
 been the case, that is, had he lost sensation, memory, judg- 
 ment, volition, &c., he must have ceased to be a man; he 
 must have sunk even below a brute. If it be said that he 
 lost some of them only, I ask, which ? Was it the under- 
 standing, the memory, the judgment, the conscience, &c.? 
 Experience proves they all remain. Degraded as man is, 
 he has suffered no loss of any physical power essential to 
 obedience ; for there is nothing which God commands 
 him to do which he could not do if he would." From 
 such reasoning Mr. Payne concludes that man has power 
 to obey the gospel, without supernatural influence, and 
 vauntingly remarks, with reference to his opponents, that 
 " Ten thousand absurdities have been uttered on this sub- 
 ject, by those who have theological words without theo- 
 logical ideas, whose creed is a creed of symbols rather 
 than things." — pp. 76, 77. 
 
 It is evident from these passages, that those who deny 
 the Kioctrine of natural ability to do what God requires as 
 indispensable to salvation, are placed by its advocates in 
 the attitude of denying that fallen man is in possession of 
 all the constitutional faculties of his nature. It is affirmed 
 again and again, in defence of this doctrine, that the moral 
 ability, or regeneration, imparts no new faculty. It is 
 true, they do not always abide by this definition. They 
 do not always use the phrase, natural ability, in this sense. 
 It is frequently used in the popular sense ; and on their 
 dexterity in shifting from one sense to another depends 
 the success of the contrivance. 
 
 3 
 
50 NEW DIVINITY ABILIfV. 
 
 But was ever philosophy, or common sense, more Avan- 
 tonly outraged than by confounding ability to perforin a 
 certain act, or series of acts, with constitutional powers or 
 faculties ? May not the most active and efficient man in 
 the country, in all the various departments of human en- 
 terprise, be so reduced by sickness as to be utterly unable 
 to rise from his bed, or even to speak audibly ? But has 
 he lost a constitutional faculty ? Is it the business of the 
 physician or the nurse to restore a constitutional faculty ? 
 Has he not, in his disabled condition, all the powers or facul- 
 ties he ever had ? And yet, according to these philosophic 
 theologians, he has a natural ability to perform these or any 
 other acts that come within the compass of human ability, 
 because he has all the faculties of a man. This boasted 
 natural ability turns out, therefore, to be no ability at all. 
 
 And now let us see if the moral ability, or disposition, 
 "will help the invalid out of his difficulty. He has the will. 
 He desires to speak. He makes repeated and resolute 
 efforts to speak and rise from his couch, plainly showing 
 that there is no inability of will — that he possesses the 
 moral as well as the physical ability, and yet he cannot. 
 With all this parade of metaphysical learning and discri 
 mination, the true idea of ability is wholly overlooked. It 
 is fairly excluded by the definitions of both kinds of ability. 
 It does not reside in the natural ability. It does not reside 
 in the moral ability, or disposition. It falls down, between 
 them, into the safercustody of common sense and Methodism. 
 
 Look, for a moment, at some of the consequences of this 
 definition of ability ! If the possession of all the constitu- 
 tional faculties of human nature, constitutes ability to per- 
 form any given act which a human being may possibly 
 perform, it will follow, inevitably, either that I have power 
 to perform feats of strength equal to those for which Go- 
 liath and Samson were celebrated, or that I am deficient 
 in constitutional faculties. It will follow, either that an 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 51 
 
 infant is able to do all that the most able man can do, or 
 that it is destitute of one or more of the constitutional 
 faculties of our nature. 
 
 Again, let us try the application of this definition of 
 ability to the purpose of laying the foundation of moral 
 accountability, and vindicating the divine government in 
 the punishment of the impenitent : for this is one of the 
 important uses assigned it. The possession of the facul- 
 ties of our nature is supposed to constitute a natural ability, 
 and that is considered as the basis of moral obligation, and 
 sufficient to justify Jehovah in the everlasting pvmishment 
 of the impenitent and unbelieving. From these premises 
 it is as clearly deducible that infants are naturally able to 
 do all that may be required of fuU-gTOwn men and women ; 
 that they have a natural ability to repent and believe the 
 gospel, and are therefore justly accountable for the per- 
 formance of these exercises, and justly punishable, and 
 actually liable to punishment, for the nonperformance of 
 them. To deny that infants possess all the constitutional 
 faculties of our nature would imply that these faculties 
 may be acquired by growth or education, which would be 
 the same as to deny that they are constitutional. 
 
 We are now prepared to answer Mr. Payne's significant 
 demand for the " tertium quid" which he so humorously 
 describes. It is power itself. The very thing which he 
 attempts to define, but entirely overlooks. Whatever may 
 be his success on other occasions, he has, in this instance, 
 signally failed to sustain his lofty pretensions to superior 
 precision. His arguments have been directed to prove 
 what every Arminian would cheerfully admit, and what, 
 we presume, no one of any creed would deny ; so that he 
 has dealt his giant blows on an imaginary foe. The 
 " theological idea" which he attaches to the term power, is 
 foreign to the subject under consideration ; and he has yet 
 before him the task of proving that the sinner ha« power, 
 
53 NEW DIVINITY ABILITV. 
 
 as the people generally understand the term, to repent and 
 believe, without the assistance of grace. 
 
 The advocates of the doctrine of natural ability fre 
 quently confound it with the doctrine oifree agency. This 
 is done by Dr. Beecher. He defines it, as we have seen, 
 to consist in " the plenary powers of a free agent ;" and 
 throughout his argument on this subject treats these two 
 questions as identical. " I commence with the subject 
 of free agency, or the natural ability of man, as the found- 
 ation of obligation, &c.," is the language with which he 
 opens his defence. — p. 15. Again he says, "There is 
 not a dispute about doctrine, at this time, in the Presby- 
 terian Church, which does not originate in discrepant 
 opinions respecting the created constitutional powers of 
 man as a free agent, and the grounds of moral obligation 
 and personal accountability." Again : " Nothing is appa- 
 rent in the nature of the fall from which to infer necessa- 
 rily the destruction of the constitutional powers of free 
 agency in Adam or his posterity." — p. 29. We find 
 another example of this error in a tract entitled " Man a 
 Free Agent without the Aids of Divine Grace," 
 which is considered one of the ablest arguments extant, 
 against the Arminian views of ability. The opponents 
 of the doctrine of natural ability are thus placed in the 
 position of denying the doctrine of free agency, while its 
 advocates avail themselves of the powerful and unanswer- 
 able arguments in favour of the doctrine of free agency, 
 and set them down as so much in favour of the doctrine 
 of natural ability. And if the arguments which belong to 
 one of these doctrines were equally applicable to both, 
 they would acquire an easy triumph. But they are not. 
 The doctrines are not the same. The arguments which 
 apply to the one do not apply to the other. 
 
 The question now to be settled is not whether man is a 
 free agent, but whether man, who is unquestionably a free 
 
NBW DIVINITY ABILITY. ^J^ 
 
 agent, is naturally able — able without grace to assist him, 
 to perforin certain prescribed exercises. All men are free 
 agents, and yet some men can perform acts far beyond the 
 utmost ability of others. Because the school-boy is a free 
 agent, is he therefore able to do whatever his tutor or his 
 parents can do ? If it be essential to free agency to be 
 naturally able to do whatever is possible to be done, God 
 is the only free agent in the universe. 
 
 It would indeed be a marvellous affair, if Calvinism and 
 Methodism should so change ground, that the latter should 
 deny the doctrine of free agency, and the former stand up 
 in defence of it. But this has not been done. This is 
 not the state of the controversy. Calvinism has denied it. 
 Methodism never did. We have contended for it from the 
 beginning, and borne no little reproach on that account. 
 "We have as long and as constantly opposed the Pelagian 
 doctrine of natural ability. 
 
 A little further explanation will lay the matter fairly 
 open. Calvinists, pressed by the arguments of their op- 
 ponents against the doctrine of the foreordination, and con- 
 sequent necessity, of every event that comes to pass, have 
 been compelled to admit that man is a free agent, in order 
 to lay the basis of human accountability, and justify re- 
 wards and punishments. The task has then devolved 
 upon them of reconciling their doctrine of predestination 
 with man's free agency. In this field they have had to 
 labour with distressing, exhausting toil. They have con- 
 trived, however, a theory, or perhaps a variety of theories, 
 which, in their estimation, bring these tenets to an agree- 
 ment. But, after all, their free agency is one which can 
 do nothing but what was preordained from all eternity, and 
 is brought about by the providence of God, working by a 
 very complicate, but effective machinery of influence, ope- 
 rating, however, as they say, in accordance with the laws 
 of mind." 
 
64 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 But when they have got through the task of reconciling 
 the predestination of all events with man's free agency, 
 the patient and assiduous employment of all their learning 
 and ingenuity is demanded, in order to reconcile the 
 election of a definite number of men to eternal life, to 
 the exclusion of all the rest, and the particular and ex- 
 clusive redemption, by Christ, of the elect, with the offers 
 of salvation to all men, and the obligation of all men to 
 repent and believe the gospel. For, admitting that all men 
 are free agents, what chance for salvation have those for 
 whose salvation God has made no provision, and whose 
 exclusion from saving mercy he has decreed ? Why offer 
 salvation to those for whom it is not intended, and who 
 have not power to accept it ? It is for the purpose of 
 reconciling these doctrines, as we have shown, that the 
 distinction of ability into natural and moral is resorted to ; 
 and from this distinction, maintained for this purpose, arises 
 the doctrine of the natural ability of all men to repent and 
 believe. 
 
 Shall we inquire into the nature of the free agency for 
 which they contend 1 It is defined, by the author of the 
 tract, to consist " in the faculties of understanding, con- 
 science, and will." He argues, " We know, therefore, 
 that man did not lose his free agency in Adam, unless he 
 ceased to be man ; for understanding, conscience, and will, 
 which make him a free agent, are constituent parts of his 
 nature, &c." Again : " The only question is, are these 
 faculties, understanding, conscience, and will, produced by 
 supernatural grace ? Do they pertain to man, as man ; or 
 are they supernatural appendages ?" But who, we ask, 
 ever denied, or made it necessary to prove, such a free 
 agency as this 1 Who ever supposed such a free agency 
 to be imparted by " supernatural grace ?" Were an Armi- 
 nian to forget himself so far as to deny that man is a free 
 agent, or assert that he is dependent for his free agency 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 55 
 
 on the influence of grace, he would not mean that man is 
 destitute of " understanding, conscience, and will," or that 
 he has these faculties through grace ; but that he has not 
 power to exercise these faculties otherwise than he does, or 
 that he depends on grace for that power. And such a po- 
 sition would be entirely beyond the reach of the arguments 
 of the tract. It would be wholly different from that against 
 which they are directed. They merely prove that man 
 possesses all his constitutional faculties, without the assist- 
 ance of grace. But why did not this Avriter prove that man 
 is a free agent without grace, in the Arminian sense of 
 the term ? Because Calvinism does not recognise man as 
 a free agent in that sense. While it accords to him a 
 free agency which consists merely in the possession of 
 faculties, it teaches that every exercise of these faculties 
 is predetermined and brought about by God. 
 
 The ulterior design of this argument is to prove that 
 free agency, without grace, involves ability to do, without 
 grace, whatever is necessary to salvation. The writer 
 says, " The power or faculty which chooses evil and 
 which chooses good, is the same power differently used. 
 There can be no sin in choosing evil unless there be power 
 to choose good ; or what is the same thing in an account- 
 able being, power to avoid choosing evil." Again : " But 
 man's ability and free agency are coextensive : and if he 
 is responsible so far, and so far only, as he has ability, 
 then so far, and so far only, is he a free agent." But the 
 amount of the ability, which this demonstration contem- 
 plates, will be apparent, when his definition of power is 
 taken into the account. He says, in a note, " The writer 
 would acquaint the reader, that whenever he ascribes 
 power or ability to sinful man to obey God, he speaks 
 simply of the faculties which are here spoken of, as con- 
 stituting him a free agent." We are thus seasonably cau- 
 tioned against supposing that he ascribes to the sinner 
 
56 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 power in the proper sense of the term — in the sense in 
 which it is usually understood. He means by power, 
 merely the possession of faculties. It is not necessary to 
 accountability, on his scheme, that man should be able to 
 exercise his faculties as is required of him, but merely 
 that he possess the faculties themselves. We ask, in 
 the language of Job, and with a somewhat similar feeling, 
 " What doth this arguing reprove ?" It is doubtless in- 
 tended to leave the impression, that man is a free agent, 
 without grace, in the popular and proper sense of the term, 
 and that free agency includes the power, strictly speaking, 
 to do, without grace, whatever is necessary to salvation ; 
 but between such a conclusion, and the arguments of the 
 tract, there is obviously no logical connection whatever. 
 
 But, apart from the sophistries of this writer, it may be 
 both entertaining and profitable to inquire, if it is, in fact, 
 essential to free agency to be able to comply with the 
 terms of salvation. We think it is not. A being may be 
 able to act otherwise than he does, in a great variety of 
 instances, and yet be unable to pursue a certain course of 
 action, necessary to the attainment of a certain end. As 
 has already been said, it is not necessary to free agency, 
 to be able to do whatever is possible to be done. It is no 
 more necessary to free agency, in the abstract, to be able 
 to repent of sin, and love God with all the heart, and our 
 neighbour as ourselves, or perform any other specific ex- 
 ercises, than it is to be able to fly, or breathe as freely in 
 the water as in the open air. The range of a man's free- 
 dom may be very much circumscribed without destroying 
 his free agency. Imprison him, and he is still a free 
 agent. Chain him to the floor of his prison, and he has 
 still, to some extent, freedom of thought and action. So 
 the fall may have greatly restricted our liberty ; it may 
 have destroyed our freedom of will, in respect to many 
 things, without destroying our free agency itself. The 
 
 \ 
 
NEW BlVlNll'V-— ABILlfV. '5Y 
 
 attribute nisy still remain, though its operations be con- 
 fined within a narrow sphere. And this, so far as we un- 
 derstand it, is the doctrine of Arminianism. It does not 
 teach that the fall has destroyed man's power of acting, 
 in any instance, otherwise than he does act ; but of per- 
 forming a certain class of actions. The langiiage of our 
 Church on the subject is, " The condition of man after the 
 fall of Adam is such, that he cannot prepare himself, by 
 his own natural strength and works, to faith and calling 
 upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, 
 pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God 
 by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and 
 working with us when we have that good will." 
 
 Whatever difficulties may attach to this theory, we cer- 
 tainly shall not seek to relieve ourselves of them by adopt- 
 ing that which is presented by modern Calvinism. For 
 if the whole of man's power consists merely in the pos- 
 session of constitutional faculties, and every exercise of 
 these faculties was foreordained by God, and is brought 
 about by his influence, as Calvinists hold, we should de- 
 spair of being able to prove him a free agent, either with 
 or without grace. 
 
 The argument of our opponents frequently proceeds on 
 the assumption, that to deny that fallen man possesses a 
 natural ability to obey the gospel, involves the conse 
 quence, that he has " no natural power." The fallacy of 
 this is glaring. To deny, without any qualification, that 
 man has natural ability, would be absurd indeed. But 
 this is not the question. We deny that he possesses a 
 natural ability to perform those specific exercises which 
 God requires, in order to his salvation. Every living 
 man is supposed to have natural abihty to do somethings 
 but that does not imply a natural ability to do every thing. 
 Samson had natural ability when, shorn of his extraordi- 
 nary strength, he went but as another man ; but that does 
 
 3* 
 
58 NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY- 
 
 not prove that the strength by which he carried off the 
 gates of Gaza was natural to him. Nor is it necessary 
 for us to maintain that fallen man has not power, naturally, 
 to do, in many instances, what may be required of him, 
 in preference to what he actually does. Take the mur- 
 derer, for instance, or the man who has defrauded the 
 government, — we need not assume the ground, that grace 
 was necessary to enable these men to have acted differ- 
 ently, in these respects, from what they are supposed to 
 have done. And certainly the law of God required them 
 to act differently. The law of God requires the right use 
 of the power we possess naturally, as well as that imparted 
 by divine influence. But a very partial conformity to the 
 law in some instances, is a very different thing from the 
 performance of whatever the law demands. To decline 
 murder, or robbery, or adultery, is not sufficient to make 
 a man a Christian. The question, therefore, returns un- 
 settled, — Has man, without gracious influence assisting 
 him, the power to do whatever is indispensable to his 
 salvation ? 
 
 It is also assumed that those scriptures which charge 
 on sinners an unwillingness to come to Christ, prove that 
 they possess naturally the ability which is necessary. 
 These texts certainly prove what they inculcate, but they 
 neither affirm nor imply any thing respecting the source of 
 the power by which those who ivill to obey the claims of 
 duty, carry their purposes into execution. And yet this 
 is the point in dispute. They are perfectly consistent 
 with the doctrine, that for the power to take the first, and 
 each successive step, the sinner is indebted to divine in- 
 fluence — a doctrine which, in other parts of the Scriptures, 
 is positively asserted. We suppose that had the man with 
 the withered hand refused to stretch it forth, he would 
 have defeated the kind intentions of the Saviour. But 
 does this fact prove that he had power to stretch it forth 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 59 
 
 independently of the power of Christ ? Neither does the 
 fact, that the unwillingness of sinners to come to Christ 
 prevents their salvation, prove that they have power to 
 come to Christ unaided by the Spirit. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ABILITY CONTINUED. 
 
 The reader will perceive that the question at issue is 
 not, whether man possesses one or more of the different 
 kinds of ability, into which power may be distinguished ; 
 or whether he is, without grace, wholly destitute of natu- 
 ral power ; or whether he can, in any instance, act other- 
 wise than he does, without divine influence ; or whether 
 he possesses all the constitutional faculties of human na- 
 ture ; or whether he is a free agent. Nor is it, whether 
 he actually possesses the ability requisite to the observ- 
 ance of the divine law; but Avhether, admitting that he 
 possesses the requisite ability, does he possess it naturally 
 and independently of the influences of the Holy Spirit. 
 We think that we have shown unanswerably that he does 
 not. 
 
 But the argaunents of our opponents are not all defen- 
 sive. They have made resolute aggressions on the.Ar- 
 minian doctrine. It is argued, that, as no man can be 
 responsible for the nonperformance of what is beyond his 
 ability, — as total inability is incompatible with moral obli- 
 gation, — to teach that grace is necessary to impart ability 
 to keep the law of God, is to make grace necessary to 
 accountability. This objection is pushed out to remoter 
 consequences ; and with the view of overwhelming Ar- 
 minianism with absurdities, we are told, that, according 
 to our doctrine, man is not only made a responsible being 
 
60 NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY. 
 
 by grace, but also becomes punishable by grace, and, of 
 course, if damned, is damned by grace, so that the grace of 
 the Arminian turns out to be a curse rather than a blessing 
 
 It is not necessary, in answering this objection, to deny 
 that man is responsible in proportion to his ability. In- 
 deed the foundation of this objection has, in our estima- 
 tion, already been swept away. It evidently assumes, that 
 the doctrine that man has not power, without gracious aid, 
 to do whatever is required of him, is equivalent to the as- 
 sertion that he has no power whatever without grace — no 
 natural ability. This does not follow. We might be able 
 to act differently from what we do, without grace, and yet 
 be unable to perform those exercises with which God has 
 seen proper to connect our salvation. An inability to do 
 one thing, may not imply an inability to do another. Had 
 not God seen proper to require of man more than he has 
 power naturally to perform, and to empower him to meet 
 those requirements, by supernatural influence, he might 
 still have constituted him a responsible being, by bringing 
 down the exactions of his government to a level with his 
 natural ability. The law of God requires, as we have 
 already seen, that all the power we possess should be ap- 
 propriately exerted, whether that poAver be natural or 
 supernatural. So that grace may not be necessary to con- 
 stitute man a responsible being, although it greatly affects 
 the degree of his responsibility. He may be responsible, 
 and yet not responsible for that which exceeds his ability. 
 
 But admitting, for argument sake, that our theory does 
 make man's accountability to depend wholly on power 
 supernaturally imparted, the objection alleged against it, 
 on this ground, may be shown to be wholly imaginary. 
 
 That power and advantages affect obligations and re- 
 sponsibilities cannot be denied. This principle is seen 
 to operate on various orders of animated being. For in- 
 stance, a man has a right to require service of the inferior 
 
NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY. 61 
 
 animals. But he cannot justly require of his dog the 
 services which he may justly require of his horse. The 
 reason is obvious. He may, for the same reason, be 
 chargeable with cruelty in exacting of one of his horses, 
 the services he might with perfect humanity require of 
 another, on account of the difference between them in 
 respect to swiftness or strength. It will be readily ad- 
 mitted, that the responsibilities of man are very differ- 
 ent from those of brutes. God, by conferring on him 
 reason, has made him subject to laws and retributions, 
 which are utterly inapplicable to them. 
 
 And, dropping the comparison between men and inferior 
 creatures, the responsibilities of men are found to vary, 
 on this very principle. Here is an idiot ; has he the same 
 responsibility with the man of sound mind 1 And among 
 those in possession of reason there is a wide difference 
 as to accountability. The man who has been denied the 
 advantages of education, and is, moreover, doomed to 
 poverty and sickness, differs widely in this respect from 
 the man who possesses the advantages of property, and 
 health, and learning. 
 
 Now, what is that doctrine against which this objection 
 is urged 1 It is this, that God has seen fit, for the superior 
 happiness of man, and his ov/n glory, instead of bringing 
 down the requirements of his law to the natural ability of 
 fallen and depraved man, to require more of him than he 
 is naturally able to perform, and to make up the deficiency 
 of power by supernatural influence. That this influence, 
 and the power it imparts, increase our responsibilities, 
 and affect the retributive awards of divine justice, we not 
 only admit, but freely and emphatically assert. But this 
 is a most equitable and universal principle of government.' 
 The objection is therefore wholly baseless. 
 
 But if the objector still insists upon it, let him be warned 
 of the position in which he places himself. He must 
 
62 NEW DIVINITY — ABILITY. 
 
 either deny that responsibility is graduated on this prin- 
 ciple, and hold that God may justly require of a brute all 
 that he requires of a man* — of an idiot, all that he requires 
 of one possessed of sound intelligence ; or that, as horses 
 and idiots are not morally accountable, nor capable of sin- 
 ning against him, nor liable to damnation, the bestowment 
 of those qualifications which make the difference in re- 
 sponsibility, and render liable to the awful punishments 
 of hell, is a curse and not a blessing. To be consistent, 
 he must deny that these superior qualifications are bless- 
 ings, or swallow the absurdities which he attempts to force 
 upon us, namely, that man is made a sinner by the divine 
 blessing, is made punishable by the divine blessing, and 
 is damned by the divine blessing. 
 
 The principle of the objection is, that an acquisition, to 
 be a blessing, or of grace, must involve no additional re- 
 sponsibility. Its practical bearing is, that there would be 
 no grace in saving a drowning man ; in opening the eyes 
 ,of the blind ; in substituting the light and order of reason 
 for the darkness and confusion of insanity ; or in sending 
 the gospel to the heathen, imless it were ascertained that 
 these acts would not impose increased responsibility. 
 
 Thus we see that the rock of offence, which the ob- 
 jector has raised against us, falls back upon himself, "and 
 grinds him to powder." It would seem as though some 
 theologists were willing to borrow arguments from infi- 
 delity itself, for the purpose of discrediting Arminianism ; 
 and are determined to destroy it, even if, for that purpose, 
 they must undermine the whole fabric of Christianity. 
 
 Another objection is, that, inasmuch as justice requires 
 that power should be commensurate with responsibility, 
 there is a contradiction' in saying, that the power for the 
 exercise of which we are responsible, is of grace. It is 
 thus presented by Mr. Finney : " This giving the sinner 
 power, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to obey God, is what 
 
 \ 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 63 
 
 the Arminians call a gracious ability, which terms are a 
 manifest absurdity. What is grace 1 It is undeserved 
 favour ; something to which we have no claim in justice ; 
 that which may be withheld without injustice. If this is 
 a true definition, it is plain that a gracious abihty to do 
 our duty is absurd. It is a dictate of reason, of conscience, 
 of common sense, and of our natural sense of justice, that 
 if God require of us the performance of any duty or act, 
 he is bound in justice to give us power to obey ; that is, 
 he must give us the faculties and strength to perform the 
 act. But if justice require it, why call it a gracious 
 ability ? Natural ability to do our duty cannot be a gra- 
 cious ability. To call it so is to confound grace and jus- 
 tice as meaning the same thing." — Sermons, p. 25. 
 
 This argument depends for its plausibility on the m.ean- 
 ing which those who employ it choose to attach to the 
 term grace. That it signifies favour is undeniable ; but 
 this is not the only sense in which it is used. It also sig-, 
 nifies the influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart ; and! 
 we can hardly suppose that it did not occur to Mr. F., that'' 
 this might be the sense in which Arminians use it in 
 this connection. But the recognition of this fact would 
 have spoiled his argument. It is a matter of indifTerence 
 to us, so far as the doctrine under consideration is con- 
 cerned, whether the spiritual influence, which we afiirm 
 to be necessary, be called grace or justice — whether the 
 ability imparted be called gracious ability or equitable 
 ability. The truth still remains, that to this influence 
 man is indebted for his ability to obey the gospel. Thus 
 easily, as we think, is this boastful argument destroyed ; 
 it is a mere play upon terms. The communication of the 
 requisite power may be both of grace and justice, without 
 confounding the meaning of the terms. Whether the 
 power is of grace, in the sense of favour or not, is a dis- 
 tinct question. 
 
64 NEW PIVTNITY — ABILITY. 
 
 And even if the term grace be taken in the latter sense, 
 there will be no contradiction in supposing that the power 
 it imparts is, at the same time, of justice. A work may 
 be commenced as a favour, strictly, which justice may re- 
 quire to be carried out. The whole plan of salvation had 
 its origin in grace, and grace will lead on to its consum- 
 mation ; and yet it might not be consistent with justice to 
 arrest it midway, repeal all its provisions, and suffer the 
 wicked and the just to be blended in one common doom. 
 This point is capable of varied and almost endless 
 illustration. Dr. Fisk has justly said, " If a physician 
 should cut off the limb of a poor man, to save his life, is 
 he not bound in justice, after he has commenced the ope- 
 ration, to take up the arteries, and save the rhan from dy- 
 ing by the operation ?" And yet " the man on whom the 
 surgeon operates maybe poor and perverse," and the ope- 
 ration undertaken solely as an act of grace. 
 
 A writer in the Christian Spectator, in an elaborate 
 article on the subject of human ability, objects to the Ar- 
 minian theory, that it makes the power by which obe- 
 dience is rendered to God, " not human, but divine power," 
 and charges on it these consequences : — " The sinner loving 
 God is God loving himself, and the sinner repenting of 
 sin is God repenting of sin." It would not be paying a 
 very high compliment to the intelligence of his readers to 
 suppose them converted to his views, or their previous 
 faith in them strengthened, by the argument by which he 
 attempts to fasten these absurdities on Arminianism. It 
 is vitiated throughout by the gross fallacy of confounding 
 faculties or attributes, with the power or energy by which 
 they are exerted. He writes, " Love to God, repentance 
 for sin, faith in the Saviour, are and must be the sinner's 
 own acts or exercises, that is, his oion powers or faculties, 
 exercised in these forms. The proximate powers in exer- 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 65 
 
 cise, must be his own subjective mental powers, or the acts 
 cannot be his own acts." 
 
 Now there is no controversy as to whether man serves 
 God with his own facuUies or the attributes of the Deity 
 The question is, Does man possess the energy — the power 
 strictly — to exercise these powers as the gospel requires, 
 without the assistance of the Holy Spirit ? And yet this 
 writer would charge us with consequences which presup- 
 pose an assertion, that man depends on grace for the 
 necessary constitutional faculties. 
 
 But, apart from the meager and absurd philosophy of 
 New Divinity, it may be supposed that the suggestion, that, 
 according to our theory, man obeys God by divine, and 
 not human power, contains a real difficulty. That the 
 power in question is divine, we are not concerned to deny, 
 and yet it is as certainly human. Whence, we ask, did 
 Adam derive his physical power in creation ? Was it not 
 directly from God ? And was it less his own personal 
 power because thus imparted ? Could not God have im- 
 parted additional power to Adam at any subsequent period, 
 and made it as much his power as that imparted in crea- 
 tion 1 If, then, he should see proper to impart, by gracious 
 influences, additional strength to him, is there any more 
 inconsistency in calling it human power, than there would 
 have been if it had been imparted at first 1 Surely not. 
 And the power imparted to us by grace is as much ours 
 as the power imparted to Adam in creation was his. Its 
 exercise depends equally, in both cases, on human voli- 
 tion. The experience of those who were immediately 
 qualified by God to execute the pattern of the Jewish 
 tabernacle, is illustrative of the point in hand. They were 
 thus enabled to do what they were previously unable to 
 do. But who will pretend that the power they thus ex- 
 erted was not their power, and that the act of making the 
 tabernacle was God's act, and not theirs ? On the princi- 
 
66 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY, 
 
 ■\ 
 
 pie adopted by the objector, it might be insisted upon that 
 the power with which Samson carried off the gates of 
 Gaza was not Samson's, and that in truth he did not per- 
 form that act. Who, that is familiar with his Bible, does 
 not know that the power of the Christian is frequently 
 called the power of God, to indicate its source and man's 
 dependance, and to secure to God the praise due to him, 
 while it is also spoken of as man's power, for the exercise 
 of which he is held responsible ? Now is there any more 
 inconsistency in these views, than in those which declare 
 every thing in the wide universe to be the property of 
 God, and yet contemplate our possessions as ours, and 
 subject to our volition and appropriation ? 
 
 It is also objected, that a denial of the doctrine that man 
 possesses natural ability to serve God, makes the will or 
 inclination to perform an act, essential to, and identical 
 with, the power to perform it. 
 
 This objection is evidently based on the supposition, 
 that fallen man has, of himself, every thing that is neces- 
 sary to his serving God, excepting the will or inclination. 
 This notion we have shown to be utterly imfounded. We 
 have adduced Scripture authority, proving that when the 
 will or inclination is present, and manifesting itself in 
 efforts to do what is right, those efforts may fail through 
 depravity. But, although this objection does not lie against 
 Arminianism, it is properly chargeable on those who hold 
 the distinction of natural and moral ability. They not 
 only make the will essential to power, in every instance, 
 but also identical with it, and this is one of the objections 
 which we have to that distinction. 
 
 This argument against our theory is urged with great 
 earnestness by Mr. Hinton, and in a form which may en- 
 title it to particular consideration. It is managed with 
 considerable adroitness, but a close inspection and analysis 
 will expose its fallacy. Mr. H. adopts the term disposi- 
 
NEW DIVINITY ^ABILITV. 67 
 
 tion, in preference to xmll or inclination, and defines it thus : 
 " The habitually prevalent state of the heart in any respect, 
 we call the disposition of a man in that respect." He 
 distinguishes it from inclination, which, he says, "is not 
 necessarily either habitual or prevailing : it may be nei- 
 ther." He also distinguishes it from affections, which 
 he considers " occasional, temporary, and subordinate states 
 of feeling;" and also from will, which he conceives 
 to mean " either a simple determination, or the faculty of 
 determining according to our feelings." 
 
 By adopting, and thus defining, the term disposition, in 
 this argument, Mr. H. expects, we suppose, to gain seve- 
 ral important points. In the first place, he makes indispo- 
 sition to serve God, include the whole of human depravity ; 
 so that if he can succeed in his attempt to prove that full 
 power to serve God may be possessed in connection with 
 that want of disposition to serve him, which constitutes 
 depravity, it will follow of course, that depravity does not 
 interfere with power. He will also secure the position, 
 that the' Holy Spirit's influences may be necessary to 
 change the disposition or habitually prevalent state of the 
 heart, and yet not necessary to give ability to keep the law 
 of God. It is quite plain, that if he can carry these points, 
 he will establish the doctrine Avhich we are endeavouring 
 to refute. 
 
 Having, in this manner, prepared his way, he proposes 
 the question, " Is our having a disposition toward any ac" 
 tion essential to our having power to perform it ?" 
 
 But, in tracing his argument, we find that he entirely 
 forgets his definition, and uses the term " disposition" in 
 the sense of inclination and will, and interchangeably with 
 those terms. He remarks, in the process of his reason- 
 ing, " Nothing is more common, and few things are more 
 important, than the distinction between power and inclina- 
 tion. You can, but you will not, is language almost in- 
 
68 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 cessantly used, and the basis of some very important trans- 
 actions ; as vv^hen an idle fellow is sent to the treadmill, 
 or an able but reluctant debtor to the prison." — p. 112. 
 So that instead of proving that there is nothing in the 
 habitually prevalent state of a sinner's heart, which aifects 
 his power of keeping the divine law, he merely proves, 
 that inclination or will, or disposition in the sense of 
 these terms, is not essential to power. But he had pre- 
 viously informed his readers, that the terms will and in- 
 clination are not synonymous with disposition, and do not 
 represent the " habitually prevalent state of the heart ;" 
 so that he virtually abandons his project in the progress 
 of the argument. 
 
 Again, by the manner in which he proposes the ques- 
 tion for argaiment, the point at issue is evaded. The 
 question is not, whether will, or inclination, or disposition 
 to perform an action, is essential to the power to perform 
 it ; but whether disinclination, or a contrary disposition, 
 may be so strong and intense, as to destroy the power. 
 These questions, when examined, will appear widely dif- 
 ferent. I may be able to move onward against a certain 
 amount of resistance, but if that resistance be increased, 
 I may thereby be rendered unable to proceed another step. 
 But it is not, therefore, necessary to enable me to proceed, 
 that the whole resisting force should be reversed in its 
 direction, so as to impel me forward. It is not necessary 
 to remove entirely the resistance, but merely to diminish 
 it. Apply the illustration to the subject before us. Sup- 
 pose a certain amount of disinclination, or indisposition, to 
 disable a man to perform the act to which he is thus indis- 
 posed ; it does not follow that he must have a positive dis- 
 position to perform that act, to enable him to perform it. 
 It may be sufficient that the strength of the contrary dis- 
 position be diminished. 
 
 That depravity, whatever it may consist in, does inter- 
 
NEW DIVINITY— ^ABILITV^. 69 
 
 fere with the power to live a strictly holy life, is not only 
 the dictate of Scripture, but also of reason. 
 
 To suppose the contrary, implies that it is as easy for 
 the most abandoned profligate to resist temptations to vice, 
 as it is for the most moral and religious — that it is as easy 
 for the veriest miser to contribute a thousand pounds to a 
 purely benevolent object, as it is for the most benevolent 
 man — ^that the difficulty of becoming religious is not at all 
 increased by habitual and persevering profligacy, a senti- 
 ment at war with the universal judgment of men. And to 
 this result Mr. H.'s theory has actually conducted him. 
 " We are quite ready," he remarks, " to admit the fact, 
 that a disposition toward an action seems to render the 
 doing of it easy, and that a contrary disposition seems to 
 render it difficult, sometimes even to impossibility. But 
 it only seems to do so." — p. 115. It appears, then, that the 
 whole religious world in particular, has been labouring 
 under a delusion on this subject, which New Divinity has 
 the honour to dispel. We have been accustomed from 
 our boyhood to hear, from the pulpits of different denomi- 
 nations, as a motive to immediate repentance, that post- 
 ponement and crime harden the heart, and render the 
 exercises of repentance more difficult. But this argument 
 must now be laid aside. Other reasons for instant atten- 
 tion to the claims of the gospel may exist, but this is de- 
 stroyed. It is discovered to be fallacious. No difficulty 
 is thus created. It will be as easy for the debauchee to 
 become a Christian, when he has grown hoary in crime, 
 as it is before he enters on his polluted career. The in- 
 spired writers, too, and even the Saviour himself, must 
 come in for a share of this timely correction, and must 
 now stand instructed, that those who " are accustomed to 
 do evil" have no more difficulty in learning " to do well," 
 than those who have yet to form all their habits ; and that 
 so far from the rich having any peculiar difficulty in be- 
 
•70 NfiW DIVINITY ABILITY. 
 
 coming Christians, it is just as easy for the weahhy and 
 proud to enter the kingdom of God, as it is for those who 
 are poor, and comparatively humble. 
 
 But if disposition may interfere with power, will it not 
 follow, that ability and disposition, inability and indispo- 
 sition, are identical 1 No ! Whether they are in fact 
 identical or not, no such conclusion results from these 
 premises. The objection assumes, that whatever causes 
 inability to perform an action, is identical with inability to 
 perform it, and that the facilities, caused by the removal 
 of the impediment, are identical with the ability that re- 
 sults. This, however, is not the case. Suppose a vehicle 
 drawn by two spirited and powerful horses. The driver 
 turns into a bye-road, and brings the wheels in contact 
 with an obstacle. The horses are unable to go forward. 
 But is the obstacle which causes the inability, in this case, 
 identical with the inability ? The driver finds it neces- 
 sary to remove the obstruction. But is the facility, caused 
 Tby its removal, to be identified with the ability of the 
 horses to proceed 1 No one would imagine such a thing. 
 In like manner, indisposition may cause inability, and 
 disposition may cause ability, and yet these things be en- 
 tirely distinct. 
 
 We think this plausible objection fairly refuted, and yet 
 it may be satisfactory to some of our readers to have ad- 
 ditional light on the relation which will, inclination, and 
 disposition actually sustain to power. 
 
 If by the will we understand the power of volition — the 
 " faculty of determining," it is clear enough, that it is es- 
 sential to the power to perform voluntary actions ; unless 
 we suppose a man able to perform such actions, in the 
 absence of a faculty which is indispensable to their per- 
 formance. 
 
 If the term " will" be taken in the sense of simple volition, 
 the will is esseatial to the ability to perform voluntary ao- 
 
NEWT DIVINITY ABILITY. 71 
 
 tions. Such is the constitution of the human mind, that the 
 volition must necessarily precede the action. .To affirm that 
 a man has power to do what, in this sense, he does not 
 will to do, would be as unphilosophical as to affirm that 
 he has power to talk without employing the organs of 
 speech. So that when we say, a man has power to per- 
 form a certain action, we include the idea that he has 
 power to will its performance. 
 
 But if the term be imderstood in the sense of inclina- 
 tion, the case is altered. Inclination is not m all cases 
 essential to power. There are, and must be, many ac- 
 tions which we can perform, although we are disinclined 
 to the performance of them. Were not this the case, there 
 would be no reason in exhortations to sacrifice of feeling, 
 or self-denial. It would be absurd to expect a man to act 
 contrary to his incUnation, and, of course, to exhort him 
 to that effect. 
 
 We go further. We say that indisposition does not 
 always destroy the power to perform the action against 
 which its influence is directed, taking the word according 
 to Mr. Hinton's definition, and construing it to include the 
 whole of human depravity. Else it were utterly useless 
 to require a man to act, in any instance, against his de- 
 pravity. It would be absolutely necessary for some foreign 
 power to remove the depravity, before man could possibly 
 act, in any instance, in a contrary course. This would 
 destroy the relevancy, and effect, of all exhortations ad- 
 dressed to confessedly depraved beings, requiring them to 
 change, in any respect, their line of conduct. 
 
 And yet, there may be other actions, which require the 
 disposition, and inclination, as essential to the power to 
 perform them. Take, for instance, those strictly spiritual 
 exercises which proceed from love to God. To say that 
 a man can perform these with a contrary disposition, is 
 equivalent to saying that he can perform, from a principle 
 
72 NEW DIVINITY ABILITV 
 
 of enmity to God, the exercises which invariably proceed 
 from supreme love to God. To such exercises the in- 
 spired writers have reference, when they tell us that "the 
 carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither in- 
 deed can be," and that the natural man neither discerns, 
 nor can discern, the things of the Spirit. To the ability 
 requisite for these things, another state of mind is abso- 
 lutely necessary. 
 
 The practical bearing of these views, which, we believe, 
 contain the philosophy of the Scriptures on the subject, is 
 this, — although the unregenerate sinner cannot, in his 
 present condition, do all that is required of him in order 
 to salvation, there are some things which he can do, even 
 against his inclination — against his depravity, the per- 
 formance of which, with the blessing of God, has a ten- 
 dency to undermine that depravity, and superinduce 
 another state of mind. They are the " works meet for 
 repentance" which God has made indispensable to pardon 
 and regeneration. He can, for instance, go to the church 
 instead of the theatre. He can give his attention to the 
 ministry of the word. He can read his Bible. He can 
 take first one step, and then another, in that preliminary 
 process which leads on to the disposition, and inclination, 
 and power, to do whatever God commands. 
 
 With these explanations, we can easily dispose of Mr. 
 H.'s plausible illustrations. Does he intimate that, ac- 
 cording to our theory, the man who has " sufficient money 
 to satisfy his creditors, but is fond of gaming," has "no 
 disposition," and therefore no " power to pay liis debts ?" 
 We reply, no such consequence results from it. He may 
 be able to do all this, notwithstanding his indisposition. 
 The law of the land proceeds on the supposition that this 
 to the case. And yet there may be other things which he 
 cannot do against his disposition. Hence the gospel not 
 only requires those exercises for which the disposition is 
 
NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 73 
 
 necessary, but also provides means by which the disposi- 
 tion may be acquired. 
 
 Mr. H. endeavours to fix on the notion that power may 
 depend on disposition, the charge of absurdity, — " As, for 
 instance," he says, " I am surrounded by several hundred 
 places, and am not disposed to go to any of them. But 
 have I, therefore, no power to go to any of them 1 In that 
 case I must be considered as fixed, literally like a rock, 
 to my position, till I am disposed to move, with which 
 disposition to move, it appears, my power of moving is 
 identical." — p. 113. 
 
 The answer to this is, that while disposition may be es- 
 sential to power in some instances, it is not in everj/ in- 
 stance. Mr. H. observes a caution in the statement of his 
 premises, which seems to indicate that he was fully aware 
 of this distinction. He remarks, " On the contrary, the 
 obvious fact is, that we have power to do mani/ things, 
 whether we are disposed to do the?n or not." But he is 
 chargeable with the fallacy of arguing from the fact that 
 we can do " many things" without the disposition, that 
 we can do a?ii/ thing possible to be done by us, without 
 the disposition. The one is admitted, but not the other. 
 He may be able to go to any one of the hundred places, 
 notwithstanding he is not disposed, and yet, he may not be 
 able to go to heaven, or do that which is necessary to take 
 him there, without the disposition. 
 
 But the most remarkable feature of Mr. H.'s argument 
 is the manner in which he involves himself in the ab- 
 surdity in which he attempts to involve his opponents. 
 On the supposition, that disposition to go to any of these 
 places is essential to the power, he argues, " In that case 
 I must be considered as fixed, literally like a rock, to my 
 position," &c. And yet he tells us, in the very next pa- 
 ragraph, that, although disposition is not necessary to 
 power, " Nothing certainly can be more obvious than that 
 
74 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 a voluntary being will never act further than he feels a dis- 
 position to do so." So that in attempting to chain his op- 
 ponents, he has chained himself; for, according to his 
 own showing, whether a man can change his position or 
 not, without a disposition, no voluntary agent ever will ; so 
 that the man without the disposition must assuredly stay 
 where he is. 
 
 Is it objected that our doctrine represents grace as ne- 
 cessary, not because man is wicked, but because he is 
 weak 1 We reply, that it contemplates grace as neces- 
 sary, because man is both wicked and weak. Weakness 
 may proceed from depravity, as well as from other causes, 
 but it is weakness still, and there is no inconsistency in 
 supposing that the plan of salvation has made provision 
 for its remedy. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 DEPRAVITY. 
 
 Having shown that the Scriptures are decidedly at 
 variance with the doctrine of the natural ability of fallen 
 man to obey God ; and having also ascertained the utter 
 failure of the principal arguments relied on to sustain it, 
 we shall proceed to examine the other constituent parts 
 of the system, to which this doctrine leads by plain logical 
 consequence. 
 
 It is supposed, by some, that this controversy on the 
 subject of ability, is wholly imimportant, — that if the ability 
 of the sinner to do his duty is admitted, nothing is gained, 
 or lost, by adopting either the one theory or the other, re- 
 specting the source of that ability. This is a mistake. 
 The doctrine of natural ability modifies extensively the 
 system of theology which includes it, and introduces, in 
 fact, " another gospel." 
 
NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 75 
 
 This theory of ability, as it is usually stated, leads to the 
 doctrine, that all depravity lies in the will — that it consists 
 wholly in unwillingness. The process of deduction is 
 easy. We are told that all have a natural ability to love 
 and serve God, and that all which hinders our love and obe- 
 dience to him is our want of will. Now it is that which 
 hinders our love and obedience to God which constitutes 
 our depravity. Our unwillingness, therefore, as it is the 
 only hindrance to the love and service of God, constitutes 
 our depravity, and the whole of our depravity. 
 
 This consequence is not denied ; but the view of human 
 depravity which it presents, is frequently and confidently 
 affirmed. Dr. Tyler, in a sermon on " Free Salvation," 
 published in the second volume of the " National Preacher," 
 writes thus : " Why is it necessary that men should be 
 born again ? Not because they are unable to do their duty, 
 if they will ; but because they are unwilling to do it. It 
 is their depravity which renders the supernatural change 
 necessary. But their depravity is not their calamity merely, 
 but their crime. It consists, as we have seen, in a perverse 
 inclination ; in a voluntary and obstinate refusal to yield 
 obedience to the reasonable commands of Jehovah. What 
 the sinner needs, therefore, is to have this perverse incli- 
 nation changed ; that is, to be made willing to do what God 
 requires. The necessity for this change, therefore, sup- 
 poses no obstacle in the way of his salvation, except his 
 own unwillingness to do his duty." 
 
 . Dr. Tyler, we would remark, is an Old School writer. 
 We have quoted from him merely to show, that this ten- 
 dency of the doctrine of natural ability is recognised, and 
 the consequence held. 
 
 Dr. Lansing says, in his sermon on the Necessity of 
 Regeneration, " Nothing more is necessary for God to do 
 for you, than to make you willing ; and hence your volun- 
 tary opposition to him is the only obstacle to your salva- 
 
76 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 tion." This doctrine is asserted by Mr. Barnes, in his 
 answer to the protest against his sermon. He endeavours 
 to prove that this is the doctrine of the Confession of 
 Faith. He says, " In this passage the following things 
 are thought worthy of observation : — 1 . That here is an 
 express and formal definition of what the framers of the 
 constitution meant by inability. This is the object of the 
 chapter, to explain the state of man since the fall, in refer- 
 ence to obeying the law of God. 2. That they expressly 
 affirm that the difficulty is in the will, having lost all ability 
 of will. Nor do they mention any other difficulty or obstacle 
 in the way of man's conversion, but what lies in the will. 
 That is evidently implying that if the will were right, 
 there were no other obstacle." Indeed, President Edwards 
 himself carried the doctrine of natural ability directly to 
 this result. With respect to depravity he says, in his 
 treatise on the will, " Now this doctrine supposes no other 
 necessity of sinning than a moral necessity ; which, as 
 has been shown, don't at all excuse sin ; and supposes no 
 other inability to obey any command or perform any duty, 
 even the most spiritual and exalted, but a moral inability." 
 This moral inability he defines to consist " in the opposi- 
 tion, or want of incUnation." 
 
 But the doctrine of natural ability leads to still more 
 ultra and dangerous views of human depravity. It leads 
 to the consequence that depravity consists solely in volun- 
 tary exercises. Any other view of depravity is found to 
 conflict with the doctrine of natural ability. Even disin- 
 clination or unwillingness, may be so strong as to consti- 
 tute a real inability to do, in some instances, that to which 
 it is opposed. President Edwards justly remarks : — " I 
 suppose that none will deny but that in some cases a pre- 
 vious bias, or inclination, or the motive presented, may be 
 so powerful that the act of the will may be constantly and 
 indissolubly connected therewith. When motives or pre- 
 
NEW DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY. 77 
 
 vious bias are very strong, all will allow that there is 
 some difficulty in going against them. And if they were 
 yet stronger, the difficulty will be greater : and therefore, 
 if more were still added to their strength, to a certain de- 
 gree, it would make the difficulty so great that it would be 
 impossible to surmount it." Unwillingness, or disinclina- 
 tion, constitutes the moral inability of New School Cal- 
 vinism ; and whenever it constitutes a real inability, that 
 inability is natural ; as much so as that arising from any 
 other cause. It has its origin in the constitution of our 
 nature. The doctrine, therefore, that depravity consists 
 in unwillingness or disinclination to serve God, which 
 may constitute a real inability, and which moreover may 
 be hereditary and constitutional, is at variance with the 
 doctrine of natural ability. Nor will it answer to make 
 depravity consist in habit: for the tendency of vicious 
 habit is to interfere with the ability to serve God. So the 
 Scriptures represent : — " Can the Ethiopian change his 
 skin, or the leopard his spots 1 then may ye also do good, 
 that are accustomed to do evil." The only way, there- 
 fore, of securing the doctrine of natural ability, is by lo- 
 cating depravity in the action itself. Whether I have hit 
 on the process of reasoning by which the disciples of New 
 Divinity come to this conclusion or not, it is certain that 
 to this conclusion many of them have come. They deny 
 that depravity is constitutional and hereditary, or that it 
 consists in a principle, or disposition, or propensity, or 
 taste, or corruption of our nature ; or any thing which 
 " lies back" of the will, or is anterior to our voluntary exer- 
 cises, or is the cause of them, and maintain that it consists 
 solely in the actions themselves. 
 
 This view of depravity is strenuously advocated by Mr. 
 Duffield, in his work on regeneration. He thus states the 
 different theories on the subject, at the commencement of 
 his investigations : — " Whether depravity is to be found 
 
78 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 exclusively in the vi^ill, or equally in all the faculties — 
 whether it has its origin in a modification of our essential 
 nature — whether it is created in us, or derived by a natu- 
 ral descent — whether it consists in acts or exercises, or 
 in something back of them, which lays the foundation for 
 them in the very nature of the essential soul — whether it 
 is some deranged and inappropriate exercise of our moral 
 powers, and to be referred to the character of the control 
 ling objects, or of the governing moral principle — are ques- 
 tions that have been seriously agitated." The theory 
 which he adopts is, that " it consists in acts and exer- 
 cises," in " some deranged and inappropriate exer- 
 cises." 
 
 He says, " We cannot conceive of enmity against God 
 consisting in constitution, or mere existence, abstract es- 
 sence, or mere nature. It is in its very nature, really and 
 formally the workings or the (tcts and exercises of a rational 
 and feeling creature, so that when the apostles resolve all 
 that is in the world, which is not of the Father, into lust- 
 ings, and represent these lustings to be in enmity with 
 God, we are infallibly directed in making our estimate of 
 human depravity, to have exclusive regard to the acts and 
 exercises of the human soul." — p. 338. 
 
 Again : *' And the reason is, because practically we do 
 not predicate depravity of the corporeal or even mental 
 constitution of man, but of the actual exercise of those 
 powers which are implied or requisite in the willing to do, 
 or doing what the law prohibits, or refusing what it re- 
 quires." — Ibid. 
 
 Again : " And God being under no obligation, nor 
 choosing in this world to vouchsafe the influence of his 
 Holy Spirit, which is necessary to prevent from choosing 
 what is wrong — there shall take place those acts of which 
 alone we can legitimately and intelligently predicate mora] 
 depravity." — ^p. 379. 
 
NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 79* 
 
 " Charge not your impenitence on any constitutional 
 depravity." — ^p. 344. 
 
 " For it does not appear that Adam lost or acquired any 
 physical property by his rebellion ; nor that his nature, 
 consisting simply of his created substance and its consti- 
 tutional properties, sustained any physical change by his 
 sin. His voluntary exercises were sadly deranged, and 
 became awfully depraved ; but that depravity formed no 
 part of his substance, nor belonged to his constitutional pro- 
 perties. It attached to his character as a moral agent. 
 How then could he transmit by natural generation what 
 did not inhere in his own constitution ?" — p. 284. 
 
 " Must we believe that men are inclined in the same 
 way to sin, and that therefore, because of an innate pro- 
 pensity to sin — the foimdation laid in the very nature — 
 that nature apart from, and prior to, any of its moral actings^ 
 is sinful ? This is to make men sin by physical neces- 
 sity."— p. 307. 
 
 " His depravity consists in the misdirection and inap- 
 propriate exercise of his faculties ; not in wrong faculties 
 inherited. And many causes may operate to secure such 
 a direction and exercise of his faculties, without inferring 
 from false analogies, suggested by a false physiology, that 
 it must be an operative principle in the very soul, apart from 
 and anterior to its exercises." — p. 310. 
 
 Mr. Finney, who has acquired great eminence in the 
 ranks of New DiAdnity, comes forth as a bold and sturdy 
 advocate of this doctrine. He says, in his sermon on to- 
 tal depravity, " Some persons have spoken of depravity, 
 and of the pollution of our nature, as if there were some 
 moral depravity cleaving to, or incorporated with, the very 
 substance of our being. Now this is to talk utter nonsense. 
 If such a depravity were possible, it would not be moral, 
 but physical depravity. It could not be a depravity 
 for which we were blameworthy. It could not be a 
 
80 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 sinful depravity. It would be a disease, and not a 
 crime." 
 
 " I do not mean by total depravity that there is the same 
 disposition to sin belonging to the substance of body or 
 mind that there is in a serpent to bite, or in a wolf to de- 
 vour sheep. In other words, I do not mean that there is 
 a constitutional appetite or craving for sin implanted in the 
 substance of the body or the mind." 
 
 '* Moral depravity is a quality of voluntary action, not of 
 substance. It does not belong to the constitution, but be- 
 longs purely and exclusively to character." 
 
 " It is not meant there is any thing in the constitution, 
 or substance of body or mind, that is opposed to God." 
 
 " It is not meant that there are appetites, or propensities, 
 that are constitutional, which are enmity against God." 
 
 " Total depravity does not consist in any principle of sin 
 that is incorporated with our being." 
 
 " By total depravity is not meant that any being is or 
 can be sinful before he has exercised the powers of moral 
 agency." 
 
 " I do not mean that there is some constitutional de- 
 pravity, which lies back, and is the cause of actual trans- 
 gression." 
 
 " By total depravity, I do not mean that there is any sin 
 in human beings, or in any other beings separate from 
 actual transgression." 
 
 " It should be well imderstood, and always remembered, 
 that the carnal mind, as used by the apostle, is not the 
 mind itself, but is a voluntary action of the mind." 
 
 " These discourses exhibit a very different view of total 
 depravity, from that which regards depravity as physical 
 or constitutional, or as belonging to the substance of the 
 body or the mind. They exhibit all depravity as volun- 
 tary, as consisting in voluntary transgression." 
 
 " the darkness, and confusion, and utter nonsense of 
 
NEW DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY. 81 
 
 that view of depravity which exhibits it as something lying 
 hack, and the cause of all transgression !" 
 
 " From this subject you can see that the wicked con- 
 duct of sinners is no proof that their nature is sinful. The 
 universal sinfulness of men has been supposed to con- 
 duct to the inevitable conclusion that the nature of man 
 must be in itself sinful." 
 
 " The sinner's hatred of God is not caused by any he- 
 reditary or transmitted disposition to hate him. A dispo- 
 sition to hate God is itself hatred. Disposition is an action 
 of the mind, and not a part of the mind itself. It is there- 
 fore absurd to talk of an hereditary or transmitted disposi- 
 tion to love or hate God, or any thing else." 
 
 Dr. Lansing, in his sermon on " The Inability of Sin- 
 ners Voluntary," says, " We learn from our subject that 
 all sin consists in the voluntary exercises of the sinning 
 agent." 
 
 And if Mr. Barnes does not hold or intend to teach this 
 doctrine, he certainly gives it countenance in those decla- 
 rations to which his opponents have taken exception : 
 1. That "all sin consists in voluntary action.^' 2. "That 
 infants have no moral character." By this latter assertion 
 he evidently means, that until infants have performed 
 voluntary accountable actions, they are neither holy nor 
 depraved. Compare these assertions, and the result is, 
 plainly, that all depravity consists in voluntary action. And 
 in perfect accordance with this doctrine is his comment 
 on the seventh verse of the eighth chapter of Romans : 
 " Because the carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it 
 is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." 
 He says, " It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, 
 or the will ; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is 
 physically depraved, or opposed to God ; but it means that 
 the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them su- 
 preme attention, is hostility to God." The tendency of 
 
 4* 
 
82 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 tliis comment is, evidently, to resolve all depravity into 
 the voluntary action of the mind. 
 
 This doctrine is amply exhibited in a work published 
 several years since in New-York, entitled " Views in 
 Theology." The author of it asserts that " the Scriptural 
 doctrine of depravity has no reference whatever to the 
 physical constitution ; it relates exclusively to the actions 
 of man, and simply expresses the fact, that while unre- 
 newed, he never exercises holiness." 
 
 The great object at which this author aims, is, to prove 
 that any other view of depravity than that which makes it 
 to consist solely in voluntary exercises, involves the doc- 
 trine of " physical depravity," and that those writers who 
 have maintained the commonly received theory, are 
 chargeable with maintaining the doctrine of physical de- 
 pravity. His own views are further developed in the fol- 
 lowing passage : — 
 
 " There is nothing in the constitution of man on his 
 coming into being, or at any subsequent period, which of 
 itself — every thing else being thrown out of consideration 
 — ^lays any foundation of a certainty what kind of actions 
 he will exercise when placed under a moral influence ; 
 nothing from which it can be infallibly inferred that he 
 will exercise sin instead of holiness, or holiness instead 
 of sin ; nor which can even present any more probability 
 of his assuming the one character than the other. 
 
 " This results from his having precisely the same ca- 
 pacity for exercising the one species of actions as the 
 other. Possessing identically the same capacity for obe- 
 dience as for transgression, can any one imagine, that 
 by simply looking at his capacity, any certainty or proba- 
 bility can be discerned of his exercising the one, rather 
 than the other ? Can a given capacity for sin constitute 
 any certainty or probability that sin will be exercised, 
 any more than precisely the same capacity for holiness 
 
NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 83 
 
 forms a certainty or probability that holiness will be exer- 
 cised ? 
 
 " Or, to approach the point through a different avenue. 
 No depravity, corruption, taint, nor any other defect what- 
 ever of that nature, pertains to the constitution of man, 
 rendering him physically incapable of acting in conformity 
 to the divine will, or making his committing sin in any 
 sense an infallible result. Nothing whatever exists in it, 
 therefore, which must, by a necessity of its nature, prove 
 a cause of sin ; nothing then which of course operates to 
 the production of sin ; nothing, therefore, which constitutes 
 a tendency to sin ; nothing, then, in short, which forms any 
 more certainty or probability that he will exercise that spe- 
 cies of actions which is evil, than that which is morally 
 excellent. 
 
 " Nothing then pertains to the physical nature of man 
 which, of itself, presents any certainty or probability in 
 what manner he will act, when placed under a moral in- 
 fluence. It has no tendency whatever one way or the 
 other ; no.thing partaking in any sense of depravity, cor- 
 ruption, or guilt, or making any approximation toward 
 them ; nothing which is in any sense offensive to God ; 
 but, on the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable to him : as 
 free from odious defect, and as completely the object of 
 his complacency as were the physical constitutions of the 
 first pair when created — as are the natures of angels." — 
 Part iii, p. 55. 
 
 The author adds, " This is undoubtedly a very different 
 doctrine from that which is ordinarily inculcated." It is. 
 I thank God that he is right in this assertion. The fact, 
 that such are the tendencies and doctrines of New School 
 Calvinism, should arouse every Methodist, and every Old 
 School Calvinist, to excited and vigilant jealousy over 
 every thing that is vital and valuable in our common 
 Christianity. 
 
84 NEW DIVINITY— DEPRAVITY. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 DEPRAVITY CONTINUED. 
 
 We shall not take up much time in endeavouring to 
 refute the doctrine that depravity consists solely in un- 
 willingness or disinclination. It may be effectually dis- 
 posed of, by comparing it with those passages from the 
 epistles to the Romans and Galatians, which have al- 
 ready been quoted for other purposes. They settle the 
 question summarily and decisively : — " For that which 
 I do, I allow not ; for what I would that do I not ; but 
 what I hate, that do I. If, then, I do that which I 
 would not, I consent unto the law that it is good." " For 
 to will is present with me ; but how to perform that which 
 is good I find not." " For the good that I would I do not : 
 but the evil which 1 would not, that I do. I find then a 
 . law that when I would do good, evil is present with me," 
 Rom. vii. " For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and 
 the Spirit against the flesh : and these are contrary the 
 one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye 
 would," Gal. V, 17. This language, so far from repre- 
 senting that all depravity consists in unwillingness, de- 
 clares the presence of a positive willingness — a willing- 
 ness which leads to efforts to keep the law, and yet these 
 efforts fail through depravity. The depravity, therefore, 
 which causes the difllculty, whatever may be its specific 
 nature, must be supposed to consist in something besides 
 unwillingness ; unless we are prepared to admit the ab- 
 surdity, that the only reason why men are unable to per- 
 form that which they are willing and strive to perform, is, 
 that they are unwilling and do not strive to perform it. 
 
 But the doctrine that depravity consists wholly in volun- 
 tary exercises, demands a more ample investigation ; not 
 
NEW DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY. 85 
 
 on account of its plausibility, but its most ruinous tenden- 
 cies, theoretical and practical. 
 
 It will be necessary, in the first place, to present the 
 question at issue, free from all embarrassing associations. 
 It is one of the acts of sophistry, so to involve truth and 
 error in the same statement, that the one may disparage 
 or derive plausibility from, the other ; that an assertion of 
 the truth may seem to include an adoption of the error ; and 
 that a denial of the error may with some plausibility be 
 construed into a denial of the truth. The question to be 
 discussed is, whether depravity consists solely in volun- 
 tary exercises or actual transgression, or in something be- 
 sides, which is the source of actual transgression. But 
 the advocates of the " voluntary exercise" theory have seen 
 proper to caricature the opposite doctrine, and associate 
 it with questions from which it is entirely distinct. Of 
 the design of this course we express no judgment. The 
 tendency of it is to make the impression, that to maintain 
 the doctrine they oppose requires the adoption and main- 
 tenance of whatever they have seen proper to associate 
 with it. They write as though we must either adopt 
 their theory, or hold that depravity consists in " constitu- 
 tion or mere existence, abstract essence or mere nature" — 
 " in some, constitution of simple nature or created being," 
 — that it forms a part of man's " substance," — that it is 
 " created" and " lodged," or " implanted," or " incorporated" 
 in, or " infused," or " injected" into the " constitution," or 
 " internal essence and structiure of the soul," or in " the very 
 substance of the body or mind." We are told that " the 
 mind is not saturated or soaked with enmity." 
 
 Now the question which we are at present discussing 
 respects solely the nature of depravity. Whether it is 
 derived by propagation, or superinduced by volition as in 
 the case of Adam, or created by God — whether it is ac- 
 quired by infusion, injection, absorption, implantation, or 
 
8® NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 lodgment — ^whether it is lodged in the essence of the soul, 
 or attaches to it in sonie other way — or whether its seat 
 is in the body or soul, are questions distinct and foreign 
 from the point. Nor shall we feel ourselves under any 
 obligation to prove that it consists in " created essence," 
 &c. Nor shall we undertake to determine its meta-' 
 physical nature, any further than instructed by the Scrip- 
 tures. Nor do we care even to give it a name. 
 
 The Scriptures just quoted against the doctrine, that 
 depravity consists wholly in unwillingness, are equally 
 at variance with the doctrine under consideration. They 
 represent depravity as something which resists the con- 
 victions and inclinations of the mind, and defeats its 
 efforts. Is it affirmed, that this depravity consists solely 
 in voluntary exercises 1 The result, then, will be plainly 
 this, that simple volitions, uncaused by any propensity, 
 rise up and defeat exertions which are directed by the 
 convictions of the understanding, and enforced by incli- 
 ' nation, and that these mysterious volitions result in ac- 
 tions, which the understanding condemns, and the incli- 
 nation abhors — that the mind, without being prompted by 
 any principle, propensity, disposition, or taste, rises up 
 against its own convictions, inclinations, purposes, and 
 volitions, and frustrates them, and puts forth volitions 
 wholly at variance with itself. 
 
 But do the terms, in which the apostle speaks directly 
 of depravity, accord with the doctrine, that it consists 
 solely in voluntary exercises ? The Scriptures do not 
 deal in metaphysical propositions, but they are never- 
 theless based on true philosophy, and revolt at every 
 interpretation which assumes a false philosophy. Let 
 us try the passages to which we have just now re- 
 ferred. He styles it " the law of sin" — " the law of sin 
 in my members" — " sin that dwelleth in me." The failure 
 to do good, and the commission of sin, are evidently attri- 
 
NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 87 
 
 buted to the law of sin as their source. " I find then a 
 law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me." 
 " But I see another law in my members warring against 
 the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the 
 law of sin which is in my members." " Now, if I do that 
 I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwell- 
 eth in me." But if depravity consists wholly in actual trans- 
 gression, then actual transgression is its own cause, which 
 would be absurd. Let us further try the apostle's reason- 
 ing, on the supposition that depravity consists altogether 
 in voluntary exercises. Will it not run thus ? — " Now if 
 I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but volun- 
 tary action that dwelleth in me." " I find then a law that 
 when I would do good, evil voluntary exercises are present 
 with me. For I delight in the law of God after the in- 
 ward man. But I see other voluntary exercises in my 
 members, warring against the law of my mind, and bring- 
 ing me into captivity to the voluntary exercises which are 
 in my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall 
 deliver me from these voluntary exercises V It is impossi- 
 ble to interpret this passage in accordance with this theory 
 of depravity, without outraging common sense. 
 
 Human depravity is frequently styled " the flesh," and 
 spoken of, under that designation, in such a way as to ex- 
 clude the doctrine that it consists solely in voluntary ex- 
 ercises. "For 'the flesh' lusteth against the Spirit, and 
 the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the 
 one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye 
 would." Here " the flesh" or depravity, is represented 
 as consisting, not in actions, but in something that acts. 
 It maintains a warfare with the Spirit. It lusts against 
 the Spirit. Actual transgression is denominated fulfilling 
 the lusts of the flesh, in opposition to walking in the 
 Spirit. There would be precisely the same authority for 
 resolving the Spirit into voluntary exercises, as for resolv- 
 
88 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 ing the flesh into voluntary exercises. But what would 
 be the result of an attempt to interpret this text according 
 to the theory to which we object ? Mr. Duffield, as we 
 have seen, in his effort to reconcile it with the doctrine of 
 natural ability, says, " The word here translated ' would' 
 denotes not only the choice, or purpose, but that choice or 
 purpose, as influenced by the affections or feelings of de- 
 sire." Again : " The Greek particle, translated so that, 
 sometimes denotes design ; and if, in this sense, it is to be 
 here understood, the aposle's meaning is, that the influ- 
 ence of the Spirit, in the believer is vouchsafed to counter- 
 act and frustrate his sinful inclinations. This we prefer, 
 as being most agreeable to the apostle's assurance ex- 
 pressed in the previous verse. If it denotes merely the 
 result eventually, nothing more can be inferred from it, 
 than that the influence of the Spirit, which generates a 
 holy inclination, is counteracted by corrupt desires and af- 
 fections, so that it does not issue in the accomplishment 
 of that to which he was inclined." The result of all this 
 explanation is as follows : I have a " choice or purpose" 
 to do good ; that choice or purpose is influenced by my 
 *' affections or feelings of desire," or "a holy inclination ;" 
 this " holy inclination" is generated by the Holy Spirit : 
 and yet this " choice or purpose," prompted by " affec- 
 tions or feelings of desire," or by " holy inclination" gene- 
 rated by the Holy Spirit, is counteracted by mere volitions, 
 originating with themselves, having no cause or foundation 
 in my nature, or any thing " belonging" or " cleaving" to 
 it. Surely these voluntary exercises must be powerful 
 indeed, thus to spring forth, self-created, and overcome 
 other voluntary exercises, which one would suppose to be 
 equally powerful with themselves, and at the same time 
 prompted by holy inclinations and the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But it would be doing injustice to Mr. D. and our read- 
 ers, to make the impression, that he considers that these 
 
NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 89 
 
 depraved volitions are wholly uncaused. He remarks, 
 " Wherever we discover uniform results — a series of cor- 
 responding actions, all standing in the same relation to 
 one specific substance, we insensibly assume the exist- 
 ence of some unvarying cause." — p. 250. Again: "That 
 there is some appropriate cause of depravity, all admit." — 
 p. 249. 
 
 He proceeds to assign the cause : — " Of the precise na- 
 ture of this, it is obvious that we must be ignorant, as we 
 are of ail causes whatever. This is not in itself, how- 
 ever, a sufficient reason for denying that there is, or may 
 be, such a thing. When we see effects uniformly result- 
 ing, we attribute them to the operation of some efficient 
 agency. We begin with God himself, and apprehend his 
 divine agency as the prime cause, and thence proceed, 
 through all the different uniform phenomena, or results 
 arising, which fall under our observation, apprehending 
 some immediate efficient agency, which remains uniformly 
 the same. This we call by various names ; sometimes a 
 law, sometimes a constitution of God, sometimes a princi- 
 ple; it is indeed of little consequence which." — Ibid. 
 
 There is no danger of misapprehending this language. 
 " The prime cause" of these " effects uniformly resulting" 
 is " divine agency." But there must be an " immediate" 
 cause ; and that is " a constitution of God.'''' Thus Mr. D. 
 denies that men are " inclined" to sin by " an innate pro- 
 pensity," for the purpose of attributing their vicious actions 
 to " divine agency," operating by a divine " constitution." 
 
 Leaving the reader to decide, for himself, where this 
 theory locates the blame of depravity, we pass on to re- 
 mark, that it only varies and increases the difficulty arising 
 out of the text under consideration. It presents the great 
 Author of good as striving, by his Holy Spirit, to prevent 
 depraved exercises, and at the same time acting as the 
 prime agent in causing them. For the honour of God, we 
 
90 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 would prefer the supposition, unphilosophical as it is, that 
 these mysterious and powerful volitions are wholly un- 
 caused. 
 
 Will it be said, that the term " flesh," as used in this 
 text, has reference to the body and its appetites, and that 
 the meaning is, that the Spirit, and the desires it origi- 
 nates, maintain an unsuccessful attempt to do good, on ac- 
 count of the opposition from the body ? That would be to 
 assert the doctrine of physical depravity to some purpose 
 — to locate depravity in the animal nature. 
 
 But such an interpretation would be exploded by a pa- 
 rallel passage : — " Now the works of the flesh are mani- 
 fest, which are these : adultery, fornication, uncleanness, 
 lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emu- 
 lations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, mur- 
 ders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like." Many of 
 the works of the flesh, as stated here, are evidently men- 
 tal exercises ; plainly showing that the meaning of the 
 term " flesh," when used as synonymous with the term 
 depravity, is not to be restricted to the corporeal economy. 
 
 This text also shows, that " the flesh" is something dis- 
 tinct from mere voluntary action. It works, and these 
 exercises are the " works of the flesh." The flesh and 
 the works of the flesh are placed in opposition to the 
 Spirit and the fruits of the Spirit. The principle of inter- 
 pretation which would resolve the flesh into voluntary 
 exercises would make a similar disposal of the Spirit. In 
 either case the interpretation would be absurd, because a 
 voluntary action is itself a work. We should have the 
 works of the works and \h.e fruits of the fruit. 
 
 Again : the actual transgression of the law is denomi- 
 nated walking after the flesh in opposition to walking after 
 the Spirit. " There is therefore now no condemnation 
 to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after 
 flesh but after the Spirit." But if the depravity which the 
 
NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 91 
 
 word " flesh" represents, consists in walking, t!ie apostle's 
 language is unintelligible. It must be acknowledged to 
 consist in an operative principle, to which actual trans- 
 gression is referred, as its source. 
 
 Will it be pretended that the term " flesh" is used in 
 these passages to denote our essential nature, including 
 merely our original, constitutional faculties of body and 
 mind, and not to any principle of depravity apart from 
 them, and which may or may not adhere to them ? That 
 the term is frequently so used is not denied. But to sup- 
 pose this to be its meaning, in the instances under con- 
 sideration, would be to encounter greater difficulties than 
 those intended to be avoided. " The flesh," we are told, 
 "lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the 
 flesh." Walking after the flesh is condemned. And we 
 are notified that " they that are in Christ have crucified 
 the flesh with its affections and lusts," and that " they that 
 are in the flesh cannot please God." But is there any 
 such irreconcilable hostility between our original consti- 
 tution and the Holy Spirit ? If He who created this con- 
 stitution, and invested it with its original powers, approved 
 of it, can it be at variance with his law, and invariably 
 displeasing to him, for us to walk in accordance with that 
 constitution ? Must we " crucify," that is, do violence to 
 our essential nature to secvire the approbation of God 1 
 May we not, with the strictest accuracy, inquire whether 
 sin does not consist in acting contrary to the laws of our 
 original, essential constitution 1 
 
 Whatever, then, may be the nature of human depravity, 
 it evidently consists in something besides voluntary exer- 
 cises. 
 
 Is it not presented in this light by those passages 
 which personify it and style it " the old man ?" " That 
 ye put off" concerning the former conversation, the old 
 man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts. 
 
92 NEW DIVIXITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind," Eph. iv, 22. 
 " Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, 
 that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth 
 we should not serve sin," Romans vi, 6. Here is a plain 
 distinction between " the old man which is corrupt," and 
 the " former conversation." To suppose that the old man 
 signifies the former course of life, would be to make these 
 expressions synonymous. The sense would then be, that 
 ye put off concerning the former conversation, the former 
 conversation. To the existence and life of the old man, 
 actual transgression is evidently attributed, and the result 
 of his being " crucified" is, that we do not " serve sin," 
 that is, do not commit actual transgression. 
 
 Again : the doctrine that all depravity consists in volun- 
 tary exercises, is at variance with those scriptures which 
 speak of depravity and holiness under the ideas of bondage 
 and freedom. They constitute a numerous class. But 
 what bondage to depravity can there be, if it consists alto- 
 gether in voluntary exercises ? What greater freedom can 
 a man have, at any time, than when he knows no con- 
 straint but his own volitions ? 
 
 It is also at variance with those inspired declarations 
 which represent the Holy Spirit's influences as necessary 
 to overcome and remove depravity. Any other means 
 which suspend voluntary action will do the work as effec- 
 tually. Let the most depraved man be put to sleep, and 
 he is as free from depravity as the Saviour himself. This 
 conclusion is as inevitable as it is absurd : unless we are 
 required to believe that a man is engaged in voluntary and 
 accountable action while he is asleep. And it would be a 
 somewhat curious speculation to inquire, what would be- 
 come of a man if he were to die in that condition, which is 
 certainly a" possible case. Would he go to heaven, or to 
 hell ? If to the latter place, there woidd be the phenome- 
 non of a man going to hell without any depravity. 
 
NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 93 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 DEPRAVITY CONTINUED. 
 
 The doctrine v/hich we oppose, evidently leads to a 
 most amis crip tural, absurd, and pernicious distinction be- 
 tween the moral character of the actor and his actions. 
 If depravity consists solely in voluntary action, we have 
 only to contemplate man as distinct from his actions, and 
 no depravity can be affirmed of him. Depravity belongs 
 to his actions, not to his person, or constitution. His ac- 
 tions may be depraved ; but it does not follow that he is 
 depraved. This consequence is so contrary to Scripture 
 and reason, that one would suppose it sufficient to con- 
 demn the theory, in the estimate of all its advocates. But 
 it is not. They have seen the consequence, and frequently 
 asserted it. It is included in many of their statements of 
 the doctrine. Mr. Duffield plainly asserts it, when he 
 says, " We are infallibly directed, in making our estimate 
 of human depravity, to have exclusive regard to the acts 
 and exercises of the human soul." Here a distinction is 
 made between the soul and its acts and exercises ; and it 
 is affirmed that, in making an estimate of depravity, the 
 soul is to be excluded from the account, and the regard 
 confined to its actions. Again : he says, " There shall 
 take place those acts, of which alone we can predicate 
 moral depravity." In his chapter on " the original of hu- 
 man depravity," he charges the advocates of the opposite 
 doctrine with predicating depravity of " being," or "simple 
 existence ;" and affects to prove that it cannot be affirmed 
 of " being ;" and expresses his surprise " that it should be 
 made a question, whether sin may be predicated of being, 
 or simple existence." It would be silly enough, to be 
 sure, to affirm depravity of simple, abstract being, for that 
 would imply that all beings are depraved. But this his 
 
94 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 opponents had not done. They had not even started the 
 question which excites his surprise. They had affirmed 
 depravity of human beings, and this is obviously the doc- 
 trine against which his objection is aimed. It is not to be 
 wondered at, however, that he involves such a sentiment 
 in the mists of ambiguity, by confoimding a particular class 
 of beings with being itself. 
 
 Mr. Finney says, " From this subject you can see that 
 the wicked conduct of sinners is no proof that their nature 
 is sinful P The author of " Views in Theology" affirms it 
 broadly, when he says, " No depravity, taint, corruption, 
 nor any other defect whatever of that nature, pertains to 
 the constitution of man." 
 
 Mr. Barnes makes this distinction appear very con- 
 spicuous in his comment on St. Paul's declaration, that 
 " the carnal mind is enmity against Grod," &c., where he 
 tells us that it does not mean " the mind itself, the intel- 
 lect, or the will ; it does not suppose that the mind or soul 
 is physically depraved, or opposed to God." That it " does 
 not mean that the soul itself is not subject to his law, but 
 the minding of those things is hostile to his law." 
 
 It is not necessary to question the correctness of this 
 criticism. The language of the apostle may signify " the 
 minding of those things." But if he does not expressly 
 predicate depravity and inability of the " mind itself," or 
 " of man," in this place, he does in other places ; and what 
 he here says, clearly implies the depravity of the " mind 
 itself," &c. Can that mind or soul be otherwise than de- 
 praved, which is constantly performing depraved actions ? 
 Can it be otherwise than at enmity with God, when all 
 its intelligent, voluntary exercises are at enmity with him 1 
 But the effect of this comment is, obviously, to restrict, as 
 a question of doctrine, the depravity and inability to the 
 actions of the mind. It is adopted by New School writers, 
 generally, to guard the doctrines of natural ability, and 
 
NEW DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY. 95 
 
 depravity, as consisting solely in action, to whicli the text 
 is equally fatal, whether it expressly affirms, or merely 
 implies, that the " mind itself" is carnal, and at eimtiity 
 with God. 
 
 We shall endeavour to make good our condemnation of 
 this consequence, and the theory to which it belongs, by 
 first bringing it in contact with the Scriptures. The 
 apostle writes to the Philippians : — " For many walk, of 
 whom I have told you often, and now tell you, even weep- 
 ing, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; 
 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and 
 whose glory is their shame, who mind earthly things." 
 Here depravity is predicated not only of minding earthly 
 things, but of those who mind them — of the " mind itself" 
 — ^the man — the being. The result of an attempt to con- 
 form this text to the doctrine, that depravity belongs solely 
 to action, would be strikingly ludicrous. Again : the 
 apostle says to the Corinthians, " Are ye not carnal, and 
 walk as men ?" How ridiculous would be the attempt to 
 interpret this text on the theory which predicates de- 
 pravity solely of action ! 
 
 This theory is most unequivocally contradicted by the 
 reasonings of the Saviour, on human actions and their 
 causes : — " Beware of false prophets, which come to you 
 in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather 
 grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ? Even so every good 
 tree bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth 
 forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, 
 neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Where- 
 fore by their fruits ye shall know them," Matt. vii. The 
 purport of this reasoning is, plainly, that acts and exercises 
 derive their moral quality from the moral qualities of the 
 actor, and likewise furnish the criterion by which his 
 moral principles are to be judged. Are the actions de- 
 
96 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 praved 1 It follows that the source of them is depraved. 
 Is the man depraved ? Then will his actions be depraved. 
 What a glaring discrepancy there is between the oracles 
 of Christ, and the speculations of these theorists, Avho, 
 with the New Testament in their hands, and professing 
 to be servants and ministers of Christ, tell us that " there 
 is nothing in man which constitutes a tendency to sin" — 
 " which forms any more certainty or probability that he 
 will exercise that species of action which is evil, than that 
 which is morally excellent" — and that " sinful actions do 
 not imply a sinful nature." 
 
 The Saviour furnishes a severe rebuke to this incon- 
 sistency, in his reply to those who attributed his casting 
 out devils to the agency of Beelzebub, the prince of devils. 
 After showing the absurdity of their charge, he says, — • 
 " Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, or else 
 make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt ; for the tree 
 is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers ! how can 
 ye, being evil, speak good things ? For out of the abun- 
 dance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out 
 of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things ; 
 and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bring- 
 eth forth evil things." 
 
 Who does not perceive that the doctrine and distinction 
 which we oppose, destroy the Saviour's maxim, " The 
 tree is known by its fruits," and contradict all liis reason- 
 ings ? They make the evil quality pertain exclusively to 
 the fruit. They are at variance with the whole tenor of 
 Scripture, which constantly affirms depravity of man, and 
 contemplates it as the source of his evil actions. 
 
 Apply this distinction to the perpetrator of crime, in any 
 of its varied forms, and while it predicates depravity of 
 his actions, it leaves himself without condemnation. Take, 
 for instance, the manufacturer and tralTicker in ardent 
 spirits as a drink who is fully apprized of all the mischief 
 
NEW DIVINITY — 'DEPRAVITY. 97 
 
 he is doing. His business may be pronounced immoral, 
 but it does not follow that he is immoral or depraved. The 
 immorality belongs exclusively to the business. This dis- 
 tinction was actually so applied, and this doctrine main- 
 tained, in the Pennsylvania Temperance Convention in the 
 spring of 1835, by one of the authors referred to in this 
 work, in the debate on the resolution asserting the im- 
 morality of the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits as 
 a drink. 
 
 According to this doctrine we have only to contemplate 
 the murderer apart from his actions, and we must pro- 
 nounce him perfectly free from depravity. Let his volun- 
 tary exercises be suspended by sleep, for instance, and 
 this is undeniably the case. Let him die in this condi- 
 tion, and he dies free from depravity, although the blood 
 may yet reek on his murderous blade. Or let him wake 
 from his sleep, and whether he has any depravity after he 
 wakes, or not, will depend on his voluntarily performing 
 depraved exercises, which he has a natural ability to de- 
 cline. This' is a specimen of the moral philosophy which 
 grows out of New School theology. 
 
 It has been objected to this theory, that it is at variance 
 with the doctrine of total depravity, and its advocates have 
 endeavoured to remove the objection. One thing, how- 
 ever is certain, that it admits of no such thing as partial 
 depravity. There must either be total depravity or none 
 at all ; for as the depravity of a man consists solely in his 
 actions, his present action must, at any given period of his 
 life, constitute his present depravity. Whether it be total 
 or partial, will depend on, whether the volition is partially 
 or wholly at variance with the law which it transgresses. 
 Now the volitions of the mind are successive, and no mat- 
 ter how rapidly they may succeed each other, the mind 
 puts forth but one volition at a time. Whether that voli- 
 tion is partially in obedience to, and partially at variance 
 
 5 
 
98 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 with, the law, will depend on the law itself. If the law 
 partly enjoins, and partly forbids it, this will be the case. 
 But such a supposition respecting the law of God would 
 be absurd. It would make it grossly contradictory. But 
 if the law is totally at variance with the unholy voli- 
 tion, it must constitute total depravity. The moment 
 there is the least variation from total depravity, it is to- 
 tally absent. 
 
 If it be objected to this reasoning, that one single totally 
 depraved action does not constitute total depravity, we 
 would ask how many such actions are necessary to con- 
 stitute it ? 
 
 Perhaps it will be said, that it is not every unholy voli- 
 tion that constitutes total depravity. If there be some par- 
 ticular volitions of which alone total depravity can be 
 predicated, it will be necessary to know what they are, in 
 order to determine whether an individual be totally de- 
 praved or not, as his character in this respect will de- 
 pend on his having performed or declined them. 
 
 Take this theory of depravity then, along with the doc- 
 trine of natural ability, from which it springs, and it will 
 follow infallibly, that a man may change from total de- 
 pravity to holiness, and from holiness to total depravity, 
 twenty times a day, and as much oftener as he pleases. 
 
 But the great and crowning objection is, that it denies 
 human depravity altogether. It has been shown, by the 
 authority of Scripture, that it consists in something in man, 
 to which sinful voluntary exercises are referred as their 
 source ; and the popular and prevailing apprehensions of 
 mankind are in accordance with the philosophy of Scrip- 
 ture. Now, if depravity does not consist in some quality, 
 principle, propensity, or disposition, belonging to th» 
 actor, which may be contemplated apart from his actions, 
 and which operates as the cause of his putting forth un- 
 holy, instead of holy exercises, it will follow, inevitably 
 
 I 
 
NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 99 
 
 that there is nothing in man which makes it probable that he 
 will pursue one course of moral action rather than another. 
 Suppose two men sleeping, or in a state of suspended ani- 
 mation. According to this doctrine, there is nothing in 
 either of these men, no matter what their previous cha- 
 racter and conduct may have been, on which we are au- 
 thorized to build the slightest calculation as to what course 
 they will pursue when they are awake, or restored. This 
 consequence, sufficient, one would suppose, to condemn 
 any theory which could be shown to lead to it, or involve it, 
 is not only fairly deducible from the premises, but is actu- 
 ally adopted, and made a part of the theory in which it 
 ori-ginates. It is broadly asserted in the quotation with 
 which we closed the fifth chapter. 
 
 Let us proceed to test it by the common sense and uni- 
 versal practice of mankind. Suppose one of these men 
 to be a useful and unexceptionable minister of the gospel; 
 and the "other a vile penitentiary convict, who has escaped, 
 by united force and treachery, from his prison. One is 
 now just as far from depravity as the other. And were 
 this theory correct, we should do the convict an injury by 
 withholding from him the confidence which we award to 
 the minister. Why ? Because it would be withheld on 
 the supposition that there is something in him — something 
 belonging to his mind — something apart from his actions — • 
 some disposition, propensity, or taste, which renders it 
 highly probable, if not certain, that he will, if he has op- 
 portunity, take improper liberties with the rights and pro- 
 perty of others, when he begins to act again. 
 
 But will the teachers of New Divinity undertake to per- 
 suade the community that there is nothing in the thief 
 which constitutes a tendency to thieving ? — nothing which 
 forms any more certainty or probability that he will act 
 dishonestly, than that he will act with the most scrupulous 
 honesty ?— that it would be doing injustice to him, to deny 
 
100 NEW DIVINITY— DEPRAVITY. 
 
 him the confidence we award to those whose integrity has 
 never been questioned ? Do not men universally act on the 
 opposite principle ? Are we not constantly selecting our 
 society, and pronouncing our judgments, on the ground 
 that men possess various moral principles, apart from, and 
 anterior to, their acting, which lay the foundation of pro- 
 bability that they will act honourably or dishonourably, 
 virtuously or viciously, when placed under certain circum- 
 stances ? Would the merchant as soon trust his merchan- 
 dise to the noted swindler as to the man of tried honesty? 
 This new-fashioned theory of depravity is a perfect out- 
 rage on common sense and universal experience. It is a 
 wholesale denial of hiunan depravity, as it is generally 
 imderstood. 
 
 Will it be argued, that habit makes the difference in 
 question 1 — ^that one man has contracted habits of dis- 
 honesty, and that this is the cause of his acting viciously? 
 There can be no doubt that habit has a very powerful in- 
 fluence on volition ; but this solution, if admitted, would 
 be as fatal to the doctrine that all depravity consists in 
 voluntary exercises, as it would to the doctrine of an 
 hereditary and constitutional propensity. It places habit 
 " back" of moral exercises, and assigns it as their cause. 
 Besides, habit is something which affects the faculties 
 — ^the constitution of man. It is something which belongs 
 to him, and abides with him, sleeping and waking. If, 
 therefore, we resolve depravity into habit, we make it to 
 consist in something in man, which is distinct from, and 
 the cause of, depraved action. 
 
NEW DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY. W 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 DEPRAVITY CONTINUED. 
 
 Were the Scriptures silent on the subject, a strong pre- 
 sumption in favour of the doctrine of inherent and consti- 
 tutional depravity would arise, from the acknowledged 
 facts that the first moral exercises of every individual ot 
 our race are vicious— and that their actions continue to be 
 vicious, until depravity is arrested in its course by the 
 power of grace. How does it happen that the » children 
 of men go astray from the womb, speaking Ues V How 
 shall we account for this universal transgression of the law 
 of God, commencing with the first accountable act, with- 
 out admitting an innate principle of depravity ? 
 
 It is said, in reply, that there is no more difficulty m 
 accounting for this universal wickedness, without suppos- 
 ing an. innate principle of depravity, than there is m ac- 
 counting for the sinning of our first ancestors without it. 
 But the cases are widely difi-erent Adam sinned once 
 without it, under circumstances of powerful temptation, 
 after having lived for some time in perfect obedience. 
 Now all men sin constantly, and from the begmmng. 
 There is no obedience to God until regeneration takes 
 place. The task then is not that of accounting for one 
 single sinful volition without previous depravity— a task 
 not without its difficulties-but for a long and unbroken 
 series of volitions, aU in a wrong direction, commencing 
 with the individual's first accountable exercise : and aU 
 this in despite of powerful opposing influences, and the 
 strontrest motives to the contrary course. 
 
 But strong as this argument is, we are not dependant 
 upon it. The Scriptures, as we have seen, settle the 
 question most decisively ; and we prefer to rest oui con- 
 victions on their decision. 
 
102 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 It is contended by the advocates of New Divinity, that, 
 if depravity consists not merely in voluntary action — if it 
 affects the constitution of the actor, it must be 2i faculty — 
 an essential attribute — a part of our constitution, &c. The 
 objection is presented in an endless variety of phraseology, 
 all, however, conveying the same idea. 
 
 That depravity does not consist solely in action, has, we 
 think, been clearly shown. It is equally clear that it is 
 not a faculty — an essential attribute of our nature — a part 
 of our constitution. The true doctrine lies somewhere 
 between these extreme points. 
 
 But the doctrine which we have advanced does not lead 
 to the consequence alleged. There is no necessity for 
 adopting the voluntary exercise theory, in order to escape 
 it. Depravity may be something which inheres in the 
 soul, and constitutes a principle of action, without consti- 
 tuting a faculty of the soul. This position may be illus- 
 trated by a reference to bodily disease, on which the in- 
 spired writers rely for their most striking illustrations of 
 depravity. There is a remarkable analogy between them. 
 But who will maintain that bodily disease consists solely 
 in action — that the body itself is not diseased ? To main- 
 tain such a supposition, would be to present to our con- 
 templation the phenomenon of a healthy body in constantly 
 diseased action. Disease not only deranges the action 
 of the bodily organs, but affects the organs themselves. 
 The body itself is diseased ; and yet no one supposes that 
 the disease is a faculty of the body — that it is a part 
 of the bodily constitution. The body had all its parts and 
 attributes previous to its becoming diseased. It has them 
 all after the disease is removed. The difference between 
 its past and present condition, is this : then, it was dis- 
 eased, and was disqualified for vigorous action, or wholly 
 disabled ; now, it is sound, and capable of the appropriate 
 and vigorous exertion of all its faculties. 
 
NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 103 
 
 So it is with depravity. It is something which inheres 
 in our moral constitution, and causes a deranged action of 
 its powers ; but it is not a faculty — it is not an essential 
 attribute — it is not a part of the constitution. Remove it, 
 and the soul has the same faculties and constituents it had 
 before. The difference caused, is simply this : the soul 
 is relieved of a bias, a propensity, which disqualified it for 
 obedience to God, and held its powers in thraldom to 
 vice. 
 
 Again : there are bodily diseases which are called con- 
 stitutional. They are supposed to be transmitted from 
 parents to children, and yet no one pretends to consider 
 them a part of the constitution. The objection depends 
 for all its plausibility on the ambiguity of the term con- 
 stitutional. Indeed, ambiguous terms are the weapons of 
 New Divinity warfare. They constitute its heaviest artil- 
 lery. That which is a part of the constitution is cer- 
 tainly constitutional ; but it does not follow, that whatever 
 is constitutional must therefore be a part of the consti- 
 tution. 
 
 But the overwhelming objection to our view of depravity 
 is, that it teaches the doctrine of " physical depravity." 
 Numerous statements of the doctrine are quoted, and 
 commented upon, by different New School writers, and 
 the conclusion is brandished with formidable menace, 
 that " the doctrine taught is that of physical depravity." 
 It is supposed that it is thus reduced to an absurdity. 
 The term " physical" occurs with endless reiteration in 
 the arguments of New Divinity, and seems to be relied on 
 as possessing some magic influence, before which, opposi- 
 tion is expected to cower. 
 
 It is not characteristic of truth to be terrified by a word. 
 We shall therefore venture to encounter this awful trisyl- 
 lable. The term " physical" is ambiguous, and this is the 
 secret of its importance. It is sometimes used as synony- 
 
104 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 
 
 mous with material or corporeal, and in other instances to 
 signify whatever belongs essentially to the constitution ot 
 our whole nature. The advocates of the theory of de- 
 pravity which we oppose, make it represent every thing 
 except voluntary action. They insist upon it, that de- 
 pravity must consist solely in voluntary action, or it is 
 physical. These are, with them, the only alternatives. 
 Now it is plain, that whether we teach the doctrine of 
 physical depravity or not, will depend on the definition of 
 the term, which may be adopted. If we take it in the sense 
 in which these controversialists use it, we must of course 
 adopt their theory, or submit to be stigmatized as holding 
 the doctrine of physical depravity. 
 
 But, how is it that this phrase comes to be so revolt- 
 ing ? Why do we shrink from the charge of holding and 
 . teaching the doctrine of physical depravity ? Some of the 
 ancient philosophers held, that depravity resides altogether 
 in the corporeal constitution — ^that matter is essentially 
 and incurably corrupt, and that all the moral aberrations 
 of the soul are to be attributed to its connection with mat- 
 ter. Another theory of physical depravity, we are told, 
 represents it as " an essential attribute of the soul" — " a 
 created attribute of its substance, inhering in, and con- 
 tributing to make up its nature, and constitute it what 
 it is." 
 
 Now these theories of depravity are justly condemned. 
 We have not advanced either of them. If the term 
 " physical depravity" be restricted to them, we have not 
 approximated to the doctrine. But it has acquired, in the 
 hands of New Divinity, a new signification. Yet, if we 
 must bear the terrible odium inflicted upon us, we bear it 
 in good company. We have shown that the doctrine thus 
 stigmatized is the doctrine of the inspired writers ; and 
 we are sure of this, that, if St. Paul were living, these 
 modem theologists might assail him with the word " physi- 
 
NEW DIVINITy-^DEPRA.VITT. 105 
 
 cal" until their organs of speech should fail, or their re- 
 sources of ink become exhausted, and he would not move 
 an inch from his position. 
 
 But, taking the term " physical" in the sense of our op- 
 ponents, we cannot see but that they are as deeply involved 
 in the difficulty of teaching a physical depravity as our- 
 selves. If every faculty of our constitution be physical, 
 and, likewise, every inherent principle to which our ac- 
 tions are referred as their cause, will not all our actions 
 be physical ? It will not alter the case, that some of our 
 actions are under the control of the will, and therefore 
 voluntary ; for the will itself is a physical attribute. They 
 may be called moral, but the designation will serve only 
 to distinguish one class of physical actions from another 
 — that which is voluntary from that virhich is involun- 
 tary. The truth is this : the charge of physical depravity, 
 in the hands of these men, is a mere bugbear. It is re- 
 torted upon them with the utmost ease. Moreover, we 
 find examples in which they assert the doctrine of " physi- 
 cal depravity" in a sense in which we utterly reject it. 
 Mr. Barnes says, in his note on Romans vii, 23, *' The 
 body is composed of many members ; and as the flesh is 
 regarded as the sovu^ce of sin, (verse 18,) the law of sin 
 is said to be in the members, that is, in the body itself." 
 This is physical depravity, unquestionably. The " source 
 of sin," the " law of sin," is in " the body itself. ''^ To 
 this frightful extremity is Mr. B. pushed, in his efforts to 
 interpret the oracles of God in accordance with the doc- 
 trine, that the " soul itself" is not depraved. 
 
 These writers are chargeable with an inconsistency in 
 the use of language, which deserves a moment's notice. 
 They are constantly writing about the " physical nature," 
 the " physical constitution" of man. We are incessantly- 
 notified by them, that depravity does not belong to the 
 " physical constitution." But, if every thing which be- 
 
 5* 
 
106 NEW DIVINITY — HOLINESS. 
 
 longs in any way to man's constitution be physical, wliat 
 other nature or constitution can he have ? They may as 
 well write about human men and women, as about man's 
 " physical nature," if he has no other nature. But, if the 
 nature, or constitution of man, may be distinguished into 
 physical and moral, as such phraseology implies, their 
 objection to our doctrine of depravity is entirely obviated 
 by our affirming it of the moral constitution. Mr. Duffield 
 speaks of the " moral constitution," but with great incon- 
 sistency. What he means, it would be difficult to deter- 
 mine, unless he considers a voluntary act to be a consti- 
 tution. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 HOLINESS. 
 
 It has been shown that the doctrine of the natural ability 
 of fallen man to obey God leads to the doctrine that all 
 depravity consists in voluntary action, and that this doc- 
 trine is adopted and inculcated by the advocates of this 
 system. It requires no argument to show that this view 
 of depravity necessarily implies the doctrine that all holi- 
 ness consists in voluntary exercises. 
 
 This view of the nature of holiness they have likewise 
 adopted. The attention of the reader is asked to a few 
 citations in proof of this assertion. 
 
 Mr. Finney, in his sermon on " Sinners bound to change 
 their own hearts," denies that regeneration effects any 
 change in the constitution, or implants a new principle or 
 taste in the soul which "may be characterized as holy. 
 He says, — 
 
 " All holiness in God, angels, or men, must be volun- 
 tary, or it is not holiness. To call any thing that is a part 
 
NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 107 
 
 of the mind or body, holy — to speak of a holy substance, 
 unless it be in a figurative sense, is to talk nonsense. 
 Holiness is virtue ; it is something that is praiseworthy ; 
 it cannot therefore be a part of the created substance of 
 body or mind, but must consist in voluntary obedience to 
 the principles of eternal righteousness." — p. 7. 
 
 Again : — " For instance, 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 
 could have no moral character ; for moral character can- 
 not be a subject of creation, but attaches to voluntary 
 action." 
 
 Mr. Duffieldj speaking of the graces of the Spirit, says, 
 " Now all these are voluntary acts and exercises of the 
 human mind." 
 
 " It is philosophy, based on a false physiology, which 
 comes in and says, the Spirit secures the exercise of these 
 graces by infusing grace, or by putting into the soul a 
 principle of life, or by creating a disposition for holiness, 
 which principle or disposition is the immediate cause of 
 these holy exercises of mind and heart, technically called 
 the graces of the Spirit." — p. 230. 
 
 Again :— " Some vague and mystic notions are had 
 about disposition and habit as the proper philosophical 
 cause of holy exercises. This philosophical cause of holy 
 acts and exercises is itself pronounced holy, as every 
 cause, it is supposed, must possess the same quality or 
 character with its effects ; and in the production, or com- 
 munication, or lodgment, or creation of this causal some- 
 thing, this disposition or habit in the human soul, by the 
 Spirit of God, it is alleged consists regeneration. Power 
 is thus given to the regenerate man to perform holy acts, 
 
lOd NEW DIVINITY — HOLINESS. 
 
 and thus the efficacious working of the Holy Spirit is 
 resolved into a mere physical efficiency ! And all the 
 passages of Scripture which speak of his power in this 
 connection are explained by means of this philosophical 
 invention." — p. 511. 
 
 Again : — " But do not tell us that the Spirit introduces 
 into the heart a vital jirinciple or sense, a spiritual instinct 
 or holy principle, to be the iminediate cause and formal rea- 
 son of holy acts, laid by creative power in the nature of 
 the soul." — p. 226. 
 
 And in another place he says, " But we may know and 
 trace the immediate effects of his (the Spirit's) agency, 
 inasmuch as they all lie in our voluntary acts and exercises, 
 of which we are distinctly conscious." — p. 439. 
 
 He meets with a difficulty in the alleged holiness of 
 Jesus Christ while in his infant state, and concludes that 
 the holiness which characterized him at that time, must 
 have been of a different kind from that which he after- 
 ward possessed. 
 
 " If holiness is attributed to that nature in its unborn 
 and embryo state, we certainly cannot suppose that it is 
 in the same sense in which it was after its growth into 
 youth and manhood, or else we must suppose that holi- 
 ness as a personal characteristic consists in something- 
 irrespective of the acts and exercises of a moral being. 
 For the holiness of a being, with its powers developed, 
 and actively excited, must be very different from that of 
 one yet destitute of such powers." 
 
 The holiness which Mr. D. attributes to Jesus Christ 
 in his " embryo state," in order to escape the alternative 
 of admitting that " holiness is a personal characteristic," 
 and consists in something which may exist antecedent to 
 the voluntary " acts and exercises of a moral being," is 
 such as is attributed to inanimate things — for instance, to 
 the vessels and apartments of the temple. These were 
 
NEW DIVINITY— HOLINESS. 109 
 
 holy in tie sense of being " set apart as permanently and 
 exclusively appropriate to God. In this sense the yet un- 
 conscious nature of Christ may be denominated holy." — 
 p. 353. 
 
 On page five hundred and eighteen, he grants that 
 " holy exercises" must be referred to some cause, but de- 
 nies that the cause is to be found " in the soul itself," or 
 that it is " some disposition, or habit, or causal something 
 in the very being." He ascribes all the causation to ex- 
 terior influences — to the " Holy Spirit" operating on "owr 
 constitutional susceptibilities by means of the truths and 
 facts of Scripture," the holy exercises taking their charac- 
 ter of holiness, not from any internal principle of holiness 
 in the actor, but from the character of the " objects excit- 
 ing and eliciting them." 
 
 He argues that the doctrine of an inherent principle of 
 holiness in the soul, operating as the cause of holy exer- 
 cises, " fobs the Spirit of his glory," and obscvures " his 
 immediate influence." " Shall we," says he, " thrust the 
 Spirit back, lose sight of his grace, and attribute to him 
 the mere exercise of creative power in this marvellous 
 work of converting and sanctifying the soul ? Shall we 
 give glory to the renovated man, and inflate him with 
 pride, by leading him to believe that a certain act of God 
 has lodged in him a cause of holy exercises V — pp. 229-231 . 
 
 It is not our intention to argue at length the falsity of 
 this doctrine. Our main object in bringing it into notice 
 is to show that it is a part of the system to which we im- 
 pute it. Besides, if we have succeeded in refuting the 
 premises from which it is deduced, it falls to the ground 
 as a matter of course. Nevertheless, we can scarcely 
 resist the temptation to discredit it, by adverting to some 
 of the contradictions in which it involves its advocates. 
 
 Mr. D., as we have seen, contends that holmess does 
 not consist in a " disposition" or " principle" in the soul, 
 
110 NEW DIVINITY — HOLINESS. 
 
 operating as " the cause of holy exercises," but in holy 
 exercises themselves, which are caused solely by influ- 
 ences external to the actor. He tells us, p. 516, "That 
 the graces of the Spirit are not created causes per se, but 
 habitual voluntary exercises induced by his efficacious in- 
 fluence through the truths and facts of revelation." But 
 in the very same paragraph he exalts these " voluntary 
 exercises" into " aff"ections" and " principles of action," 
 and ascribes to these " aflfections" and " principles of ac- 
 tion," the causal influence, the existence of vi^hich he has 
 taken so much pains to disprove. " These," says he, 
 " are all manifestly different affections, which depend ori- 
 ginally on our natural and constitutional susceptibilities, 
 and as excited and elicited by the Spirit's exhibition of 
 the objects and truths appropriate to this end, assume an 
 impulsive injiuence, and secure those acts and exercises which 
 we call holy.'''' And at the conclusion of the paragraph he 
 says, " Love, repentance, faith, hope, and fear, are, in their 
 first rise, affections, excited and elicited by appropriate 
 objects, and becoming habitual, they assume such a per- 
 manent influence on conduct and character, as to be de- 
 nominated the principles of Christian action^ 
 
 Here, then, we are instructed that these " holy acts and 
 exercises," which have no cause in the soul itself, are 
 " affections" and " principles of action," which " assume 
 an impulsive influence, and secure those acts and exercises 
 which we call holy" — that is, if the language used has 
 any meaning, the holy acts and exercises which have no 
 cause in the soul " assume an impulsive influence," be- 
 come principles of action, and cause, or in other words, 
 " secure" themselves. 
 
 Let it be observed, that the question is not how holiness 
 is produced by its great Author, whether by " creation," 
 or "infusion," or "implantation," or by "exciting and 
 eliciting" it by the exhibition of truth ; but, what is its na- 
 
NEW DIVINITY — HOLINESS. Ill 
 
 ture when produced. Does it consist solely in "voluntary 
 exercises" of the natural faculties, or does it include 
 principles of action in the soul of the holy being, to which 
 these voluntary exercises may be referred, as a real and 
 indispensable, though secondary cause 1 Mr. D. has ob- 
 viously contradicted himself by first denying the existence 
 of a cause of holy actions in the soul, and affirming that 
 holiness consists vi^holly in voluntary exercises, and then 
 attributing holy exercises to affections and principles of 
 Christian action " which assume an impulsive influence, and 
 secure those acts and exercises which we call holj/," unless 
 he really intended to affirm the absurdity that the holy 
 exercises cause themselves. 
 
 But it becomes us not to rejoice too soon, as though we 
 had taken great spoil. It is not an easy matter to hold 
 these slippery logicians when we have caught them. Al- 
 though our author finds it convenient, for some reason, to 
 refer good actions to affections and principles, as their 
 cause, we are not to suppose that he intends to abide by 
 this doctrine. He has already defined affections to be 
 nothing more than voluntary acts and exercises, and he 
 proceeds to give a similar explanation of the term "princi- 
 ple." He says, in the succeeding paragraph, "The intel- 
 ligent reader will perceive at once in what sense we 
 understand the word principle, — not as designating ' some- 
 thing' laid in the very structure of the being, nor a super- 
 added quality of the soul, nor a specific cause of holy exer- 
 cises, lodged in the heart by the creative power of God, 
 anterior to such exercises ; but the determining or regu- 
 lating influence of any particular species of feeling, as 
 continuously or frequently and readily excited and elicited 
 by the presentation of some object or truth, appropriately 
 operating on our constitutional susceptibilities." 
 
 We are here notified that he does not mean by the word 
 principle " a specific cause of holy exercises." What, 
 
112 NEW DIVINITY — HOLINESS. 
 
 then, does he mean 1 He means " the determining or 
 regulating influences of any particular species of feeling." 
 But again we are in difficulties. We must look upon this 
 influence of feeling, or the feeling to which the influence 
 belongs, which he identifies with principle, either as a 
 cause of voluntary action, and therefore distinct from 
 voluntary action, or as a voluntary action merely. If it 
 be viewed in the former light, he has fairly entitled him- 
 self to the imputation of having uttered a gross contradic- 
 tion. If in the latter, we beg him to accept our gratula- 
 tions for the sagacity by which he made the important 
 discovery, that all voluntary exercises are caused by volun- 
 tary exercises, and that some of them, at least, must cause 
 themselves. 
 
 But why does he pursue this course ? Why maintain 
 that holiness consists altogether in voluntary exercises, 
 and then attribute these holy exercises to holy afiections 
 and principles as their cause, and then again define affec- 
 tions and principles to be nothing more than voluntary 
 exercises ? Because, while the theory of divinity which 
 he and his coadjutors have adopted, requires of them that 
 they maintain the first position, common sense, the philo- 
 sophy, the language, the laws, the jurisprudence, of all 
 civilized communities, attribute virtuous or vicious actions 
 to virtuous or vicious innate principles as their source ; 
 and they are sometimes, in the course of their doctrinal 
 discussions, placed in such positions that they must con- 
 form to this imiversal judgment, or appear obviously and 
 undisguisedly arrayed against, it. To avoid this incon- 
 venience, they adopt the langTiage which conveys the 
 popular sentiment, and then interpret, so as to harmonize 
 it with their theory. This is the course they pursue in 
 arguing out their views of the nature of depravity, as well 
 as of the nature of holiness. They are often compelled 
 to contradict themselves by using language which implies 
 
NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 113 
 
 the very opposite of that which they are endeavouring to 
 maintain. Affections, dispositions, and principles, are 
 spoken of as the sources of voluntary action. But the 
 reader need not misapprehend them, for they are careful 
 to redeem themselves by resolving all affections, dispo- 
 sitions, and principles of moral action into voluntary ex- 
 ercises. < 
 
 We will here cite an example of the manner in which 
 the word " disposition" is explained, that our readers 
 may be on their guard when it is used in their discourses 
 or writings on this subject: — "It is philosophy, ^^ says Mr. 
 D., "that talks of some peculiar adaptation of created 
 nature, that is the specific cause of those acts and exer- 
 cises which, as they are strung together in a series, or 
 become habitual, we denominate disposition." — p. 458. 
 
 Again : " We use it commonly to denote any particular 
 class of acts and exercises toward given objects as they 
 operate on our constitutional capacities and susceptibilities, 
 and not as efficient causes per se, lodged in the structure 
 of the soul, or superadded to its properties." — Ibid. 
 
 Let it be remembered, then, when they refer actions to 
 " dispositions," as they often do, that they mean nothing 
 more by " dispositions" than " acts and exercises as they 
 are strung together in a series," or " any particular class 
 of acts and exercises." They have in some instances re- 
 solved the " heart" itself into voluntary action. 
 
 Another advantage is gained by this mode of operation. 
 When their orthodoxy is called in question, they can 
 readily adjust themselves to the measure of opposite 
 standards. They can agree with one side or the other, 
 as the emergency requires ; and by bringing their mental 
 juggling to bear on a well selected vocabulary of ambigu- 
 ous terms, they can imdertake to convince an Old School 
 Calvinist, in one hour, that there are but shades of differ- 
 ence in their doctrinal views, and then turn around, and in 
 
114 NEW mVTNlTY HOLINESS. 
 
 the next hour, hope to convince the Methodist that they 
 hold his doctrines precisely. 
 
 We will leave it to our readers to estimate the services 
 rendered to literature and philosophy, by a theological 
 system which is compelled, for its own support, to con- 
 found voluntary acts of the mind with principles of action. 
 
 There is one objection urged against the Scriptural 
 view of the nature of holiness an wliich we propose to 
 bestow a moment's attention. It is urged with equal 
 plausibility against the Scriptural doctrines of the nature 
 of regeneration and depravity. It is, that a constitutional 
 change, by which the regenerate man is supposed to have 
 communicated to him a new principle of action, would 
 destroy his identity. 
 
 This objection is based on the assumption that whatever 
 is constitutional must be an essential part of the constitu- 
 tion. If this be the case, there can be no such thing as 
 constitutional diseases, for no one would contend that dis- 
 ease is an essential part of the constitution of the human 
 body. Our principal object, however, in noticing the ob- 
 jection is, to compare it with the doctrine of the resurrec- 
 tion of the human body. The change which is to take 
 place in the bodies of the saints will be constitutional, if 
 a constitutional change be possible. They are to be in- 
 vested with new principles ; to be adapted to the occu- 
 pancy of new elements, and to new modes of existence. 
 But if their identity is not preserved, there is no resurrec- 
 tion. The objection tends, therefore, to the destruction 
 of the glorious doctrine of the resurrection of the human 
 body. 
 
 The doctrine respecting the nature of holiness which 
 we have charged on the theory of modern Calvinism, is 
 thus asserted by the Christian Spectator, Vol. iii. No. 3, 
 p. 473 : " Holiness can no more be created in the soul 
 than sin. It is, and must be, voluntary action, the free choice 
 
NEW DIVINITY INFANTS. 115 
 
 of the agent, or wants that which is essential to the na- 
 ture of holiness." This is the doctrine advanced by Dr. 
 Taylor, the Socinian, in the work reviewed by Mr. Wesley 
 in his treatise on Original Sin. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 CHARACTER OF INFANTS. 
 
 The doctrine that all depravity and holiness consists of 
 voluntary action, leads directly to the doctrine, that iiifants 
 have no moral character — are neither holy nor depraved. 
 The passage from one doctrine to the other is short. If 
 depravity and holiness consist wholly in voluntary and 
 accountable action, and infants are incapable of such ac- 
 tion, they can neither have the one nor the other. 
 
 One or two examples will be sufficient to show that this 
 doctrine also is held and taught. 
 
 Mr. Finney, in his sermon on Why sinners hate God, 
 says, " Perhaps some one will object and say. If sinners 
 are not born with a sinful nature, how then are they saved 
 by grace ? But I ask in return. If they are born with a sin- 
 ful nature, how are they saved by grace ? Does God cre- 
 ate an infant a sinner, and then call it grace to save him 
 from the sinfulness of a nature of his OAvn creation ? Ab- 
 surd and blasphemous." — ^p. 156. 
 
 Again : " But let us look at this. Here are two sys- 
 tems ; the one maintains that infants have no moral cha- 
 racter at all until they have committed actual transgres- 
 sion — that their first moral actions are universally sinful, 
 but that previous to moral action they, are neither sinful 
 nor holy — that, as they have no moral character, they de- 
 serve neither praise nor blame ; neither life nor death at 
 the hand of God ; God might annihilate them without in- 
 
116 NEW DIVINITY INFANTS. 
 
 justice, or he may bestow upon them eternal life as a free 
 and unearned gift. The other system maintains that in- 
 fants have a sinful nature, which they have inherited from 
 Adam." — Ibid. 
 
 He proceeds to argue against the latter system, and in 
 the course of the argument places his own system in con- 
 trast Avith it. " But let us look," he says, " at the other 
 system for a moment. This denies that infants have 
 a sinful nature, and rejects the monstrous dogma, that God 
 has created the nature sinful, and then pretends to save 
 the infant from a nature of his own creation by grace, as 
 if the infant deserved damnation for being what God made 
 it."— p. 157. 
 
 Mr. Duffield developes his views on the subject in the 
 following manner : " Our object is simply an observation 
 of facts, as far as they tend to shape or affect the future 
 moral character of the child. We ssij future, for it is a 
 question alike pertinent and important, whether in the in- 
 cipient period of infancy and childhood there can be any 
 moral character whatever possessed." 
 
 We are not left in the dark as to the side which he 
 takes on this " question alike pertinent and important." 
 He proceeds to explain what constitutes moral character. 
 " Moral character," he says, " is acquired by acts of a 
 moral nature. Moral acts are those acts which are con- 
 templated by the law, prescribing the rule of conduct. It 
 is not every act we perform that is a moral act." And 
 the conclusion to which he comes is thus stated : " Such 
 being the case, that many actions possess altogether an 
 indifferent character, and some do not even fall under the 
 cognizance of the law of God — and that too in adults, 
 where the capacities for moral action are fully developed 
 — it is obvious that in infancy and incipient childhood, 
 where none of the actions are deliberate, or the result of 
 motive, operating in connection Avith the knowledge of 
 
NEW DIVINITY INFANTS. 117 
 
 law, and of the great end of all human actions, no moral 
 character can appropriately he predicated." — pp. 377, 378. 
 
 We shall not take up time in urging the objection with 
 which Mr. Finney affects to grapple — that infants, if this 
 theory be true, will not be saved hy grace ; but we do in- 
 vite a moment's attention to the unfairness with which he 
 treats it. He undertakes to retort the objection. But, . 
 that his confident retort may appear plausible, he grossly ! 
 misrepresents the theory of his opponents. He directs / 
 his argument against the supposition that God creates the j 
 infant a sinner. But who maintains this opinion ? That i 
 this misrepresentation was intentional, appears probable; 
 from the fact, that immediately before and after his retort, 
 he states the orthodox tenet as it is, that infants " are born 
 with a sinful nature ; that they have a sinful nature which 
 they have inherited from Adam." Let him show, if he can, 
 that there is no grace in saving infants from a depravity ^ 
 which is not supposed to be created, but naturally inherited. 
 He also overlooks the principal meaning which the term 
 grace is intended to convey — that of supernatural influence 
 — and thus evades the force of the objection. 
 
 There is another objection, however, with which he 
 was doubtless acquainted, but which he declines intro- 
 ducing to the notice of his readers, at least in this sermon. 
 It is this : If infants have no moral character, they are, 
 dying in infancy, ineligible to admission either into heaven 
 or hell. Nothing can enter heaven but what is perfectly 
 holy ; and if they are sent to hell they must be damned 
 without either depravity or personal transgression, since 
 both holiness and depravity are said to consist in voluntary 
 exercises, of which they are incapable. Mr. F. no doubt 
 had his eye on this difficulty when he said, " God might 
 annihilate them without injustice, or he may bestow upon 
 them eternal life as a free and unearned gift." But the 
 difficulty is not their destitution of merit — their not having 
 
118 NEW DIVINITY INFANTS. 
 
 earned eternal life ; but tlieir destitution of holiness. If he 
 admits them into heaven, they must enter " without holi- 
 ness." But if God cannot create holiness in the soul, as 
 they have assured us, and as none can enter heaven with- 
 out it, their exclusion is inevitable. 
 
 It need not excite wonder if they should conclude that 
 the best way of disposing of this objection, is that of main- 
 taining silence respecting it. But it is not to be supposed 
 that such daring speculators would suffer themselves to be 
 pent in by it, without contriving some way of escape. 
 Some have found relief by conceding that infants have a 
 moral character, while, to avoid the necessity of admitting 
 that holiness and depravity include more than voluntary 
 action, they have adopted the theory that voluntary and 
 accountable action commences at the time of birth — that 
 " mankind are literally at hirth voluntary and accountable 
 agents, and actual sinners against God — that the new-born 
 infant is a responsible subject of God's moral government." 
 
 We shall not attempt to refute this incredible proposi- 
 tion by entering upon the philosophical inquiries to which 
 it might lead, but by bringing into view one or two of its 
 theological aspects merely. Suppose this doctrine, for 
 the sake of argument, to be true, we are placed in this 
 dilemma : either all infants, from the period of their birth 
 to the termination of infancy, voluntarily and constantly 
 exert their powers of moral agency in obedience to the law 
 of God, and thus secure their final salvation in case they 
 die in infancy ; or, falling into sin, and under the con- 
 demnation of the divine law, they are liable, even in ear- 
 liest infancy, to the damnation of hell. Moreover, if this 
 doctrine be true, we cannot see why infants may not com- 
 mence their existence with " holy exercises," and perse- 
 vere, and so present millions of exceptions to that doctrine 
 of our Saviour, which affirms the universal necessity of 
 the new birth. 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 119 
 
 We close this chapter by remarking that the reader 
 will be able to see, in the light of these investigations, what 
 is meant by many of the preachers and writers of New 
 Divinity, when they so emphatically affirm that all are born 
 " destitute of holiness." It is meant, that they are born 
 without a moral character of any kind. They are, accord- 
 ing to this theory, born as destitute of depravity as they 
 are of holiness. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 REGENERATION. 
 
 Another consequence resulting from the doctrines 
 which have been reviewed is, that a voluntary change of 
 will or purpose, merely, or a choice, or resolution, or determi- 
 nation to be a Christian, or a change in the character of the 
 voluntary exercises, is su^fficient to constitute regeneration. 
 This is plain. If depravity does not consist in a principle, 
 or disposition, or propensity, or taste, or corruption of our 
 nature, or any thing'which "lies back of the will," or is 
 anterior to our voluntary exercises, or is the cause of them, 
 — ^if it is in no sense constitutional — if it consists wholly 
 in being imwilling to obey God, or in wrong voluntary ex- 
 ercises, which we have shown to be the case if the doc- 
 trine of natural ability be true, an unregenerate man has 
 only to choose, or purpose, or resolve, or make up hia 
 mind, or become willing to serve God and be a Christian 
 — to commence a new course of voluntary exercises, which 
 he has a natural ability to do at any time, and all his de- 
 pravity is gone. He is regenerated. He is a Christian. 
 No other change is necessary. 
 
 This consequence, also, is adopted, and figures promi- 
 nently in the doctrinal exhibitions of New Divinity. Dr. 
 
120 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 Lansing says, at the close of his sermon, " On the Inability 
 of Sinners Voluntary," p. 1 54, " Our subject corrects an 
 error into which some have fallen, on the great doctrine 
 of regeneration. Sinners are called on to see and hear 
 with the eyes and ears they have. They are not com- 
 manded to make them eyes and ears that they may see 
 and hear. Thence we learn what we are to understand 
 by the requisition of God through the prophet, ' Make you 
 a new heart.' Ndt a new principle of action, a new taste. 
 Not alter the physical constitution. God has made this 
 just as he would have it. Man is now all that it is ne- 
 cessary he should be to render it proper or consistent to 
 affirm praise or blame of him. Sinners can do right if 
 they please, without a physical change. A moral change 
 is necessary ; but a moral change is nothing more than a 
 change of will, or purpose, or inclination; and it is this 
 change that God, by the mouth of his prophet, commands 
 the sinner to operate for himself, when he says, ' Make 
 you a new heart and a new spirit.' ' Cleanse your hearts, 
 ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double-minded.' " 
 Here he not only inculcates the doctrine that " a change 
 of will, purpose, or inclination," constitutes regeneration, 
 but plainly denies that it includes any thing more. He 
 denies, specifically, that it consists in a change affecting 
 the constitution, or the principles or sources of voluntary 
 action. 
 
 Mr. Duffield, in his work on Regeneration, maintains 
 that it consists solely in a change of will or voluntary ex- 
 ercises, and denies that it originates in the soul a new 
 principle, to which holy exercises may be referred as their 
 source. He refers to Dr. Witherspoon as expressing cor- 
 rect views on the subject, in opposition to those of Dr. 
 Owen and others : — " Dr. Witherspoon, on the one hand, 
 in his valuable practical treatise on regeneration, at the 
 very commencement, pronounces the Scriptural phrases, 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 121 
 
 ' being born again,' ' the new creature,' 'his workmanship,' 
 &c., to be metaphorical, thus evidently denying there is a 
 literal or real creation. 
 
 " He does indeed speak of an ' inward and essential 
 change,' but it is very evident that he does not, by these 
 terms, denote any other change than may be traced in the 
 voluntary exercises ; for he considers that it may be as ap- 
 propriately designated by repentance as by regeneration." 
 —p. 213. 
 
 Again : " He does not pretend to ' prove, or assert the 
 existence of a principle of life, or any thing else, back of 
 the voluntary exercises themselves, as the cause or origin 
 of that holiness without which no man can see the Lord.' " 
 —Ibid. 
 
 Again : " It is going altogether beyond the analogy in 
 the case, to assert that there is in regeneration the injec- 
 tion, infusion, or implantation, or creation of a neio princi- 
 ple of spiritual life." — p. 204. 
 
 Again : " It is philosophy, based on a false physiology, 
 which comes in and says the Spirit secures the exercise 
 of these graces by infusing grace, or by putting into the 
 soul a 2')i'inciple of life, or by creating a disposition for holi- 
 ness, which principle or disposition is the immediate cause 
 of those holy exercises of mind and heart, technically 
 called the graces of the Spirit." — p. 230. 
 
 Again : " But we may know and trace the immediate 
 effects of his, the ' Spirit's' agency, inasmuch as they all 
 lie in our voluntary acts and exercises." — p. 439. 
 
 Again : " That the Spirit of God is the author of rege- 
 neration, is not denied by those who speak of it as the 
 commencement of a change in the character of our volun- 
 tary exercises. Whether that change is the result of a 
 creative act of God's physical power, — terminating on our 
 constitutional capacities and susceptibilities ; or consists 
 in the substitution or succession of new exercises of these 
 
 6 
 
122 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 capacities and susceptibilities, the exercises taking their 
 character from the objects and motives inducing them, are 
 questions which have been already answered." — p. 480. 
 
 Again : " Some vague and mystic notions are had about 
 disposition and habit, as the proper philosophical cause of 
 holy acts and exercises. Tliis philosophical cause of holy 
 acts and exercises is itself pronounced holy ; as every 
 cause, it is thought, must possess the same quality or cha- 
 racter with its effects ; and in the production, or commu- 
 nication, or lodgment, or creation of this causal ' some- 
 thing,' this disposition or habit in the human soul, by the 
 Spirit of God, it is alleged consists regeneration. Power 
 is thus given to the regenerate man to perform holy acts, 
 and thus the efficacious working of the Holy Spirit is re- 
 solved into a mere physical efficiency ! And all the pas- 
 sages of Scripture which speak of his power in this con- 
 nection, are explained by means of this philosophical 
 invention P'' — p. 511. 
 
 The author of " Views in Theology" says, " But it will 
 perhaps be asked, ' Admitting that the Divine Spirit em- 
 ploys motives as an instrument in renovating the mind ; 
 still, after all, does he not do something more than merely 
 bring a moral influence to bear on it ?' What more ? What 
 more is necessary to be done ? What more can be done ? 
 No physical change, as has been shown, is requisite ; no- 
 thing needs to be accomplished, but simply to excite the 
 mind to .exert itself in a particular course of action." Again : 
 " Those who are renovated neither exhibit any indication 
 to others, nor have any consciousness themselves of hav- 
 ing experienced any change, except in their manner of 
 acting in relation to their obligations." — part iii, p. 84. 
 
 The Rev. Theodore Spencer, known as an ardent pro- 
 moter of New Divinity, in his tract entitled, " The De- 
 ceived Professor Undeceived, and led quite to Christ,'' 
 which professes to be a dialogue between a deceived pro- 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 123 
 
 fessor and a minister, represents the parties as conversing 
 in the following language : — 
 
 " Minister. Did you not, previous to submission, spend 
 much time in efforts to obtain right feelings, in endea- 
 vouring to submit feelingly, or in prayer to God for a new- 
 heart ? 
 
 '* Professor. I did, but without success. Indeed, at last, 
 I despaired of ever doing duty. 
 
 " Min. While despairing of success, and before indulging 
 a hope, do you remember forming a7iy determination as to 
 your future course of Ufe ; or making up your mind as to 
 what God might do with you in time and eternity ? I do 
 not refer to any act you would denominate as done feel- 
 ingly, but a mere resolution neither preceded nor followed 
 by perceptible feelings. 
 
 " Pro. I do remember such an act, although I have not 
 regarded it as of any importance. While alone in my 
 room, reflecting on my dangerous state, I made up my mind 
 to do my duty and serve God for the future. I have no 
 recollection of any materially different resolution. 
 
 "Mz«..That seemingly trivial determination was the gate 
 by which you entered into the path you have since been 
 walking, either to life or death ; it was your submission, 
 either genuine or spurious." — p. 9. 
 
 Whether the submission which this " mere resolution," 
 — this " seemingly trivial determination" constituted, was 
 genuine or spurious, depends, according to Mr. iSpencer's 
 notions, on whether it was entirely disinterested or not — 
 whether it was formed in view of obtaining salvation, or 
 without any reference to that object, and with a willing- 
 ness to be saved or damned as God should determine. 
 
 This professor is pronovmced deluded, because he de- 
 termined to obey in order to secure his salvation, and not 
 " merely because God and duty required it, willing that 
 right might take place whether" he were *' saved or pun- 
 
134 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 ished." The resolution would have been genuine sub- 
 mission if it had been formed with an entire indifference 
 to his salvation. But those who do not hold this doctrine 
 of disinterestedness, do not make it a part of the criterion 
 of true submission. Nor is this to be regretted, as it serves 
 only to render the heresy more pernicious and revolting. 
 
 The Christian Spectator, in a review of a work written 
 by Rev. Dr. Skinner, and President Beecher, of Illinois 
 College, entitled, "Hints designed to aid Christians 
 
 IN THEIR efforts TO CONVERT MEN TO GoD," attributes tO 
 
 those authors the doctrine under consideration. 
 
 The reviewer remarks : " In examining these directions, 
 we shall find that they are founded on such principles as 
 the following : — 
 
 " First, that the change in regeneration consists wholly 
 ,in the sinner's own acts, and not in a change of any thing 
 in the constitution of the mind lying back of those ac- 
 tions."— p. 233, vol. iv. No. 2. 
 
 The other principles relate to other topics. It is there- 
 fore unnecessary to quote them at present. This doctrine 
 is elaborately and perseveringly advocated by the con- 
 ductors of the Christian Spectator. The reviewer gives 
 it his cordial sanction. He says, with reference to seve- 
 ral passages of Scripture which he quotes as countenan- 
 cing it, " Now who that has not been misled by a philoso- 
 phical theory, would imagine that by these directions it 
 •was meant or implied, that God must first change some 
 constitutional principle or disposition in the mind, back of 
 the man's actions, and thus prepare the persons addressed 
 to perform the things required ?" 
 
 Other examples might be adduced if necessar}', but 
 these are quite sufficient to show that we have neither 
 hastily attributed this doctrine to the New School divines, 
 nor reasoned incorrectly in deducing it from their views 
 of natural ability and depravity. 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 125 
 
 This doctrine is already refuted, inasmuch as the prin- 
 ciples in which it has its origin have been proved to be 
 both unscriptural and absurd. If depravity consists in 
 something more than a want of " wiU" to serve God, or 
 than wrong " voluntary exercises," that change by which 
 it is removed must consist in something more than a 
 change of purpose. 
 
 The conclusion which we have thus drawn, will be 
 found to accord with all the representations of Scrip- 
 ture. They speak of the heart as the subject of the 
 change under consideration. " I will give them one 
 heart, and I will put a new spirit within you, and I will 
 take the stony heart out of their flesh, and I will give them 
 a heart of flesh. That they may walk in my statutes, 
 and keep mine ordinances to do them ; and they shall be 
 my people, and I will be their God," Ezek. xi, 19, 20. 
 *' The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the 
 heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy 
 heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live," Deut. 
 XXX, 6. " The Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she 
 attended to the things which were spoken by Paul," Acts 
 xvi, 14. And without entering into the speculations of 
 philosophy further than the Scriptures lead us, we may 
 aflirm, that the heart — the subject of this change, is not a 
 mere purpose, a volimtary action, but a source of voluntary 
 action. " But those things which proceed out of the 
 mouth come forth from the heart ; and they defile the man. 
 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adul- 
 teries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies," 
 Matt. XV, 18, 19. "With the heart man believeth unto 
 righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation," Rom. x, 10. If, then, the change takes place 
 on the heart, which is here represented as the constitu- 
 
 j tional source of holy or sinful exercises, it must be.some- 
 
 I thing more than a change of volition. 
 
126 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 " What are the marks of regeneration as furnished by 
 the Scriptures ? They are, freedom from condemnation, 
 deHverance from the thraldom of the flesh, and walking in 
 the spirit, or obedience to the commands of God. But 
 nothing is more clearly taught by the word of God, than 
 that there may be a change of " will" and the voluntary 
 exercises, and yet all these marks be .absent. " For we 
 know that the law is spiritual : but I am carnal, sold un- 
 der sin. For that which I do I allow not : for what I 
 would, that do I not," &;c. " I find then a law that when 
 I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight 
 in the law of God after the inward man : but I see an- 
 other law in my members warring against the law of my 
 mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin 
 which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, 
 who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?" Here 
 is the " will" manifesting itself in efforts to break the do- 
 minion of the flesh and keep the law, but these efforts fail. 
 They wage an unsuccessful conflict with the law of sin in 
 the members — " the principle of sin personified," as Mr. 
 Duffield denominates it. The lusts of the flesh triumph. 
 The condemnation and wretchedness remain. And this 
 state of things is described by the apostle, as anterior to a 
 change in which all these difficulties are removed, and all 
 the characteristics of a regenerate state exhibited. " There 
 is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in 
 Christ Jesus, Avho walk not after the flesh, but after the 
 Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life which is in Christ 
 Jesus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 
 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through 
 the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sin- 
 ful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh : that the 
 righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk 
 not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For as many as 
 are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." , 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 127 
 
 In precise accordance with these examples and reason- 
 ings, is the direction which Joshua gave to the Israel- 
 ites. Some of them, and probably a considerable num- 
 ber, were guilty of idolatry. He urged them to put away 
 the gods which their fathers served, and serve the Lord. 
 He insisted on an immediate choice, — " Choose you this 
 day whom ye will serve," chap, xxiv, 23. They decided 
 that they would serve the Lord. He then gave them 
 to understand that the obligations they were assuming 
 required great courage and determination, and that they 
 could not serve God and idols at the same time. The 
 people solemnly and voluntarily repeated their resolution 
 to serve God. Joshua did not call in question their sin- 
 cerity, but evidently assuming that this was their honest, 
 deliberate purpose, addressed them in the following lan- 
 guage : " Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye 
 have chosen the Lord to serve him, and they said. We are 
 witnesses;" Now if a will, or purpose, or choice, or de- 
 termination to serve God, constitutes or implies regenera- 
 tion, these Israelites were regenerated as soon as they 
 had made the choice. So Mr. Spencer understands the 
 subject. He tells us that conversion " is that act which 
 that devoted servant of God, Joshua, required of the Israel- 
 ites after presenting the Lord before them. " Choose this 
 day whom ye will serve," and it is that act which the 
 people cordially performed, " we will serve the Lord." 
 But Joshua understood the matter differently. He imme- 
 diately adds, " Now, therefore, put away the strange gods 
 which are among you, and incline your hearts unto the 
 Lord God of Israel." A direction Avhich plainly proves 
 that, notwithstanding their resolution to obey God, there 
 yet remained the task of putting away the strange gods, 
 and inclining their hearts unto the Lord God of Israel : 
 unless we suppose that a man may be regenerate before 
 he puts away his idolatry and gives Ids affections to God. 
 
128 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 The resolution had to be carried into effect. It is not un- 
 common for men, under the excitement of motives, to re- 
 solve on actions which they never perform. When they 
 proceed to the execution of their purpose, they come in 
 contact with a disinclination which prostrates, and triumphs 
 over, their most magnanimous resolves. This act of choice, 
 instead of constituting regeneration, was but the com- 
 mencement of the process which leads on to regene- 
 ration. 
 
 The doctrine which we oppose is refuted by all those 
 passages of Scripture which represent salvation as condi- 
 tional ; inasmuch as the performance of the condition, 
 ■which in the nature of things must precede regeneration, 
 presupposes the change of purpose — the choice, &c., in 
 ■which it is alleged regeneration consists. 
 
 The vain subterfuges to which the advocates of this 
 doctrine are driven, in their efforts to sustain it, are of 
 themselves sufficient to render it very suspicious. The 
 Scriptures, as we have seen, represent the heart to be the 
 subject of regeneration. Mr. Spencer, true to his theor}% 
 resolves the heart into mere action. In his tract, " The 
 Sinner led quite to Christ," page 15, he says, "The 
 term heart, when used as constituting the moral charac- 
 ter of the soxil, must mean the desires, affections, or acts 
 of the soul, as the soul is to be praised or blamed only 
 for its acts." 
 
 Mr. Finney runs into the same egregious error. He de- 
 fines the heart to be " that deep-rooted but voluntary prefer- 
 ence of the mind, which lies back of all its other voluntary 
 affections and emotions, and from which they take their 
 character." Regeneration he defines to be a voluntary 
 change of this preference. But he is admirably incon- 
 sistent. Can he not perceive the difficulty in which he 
 involves himself? A man is voluntarily to change the 
 preference which " lies back of all his other volitions." 
 
NEW DiVINItr— REGENERATION. 129 
 
 A volition is to arise out of that preference, so hostile 
 as to destroy it, and substitute for it one of a decidedly 
 opposite character. Out of the voluntary preference 
 for sin, is to arise a voluntary preference for holiness. 
 The volition which the preference originates, is to turn 
 around and change the preference by which it is originated. 
 The effect is to destroy its own cause. The difficulty is 
 not relieved by a recurrence to the consideration, that this 
 deep-seated preference is in the first instance voluntary — 
 a pretence which will, by no means, endure the investi- 
 gations of a sound philosophy: for when it has been 
 once formed, all other volitions arise out of it, and must 
 therefore be in accordance with it ; and the voluntary 
 attempt of the individual, to whom it belongs, to change 
 it, must encounter the impossibilities which we have 
 specified. 
 
 Mr. Duffield, for the same purpose, resorts to the 
 science of physiology, and devotes two chapters to an 
 investigation of the nature of life. He contends that it is 
 not a principle, as is generally supposed — a cause of vital 
 action, but consists in action itself. He defines it to con- 
 sist in " the regular series of relative appropriate charac- 
 teristic actions of an individual being." — p. 115. He 
 attaches great importance to this speculation, as will 
 appear from what he says on page 205 : " The writings 
 of many theologians contain expressions which betray, 
 at one time, utter ignorance, and at another, erroneous 
 views with regard to the nature of life. It seems to be 
 taken for granted by not a few, that, physiologically, life 
 is a created essence, and itself a cause of those actions and 
 processes in our animal frame, which we call vital ; and 
 speaking analogically, therefore, as our terms are borrowed 
 from material things, the impression is almost indelibly 
 made that they consider regeneration literally to be the 
 infusion, implantation, or creation of some inherent princi- 
 
 6* 
 
130 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 pie, essence, or substance, whicli is specifically the cause 
 of those actions we account spiritual or holy." 
 
 The application of his theory of life to the doctrine of 
 regeneration is this : If natural life consists in action, we 
 are authorized, by analogy, to conclude that spiritual life 
 consists in action. And as regeneration is the commence- 
 ment of spiritual life, it cannot consist in the origination 
 of a new principle of spiritual action, but must consist 
 wholly in the commencement of the action itself. " Re- 
 generation," says he, " is the commencement of the life 
 which has been lost, the rational soul of man beginning to 
 act appropriately in the exercise of its moral powers or 
 capacities." — p. 196. 
 
 Whether life consists in action solely, or is a principle, 
 
 we are not anxious at present to determine. This we 
 
 -know, that the views of many very able and popular 
 
 physiologists are decidedly at variance with those of Mr. 
 
 Duffield. 
 
 But, even admitting that life does consist altogether in 
 action, our very physiological theologian is exceedingly 
 unfortunate in his definition of it. " It consists," he says, 
 " in the regular series of relative appropriate characteristic 
 actions of an individual being." But what does he mean 
 by the " regular series V Does he mean the aggregate of 
 a man's actions ? We cannot tell what other idea to attach 
 to his phraseology. If he means some particular actions, 
 it would be obligatory on him, in attempting a definition, 
 to specify those actions in which life consists, in contra- 
 distinction to those in M'hich it does not consist. It is 
 unnecessary, however, to search furtlier, inasmuch as he 
 uses another expression which determines his meaning to 
 be as we have supposed. He speaks of it as " the totality 
 of that series of actions or motions observable in an or- 
 ganized body." Mark the effect of this definition ! If life 
 consists in action, and it takes the " regular series," " the 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 131 
 
 totality" of the actions of a being to constitute it, it will 
 follow, inevitably, that no man is in possession of life un- 
 til the last in the *' series" of actions is performed, and by 
 that time he will be dead ! Such is the fatally ludicrous 
 consequence to which this definition fairly conducts us. 
 
 Again, his own application of the definition completely 
 explodes it. The design is to secure the doctrine that 
 spiritual life consists solely in action, and that, of course, 
 regeneration is simply a change of voluntary action. He 
 gives us to understand that the first spiritual act indicates 
 the existence of spiritual life. "Regeneration is the com- 
 mencement of spiritual life. That life must have its 
 commencement in some act or exercise, which is the Jirst 
 in the new series. Faith, which is simply a belief in the 
 truth as made known by a credible witness, is that act or 
 exercise of which, where God is the witness, life, in the 
 sacred S.criptures, is predicated." " It will not be ques- 
 tioned on the one hand, that till a man believes he is des- 
 titute of spiritual life ; nor, on the other, that he no sooner 
 believes than he lives." — p. 202. 
 
 Here .we are plainly told that life has its commence- 
 ment in the first act of the new series — that faith is the 
 first act, and that a man no sooner performs that act than 
 lie lives. From which it clearly follows, that a single act 
 constitutes that, to constitute which the whole of a series 
 of acts is necessary. 
 
 The most formidable objection brought against the 
 Scriptural doctrine of regeneration is, that it is "physical.''^ 
 This word, physical, seems to be the champion argument 
 — the Goliath of the host. We find him, ever and anon, 
 stalking forth on the field of controversy, armed in dread- 
 ful italics, and frowning defiance. But it requires no ex- 
 traordinary prowess to prostrate and decapitate him with 
 his own sword. The objection is perfectly harmless. 
 The term " physical," as we have seei^, is ambiguous. 
 
,132 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 Our New School friends choose to call every thing per- 
 taining to man physical, except his voluntary actions. If, 
 therefore, the change affects any thing but his voluntary 
 actions, it must, of course, be a physical change. This 
 sapient argument amounts to this, and no more : Your 
 doctrine, that regeneration consists in something more 
 than a change of voluntary exercises, is false and absurd, 
 because it represents the change as consisting in some- 
 thing more than a change of voluntary exercises. 
 
 Mr. D. affects to find a number of weighty objections 
 arising out of the practical influence of the doctrine he 
 opposes — " its deleterious effects on practical piety." 
 These he intimates are very numerous. "It does not com- 
 port with the design of" his " work to enumerate them 
 all." Some of them are, in our opinion, wholly imaginary ; 
 -while others are highly creditable to the doctrine against 
 which they are urged. It does not comport with our 
 design to review all the sophistries of Mr. D.'s book, but 
 we will venture to notice one of these objections. It 
 has some peculiarities, and may possibly work sudden 
 conviction in minds of kindred taste with the one in 
 which it originated. He says, " Its crippling and be- 
 numbing effects have long been felt in the churches, 
 where there has been intelligence associated with piety ; 
 and where ignorance has obtained, the most wild and fa- 
 natical delusions have flowed from it. Weak-minded and 
 superstitious persons, considering regeneration to be an 
 act of physical poAver, and altogether unobserving of their 
 own conscious exercises, have mistaken excitements of 
 feeling and reveries of imagination for the impulses and 
 visions of the Spirit. We were once called to see a 
 lecherous female, who supposed herself near death, and 
 was exulting in the conviction that she had been born 
 again, produced by the ease of body and revery of imagi- 
 nation, induced by the use of laudanum, and whose belief 
 
NEW DIVINITY — REGENERATION. 133 
 
 in the Spirit's direct and powerful agency on the soul 
 was not to be shaken, but who lived long enough to return 
 to her wicked ways, and prove it all to have been a delusion." 
 What would be the appropriate " voluntary exercise" in 
 view of such an outrage on the decencies of theological 
 controversy, whether pity or indignation, it is difficult to 
 decide. What bearing, we ask, has this case on the doc- 
 trine in question ? Might she not as easily have been de- 
 luded with the supposition that she had "submitted?" Who 
 would be compelled to acknowledge her a genuine convert, 
 even supposing her belief in the Spirit's direct and power- 
 ful agency could not be shaken ? But since the case has 
 been immortalized for the purpose of throwing odium 
 on the doctrine of a large proportion of the Christian 
 community, we shall dispose of it by showing that the 
 female in question exhibited all the marks of genuine New 
 School conversion. In the first place, all her depravity 
 consisted in intelligent voluntary exercises. These may 
 be as eflectually interrupted by laudanum as by any other 
 means. Of course, while she was under the influence of 
 laudanum she Avas free from depravity, and therefore a 
 Christian. But supposing that the effect of the laudanum 
 was not sufficient to suspend the voluntary exercises, the 
 case is not altered. There was evidently a change in the 
 character of her voluntary exercises. She commenced a 
 " new series." She sends for a minister, icills to be a 
 Christian, and a change of purpose is all that is necessary 
 to make her one ; and exults in the conviction that the 
 change has taken place. As to her living long enough to 
 return to her wicked ways, that does not necessarily prove 
 that she was under a delusion. Mr. D. does not hold that 
 Christians live without sin. He understands the Apostle 
 Paul to be speaking of his own experience, in his regene- 
 rate state, in the latter part of the seventh chapter of the 
 Epistle to the Romans, where he says, " For we know 
 
134 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin," 
 &c. He tells us that " of whatever deviations from the 
 law the apostle was guilty, they were to be attributed to the 
 influence of sin, which he personifies, and not to the deep 
 and fixed principles of his renovated character. His will 
 in the main was right, but it was resisted, counteracted, 
 and ofttimes overpowered by various considerations, of 
 which he did not, cordially and deliberately approve, nor 
 of that which they led him to do." Now we have only to 
 apply these explanations to her case, and her subsequent 
 sinning is accounted for, without supposing her deluded. 
 It may be " attributed to the influence of sin personified, 
 and not to the deep and fixed principles of" her " reno- 
 vated character." Her " will, in the main," may have 
 been " right," " but resisted, counteracted, and ofttimes 
 -overpowered by various considerations, of which" she 
 " did not cordially approve, nor of that which they led" 
 her " to do." 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 REGENERATION CONTINUED. 
 
 It is clearly inferable, from the doctrines reviewed in 
 the preceding chapters, that one single act of the mind — 
 the very first ivhich involves the smallest degree of conformity 
 to the will of God, no matter what its specific character may 
 he, constitutes regeneration, and changes a man in one mo- 
 ment from an impenitent rebel into a Christian. According 
 to this system, any act, professing to be preparatory or 
 conducive to a change of heart, must be construed into a 
 wilful tampering with solemn obligation. It is nothing 
 more nor less, than purposely withholding from God what 
 the sinner is able to render at once, on the pretext that 
 
«> 
 
 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION, 135 
 
 there is something to be attended to by way of prepara- 
 tion. What is this but downright rebellion ? Indeed, the 
 rebellion, which consists in a prompt and honest refusal 
 to obey, would be far less aggravated than that which pro- 
 fesses to be preparing to do what may be done at any 
 moment, if the individual of whom it is required is only 
 willing, and which he postpones merely because he pre- 
 fers to attend first to something else. Consequently, that 
 one act by which he wills, or purposes, or begins to obey 
 God, or turns aside in any loay from unqualified rebellion, 
 changes him, in one moment, from an impenitent rebel to a 
 Christian. 
 
 This consequence is not denied. It is also incorporated 
 into the system, constitutes one of its distinctive tenets, 
 and is frequently and unequivocally asserted. 
 
 Dr. Beecher, in his " Views in Theology," remarks, 
 " The graces of the Spirit admit not of a progressive crea- 
 tion. Love or enmity, penitence or impenitence, faith or 
 unbelief, are the only positive conditions of the human 
 mind. There is and can be no such thing as love, peni- 
 tence, or faith, half formed and progressive to a comple- 
 tion."— p. 203. 
 
 This passage plainly discloses the opinion, that one 
 single act changes the sinner from total depravity to holi- 
 ness. The first and faintest relenting of the enmity to 
 God — one single act of repentance or faith, is sufficient to 
 make a Christian. There is no such thing as repentance 
 and faith begim and progressive to a completion. There 
 is no process from total depravity to entire holiness — no 
 transition state. The only alternatives are the impenitence, 
 \mbelief,and enmity, of the determined rebel, or the sanctity 
 of the undoubted and full-grown Christian. 
 
 Dr. Skinner and President Beecher give the following 
 direction in " Hints to Aid Christians in their Efibrts to 
 Convert Men to God." ** By all means avoid making the 
 
136 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 impression on the minds of those with whom you converse, 
 that the work of becoming religious requires a considera- 
 ble time to be spent in protracted efforts. Let them know 
 that to become religious is an intelligent, voluntary, indi- 
 visible act of the mind, in which it ceases to rebel against 
 God, submits to his authority, and accepts his mercy. 
 Tell them that to perform this act requires no length of 
 time, and no protracted effort ; that it may be done at this 
 time, and in this place ; and that if they depart from this 
 place without performing this act, they go in the spirit of 
 a stouter rebellion, and may bring upon themselves swift 
 and sudden destruction." — p. 43. 
 
 This language is plain, and to the purpose. It informs 
 us, that becoming religious is one indivisible act, the per- 
 formance of which requires no length of time, and no pro- 
 ' tracted effort, but may be done in any place, and at any 
 time ; and that this one act is that by which a man ceases 
 to be a rebel against God ; (so that of course he is a rebel 
 until he performs it ;) and no matter what other acts he 
 may perform, if he goes without performing this one indi- 
 visible act, he goes in the spirit of a stouter rebellion ; and 
 that this act is that by which he not only ceases to rebel, 
 but likewise submits to God, and accepts of his mercy. 
 Surely, nothing need be plainer than this. 
 
 This doctrine is echoed by the Christian Spectator in 
 a review of the work just referred to. The reviewer says, 
 •' Let him (the sinner) also be made to feel that every 
 thing done by him, short of making a new heart, is only 
 resisting the last hope of a lost soul." — p. 242, vol. iv, No. 2. 
 It is strongly reasserted in the same number, in an arti- 
 cle on intercessory prayer. The writer says, " This is 
 the way to get out of his dilemma. ■ It requires only one 
 simple, indivisible act, and can never occupy more than a 
 moment of time. It is an act which he is bound by every 
 possible obligation to perform immediately ; and, to make 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 137 
 
 the point as clear as possible, we will add, that act in 
 which a sinner ceases from his rebellion, and accepts of 
 mercy and salvation on God's terms." — p. 274. 
 
 Here we are plainly told that it requires but one simple, 
 indivisible act, which the sinner is bound to perform, to 
 rescue him from his dilemma ; that it is by this act that 
 the sinner ceases from his rebellion, and accepts of 
 mercy and salvation on God's terms, and, of course, be- 
 comes a Christian ; that he is under obligation to perform 
 this act immediately ; that it can never occupy but a mo- 
 ment of time, and that any thing short of this act, or mak- 
 ing a new heart, is only resisting " the last hope of a lost 
 soul." 
 
 The Rev, Mr. Duffield says, " Regeneration is the com- 
 mencement of the life that has been lost — the rational soul 
 of man beginning to act appropriately in the exercise of its 
 moral powers or capacities — his mind, and will, and heart, 
 being directed to God as the supreme and chief end." — 
 p. 195. 
 
 Again : " This life commences with his faith, or belief 
 in the testimony of God — the first in the series of those 
 acts and exercises in which it consists." — p. 197. 
 
 Again : " The life of the rational soul, it has been seen, 
 consisted originally in the relative series of those actions 
 appropriate to its necessitabilities and capacities, in the 
 perception, approbation, pursuit, and enjoyment of the 
 divine favour, as its true and supreme felicity. This life 
 has been lost. Men are naturally opposed to God, as 
 shall be shown hereafter. Regeneration is the commence- 
 ment of spiritual life. That life must have its commence- 
 ment in some act or exercise which is ihe first in the series P 
 —p. 201. 
 
 Again : " Now it is obvious, that there is a natural ten- 
 dency of the truths and facts revealed in the Scriptures, 
 to induce those exercises, appropriate to the capacities, 
 
138 NEW DIVINITY — REGENERATION. 
 
 conditions, and relations of men, 171 the commencement of 
 which consists regeneration.^^ — p. 533. 
 
 Examples from this author might be multiplied, but 
 these are quite sufficient to disclose his views on this sub- 
 ject. He tells us that spiritual life consists in appropriate 
 action, or exercise of the powers of the soul ; that this 
 life, which was lost, is restored by regeneration ; that re- 
 generation is beginning to act appropriately ; that life must 
 have its commencement in some act or exercise, and that 
 the act in which it commences is the Jirst in the new 
 series. 
 
 Mr'. Barnes, who is much more cautious in his develop- 
 ments of New Divinity than many who have not been 
 placed in such delicate and perplexing circumstances, ex- 
 emplifies the tendency of his theory in this direction, and 
 proclaims his opinion in the following definition of regene- 
 'ration, contained in his sermon on " The Way of Salva- 
 tion." " It is," says he, " that revolution of character, 
 when a man ceases to be a sinner total and unqualified, and 
 begins to be a man of holiness." 
 
 This passage is explicit. It is certainly by the first 
 good act that a man ceases to be a sinner total a7id unquali- 
 fied; that act we are told is regeneration, and consequently 
 it makes him a Christian. Regeneration is not, according 
 to this theory, that " revolution of character" by which a 
 penitent struggling with innate depravity, and believing in 
 Jesus Christ, is, in view of his previous faith and peni- 
 tence, graciously delivered from its bondage. The very 
 first movement of the mind — the very first thought — the 
 first volition by which he turns aside from total and wn- 
 qualified rebellion, is regeneration. 
 
 This doctrine is strongly asserted by Mr. Lord, the New- 
 York author of " Views in Theology." He objects to 
 *' that definition of regeneration which exhibits it as a 
 change of the governing purpose in respect to the object 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 139 
 
 of supreme affection, or a mere determination to love and 
 serve God." He affirms that it is " at variance with the 
 divine word, the laws of our agency, and the testimony 
 of consciousness." We are not to suppose, from this lan- 
 guage, that he objects to this definition as falling short 
 of regeneration, although that would naturally be the first 
 impression. He contends that a " determination to love 
 and serve God, or make him the object of supreme regard," 
 cannot in every instance be " the first act of obedience." 
 To be an obedient act, he argues, " it must spring from a 
 present love or preference of God ;" it must be a " conse- 
 quence of right affections, and therefore not the first obe- 
 dient act." The argument is, that this determination 
 to love and serve God implies a previous regeneration, 
 and therefore cannot constitute regeneration. But his 
 principal objection to this definition is, that it proceeds on 
 the assmnption, " that the first obedient act, whatever it 
 may be, is in every instance of the same species, as an 
 act of determination, of submission, of love, or of faith, in 
 distinction from all other forms of obedience." 
 
 He contends that this is not the case, and that the na- 
 ture of the first obedient act will be determined by the 
 nature of the mind's perceptions at the time ; " and may 
 differ in its form in different individuals, according as their 
 perceptions vary in nature or extent, or the relations differ 
 in which God, or the tiauhs that respect him, are contem- 
 plated." He goes on to affirm that " in some it may be 
 self-abhorrence, humility, penitence, approval of the divine 
 law ; in others, an adoring acquiescence in the purity and 
 rectitude of God, submission to his will, complacency in 
 his benevolence, gratitude for his mercy, reliance on his 
 promises, a joyful acceptance of salvation through Christ, 
 or any other form of obedient agency in which there is no 
 reference to a previous state of obedience." — p. 360. 
 
 Here it is plainly inculcated, that not only does the very 
 
140 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 first act, performed in obedience to the divine requirement, 
 constitute or presuppose regeneration, but that it is no 
 matter what the specific form of the act may be. It may- 
 be the first act of self-abhorrence, humility, penitence, 
 faith, gratitude, or any other form of agency which the 
 law of God may require. Hence, if the law of God 
 require of us a desire for salvation, the first emotion of 
 desire is sufficient to secure the favour of God and re- 
 generation. 
 
 Mr. Finney, in his lecture on " Directions to Sinners," 
 uses similar language. " It is a great error," he says, "to 
 suppose that any one particular exercise is always fore- 
 most in conversion, or that every sinner must have faith 
 first, or submission first. It is not true, either in philoso- 
 phy or fact. There is a great variety in people's exer- 
 cises. Whatever point is taken hold of between God and 
 the sinner, when the sinner yields that, he is converted. 
 Whatever the particular exercise may be, if it includes obe- 
 dience of heart to God on any point, it is true conversion. 
 When he yields one point to God's authority, he is ready 
 to yield all. When he changes his mind, and obeys in 
 one thing because it is God's will, he will obey in other 
 things, so far as he sees it to be God's will." — p. 344. 
 
 Additional quotations are unnecessary. Those Avhich 
 we have given are full and explicit, and from distinguished 
 sources. We do not wish to be understood as affirming, 
 that the New School preachers and writers never contra- 
 dict these doctrines, and teach those which are more 
 Scriptural ; but that they belong strictly and properly to 
 the system of New Divinity, and are actually promulgated 
 by its leading abettors. 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 141 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 REGENERATION CONTINUED. 
 
 As the dangerous positions exposed in the preceding 
 chapter have been asserted and reiterated, both from the 
 pulpit and the press, we will endeavour to disprove them 
 by comparing them with that infallible criterion of truth, 
 the holy Scriptures. 
 
 Before entering immediately upon the argument, we 
 would remark, that the error of the first position does not 
 consist in asserting that one single act ultimately intro- 
 duces a man to the blessing of justification, and its con- 
 comitant attainments. It is certain that, however length- 
 ened may be the series of acts and exercises which 
 precedes that blessing, there must be one of that series 
 with which it is immediately connected. For illustra- 
 tion, I cannot pass from the room in which I now write, 
 and enter another, a mile distant, by one single step. By 
 successive steps I must leave one apartment, and arrive 
 at the threshold of the other. But when I arrive there, 
 it is ultimately by one single step that I cross the thresh- 
 old, and enter that apartment. And if I refuse to take 
 that one step, I must remain without, notwithstanding all 
 the previous steps I have taken. Thus it is with the sin- 
 ner who turns to God and seeks his favour. He enters 
 upon a series of exercises, but there is one single act of 
 faith which at last secures him justification. The doctrine 
 that we object to is, that one single act changes a man 
 from an impenitent rebel to a Christian ! — that there is 
 no process in the change ; that one moment the sinner is 
 a rebel total and unqualified — growing worse instead of 
 better — and the next moment he is a Christian ! 
 
 To state the doctrine fully must, we think, be sufficient 
 
142 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 to refute it. Look at it again ! A man is rapidly aggra- 
 vating his rebellion, by every succeeding act growing 
 worse and worse — when lo ! just as his rebellion is at its 
 height, without one single intervening thought, or step, 
 conducing to such a change, in one moment of time, by 
 the very next volition, he makes himself a Christian. He 
 leaps, by one single bound, as sudden as the lightning's 
 flash, from one confirmed state of mind — -a state of mind 
 becoming more and more confirmed and inveterate by each 
 successive act — to another state of mind, so different from 
 the former, that the change is denominated by the inspired 
 writers, who best understand it, a new creation — being 
 brought from darkness to light — translated from the king- 
 dom of Satan into the kingdom of God. Is this philo- 
 sophical 1 We aver that it is downright nonsense. But 
 this is a matter to be settled by the authority of Scripture. 
 To the Scriptures, therefore, we turn, for their imerring 
 decision. 
 
 In the first place they represent it to be the duty of men 
 to hear the loord of God. The Apostle Paul reasons thus 
 on the subject : " How then shall they call on him in 
 whom they have not believed ? and how shall they be- 
 lieve in him of whom they have not heard ? and how shall 
 they hear without a preacher ?" Again : " So then faith 
 cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Avord of God." 
 While many are placed in circumstances that render their 
 hearing the word of God almost inevitable, there are thou- 
 sands who utterly neglect or refuse to hear it. The word 
 of the Lord came unto Ezekiel, saying, " Son of man, thou 
 dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have 
 eyes to see and see not, ears they have to hear and hear 
 not, for they are a rebellious house." Our Saviour com- 
 plained of the people thus : " For this people's heart is 
 waxed gross, and their eyes have they closed ; lest at any 
 time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their 
 
NEW DIVINITY*— REGENERATION. 143 
 
 ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should 
 be converted, and I should heal them." Hence the pecu- 
 liarly solemn and emphatic manner in which it is enjoined, 
 " Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak ; and hear, O 
 earth, the words of my mouth. O earth, earth, earth, hear 
 the word of the Lord." " This is my beloved Son, in 
 whom I am well pleased, hear ye him." " And it shall 
 come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that 
 prophet shall be destroyed from among the people. Who 
 hath ears to hear let him hear." 
 
 But simply hearing the word of God, although a duty, 
 is not sufficient. Our Saviour and his apostles cautioned 
 those who heard, to take heed how they heard. Attention 
 is necessary — attention to the import and application of the 
 message. Our Saviour complained of some iu his day in 
 this language : " Therefore speak I to them in parables ; 
 because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, 
 neither do they understand." This language plainly im- 
 plies that the word may be so heard, that the effect is the 
 same as if it were not heard. It fails to make the neces- 
 sary impression on the understanding. This subject the 
 Saviour illustrates by the parable of the sower. " When 
 any one heareth the word of the kingdom and imderstand- 
 eth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away 
 that which was sown in his heart. This is he which re- 
 ceiveth seed by the way-side." There are thousands of 
 " way-side" hearers. They listen so carelessly, that they 
 immediately lose the impression of what they have heard. 
 Now if they were wholly incapable of being more deeply 
 impressed, they would be inexcusable. But this is not 
 the case. It is wilful inattention which makes the hearing 
 of none effect. Hence the hearing required is sometimes 
 qualified by the word " diligently :" " Wherefore do ye 
 spend money for that which is not bread, and your labour 
 for that which satisfieth nof? Hearken diligently unto me, 
 
144 NEW DlVIxMTY REGENERATION. 
 
 and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight 
 itself in fatness," Isaiah Iv, 2. Again : " If thou wilt dili- 
 gently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt 
 do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his 
 commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none 
 of those diseases upon thee which I have brought upon 
 the Egyptians ; for I am the Lord that healeth thee," 
 Exodus XV, 26. While therefore the children of men are 
 required to place themselves in a situation for the word of 
 God to fall upon their outward ears, they are likewise re- 
 quired to give it the attention of their understanding. 
 
 The Scriptures likewise charge the impenitent with a 
 want of consideration of divine things. Jehovah complains 
 thus : " The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his mas- 
 ter's crib, but Israel doth not know, my people doth not 
 consider." " And they consider not in their hearts that I 
 ■ remember all their wickedness." This exercise is dis- 
 tinctly and separately required and enforced by the law 
 of God. " Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Consider your 
 ways." " O that they were wise, that they understood this, 
 that they would consider their latter end." " Now consider 
 this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces and there 
 be none to deliver." 
 
 Now consideration is an exercise distinct from that of 
 simple attention. A man may give his attention to a state- 
 ment or argument, so as to understand it perfectly, and 
 then dismiss the subject from his mind, and devote his 
 meditation wholly to other subjects, and forget what he 
 has heard. Whereas, to consider, is to reflect upon a 
 subject, review it with serious deliberation. The Apostle 
 James illustrates this point in the following manner : " For 
 if any be a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like 
 unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass ; for he 
 beholdeth himself, and gocth his way, and straightway 
 forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso look- 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 145 
 
 tth into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, 
 he, being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, 
 this man shall be blessed in his deed." 
 
 Again : the law of God requires of the sinner, in order 
 to his acceptance and salvation, that he solemnly choose 
 the service of God, and make up his mind, and purpose 
 to obey his commandments. Hence Joshua thus addressed 
 the children of Israel : " And if it seem evil unto you to 
 serve the Lord, choose ye this day whom ye will serve ; 
 whether the gods which your fathers served, that were on 
 the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites 
 among whom you dwell : but as for me and my house, we 
 will serve the Lord." And even if there were no passage 
 in the Bible specifying this act of the mind as necessary 
 to becoming a servant of God, it is too plain a matter to 
 be overlooked. Can God be supposed to approve and ac- 
 cept of a man, who, with a knowledge of his law, hesi- 
 tates, and is undecided which course he will pursue ? 
 Besides, whatever may be the nature of that effort by 
 which we enter into the kingdom of God, the representa- 
 tions which are made of its difficulty, prove that it requires 
 a detennined state of mind, a fixedness of purpose. The 
 Saviour admonishes us thus : " Strive to enter in at the 
 strait gate, for many I say unto you shall seek to enter in 
 and shall not be able." Again : " For the kingdom of 
 heaven suff'ereth violence, and the violent take it by force." 
 But why do I attempt to prove this point ? Who could 
 think of calling in question this position ; or of asserting 
 that a man may be saved without ever making up his mind 
 to serve God l 
 
 Let us now look for a moment at the result of our in- 
 quiries. We have ascertained the necessity of four dis- 
 tinct and successive acts and exercises of the mind, in 
 order to acceptance with God, and regeneration. But, if 
 hearing tlie word of God, and giving strict attention to the 
 
 7 
 
146 NEW DIVINITY — REGENERATION. 
 
 message, and serious reflection upon it, were not distioct 
 exercises, and distinctly enjoined ; if, on the contrary, 
 they may be supposed to constitute but one exercise, the 
 requisition last noticed is sufficient to demolish the posi- 
 tion, that one single act of the mind changes a man from 
 an impenitent rebel to a Cloristian. For, besides the fact 
 that two exercises are distinctly and peremptorily enjoined, 
 the choice or purpose, to be an intelligent act, and not 
 merely the result of caprice, must be in view of some rea- 
 son, and therefore necessarily presupposes the hearing, 
 attention, and deliberation which are enjoined ; so that no 
 man can even make up his mind to become a Christian 
 without performing a series of acts. 
 
 But this choice or determination to serve God does not 
 terminate the series. It is not enough. The sinner is 
 likewise required to confess his sins. " He that covereth 
 his sins shall not prosper, but he that confesseth and for- 
 saketh his sins shall find mercy," Prov. xxviii, 13. Again: 
 " If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of 
 their fathers, with the trespass which they trespassed 
 against me, and also that they have walked contrary to me; 
 and that I also have walked contrary to them, and have 
 brought them into the land of their enemies, if their un- 
 circumcised hearts be humbled, and they accept of the 
 punishment of their iniquity ; then will I remember my 
 covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, 
 and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember ; 
 and I will remember their land," Lev. xxvi, 40. Again : 
 " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive 
 us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," 
 1 John i, 9. 
 
 The confession required in these passages is obviously 
 in order to salvation. It is the confession of the guilty 
 sinner, the uncircumcised in heart, that he may obtain for- 
 giveness. We have here, not only an additional exercise, 
 
NEW DIVINITY— REGENERATION. 147 
 
 equally necessary with those previously stated, but one 
 which clearly implies them, especially a purpose to for- 
 sake all sin and obey God. Confessions of sin which are 
 not preceded by a purpose of mind to forsake it, would be 
 an insult to divine authority. Besides all this, confession 
 of sin itself must consist rather in a class of actions than 
 in one single act. 
 
 But there are other exercises required. The sinner 
 must pray to God for mercy, as well as confess his sins. 
 So the apostle directed Simon the sorcerer. " Thy money 
 perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift 
 of God may be purchased with money, thou hast neither 
 part nor lot in thie matter : for thy heart is not right in 
 the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wicked- 
 ness, and praij God, if perhaps the thought of thy 
 heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art 
 in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity," Acts 
 viii, 20-23. Isaiah asserts this obligation when he says, 
 " Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon 
 him while he is near : let the wicked forsake his way, 
 and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return 
 unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to 
 our God, for he will abundantly pardon," Iv, 6. It is en- 
 joined by the mouth of the Prophet Jeremiah : '* Then 
 shall ye call upon me, and I Avill hearken unto you. And 
 ye shall seek me and shall find me, when ye shall search 
 for me Avith all your heart," Jer. xxix, 12, 13. 
 
 This obligation is also distinctly recognised by the fol- 
 lowing passages : " If they sin against thee, (for there is 
 no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, 
 and deliver them over before their enemies, and they 
 carry them away captives into a land far off or near ; yet 
 if they bethink themselves in the land whither they are 
 carried captive, and turn and pray unto thee in the land of 
 their captivity, whither they have carried them captives, 
 
148 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 saying, We have sinned, we have done amiss, we have 
 dealt wickedly, &c., &c. : then hear thou from the hea- 
 vens, even from thy dwelling place, their prayer and their 
 supplication, and maintain their cause, and/org-rue thy peo- 
 ple which have sinned against thee," 2 Chron. vi, 36, 37, 39. 
 Again : " Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which 
 thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the Lord, 
 in the ears of the people, in the Lord's house upon the 
 fasting day : and also thou shalt read them in the ears of 
 all Judah that come out of their cities. It may be they 
 will present their supplication before the Lord, and will re- 
 turn every one from his evil way : for great is the anger 
 and the fury that the Lord hath pronounced against them," 
 Jer. xxxvi, 6, 7. Again : " And it shall come to pass, that 
 whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved," 
 . Rom. X, 13. 
 
 Repentance is required in order to salvation : " Repent 
 ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be 
 blotted out," Acts iii, 19. It is not necessary to our pre- 
 sent purpose to define repentance, or determine its relation 
 to all the other exercises with which it is connected. It 
 is sufficient that it is required, and that it is distinct from 
 other required acts. This, we think, is undeniable. What 
 repentance can there be which is not founded on a con- 
 viction of sin, and of the justice of the Almighty's claims ? 
 But this conviction must result from a previous attention 
 to, and consideration of, these things. And while repent- 
 ance thus plainly presupposes these acts, there are other 
 acts which as certainly presuppose repentance. Tliis, we 
 think, is the case with prayer and confession of sin. 
 
 Again. Faith is an indispensable prerequisite to salva- 
 tion. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." 
 " He that believeth shall be saved. He that believeth not 
 shall be damned." Now, it can scarcely be necessary to 
 attempt to prove that this act ia distinct from many of those 
 
NEW DIVimTY REGENERATION. 14& 
 
 which have been specified. It must, in the nature of things, 
 be preceded by attention to the word of God. The apostle 
 tells us that " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the 
 word of God." Again : while faith must be preceded by 
 certain acts, there are other acts which necessarily pre- 
 suppose faith. For instance : Can a man repent of his 
 sins toward God, who does not believe in the existence 
 of a God, or of a divine government, or that the govern- 
 ment of God lays him under obligation to pursue a differ- 
 ent course of conduct to that which he has pursued ? The 
 apostle settles this matter definitely: "And how shall they 
 call on him on whom they have not believed ? For he that 
 cometh unto God must believe that he is, and that he is a 
 rewarder of them that diligently seek him." 
 
 It may present a difficulty to some minds, that faith 
 should be made the grand consideration in view of which 
 a sinner is justified, and yet be required to precede other 
 acts which are necessary. It is not faith simply, it is not 
 any one act of faith, or faith in any one proposition, or any 
 supposable degree of faith, which justifies the ungodly, but 
 faith in certain specified truths, and such a degree of faith 
 as amounts to trust, to entire confidence. Thus it is that 
 those acts which necessarily presuppose faith, lead on, at 
 the same time, to other acts of faith, and increase its 
 strength, until, at last, that faith is exercised which brings 
 salvation. 
 
 The comprehensive requisition which enjoins that we 
 seek the favour of God, is sufficient to refute the doctrine, 
 that one single act of the mind constitutes the great change. 
 Seeking God doubtless includes all that is necessary to be 
 done. But search for an object implies, that from some 
 cause or causes it is not immediately accessible, and that 
 a succession of efforts must be made to obtain it. 
 
 These exercises are represented as characterized by 
 distress of mind in a greater or lesser degree. Indeed, this 
 
150 NEW DIVINITY REGKNKRATION. 
 
 State of mind is made obligatory. Not that we are re- 
 quired to produce it by direct efforts to that end, but we 
 are required to perform acts which it invariably accom- 
 panies. 
 
 The examples of conversion recorded in the Scriptures, 
 will be found decidedly at variance with this dogma of 
 New Divinity. A few of them will be presented. 
 
 Take the case of the publican : " Two men went up 
 into the temple to pray : the one a Pharisee, the other a 
 publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with him- 
 self: God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, ex- 
 tortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this poor publican : 
 I fast twice a week : I give tithes of all that I possess. 
 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so 
 much as his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast, 
 saying, God be merciful to me a sinner !" Luke xviii. 
 
 Here are presented to us three distinct exercises. 
 First, he was deeply distressed on account of his sins, as 
 was indicated by his smiting upon his breast, and by his 
 downcast eyes ; secondly, he confessed himself a sinner 
 against God ; and, thirdly, he prayed for mercy. But 
 while these acts are stated, how many are implied ? He 
 had, no doubt, heard the word of God, given to it the at- 
 tention of his mind, seriously considered its representa- 
 tions of his condition, and the claims of God, yielded the 
 convictions of his understanding to the testimony of reve- 
 lation, and fully purposed to forsake his sins and serve 
 God. And now, with this conviction and this purpose, he 
 comes to the temple of God, to humble himself, confess 
 his sins, and pray for salvation. 
 
 Take the case of the jailer. Acts xvi, 30. He was con- 
 vinced that he was a sinner, and exposed to punishment. 
 He inquired of the apostle what he must do to be saved. 
 This inquiry was sincere, and therefore implied a desire or 
 determination to do what was required. The apostle 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 151 
 
 directed him to perform the additional act of believing on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. This act he perfonned, and was 
 converted, and rejoiced in God. 
 
 Look at the history of St. Paul's conversion. When 
 recovered from his sudden prostration, he said, " Who art 
 thou, Lord ? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou 
 persecutest : it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 
 And he, trembling and astonished, said. Lord, what wilt 
 thou have me to do ?" The Lord declined giving him, in 
 person, the instructions necessary, but directed him to 
 Damascus, saying, " Arise, and go into the city, and it 
 shall be told thee what thou shalt do." His company led 
 him to Damascus, where he fasted and prayed for three 
 days. There Ananias came to him, and, having first re- 
 stored him to sight, (for the vision left him blind,) and in- 
 formed him of the revelation he had received respecting 
 him, addressed him thus : " And now why tarriest thou ? 
 Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
 on the name of the Lord," Acts xxii, 16. Attending to 
 these duties, he received the Holy Ghost. He then par- 
 took of food, and was strengthened in body as well as in 
 mind. 
 
 Here also we have a series of acts. He first, as a mat- 
 ter of course, inquires, " Who art thou, Lord ?" The term 
 " Lord," in this interrogation, is used merely as an ex- 
 pression of respect, like the word, sir. When informed 
 on this point, he relinquishes his designs of persecution, 
 and purposes obedience to the will of Christ. When he 
 inquired what he should do, it was no doubt his fixed pur- 
 pose to do whatever was enjoined. He then, in obedience 
 to the divine direction, proceeded to Damascus, and there 
 fasted and prayed. And it was not imtil three days had 
 elapsed, that Ananias found him and gave him the direc- 
 tions already quoted, in attending to which, he received 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
153 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 The parable of the prodigal son furnishes an interest- 
 ing illustration of this subject, Luke xv, 11. He com- 
 menced by reflecting on his sad condition, comparing it 
 with that of the servants in his father's house : " And when 
 he came to himself he said, How many hired servants in 
 my father's house have bread enough and to spare, and I 
 perish with hunger." He then came to this resolution — - 
 / will arise and go to my father, and will say unto liim, 
 Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and 
 am no more worthy to be called thy son : make me as one 
 of thy hired servants." He then proceeded to carry his 
 purpose into effect by returning home, making the humble 
 confession, and presenting the equally humble petition 
 which his feelings and judgment dictated. And it was 
 at this point that he met with the compassion and forgive- 
 ness of his father. 
 
 David's account of his penitential exercises will be 
 found equally at variance with the New School theory, 
 and in accordance with the views which we advocate : 
 *' Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving 
 kindness : according unto the multitude of thy tender mer- 
 cies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly 
 from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I 
 acknowledge my transgression : and my sin is ever before 
 me. Against thee only have I sinned, and done this evil 
 in thy sight : that thou mightest be justified when thou 
 speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was 
 shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. 
 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts : and in 
 the hidden part thou shall make me to know wisdom. 
 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, 
 and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy 
 and gladness ; that the bones which thou hast broken may 
 rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all 
 mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 153, 
 
 renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from 
 thv presence ; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. 
 Restore to me the joy of thy salvation ; and uphold me 
 with thy free spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy 
 wav, and sinners shall be converted unto thee." — Psa. li. 
 Here we have a fixed purpose of mind, a confession of 
 depravity and transgression, an earnest prayer both for 
 forgiveness and sanctification, and confidence in the mercy 
 of God, Perhaps it may be supposed, by some, that the 
 aspect of the question is changed by the consideration, 
 that this was not the psalmist's first conversion, but his 
 recovery from backsliding. This does not alter the case. 
 The instructions of Christ to those who have left their first 
 love are to repent and do their first works. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 REGENERATION CONTINUED. 
 
 We have seen that the system of New Divinity teaches 
 that the sinner, in becoming religious, is changed, in one 
 moment, by one indivisible act of the mind, from the con- 
 dition of an impenitent rebel into that of a Christian. 
 Against this doctrine the argument of the preceding chap- 
 ter was directed. We there endeavoured to prove that the 
 change from one of these characters to the other, includes 
 a series of distinct exercises — a succession of changes. 
 At this point we are met by an objection. It is argued, 
 that those exercises wMch are supposed to precede the 
 one act by which a man becomes a Christian, are either 
 penitent and believing, or impenitent and unbelieving. If 
 penitent and believing, then he who performs them is al- 
 ready a Christian. If impenitent and unbelieving, they 
 
 7* 
 
154 NEW DIVINITY'' — REGENERATION. 
 
 cannot possibly be acceptable to God, or conduce to a 
 change of heart ; but, on the contrary, must accumulate 
 guilt, and thus separate more widely between him and his 
 God. This objection seems to be relied upon, as armed 
 with irresistible power. It is frequently reiterated, and 
 may be made to look very plausible. We will examine 
 it for a moment. 
 
 It evidently assumes that there are no degrees of re- 
 pentance or faith, and that the very first act or degree of 
 repentance or faith, is all that is required to make the 
 Christian : — that the requisition of the gospel in this re- 
 spect is fully met at once, or we remain wholly impeni- 
 tent and unbelieving. If we can overthrow this assump- 
 tion, the objection vanishes. It will follow that we may 
 be penitent and believing to some extent, and yet be re- 
 quired to perform acts which conduce to those further 
 degrees of penitence and faith which are necessary to sal- 
 vation. 
 
 There are portions of the Scriptures which, we think, 
 cannot be intelligibly interpreted, except on the principle 
 that there are degrees of repentance. What are we to 
 understand by that passage which says, " Now I rejoice, 
 not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to re- 
 pentance : for ye were made sorry after a godly sort, that 
 ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly 
 sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented 
 of; but the sorrow of the world worketh death," 2 Cor. 
 7-9. Here we are told that " godly sorrow Avorketh re- 
 pentance unto salvation." An attempt may be made to 
 evade the force of this passage, by asserting that sorrow 
 is not repentance, and that they do not necessarily accom- 
 pany each other. But this would be unavailing in the 
 present instance. It is readily granted that " the sorrow 
 of the world may have no connection with repentance, but 
 whoever thought of a wholly impenitent sinner influenced 
 
NEW DIVINITV RT:GENF.nATION, 155 
 
 by godly sorrow for liis sins — a sorrow working repent- 
 ance unto salvation. If godly sorrow is not repentance, it 
 certainly implies repentance. But the truth in the case is 
 this, godly sorrow is repentance itself, prompting to ap- 
 propriate acts by which repentance is increased to that 
 degree which connects it with salvation. The apostle 
 informs us in what way " godly sorrow" conduced to this 
 result in the Corinthians : " For behold, this self-same 
 thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness 
 it wrought in you ; yea, Avhat clearing of yourselves ; yea, 
 what indignation ; yea, what fear ; yea, Avhat vehement 
 desire ; yea, what zeal ; yea, what revenge ; in all these 
 things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this 
 matter." Can the sorrow which produces these effects, 
 so highly commended by the apostle, be ascribed to an 
 entirely and obstinately impenitent man ? 
 
 We are also sustained by the following text, Jer. xxxi, 
 18, 19: "I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning him- 
 self thus : Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, 
 as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke : turn thou me, and 
 I shall be turned, for thou art the Lord my God. Surely 
 after that I was turned, / repented ; and after that I was 
 instructed, I smote upon my thigh. I was ashamed, yea, 
 even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my 
 youth." Ephraim is here represented as in deep distress, 
 bemoaning and reproaching himself for his past perverse- 
 ness. He prays thus, " Turn thou me ;" and connects 
 with his prayer this declaration of his faith, " and I shall 
 be turned, for thou art the Lord my God." He then adds, 
 " Surely after that I was turned, I repented." Meaning, 
 evidently, after my prayer was answered by the vouch- 
 safement of the desired and gracious influences, I re- 
 pented. 
 
 Now, if there are not degrees of repentance, we. have 
 this strange spiritual phenomenon; Ephraim, while ea- 
 
156 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATiON. 
 
 tirely impenitent, becomes profoundly sorrowful on ac- 
 count of Ills sins and depravity, makes the most humilia- 
 ting confession of them, prays to God that he may be 
 turned, and grounds his expectation of relief on the cove- 
 nant of mercy. In answer to this prayer, God turns him. 
 After all this has taken place, he repents for the first time, 
 and begins, for the first time, to act under the influence 
 of penitential feelings. Who can believe such an ab- 
 surdity ? He that can, is not to be convinced by reason or 
 Scripture. The obvious explanation of this passage is, 
 Ephraim becomes penitent, and expresses his penitence 
 by his moanings, his confessions, his self-upbraidings, and 
 his prayer. By these acts, and especially by the influ- 
 ences of the Holy Spirit in answer to his prayer, his peni- 
 tence is increased; it assumes a more thorough, confirmed, 
 and decided character, and gives rise to those strong ex- 
 'pressions of feeling which are thus described, " Surely 
 after that I was turned I repented" — my penitence became 
 deep and agonizing — " I smote upon my thigh. I was 
 ashamed and confounded." 
 
 That there are degrees of faith, is sufliciently proved 
 by the reproof which our Lord addressed to his disciples : 
 " O ye of little faith," and by their prayer, " Lord, increase 
 our faith." Both the reproof and the petition would seem 
 to be utterly irrelevant, on the supposition that there is 
 no such thing as faith imperfect " and progressive to com- 
 pletion." 
 
 The inference from all this is plain and conclusive. If 
 there are degrees of repentance and faith, a man may per- 
 form acts which are not wholly impenitent and unbeliev- 
 ing, notwithstanding they precede those acts and degrees 
 of repentance ami faith which are immediately connected 
 with pardon and regeneration. 
 
 The objector, if he determine to abide by this objec- 
 tion, must also encounter this diflicuUy. If no act can be 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 157 
 
 acceptable to God that does not proceed from repentance 
 and faith, and if the first act of repentance or faith is suf- 
 ficient to constitute a man a Christian, it follows, unan- 
 swerably, that no man can do any thing toward becoming 
 a Christian until he is a Christian. When he is required 
 to do any thing toward becoming a Christian, he is re- 
 quired to be a Christian before he does that which is ne- 
 cessary to make him one. 
 
 There is another form of the same objection which it 
 may be proper to notice. It is contended that all acts 
 which precede regeneration are unholy, and therefore can- 
 not be supposed to promote regeneration, but, on the con- 
 trary, must be imacceptable and ofl'ensive to God. 
 
 Perhaps the objection derives its plausibility, chiefly, 
 from the error of predicating unholiness of the actions, in- 
 stead of the actor. It seems clear and unanswerable, that 
 a \'icious act can do nothing toward securing the favour 
 of God. And yet, those acts which must be performed in 
 order to become holy, presuppose that he on whom they 
 are enjoined is yet unholy. 
 
 But can an unholy man do any thing acceptable to God? 
 Certainly he can. Does not God address his commands 
 to the unholy ? Does he not enjoin on them the perform- 
 ance of certain actions 1 But why command the unholy 
 man to act in any way, if all his actions, while unholy, 
 must necessarily be rebellious ? Would it not be more, 
 much more consistent with reason, to enjoin a total sus- 
 pension of action until he has become holy ? And even 
 then there would be the same difficulty, because the volun- 
 tary suspension of all action, supposing it possible, would 
 be the act of an unholy man. The difficulty lies as much 
 in the way of the performance of one act, as a succession 
 of acts. 
 
 If no act performed by an unholy man can be accepta- 
 ble to God, It will follow, either that Ggd does not require 
 
158 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 of the unholy man any effort to become holy, or that he 
 requires him to be holy before he makes the effort to be- 
 come so, which is absurd ; or that he requires him to per- 
 form acts, in order to become holy, which are unacceptable 
 to him ; or, in other words, he requires that which he at 
 the same time condemns : he requires a man to sin in or- 
 der to obtain forgiveness and regeneration. 
 
 But if, as New Divinity affirms, one single act of the 
 mind changes a man from an impenitent rebel to a Chris- 
 tian ; if the first act of the mind which conforms to the 
 law of God constitutes or presupposes regeneration ; if it 
 be no matter, as we are assured by the advocates of this 
 system, what the particular exercise may be, we must pre- 
 pare ourselves to admit the following consequences : — 
 
 First : That it is not necessary for the sinner to confess 
 his sins, in order to salvation. Because the confession 
 ' of sin plainly implies the previous acts of repentance for 
 sin and the purpose to forsake it. Who would not be 
 shocked at the thought of an entirely impenitent man ad- 
 dressing to the great and incensed Jehovah an enumera- 
 tion of his crimes — confession we could not call it — and 
 that too, without any design of forsaking them ? Such a 
 course would require uncommon hardihood in iniquity. 
 But if there be any degree of repentance — if the purpose 
 to forsake sin has been formed- — the confession is unne- 
 cessary. The man is a Christian without it. 
 
 Again : We must suppose, either that the purpose to 
 forsake sin and serve God is formed while a man is wholly 
 impenitent, and is therefore one of his impenitent acts, or 
 that such a purpose is preceded by repentance. But if it 
 be preceded by repentance, it is, according to this theory, 
 unnecessary. The man is a Christian without it. 
 
 We are led to this consequence by another process. 
 No man can purpose to forsake his sins, and devote him- 
 self to the service of God, without previously exercising 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 159 
 
 faith. He must believe in the existence of God, and that 
 he has established and maintains a moral government, and 
 that the divine government makes this purpose his duty. 
 But the doctrine of Nevi^ Divinity is, that the very first act 
 of faith makes a man a Christian. This purpose is, there- 
 fore, not necessary to his becoming one. He is a Chris- 
 tian without it. 
 
 According to this doctrine, it is not necessary to perform 
 those exercises which are denominated coming unto God, 
 looking unto God, or seeking God, in order to be saved. 
 All these acts presuppose faith in God. The apostle says, 
 " He that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and 
 that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." 
 But the first act of faith makes or proves a man a Chris- 
 tian. He is, therefore, a Christian before he comes unto 
 God, looks unto him, or seeks hi^n. 
 
 It would not relieve the advocates of New Divinity from 
 this embarrassment, to say, that a belief in the existence 
 and government of God is not faith, or that it is not the 
 faith which the law of God requires. It is. The apostle 
 lays down the proposition, that " without faith it is im- 
 possible to please God," and illustrates it by adding, " For 
 he that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and that 
 he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." 
 
 Even submission is rendered unnecessary to regenera- 
 tion by this new gospel, inasmuch as submission to God 
 implies faith in him. 
 
 But we have not yet fathomed this abyss of absurdity. 
 Faith implies hearing, attention, and serious reflection. 
 " How shall they believe on him of whom thoy have not 
 heard," says the apostle. But hearing simply is not sufii- 
 cient. There are those that hear, but so carelessly, as not 
 to understand. There must be attention. These acts, Ave 
 have seen, are required by the law of God. Now, if we 
 suppose any of these exercises to be preceded by au act 
 
100 NEW DIVINITY — REGENERATION. 
 
 of faith, they are, of course, superseded by it, and are 
 thereby rendered unnecessary. But if, on the other hand, 
 they are supposed to precede faith, the faith which is pre- 
 ceded by them is thereby rendered unnecessary^ to sal- 
 vation. 
 
 Let us now try the effect of this theory on the examples 
 of conversion adduced in the last chapter. 
 
 It renders the prayer of the publican wholly inappro- 
 priate. He came to the temple to pray, and offered his 
 petition, under the influence of a purpose to forsake his 
 sins and obey God, or, without having formed any such 
 purpose. If he came with the purpose of his mind un- 
 changed with respect to his course of life, how shall we 
 characterize his conduct? Would not New Divinity, at 
 once, pronounce it hypocritical and rebellious ? But if, on 
 the contrary, he came resolved to devote himself to the 
 service of God, his prayer for mercy was wholly super- 
 fluous. This mercy had already been extended to him. 
 He was regenerated, and of course justilied, before he 
 prayed. 
 
 Again : We must suppose, that when he sought the tem- 
 ple of God, and addressed to him his prayer, he was, to 
 some extent, penitent and believing, or wholly impenitent 
 and unbelieving. If the former, he had the mercy for 
 which he prayed, and might have spared himself the anx- 
 iety which he felt. If the latter, his whole conduct was 
 hypocritical and rebellious. 
 
 It convicts the answer of the apostles, to the inquiry of 
 the jailer, of irrelevancy. We may affirm of him what we 
 affirmed of the publican. He inquired what he should do 
 to be saved, under the influence of a determination to do 
 whatever God might require of him, or without such a 
 determination. On either supposition the answer was 
 irrelevant. If he had formed the purpose of obedience, 
 he was already saved, and the answer of the apostle 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 161 
 
 should liave been to that effect. If otherwise, the proper 
 answer would have been a rebuke for his insincerity and 
 wickedness, and a solemn warning. On the Arminian 
 theory, the answer of the apostle is easily justified. The 
 jailer had already decided the great question — he was al- 
 ready penitent and believing in some degree. But one 
 single act of mind is not sufficient to change a sinner to a 
 saint. The first exercises of penitence and faith are not 
 enough. It still remained for him to believe — to trust in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Compare this theory with St. Paul's conversion. On 
 the supposition, that, when he inquired, " Lord, what wilt 
 thou have me to do," his mind was made up to do the will 
 of Christ, which was unqviestionably the case, we must 
 conclude that the great spiritual change had already taken 
 place. He was already a Christian, and the direction 
 which Ananias gave him, to wash away his sins, calling 
 on the name of the Lord, came too late. He had already 
 washed away his sins. The bloody persecutor was made 
 a child of God, before he left the scene of his mysterious 
 arrest, by that one act, which is presupposed by the ques- 
 tion, " Lord, what wilt thou have me to do ?" 
 
 The conduct of the psalmist, as a penitent, is utterly 
 unaccountable, if this doctrine of New Divinity be true. 
 His prayer for pardon and renovation is appropriate, only 
 on the supposition that he was unpardoned and unrenewed. 
 But if this were his condition, it was because he had not 
 yet purposed to forsake his sins. What propriety, then, 
 could there be in his apparently solemn confession of sin, 
 his professed sorrow on account of it, and his repeated 
 prayers for forgiveness ? Would not this representation 
 of the case place him in the predicament of a downright 
 hypocrite 1 If, on the contrary, he had decided this im- 
 portant point, he was already in possession of that, the 
 supposed absence of which he so feelingly deplores, and 
 
162 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 for which he so earnestly and importunately prays. Either 
 New Divinity is wrong, or this whole psalm is calculated 
 to make false impressions. 
 
 The dangerous practical tendency of a doctrine which 
 leads to such theoretical consequences, must be alarmingly 
 apparent. 
 
 Perhaps it may be said, in reply to this suggestion, that 
 when the sinner " yields one point to God's authority, he 
 is ready to yield all. When he changes his mind and 
 obeys in one thing, because it is God's will, he will obey 
 in other things, so far as he sees it to be God's will." 
 This, it will be remembered, is asserted by Mr. J'inney. 
 Were this doctrine true, the interests of morality and piety 
 would be as effectually secured by this theory as by any 
 other. But it is not true ; and we are astonished that 
 . any man should think of asserting it. We grant that the 
 sinner who yields one point may go on and yield all ; but 
 that he will as a matter of course, we deny. Mr. Finney 
 preaches perfect obedience, in this instance, to some pur- 
 pose. The sinner who submits to God in one single in- 
 stance not only may, but will, therefore, submit to him in 
 every instance ! 
 
 This strange doctrine is plainly contradicted by these 
 words of the apostle to the Galatians : " Ye did run well ; 
 who did hinder you, that ye should not obey the truth ?" 
 chap. V, 7. We could multiply such citations to a great 
 extent, but it is unnecessary. These words plainly imply 
 that one point, at least, had been yielded to God's au- 
 thority ; but the persons to whom they were addressed, 
 had paused in their career of obedience. 
 
 Mr. Finney must surrender this doctrine, or, to be con- 
 sistent, he must conclude that David had never yielded one 
 point to God's authority when he committed the transgres- 
 sion with Uriah's wife ; — that Peter had never yielded one 
 point to God's authority when he denied his Lord with 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 163 
 
 cursing and swearing. And no reason can be assigned, 
 why this turning aside from the path of obedience may not 
 take place as easily in the earlier stages of submission to 
 divine authority, as at a later period. 
 
 The Scriptures present numerous examples in direct 
 contradiction to Mr. Finney's assertion. While many of 
 the Jews refused to believe in the Messiahship of Jesus, 
 Simon the sorcerer believed, and submitted to Christian 
 baptism. He yielded that point to God's authority. And 
 yet, so far was he from being converted, and ready to yield 
 every other point, that he brought on himself that severe 
 rebuke from the apostle, " Thy money perish with thee," 
 &c. While many refuse to hear the word of God, others 
 readily yield that point. They become hearers of the word. 
 This is their character. But they may go no further. 
 They may be like unto a man beholding his natural face 
 in a glass, and going away and straightway forgetting what 
 manner of man he was. We are admonished to be not 
 only hearers, but doers of the word : " For not the hear- 
 ers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the 
 law shall be justified." The parable of the sower was 
 specially designed to illustrate this point : " Hear, there- 
 fore, the parable of the sower. When any one heareth 
 the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then 
 cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which 
 was sown in his heart. This is he which receiveth seed 
 by the way-side. But he that receiveth the word into 
 stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and 
 anon with joy receiveth it. Yet hath he not root in him- 
 self, but dureth for awhile ; for when tribulation or 'perse- 
 cution ariseth, because of the word, he is offended." In 
 this case, the word is not only heard, but received with 
 joy ; but this does not necessarily imply a readiness to 
 yield every point. 
 
 The case of the young man who came to our Lord to 
 
164 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 inquire what he should do to inherit eternal life, is in 
 point. It is thus related by St. Mark, chap, x : " And 
 when he was gone forth into the way, there came one run- 
 ning, and kneeled to him, and asked him. Good Master, 
 what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? And Je- 
 sus said unto him. Why callest thou me good ? There is 
 none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the com- 
 mandments : Do not commit adultery ; Do not kill ; Do 
 not steal ; Do not bear false witness ; Defraud not ; Honor 
 thy father and thy mother. And he answered and said 
 unto him, Master, all these things have I observed from 
 my youth. Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him; and 
 said unto him, One thing thou lackest ; go thy way, sell 
 whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt 
 have treasure in heaven ; and come and take up the cross 
 and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went 
 away grieved, for he had great possessions." 
 
 Will any one contend that tliis man had yielded no one 
 point to divine authority, — ^that he was a rebel " total and 
 unqualified," — that when he approached our Lord, run- 
 ning and kneeling down, he was wholly impenitent and 
 unbelieving ? We presume not. Had this been the case, 
 our Lord would not have answered Mm as he did ; nor 
 would he have entertained that special regard for him 
 which is indicated. Instead of telling him that he lacked 
 one thing, and stating that one thing to be a readiness to 
 relinquish his possessions, he would have rebuked him as 
 John rebuked the scribes and Pharisees who came to his 
 baptism, and as he himself rebuked them on a certain 
 occasion. Besides, the declaration " One thing thou lack- 
 est," cannot be construed to mean that he lacked every 
 thing that was necessary. It evidently concedes, that 
 while there was a deficiency, he had done part of what 
 was required. It is remarkable that Matthew represents 
 the Saviour as saying to him, — " If thou wilt be perfect, go 
 
NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 165 
 
 and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt 
 have treasure in heaven : and come and follow me." This 
 accidental variation in the phraseology cannot be supposed 
 to include a variation in the sense. What, then, does the 
 language of Matthew import 1 Plainly this : If thou wilt 
 do all that is required of thee — if thou wilt fulfil perfectly 
 the terms of thy salvation, thou must go one step further. 
 
 This narrative is decidedly and pointedly at vari- 
 ance with the principles of New Divinity, which require 
 us to suppose, either, that this young man was entirely 
 and unqualifiedly impenitent and rebellious when he came 
 to Christ, and must, therefore, have been playing the hypo- 
 crite, or that he was already a Christian ; both of which 
 suppositions are manifestly false. 
 
 It may be supposed that the one-single-act theory is 
 supported by the fact, that the blessing of the divine favour 
 is frequently connected, by promise, with several of those 
 acts separately, which we have specified as necessary 
 thereto. For instance, it is said, " Hear, and your souls 
 shall live." " He that believeth shall be saved." " They 
 that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." " If 
 we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us 
 our sins," &c. 
 
 But this fact would not sustain such an inference. It 
 is not hearing simply, or believing simply, or praying 
 simply, or confessing simply, that is contemplated by these 
 passages. All these exercises must have certain qualifi- 
 cations to render them effectual ; and the terms are fre- 
 quently used to imply, not merely the simple exercise, 
 but the exercise with its essential qualifications. Praying 
 aright, implies several other exercises. So does the 
 strong faith which is requisite. These exercises react 
 on each other, promoting the necessary maturity in each 
 and all of them ; so that he that prayeth, or believeth, or 
 confesseth, or repenteth in the maimer required, will be 
 
166 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 
 
 saved. But then, the performance of any one of these 
 acts, as is ultimately required, implies the performance of 
 a^ the rest ; so that he who does not hear, and repent, 
 and confess, and believe, will not be saved 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 REGENERATION CONTINUED. 
 
 The views of regeneration which have been shown to 
 belong to the system of New Divinity, evidently include 
 the doctrine, that tJie smner regenerates himself. Let it be 
 granted that one simple act of the sinner's mind consti- 
 tutes the great change, and that the sinner is able and re- 
 quired, to perform that act, and the inference will be in- 
 evitable that every converted man has converted himself. 
 The supposition that God regenerates the sinner, would 
 involve the absurdity, that the voluntary act of the sinner 
 is the act of God. This doctrine, also, is, in many in- 
 stances, distinctly and boldly promulgated. Take a few 
 examples. Mr. Finney, in his sermon on " Sinners Bound 
 to Change their own Hearts," says, " The fact is, that the 
 actual turning or change is the sinner's own act.''^ — p. 20. 
 Again : " This subject shows also that if the sinner ever 
 has a new heart, he must obey the command, and make it 
 himself." — p. 24. Again : " Sinner, instead of waiting and 
 praying for God to change your heart, you should at once 
 summon up your powers, put forth the effort, and change 
 the governing purpose of your mind." — p. 37. 
 
 In the passage quoted from the work of Doctor Skinner 
 and President Beecher, in the twelfth chapter, to which 
 the reader is referred, wc are told, that " becoming 
 religious," which is nothing more nor less than being con- 
 verted to God, bom again, or regenerated, is a voluntary 
 
NEW DIVINITV — REGENERATION. 167 
 
 act of the sinner's mind — that he is required to perforin 
 it — -that the performance of it requires no length of time, 
 no protracted effort — that it may be done by him at this 
 time and in this place— and he is to be warned against 
 leaving the place until he has performed it. What is this 
 but self-conversion 1 
 
 Doctor Lansing asserts this doctrine in his sermon on 
 " The Inability of Sinners Voluntary." He remarks, 
 "A moral change is necessary; but a moral change is 
 nothing more than a change of will, purpose, or inclina- 
 tion ; and it is this change that God, by the mouth of the 
 prophet, commands the sinner to operate for himself, when 
 he says, * Make you a new heart, and a new spirit.' 
 ' Cleanse your hearts, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, 
 ye double-minded.'" — Sermons, p. 154. 
 
 But do they never attribute the change to God ? Yes, 
 frequently, and in the highest style of Calvinism, as we 
 shall show hereafter. Indeed, Ncav Divinity is contradic- 
 tion itself reduced to a science. They also ascribe the 
 change to the preacher and to the word. Mr. Finney under- 
 takes to explain the co-operation of these several agen- 
 cies ; but the production of the change, essentially, is 
 ascribed to the sinner. The influence of the Spirit of 
 God, like that of the minister and the word, is restricted 
 to mere persuasion or inducement. " The fact is," says 
 Mr. F., " that the actual turning, or change, is the sinner's 
 own act. The agent who induces him, is the Spirit of 
 God. A secondary agent is the preacher, or individual 
 that presents the truth. The truth is the instrument or 
 motive which the Spirit uses to induce the sinner to 
 turn." In pursuing his illustration, he adds, " Now, in 
 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 him, and brought 
 
168 NEW DIVINITY — REGENERATION. 
 
 him over. It is also proper to say that the truth convert- 
 ed him ; as in a case where the political sentiments of a 
 man were changed by a certain argument, we should say 
 that argument brought him over. So also, with perfect 
 propriety, may we ascribe the change to the living preach- 
 er, or to him who had presented the motives ; just as we 
 should say of a lawyer who had prevailed in his argument 
 with a jury, he has got his case, he has converted the 
 jury. It is also with the same propriety ascribed to the 
 individual himself, whose heart is changed; we should 
 say that he had changed his mind, he has come over, he 
 has repented. Now, it is strictly true, and true in the 
 most absolute and highest sense, the act is his own act, 
 the turning is his own turning, while God, by the truth, 
 has induced him to turn ; still it is strictly true that he has 
 turned, and has done it himself. Thus you see the sense 
 in which it is the work of God, and also the sense in 
 which it is the sinner's own work. The Spirit of God, 
 by the truth, influences the sinner to change, and in this 
 sense is the efRcient cause of the change. But the sinner 
 actually changes, and is therefore himself, in the most pro- 
 per sense, the author of the change." — p. 22. 
 
 The reader, with these explanations at hand, need have 
 no difficulty in understanding what they mean, when they 
 assert, with all the semblance of orthodoxy, that the Spirit 
 of God is the " efficient cause" of regeneration. They 
 mean nothing more than that the Holy Spirit converts the 
 sinner, just as one man converts another when he per- 
 suades him to change his pohtics ; or as a lawyer converts 
 the jury when he gains his cause ; while the sinner is in 
 the " most absolute and liighest sense," " in the most pro- 
 per sense," the author of the change. 
 
 It is not necessary, in order to avoid this doctrine, to 
 deny that the sinner has any thing to do in securing a 
 change of heart. He is required to perform certain condi- 
 
NEW DIVINITY jvI^oi^inERATION. 169 
 
 tional and preparatory acts, in view of which, God justi- 
 fies and regenerates him. When he is called upon to 
 make himself a new heart, the import of the obligation is, 
 that he shall perform the prescribed condition ; v/hile the 
 work of regeneration — of renewing the heart — is immedi- 
 ately and exclusively the work of God, as the Evangelist 
 John affirms ; — " But to as many as received him, to them 
 gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them 
 that believe on his name : which were born not of blood, 
 nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man , but of God." 
 The gross inconsistency in which Mr. F. involves him- 
 self, in exhibiting the doctrine of self-conversion, has 
 been noticed in the discussion of another topic. To make 
 out its practicability, he resolves the heart into a volunta- 
 ry act or state of the mind. But this is a somewhat ad- 
 venturous movement, both in divinity and philosophy. The 
 Scriptures, which are the standard of Christian theology, 
 and are unquestionably based on the true philosophy of 
 mind, speak of the heart as belonging to the constitution 
 of our nature, and as a source of our voluntary actions. 
 To seem, therefore, to secure the suffrages of Scripture 
 and reason, he defines the heart to be " that deep-seated. 
 but voluntary preference of the mind, which lies back of all 
 its other voluntary affections and emotions, and from 
 which they take their character." Now the difiiculty of 
 self-conversion, supposing this very accommodating defi- 
 nition of the term heart to be correct, which however is 
 denied, is this : this "voluntary preference of the mind" 
 which constitutes the heart, is so "deep-seated" that it 
 "Ues back of all its other" voluntary actions, and gives 
 them " their character." And yet, out of this preference, 
 another volition is supposed to arise, which entirely 
 changes the character of the preference from which 
 it springs, and from which it first takes its character. 
 This is the Ethiopian changing his skin to some purpose ! 
 
 8 
 
170 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 MORAL SUASION. 
 
 Another distinctive feature of the New School theory 
 is found in the doctrine, that the Holy Ghost, in the rege- 
 neration of a sinner, employs no other injluence than that of 
 persuasion. 
 
 This view of the mode of the Holy Spirit's operations 
 naturally results from the doctrines of ability and regene- 
 ration, which we have endeavoured to refute. If one 
 single act of the sinner's mind constitutes regeneration, 
 and he has a natural ability to perform that act at any 
 time, it is plain that all which is necessary to be done for 
 him, in order to make him a Christian, is to persuade him 
 to perform the act in question. And as no other influence 
 is necessary, the Holy Spirit cannot be supposed to exert 
 any other. 
 
 This doctrine is frequently inculcated. We will present 
 a few examples. 
 
 The author of " Views in Theology" says, " As far then 
 as human experience extends, there is no other medium 
 known of influencing the voluntary actions of mankind 
 than that of moral suasion." — Part iii, p. 71. 
 
 Again : ^^ All the means employed by the moral govern- 
 ment of God to influence the voluntary actions of men, are 
 the means of moral suasion. Their whole agency is ex- 
 pended in counteracting temptations by presenting induce- 
 ments to holiness. So far therefore as that goes, it appears 
 that no other medium is employed by the Most High to 
 influence the conduct of men. — p. 72. 
 
 Again : " This follows from the fact that, as has been 
 shown, the influence of motives is the sole instrujnent of 
 determining the manner in which men act in regard to 
 their obligations." — p. 77. 
 
 Again : " We are thus clearly taught in the volume of 
 
NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 171 
 
 inspiration, that the Spirit does exert an agency on the 
 mind, that is employed in the communication to it of truth, 
 and through that medium convicts, renews, and sanctifies 
 it, and thus produces all the various classes of effects that 
 are ever in the Scriptures attributed to his agency ; and 
 are taught it in statements and representations — not that 
 are restricted by any reference to particular individuals, 
 or circumscribed by applications to subordinate effects, — 
 but that are wholly exempt from such limitations, and that 
 accordingly by all just laws of construction, must be re- 
 ceived as descriptive of the only infiuence he employs in 
 producing these effects." — No. 11, Vol. iii, p. 285. 
 
 Mr. Finney says, in his sermon on " Sinners Bound to 
 Change their own Hearts," "You see from this subject the 
 nature of the Spirit's agency. That he does not act by 
 direct physical contact upon the mind, but that he uses 
 his truth as his sword to pierce the sinner, and that 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 altogether to maintain that he converts sinners 
 by motives. Others have denied the possibility of chang- 
 ing 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 a power over 
 mind as he can 1 Can the old serpent change a heart from 
 a perfectly holy to a perfectly sinful one, by the power of 
 motives, and cannot the infinitely wise God do as much 
 as Satan did V 
 
 In this very extraordinary passage it is clearly incul- 
 cated, that the change which takes place in regeneration 
 is strictly analogous to that which takes place in apostacy, 
 and that the same mode of influence, namely, persuasion 
 by the presentation of motives, is as competent to regene- 
 rate as it is to corrupt. 
 
173 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 
 
 Mr. DufEeld says, " In what his efficacy consists, is a 
 question of deep interest, and in attempting to meet it, it 
 becomes necessary to inquire whether the Spirit's agency 
 is in the suasive influence of truth, or by some act of 
 physical power irrespective of the appropriate influence 
 of truth." — p. 481. In another place he remarks, "If 
 you hope for a mighty creative power to be exerted upon 
 you irrespective of your voluntary exercise, your hopes 
 are baseless and visionary. The Spirit's efiicacious 
 agency is through the suasive injluence of truth, and if 
 you resist it, you resist the only means that you or any 
 one else can hope to be exerted for you, to bring you to 
 repentance." — p. 515. 
 
 But do they not explicitly and formally disavow the doc- 
 trine, that the Holy Spirit regenerates by " a persuasive 
 exhibition of the truth analogous to the influence which 
 one man exerts over the mind of another ?" Do they not 
 declare it to be their belief that regeneration is " produced 
 by the special operations of the Holy Spirit ?" Do they 
 not assert that the Spirit's influences are supernatural, in 
 reply to the charge of holding that those influences are 
 restricted to moral suasion 1 They do. But they do not, 
 nevertheless, deny the doctrine with which they are 
 charged. The word " special" is a technicality well un- 
 derstood among them. They explain it so as to make it 
 agree perfectly with the " moral-suasion" theory. 
 
 The author of" Views in Theology" tells us that " the 
 distinction of the influences of the Divine Spirit into the 
 classes of common and special ; restraining, enlightening, 
 regenerating, sanctifying, and comforting, is to be made 
 solely on the ground that they occasion suck diversified 
 effects ; not on the ground that they differ in their nature. 
 For as his influences are all employed in presenting 7no- 
 tives to the eye, they are of course always in kind the 
 same. The difference in the efTects of his agency, arises 
 
NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 173 
 
 from the difference in the motives through which he occa- 
 sions those effects." — Part iii, p. 89. 
 
 Mr. Duffield contends stoutly for a "special" influence, 
 but his special influence does not differ in kind from that 
 which one man exerts upon another. He says, imme- 
 diately after giving an illustration of its specialty, " Shall 
 we suppose that God cannot do with sinners, in reference 
 to himself, what one man has done with another ? — That a 
 physical efficiency is necessary to make the sinner willing 
 to confide in Him, and repent of his rebellion ! To sup- 
 pose so is, in fact, to attribute a moral influence to man 
 more potent than that which, in such a case, it would be 
 requisite God should exert. It would be in effect to say 
 that man can subdue his foe, and by an appropriate 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 create him over 
 again." — p. 492. 
 
 So with the term " supernatural." It has its explana- 
 tion or explanations. But they all accord with the doc- 
 trine of regeneration by moral suasion. 
 
 The writer of " Views in Theology" says, " Restraint, 
 conviction, sanctification, and comfort, whe7i they result 
 immediately from the influences of the Holy Spirit, are super- 
 natural effects, in the same sense that regeneration is. 
 The term is to be employed simply to express the fact, 
 that the effect to which it relates is occasioned by the 
 agency of the Spirit. It is peculiarly applicable to rege- 
 neration only on the ground that it never takes place ex- 
 cept by the Spirit's influence. The other effects undoubt- 
 edly do." — Part iii, p. 89. 
 
 According to this explanation, it is sufiicient to consti- 
 tute any effect supernatural that it is produced by the Holy 
 Spirit. The same effect produced by other influence is 
 not supernatural ; and the term, when applied to the 
 
174 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 
 
 Spirit's influences, merely expresses the fact, that it is 
 his influence, without determining its mode. 
 
 Mr. DuflSeld, however, seems to take a somewhat dif- 
 ferent view of the subject. " To say that the power of 
 the Holy Ghost, in producing hope and faith, is his crea- 
 tive eficacy, lodging in the soul, ' a principle or disposition' 
 that causes such exercises, is saying no more of it than 
 what may be said of his power in creating the instincts, 
 &c., of animals, and thus making his work in regenera- 
 tion altogether natural, that is, like that in nature, not su- 
 pernatural, which it is in fact — an influence exerted in 
 pursuance of special design, and not uniformly and infalli- 
 bly, according to fixed laws of nature." — p. 498. 
 
 According to this reasoning, the influence of the Spirit 
 is not supernatural if it goes beyond moral suasion. But 
 surely, these men are adventurous polemics, to undertake 
 to convince us, that while mere persuasion is a supernatu- 
 ral process, there is nothing supernatural in creation. Not- 
 withstanding the discrepancy between these writers, they 
 both aim at reconciling supernatural influence with mere 
 moral suasion. 
 
 This doctrine must necessarily share a similar fate with 
 those which we have already examined, inasmuch as it 
 grows out of, and depends upon them for support. 
 
 It is a valid objection, that it determines so positively 
 and specifically the mode of the Holy Spirit's operations 
 in regeneration — a subject which the Saviour declared to 
 be wrapped up in impenetrable mystery. 
 
 The doctrine is supposed to be taught in those passages 
 of Scripture which speak of the instrumentality of truth in 
 asinncr's conversion : such for instance as these, " Of his 
 own will begat he us with the icord of truth." " Being born 
 again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the 
 word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." " Sanctify 
 them through thy truth. Now are ye clean through the 
 
NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 175 
 
 word which I have spoken unto you," &c. But the ques- 
 tion is not, whether the truth is employed in conversion 
 and sanctification, but Avhether every other influence is 
 excluded. These, and similar passages, no more prove 
 that regeneration is accomplished by moral suasion merely, 
 than those which attribute the production of the heavens 
 and the earth to the word of God, prove that he created 
 the universe by moral suasion. It is said, " By the word 
 of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of 
 them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the wa- 
 ters of the sea together as a heap : he layeth up the depth 
 in store-houses. Let all the earth fear the Lord : let all 
 the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him, for he 
 spake, and it was done ; he commanded, and it stood fast." 
 "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light." 
 " Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed 
 hy the word of God, so that things which are seen were 
 not made of things which do appear. For this they wil- 
 lingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens 
 were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and 
 in the water : whereby the world that then was, being 
 overflowed with water, perished : but the heavens and the 
 earth which are now, hy the same loord, are kept in store, 
 reserved imto fire against the day of judgment and perdi- 
 tion of ungodly men." Here both the creation and con- 
 servation of the world are attributed to the word of God ; 
 but will any one infer from this fact that no other influence 
 was exerted in their production than that of moral suasion? 
 The resurrection of the body is also ascribed to the word 
 of God. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is com- 
 ing, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the 
 Son of God ; and they that hear shall live. Marvel not 
 at this : for the hour is coming, in the which all that are 
 in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth.'' 
 Will he then raise the dead by moral suasion 1 
 
176 NEW DIVINITY--MORAL SUASION. 
 
 We have seen that the conversion of the soul, the crea- 
 tion of the world, and the resurrection of the body, are all 
 attributed to the word of God. Let us now inquire whe- 
 ther the change which takes place in the soul is not, like 
 the creation of the world, and the resurrection of the body, 
 ascribed to a power distinct from the word of God. The 
 Apostle Paul writes to the Thessalonians thus : " For 
 our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in 
 power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance." 
 Whatever the power may have been which accompanied 
 the word, it is clearly distinguished from the word. To 
 the Ephesians he says, speaking of the gospel, "Whereof 
 I was made a minister according to the gift of the grace 
 of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power P 
 In the same chapter he says, " Now, unto him that is able 
 to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or 
 think, according to the power tliat loorketh in us, xnito liim 
 be glory in the Church by Jesus Christ, throughout all 
 ages, world without end." Here " the power that work- 
 eth in us," is evidently contemplated as identical with that 
 by which he is able to do all things. In his prayer 
 for the Ephesians, in the first chapter of his epistle, he 
 clearly identifies the power by which believers are re- 
 newed and sustained, with that by which he raised Christ 
 from the dead. But it is not to the word of God that he 
 attributes these effects in this instance, but to " the ex- 
 ceeding greatness of his power !" and " the working of his 
 mighty power." Peter, in his second epistle, says, " Ac- 
 cording as his divine power hath given imto us all things 
 that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge 
 of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue." These 
 texts may serve as a specimen of the class to which they 
 belong. 
 
 It may be objected here, that although these passages 
 attribute the work of spiritual renovation to the power of 
 
NEW DIVINITY — MORAL SUASION. 177 
 
 God, they do not determine the kind of power — the mode 
 of operation, &c., whether it is the power of " moral sua- 
 sion," or power literally. To this it is replied that the 
 language in these passages is equally strong and definite 
 with that which is any where employed in attributing cre- 
 ation to the power of God. They speak of his " power, 
 his divine power, his mighty power, the exceeding great- 
 ness of his power." Where do the inspired writers use 
 stronger or more definite language with respect to the 
 creation of the world ? It is not necessary to cite passages 
 on this point. We feel assured that every one that might 
 be adduced would be equally liable to the charge of in 
 definiteness, as to the kind of power exerted ; and that the 
 question might be raised, Avith equal propriety, so far as 
 the language is concerned, whether creation was by moral 
 suasion or " physical" power. Will it be rejoined, that 
 the nature of the work determines what kind of poAver was 
 concerned in creation 1 True ; very true. And the nature 
 of human depravity, and of the change effected in spiritual 
 renovation, determines that the mode of the Spirit's influ- 
 ence must be something more than mere persuasion. 
 
 We have not undertaken, in these reasonings, to deter- 
 mine specifically what is the mode of the Holy Spirit's 
 operation. Our object is simply to show how groundless 
 is the supposition that it consists Avholly in moral sua- 
 sion — a supposition, which, it is presumed, no one would 
 ever have professed to derive from the oracles of God, 
 without having first adopted a system of theology or philo- 
 sophy which imperatively demanded it. 
 
 8* 
 
178 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 MORAL SUASION CONTINUED. 
 
 In the argument of the preceding chapter it was proved 
 that, so far as the language of Scripture is concerned, 
 there is the same ground for concluding that the world 
 was created, and that the dead will be raised, by moral 
 suasion, as there is for the doctrine that the Holy Spirit 
 regenerates the sinner by moral suasion. 
 
 It appears to be assumed by the advocates of the moral- 
 suasion theory, that, in case it is rejected, the only remain- 
 ing alternative is, that of holding that the Holy Spirit re- 
 generates independently of the truth. This is not the case- 
 Sufficient reasons may be assigned for the influence of 
 motives in the sinner's conversion, while the direct and 
 immediate operations of the Spirit of God, on the heart, 
 may be equally necessary. It is true, that Calvinists of 
 the Old School maintain that the truth has nothing to do 
 with regeneration ; that its office is to develop the princi- 
 ples implanted by regeneration ; that, previous to regenera- 
 tion, its only effect is that of irritating the spirit of rebellion. 
 It is this view which gives to the reasonings of the New 
 School party their plausibility and effect. But neither of 
 the parties is right. They occupy extreme positions. The 
 truth resides in the midway territory, which both have 
 abandoned to Methodism. 
 
 But how, according to the doctrine of conversion by 
 persuasion merely, can the influences of the Holy Spirit 
 be at all necessary ? Is it not the office of the written 
 word and of the preacher, to persuade men ? Perhaps it 
 will be said, that the persuasions of the written word, and 
 of the minister, invariably fail without the additional per- 
 suasions of the Holy Ghost. But whence arises the uni- 
 form failure of these instrumentalities and agencies? Is 
 it because there is not a sufficiency of truth and motive in 
 
NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 179 
 
 the v/ord, and at the command of the minister ? Does the 
 Holy Spirit make up the deficiency, by revealing truths 
 and presenting motives, which are not contained in the 
 Bible ? To suppose this, would not only be to reflect on 
 the word of God, as inadequate to the ends for which it 
 was given, but likewise to run into the further difficulty of 
 supposing that God makes immediate revelations of truth 
 to rebellious sinners, beyond what is contained in the sa- 
 cred oracles. Compare these propositions — 1st, that no 
 other influence is employed in regenerating the sinner 
 than that of persuasion ; 2d, that the sinner is fully able, 
 at any time, without the grace of God, to yield to the in- 
 fluence of persuasion and become a Christian ; and 3d, 
 that the minister of the gospel is in possession of all the 
 truth and motive, employed in the work of conversion, and 
 there is, to say the least, a strong tendency to the in- 
 ference that the influence of the Holy Spirit is not abso- 
 lutely necessary, and that one man may convert another 
 in the strictest sense of the word. 
 
 And although this inference may be disclaimed by the 
 advocates of the theory under consideration, it cannot be 
 denied that their instructions, in many instances, are cal- 
 culated to make the impression that it is in the power of 
 one man to convert another. In the work by Doctor 
 Skinner and President Beecher, to which we have several 
 times referred, there is the following direction, " Actually 
 intend, by the divine blessing, to convert sinners. It is 
 possible to converse on the subject of religion, without 
 actually intending to achieve the salvation of souls. It is 
 possible also to have this intention along with so little 
 firmness, as to make all our efforts unavailing. We must 
 intend, by the grace of God, actualhj to achieve the conver- 
 sion of the impenitent ; and not only so, we must fully and 
 decidedly intend to do it. It must be the fixed purpose of 
 our soul." 
 
180 NEW DIVINITV MORAL SUASION, 
 
 We have no desire to conceal the fact that the Scrip- 
 tures do, in some passages, speak of Christians as con- 
 verting sinners from the error of their ways ; but they 
 require us to understand that the agency of Christians in 
 this work is subordinate to that of God ; and that the 
 work is, after all, strictly and properly the work of God. 
 They carefully guard us against the doctrine that it is pro- 
 perly the work of man. " But unto as many as received 
 him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, 
 even to them that believe on his name ; which were born, 
 .not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of 
 man, but of God." And there is no difficulty in supposing 
 that one man may persuade another to perform those acts, 
 which are conditional to his regeneration, and thus exer- 
 cise a very important instrumentality, while the work of 
 regeneration itself, may belong wholly to God, if it be al- 
 lowed that some other influence is necessary and actually 
 exerted, besides that of persuasion. But if no other influ- 
 ence than that of persuasion is necessary to the sinner's 
 conversion, wo cannot sec how the deduction can be 
 fairly obviated, that the additional influences of the Holy 
 Spirit are not necessary, but that one man is fully compe- 
 tent to the conversion of another, without their inter- 
 position. 
 
 This doctrine presents to us another difficulty. If the 
 conversion of the sinner is to be accomplished by moral 
 suasion solely, and if the persuasions of the written word, 
 and of the minister, are inadequate, we cannot understand 
 how even the Holy Spirit can accomplish the task. Let 
 us inquire, what is the difficulty which remains for the 
 Holy Spirit to overcome ? What is the cause of the uni- 
 form failure of the word and the minister ? It is frequently 
 intimated by the teachers of this doctrine, that while the 
 Scriptures contain all the material of motive which is 
 necessary for the purpose of conversion, provided the 
 
NEW DIVINITY — MORAL SUASION. 181 
 
 sinner would only attend to it, he invariably refuses the 
 attention necessary, and that this is the cause of the 
 failure. This is expressly affirmed by Mr. Hinton. He 
 says, "If the faculty of attention (to use this phrase- 
 ology) shovi^s how a man may be and do what he pleases, 
 it will equally explain to us why, in so many instances, he 
 is not what the state of things around him is adapted to 
 make him ; why his conduct is so often at variance both 
 with his interest and his duty. This melancholy result 
 arises from inattention to the more serious objects set 
 before him. He sees them, but does not regard them. 
 The perception of them is momentary ; they are instantly 
 forgotten, and therefore without influence. It matters not 
 how momentous such things may be in themselves, nor 
 how often they may be exhibited and perceived ; if no 
 attention be paid to them, or if the attention they are 
 adapted to excite be withheld, they can exert no power. 
 Trifles lighter than air will outweigh the most solemn 
 topics, if the former be intently dwelt upon, and the latter 
 banished from the thoughts." — p. 96. 
 
 Here we will venture to ask, since the subject is thus 
 thrown open for inquiry, how the Holy Spirit is to effect 
 the object of fixing the attention of the sinner, if no other 
 influence is to be employed, but that of truth and motive ? 
 We are not at liberty to suppose that the divine agent 
 accomplishes this object by revealing truth which is not 
 contained in the Bible ; and which is superior to that 
 which is found in the Bible, in its adaptation to the work. 
 Such a doctrine would carry us out to the utmost limits of 
 fanaticism. Will it be said, (as no one individual is sup- 
 posed to be acquainted with all the truth which God has 
 revealed,) that, the Holy Spirit has a wide range in pre 
 senting to the mind that truth with which it was previously 
 unacquainted, without going beyond the limits of Scrip- 
 ture ? This suggestion, it is true, would avoid the diffi- 
 
182 NEW DIVINITY — MORAL SUASION. 
 
 culty of teaching that the Holy Spirit reveals truths, 
 which are not in the Bible, but it is encumbered with 
 serious embarrassments. It as certainly teaches the doc- 
 trine of immediate revelation. The disclosure of the fact 
 or proposition to the sinner, is as much a direct revelation 
 as its disclosure to the prophet or apostle. And he may 
 say of it what the Apostle Paul said of the gospel which 
 he preached, when he asserted his inspiration, and vindi- 
 cated his apostleship, " For I neither received it of man, 
 neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus 
 Christ." Indeed, to adopt this view, would be to take 
 refuge in one of the most exceptionable tenets of Quaker- 
 ism. It will be time enough to refute it in this connec- 
 tion when it is actually proposed as the solution. At 
 present we shall content ourselves with simply exhibiting 
 it as an alternative. To avoid this alternative, we must 
 suppose that the Holy Spirit presents to the mind, in the 
 process of persuasion, such truths only as it has come in 
 possession of by the usual means of information. If, then, 
 the Holy Spirit presents directly to the mind of the sinner 
 no other truths than those which have been presented by 
 other means, and to which the sinner has all along refused 
 his attention, we ask, what is there in the single circum- 
 stance of their being presented directly by the Holy Spirit, 
 which may be relied on to fix his attention ? Can he not 
 as easily withhold it in the one case as in the other ? Is 
 not the probability of his withholding it equal in both cases ? 
 Has the rebellious sinner any special preference for the 
 Holy Spirit, which lays the foundation of certainty that, 
 while the truth will surely be neglected when presented 
 by the minister, or read in the Bible, it will be instantly 
 attended to when presented by the Holy Spirit ? 
 
 Is it not just as certain that all the eflbrts of the Holy 
 Spirit to excite attention will be defeated by a voluntary 
 refusal on the part of the sinner, as that the clforts of the 
 
NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 183 
 
 minister will be defeated ? Will it be said, at this point, 
 that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent and omniscient, and 
 can therefore present the truth at the most favourable time, 
 availing himself of the most propitious conjuncture of cir- 
 cumstances ? We have only to suppose that the minister 
 of the gospel shall happen to present it at such a time, and 
 the services of the Holy Spirit may be dispensed with, in 
 that instaiice at least. Perhaps it may be insisted on, 
 that while the Holy Spirit makes no revelation of truth, 
 he presents it in a clearer light than does the written 
 word or the minister. This seems to be the view which 
 Mr, Finney takes : " Having direct access to the mind, 
 and knowing infinitely well the whole history and state of 
 each individual sinner, he employs that truth which is best 
 adapted to his particular case, and then sets it home with 
 divine power. He gives it such vividness, strength, and 
 power, that the sinner quails, and throws down his weapons 
 of rebellion, and turns to the Lord. Under his influence 
 the truth burns and cuts its way like fire. He makes the 
 truth stand out in such aspects, that it crushes the proud- 
 est man down with the weight of a mountain. If men 
 were disposed to obey God, the truth is given with suffi- 
 cient clearness in the Bible ; and from preaching they 
 could learn all that is necessary for them to know. But 
 because they are disinclined to obey it, God clears it up 
 before their minds, and pours in a blaze of convincing light 
 upon their souls, which they cannot withstand, and they 
 yield to it, and obey God, and are saved." Here the Holy 
 Spirit is represented as making the truth eflectual by giv- 
 ing it " vividness, strength, and power," — by making it 
 " stand out in such aspects," &c., — by clearing " it up 
 before their minds," and pouring " in a blaze of convincing 
 light upon their souls, which they cannot withstand." 
 
 But here again we are in difficulties, on the supposition 
 that no new truths are presented to the mind. How does 
 
184 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 
 
 the Holy Gliost make the truth so much clearer to the 
 mind of the sinner, than when it comes from the pens of 
 those who wrote and spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost, and who gave it, not in the words which 
 man's wisdom, but the Holy Ghost taught them ? It must 
 be remembered too, that the divine agent has the human 
 mind to deal with. Suppose the sinner refuses his atten- 
 tion to the truth, as he has done before, how much clearer 
 will it be to him ? Besides, the effect of the truth, no mat- 
 ter by whom it may be presented, must be modified by the 
 condition of the mind, as to ignorance or intellectual im- 
 provement. A proposition, presented to a cultivated 
 mind, may strike it with much greater force than it would 
 an uncultivated mind. How will the Holy Spirit go 
 about making the proposition as clear to the man of 
 vmcultivated mind, as to the other ? And how will he pro- 
 ceed to make it still clearer to the more intellectual man ? 
 Does the Holy Spirit give definitions of terms ? Does he 
 resort to formal illustrations, such as are not contained in 
 the word of God, or presented by the minister ? The only 
 and universal obstacle to the success of the minister and 
 the Scriptures, is supposed to be the indisposition of the 
 sinner to obey, and the refusal of his attention ; and we 
 wish to know hov/ the Holy Spirit is to overcome these 
 obstacles by merely presenting the same truths ? We can 
 easily perceive that the Holy Spirit can arouse attention 
 to the truth, if some other mode of influence than the mere 
 presentation of truth be employed. And that he accom- 
 plishes this object by some other mode of influence, we 
 firmly believe. Indeed, the passage quoted from Mr. F. 
 derives its plausibility from intimations Avhich it incon- 
 sistently contains, of the exertion of some other influence. 
 He tells us that the Holy Spirit " employs that truth which 
 is best adapted, &c., and then sets it home with divine 
 power" and that " under his influence the truth burns and 
 
NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 185 
 
 cuts its way like fire." Here is a power, an influence, 
 spoken of, which does not belong intrinsically to the truth, 
 no matter how clear it may be. It is a power distinct from 
 the truth, and with which God " sets home" the truth — 
 an influence, under which " the truth burns and cuts its 
 way like fire." 
 
 These difficulties are not unfelt by the advocates of the 
 moral-suasion theory ; and hence, earnestly as they insist 
 on conversion by the presentation of truth merely, in some 
 instances, we find them in other instances contradicting 
 themselves and each other, and acknowledging its inade- 
 quacy ; and asserting the intervention of some additional 
 influence. Mr. Duffield writes, " But is this all the influ- 
 ence of the Spirit ? Does his influence extend no further 
 than the mere exhibition, in the word, of motives, argu- 
 ments, objects, and considerations, calculated to move the 
 heart, and change the will? The sacred Scriptures inti- 
 mate something more than this. He does in this way 
 strive with men tmiversally, who hear the gospel, and 
 sometimes with remarkable evidences of its influence, as 
 in seasons of revival of religion, when almost every heart 
 is made to quake, and every mind is impressed with the 
 solemn conviction that God is in the midst of his people." 
 —p. 482. 
 
 Compare this passage with the quotations from the same 
 author in the chapter immediately preceding, and the con- 
 tradiction Avill be too apparent for denial. He there says, 
 " If you hope for a mighty creative poAver to be exerted 
 upon you irrespective of your voluntary exercise, your 
 hopes are baseless and visionary. The Spirit's efficacious 
 agency is through the suasive influence of truth, and if you 
 resist it, you resist the only means that you or any one else 
 can hope to be exerted for you to bring you to repentance." 
 He here affirms, not only that the agency of the Spirit is 
 through the suasive influence of truth, but likewise, that 
 
186 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 
 
 in resisting the influence of truth, the onhj means are re- 
 sisted which God employs to bring sinners to repentance. 
 We would also, at this point, remind the reader of the 
 language already quoted from the author of " Views in 
 Theology." " We are clearly taught in the volume of 
 inspiration, that the Spirit does exert an agency in the 
 mind that is employed in the communication to it of truth, 
 and through that medium convicts, renews, and sanctifies 
 it, and thus produces all the various classes of effects that 
 are ever in the Scriptures attributed to his agency." This 
 same doctrine is asserted by the editor of the New-York 
 Observer, in the number dated August 11, 1837. "From 
 another account it seems that tract distribution may be the 
 means of a revival ; and from another, that the ordinary 
 preaching of the gospel on the sabbath may have that 
 honour. We are not therefore confined to any one sys- 
 tem of means. The exhibition of divine truth, for the pur- 
 pose of saving souls, seems to be the only indispensable 
 requisite ; and this may be successful, whatever may be 
 the form of exhibition !" The assertion of an influence 
 additional to the truth is no doubt compelled by the exi- 
 gencies in which they find themselves involved. 
 
 Mr. Hinton contends for an additional influence. He 
 says, " The positions we have endeavoured, we trust suc- 
 cessfully, to maintain in the preceding chapter are, first, 
 that there is a personal and special influence of the Spirit 
 superadditional to the word ; and secondly, that such an 
 influence is actually exerted in the conversion of the un- 
 renewed, as well as in the sanctification of the renewed 
 heart." — p. 59. 
 
 Let it not be supposed, however, that they have relin- 
 quished the doctrine of conversion by persuasion merely. 
 They caution their readers against such a supposition. 
 The " superadditional" influence, whatever it may be, is 
 represented as strictly analogous to that which one man 
 
NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION". 18J7 
 
 frequently exerts on another. "What we have main- 
 tained," says Mr. H.', "is, that attention to the word is 
 induced otherwise than by the word itself, and that such 
 inducement is to be attributed to the suasion of the Spirit 
 of God. That there is ample foundation for the position, 
 without exceeding the just analogy derived from the vari- 
 ous modes of action of one human mind on another, we 
 deem has been made apparent ; and if that analogy were 
 even exceeded by the Almighty Father of spirits, we do 
 not perceive that such influence would be justly chargea- 
 ble with being irrational. When the objector is prepared 
 to say the spirit of man never influenced his mind without 
 words, it will be time enough to admit the force of his 
 objection to allow the Spirit of God an access to the mind 
 distinct from the word of God." — p. 61. 
 
 Perhaps the reader will be ready to inquire what this 
 " superadditional" influence is. We will endeavour to en- 
 lighten him, so far as we are enlightened, on the subject. 
 Mr. Duffield says, " We see it in the impressions which 
 a father has made upon his son, and trace its wondrous 
 developments as that son may roam in distant lands." He 
 speaks in this connection of " the winning influence of 
 certain indications of aff'ection, made by the twinklings of 
 the eye, which rivet the heart." He tells us " there is a 
 sort of sympathy between human spirits, which may be 
 touched to produce emotion, with as much certainty as 
 we can strike the chords of music, to secure the very 
 sounds desired." And that "what, in these things we 
 concede to man, must be attributed, in an infinitely greater 
 decrree, to that Spirit who searcheth the heart and trieth 
 the reins of the children of men." — p. 485. 
 
 Mr. Hinton remarks, on this point, " Who has not felt 
 that the humble attitude and suppliant eye has a powerful 
 influence to persuade, distinct from, though connected 
 with the facts presented ; or that proud and haughty de- 
 
188 NEW DIVINITY — MORAL SUASION. 
 
 meaner induce the refusal of a request, which would other- 
 wise have been cheerfully granted. If spirit, when clogged 
 with mortal clay, has such methods of access to its felloAV- 
 spirit, who will be found bold enough to deny that methods 
 equally silent, rational, and efficacious are possessed by 
 that Spirit Avhich breathed into us the living soul ?" — p. 29. 
 
 It would seem, then, that the Holy Spirit fixes the at- 
 tention of the sinner, and regenerates him ; and thus makes 
 up for the inadequacy of the truth, by making certain im- 
 pressions which correspond with " the impressions which 
 a father has made upon his son ;" by " the winning influ- 
 ence of certain indications of affection" corresponding 
 with those " made by the very twinklings of the eye ;" by 
 availing himself of some " sort of sympathy" bptween him- 
 self and the human spirit, " Avhich may be touched to pro- 
 duce designed emotions;" and by some movement analo- 
 gous to *' the humble attitude, and suppliant eye," which 
 have " a powerful influence to persuade." But he is not 
 allowed to exert any other influence than that of persua- 
 sion after all ; and his superiority over man, in the Avork 
 of conversion, is to be attributed to his possessing these 
 additional means of persuasion in a higher degree. 
 
 Such subterfuges as these, show plainly that those who 
 resort to them are hard run. They are compelled to ac- 
 knowledge, notwithstanding their positive assertions to 
 the contrary, that the truth alone is inadequate to the sin- 
 ner's conversion, and yet they are required to keep within 
 the limits of mere suasion. They think, therefore, to sup- 
 ply the great desideratum by undefined "impressions," 
 and the influence of sympathy, and looks, and attitudes, 
 and take the responsibility of asserting, without a hint of 
 authority from the Scriptures, that such is the influence 
 which the Holy Spirit exerts. 
 
 The reader will, of course, form his own conclusions, 
 but with me, the difficulty specified at the commencement 
 
NEW DIVINITY MORAL .SUASION. 189 
 
 of the argument, remains in unabated force. I cannot 
 see, if the written word and the ministry are insufficient 
 for the conversion of the sinner, and no other influence 
 be allowed than that of persuasion, how even the Holy 
 Spirit can accomplish the work. The explanation just 
 noticed is too futile for refutation. 
 
 Mr. Duffield intimates that there is something more than 
 even the additional influence, described by him in the 
 passages we have quoted. But what this " agency pre- 
 cisely is," he will not presume to say. He does not fail, 
 however, to caution us against the supposition that it is 
 any thing more than persuasion. His caution in not at- 
 tempting to define this further agency, is commendable. 
 He has now arrived at a point where he will do well to 
 hide himself in the mysteriousness of his subject, and 
 issue, from his concealment, a suitable rebuke to those 
 who may impiously adventure to inquire into the mode of 
 the Holy Spirit's operations. 
 
 We will conclude this chapter by noticing the argument 
 contained in the quotation from Mr. Finney. He asks, 
 " But did not the serpent change Adam's heart by motives ; 
 and cannot the Spirit of God, with infinitely higher mo- 
 tives, exert as great a power over mind as he can ? Can 
 the old serpent change a heart from a perfectly holy to a 
 perfectly sinful one, by the power of motives, and cannot 
 the infinitely wise God do as much as Satan did ?" To 
 this we answer, that, although Satan did corrupt our first 
 parents by arguments and motives, it does not follow that 
 they could be regenerated by the same means. Who does 
 not know that it takes a much less power to corrupt than 
 it does to sanctify ? We have shown, Ave think, that it 
 requires other influences to restore to holiness than mo- 
 tives merely. Nor will it follow that God cannot " do 
 as much as Satan did," because he cannot change a 
 heart from a perfectly sinful one to a perfectly holy one^ 
 
190 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 by the power of motives. Does Mr. F. believe that Satan 
 could have changed the heart of Adam to holiness again, 
 by the power of motives, or by any power ? Would we not 
 argue just as soundly as Mr. F., if we were to infer, that 
 because a wicked man may corrupt a good man by mo- 
 tives, therefore a good man may surely sanctify a bad man 
 by motives ; and that, if this be not the case, the bad man 
 can exert a greater power over mind than the good man, 
 and thus relieve the Divine Being of the necessity of hav- 
 ing any thing at all to do in the business ? 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 PRAYER, 
 
 We have now fully entered on that part of the investi- 
 gation to which we have looked forward, as, by its own 
 nature, invested with the most stirring interest to every 
 believer in the doctrines of Methodism. To this point we 
 have approached by slow and cautious advances, so as to 
 be satisfied that we have cleared our way before us, and 
 trodden on firm ground. And we are now prepared to 
 charge on New Divinity the sentiment, that for the sinner 
 to ■pray to God for mercy, before he is regenerated, or, in 
 other words, before lie has become a Christian, is not only 
 unnecessary, but actually rebellious. 
 
 The doctrine results immediately from the positions we 
 have just refuted. If one single act of the mind changes 
 a man from an impenitent rebel to a Christian — if the veiy 
 first act which conforms to the will of God, is that which 
 secures or constitutes the great change, it is perfectly 
 plain, that any act by which it is preceded must be at 
 variance with the will of God. An attempt, therefore, to 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 191 
 
 pray to God before regeneration, must be accounted re- 
 bellious. This act must be classed with any other act 
 performed under the same circumstances. It is the at- 
 tempt of a wholly impenitent and unbelieving man to pray, 
 who has, as yet, refused to surrender any one point to 
 divine authority. 
 
 But it is not only by tracing the theory of New Di- 
 vinity from its fundamental principles, along the line of 
 interrhediate deductions to the present point, that we ar- 
 rive at this consequence. It flows immediately from the 
 doctrine of natural ability, as held by the advocates of this 
 scheme. For what shall the impenitent man pray ? Shall 
 he pray for the pardon of his sins ? How can he expect 
 that favour when he is fully able to do, at any moment, 
 that which would make him a Christian, but perversely 
 refuses to do it ? Would not this be to ask God to forgive 
 him while he prefers to continue in rebellion ? Shall he 
 pray for divine influence to assist him to repent and be- 
 lieve ? This Avould be to ask God to help him to do that 
 which he is able to do of himself, and which he is pre- 
 vented from doing instantly, solely by unwilling-ness. It 
 would be most barefaced and impudent rebellion. Thus 
 we see that while prayer for pardon, spiritual influence, 
 and regeneration, fully accords with the principles of Me- 
 thodism, the principles of New Divinity construe it into a 
 wanton abomination, or a gross delusion. 
 
 We shall now proceed to show, by quotations, that the 
 advocates of this system are not unapprized of its bearings 
 in this direction, and that they, on the contrary, adopt, 
 and endeavour to sustain this inference in their public in- 
 structions. 
 
 Mr. Finney, in his lectures on " False Comforts for 
 Sinners," specifies " telling the sinner to pray for a new 
 heart," as a mode of administering false comfort. "I once 
 heard," says he, " a celebrated Sunday school teacher do 
 
192 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 this : — He was almost, the father of Sunday schools in this 
 country. He called a little girl up to him, and began to 
 talk to her. ' My little daughter, are you a Christian V 
 No, sir. ' Well, you cannot be a Christian yourself, can 
 you V No, sir. ' No, you cannot be a Christian. You 
 cannot change your heart yourself ; but you must pray for 
 a new heart. That is all you can do ; pray to God. God 
 will give you a new heart.' He was an aged and vene- 
 rable man ; but I felt almost disposed to rebuke him openly 
 in the name of the Lord. I could not bear to hear him 
 deceive that child — telling her she could not be a Chris- 
 tian. Does God say, ' Pray for a new heart V 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 himself." — p. 318. 
 
 According to this statement, an aged and venerable man, 
 almost the father of Sunday schools in this country, nar- 
 rowly escaped an open rebuke from this apostle of New 
 Divinity, for telling a little girl that she could not change 
 her own heart, but must pray to God to change it. We 
 are also authoritatively informed that God does not require 
 the sinner to pray for a new heart. 
 
 This assertion of Mr. F. was made in full view of the 
 prayer of the psalmist for a clean heart and a right spirit 
 — and anticipating that it could be brought forward to re- 
 fute his rash dogmatism, he goes to work to dispose of it : 
 " I know that the psalmist, a good man, prayed, ' Create 
 in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me.' 
 He had faith, and prayed in faith. But that is a very dif- 
 ferent thing from setting an absolute rebel to pray for a 
 new heart." 
 
 It will be perceived at once, that tliis attempt at argu- 
 ment is based on the assumption that there are no degrees 
 of faith or repentance ; that a man is either wholly unbe- 
 lieving and an obstinate rebel, or a regenerate man. The 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 193 
 
 psalmist is justified by Mr. Finney on the ground that he 
 was " a good man," and had " faith." Can it be possible 
 that Mr. F. did not see the fatal absurdity into which he 
 was about to plunge himself? What need had the psalmist 
 to pray for a clean heart and a right spirit ? Had he not 
 changed his own heart ? Was not his petition wholly su- 
 perfluous ? Besides, if the psalmist was not in possession 
 of a clean heart, why did he not create it himself? Or 
 has a " good man," who has faith, less power in this re- 
 spect than an obstinate rebel, or an unconverted sabbath 
 school girl, so that while these are able to change their 
 own hearts and renew their own spirits, and have no right 
 to call on God for help, the good man has not the power 
 to do it, but must call on God to do it for him ? Shame 
 on the man who can deliberately advance and publish such 
 nonsense on so sacred and awful a subject ! 
 
 He also tells us that to direct the sinner " to pray for 
 repentance," or " conviction," or " for the Holy Ghost to 
 show him his sins," is to comfort him falsely. — p. 320. 
 
 As Mr. F. is looked upon as an ultraist, even in New 
 Divinity, it may be supposed that he is solitary in his op- 
 position to this Scriptural and indispensable practice. 
 This is not the case. This leaven leavens the whole 
 lump. Mr. Duffield says, evidently referring to the prac- 
 tice of Methodists, " Besides, this method of procedure is 
 inconsistent with itself. The sinner is to be told ' that 
 effectual help may be obtained by earnest entreaty' — that 
 if he asks aright he will be heard. He cannot this very 
 instant believe ; he must not dare to do so in his own 
 strength : he must be ' forbidden to attempt it,' but if he 
 prays sincerely and fervently, help will be found. And 
 this, with some, is ' preaching the whole counsel of God,' 
 and to neglect to do so is ' keeping back the truth ! ! !' 
 The first may produce, as it does among those who adopt 
 the ' seeking' plan, a great deal of noisy excitement, and 
 
 9 
 
■m .. 
 
 194 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 in many cases the most fatal delusion, and abominable 
 hypocrisy. We speak that which we have seen, and testify 
 that which we do know. The other suggestion about 
 praying aright, only tends to distract the sinner's attention, 
 and turn it away from Christ to himself. He is put upon 
 inquiry what it is to pray aright, and examining his own 
 feelings, and it is morally impossible, in such a case, for 
 the mind to wake up, under the influence of the great ob- 
 jects of our faith." — p. 547. 
 
 " But as he (the minister) would not throw the soul on 
 the very threshold of the kingdom, immeasurably, and per- 
 haps eternally back, let him beware how he directs him to 
 pray, or to use the means." — p. 548. 
 
 Before Ave proceed, it may be well to notice the sug- 
 gestions which Mr. D. throws out, for the purpose of dis- 
 paraging the " seeking plan," as he calls it. The doc- 
 trine, that effectual help may be obtained by earnest 
 entreaty, " may" and " does" produce, among those who 
 adopt the " seeking plan," " noisy excitements," " fatal 
 delusion, and abominable hj-pocrisy." We shall be pre- 
 pared to surrender the doctrine in question, when New 
 Divinity has made us infidels, and not before. Is there 
 any doctrine of the word of God more clearly and em- 
 phatically taught, than that help is to be obtained by 
 prayer ? Or is it earnestness in prayer that is so pernicious 1 
 Did not Jacob entreat earnestly, when, wrestling with the 
 Angel of the covenant, he said, " I will not let thee go, 
 except thou bless me ?" Did not the psalmist pray ear- 
 nestly ? — What does this language mean — " Forsake me 
 not, O Lord ; O my God, be not far from me. Make haste 
 to help me, O Lord God of my salvation ?" Psa. xxxviii. 
 He called upon God, and cried tinto him with his voice. 
 Was there not earnestness in the prayer of the publican, 
 when he smote upon his breast and said, " God be merci- 
 ful to me a sinner ?" Did not the Saviour pray with strong 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 195 
 
 cries and tears 1 Sometimes this earnestness produced a 
 little " noisy excitement" too, as in the case of Bartimeus, 
 which offended others, but in no instance incurred the 
 disapprobation of the Saviour. As to delusion, we shall 
 reserve what we have to say until we come to examine 
 the tendencies of New Divinity in that direction. The 
 objection, that telling the sinner " that if he asks aright 
 he will be heard," " only tends to distract his attention, 
 and turn it away from Christ to himself" — that "he is 
 put upon inquiring what it is to pray aright, and ex- 
 amining his own feelings," and that " it is morally im- 
 possible, in such a case, for the mind to wake up under 
 the great objects of our faith," is palpably fallacious. It 
 lies equally against self-examination on any point. Is 
 there no danger of the sinner taking that for submission 
 which is not submission ? Do not the preachers of New 
 Divinity frequently detect in their converts the indulgence 
 of " premature hopes ?" And shall the sinner be forbidden 
 to inquire what it is to repent or submit, or to " examine 
 his own feelings," and acts, to see whether they accord 
 with the requirements of God or not ? Must he go on, and 
 take it for granted that he is doing just what is right, and 
 conclude that he is, of course, a Christian ? And will the 
 advocates of such a blind and headlong course as this, 
 charge with a tendency to promote delusion, the doctrines 
 which require that the sinner shall examine his motives and 
 actions, and ascertain whether they are in accordance or 
 at variance with the law of God ? If Mr. D. will prove 
 that it is impossible to pray otherwise than aright, we 
 need not give ourselves nor the sinner any further trouble 
 on the subject. 
 
 We will present another example from this author:—- 
 " Why then shall the sinner be told to pray, or to do any 
 thing else, as though it could directly or indirectly con- 
 duce to his salvation, when at the moment he refuses to 
 
196 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 believe ? Is it true that asking and seeking are acceptable 
 to God, unless there is faith ? Does he not say, ' He that 
 cometh unto God must believe that without faith it is im- 
 possible to please him' — ' That whatsoever is not of faith 
 is sin V " Here is a plain intimation that prayer on the 
 part of the sinner cannot conduce either directly or indi- 
 rectly to his salvation. The argument by which this 
 opinion is attempted to be sustained, has been amply re- 
 futed. It proceeds on the principle, that the first act 
 of faith, or any degree of faith, seciu*es salvation. But 
 if this be the case, there is no need, as we have shown, 
 even to purpose to serve God, or to come to him, or to 
 submit to him ; because these acts presuppose faith, and 
 are therefore superseded by it. "He that cometh unto 
 God must believe that he is," &c., says the apostle. But 
 admit that there are successive acts and various degrees 
 of faith, and then it will appear sufficiently plain that the 
 sinner may have more or less faith, and yet fall short of 
 what is required of him ; and that, for all this argument 
 proves to the contrary, the prayer of the sinner may con- 
 duce to his salvation. 
 
 This same hostility to the sinner's praying for salvation 
 is strongly expressed in a pamphlet, entitled " Narrative 
 of a Revival of Religion in the Third Presbyterian Church 
 of Baltimore. With Remarks on Subjects connected with 
 Revivals in General. By W. C. Walton, Pastor of said 
 Church." 
 
 He remarks, " Sinners are indeed often told they 
 must repent or perish ; but the guilt of neglecting to do 
 this immediately is not sufficiently insisted upon. And 
 when they are awakened, instead of having tliis duty urged 
 upon them with all the force of divine authority, it is often 
 taken for granted that they are already penitent, and they 
 are pitied and prayed for as mourners, who are willing to 
 be saved if God will only convert them ; when their dis- 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 1^7 
 
 tress arises from nothing but the fear of hell, and the 
 struggling of a rebellious heart against the duty of an im- 
 mediate submission to God, on the terms of the gospel. 
 In this state of mind the direction commonly given to 
 them is, to persevere in praying and using the means of grace. 
 This goes upon the assumption that God has somewhere 
 promised to meet the sinner on this ground, and to bless 
 him while he is unwilling to submit, and renounce his 
 sins ; and that merely because he is externally observing 
 a divine institution. Such a promise it would be difficult 
 to find. To persons in the state of mind here supposed, 
 the word of God contains no promise of good, but many 
 denunciations of evil. Evil is represented as ' pursuing' 
 them. ' Evil pursueth sinners,' ' God is angry with the 
 wicked every day.' They are ' condemned already,' and 
 can never know at one moment that they will be out of 
 hell the next. If, then, God has given them no promise 
 of good while they remain impenitent rebels — and such 
 they may be even when greatly distressed from the fear 
 of punishment — it is clear that, in order to have any Scrip- 
 tural groimd to hope their prayers will be heard and ac- 
 cepted, they must, in the first place, cease from their 
 impenitence and rebellion, by a cordial and unreserved 
 submission to the terms of the gospel. What authority 
 have I then to encourage them to hope that they will re- 
 ceive any answer to their impenitent prayers ? Or to give 
 them any direction, the tendency of which would be to 
 make them believe that they are in the way to obtain re- 
 ligion, when they do not desire it, and are unwilling to 
 have it on the only terms on which God will bestow it ?" 
 The reader who has not been made acquainted with 
 the sophistries of modem Calvinism would naturally infer 
 from the preceding quotation, that some preachers — and 
 the Methodists are evidently intended — are in the habit 
 of directing " impenitent rebels," who " do not desire re- 
 
108 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 ligion, and who " are unwilling to have it," except on their 
 own terms, to offer up " impenitent prayers" for religion, 
 while their intention is not to submit, but to live in sin, 
 and that the writer was merely opposing such a course. 
 It is this aspect of the argument which gives it all its 
 plausibility. There may possibly be such teachers in ex- 
 istence, but we know not where they are to be found. 
 This is certainly not the practice of the Methodists. But 
 a little attention will disclose the reason of their imputing 
 this conduct to those who direct the sinner to " call on 
 the name of the Lord" that he may " be saved." They pro- 
 ceed on the supposition that one single voluntary act of 
 the mind changes a man in one moment from an impeni- 
 tent rebel to a Christian — that the very first act of peni- 
 tence, or faith, or submission in any form, is sufficient — 
 that if a man is not a Christian, and in possession of sal- 
 vation, it is because he is wholly impenitent, and dofes not 
 even desire religion. Of course, in their view, to direct 
 any man to pray for salvation, or in order to become a 
 Christian, is to direct an impenitent rebel to pray ; for 
 there is no medium between total impenitence and holi- 
 ness. If he has the least degree of penitence he has no 
 need to pray for salvation. This is the principle on which 
 the writer argues. It can hardly be necessary to repeat 
 our views on this subject. We go on the ground that 
 there are successive acts, and various degrees of repent- 
 ance and faith — that prayer belongs to repentance as one 
 of its acts, and that the man who refuses to pray for sal- 
 vation, refuses to repent fully and eftectually. We no 
 more encourage sinners to pray insincerely, than to feign 
 repentance. 
 
 This writer adds, "The error I am now combating 
 seems to arise from the erroneous supposition, that when 
 the sinner is awakened, and begins to refonn his external 
 conduct, and to use the means of grace, his heart is grow- 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 199 
 
 ing better in the sight of God ; that he is becoming less 
 and less unworthy; and that by this gradual diminution of 
 his unworthiness, he is making a gradual approximation 
 to a right state of feeling. Hence the direction, ' Continue 
 praying — persevere — you are in a hopeful way — after 
 awhile you will obtain religion,' " &c. 
 
 It will be perceived at once that this is aimed at 
 Methodism. While it discloses to us the author's senti- 
 ments, it affords us an opportunity of replying to his impu 
 tations. The sinner is not urged to pray, and persevere, 
 and told that he is in a hopeful way, on the supposition 
 that he is making himself loorthy of the blessing he seeks. 
 But it is supposed that he is making advancement toward 
 that state of feeling which God requires, or the direction 
 would not be given. It is supposed that the use of those 
 means contributes to that degree of penitence and faith, 
 in connection with which, God has placed the blessings 
 of pardon and spiritual renovation. And surely the heart 
 that is in some degree penitent, and whose penitence is 
 increasing, is not in a worse condition than that which is 
 wholly impenitent. Shall we suppose that the atheist 
 grows worse and worse, as he is led successively to be- 
 lieve in a God, and in all the articles which compose the 
 Christian faith ? The fact that God has promised salva- 
 tion to those Avho are in a certain state of mind, proves 
 that their case becomes more hopeful as they approximate 
 to that state of mind. The doctrine of New Divinity is, 
 that every effort that a man makes to obtain religion makes 
 him worse and worse, drives him further and further 
 away from God, until all at once, without a single prepa- 
 ratory step, he turns round, quick as thought, and makes 
 himself a Christian, which he could as easily have done 
 at any other period. We leave it Avith the reader to decide 
 which of these views is most compatible with Scripture 
 and reason. 
 
aOD NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 JNIr. Hinton, in his work entitled " The Active Christian," 
 a book containing many excellences as well as errors, 
 says in describing " cases of ill-directed eilbrt" on the 
 part of awakened sinners, " Now none of these pleasing 
 appearances exercise a more delusive influence than 
 prayer. To a very great extent a notion prevails, that 
 sinners may be saved by prayer, and there is something 
 so excellent in prayer itself, and, considered as a spiritual 
 exercise, so much identified with the existence of sincere 
 piety, that many persons have either imbibed the senti- 
 ment, or a.re startled with the opposite. To me it appears 
 one of the simplest and most obvious truths, that no man 
 can he saved hy prayer. If it be a spiritual exercise (which 
 is far from being always the case) it may be like holiness, 
 an evidence of salvation, hut not the instrument of it. It 
 is not that which a sinner is to do in order to he saved, or 
 that hy lohich he can be saved. It does nothing toward his 
 salvation, hut leaves the question of acceptance or ivrath just 
 where it was. Now, if prayer might always be taken as 
 an evidence of piety, it would be an unscriptural and mis- 
 chievous thing to confomid the evidences with the method 
 of salvation. But, as I have just hinted, prayer is by 
 no means imiformly a spiritual exercise. Much of it is 
 formal, and much that is not formal is natural — the utter- 
 ance of an awakened but not of a subdued heart. This is 
 even no evidence of piety; and yet it is the prayer by 
 which multitudes hope to be saved. It is not only a 
 truth, therefore, but a very important truth, that a sinner 
 cannot be saved by prayer ; that if prayer be miaccom- 
 panied with submission to God, it leaves him under con- 
 demnation ; that if it be accompanied with submission to 
 God, it is not prayer that saves him, but submission ; and 
 that reliance placed on prayer serves only to blind him to 
 his condition, and to render prayer itself the instrument 
 of his ruin. 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 201 
 
 " It is the more material that prayer should be set in its 
 true light, because by many persons it is regarded, not 
 merely as that which will save them, but as the only thing 
 which is requisite or possible for them to do in reference 
 to their salvation. ' If prayer does not answer the end,' 
 they are ready to say, ' What can we do more ?' And as 
 it uniformly happens that prayer does not answer an end 
 for which it is unscripturally and inappropriately used, it 
 hence follows that they conclude they have nothing else 
 to do, and make themselves satisfied in a state of sin and 
 condemnation ; as though they would say, ' I have prayed 
 to God, and that is every thing ; and now if I am not con- 
 verted and saved it is not my fault.' It is evident that in 
 such a state of mind, the attention of the sinner is with- 
 drawn from all Scriptural views of duty, and from every 
 impulse to right action. The Scripture speaks of humbling 
 ourselves before God, of repentance, of godly sorrow, of 
 submission to Christ's righteousness, all of which are thus 
 most unjustly and injuriously superseded by prayer, an 
 exercise by the performance of which, in whatever man- 
 ner, a sinner deems himself exonerated from all obligation 
 to these Scriptural and essential duties. Instead of being 
 useful, the very exercise of prayer becomes in this method 
 a tremendous mischief. I do not need here to be told of 
 the fallen and helpless state of human nature, or of the 
 thousand encouragements to prayer which are contained 
 in the divine word. Admitting these most readily, I must 
 maintain also that it is a sinner's direct and immediate duty 
 to turn to God, and submit to his Son, a duty from the obli- 
 gation and necessity of which a whole century of prayer 
 coidd not relieve him. Make it your business, dear 
 brethren, to see that no person under your instruction 
 shall ruin himself by this melancholy delusion." 
 
 This author finds it necessary, like all the rest of his 
 school, to caricature the doctrine he opposes, in order to 
 9* 
 
202 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 the success of his opposition. " To a very great extent," 
 he says, " the notion prevails that a sinner may be saved 
 hy prayer." " By many persons it is regarded, not merely 
 as that which will save them, but as the only thing which 
 it is either requisite or possible for them to do in reference 
 to their salvation." They think that by the performance 
 of this exercise, in any manner, a sinner is " exonerated 
 from all obligation" to the " Scriptural and essential duties 
 of humbling himself before God, of repentance, of godly 
 sorrow, of submission to Christ's righteousness." It can 
 hardly be necessary to deny that those who direct the 
 sinner to pray for mercy, entertain such views of prayer. 
 They look upon prayer as one of those exercises which 
 'God has enjoined on the sinner as the means of obtain- 
 ing salvation, and suppose that the neglect of it will be 
 equally fatal with the neglect of any other duty. 
 
 We readily grant that the sinner may entertain mistaken 
 views of the nature and efficacy of prayer. In such a 
 case it will be important that his views be corrected. But 
 the liability to delusion respecting prayer, is no greater 
 than the liability to delusion respecting any other exercise. 
 A man may as easily suppose " worldly sorrow" to be 
 " godly sorrow." He may as easily suppose that to be re- 
 pentance which is not repentance. But the author is not 
 so much concerned to correct the manner of the sinner's 
 praying. It is prayer itself, on the part of an awakened 
 sinner, as a means of grace, that he is opposing. " It is 
 not that which a sinner is to do in order to be saved." " It 
 does nothing toward his salvation." " It may be, like holi- 
 ness, an evidence of salvation, but not the instriwient of it." 
 " If prayer be unaccompanied by submission to God, it 
 leaves him under condemnation ; if it be accompanied 
 with submission to God, it is not" prayer that saves him, 
 but submission." So that prayer is wholly unnecessary. 
 Indeed we are told " that reliance placed upon prayer 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 203 
 
 serves only to blind him to his condition, and to render 
 prayer itself the instrument of his ruin." The sinner may 
 fall into other mistakes, but " none of these pleasing ap- 
 pearances exercise a more plausible and delusive influ- 
 ence than that of prayer." 
 
 As to prayer superseding other duties, it may as well 
 be pretended that godly sorrow supersedes repentance, or 
 repentance faith, or faith " submission." But what is the 
 " submission" to which such all-absorbing importance is 
 attached ? The author seems to speak of it as a separate 
 exercise. But in what part of the word of God is sub- 
 mission enjoined as a particular exercise 1 Where is it 
 said, " He that submits shall be saved V Prayer is dis- 
 tinctly specified as the sinner's duty: " Seek ye the Lord 
 while he- may be founds call upon him while he is near." 
 That submission is necessary is not questioned. No man 
 can be saved until he submits. But does one particular 
 exercise constitute submission, or does it include a varie- 
 ty of exercises ? New Divinity delights in vague and 
 ambiguous terms. The sinner inquires what he shall do 
 to be saved. These teachers tell him to submit. This 
 he professes a willingness to do, but wants to know 
 what it is to submit. He is told that to submit is to do 
 what God requires of him. " But what does God require 
 of me ?" is the natural response to such sage instruction : 
 " Must I pray to him ? What must I do ?" " No, you 
 must not pray, you must submit to God." How very 
 luminous ! And so simple too ! ! There surely can be 
 no great danger of delusion here ! ! ! Nov/ those who direct 
 the sinner to ■pray, enjoin submission just as much as the 
 advocates of New Divinity. They hold that submission 
 includes a variety of exercises, and that prayer is one of 
 them — and one of leading importance. They therefore 
 enjoin it as an essential part of submission. There may 
 be prayer without entire submission, but there cannot be 
 
204 NEW DIVINITY — PRAYER. 
 
 entire submission without prayer. The New School di- 
 vines leave out of their doctrine of submission, duties 
 which God has peremptorily commanded. God has en- 
 joined prayer, but they forbid it, and enjoin submission. 
 What is this but substituting rebellion for submission? 
 The submission which they enjoin is downright rebellion. 
 It may be submission to Messrs. Finney, Duffield, Hin- 
 ton, or to other New Divinity teachers ; but it is not sub- 
 mission to God. The truth is, that prayer, so far from 
 superseding other duties, is directly promotive of them — 
 while the sinner who does not pray will not humble him- 
 self, will not repent, will not believe, will not be saved. 
 JMr. H. intimates that prayer does not answer the end 
 for which it is used by those Avho resort to it as a means 
 of obtaining mercy and salvation. Will Methodists believe 
 this ? O, how many thousand tongues are ready to con- 
 tradict the assertion ! 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 PRAYER CONTINUED. 
 
 It will be perceived, from the extracts quoted and com- 
 mented upon in the preceding chapter, that while the ad- 
 vocates of New School theology condemn every act as 
 unnecessary or rebellious — as " resisting the last hope of 
 a lost soul" — which falls short of the one single act that 
 regtmerates, they have a special antipathy to prayer for 
 pardon and regeneration. The question before us is one 
 of immense importance. If the doctrine of our oppo- 
 nents be true, then do the Methodists, with one voice, en- 
 join on all who inquire the way of salvation, an exercise 
 which is not oiUy unnecessary, but highly prejudicial to 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 205 
 
 their spiritual interests. It may be supposed by some of 
 our readers that the examples which we have presented 
 to prove that this doctrine is held and taught by those to 
 whom we impute it, are sufficiently pointed and numerous ; 
 but we beg leave to call their attention to one more writer 
 on this subject, the Rev. Charles Fitch. We have before 
 us a book entitled " Inquirer's Guide," published by Mr. 
 Fitch, while pastor of the "Free Congregational Church," 
 in Hartford, to which our attention was recently directed 
 by a member of the NcAv-York Conference, who had met 
 with it in his pastoral visitations. It is designed for in- 
 quirers particularly, as the title indicates. We hesitate 
 not to affirm that it contains spiritual poison — rank and 
 deadly. We would warn all inquirers, within the circle 
 of our influence, against trusting themselves to its delusive 
 guidance. 
 
 The book professes to illustrate truth by facts, and con- 
 tains several narratives, in which its doctrinal peculiarities 
 are exhibited. One of them introduces two cousins, Mary 
 and Juliet, as the leading personages in the history. They 
 were returning from prayer-meeting together. " ' We 
 will not go to sleep to night,' said Mary to Juliet, as they 
 were returning from the prayer-meeting, ' until we have 
 given our hearts to God.' They reached home, and re- 
 tired immediately to their room, to fulfil their resolutions. 
 After praying alternately for some hours, they called the 
 lady of the house from her bed, and requested her to go 
 to their room. She did so, and then asked what was their 
 wish. ' That you will pray for us,' was the reply. 'And 
 for what shall I pray,' asked the lady. ' O !' said they, 
 ' that we may have new hearts.' She complied with their 
 request ; and on retiring from the room, she heard one 
 of them say, ' How shall we know that we have new 
 hearts V ' We will pray,' said the other, ' until we do 
 know.' Thus they continued praying until they felt 
 
206 NEW DIVINITY — PRAYER. 
 
 within them they had given their hearts to God, and were 
 ready to devote their lives to his service." 
 
 The author of the book does not question the genuine- 
 ness of the change which took place in these persons. 
 " There are few," he says, " whose piety has been more 
 consistent than that of Mary and Juliet." But he objects 
 to the course they pursued, and in stating his objection he 
 developes the pernicious tendencies of his theory. 
 
 He says, " In the resolution formed by Mary and Juliet, 
 they did wrong in but one thing. Instead of saying, We 
 will give our hearts to God before we sleep, and then 
 waiting until they could go home to their chamber to do it, 
 they should have said. We ivill now — we do now give our 
 hearts to God, where we are — before we take another 
 step — before we draw another breath. From this instant, 
 and for evermore, we will love God and him only, and 
 serve him with all our powers until we die ; trusting in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, that our multiplied sins will be for- 
 given through the merits of his atoning blood. They had 
 no means of knowing that God would let them live until 
 they could go home to their chamber ; they were presum- 
 ing on a time to make their preparation, which might 
 never come. Instead of withholding their hearts from 
 God so long, and spending these hours in praying for them- 
 selves, they should have yielded at once, and gone home 
 to pray for the Holy Ghost to be poured out upon their 
 young companions, who were yet living in sin. They 
 might have come to the full, unreserved, and heartfelt 
 resolution to love God and obey him for ever, at any pre- 
 vious moment, just as well as Avhen they actually did. It 
 was not 7iccessary for them to offer all these prayers to pre- 
 vail with God and make him willing that they should have 
 new hearts. God was more than willing ; he was strongly 
 desirous that they should have new hearts, before one of 
 those prayers had been offered ; and the only thing to be 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 207 
 
 done by them toward obtaining new hearts, was just to 
 consent sincerely and heartily, to love God and obey him 
 All this they had to do, after all their prayers." 
 
 " If Mary and Juliet had not done this — if they had not 
 fully determined that they would for ever love and serve 
 their Maker with all their powers, they might have prayed 
 until now, and they would have been impenitent sinners 
 still, and on the road to death. Their resolution that they 
 would, on that night, give themselves to God, was a good 
 one, except that they ought to have resolved on doing it 
 much sooner, and ought to have given their all away to 
 Christ, as they were walking by the way, and thus have 
 gone home his true disciples. They might have done it, 
 and were exceedingly guilty for not doing it : and if God 
 had cut them off in sin, while on their way to their dwell 
 ing, and consigned them to eternal death, it would have 
 been altogether righteous." — p. 58. 
 
 In these quotations we have (clearly presented) the fol- 
 lowing doctrines : 1st, That the prayers of these cousins, 
 for new hearts, were wholly unnecessary. 2dly, That 
 whatever may be included in giving the heart to God and 
 becoming Christians, may be done in one moment — " be- 
 fore we draw another breath" — ^" before we take another 
 step." 3dly, That while " the cousins" were praying for 
 new hearts, they were " impenitent sinners still, and on the 
 road to death." 4thly, That to " come to the full, unre- 
 served, and heartfelt resolution to love God and obey him 
 for ever," or ^^just to consent sincerely and heartily to love 
 God and obey him," or to " fully deter?nine that they will 
 for ever love and serve their Maker with all their powers," 
 which may be done by " impenitent sinners" in a moment, 
 is " the only thing to be done by them toward obtaining 
 new hearts." 
 
 Is it not clear that if, at the first, Mary and Juliet had 
 concluded that their hearts were already given to God, by 
 
208 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 the resolution they had formed ; and, omitting the hateful 
 business of praying for new hearts, had " indulged a hope," 
 and prayed for their young companions, they would have 
 escaped Mr. F.'s censures, and all would have been right. 
 
 Mr. F. does not, however, " put forth half his strength" 
 against prayer in this part of his book, but " checks his 
 thunder in mid-volley." In a second narrative, entitled 
 " God is willing that Sinners should be Saved," he comes 
 out as follows : — " E. P. was hopefully converted under 
 the following circumstances : A protracted meeting was 
 in progress, and his attention was called to his eternal 
 well-being — but he had not yielded his heart to God. At 
 ■ this time a sermon was preached from the following text : 
 i Whoso turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even 
 his prayer shall be an abomination.' It was remarked by 
 the preacher that ' there was nothing upon which anxious 
 sinners usually placed more value than upon their prayers 
 — thinking that by these they should prevail Avith God to 
 have mercy on them, and thus secure salvation !' It was 
 also said, ' that these impenitent prayers were frequently 
 the last thing which the impenitent were Aviliing to give 
 up, before they left all, and trusted in Christ.' It was 
 stated that there was ' no necessity for impeiiitent sinners to 
 pray that God would have mercy on thc?n,^ and that ' such 
 prayers were an abomination, Avhen they were ofi'ered.' 
 These two points were made to appear by the following 
 illustration : ' A thief is arraigned at the bar of his coun- 
 try, and condemned to state's prison for life. After his 
 sentence he sends up a petition to the legislature for a 
 pardon. They consider his case, and resolve that if the 
 man will acknowledge his crime, and pledge himself to 
 render obedience to the laws of his country in future, he 
 shall be set at liberty. 
 
 " This decision is made known to the man, but he at 
 once replies, ' I shall do no such thing as they say, I do 
 
NEW DIVINITY — PRAYER. 309 
 
 not ask for conditional pardon. I wish to be set at liberty, 
 and left free in future to steal or not, as I choose.' He 
 sends this answer to the legislature, and accompanies it 
 with another earnest prayer for pardon. But the legisla- 
 ture, so soon as his petition is read, reply with one voice. 
 We can have nothing more to do with that man's case. 
 We have disposed of it. We have once decided, that if 
 he will acknowledge his crime, and pledge himself to 
 obey the law, he is pardoned. We have no more to do 
 with his case.' But the man still refuses to comply with 
 the conditions ; and again, Avith more earnestness than 
 before, sends up a prayer for pardon. He repeats it time 
 after time. He becomes apparently very much distressed. 
 He portrays before them the horrors of a prison, and tells 
 them how; much he suffers at the thought of running out 
 his whole life within the gloomy walls of a dungeon ; but 
 in the midst of all his distress, he absolutely refuses either 
 to confess his crime, or to give the pledge of future obe- 
 dience to the law. 
 
 "Now it will be seen that this man's petitions are clearly 
 useless. There is no necessity for them. The legisla- 
 ture have already resolved that they will pardon him, on 
 the only conditions which can be consistent with the rights 
 of the community ; what need is there then of his pray- 
 ing ? It is evident the only object of his prayers must be 
 to induce the legislature to alter the conditions on which 
 they have agreed to pardon him. 
 
 " But can they do this ? Can they consistently set him 
 at liberty, with fuU knowledge of the fact that he intends 
 to steal whenever he may choose ? Will not his prayers 
 in such a case be most clearly an abomination ? The 
 legislature would soon become weary of them, and proba- 
 bly refuse to hear them. That man turns away his ear 
 from hearing the law. There is no necessity that he 
 should continue to ask for mercy. The pardon has been 
 
210 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 presented, and now, if he will comply with the terms, 
 which all must see are reasonable, he can have his liberty. 
 Just as long as he continues to pray, he will be more and 
 more an abomination. 
 
 " ' Precisely such,' it was stated, ' is the case of the 
 sinner toward God. God has already said in his word, 
 ' Let the wicked forsake his way, and the imrighteous 
 man his thoughts, and let him turn unto the Lord, and he 
 will have mercy on him, and to our God, who will abun- 
 dantly pardon.' It is also said, ' Whoso covereth his sins 
 shall not prosper ; but he that confesseth and forsaketh, 
 shall have mercy.' 
 
 " ' But so soon as the sinner sees that he is in danger of 
 sinking to hell, he begins to cry out for mercy. What 
 need of this ? God has said, beforehand, ' He that confess- 
 eth and forsaketh his sins, shall have mercy.'' Why does 
 he -pray ? Does he expect God will have mercy on him 
 while he does not confess and forsake his sins ? He may 
 pray as long as the rich man did for water, and he will 
 be sure to obtain nothing. He might offer such prayers 
 as these to all eternity, and God would never hear. Why 
 does he not confess and forsake his sins, and then he 
 would be sure of mercy — sure of free forgiveness and ever- 
 lasting life. 
 
 " ' But he becomes very much distressed. He sheds 
 burning tears as he looks into hell, and rolls upon his pil- 
 low at night, as sleep departs from his eyelids, and begs 
 of God to save his perishing soul. He spends whole days 
 thus, and perhaps flatters himself, that the more he prays, 
 the more likely he will be to obtain salvation. Still, how 
 ever, while he keeps on praying, he altogether refuses to 
 confess and forsake his sins. Must not such prayers be 
 an abomination ? God has told him already that he is wil- 
 ling to have mercy on him. There isy therefore, no need to 
 pray for it. 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 211 
 
 " ' The sinner turns away his ear from hearing the law. 
 He will not obey in the thing which God requires, though 
 he prays with great earnestness, and thinks to prevail. 
 God will let him pray eternally, but will curse his soul 
 for every prayer he offers, until he wUl do the thing re- 
 quired of him — that is, confess and forsake his sins. 
 
 '"The longer he prays thus, the more abominable must 
 he become in God's sight. He is merely begging of God 
 to forgive him, and take him to heaven, while he continues 
 to be a rebel. Let him leave off Ms ungodly prayers, and 
 do the thing which God requires of him, and then his soul 
 will be saved. After this he may pray, and God will hear 
 him ; but God hears no man's prayers who will not con- 
 fess and forsake his sins.' " 
 
 " E. P. felt the force of this truth. He felt willing to 
 give up his sins, and consecrate himself to the service of 
 God ; and in doing this he found peace. 
 
 " Sinners should be directed to do what God has made 
 necessary to salvation. It is nowhere said in the Bible, 
 that if the impenitent sinner will pray, he shall be saved : 
 nor is there any evidence that God places any value upon 
 his prayers, when they are offered. 
 
 " The first thing which sinners have to do, is to repent 
 — ^that is, confess and forsake their sins, and every thing 
 is an abomination until this is done. This they will never 
 do while they think any thing else will answer in its 
 place. They cannot, therefore, too soon be made to feel 
 that all their prayers and tears, and eternal reformations, 
 are wholly useless, until they will acknowledge their 
 transgressions to God, and enter at once upon the full 
 discharge of all the duties wiiich he requires. To tell the 
 sinner to pray, when God has commanded him ' to repent 
 and turn himself from all his transgressions,' is to handle 
 the word of God deceitfully, and daub with untempered 
 mortar." — p. 98. 
 
212 NEW DIVINITY — PRAYER. 
 
 The reader will keep in mind the object for which w? 
 make these quotations. They are intended to show that 
 the inference which we have deduced from other parts of 
 the NeAv School theory, namely, that for the sinner to pray 
 for forgiveness and regeneration is unnecessary and rebel- 
 lious, is recognised, and held and taught as a doctrine, by 
 the advocates of that theory. Additional testimony is unne- 
 cessary. This point is abundantly substantiated. Indeed, 
 we would have satisfied ourselves with much less exten- 
 sive extracts, were we not apprehensive that the charity 
 of many would render them reluctant to believe that a 
 doctrine, penetrating so far into the regions of destructive 
 error, could be held by persons maintaining such a show 
 of zeal and spirituality, as must be placed to the credit of 
 many New School churches. 
 
 The fallacy of this author's reasoning is easily de- 
 tected. He opposes prayer for salvation, on the part 
 of the unconverted, on the ground, first, that they are im- 
 penitent ; secondly, that they are unnecessary. The 
 case of the sinner who prays for pardon is " precisely 
 similar," in his estimation, to that of the thief, who 
 sends his petition to the legislature for a pardon, and 
 who, when informed that the legislature have resolved to 
 pardon him on the condition that he will acknowledge his 
 crime, and promise future obedience to the laws, replies 
 that he " shall do no such thing" — ^he does " not ask for a 
 conditional pardon" — he wishes " to be set at liberty, and 
 left free in future, to steal or not, as he shall choose" — 
 and who sends this answer to the legislature, accom- 
 panied with another petition for pardon. 
 
 Now we honestly declare that in all our experience we 
 never met with a case like this. During a ministry of 
 several years, we have been in the habit of urging sirmers 
 to pray for mercy, and have seen many kneel down before 
 God for that purpose ; resume their posture of supplica- 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 213 
 
 tion from time to time ; rise from their knees assm'ed that 
 the anger of God was turned away ; and rejoice in the 
 hope of the glory of God. We have seen the genuineness 
 of their conversion attested by holy lives and triumphant 
 deaths. But had we met with any of those presumptuous 
 rebels, described by Mr. F., instead of encouraging them 
 to expect pardon in answer to their insulting petitions, we 
 should have feared that God would strike them dead, and 
 send them to hell instantly. We would have endeavoured 
 to arouse them to a sense of their danger, by such lan- 
 guage as this : — " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, 
 how shall ye escape the damnation of hell!" 
 
 Mr. F. is not guided in his estimate of the charac- 
 ter of those who pray for pardon and regeneration, by the 
 facts of the case, but by his misleading theory. He as- 
 sumes that the very first act which is in the least degree 
 conformed to the will of God — the first act, or degree, of 
 repentance or faith — is sufficient to secure pardon ; and 
 then very consistently infers that the sinner who prays 
 for pardon obstinately refuses to perform that act, and is 
 therefore wholly impenitent. If he would only perform 
 that act, his prayer would be unnecessary. " God has 
 told him already, that he is willing to have mercy on him. 
 There is, therefore, no need to pray for it." By this theory 
 would Mr. F., and the advocates of New Divinity general- 
 ly, undertake to explain all those cases of deep and 
 agonizing repentance which have not yet resulted in ac- 
 tual and ascertained forgiveness. " The sinner sees that 
 he is in danger of sinking into hell," and " begins to cry 
 out for mercy," while he wilfully refuses to perform that 
 one act which God requires of him, and which he can 
 perform before he " draws another breath." " He becomes 
 very much distressed. He sheds burning tears as he looks 
 into hell, and rolls upon his pillow at night, as sleep 
 departs from his eyelids, and begs God to save his perish- 
 
214 NEW DIVINITY — PRAYER. 
 
 ing soul. He spends whole days thus, and perhaps flat- 
 ters himself that the more he prays, the more likely he 
 will be to obtain salvation. Still, however, while he 
 keeps on praying, he altogether refuses" to do that one 
 single act which is required of him. Hence, of course, 
 his prayers are " an abomination." " The longer he prays 
 thus, the more abominable he must become in God's sight. 
 He is merely begging of God to forgive him and take him 
 to heaven while he continues to be a rebel. Let him leave 
 off his ungodly prayers," and do the thing which God re- 
 quires, and his soul will be saved. " God will curse him 
 for every prayer he offers" before he is converted. Let 
 the sinner, then, who desires salvation, beware how he 
 prays for it ! Whatever else he may do, let him avoid 
 prayer as he would avoid cursing ! And as the advocates 
 of this theory may be too modest or too charitable to 
 make the following legitimate application of it, we will 
 make it for them : — Let the sinner who desires to be 
 saved, shun the Methodist Church as he would shun the 
 gates of hell ; for they pursue, throughout the whole ex- 
 tent of it, the practice of directing awakened sinners to 
 pray for pardon and salvation, and, to all appearance, are 
 likely to be incorrigible in the 'maintenance of their 
 atrocious system. 
 
 It is remar"kable that the teachers of New Divinity, in 
 specifying that one act which God requires of the sinner, 
 vary their terms as the argument may seem to require. At 
 one time they speak of "faith" as the thing required — at 
 another time, " repentance"— at another, " willing," or 
 "choosing," or " resolution*' — at another, " confession of 
 sin," or " forsaking it." This is the way with Mr. F. 
 When speaking of " the cousins," all that is necessary is 
 to come to the " resolution to love God and obey him 
 for evei." In the case of the thief, that which is neces- 
 sary is to acknowledge his crime, and pledge liimself to 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 215 
 
 obey the law. And now we are told that the reason why 
 the sinner is not saved is, he refuses to " confess and for- 
 sake his sins." But we have shown that the system 
 which we are opposing, renders nearly all these acts un- 
 necessary. This is eminently the case with confession 
 of sin. It is the act, either of a penitent or an impenitent 
 sinner. If of an impenitent sinner, it is, like prayer un- 
 der the same circumstances, an act of rebellion — if of a 
 penitent sinner, it is, like prayer, quite imnecessary. We 
 refer the reader for a more full development of this argu- 
 ment to the fourteenth chapter. 
 
 Whatever others may think, it strikes us as a very re- 
 markable thing, if indeed it be the case, that the impeni- 
 tent sinner should have such a strong preference for 
 prayer. According to the representations of these men, 
 the sinner will " cry to God for mercy" — " beg of God to 
 save his perishing soul" — " spend whole nights thus" — 
 " shed burning tears,'' and pass sleepless nights — publicly 
 approach the altar, or mourners' bench, and remain there 
 for hours, struggling in earnest prayer ; and all to aA'oid 
 doing — what 1 Merely resolving to serve God, or willing 
 to be a Christian, or exercising the least degree of repent- 
 ance, which may be done by any man in a single moment ! 
 "These impenitent prayers," we are told, are "the last 
 thing which the impenitent are willing to give up." We 
 are quite incapable of sympathizing with our New Divin- 
 ity friends in their troubles on this point. Our difficul- 
 ties are of a directly opposite character. We find it very 
 hard work to induce sinners to pray, and keep them to 
 their duty in this matter. And our difficulties, in many 
 places, are not a little increased by the influence of New 
 Divinity. Sinners are not easily persuaded to submit to 
 the severe and humiliating terms of the gospel, as under- 
 stood by the Methodists, unless their hearts are broken 
 by convictions. It will afford them great relief to be 
 
216 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 assured that tliey can be converted by merely making up 
 their minds to be Christians — an act which the Methodists 
 enjoin as imperatively as do the New School, but which 
 they consider only a part of what is required. Sinners do 
 not pray thus because they prefer the exercise, but be- 
 cause they believe the word of God requires it ; and the 
 difficulty of which these teachers complain arises from 
 this conviction. They have undertaken the task of per- 
 suading the awakened and inquiring man to surrender his 
 belief in the plainest instructions of the Bible, and to rely 
 on a theory at Avhich his common sense takes alarm — 
 and I would to God that they may find far more difficulty. 
 But, unhappily, they have on their side whatever remains 
 of pride, of indolence, of depravity in any form. 
 
 It is very convenient for them to represent the praying 
 sinner as desiring mercy and heaven, while he has no de- 
 sire for holiness. Thus does Mr. Fitch. Mr. Walton 
 does the same : so do they all. But Ave have seen that 
 they are no better pleased when the sinner prays that 
 God would create in him a clean heart. " Does God say, 
 Pray for a new heart ? Never !" asks, and exclaims Mr. 
 Finney. 
 
 Mr. Fitch assumes that repentance and prayer for mercy 
 are incompatible. To tell the sinner to pray, Avhen God 
 has commanded him " to repent and turn himself from his 
 transgressions," is to " handle the word of God deceitfully, 
 and daub with untempered mortar." Hold ! To forbid the 
 sinner to pray, because God has commanded him to re- 
 pent, is to countermand the aAvful and irrcA^ocable edicts 
 of Heaven. Let him that does it, bcAvare ! 
 
 And wliile this system has been advancing to maturity, 
 how many, Avho reject it as poison Avhen they understand 
 it, have been delighted Avith the deceitful imagination, that 
 its advocates were approaching to the peculiarities of 
 Methodism. 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 217 
 
 We have already answered the argument, drawn from 
 the supposed impenitence of the praying sinner. On this 
 point we will add, if every act performed by an impeni- 
 tent man is an impenitent act, and therefore rebellious, 
 and yet God requires the impenitent man to do something 
 in order to be saved, it follows inevitably that every im- 
 penitent sinner must be damned. Because every effort 
 ne makes must be an impenitent effort, and must therefore 
 leave him in a worse condition than before. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 PRAYER CONTINUED. 
 
 We propose to examine the objection to the sinner s 
 praying for mercy, which is deduced from the willingness 
 of God to save. Mr. Fitch is not solitary in his reliance 
 on it ; if he were, w*e should attach less importance to it. 
 It is frequently thrown out by other writers and speakers 
 of the same school, although not often so fully developed 
 as in the instance before us. Mr. Duffield, in his argu- 
 ment on the same subject, says, " To counsel the sinner 
 in any other way, and to put him upon efforts, as it were 
 to turn God to him, is taking part with the sinner against 
 God, fostering the spirit of rebellion, and practically slan- 
 dering the God of love. It is the sinner that must be 
 turned. God is willing to save him.'''' — p. 549. 
 
 This futile objection lies equally in the way of the per- 
 formance of any other conditional act. It may as well be 
 argued that we confess our sins to make God willing to 
 save us ; and therefore that confession of sin is " practi- 
 cally slandering the God of love." If God has placed 
 prayer among the terms of forgiveness, it is necessary for 
 
 10 
 
218 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 that reason ; if he has not, it is unnecessary. The well- 
 instructed inquirer prays for mercy on the same principle 
 on which he performs any other exercise which God has 
 commanded. Is it written, " If we confess our sins, he is 
 faithful and just to forgive us our sins ?" It is also written, 
 " They that call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 
 
 But trifling as is this objection, it belongs to the system 
 of New Divinity, and we proceed to trace its consequences. 
 If the sinner is not to pray for his own salvation, because 
 God is willing to save him, for the same reason he should 
 decline prayer for the salvation of others. If, for instance, 
 " Mary and Juliet" had gone and prayed that God would 
 have mercy on their young companions, would not the act 
 have implied the unwillingness of God to save sinners, 
 just as much as prayer offered for themselves 1 
 
 And shall we be believed when we affirm that this 
 theory is actually pushed, in its practical application, up 
 to this very point ? In this book, — "The Inquirer's Guide" 
 — written expressly for the direction of those who ask 
 what they shall do to be saved, is this strange doctrine 
 strenuously inculcated. 
 
 " We may here see, also, for what Christians should 
 pray, when they plead with God for sinners. 
 
 " To make the case plain, I will refer again to the 
 illustration in the supposed case of the thief. After the 
 legislature have determined that ho may be set at liberty, 
 if he will confess his crime, and pledge himself to obey 
 the law, and he has refused to do this, and still urges his 
 petition for a pardon a long time without success, he ob- 
 tains a lawyer to prepare a new petition for him, and sends 
 this, in the form of a memorial, all about the community, 
 and obtains all the influential names far and near, and this 
 is handed to the legislature, praying that he may be par- 
 doned. The individual who presents the petition labours 
 hard to operate on the sympathies of those before whom 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 219 
 
 he brings the case. He speaks of the dreadful horrors 
 of a dungeon, and of the painful deprivation of being cut 
 off for ever from all the blessings of liberty and social life ; 
 and brings up the man's family, and shows how dreadful 
 it must be to them, to see the husband and the father torn 
 from their arms, and immured for life in a dismal cell. 
 But the legislature say at once, ' Why all this ? Why come 
 to operate on our feelings in such a manner, as though we 
 were a company of hard-hearted wretches, that could not 
 be moved at the miseries of our fellow-men ? We are per- 
 fectly willing the man should be set at liberty this mo- 
 ment. We are desirous of it — even more so than the 
 petitioners can be. Why, then, come to plead with us 1 
 Go to the wretched man for whom you are making all this 
 exertion, and plead with him to confess his crime, and 
 promise obedience, and then he is pardoned, and we shall 
 rejoice in it as much as you.' 
 
 " Suppose now they keep urging their petition ; in 
 what light could their conduct be regarded, but as an 
 abomination 1 
 
 " Look now at the sinner, Avho is alarmed at his expo- 
 sure to hell. He has been a long time in a great anxiety 
 of mind. He has passed many sleepless nights, shed 
 burning tears over his present wretchedness, and his 
 prospects of future wo, and sent up many loud and bitter 
 cries to Heaven for mercy. All tliis time God has been 
 pledging him free and full forgiveness and everlasting life, 
 if he would confess and forsake his sins, but this he has 
 refused to do. At length, full of distress, he goes to the 
 minister and asks his prayers. He is full of corapassioa 
 for the unhappy man, sympathizes in his sorrows,. falls 
 down on his knees with him, and begs God, with great 
 earnestness, to have mercy upon him, and not let him go 
 to hell. 
 
 " The pastor then brings the case of tiie ' poor moum- 
 
320 NKW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 ing sinner' before the Church ; they all weep with him, 
 and send loud cries to Heaven for mercy. They tell 
 God how precious is this man's soul — how dreadful that 
 he should be shut up in hell for ever. And if he has a 
 pious wife and children, they beg God to spare them the 
 misery of seeing the husband and father separated from 
 them for eternity, and shut up in the dark prison-house 
 of hell. 
 
 " Now it seems to me that if God should speak to that 
 minister and that church, under such circumstances, he 
 would say, ' Why cry to me for mercy, as though I had 
 no bowels of compassion ? As I live, I have no pleasure 
 in the death of that sinner, but that he turn from his evil 
 ways and live. Why talk to me about the worth of his 
 soul, as though I did not know its worth ; or about the 
 pains of hell, as though I did not know that they were 
 Hard to be endured. I am willing to save that sinner ; I 
 am desirous of it — unspeakably more so than you can be. 
 My desires for his salvation have been such that I have 
 given my only-begotten and well-beloved Son to die for 
 him on the cross. Why cry to me for mercy 1 I have al- 
 ready said, that if he will confess and forsake his sins, he 
 shall have mercy. Why plead thus with me ? Go plead 
 with the guilty man to confess and forsake his sins, and 
 then his salvation will be sure." — p. 106. 
 
 The reader will not be at a loss to determine what de- 
 nomination of Christians Mr. F. has reference to, in the 
 passage just quoted. To make his allusions definite, he 
 quotes the common and well-known phraseology of Me- 
 thodists. 
 
 He goes on, and, in the course of his argument, applies 
 this reasoning to the case of the pious wife praying for 
 the irreligious husband, and to that of parents praying for 
 their children. 
 
 He supposes the husband to be lost, notwithstanding 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 221 
 
 the prayers of the wife, and inquires, "Why were not the 
 many earnest prayers of that pious wife heard in behalf 
 of her husband 1 She prayed for that for which she had 
 no need to fray. She prayed that God would have mercy 
 on him. God had had mercy on him, and sent his Son to 
 die for him. She prayed that he might he saved. God 
 was more than willing, yea, unspeakably desirous that he 
 should be saved : and if he were to speak from heaven 
 now, he would say, ' As I live, I have no pleasure in his 
 death.' 
 
 " Instead of taking God's part against her husband, and 
 labouring to persuade him to be reconciled to God, she 
 was actually taking her husband's part, and endeavouring 
 to persuade God to be reconciled to him. Who cannot 
 see that such must necessarily be a hopeless undertaking 1" 
 
 He thinks that he has detected, in this practice, " a rea- 
 son why a great multitude of prayers offered for the sal- 
 vation of sinners are never heard." 
 
 Were it not that there are a few passages of Scripture 
 scattered along the pages of Mr. Fitch's book, we might 
 be led to wonder whether, in the search for families and 
 individuals destitute of the Bible, Mr. Fitch had not been 
 overlooked, and to recommend his case to the attention of 
 the agents of the American Bible Society. WiU he apply 
 his illustration respecting the thief to the case of the pub- 
 lican, who prayed, " God he merciful to me a sinner ;" or 
 to the case of blind Bartimeus, Avho prayed, " Jesus, thou 
 Son of David, have mercy on me ;" or to the case of the 
 psalmist, who prayed, " Have Tuercy upon me, O God, ac- 
 cording to thy loving kindness ; according to the multitude 
 of thy tender mercies hlot out my transgressions V Were 
 these prayers an abomination to God \ Did they not imply 
 the unwillingness of God to save, as much as similar 
 prayers at the present day ? And then, with respect to 
 prayers offered up for others, has he not read that the 
 
222 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 Saviour prayed thus for his enemies and murderers, " Fa- 
 ther, /orgwe them, for they knovi^ not what they do?" It 
 was in this way that " he made intercession for the trans- 
 gressors," according to the prophecy of Isaiah. Has he 
 not read how Stephen prayed for his persecutors : " He 
 kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice. Lord, lay not 
 this sin to their charge ?" Does he suppose that if God had 
 spoken to the Saviour and to Stephen, he would have said, 
 " Why cry to me for mercy ? I have already said, that if 
 they will confess and forsake their sins, they shall have 
 mercy. Why plead thus with me 1 Go plead with the 
 guilty men to confess and forsake their sins, and then their 
 salvation will be sure ?" 
 
 Mr. Finney attempts to dispose of the Saviour's example 
 by trifling with the words, " for they know not what they 
 do." He says, " And in that case it was true — ^they did 
 not know what they were doing, for they did not believe 
 that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. But it cannot be said 
 of sinners under the gospel that they do not know what 
 they are doing. They do know what they are doing. They 
 do not see the extent of it ; but they do know that they 
 are sinning against God and rejecting Christ, and the 
 diflSculty is, they are unwilling to submit to God." — Lec- 
 tures, p. 329. 
 
 But this criticism defeats itself. It is intended to make 
 out such a difference between the murderers of the Sa- 
 viour, and sinners generally, as shall justify prayer in the 
 one case, and condemn it in the other; and yet it makes 
 their cases essentially alike. Sinners generally know what 
 they are doing, but " they do not see the fxdl extent of it." 
 And was not this precisely the case with those for whom 
 the Saviour prayed ? Did they not know that they were 
 sinning against God ? Did they not know that they had 
 unjustly and malignantly procured the condemnation of 
 Jesus Christ ? Certainly they did. But then there were 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 225 
 
 some things they did not know. There were conse- 
 quences which they did not foresee, and our Saviour 
 kindly includes this consideration in his prayer. At any 
 rate, the prayer must have had reference to those princi- 
 ples and acts for which they were guilty and liable to be 
 punished. 
 
 But if it is unnecessary to pray that God would have 
 mercy on sinners, and forgive them, because he is already 
 willing, it is, for the same reason, unnecessary to pray for 
 them at all. It is true, Mr. Fitch halts before he comes 
 to this legitimate conclusion ; but we cannot imagine how 
 any man of ordinary acumen could avoid perceiving it. 
 He insists strenuously on praying for the sinner; but what 
 blessings are we to ask for him ? We are thus informed, 
 " And when they bow their knees to pray for him, let them 
 not cry for mercy as though it was a doubtful case whe- 
 ther God was willing to exercise mercy, but let them pray 
 to God to send the Holy Ghost into his heart, to ' reprove 
 him o| sin, of righteousness, and of judgment,' " &c. He 
 also insists on " the importance of faith in prayer." So it 
 seems that God is willing to have mercy on sinners, 
 and therefore we need not pray for that ; but he is not 
 willing to send the Holy Ghost into their hearts, and bring 
 them to repentance. It is, at least, " a doubtful case ;" 
 and we must endeavour to change his mind in this respect, 
 and make him willing by prayer, and even then he will 
 not be willing, unless we pray in faith. 
 
 Indeed, we have often been led to suspect, that when 
 prayer has been offered for sinners by New School preach- 
 ers, it has not been offered on the supposition that any 
 thing would be obtained in answer to prayer, but merely 
 as a part of the machinery of moral suasion. The poor 
 sinner has been mercilessly belaboured by the petitioner. 
 God has been told what a vile, infamous, hard-hearted 
 rebel was before him. Doubts have been expressed whe- 
 
224 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 
 
 ther the Holy Ghost would ever visit the sinner again, if 
 he should not submit now. Their prayers have appeared 
 to be intended, not to obtain a blessing from God, but to 
 operate on the sensibilities of the sinner, and frighten him 
 into the submission demanded. 
 
 The tendency of Mr. FitcNs reasoning is olviously to do 
 away prayer altogether. For the sinner, or the Christian, 
 to pray for mercy on himself or others is unnecessary, 
 because God is already willing to have mercy. On the 
 same principle it is unnecessary for them to pray for any 
 thing that God is willing to confer. But as it may safely 
 be presumed that God is willing to confer on his people 
 whatever is for their good, and unwilling to confer nothing 
 but what is injurious, the necessity of prayer is wholly 
 superseded. 
 
 Thus we see to what fearful issues we are conducted. 
 It would not be surprising to hear such objections to 
 prayer from a Universalist or a Deist ; but to hear them 
 from a modern revivalist, a minister of that class to^which 
 the term evangelical is supposed to have a special ap- 
 plicability, is truly alarming. But New Divinity is on the 
 high road to Deism. 
 
 Is it not high time that a general and persevering eftbrt 
 were made to open the eyes of the public mind to the cha 
 racter and tendencies of this theory, and especially to 
 make the differencebetween New Divinity and Methodism 
 clearly apparent ? 
 
 But why this clamorous opposition to prayer as a means 
 of obtaining mercy 1 If one single indivisible act of the 
 mind is sufficient to make a man a Christian, and the very 
 first which conforms to the law of God be the act in ques- 
 tion ; if it makes no difference, as we have been told, what 
 may be the specific form of obedient agency which the 
 act presents ; why may not the first act of prayer be that 
 which introduces the important change ? We now venture 
 
NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 225 
 
 to predict, that when the advocates of New Divinity are 
 compelled to change their ground respecting sinners pray- 
 ing for mercy and salvation, as will most assuredly be the 
 case, they will become as strenuous in recommending, as 
 they now are in opposing it ; and that too, without chang- 
 ing their general theory. They will proceed on the prin- 
 ciple, that the first obedient act makes the Christian, and 
 that prayer is that act. It is true, that they will be incon- 
 sistent, but not more so than in enjoining any other act. 
 They will then appear to be approaching still more closely 
 to Methodism, Avhile they are as far from it as ever. 
 The resemblance will be only in outward appearance. 
 They will enjoin prayer on the principle that the act of 
 prayer for mercy changes the heart. This is our pro- 
 phecy. We may be mistaken. 
 
 It is supposed that these objections to the prayer of the 
 sinner for salvation are sustained by those texts of Scrip- 
 ture which affirm that " the prayer of the wicked is an 
 abomination," &c. That there are certain states of mind 
 which would render prayer an abomination to God, can- 
 not be doubted. For instance, when prayer i» hypocritical. 
 Also, when it is offered by him who, at the same time, in- 
 tends to live in sin, and has no desire to become holy. 
 But the case is materially altered when it is the prayer of 
 one who deplores his sins and sinfulness, and desires 
 to be pardoned and sanctified. That this text includes 
 such among the wicked whose prayer is an abomination, 
 is, we think, extremely doubtful. We know it does not, 
 for they are both commanded and encouraged to pray. 
 
 10* 
 
2SB NEW Divn^rrr— MEANS of grace. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 It is sufficiently manifest that while the advocates of 
 this system entertain a special dislike to the practice of 
 praying to God for pardon and regeneration, the system it' 
 self operates with sijnilar and equally destructive effect o?i all 
 the means of grace. If one single act of the mind changes 
 a man from an impenitent rebel to a Christian, and he has 
 a natural ability to perform that act at any moment, so 
 that the sole obstacle to its instant performance is^his un- 
 willingness, then all the acts by which that one is pre- 
 ceded must be rebellious ; and to perform them, with the 
 ■ view of securing the favour of God, while that one act, 
 which would accomplish the purpose at once, is wilfully 
 declined, must be the most flagrant mockery of divine au- 
 thority. While, therefore, this principle sweeps away 
 prayer, by the same process it makes the same disposi- 
 tion of all the other conditional and preparatory exercises. 
 
 This tcnd^cy of the principles and arguments of New 
 Divinity has been repeatedly developed in several of the 
 preceding chapters, and we now call the attention of the 
 reader to it for the purpose of showing in what light the 
 subject is regarded by the leading promulgators of that 
 theory. To us the inference is irresistible, that the sin- 
 ner has nothing to do with the means of grace. What 
 then do they teach respecting this matter 1 
 
 Mr. Dutheld is explicit. He dcA^otes a whole chapter 
 to the subject of the means of grace ; and expresses his 
 sentiments as follows : — " Surely, such exhortations as 
 the following, cannot fail to have a most deleterious influ- 
 ence. ' Now, my dear young friends, here is your duty, 
 you are called to believe in Christ, and to exercise re- 
 pentance unto life. But you are not called, but forbidden 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 227 
 
 to attempt this duty in your own strength.' It is well that 
 the feelings of many counteract the influence of their 
 theory ; and that the exhortations, suggested alike by the 
 sacred Scriptures and by common sense, notwithstanding 
 a mystic theology, are addressed to the consciences of 
 sinners, to urge them to instant repentance. The exhorta- 
 tions 'to seek,' and 'pray' and 'strive' and 'use the 
 means' which are sometimes substituted for those which 
 it is explicitly given in charge to the minister of Christ to 
 urge, cannot fail to perplex, bewilder, distract." — p. 544. 
 
 Again : " Take the confession of a young man, which 
 has recently been spread before the churches, and whose 
 clear discriminating mind required better counsellors than 
 it seems to have been his lot to meet : ' I was almost 
 ready to despair ; but I remembered that God's arm was 
 not shortened, that it could not save, and I determined 
 never to>cease from striving : but even this, I Imew was what 
 I would not be able to do of myself. This continued to be 
 my state, with but little variation, for more than a week. 
 After listening, with great interest, to preaching, and talk- 
 ing with Christians,' he adds, ' nothing they said, however, 
 gave me much encouragement. It was only " strive," 
 " seek," " ask," " knock." That I v/as ready to do ; and 
 for the few days past this darkness has been breaking 
 away, and in its place a calm assurance has been sue 
 ceeding.' " — Ibid. 
 
 Here is, we think, a case of genuine conversion ; and 
 yet Mr. D. cites it for the purpose of throwing suspicion 
 upon it, and of condemning the instructions which the indi- 
 vidual received and the course he pursued. He says, 
 " The writer of these confessions may have become such 
 [a Christian] ; but other evidence of the fact, than that 
 which he intimates influences his judgment in the case, 
 is indispensably necessary." After some farther coimnent 
 in the same strain, he adds, " The above is merely selected 
 
228 NEW DIVINITY — MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 as a specimen of the practical bearing of the counsels 
 given by those, who, instead of directing at once to the 
 Saviour, and spreading the truth which is to be believed 
 before the mind, and exposing the guilt and danger of 
 every moment's delay to repent, and requiring it, as by 
 the authority of God, to be instantly done — exhort to 
 pray, and read the Bible, and use the means of grace — 
 seeking, knocking, striving after faith and repentance, 
 and what not," — p. 545. 
 
 We do not care to answer either the sophistry or the 
 sneers contained in the above remarks. It would be per- 
 fectly easy to show that the directions which seem to ex- 
 cite his contempt are just such as were given by Jesus 
 Christ himself; but our object is to present the sentiments 
 of Mr. D. respecting the means of grace, and we think that 
 there is no danger of misunderstanding them. 
 
 Again he says, " If you direct him to rise the means, as 
 conducing to his salvation, or to make any other eflbrt 
 than the one all essential, you do actually soothe him, for 
 the present, and for the present keep him from Christ." 
 ~p. 547. 
 
 Again : " To tell him to do any act as conducive to his 
 salvation prior to his full and actual compliance with the 
 claims of God for his heart, is to tell him to do what God 
 abhors, and cannot accept, and in which he may rest to his 
 everlasting perdition." — p. 550. 
 
 Again : " But, as he would not throw the soul, on the 
 very threshold of the kingdom, immeasurably, and perhaps 
 eternally, back, let him beware how he directs him to pray, 
 or to use the means, lest he comfort him in his rebellion." 
 —p. 548. 
 
 On this subject, a writer in the Christian Spectator 
 remarks, " There can be no real using of the means of 
 grace except at the indivisible moment of time when, re- 
 nouncing his selfish feelings, the sinner contemplates di- 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 229 
 
 vine truth as the power of God unto salvation, and instantly 
 obeys its dictates. Any thing short of this is not a use, 
 but an abuse of the means of grace." — Vol. v, No. 1, page 
 35. The amount of this is obviously that the only means 
 of grace for the sinner to use is the one single act of obe- 
 dience performed " at the indivisible moment of time" 
 when he changes his own heart. 
 
 Take one passage from Mr. Finney, to whom belongs 
 the credit of a fearless presentation of his system, let it 
 lead to what consequences it may. In his lecture on 
 " false comforts for sinners," he places among false com- 
 forts " telling a sinner he must use the means^ He en- 
 larges on this point as follows : " Tell an anxious sinner 
 this — You must use the means, and he is relieved. " O, 
 yes, I will do that, if that is all. I thought that God re- 
 quired me to repent and submit to him now. But if using 
 the means will answer, I will do it with all my heart." 
 He was distressed before because he was cornered up, and 
 did not know which way to turn. Conscience had beset 
 him like a wall of fire, and urged him to repent now. But 
 this relieves him at once, and he feels better, and is very 
 thankful, he says, that he found such a good adviser in his 
 distress. But he may use the means, as he calls it, till the 
 day of judgment, and not be a particle the better for it, but 
 will only hasten his way to death. What is the sinner's 
 use of means but rebellion against God ? God uses 
 means. The Church uses means to convert and save 
 sinners, to bear down upon them, and bring them to sub- 
 mission. But what has the sinner to do with using means ? 
 Will you set him to using means back upon God, and so 
 make an offset in the matter ! Or is he to use means to 
 make himself submit to God ? How shall he go to work 
 with his means to make himself submit ? It is just telling 
 the sinner, ' You need not submit to God now, but just 
 use the means awhile, and see if you cannot melt God's 
 
# 
 
 230 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 heart down to you, so that he will yield this point of un- 
 conditional submission.' It is a mere cavil to evade the 
 duty of immediate submission to God. It is true, that sin- 
 ners, actuated by a regard for their own happiness, often 
 give attention to the subject of religion, attend meetings, 
 and pray, and read, and many such things. But in all this, 
 they have no regard to the honour of God, nor do they so 
 much as mean to obey him. Their design is not obedience, 
 for if it were they would not be impenitent sinners. They 
 are not, therefore, using the means of grace to be Christians, 
 but to obtain pardon and a hope. It is absurd to say that 
 an impenitent sinner is using means to repent, for this is 
 the same as to say that he is willing to repent, or, in other 
 words, that he does repent, and is not an impenitent sinner. 
 . So, to say that an unconverted man uses means with a design 
 to become a Christian, is a contradiction, for it is saying, 
 that he is willing to be a Christian, which is the same as 
 to say, that he is a Christian already." — p. 317. 
 
 In the foregoing quotations we have not only a distinct 
 avowal of the doctrine which we have charged on the ad- 
 vocates of New Divinity, but likewise a clear illustration 
 of its connection with bther parts of their system. The 
 impenitent rebel has a natural ability, by one single " in- 
 divisible act of the mind," which may be performed in one 
 " indivisible moment of time," to change his heart and 
 make himself a Christian. Of course, to say that he is 
 using means to become a Christian while he is not a 
 Christian is absurd ; for he could become a Christian at 
 any moment if he were willing. Mr. F. reasons unanswer- 
 ably from his own principles when he imdertakes to show 
 that the means of grace are unnecessary and injurious. I* 
 is a plain inference. Let them do at once the one thing 
 that will make them Christians. While they refuse to do 
 this, the use of the means of grace can only postpone the 
 change, and protract their rebellion. 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 231 
 
 The advocates of error are frequently compelled to take 
 refuge in the most glaring contradictions, or run their 
 theories out into the most revolting absurdities. In this 
 dilemma New Divinity places its advocates, and they are , 
 sometimes foimd hanging on one horn, sometimes on the 
 other. The principle on which they base their objections 
 to prayer for mercy, and the " use of the means" in gene- 
 ral, would, if faithfully adhered to, require them to discou- 
 rage the reading of the Bible, religious tracts and period! 
 cals, or other religious publications ; as also, to discourage 
 religious conversation, attending places of worship, or the 
 performance of any other act, on the part of the unrenevv 
 ed, with the view of becoming Christians. Apply to any 
 one of these acts the reasoning which is applied to prayer, 
 and using the means of grace in order to become reli- 
 gious, and the result is, that it is impenitent and rebellious. 
 This Mr. Duffield affirms in the following, which has al- 
 ready been quoted : — 
 
 "If you direct him to use the means, as conducing to his 
 salvation, or to make any other effort than the one all-essen- 
 tial, you do actually soothe him for the present, and for 
 the present keep him from Christ." " To tell him to per- 
 form any act, as conducive to his full and actual compli- 
 ance with the claims of God for his heart, is to tell Mm 
 to do lohat God abhors, a7id cannot accept, and in which he 
 may rest to his everlasting perdition." ! 
 
 If, then. New Divinity be true, nobody should read thej 
 Bible, pray, attend the house of God and hear his word, 
 but Christians. To encourage others to do any of these; 
 things as conducive to their becoming Christians, is to: 
 " keep them from Christ,'' " comfort them in their rebel-j 
 lion," and tell them " to do what God abhors." ' 
 
 Ministers of this faith, to be consistent, should Avarn all 
 unconverted persons against doing any of these, from such 
 a motive. But to attempt to carry this theory out in prac- 
 
232 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 tice would arouse both piety and common sense to indig- 
 nant and desperate revolt. They are therefore compelled 
 to contradict their doctrines by their every-day practice. 
 The most galling fire of their logic is poured into their 
 own ranks. 
 
 ! Nor are they less inconsistent in their doctrinal state- 
 ments than in their practice. Mr. Duffield talks about 
 " preliminary processes." " The attention of the mind re- 
 quisite to perceive truth, the fixing and dwelling on it ne- 
 cessary to feel it, the apprehension of the evidence that in- 
 deed it is truth, and the actual consenting unto it as pro- 
 posed,— these are all involved in those preliminary mental 
 processes, which the injunction to believe and repent im- 
 plies, and which have a natural tendency to issue exactly in 
 . the exercises of faith and repentance. If then such things 
 be called using the means of grace, we shall not object. 
 But certainly this is not the ordinary, and theological use 
 of the phrase." — p. 551. So it seems that after all, Mr. 
 D. has no objection to the sinner's "using the means of 
 grace," if he will only use those for which Mr. D. has a 
 preference. It is using the means of grace in " the ordi- 
 nary and theological use of the phrase" to which he ob- 
 jects so strenuously. Let the awakened sinner only avoid 
 the wicked and unscriptural practice enjoined by the 
 Methodists, of praying, reading the Bible, " seeking, knock- 
 ing, striving after faith and repentance, and what 7iot," and 
 Mr. D. is satisfied. But cannot he perceive — cannot any 
 one, who is capable of reasoning, perceive that his ob- 
 jections to one class of means are equally fatal to the 
 other ? What are those " preliminary mental processes," 
 but " acts" and " efforts" preceding the " one" " indivisi- 
 ble" and " all-essential" act, and " conducing" to it ? Are 
 we not compelled, by consistency, to class them with 
 those " any other efforts" which Mr. D. so pointedly con- 
 demns, as calculated to soothe tlie sinner for the present, 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OP GRACE. 233 
 
 and for the present keep him from Christ 1 Mr. D.'s sys- 
 tem places him in this dilemma — either the man is, in 
 some degree, penitent and believing when he enters upon 
 these preliminary processes, or he is wholly impenitent and 
 unbelieving. If the latter, he does " what God abhors 
 and cannot accept." If the former, he is already a Chris- 
 tian, and the preliminary processes are all reduced to sub- 
 sequent processes. Perhaps it may be replied, that " to 
 require the sinner to repent and believe, without these 
 preliminary processes, would be absurd." No doubt of 
 that ; but not more so than is the whole system of New 
 Divinity. 
 
 We might furnish a long list of similar incongruities, 
 collected from writers of this school, but the examples 
 given are fair specimens of the rest. 
 
 There can be no difficulty now in understanding what 
 is meant by the New School writers and preachers when 
 they speak of immediate repentance, immediate submis- 
 sion, &c.,and complain that these are not sufficiently insist- 
 ed upon. They do not mean, by immediate submission, im- 
 mediately entering upon those preparatory and conditional 
 performances, which, if persevered in, will eventuate in 
 regeneration. They mean the immediate performance of 
 some single indivisible act of the mind, without taking any 
 previous steps as conducing to it, which they suppose to 
 change a man, in one moment, from a state of the most de- 
 cided enmity to God, to the condition of a Christian. No 
 matter how plausible the general terms are, in which they 
 choose to describe this act — whether they call it a change 
 of heart, a new birth, or a new creation, they mean no- 
 thing more than one single act, which the worst man has 
 a natural ability to perform at any moment, without prayer, 
 or reading the word of God, or using any of the means of 
 grace. With respect to the nature of this act, it is no mat- 
 ter what its specific form may be. It is the very first act 
 
234 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 of obedience to the requirements of God, whether that act 
 be a sincere desire or determination to be a Christian, or a 
 single movement of repentance, or of faith, or of gratitude 
 to God. And it is because we do not preach this doctrine, 
 that we arc represented as encouraging the sinner in re- 
 bellion, and keeping him away from Christ, and as failing 
 to urge the sinner to instant submission ! ! 
 
 There is one feature in Mr. DufReld's discussion of the 
 subject which is somewhat amusing. After having de- 
 scribed, in his own way, the coiirse of those who, instead 
 of directing the sinner to immediate submission, " exhort 
 to pray, and read the Bible, and use the means of grace — 
 seeking, knocking, striving after faith and repentance, and 
 what not," he says, " Now against all such theory and 
 practice Ave enter our solemn protest. It is contrary to 
 the principles of common sense. That teaches us to 
 direct the attention specifica"y and directly toward the 
 result to be secured. The means, or process, by which 
 that result is to be obtained, are, in many cases, instinct- 
 ively discovered, and while requiring and urging the^na^ 
 issue, every one feels that the jireliminary processes which, 
 in the nature of things, are necessary to secure it, are 
 also required. But to direct the attention ^r.?^ to these, is, 
 in fact, to cause the mind virtually to lose sight of the great 
 end to be secured." — p. 545. 
 
 It is not for the purpose of noticing the contradiction 
 involved in the admission that " preliminary processes" 
 are " in the nature of things necessary" to conversion, 
 that we call attention to this singular passage. What we 
 have in view is the declaration, that the " mean.s" are " in- 
 stinctively discovered," and that " to direct the attention" 
 of the inquirer " first to these, is, to cause" him " to lose 
 sight of the great end to be secured." We think it very 
 probable that if the true means are not instinctively, or 
 otherwise discovered, independently of Mr. D.'s instruc- 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 235 
 
 tions, they will go undiscovered. But let us try this doc- 
 trine of instinctive discovery and directing first to the 
 end, &c. 
 
 The man who, under the Jewish law, accidentally killed 
 another, was liable to be immediately killed by the relative 
 of the slain. But there were certain cities, called cities 
 of refuge, to which he might flee and be secure from the 
 avenger of blood. A man has killed his fellow. His 
 friend urges him to flee instantly to the nearest city of 
 refuge. He does not know the way. His friend is en- 
 gaged in giving him directions, when up comes a sage 
 rabbi, who interferes thus : " I enter my solemn protest 
 against the manner in which you are instructing that indi- 
 vidual. Direct his attention directly and specifically to 
 the city itself. This talk about the road he is to pursue 
 cannot fail to perplex, bewilder, and distract him. It 
 diverts his> attention from the city itself. Fly instantly to 
 the city. You will discover the road instinctively." Who 
 does not perceive that in tliis case the rabbi would have 
 but little ground on which to establish his claims to supe- 
 rior wisdom ? Now we take tlris rabbi as the representa- 
 tive of Mr. D. ; and while we would most sincerely "enter 
 our protest against his instructions," we will decline at 
 present entering our solemn protest. 
 
236 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 MEANS OF GRACE CONTINUED. 
 
 Although the teachers of this system fail to conform 
 their practice to their theory in some instances, we must 
 not suppose that tliis is the case in every instance. Mr. 
 Duffield informs us, that these doctrines influence their 
 " whole system of spiritual tactics." This fact is specially 
 exemplified on the subject of prayer, as a means of ob- 
 taining salvation. i 
 
 Here is one of the leading points of difference between 
 the New School Calvinists and the Methodists, in the 
 treatment of awakened sinners. Let any close and intel- 
 ligent observer attend alternately the meetings of these 
 denominations, while both are in the midst of a revival, 
 and he will find, that while the Methodists invariably urge 
 on the inquirer, not only to decide instantly and fully in 
 favour of the service of God, to repent and believe the 
 gospel, but likewise to pray for the regenerating influences 
 of the Holy Spirit, and especially for the forgiveness of 
 sins, the other party decline altogether these exhortations 
 to prayer. They exhort to immediate decision, or re- 
 pentance, or faith — acts which they consider identical with, 
 or at least equivalent to, each other. They employ power- 
 ful, arguments to enforce their exhortations. They call 
 on the church to pray for the sinner, but they do not re- 
 quire him to pray for himself. We speak what we know, 
 and testify what we have seen. Great pains have been 
 taken, on our part, to obtain information on these subjects, 
 and we are fully assured not only of our intention to speak 
 the truth, but of the correctness of what we affirm. We 
 have attended revival meetings, both in Philadelphia and 
 
NEW DIVINITY— MEANS OF GRACE. 237 
 
 in New-York, in some of the leading and most successful 
 churches under the influence of New Divinity, for the pur- 
 pose of observing their manner of proceeding. We have 
 seen, at the close of the sermon, nearly, if not quite, two 
 hundred persons, go, as inquirers, to the pews assigned 
 them near the pulpit. We have heard them addressed on 
 the subject of their duty, urged to the performance of it — 
 and in all that was said to them there was not a single 
 exhortation to pray for pardon and regeneration. One or 
 two prayers were offered in their behalf, and they were 
 dismissed. We have been solicited to preach at protracted 
 meetings conducted on the principles of New Divinity ; 
 and, feeling no reluctance to do what we could consist- 
 ently, have accepted these invitations. We have attended 
 one or two inquiry meetings, and seen this theory carried 
 out, by addressing inquirers as Christians, merely because 
 they had fully made up their minds to become the ser- 
 vants of God, without one exhortation to pray, or to seek 
 for justification by faith and a change of heart ; and we 
 have been led to grapple with painful doubts, whether 
 we were doing right in silently bidding God speed to a 
 system which trifles so egregiously with the awful inte- 
 rests of eternity. 
 
 Some may be ready to ask with astonishment. Do they 
 not direct inquirers to bow the knee in prayer ? Have we 
 not seen them kneel down by himdreds, in compliance 
 with this direction ? We doubt not that such scenes have 
 been witnessed. But if any have inferred from this fact 
 merely, that the duty of prayer for mercy and salvation 
 was enjoined on those inquirers, they have doubtless been 
 misled. According to the account, published in the New- 
 York Evangelist for January 13, 1838, of a revival in the 
 Seventh Presbyterian Church, under the pastoral care of the 
 Rev. Mr. Hatfield, this very course was pursued ; but the 
 reason of their bowing the knee is explained by Mr. H. 
 
238 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 himself. " The anxious were invited after sermon to the 
 lecture-room ; and, it was thought, more than three hun- 
 dred assembled there deeply affected. An unusually large 
 proportion of these were men. Nearly all of these bowed 
 the knee during prayer, in token of their willingness to give 
 up all for Christ, and determination to grieve the Holy Spirit 
 no more." Again : " Although there was a very heavy 
 rain on Thursday evening, the congregation was very 
 large, and one hundred inquirers met after sermon in the 
 lecture-room. When called to bow the knee in token of sub- 
 scribing themselves to be the Lord's, all but three or four 
 instantly complied, and gladly, with the invitation." The 
 object of this movement is plainly stated. It was not that 
 they might pray for forgiveness and spiritual influence, 
 that they were " called to bow the knee," but merely that 
 they might furnish an outward indication of " their deter- 
 mination to grieve the Holy Spirit no more," &c. While 
 this revival was going on, there was also in the same 
 neighbourhood a Methodist revival of great power, in 
 which " inquirers" were " called upon to bow the knee ;" 
 but not merely as a token of their sincere determination, 
 henceforth, to become the servants of God, but that they 
 might carry out that determination, by godly sorrow for 
 sin, by penitential confession, by calling upon God in per- 
 severing prayer, until he should forgive their sins, regene- 
 rate them, and grant them the evidence of their acceptance 
 with God, and peace and joy through believing. 
 
 The preachers of New Divinity may pursue a great va- 
 riety of measures without departing from the leading 
 principles of their system. As, according to their gospel, 
 sinners are converted by moral suasion, they will, of 
 course, adopt those measures which, all things con- 
 sidered, appear most likely to persuade them to that de- 
 termination which is supposed to constitute conversion. 
 They may differ in opinion as to what particular measures 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 239 
 
 are best adapted to tlie human constitution. Or, to sup- 
 pose them perfectly agreed on this point, they may, from 
 certain considerations, consent to vary their measures, 
 preferring some at one time, because they have the ad- 
 vantage of novelty, or because there is a great partiality 
 for them — and declining the same at another time, because 
 there are powerful prejudices against them. 
 
 In some instajices, and in places where the influence 
 of Methodism has been considerable, they have invited 
 awakened sinners to the altar, and called forward the Me- 
 thodist brethren to assist in giving instructions, just as if 
 there were a perfect agreement of opinion as to the in- 
 structions to be given. This, we have been informed, 
 was done by Mr. Finney when he first set out. It is true, 
 the Methodists did not work altogether to his satisfaction, 
 as may be seen by reading his lecture on " False Com- 
 forts FOR Sinners," v/here Methodistic prayers and in- 
 structions are held up to ridicule ; but then this was, on 
 the whole, his best policy. It served to hide from obser- 
 vation the great difference between New Divinity and 
 Methodism, at a time when the perception of it might have 
 operated very unfavourably, and also to enlist the sympa- 
 thies and suffrages of Methodism against Old School op- 
 position. Generally, inquirers have been invited to the 
 anxious seats near the pulpit, to be instructed and prayed 
 for. In many instances, they are required to withdraw 
 from the congregation to the lecture-room. What takes 
 place there, except in one or two instances, we are not 
 prepared to afiirm. These meetings are conducted with 
 considerable privacy, but, from what we have occasionally 
 heard, we have reason to believe, that there the principles 
 of New Divinity have their freest and fullest development 
 and application. The Rev. Mr. Welton says of the " in- 
 quiry meetings" held by Mr. Burchard in Poughkeepsie, 
 " Here, under God, lies much of the strength of Br. B., 
 
240 NEW DIVINITY — MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 and persons who have not been present at those meetings 
 can form but an imperfect idea of the plan of operation, 
 and the amount of doctrinal knowledge communicated to 
 the hopeful convert. Here they have demonstration so 
 clear and lucid that many soon appear like old and expe- 
 rienced Christians." The meetings at which such a vast 
 amount of doctrinal knowledge was communicated, were 
 held " after the public services had closed." — N. Y. Evan- 
 gelist, No. 387. 
 
 With respect to the means of ascertaining who have 
 submitted, we observe an equal variety. Sometimes they 
 are required to leave one set of seats, and take another, 
 as a token of submission ; sometimes to rise up in the 
 congregation, and sometimes to " bow the knee." In one 
 of the numbers of the New- York Evangelist for July, 1 837, 
 , there is an account of a revival, under the direction of 
 Rev. Mr. Foote, in which it is particularly stated, that all 
 new measures ivere avoided. The gospel was preached, 
 and the congregations dismissed as at ordinary times, and 
 those who had " made the wise choice" were invited to 
 meet with the people of God to be addressed as Chris- 
 tians. This is all perfectly consistent with the New School 
 theology. 
 
 We would not be understood to affirm that they never 
 direct the sinner to pray. In the little book by Dr. Skin- 
 ner and President Beecher, to which we have several 
 times referred, there is the following direction : " After 
 you shall have prayed with him, it may someiimes be use- 
 ful to call on him to pray for liimself." We are not to 
 suppose, however, that this is a concession in favour of 
 Methodist principles and practice. It is not intended that 
 the sinner shall be directed to pray for mercy, in expecta- 
 tion of receiving it in answer to prayer. To suppose that 
 it is so intended, wotdd be to array the authors, not only 
 against their brethren of the same school, but also against 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 241 
 
 themselves ; for they explicitly direct that the sinner shall 
 be told, that to become religious is an intelligent, volun- 
 tary, indivisible act of the mind, in vi^hich he ceases to 
 rebel against God, submits to his authority, and accepts 
 of his mercy ; and that to perform this act requires no 
 length of time, and no protracted effort ; that it may be 
 done at this time, and in this place ; and that if he departs 
 from this place vi^ithout performing this act, he goes in a 
 spirit of stouter rebellion, and may bring upon himself 
 svfih and sudden destruction. — p. 42. 
 
 We vi^ould here ask, on what principle the sinner shall 
 be directed to pray for mercy, when he can become reli- 
 gious without prayer, by one voluntary, indivisible act of 
 the mind, which requires no length of time, but may be 
 done at this time, and in this place ? Either the first ac# 
 of prayer must be the act in which he ceases to rebel 
 against God, submits to his authority, accepts his mercy, 
 and becomes religious, or he is directed to perform a re- 
 bellious act as conducive to his submission. Suppose he 
 departs from the place of conversation to his chamber to 
 pray ; if he has not already performed the act which 
 makes him a Christian, " he goes on in a spirit of stouter 
 rebellion." In short, here is an exhortation to the prac- 
 tice, which elsewhere they so unsparingly condemn, on 
 directing persons to pray whom they profess to consider 
 " impenitent sinners." 
 
 But this direction to pray, it would seein, is not to be 
 given indiscriminately. It is only " sometimes" that this 
 practice " may be useful." If this be the case, will there 
 not be difficulty in determining when it is proper to resort 
 to it ? We would suggest one rule, for the guidance of 
 those concerned. When the doctrine, that a man may 
 change his own heart, without prayer, at any moment, is 
 likely to shock the feelings and understanding of the indi- 
 vidual to whom it is addressed, and excite suspicions of 
 
 11 
 
242 NEW DIVINITV MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 dangerous error, as may easily be the case, if he has been 
 Methodistically educated, then it may " be useful to call 
 on him to pray for himself." 
 
 Having contemplated the ravages of New Divinity on 
 those means of grace by which, according to God's ap- 
 pointment, the sinner secures the forgiveness of his sins, 
 and the renewal of his nature, we proceed to trace still 
 further its desolating career. We now find ourselves guided 
 to the conclusion that the hardened sinner may become a 
 Christian, without any of those deep and painful convictions 
 for sin which constitute godly sorrow, such as Peter felt 
 when he went out and wept bitterly ; and that these exercises, 
 so far from entering essentially into the nature of repentance 
 and submission, as the Methodists suppose, are indicative of, 
 and caused by, rebellion against God. The process of rea- 
 soning by which Ave arrive at this point has been reiterated 
 again and again. Regeneration is one indivisible act of 
 the mind, which the sinner has a natural ability to perform 
 at any moment. Of course, for him to be crying and wail- 
 ing over his depravity, and exposure to punishment, is ab- 
 surd and inexcusable. It is quite as bad as praying for 
 forgiveness while he refuses to perform his immediate 
 duty. Let him do what he is all along perversely refusing 
 to do, and the cause of his distress will be instantly re- 
 moved. This he might have done at the commencement 
 of his disquietude, or even before it commenced, and thus 
 prevented it altogether. 
 
 In accordance with this obvious tendency of the system, 
 Mr. Finney says, in his lecture on " False Comforts for 
 Sinners," " What is all his distress but rebellion itself 
 He is not comforted, because he refuses to be comforted. 
 God is ready to comfort him. You need not think to be 
 more compassionate than God. He Avill fill liim with 
 comfort in an instant if he will submit. But there he stands 
 struggling against God, and against the Holy Ghost, and 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 243 
 
 against conscience, until he is distressed almost to death, and 
 still he will not yield." — p. 314. 
 
 It is plain that Mr. F. does not consider any part of tte 
 inquirer's distress as the consequence of voluntarily yield- 
 ing to the Spirit of God, or as constituting repentance or 
 godly sorrow for sin. It is solely the consequence of re- 
 bellion. " If he would submit," or, in other words of this 
 same author, if he would " yield one point to divine au- 
 thority," God would comfort him in an instant. On the 
 same page he adds, " It is his clear view of the nature 
 and dx\ty of repentance that produces his distress. It is 
 the light that brings agony to his mind while he refuses to 
 obey" So far, it seems, from this distress constituting re- 
 pentance, or belonging to it, it is owing solely to the sinner's 
 refusing to repent. He sees the nature and duty of re- 
 pentance — he refuses to obey, and hence his distress. 
 
 In another lecture, he says, " Another error is in sup- 
 posing that they must suffer a considerable time under convic- 
 tion, as a kind of punishment, before they are ready properly 
 to come to Christ. And so they will pray for conviction. 
 And they think that if they are ground down to the earth 
 with distress, for a sufficient time, then God will pity 
 them, and be more ready to help them, when he sees them 
 so very miserable. They should be made to understand 
 clearly that they are thus unhappy and miserable, merely 
 because they refuse to accept the relief which God offers. 
 Take the case of the stubborn child, when his parent 
 stands over him with the rod, and the child shudders and 
 screams. Should that child imagine he is gaining any 
 thing by his agony ? His distress arises from his convic- 
 tion, and shall he pray for more conviction? Does that 
 make him any better ? Does his father pity him any more 
 because he stands out ? Who does not see that he is all 
 the Avhile growing worse ?" — p. 345. 
 
 This passage fully declares Mr. Finney's views. The 
 
244 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 sinner, whose spirit is deeply troubled on account of his 
 character and condition, is like the stubborn child under 
 the rod, who *' shudders and screams," and is in " agony," 
 but yet " stands out" — the whole cause of whose agony 
 is his rebellion, which makes the use of the rod necessary. 
 He is miserable, merely because he refuses to accept the 
 relief. His conviction makes him no better, but, on the 
 conti'ary, he grows worse and worse. 
 
 It is not our intention to endorse the doctrine, that it is 
 necessary to "suffer a considerable time under conviction, 
 as a kind of punishment." We are strongly inclined to 
 look upon this representation as an intentional caricature 
 of the true doctrine. Mr. Finney's doctrine is, that no 
 distress of mind is strictly necessary to repentance, whe- 
 ther as a punishment or a blessing. 
 
 We find these sentiments clearly affirmed in a Sermon 
 on Sanctification, by the Rev. Daniel A. Clark, published 
 in the National Preacher. 
 
 He remarks — "Another question may here very pro- 
 perly be asked. When does holiness begin ? And the an- 
 swer is obvious. It begins at the moment of regeneration. 
 Till then all the exercises are unholy ; for the carnal mind 
 is enmity against God. Nor is there any degree of alarm, 
 or any amount of conviction, that can generate a holy af- 
 fection in the heart previously to that period. Of course, 
 all the prayers offered, and all the exertions made, pre- 
 viously to this change, are all unregenerate prayers and 
 exertions. Nor can it be believed consistently w^ith cor- 
 rect Scripture views, that, anterior to this moment, there 
 is any approximation toward correct feeling. No alarm^ nor 
 the most distinct conviction, can bring an unregenerate man 
 to feel more correctly toward God, or an miholy object, than 
 he did in a state of carelessness and security. ^^ 
 
 Again : " And then it may be a question, whether the 
 sinner, under alarm, does not wax worse and worse, till the 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 24^ 
 
 moment of passing from death unto life 1 If he lias more 
 light — if he sees more distinctly the objects of his im- 
 placable hatred, does lie not obviously rise in hatred, till it 
 is changed into love?'" — No. 118. 
 
 This doctrine is also contained in the following passage 
 from Dr. Skinner and President Beecher's " Hints," &c. 
 ** Studiously avoid, in all your directions and prayers, 
 direct or implied misrepresentations of the real condition, 
 of impenitent sinners. Never forget that they are free 
 agents, and do always and obstinately resist the Holy 
 Ghost, and that their anguish, perplexity, confusion of mind, 
 and other difficulties proceed from this cause." — p. 13. 
 
 Indeed, the first time we ever heard this doctrine 
 it was avowed by Dr. S. in the Fifth Presbyterian Church 
 of Philadelphia, of which he was then the pastor. There 
 were a number of " anxious persons" present. He af- 
 firmed broadly, and without qualification, that every in- 
 stance of deep distress on the part of awakened sinners 
 was to be attributed to resistance to the Holy Ghost. 
 We were startled by the declaration, but did not understand 
 its source and bearing as well as we now do. 
 
 In opposition to this strange notion, we affirm that deep 
 mental distress on account of depravity and condemnation 
 is one of the fruits of the Spirit — that it is required of 
 every sinner — that it is a constituent of repentance — and 
 that one reason why many fall short of saving experience 
 is, that their convictions are not sufficiently deep and pain- 
 ful. They are not deep enough to imbitter sin. And the 
 reason why they do not arrive at the requisite intensity 
 is resistance to the Spirit's influences on the part of 
 the awakened sinner. He refuses to obey the impulses 
 of the Spirit. If he would surrender himself fully to the 
 guidance of the Spirit, he would be led on to still more 
 painful discoveries of his character and condition, and 
 thus prepared for the full and cordial acceptance of the 
 
246 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 atonement, and an entire dedication of himself to the ser- 
 vice of God. 
 
 We do not maintain that deep convictions are necessary 
 to the first act of submission to God. This is often the 
 result, or development, of a merely intellectual conviction, 
 so far as the state of mind is concerned. We suppose 
 that a man in his right mind, and not deserted by the Holy 
 Spirit, may, at any time, take the first step toward his con- 
 version. If it were true that the first movement of the 
 mind which conforms to the will of God constitutes rege- 
 neration, we should be obliged to admit that convictions 
 are not always necessary to regeneration. But this is not 
 the case. It is but the commencement of a process ne- 
 cessary to the attainment of that blessing ; and in that 
 process these painful exercises, for which the New School 
 theory finds no place, are invariably developed. 
 
 Nor do we maintain that these exercises must be alike 
 in all cases. Various causes may operate to modify them. 
 In some they are intense and violent, almost driving the 
 individual to distraction. In others they are much less 
 severe, but yet sufficient for the end for which they are 
 designed. They are the godly sorrow for sin, working 
 repentance unto salvation, which needs not to be repented 
 of. And the disagreement between the Scriptures and 
 New Divinity, may be inferred from the discordant con- 
 siderations with which they respectively regard these 
 mental disquietudes. 
 
 Neither is it denied that distress of mind may be great- 
 ly augmented, prolonged, and modified, by a reluctance 
 to acquiesce in some of the requisitions of duty, or the 
 want of a vigorous effort : nor that in some instances the 
 Spirit produces deep and harassing convictions in despite 
 of the sinner's resolute resistance. But these facts nei- 
 ther suggest nor sustain the inference, that all cases of 
 deep distress on account of sin are to be attributed to 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 247 
 
 resistance to the Holy Spirit. The Almighty Spirit dis- 
 plays his sovereignty by greatly diversified operations, all 
 tending to the same ends ; but the production of godly 
 sorrow for sin, as subservient to repentance and faith, is 
 but the execution of an invariable law in the economy of 
 grace. 
 
 It is not to be expected that this doctrine will be carried 
 out faithfully in all the preaching and writings of New 
 Divinity. It is most likely to be brought to bear on cases 
 of very deep and protracted distress. For whatever may 
 be the ability of the sinner, or the causes and moral quality 
 of this painful anxiety, they find it, in general, quite con- 
 ducive to submission to their instructions. Hence they 
 labour to produce it. But they desire to produce just 
 enough to lead the sinner to resolve on becoming a Chris- 
 tian, and joining the Church. It is the unwillingness of 
 the sinner to take these steps, and that alone, which makes 
 any degree of uneasiness necessary. In some instances, 
 it would seem, the sinner approves of his duty, makes no 
 resistance to the Spirit, but at once exerts his natural 
 ability, resolves on becoming a Christian, and becomes 
 one without any distress of mind whatever — and then we 
 have one of the examples, so highly lauded, of a calm, in- 
 telligent submission. But when the anxiety of mind be- 
 comes so deep as to induce strong cries for mercy, and 
 an unwillingness to be comforted, without an evidence of 
 acceptance with God, it is deemed a serious disadvantage , 
 The case then becomes unmanageable, on their theory. 
 They construe it into a case of obstinate rebellion. The 
 sinner is able, at any moment, to submit, but is unwilling. 
 He must be urged to immediate submission. He must be 
 told that all his distress is but the evidence of stout re- 
 bellion. He is not willing to place himself in the hands 
 of God to be disposed of as he pleases. He is selfish — 
 he is waxing worse and worse. And if the individual, 
 
248 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 following the instructions of Methodism, should persevere 
 in his cries for mercy, until he obtains the evidence of his 
 acceptance with God, as is the case with thousands, they 
 would either call in question the genuineness of his expe- 
 rience, or explain it by saying, that he might have obtained 
 the favour of God at any previous period, just as easily as 
 when he did — that his distress and prayers, so far from 
 conducing to his conversion, only postponed it — that he 
 was all this time fighting against God, and that had he 
 done at first what he did at last, he might have obtained 
 religion without a single pang. 
 
 Much of the writing and preaching of modern Calvinism 
 is decidedly calculated to make the impression, that the 
 moral condition of the awakened sinner in deep distress 
 and crying for mercy, is worse than that of the careless 
 sinner. Says Mr. Walton, in his " Narrative of a Revival 
 'in the Third Presbyterian Church of Baltimore," "In 
 giving directions to awakened sinners, we are sometimes 
 led into error by a species of false charity, thinking that 
 as they are now under so much religious concern, their 
 hearts are not so wicked as the Bible represents the hearts 
 of all imconverted persons to be." Again : " The light of 
 conviction, then, which brings them [the holiness, justice, 
 and sovereignty of God] into view, so far from lessening 
 his enmity, increases it, and it continues to increase to the 
 last moment before the sinner is subdued. It is true, 
 therefore, to say that the convicted, as well as the careless 
 sinner, is waxing worse and worse, and that his sins are in- 
 creasing in a tremendous ratio." — pp. 24, 25. 
 
 From these views it clearly follows, that the convicted 
 sinner is entitled to no sympathy on account of his great dis- 
 tress of mind, and that any manifestation of sympathy toward 
 him, more than is displayed toward the most careless sinner, 
 ?nust be of dangerous tendency, being calculated to make the 
 impression on his mind that his distress is not wholly the re- 
 
NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 249 
 
 suit of rebellion, and that his present state of mind is more 
 hopeful and interesting than that by which it was preceded. 
 
 We would probably never have thought of drawing this 
 very obvious inference, had we not found it gravely as- 
 serted as a doctrine. " A note of commiseration," says 
 Mr. Duffield, " a tacit acknowledgment of any other ina- 
 bility than a wilful refusal to come to Christ, and a direct- 
 ing to means which can be used, as though faith and re- 
 pentance were not, and might not be instantly exercised, 
 will blunt the edge of the keenest convictions. The sin- 
 ner and his counsellor may both weep together, and sing 
 a song of lamentation over the imbecility of his nature, 
 and his wretched condition, but his sense of guilt will ne- 
 cessarily be impaired by such a process." — p. 347. 
 
 Mr. Finney is tremendously severe on those who mani- 
 fest sympathy for the sinner in distress of mind. He as- 
 sumes that the sympathy is false and misplaced, which is 
 indeed the case if New Divinity be true, as the sinner 
 can put a stop to his anxiety at any moment he pleases. 
 The kind of sympathy which he feels for such, is thus 
 expressed : " The sinner may whine and cry, ' O how I am 
 sorrowing and seeking Jesus !' It is no such thing. Jesus 
 is seeking you." — Lectures, p. 328. 
 
 I cannot express the horror I feel at this sentiment. It 
 is utterly and eternally alien to the gospel of Christ. That 
 system of tenderness and good will, requires us to weep 
 with those that weep, and rejoice with those that rejoice. 
 
 11* 
 
250 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 I 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 CALVINISM. 
 
 At the outset of this discussion, it was stated that the 
 New School divines have not abandoned the leading pecu- 
 liarities of Calvinism ; but, on the contrary, hold to them 
 as firmly as those of the Old School ; and that the differ- 
 ences of opinion between these parties are to be sought 
 in the theory by which the former attempt to reconcile 
 the prominent doctrines of Calvinism, with the offer of 
 salvation to all men, and the obligation of all men to repent 
 and believe the gospel. Having exhibited fully the pe- 
 culiarities of New Divinity, and proved their want of 
 agreement with the oracles of God, we now propose to 
 substantiate the declaration, that those who advocate them, 
 ' are, at the same time, decided Calvinists. 
 
 The importance of this part of the argument arises out 
 of a wide-spread misapprehension as to the doctrinal 
 position occupied by this class of theologians, in relation 
 to Calvinism and Methodism. There are thousands, who 
 suppose, that they have entirely abandoned the former, 
 and nearly, if not quite, come over to the latter. 
 
 But the reader will not be astonished at the prevalence 
 of this delusive supposition, when he takes into consider- 
 ation the causes to which it may be referred. It is at- 
 tributable, in part, to the fact, that they have been, and are 
 still, in the habit of keeping Calvinism out of sight in their 
 public mmistrations. This practice, however, is not pecu- 
 liar to the New School party. There are popular preachers 
 ■who have distinguished themselves by their opposition to 
 their New School brethren, and advocated their separatioa 
 from the church, of whose preaching, very sensible hear- 
 ers, in pretty constant attendance, affirm that it is rarely 
 distinguishable, so far as doctrine is concerned, from that 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 251 
 
 of the Methodists. On this point we can adduce hicrh 
 authority. The late Dr. Porter, president of the Theological 
 Seminary at Andover, and an eminent minister of the Cal- 
 vinistic faith, in a letter to Dr. Beecher, which may be 
 found in a work, entitled, " Harvey on Moral Agency," 
 complains thus : — 
 
 " There is a large number of orthodox ministers in New- 
 England who, from family alliances, from constitutional 
 delicacy of temper, &c., &c., as I hinted above, will tem- 
 porize and make smooth work, from an honest conviction 
 that a full disclosure of the truth would alienate their 
 hearers. The bitter revilings of base men have been gradu- 
 ally and insensibly leading Calvinistic ministers to hide 
 their colours and recede from their ground. Dr. Sprinf's 
 Church at Newburyport, Park-street, especially in Dr. 
 Griffin's day, and a iew others, have stood like the Mace- 
 donian phalanx. But others have gone backward. Cau- 
 tion, CAUTION, has been the watchword of ministers. 
 When they do preach the old standard doctrines, it is in 
 so guarded a phraseology that they are not understood to 
 be the same. You know as well as I;. but, if I am not 
 mistaken, thirty years ago ten sermons were preached in 
 New-England on total depravity and election, to one that 
 is preached on these subjects now." — p. 174. 
 
 This language needs no comment. It fully confirms 
 the conviction previously derived from what we have 
 " heard and seen." And we read, with no little surprise, 
 in the Life of the Rev. Robert Hall, the late eminent 
 Baptist minister in England, a passage imputing to that 
 great man the course which Dr. Porter condemns. The 
 biographer says, " His system of theological tenets [creed 
 is an ill-favoured term) was strictly orthodox, on the model 
 of what has come to be denominated moderate Calvinism. 
 With the other conspicuous points — the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and justifica- 
 
252 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 tion by faith alone, he held the more distinctively Cal- 
 vinistic doctrine of predestination, though I cannot answer 
 for the precise terms in which he would have stated it ; 
 but I presume he would have accepted those employed in 
 the articles of the Church of England. In preaching he 
 very rarely made any reference to that doctrine, and his 
 recognition of it by implication was too indistinct for toler- 
 ation from the rigidly Calvinistic hearers of any preacher 
 not privileged by talents and public favour to bear down all 
 censorial pretensions." — HalVs Works, vol. iii, p. 110. 
 
 We could almost have wished, in behalf of the memory 
 of a great man, and of the credit of the Christian ministry, 
 that this statement had been withheld. He held the Cal- 
 vinistic doctrine of predestination to be a part of the gospel 
 revealed by Jesus Christ, and committed to his ministers. 
 ' It was a leading tenet in his denominational standard of 
 faith ; and yet in preaching he very rarely referred to it, 
 and when his language implied it, the implication was so 
 indistinct, that had it not been for his great talents and 
 popularity, his more consistent brethren would have made 
 his course the subject of censure. 
 
 We are further informed, on the next page, that, — " He 
 was therefore exempt from all those restrictions, in respect 
 to the mode of presenting and urging the overtures of re- 
 demption, which have been imposed on some good men of 
 the Calvinistic faith by a concern for systematic consist- 
 ency. He took the utmost liberty in his strain of inculca- 
 tion ; exhorting, inviting, entreating, expostulating, re- 
 monstrating, in language of nearly the same tenor as that 
 which might be employed by an Arminian preacher ; with 
 the exception, of course, of that notion of free-will, which 
 recurs with such laborious iteration in the preaching of 
 that order, and which was excluded from his faith equally 
 by theological and philosophical reasons." 
 
 It is not intimated here that he took pains to contradict 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 253 
 
 "that notion of free-will." He probably was as silent 
 respecting it, as he was respecting the doctrine of pre- 
 destination. And, by his earnestness in urging the invita- 
 tions and entreaties of the gospel, he doubtless made on 
 the mind of his audiences the impression, that he fully 
 believed in the Arminian doctrine of free-will, which those 
 invitations and exhortations so obviously imply. 
 
 The biographer goes on to say, — " This nonadvertence 
 in his sermons to the Calvinistic tenet, was not from any 
 secret consciousness that the belief of it is essentially 
 incongruous with his free strain of inculcation ; it was not 
 that he might enjoy a license for inconsistency, through 
 the device of keeping one of two incompatible things out 
 of sight ; but he judged that neither the doctrine itself, nor 
 the process of reasoning to prove the belief of it, consistent 
 with the most unrestricted language of exhortation, could 
 be made a profitable part of popular instruction. He deem- 
 ed it authority enough for his practice, independently of 
 all abstracted reasoning on the subject, that he had the 
 example of the divinely-inspired preachers urging the de- 
 mands of the gospel on the unbelievers and the wicked, in 
 the most unmeasured terms of exhortation, the predes- 
 tinating decrees of Heaven set out of the question ; and 
 that in modern experience it is a notorious fact, those 
 preachers of the Calvinistic school (for one memorable 
 example, Whitefield) who have nevertheless availed them- 
 selves of this freedom to the utmost extent, have been 
 incomparably more successful in effecting the great object 
 of preaching, than those who have, somewhat presump- 
 tuously, charged themselves with so much responsibility 
 respecting the unknown determination of the Almighty, 
 that they must not call men to faith and repentance lest 
 they should contravene his sovereign purposes." 
 
 Mr. Hall's reason for liis " nonadvertence, in his ser- 
 mons, to the Calvinistic tenet," is assigned : — " He judged 
 
254 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 that neither the doctrine itself, nor the process of reason- 
 ing" by which the doctrine is supposed to be reconciled 
 with the language of unrestricted exhortation, " could be 
 made a profitable part of popular instruction." The au- 
 thority which he claimed for his practice in this particular 
 is also referred to. He had the example of the " inspired 
 preachers urging the demands of the gospel" on the wicked 
 without any reference to the " predestinating decrees of 
 Heaven," and also that of the most successful Calvinistic 
 ministers — Whitefield, for instance. 
 
 We cannot let this opportunity pass of vindicating the 
 Gospel of the Son of God, and its inspired publishers, from 
 the imputation here cast on them. Shall it be said by 
 Christian ministers, that doctrines which Christ has re- 
 • vealed, especially the doctrine which declares his fixed 
 purposes respecting those to whom the minister is sent, 
 are unprofitable topics for public instruction? And shall 
 they be laid aside on such a pretext ? Has the Author of 
 inspiration made this distinction respecting the doctrines 
 which he has committed to the ministry of reconciliation ? 
 Or has he revealed, under the impression that it would be 
 profitable for instruction in righteousness, a doctrine which 
 will not stand the test of experiment, and which his min- 
 isters are, therefore, under the necessity of keeping out of 
 sight ? And if it be left to the judgment of fallible men 
 to determine whether it be profitable or not to preach a 
 particular doctrine, we should like to know what security 
 there is, that many other doctrines will not be involved 
 in the same condemnation ? AVe declare our opinion, 
 that a more dangerous and presumptuous principle, it 
 would be difficult to advance ! 
 
 And with respect to the alleged example of the apostles, 
 we deny that they preached repentance without reference 
 to " the predestinating decrees of Heaven." They inces- 
 santly appealed to those decrees respecting the righteous 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 255 
 
 and the wicked, and the manner in which the sinner 
 could be received into the favour of God, as the great 
 motives to repentance and obedience. It is true it would 
 have been silly enough for them to urge the Calvinistic 
 doctrine of predestination and decrees, as a motive to re- 
 pentance, because it contains no such motive. If God 
 has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, it occurs to us 
 that, before any man is authorized to repent of any of his 
 actions, he ought to be assured that God has repented 
 of his having decreed them, or he might be convicted of 
 repenting that he had done the will of God. This doc- 
 trine the apostles have so completely " set out of the 
 question," that it is not to be found in any of their writings ; 
 nor do we wonder that those Calvinistic ministers have 
 been the most successful, who have said the least about it. 
 Mr. Hall very justly claims the authority of Whitefield's 
 example in this matter. For, while in his writings, he 
 frequently appeals to his success^ as proof of the truth of 
 his Calvinistic tenets, he says, in a letter to Mr. Wesley, 
 " For Christ's sake, if possible, dear sir, never speak 
 against election in your sermons. No one can say that I 
 ever mentioned it in my public discourses, whatever my pri- 
 vate sentiments may he." Memoirs of White^eld, p. 57. 
 Mr. Wesley's open and undisguised opposition to Calvin- 
 ism, brought out Mr. Whitefield in defence of it; and it 
 is easily gathered from all the biographers of the latter, 
 that just in proportion as he advocated Calvinism, he 
 restricted both his popularity and usefulness. Now, we 
 have no hesitancy in asserting, that in Europe and Ameri- 
 ca, there are thousands of Calvinistic ministers, whose 
 practice, in this respect, is guided by the principle to 
 which Mr. Hall conformed his preaching. 
 
 Dr. Skinner, in a sermon preached at the opening of 
 the Mercer-street Presbyterian church, in New-York, en- 
 titled, " Thy Kingdom Come," strongly recommends the 
 
256 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 practice of laying aside doctrinal peculiarities in public 
 instruction. He distinguishes between sectarian and sub- 
 stantial Christianity, and maintains, that Christians, in 
 their efforts to evangelize the world, " should seek to 
 propagate substantial Christianity, rather than any secta- 
 rian form of it." He explains his_ meaning by saying, 
 " Among the various sects of true Christians, there are of 
 course peculiarities which distinguish and unhappily di- 
 vide them from one . another ; and there is also a common 
 faith, which distinguishes them from all the world, but 
 which indissolubly unites them to one another, and to the 
 great family of God in heaven and on earth. Their com- 
 mon faith is substantial, and their party peculiarities are 
 sectarian Christianity. My position is, that in their efforts 
 to spread the gospel among mankind, Christians should 
 seek to propagate, not the latter, but the former — their 
 common faith, not their sectarian peculiarities — what 
 they agree, not what they differ in — what unites, not 
 what divides them. To be, if possible, yet more explicit, 
 I mean to say, and shall attempt to prove, that their ob- 
 ject should be to propagate, not both what they agree and 
 what they differ in ; but what they agree in, exclusively of 
 what they differ in." He then adds, in a note, " It were 
 well, I think, if even ordinary discourses from the pulpit 
 were restricted to these undisputed points. These points 
 are sufficiently numerous and comprehensive to engross 
 all the time and strength of preachers ; and it is doubtful 
 if there is a promiscuous congregation on earth that are not 
 liable to be more injured Xha^n projitedhy polemical sermons." 
 He here insists on the unprofitableness of preaching 
 sectarian peculiarities, as a reason for keeping them 
 back. True, he says *' polemical sermons," and thus 
 changes the issue ; but the reader need not be misled, as 
 he is professedly assigning a reason why public teaching 
 should be " restricted" to " undisputed points." 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 257 
 
 A more absurd and impracticable maxim could hardly 
 be conceived. Were the author of the sermon to act upon 
 it, he would not attempt to explain the nature of human de- 
 pravity ; for then, he would be introducing a point disputed 
 between the two parties of his own church, and between 
 his own party and the Methodists. He would not, for the 
 same reason, explain the nature of conversion, or regen- 
 eration, or the extent of the atonement, or its application. 
 Indeed, the sermon itself is a violation of this maxim, it 
 being devoted to the settlement of questions now agitating 
 the church of which he is a minister. But it answers 
 one purpose admirably : it furnishes a very plausible apolo- 
 gy for the concealment of those " sectarian peculiarities" 
 which it may be inconvenient to disclose. 
 
 This same principle of ministerial prudence is con- 
 tended for by Mr. Duffield. He says, " It is of moment 
 that we learn to discriminate between the facts of Scrip- 
 ture and tlie doctrines of a system of theology." And 
 again, " The Arminian and the Calvinist agree in many 
 essential fads of Christianity ; but how widely do they 
 differ in their systems, and that difference originates in 
 their philosophy. If ministers will preach their systems, 
 they must of necessity preach much that is their own, and 
 not the word of God." — p. 563. 
 
 It is fairly inferrible from this language that Mr. D. 
 not only feels authorized to decline preaching his " sys- 
 tem of theology," but also obliged to decline preaching it, 
 inasmuch as he can preach the " essential facts of Chris- 
 tianity" without preaching his system, and he cannot 
 preach his system without preaching much that is his 
 " o\vn, and not the word of God." 
 
 Whatever the "Arminian and the Calvinist" may 
 agree in, there seems to be this difference between 
 them, — the Calvinist can distinguish the peculiarities of 
 his theological system from the great " facts of Christiani- 
 
258 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 ty," and style his doctrines " sectarian peculiarities," and 
 exclude them from his ministrations, as a matter of duty, 
 on the ground that it is " unprofitable" to make them a 
 "part of popular instruction;" whereas, the Arminian, 
 professes to believe, that the Scriptures teach doctrines 
 as well as facts, and to derive all the doctrines of his 
 theological system from the word of God. He identifies 
 them with the gospel itself, so far as he understands it ; 
 and he no more dare pronounce any of them unprofit- 
 able, as topics of pulpit instruction, or to withhold them, 
 than he dare pronounce unprofitable or conceal, the un- 
 doubted messages of the Most High. 
 
 It would be, at least, a curious inquiry, how Mr. D. 
 would run the line of discrimination, between facts and 
 doctrines. So far as we can see, to preach nothing but 
 what may be called, by way of distinction, the facts of 
 Scripture, would be to confine our pulpit instructions to 
 such statements as these : — There was a man called Jesus 
 Christ. He was crucified by his enemies. After three 
 days he rose from the dead, &c. To attempt a statement 
 of the connection between the death of Christ and the sal- 
 vation of sinners ; or to take up the question whether his 
 death was designed to render salvation attainable by all, 
 or merely a part of mankind, would be to plunge at once 
 into the Socinian, Calvinistic, or Arminian system of the- 
 ology. But he is not in trouble on this point, as are other 
 men. He can resolve doctrines into facts, and facts into 
 doctrines, just as they meet his approbation or disap- 
 probation. 
 
 The adoption and observance of this strange code of 
 ministerial ethics, is, of itself, sufficient to account for the 
 general impression, that Calvinism has been given up by 
 the Calvinistic churches. 
 
 But there are other causes. According to Dr. Por- 
 ter, when they profess to state the doctrines of Calvinism, 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. . 259 
 
 " they state them in so guarded a phraseology that they 
 are not understood to be the same." How often is the 
 Calvinistic doctrine of predestination represented to be 
 this, — that God is a sovereign — that he has purposes — 
 that he has a plan — just as though Arminians denied these 
 propositions. The natural inference from such state- 
 ments, formal or implied, is that the doctrine has been 
 caricatured when stated that " God from all eternity did, 
 by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely 
 and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." 
 
 The practice of issuing " short creeds" has also con- 
 tributed to this state of things. These creeds generally 
 contain a number of points of doctrine in which Calvin- 
 ists and Arminians agree, with one or perhaps two articles 
 in which Calvinism is so cautiously introduced, as to es- 
 cape the observation of nearly all to whom the creed is 
 presented j and yet there is enough to preserve its ortho- 
 doxy, and to lead to the entire system of Calvinism. 
 
 Again : They frequently complain that they are misre- 
 presented when their doctrines are imputed to them, and 
 thus the impression is made that they do not hold these 
 doctrines. Dr. Miller, of Princeton, says, " The truth 
 is, it would be difficult to find a writer or speaker who has 
 fairly distinguished himself by opposing Calvinism, who 
 has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared 
 to understand it." 
 
 Dr. Beecher, in his Lectures on Skepticism, says, 
 " I have never seen or heard a correct statement of the 
 Calvinistic system from an opponent." Now, when it is 
 taken into the account, that Arminians usually represent 
 their doctrines in the very language of their own stand 
 ards, what is the natural inference, but that they do not 
 believe the doctrines of Calvinism 1 
 
 He gives an example of the misrepresentation of which 
 he complains. " Consult," says he, " almost any oracle 
 
260 NEW DIVINITV CALVINISAf. 
 
 of opposition as to what is Calvinism, and the response 
 will be, Calvinism is that horrible system which teaches 
 that God has foreordained and fixed, by irresistible omnip- 
 otence, whatsoever comes to pass; that he has made a 
 very small number on purpose to be saved, and all the 
 rest on purpose to damn them; that an atonement by 
 weight and measure has been made for the elect only, 
 but which is offered to the non-elect on conditions impos- 
 sible to be complied with, and they are damned for not 
 accepting what did not belong to them, and could not have 
 saved them if they had received it ; and that infants as well 
 as adults are included in the decree of reprobation, and 
 that hell is no doubt paved with their bones." 
 
 He adds, " It is needless to say that falsehoods more 
 . absolute and entire were never stereotyped in the foundry 
 of the father of lies, or with greater industry worked 
 off for gratuitous distribution from age to age." 
 
 Now, this language is calculated to make the impres 
 sion, that none of the doctrines included in the foregoing 
 example, belongs to the system of Calvinism ; and yet 
 most, if not all, of the leading doctrines of Calvinism are 
 included in it. Let any one take the Saybrook Platform, 
 or the Presbyterian, or the Baptist Confession of Faith, and 
 compare these alleged falsehoods with what they say on 
 the subjects of predestination, election, atonement, ability, 
 and the future condition of elect infants, and he will be 
 able to estimate properly the disavowal of Dr. B., and 
 likewise the censure with which he assails his opponents. 
 
 Besides, he does not profess to have quoted these re- 
 presentations from any Arminian author. The truth is 
 this, — he has thrown in some phraseology which he can 
 contradict with plausibility, and which Arininians never 
 impute to them, such as, " that hell is no doubt paved 
 with their bones" — the bones of infants — and then applies 
 his contradiction to the whole. 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 261 
 
 Again : It is frequently denied by the members of Cal- 
 vinistic churches, that those churches are Calvinistic ; 
 whether ignorantly or intentionally, it is not for us to de- 
 termine. Sometimes the ministers of those churches de- 
 ny that they are Calvinists. We have often heard of 
 such cases, and are able to adduce one instance as 
 proof. Robert Hall, in a correspondence with the Broad- 
 mead church, respecting his sentiments, says, " In the 
 second place, I am not a Calvinist, in the strict and pro- 
 per sense of that term." — 3d vol. p. 19. Again: "On 
 being asked," says his biographer, " whether he was an 
 Arminian or a Calvinist, he said, ' Neither, but I believe I re- 
 cede further from Arminianism than Calvinism.' " — p. 35. 
 
 It is due to Mr. Hall to believe that he did not intend to 
 deny that he held any of the doctrines of Calvinism. He 
 meant, no doubt, that on some points he differed from 
 more rigid Calvinists. Probably, the majority of those 
 Calvinists who deny that they are such, are entitled to 
 the benefit of the same explanation. The question be- 
 fore us, is not the morality of such declarations, but the 
 probable effect of them, on the mind of the public. 
 
 But the principal cause of the misconception to which 
 we are adverting, is foimd in their preaching a " free sal- 
 vation." There are probably more sermons preached ex- 
 pressly on this subject, and professedly in support of the 
 doctrine at the present day, in Calvinistic than in Arminian 
 churches. And the public have not yet come to under- 
 stand that the free salvation of the Methodists and that of 
 Calvinists are widely different — that the free salvation of 
 the latter, is one which they can reconcile with the fore- 
 ordination of all actions and events, and the election of a 
 definite number to eternal life, and reprobation of the rest. 
 In some instances, however, they go so far in their state- 
 ments of the freeness of salvation, as to directly contradict 
 their creed. 
 
262 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 Add to these the consideration that the Old School 
 Calvinists pubUcly charge those of the New School with 
 abandoning Calvinism, and becoming Arminians, and the 
 fact which we have given as our reason for adducing 
 proofs that they are Calvinists, is abundantly account- 
 ed for. 
 
 Some may be offended with this article, supposing that 
 it charges the New School portion of the Calvinistic min- 
 istry with a want of strict honesty in the publication of 
 their sentiments. This is not our object. We have sta- 
 ted facts, and cannot be answerable for inferences. We 
 cannot deny, however, that the course which some of 
 them have pursued, has often reminded us of the dissimu- 
 lation of Peter on a certain occasion, for which Paul 
 sharply rebuked him. Nor should any of them be too 
 .sensitive, when any thing is said which implies that they 
 have committed a sin, since the most of them disclaim 
 with emphasis, not only the Antinomian doctrine of per- 
 fection, which dispenses with the obligation to keep the 
 law, but likewise the doctrine of Scriptural perfection, 
 which consists in strictly keeping the law. If they pur- 
 posely and systematically teach that neither themselves, 
 nor any other merely human being, ever lived without sin, 
 need they be surprised or indignant if they are sometimes 
 suspected of committing a sin to which circumstances so 
 strongly tempt them? 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 263 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 \ 
 
 We now enter upon the task of proving that the public 
 teachers of New Divinity are Calvinists. 
 
 In the first place, a great number of them are ministers 
 of a Church— the Presbyterian Church— which requires 
 them, in their ordination vow, to affirm their belief in, and 
 pledge themselves to the support of, the doctrines of Cal- 
 vinism. They were required in their ordination, to answer 
 these questions, among others, in the affirmative, " Do you 
 sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of 
 this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught 
 in the Holy Scriptures ?" " Do you promise to be zealous 
 and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel, and 
 the purity and peace of the Church, whatever persecution 
 or opposition may arise unto you on that account V'—West' 
 minster Confession of Faith, p. 378. 
 
 As this Confession of Faith may be conveniently acces- 
 sible to but a very small portion of our readers, we will 
 quote some of its decidedly Calvinistic passages. 
 
 With respect to the divine decrees it says, " God, from 
 all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of his 
 own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever 
 comes to pass." 
 
 Again : " Although God knows whatsoever may or can 
 come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he 
 not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as 
 that which would come to pass upon such conditions. 
 
 " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his 
 glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto ever- 
 lasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. 
 
 " These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore- 
 
264 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and 
 their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be 
 either increased or diminished." 
 
 3^he reason by which the choice of Jehovah was in- 
 fluenced in predestinating some to life and others to death 
 is thus stated :^ 
 
 " Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, 
 God, before the foundation of the world was laid, accord- 
 ing to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret 
 counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in 
 Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace 
 and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or 
 perseverance in either of them, or any thing in the creature, 
 as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto ; and all to 
 the praise of his glorious grace." 
 
 , " The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to 
 the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he ex- 
 tendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of 
 his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to 
 ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the 
 praise of his glorious justice." 
 
 With respect to the vouchsafement of the necessary 
 means of salvation, this creed says, " As God hath ap- 
 pointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal 
 and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the 
 means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being 
 fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ ; are effectually 
 called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due 
 season ; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his 
 power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other 
 redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, 
 sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." — Chap, iii, p. 15. 
 
 This doctrine of election and rejection is thus applied 
 to infants, " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regener- 
 ated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 265 
 
 when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all 
 other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly 
 called by the ministry of the word." 
 
 Of the non-elect in general it is said, " Others not 
 elected, although they may be called by the ministry of 
 the word, and may have some common operations of the 
 Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore 
 cannot be saved : much less can men, not professing the 
 Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, 
 be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to 
 the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do 
 profess ; and to assert and maintain that they may is very 
 pernicious, and to be detested." — Chap, x, p. 33. 
 
 On the " Perseverance of the Saints" the Confession 
 runs thus, "They whom God hath accepted in his Be- 
 loved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can 
 neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace ; 
 but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be 
 finally saved. 
 
 " This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon 
 their free will, but upon the immutability of the decree 
 of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love 
 of God the Father ; upon the efficacy of the merit and in- 
 tercession of Jesus Christ ; the abiding of the Spirit and 
 of the seed of God within them ; and the nature of the 
 covenant of grace ; from all which ariseth also the cer- 
 tainty and infallibility thereof." — Chap, xvi, p. 76. 
 
 Will it be said that in receiving and adopting this Con- 
 fession of Faith, they did not purpose or profess to receive 
 all its doctrines, but, merely, as containing the system of 
 doctrine taught in the holy Scriptures 1 This ground 
 some of them have taken, and we readily admit that they 
 differ from the Confession of Faith on some points ; for in- 
 stance, on the doctrines of imputation, ability, atonement, 
 the nature of depravity, regeneration, holiness, and the in 
 12 
 
266 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 fluences of the Spirit ; but the doctrines which we have 
 quoted from the Confession of Faith constitute its distinct- 
 ive peculiarities ; and to suppose that in adopting this creed 
 they so played upon the terms " containing" and " system" 
 as to exclude and reject the very doctrines by which it is 
 distinguished from the creeds of other sects which are 
 directly opposed to it, would be to attribute to them a 
 course which would disgrace even Jesuitism itself. By 
 such a mode of adopting and supporting denominational 
 standards, I might become a Presbyterian or even a Ro- 
 man Catholic clergjnnan to-morrow, provided there were 
 nothing in the way of my reception but my opinions. All 
 that would be necessary is, that the creed presented for 
 my adoption should contain a sufficient number of doctrinal 
 announcements for me to extract a systetn from them. I 
 need not receive it as not containing very dangerous errors 
 or as expressing my opinions very clearly. I might look 
 upon its language as quite antiquated and obsolete. It 
 would be enough that it barely contained my system, which 
 I might make general or particular — to include but few or 
 a greater number of propositions, according to the quantity 
 of materials on hand. It is, therefore, the judgment of 
 charity to suppose that those who have solemnly sub- 
 scribed to this creed are decided Calvinists, whatever 
 varieties of opinion they may hold on the minor branches 
 of the system. 
 
 Secondly. When charged by the judicatories of their 
 Church with disbelieving these doctrines — with having 
 abandoned the Confession of Faith, so far as Calvinism is 
 concerned, and gone over to Arminianism, they defend 
 themselves, not by admitting the truth of the charge, and 
 vindicating their course on the ground that these doctrines 
 of Calvinism are not Scriptural, but by denying the charge, 
 and asserting their orthodoxy. An editorial article in the 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 267 
 
 Philadelphia Observer, Sept. 28, 1837, a leading New 
 School paper, contains the following : — 
 
 " It is now clearly understood that the diversities in 
 doctrinal opinions, of which so much has of late been said, 
 do not exist, or if they exist at all, relate only to those 
 minor shades of difference in the mode of explaining and 
 illustrating truth which have always existed in the Church, 
 and which have never been regarded as an occasion of 
 division or alienation." 
 
 Dr. Beecher, who was arraigned in Cincinnati as a 
 New School man, on the charge of heresy, in the work 
 written expressly for the purpose of vindicating himself 
 before the pubhc, says, — 
 
 " The comprehensive charge against me is, that I hold 
 and teach Pelagian and Arminian doctrines, in respect to 
 the subject of free agency and accountability, original sin, 
 total depravity, regeneration, and Christian character, con- 
 trary to the Confession and the word of God " With 
 reference to this charge he says, " If my doctrinal belief 
 is adverse to the Confession of Faith, as immemorially 
 explained, I am not only not reluctant to go out of the 
 Presbyterian Church, but I am determined not to stay in 
 it."— p. 14. 
 
 Mr. Barnes, who was suspended by the synod of Phila- 
 delphia, on the charge of teaching doctrines contrary to 
 the Confession of Faith, assumes the same ground of de- 
 fence. He says, — 
 
 " ' The Protest' charges the author of the sermon en- 
 titled, 'The Way of Salvation' with having broached 
 errors opposed to the doctrinal standards of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, and in their tendency exceedingly danger- 
 ous." — Defence, p. 51. "He is desirous that those who 
 may peruse this Protest may know that the author of the 
 sermon has not in his own view — except in a single ex- 
 pression, in which he believes he coincides with almost 
 
268 ^NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 the entire mass of ministers in the Presbyterian Church 
 — deviated from her standards, &c." — p. 52. 
 
 Again : " Before proceeding to the direct consideratioiji 
 of the charges alleged against me, I may be permitted to 
 make a remark on my views of the standards of the Church 
 
 ': to which we belong. I have already expressed my belief 
 of the utility of creeds, or articles of faith. Of the Con- 
 fession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly, I may be 
 allowed to say, that when I expressed my assent to it as 
 ♦ a system of doctrines,' I did it cordially, and that I have 
 never had occasion to regret the act. I then regarded it 
 as I do now, and ever have done, as the best summary 
 of the doctrines of the Bible which I have ever seen, and 
 as expressing my views of the true scheme of Chris- 
 
 ■ tian theology in a manner far better than any other arti- 
 ■cles of faith which I have ever examined. The system 
 of truth contained there, as distinguished from all other 
 systems — the Socinian, the Pelagian, the Arian, the Ar- 
 minian, &c. — has appeared to me to be the true system ; 
 and without hesitation, or fluctuation, I have received it." 
 —p. 111. 
 
 Nor does Mr. B. look upon the language of the Confes- 
 sion of Faith as obscure, liable to be misinterpreted, and 
 requiring a commentary to make it intelligible. " I have 
 thought," he adds, " that there was, perhaps, somewhat 
 too much of harshness and severity of language in the 
 general cast of that Confession ; and that a few expres- 
 sions do not convey, without much laboured exposition, 
 the meaning of the sacred Scriptures. To a few of those 
 expressions, small in number, and not affecting the system 
 as a system, I have always taken the exceptions which 
 others have been allowed to do." — Ibid. 
 
 And on page 184 — " Our Confession of Faith was drawn 
 up by men admirably skilled in the use of language. The 
 terms which are employed are, usually at least, employed 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 369 
 
 with great precision, and with adniirable guards against 
 misconstruction. The men who framed it were profoundly- 
 acquainted with the English tongue, and expressed their 
 ideas with great accuracy." 
 
 The same sentiment is avowed by Dr. Beecher : — 
 
 " The Confession itself, and Catechisms, are made up 
 of the most judicious, concise, and accurate descriptions 
 of doctrine, experience, and practice, ever placed on 
 record. Such as no single mind would have formed, or 
 many minds without that marked providential supervision, 
 which in the same age that he gave us the Bible in a 
 translation not to be rivalled, gave an epitome of its con- 
 tents, in symbols, which will carry down to the millennium 
 the comprehensive suffrage of the faithful in Christ Jesus." 
 — Views in Theology, p. 233. 
 
 Mr. Barnes appealed from the decision of the synod to 
 the next general assembly, which held its session in Pitts- 
 burg in the year 1836. The assembly, having a majority 
 of New School men, sustained the appeal, and restored 
 Mr. B. to his former standing, on the ground that he had 
 not departed from the Confession of Faith. Drs. Philips 
 and Hoge, of the opposite party, protested against this 
 decision of the assembly. The protest was referred to a 
 committee. In the answer, which was read by Dr. Skin 
 ner, there is the following passage : — 
 
 " So far is the assembly from countenancing the errors 
 alleged in the charges of Dr. Junkin, that they do cor- 
 dially and ex-animo adopt the Confession of Faith of our 
 Church, on the points of doctrine in question, according 
 to the obvious and most prevalent interpretation ; and do 
 regard it, as a whole, as the best epitome of the doctrines 
 of the Bible ever formed. And the assembly disavows 
 any desire, and would deprecate any attempt, to change 
 the phraseology of our standards, and would disapprove 
 of any language of light estimation applied to them ; be- 
 
8W NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 lieving that no denomination can prosper whose members 
 permit themselves to speak slightingly of its formularies 
 of doctrine ; and are ready to unite with their brethren in 
 contending earnestly for the faith of our standards." — 
 Presbyterian, June 25, 1836. 
 
 Numerous passages might be cited from the " Opinions" 
 of individual members of the assembly, " delivered in the 
 case of Mr. B.," but it is unnecessary, as the report con- 
 taining the extract above was adopted by the assembly, 
 and is therefore the official declaration of the party. 
 
 Nor can it be said that they have changed their doc- 
 trines since the division of the Church. The New, or 
 " Constitutional Assembly," as they style themselves, 
 adopted the following resolution unanimously, at their ses- 
 sion of 1838:— 
 
 " That it be, and hereby is recommended to all the 
 presbyteries to take special pains to have the book con- 
 taining the Confession of Faith and form of government 
 of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of Ame- 
 rica more generally circulated among the churches under 
 their care." 
 
 And in their " Pastoral Letter" they say, "We love and 
 honour the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, 
 as containing more well-defined, fundamental truth, with 
 less defect, than appertains to any other human formida 
 of doctrine, and as calculated to hold in intelligent con- 
 cord a greater number of sanctified minds than any which 
 could now be formed ; and we disclaim all design, past, 
 present, and future, to change it." — Phil. Observer, Oct. 
 11, 1838. 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 271. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 In continuation of the argument to prove that the New 
 School party are Calvinists, we shall next adduce some of 
 their avowals of the doctrines of that system. 
 
 And as circumstances have assigned to Mr. Barnes 
 great pre-eminence among the champions of that party, 
 we shall examine his sentiments first. 
 
 It is an interesting fact, and one which belongs to the 
 history of this controversy, that Mr. B. wrote his sermon 
 on " The Way of Salvation," which has involved him in 
 so much difficulty with his orthodox brethren, purposely, 
 in defence of Calvinism. A short time previous to its 
 publication, a powerful revival of religion occurred, in the 
 Methodist church, in Morristown, New- Jersey, where Mr. 
 B. was settled. By some means, the doctrines of Calvin- 
 ism were brought up for discussion before the community. 
 Mr. B. preached a sermon on the " Sovereignty of God," 
 in which he endeavoured to defend the Calvinistic doc- 
 trine of predestination. This sermon was ably reviewed 
 by the Rev. Nathaniel Porter, of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. In continuation of this controversy, Mr. B. 
 preached and published the sermon first named. This 
 sermon was supposed by some of his brethren to contain 
 principles fatal to Calvinism, and was made the ground of 
 ecclesiastical prosecution. 
 
 We find a pretty free development of Mr. B.'s Calvinism 
 in his introduction to " Butler's Analogy," in which he 
 proposes " to give a specimen of the argument from ana- 
 logy in support of the Christian religion." He introduces 
 the subject of Calvinism in the following manner: "There 
 is still a more important branch of the argument untouched 
 
272 NEW DIVINITY CALX^NISM. 
 
 — the analogy of the Christian scheme, as we understand 
 it, to the course of nature, and the fact that all the objec- 
 tions urged against Calvinism lie against the actual order 
 of events." — p. 31. 
 
 After adverting to some other topics, he takes up the 
 subject of predestination. He does not venture at once 
 upon a clear statement of his views on this subject. He 
 commences by saying, " Religion affirms that God exerts 
 the power which he puts forth in pursuance of a plan or 
 purpose definitely fixed before the foimdation of the world." 
 The terms " plan" and " purpose" recur incessantly, as if 
 they fully expressed the doctrine vmder consideration. 
 He talks about the opponents of Calvinism doubting and 
 denying that God has a plan, or purpose, or decree. But 
 his meaning is easily gathered from the tenor of his argu- 
 ment, and from occasional expressions. For instance, it is 
 'the doctrine to which Arminians are opposed, that he un- 
 dertakes to defend. He goes on to say, "And we know of 
 no single doctrine that has been more universally conceded 
 by infidels to be in the Scriptures ; none in the Bible that 
 has been so often brought forward among their alleged 
 reasons for rejecting it as a revelation ; none that has so 
 frequently crossed the path of wicked men, and revealed 
 the secret of the rebellion of their hearts ; none that has 
 called forth so much misplaced ingenuity from Socinians 
 and Arminians," Sic. Without taking up the question 
 whether infidels make the doctrine that God has purposes, 
 or a plan, simply, the ground of their objections to revela- 
 tion, we proceed to state, that Arminians are not opposed 
 to the doctrine that God has a plan, or to the doctrine of 
 predestination simply, but to that which is so clearly stated 
 in the Confession of Faith of Mr. B.'s Church — that God 
 has ordained tohatsoevcr comes to pass. To deny that God 
 has a plan, would seem to be equal to a denial that God 
 has any fixed and ascertained principles of moral govern- 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 273 
 
 ment. But what Arminian denies this 1 Can it be pos- 
 sible that Mr. B. is so ignorant of the system he opposes, 
 as to imagine his representation of it correct ? To settle 
 this question, we will refer to an Arminian writer : — Dr. 
 Adam Clarke says, on Eph. i, 5, " Here the word [pre- 
 destinated] is used to point out God's fixed purpose or 
 predestination to bestow on the gentiles the blessing of 
 the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ ; which adoption had 
 been before granted to the Jewish people : and without 
 circumcision, or any other Mosaic rite, to admit the gen- 
 tiles to all the privileges of his Church and people. And 
 the apostle marks, that all this was fore-determined by God, 
 as he had fore-determined the bounds and precincts of the 
 land which he gave to them according to the promise 
 made to their fathers. That the Jews had no reason to 
 complain, for God had/or??iei this purpose before he had 
 given the law, or called them out of Egypt ; for it was 
 before the foundation of the world, (ver. 2,) and that, there- 
 fore, the conduct of God in calling the gentiles now, bring- 
 ing them into his Church, and conferring on them the gifts 
 and graces of the Holy Spirit, was in pursuance of his 
 original design ; and if he did not do so, his eternal pur- 
 jwses could not be fulfilled." The reader wUl perceive, 
 that there is no hesitancy on the part of Arminians in at- 
 tributing to God predeterminations, original designs, and 
 eternal purposes. But because God has predestinated some 
 events, they do not feel at liberty to infer that he has pre- 
 destinated every event, especially as the Scriptures deny 
 that such is the case. We infer, then, that if Mr. B. 
 knows what doctrine of predestination it is to which Ar- 
 minians are opposed, he means more by the terms pur- 
 pose, plan, Sic, than their true import discloses. 
 
 He exhibits his views more fully as he proceeds to 
 show that his doctrine does not interfere with th« free- 
 dom of human actions. He adverts to the influence which 
 12* 
 
274 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 the " plans or purposes" of men have on their fellow-men, 
 and thus brings his argument to its conclusion : " In all 
 these, and ten thousand other cases, there is a plan formed 
 by other beings in respect to us, which finally enters as a 
 controlling element of our destiny. If it be said that they 
 all leave us free, so we say of the decrees of God, that 
 we have a like consciousness of freedom. In neither 
 case does the foreign influence cripple or destroy our free- 
 dom ; in neither case does it make any difference whether 
 the plan was formed an hour before the act, or has stood 
 fixed for ages. All that could bear on our freedom would 
 be the fact, that the purpose was previous to the deed — a 
 circumstance which does not alter the act itself, whether 
 the decree be formed by ourselves, by other men, or by 
 . God." — p. 50. We now begin to ascertain the nature of 
 the plans and purposes formed by other beings, in respect 
 to us. This passage connects the decree of God with 
 human actions. It represents him as foreordaining human 
 actions. It makes no difference, we are told, as to our 
 freedom, whether the plan was formed an hour before the 
 act, or has stood for ages ; or whether the act was decreed 
 by ourselves, by others, or by God. We would suggest a 
 thought which seems not to have occurred to Mr. B. when 
 penning this analogy ; that it may depend on the nature of 
 the influence which men exert on each other, whether the 
 parties acting under the influence, or those exerting it, are 
 responsible for the acts induced. 
 
 Mr. B. expresses himself decisively on page 53. "But 
 on this point the entire movement of the world bears the 
 marks of being conducted according to a plan. We defy 
 a man to lay his finger on a fact which has not such a 
 relation to other facts as to show that it is a part of a 
 scheme — and if of a scheme, then of a purpose formed be- 
 forehand.^'' This is plain enough. No man, we are as- 
 sured, can specify a fact which is not a part of a scheme 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 275 
 
 and of course a part of a purpose formed beforehand. He 
 is speaking of the connection of events with the purposes 
 of God, and must of course be understood to lay down the 
 doctrine that all actions and events are a part of God's 
 scheme, and purposed beforehand. He adverts to seve- 
 ral facts in illustration of this doctrine : " Alexander 
 the Great, in the vigour of life, and in the full career of 
 conquest, was cut off by the act of God. Julian the Apos- 
 tate, in the same regions, found also an early death, and 
 his gigantic plans were arrested by the hand of God with 
 reference to other great purposes in the liberty or religion 
 of man. Napoleon met the mighty arm of God in the 
 snows of the north, and the monarch fell — and with him 
 fell the last purpose of his life. In the midst of daring 
 schemes man often falls. God wields the dart to strike in 
 an unusual manner, and the victim dies. He falls in with 
 the great plans of the Deity, meets snows, or lightnings, 
 or burning heats, or piercing colds that come around by the 
 direction of the Governor of the world, and the man sinks, 
 and his plans give way to the higher purposes of the Al- 
 mighty." — p. 53. 
 
 This is indeed a very choice selection of facts ; but it 
 would not be difficult for " a man to lay his finger" on a 
 iew others which, according to this doctrine, are equally 
 a part of God's scheme and purpose — such, for instance, 
 as the transgression of Adam, the murder of Abel by his 
 brother, or any other murder. We would also suggest, 
 whether the apostacy of Julian was not as certainly a fact 
 as his death ; and whether we are not required to believe 
 that Napoleon fell in Avith the plans of the Deity in form- 
 ing his " daring schemes" as much as when he met the 
 snows or lightnings ; and whether, indeed, he could have 
 any " plans" which were not purposed beforehand by the 
 Almighty ? 
 
 There is a passage not less decisive in his Notes on 
 
276 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 Rom. viii, 29 : " The event which was thus foreknown 
 must have been, for some cause, certain and jixed, since 
 an uncertain event could not be possibly foreknown. To 
 talk of foreknowing a contingent event as certain which 
 may or may not exist, is an absurdity." We are here in- 
 structed that an event could not possibly be foreknown, 
 unless it were fixed, and that to talk of foreknowing a con- 
 tingent event, which is explained to be one which may or 
 may not exist, is an absurdity. If, then, God foreknew 
 all things, it is absurd to say of any past event, that it 
 might not have existed, or of any future event, that it may 
 or may not exist. Every event therefore is eternally fixed. 
 He adds, " In what way such an event became certain is 
 not determined by the use of the word. But it must have 
 •been somehow in connection with a divine appointment or 
 ^.rrangement, since no other way can be conceived to be 
 certain." We have now fairly before us the doctrine 
 which Mr. B. is desirous to establish, and to which Ar- 
 niinians are opposed — that no event is contingent — that 
 all the actions of men are decreed — that all events are 
 fixed by divine appointment. And if we connect with 
 the above what he says on Rom. ix, 1 9, we shall have the 
 additional sentiment, that God's purposes arc never de- 
 feated, but that every thing comes to pass as it is decreed. 
 The passage referred to reads as follows : " This docs 
 not mean that no one had oflered resistance or opposition 
 to God, but that no one had done it successfully. God 
 had accomplished his purposes in spite of their oppo- 
 sition." 
 
 We have one more passage, beyond which it is impos- 
 sible for the most ultra predestinarian to go. It is found 
 on page 43 of the Introductory Essay : — " We inter- 
 pret the decrees of God, so far as we can do it, hy facts ; 
 and we say that the actual result, by whatever means 
 brought about, is the expression of the design of God." 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 277 
 
 Mr B. deserves, however, the credit of handling this 
 " high mystery" with " special caution." 
 
 Next comes the doctrine of the election of some to eter- 
 nal life, and the rejection of others, without any thing in 
 their moral character operating as a moving cause of their 
 election or rejection. Mr. B. enlarges on the inequality with 
 which the blessings of Providence, and the gifts of nature, 
 are dispensed, and argues from it as follows : " Now we 
 might as well object to this fixed economy of things as to that 
 Avhich affirms that God dispenses the blessings of redemp- 
 tion according to his good pleasure. If God may confer 
 one blessing on one individual which he withholds from 
 another, we ask Avhy he may not be a sovereign also in 
 the dispensation of other favours ? We ask what principle 
 of justice and goodness is violated if he imparts penitence 
 and faith to one individual, that is not violated also if he 
 gives him health while another pines in sickness ? We 
 ask with emphasis, where is there more partiality in giv- 
 ing the Christian's hope to Brainerd or Martyn than there 
 is in giving great talents to Newton, or great wealth to 
 Croesus ?" 
 
 There is no difficulty in understanding the drift of this 
 reasoning. It is argued that God dispenses the gifts of 
 nature and providence, and the spiritual blessings neces- 
 sary to salvation, on the same principle ; that he gives 
 penitence, and faith, and the Christian's hope, on the same 
 principle on which he gives great talents or wealth ; that 
 he may do in respect to religion as he does in respect to 
 health. Now if it be understood that he always confers 
 the gifts of nature and providence because of the faith and 
 obedience of those whom he distinguishes, the analogy 
 will hold good. But this cannot be Mr. B.'s meaning. 
 He evidently intends that, as God may confer great Avealth, 
 or talents, or health, without reference to the conduct of 
 the parties favoured, he may so confer the blessings of 
 
27S NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 salvation ; and that as no man is injured, if God fails to 
 confer on him superior talents, so no man is injured if 
 God, on the same principle, withholds what is necessary 
 to salvation. 
 
 This doctrine is more pointedly set forth in his notes 
 on Rom. ix, 11 : "For the children being not yet born, 
 having done neither good nor evil," &c., he says, " This 
 is a very important passage in regard to the question about 
 the purposes of God. (1.) They had done nothing good 
 or bad, &c. Again, (3.) The purpose of God is antece- 
 dent to the formation of character, or the performance of 
 any actions, good or bad. (4.) It is not a purpose fonned, 
 because he sees any thing in the individuals as a ground 
 for his choice, but for some reason which he has not ex- 
 plained, and which in the Scripture is simply called pur- 
 pose and good pleasure, Eph. i, 5. (5.) If it existed in this 
 case, it does in others. If it was right then, it is right 
 now. And if God then dispensed his favours on this 
 principle, he will now." And on the next verse, " It was 
 said unto her. The elder shall serve the younger," he re- 
 marks, " There was a reference here to the whole train 
 of temporal and spiritual blessings which were to be con- 
 nected with the two races of people. If it be asked how 
 this bears on the argument of the apostle, we may reply, 
 (1.) That it settles the principle that God might make a 
 distinction among men, in the same nation, and the same 
 family, without regard to their works or character. (2.) 
 That he might confer his blessings on such as he pleased. 
 (3.) If this is done in regard to nations, it may be in re- 
 gard to individuals. The principle is the same, and the 
 justice the same. If it be supposed to be unjust in God 
 to make such a distinction in regard to individuals, it is 
 surely no less so to make a distinction in regard to na- 
 tions. The fact that numbers are thus favoured docs not 
 make it the more proper, or remove any difficiUty. (1.) If 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 279 
 
 this distinction may be made in regard to temporal things, 
 why not in regard to spiritual things 1 The principle must 
 still be the same. If unjust in one case, it would be in 
 the other. The fact that it is done in one case proves 
 also that it will be in the other, for the same great princi- 
 ple will run through all the dealings of the divine govern- 
 ment. And as men do not, and cannot complain that God 
 makes a distinction among them in regard to talents, 
 health, beauty, prosperity, and rank, neither can they com- 
 plain if he acts also as a sovereign in the distribution of 
 his spiritual favours. They therefore who regard this as 
 referring only to temporal and national privileges gain no 
 relief in respect to the real difficulty in the case, for the 
 unanswerable question would still be asked, Why has not 
 God made all men equal in every thing ? Why has he 
 made any distinction among men ? The only reply to such 
 inquiries is, ' Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in 
 thy sight.' " 
 
 Here it is contended that the election, by which one of 
 the children was distinguished from the other, before they 
 were born, was not only national, but individual ; that the 
 privileges to which one was elected, and from which the 
 other was excluded, were not only temporal but spiritual ; 
 that if such a distinction has been made in one case, it 
 has in others ; that if God can, Avithout injustice, with- 
 hold from some the temporal favours he confers on others, 
 such as health, beauty, talents, prosperity, and rank, he 
 can, on the same principle, without injustice, withhold 
 the spiritual blessings necessary to salvation ; that the 
 principle is the same ; and that if any one asks the reason 
 why God saves some, and not others, it is not to be stated, 
 as a cause, that one was penitent and believing, and the 
 other impenitent ; " the only reply" that can be given is, 
 that it was good in the sight of God. 
 
 Again, on " I will have mercy on whom I will have 
 
S80 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 mercy," &c., he says, " On whom I choose to bestow 
 mercy. The mode he does not explain. But there could 
 not be a more positive declaration of these truths, (1.) That 
 he does it as a sovereign, without giving an accoimt of the 
 reason of his choice to any. (2.) That he does it without 
 regard to any claim on the part of man ; or that man is 
 regarded as destitute of merit, and as having no right to 
 his mercy. (3.) That he Avill do it to any extent which 
 he pleases, and in whatever time and manner may best 
 accord with his own good pleasure. (4.) That he has regard 
 to a definite number ; and that on that number he intends to 
 bestow eternal life ; and, (5.) That no one has a right to 
 complain. It is proof of his benevolence that any are 
 saved ; and where none have a claim, where all are justly 
 condemned, he has a right to pardon whom he pleases." 
 
 Again, on the next verse, he gives us to understand that 
 'the salvation of the sinner is not dependent on, or pro- 
 moted by, his effort to that end, but results wholly from 
 the partiality of God. He tells us " that he is pardoned, 
 not on account of his effort ; not because he makes an ex- 
 ertion ; but because God chooses to pardon him." Again: 
 *' Weep and strive he may, but in this there is no ground 
 of claim on God for pardon ; and, after all, he is depend- 
 ent on his mere sovereign mercy, a lost, ruined, and help- 
 less sinner, to be saved or lost at his will." 
 
 Whether it would be just or unjust in God, before his 
 creatures are born, to elect some to eternal life, and leave 
 others in circumstances which will infallibly secure their 
 sinning and damnation ; whether God withholds temporal 
 favours, and the blessings necessary to salvation, on the 
 same principle ; and whether the justice is the same in 
 both cases, or not, one tiling is plain, that, according to 
 this scheme, it is great folly to talk of a free salvation. 
 What manifest inconsistency for a man to offer salvation 
 to all, and require all to repent, believe, and hope, when 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 281 
 
 he holds that God " imparts penitence and faith," and 
 " gives the Christian's hope," to a definite number, elected 
 to this distinction before they were born, and withholds 
 these blessings from others ; and that this is the sole rea- 
 son why some sinners are saved, and others are not ! But 
 we have our doubts, whether the principle and justice of 
 withholding temporal and spiritual favours are precisely 
 the same. God may withhold temporal things, and there- 
 by promote our spiritual advantage and final salvation; 
 but to withhold all spiritual blessings excludes all hope 
 throughout eternity. We can easily approve of the pur- 
 pose of electing one of those children to special temporal 
 privileges, and of assigning the other a relation of inferiority 
 in these respects, before they were born, and wholly irre- 
 spective of their works ; but the doctrine that one unborn 
 child is elected to eternal life, and another consigned to a 
 destitution of all the blessings necessary to salvation, is 
 to us a revolting dogma — a heresy most hateful, if not 
 blasphemous. 
 
 Mr. B. also holds the Calvinistic doctrine of infallible 
 perseverance. On chap, viii, 30, he says, " This proves, 
 therefore, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. 
 There is a connection infallible and ever existing between 
 the predestination and the final salvation." And in a note 
 to his sermon on " The Way of Salvation," referring to 
 John X, 27, 28, he says, " This single passage settles all 
 controversy about the doctrine of falling from grace. Ad- 
 mitting that it had ever been the intention of Christ to 
 teach the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, it 
 could not have been done in more explicit language." — 
 Defence, p. 37. 
 
 We have Mr. B.'s views of the manner in which God 
 treats the non-elect, in his comment on the case of Pha- 
 raoh. On verse 17, he says, "This passage is designed 
 to illustrate the doctrine, that God shows mercy accord- 
 
282 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM, 
 
 ing to his sovereign pleasure by a reference to one of the 
 most extraordinary cases of hardness of heart which has 
 ever occurred. The design is to show that God has a 
 right to pass by those to whom he does not choose to 
 show mercy ; and to place them in circumstances where 
 they shall develop their true character^ and where in fact 
 they shall become more hardened, and be destroyed." 
 
 And again, on verse 18, he says, " The word hardeneth 
 means only to harden in the manner specified in the case 
 of Pharaoh. It does not mean to exert a positive influence, 
 but to leave a sinner to his own course, and to place him 
 in circumstances where the character will be more and 
 more developed. — See note, John xii, 40. It implies, how- 
 ever, an act of sovereignty on the part of God in thus leav- 
 ing him to his chosen course, and in not putting forth that 
 influence by which he could be saved from death. Why 
 this is, the apostle does not state." Mr. B. does not look 
 on Pharaoh as one who might have been saved, but from 
 whom the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn, in consequence 
 of resistance, and whose existence was continued beyond 
 that period for the purposes mentioned. God, as an act of 
 sovereignty, passed him by — left him to his own course — 
 declined putting forth that influence by which he could be 
 saved from death. And from the following language it is 
 plain that this commentator considers the course pursued 
 toward Pharaoh as an example of the course pursued to- 
 ward the non-elect in general. 
 
 " The case of Pharaoh was one instance or illustration 
 of the general principle on which God Avould deal with 
 men. His government is conducted on great and uni- 
 form principles ; and the case of Pharaoh was a develop- 
 ment of the great laws on which he governs the universe." 
 —V. 23. 
 
 Great eflbrts are made by many modern Calvinistic 
 writers, to prove that the eternal election of some does 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 9®3,: 
 
 not imply a positive decree of reprobation respecting the 
 rest ; and that w^hile one class is elected there may be no 
 decree whatever as to the course and destiny of the other, 
 but they may be merely passed by, not elected, &c. 
 It seems to be felt that if God be supposed to decree their 
 reprobation, as he decrees the salvation of the elect, his 
 justice and goodness are placed in an inauspicious light. 
 We have already shown, that, whether the attributes of 
 Jehovah are vindicated or not by such arguments, the case 
 of the non-elect is one of utter hopelessness from the be- 
 ginning, and that to offer salvation to all is useless, if not 
 madness. Either Avhat is done for the elect is not neces- 
 sary for their salvation, or the damnation of the non-elect 
 is inevitable. But the language of Mr. B. does not accord 
 with these plausible speculations. According to his repre- 
 sentations, God not only declines putting forth the influ- 
 ence by which they may be saved from death, but places 
 them in circumstances calculated to develop their cha- 
 racter as sinners. This latter sentiment he affirms again 
 and again. Now compare this with his challenge, to any 
 man, to produce a fact which is not a part of the divine 
 purpose, with his argimient to prove that whatever is fore- 
 known is fixed by the appointment of God, and with his 
 declaration that the actual result, by whatever means 
 brought about, is the expression of the design of God, and 
 those wire-drawn speculations are given to the winds. 
 
 We would notify the reader that it is not our present 
 object to refute Calvinism ; but merely to prove that it is 
 held by the New School party. Its refutation is much the 
 easier task. Put together, then, the ordination vow of 
 Mr. B., which he has never regretted, his declarations of 
 adherence to the Confession of Faith, and his assertion of 
 its leading doctrines, and the conclusion is irresistible that 
 he is a Calvinist, whatever else he may be. 
 
284 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 The part which Dr. Skinner performed in the General 
 Assembly of 1836, is sufficient to identify him with the 
 class of theologians under review. He is a leading man 
 among them. He classed himself with them, in a very 
 decided manner, in a speech delivered in the case of Mr. 
 Barnes. He remarked, " It has been said that there was 
 no trouble in Philadelphia before Mr. Barnes came there. 
 I, sir, had trouble there on account of my doctrinal senti- 
 ments. How could it be said that there was no trouble 
 there until Mr. Barnes came, when I was spoken of as 
 the first of that kidney in the city 1 If you condemn Mr. 
 Barnes, you condemn all of us." Again : " These are our 
 peculiarities : they do not exclude us from the Presbyte- 
 rian Church. Now the question is, whether this class 
 shall any longer be tolerated in the Presbyterian Church. 
 Mr. Barnes is not distinguished from the class : he is a 
 fair sample of the class. We do not consider him as by 
 any means an ultra among us." 
 
 That Dr. Skinner is a Calvinist, is fully demonstrated 
 by the terms of his ordination vow, and his declared ap- 
 proval of the Westminster Confession of Faith, not only 
 in respect to its doctrines, but also its phraseology. But we 
 proposed to furnish our readers with distinct avowals 
 of Calvinistic doctrine. In the speech just alluded to, Dr. 
 S. professes to state the doctrines which the " New School 
 hold and preach, in common, as they suppose, with their 
 Old School brethren." We shall commence our quotations 
 with the fourth article, as there is nothing in those which 
 precede it, relevant to our'present purpose. According to 
 this statement, they believe, and of course Dr. S. believes — 
 
 " 4. That the influence of the Spirit of God in effectual 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 285 
 
 calling is supernatural and sovereign, and as to the mode 
 of its exercise is incomprehensible. 
 
 " 5. That those \v,ho in time are effectually called by 
 the Spirit of God were chosen to salvation through Christ, 
 and that this election is sovereign, not gTOunded on fore- 
 seen holiness in the elect, but unto holiness, or that they 
 might be holy. 
 
 " 6. That the renewed persevere in holiness to the end, 
 but not by virtue of any power or principle of holiness in 
 themselves, but by the indwelling power of the Holy Spi- 
 rit, working in them to will and to do, and thus securing 
 their activity and perseverance. 
 
 " 7. That the happiness of the elect is perfect and 
 eternal ; and that the non-elect, for their sin, are punished 
 in hell for ever." 
 
 This is not a full and undisguised declaration of the 
 Calvinistic, creed. It may be considered as "containing" 
 or implying the system, rather than explicitly stating it. 
 There is nothing in the fourth article to which an Armi- 
 nian can object, taking the words according to their visual 
 meaning. The term " sovereign " contains the Calvin- 
 ism of this article. In Calvinistic parlance it does not 
 mean, merely, that God acts as a sovereign in the dispen- 
 sation of his favours — a doctrine which no one is disposed 
 to deny — but that he exercises his sovereignty by electing 
 some to the enjoyment of those spiritual blessings connect- 
 ed with salvation, and by withholding them from others ; 
 and that, in making the selection, he is governed solely 
 by his own pleasure, and not by any thing in the moral 
 character of the parties chosen or rejected. The article 
 on election, in which he affirms that it is " sovereign," 
 explains what he means by that term, viz., that the elec- 
 tion is not " grounded on foreseen holiness in the elect, 
 but unto holiness, or that they might be holy." 
 
 We gather, then, from this exhibition, the following 
 
286 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 amount of genuine Calvinism : — That God has elected 
 some men to final salvation, exclusive of others ; that 
 these persons are elected, not becaiise they are penitent 
 and believing, or differ in their moral character from 
 the non-elect, but that they, being unholy like the non- 
 elect, " might become holy ;" that God acts upon this prin- 
 ciple in the dispensation of the necessary spiritual in- 
 fluence, granting the effectual calling to none but the elect ; 
 that the elect invariably persevere unto the end, and that 
 their perseverance is not attributable, in whole or in part, 
 to any power or principle of holiness in themselves, but 
 to the Holy Spirit, vouchsafed to them on the principle of 
 sovereignty, on which they were elected. 
 
 The short creed, or form of admission into the Mercer- 
 street Presbyterian Church, of which Dr. S. is the pastor, 
 contains two, and but two Calvinistic articles. They are 
 as follows : — " You believe that no man of himself em- 
 braces this way of salvation unless induced and deter- 
 mined so to do by the agency of the Holy Spirit ; and that 
 this agency is exerted in a free and sovereig-n manner, 
 according to the counsel of infinite wisdom and goodness. 
 
 *' You believe that the subjects of the Holy Spirit's re- 
 newing influence are, in some degree, holy as God is 
 holy ; and submit themselves absolutely to God's will as 
 the law of their being ; and though but imperfectly sanc- 
 tified while in this world, do, by God's grace, persevere 
 in resisting sin and following holiness, until they pass into 
 the heavenly state." 
 
 These articles of belief are so cautiously worded that 
 most persons not versed in inquiries of this description, 
 or not very much on their guard, would fail to detect in 
 them any thing like Calvinism. But when we take into 
 view the theological meaning which Calvinists attach to 
 the word " sovereign," the secret is laid open ; and the 
 articles in question are clearly understood to mean, that 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 287 
 
 God selects from among the unholy, as unholy, the subjects 
 of the Holy Spirit's agency ; that this agency not only in- 
 duces, but determines them to embrace the w^ay of salva- 
 tion, and that those thus selected invariably persevere, al- 
 though but imperfectly sanctified in this world, until they 
 pass into the heavenly state. 
 
 But if we may infer the doctrines of the pastor from 
 those taught to the children in the sabbath school of the 
 church, subject to his pastoral oversight, we are in posses- 
 sion of a very plain exhibition of the sentiments of Dr. S. 
 on this subject. We have before us a copy of the Cate- 
 chism used in his sabbath school. Its title is, " The Ca- 
 techism of the Westminster Assembly of Divines ; with 
 Scriptural Questions and Answers. By the Rev. Mat- 
 thew Henry, D. D., Author of the Commentary on the 
 Bible. Also, A Familiar Exposition of the Lord's Prayer, 
 in the form of Question and Answer, by the Rev. Wil- 
 liam Fatten." It is based on the " Shorter Catechism," 
 and differs from it in these respects : — First, between the 
 questions and answers of the Shorter Catechism there is a 
 series of questions with negative or affirmative answers, as 
 the case may require, and a short passage of Scripture, 
 connected with each answer, to be repeated by the 
 scholar in confirmation of it. Secondly, it contains an ex- 
 position of the Lord's prayer in the form of question and 
 answer. The reader will now be prepared for the extracts 
 bearing on the question before us. First come the question 
 and answer of the Shorter Catechism. We begin with the 
 seventh question. 
 
 " Q. 7. What are the decrees of God ? 
 
 " A. The decrees of God are his eternal purposes, ac- 
 cording to the counsel of his own will ; whereby, for his 
 own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to 
 pass." 
 
 Then the questions and Scripture answers, among which 
 
288 NEW DIVINITY— CALVINISM 
 
 are the following : — " Does God dispose of all things that 
 come to pass ? Yes : ' My times are in thy hand,' Psa. 
 xxxi, 15. Does he do it according to his own ivill? Yes : 
 for ' he hath done whatsoever he pleased,' Psa. cxv, 2. 
 Were all the events of time ordained from eternity ? Yes : 
 ' He performeth the thing that is appointed for me,' Job 
 xxiii, 14. Does every thing come to pass as God has or- 
 dained it ? Yes : for there are many devices in a man's 
 heart ; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall 
 stand." 
 
 " Q. 8. How does God execute his decrees 1 
 
 "'A. God executes his decrees in the works of creation 
 and providence." 
 
 Under this we have, among others, the following ques- 
 tions and answers : — " Shall all God's decrees he executed? 
 Yes : ' for the Lord of hosts hath sworn, Surely as I have 
 thought, so shall it surely come to pass,' Isa. xiv, 24. Can 
 any of them be defeated ? No : for ' the Lord hath purposed, 
 and who shall disannul it V Isa. xiv, 27." 
 
 " Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the state 
 of sin and misery ? 
 
 " A. God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from 
 all eternity, elected some to eternal life, did enter into a 
 covenant of grace, to deliver them out of a state of sin and 
 misery, and to bring them into a state of salvation by a 
 Redeemer." 
 
 Then we have the following interesting amplification for 
 the benefit of youthful minds. 
 
 "Did God particularly design the salvation of a portion 
 of mankind? Yes : 'there is a remnant according to the 
 election of grace,' Rom. xi, 5. Ai-e there some whom God 
 has chosen ? Yes : ' God hath from the beginning chosen 
 you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit,' 
 2 Thess. ii, 3. Is there a certain number of such ? Yes : for 
 ' their names are in the book of life,' Phil, iv, 3 ; Rev. 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 289 
 
 xiii, 8. Were they chosen from eternity ? Yes: 'he has 
 chosen us in. hhn before the foundation of the world,' Eph, 
 i, 4. Were they chosen for the sake of any thing in them- 
 selves ? No : ' ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen 
 you,' John xv, 16. But of Ms mere good pleasure 1 Yes : 
 ' he hath predestinated us according to the good pleasure 
 of his will,' Eph. i, 5. Were they chosen to salvation as the 
 end ? Yes : ' God hath appointed us to obtain salvation,' 
 1 Thess. V, 9. And to sanctification as the means ? Yes : 
 ' he has chosen us that we should be holy,' Eph. i, 4. 
 Was it for the glory of God? Yes : that he ' might make 
 known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy.' 
 
 " Q. 21 . Who is the Redee7ner of God's elect 1 
 
 " A. The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became 
 man ; and so was and continues to be, God and man in 
 two distinct natures and one person for ever." 
 
 Under this leading question and answer we have a sam- 
 ple of Calvinistic free salvation — " 7^ he a universal Re- 
 deemer ? Yes : ' he gave himself a ransom for all,' 1 Tim 
 ii, 6. Did he die to purchase a general offer ? Yes : ' the 
 Son of man was lifted up, that whosoever believes in him 
 should not perish,' John iii, 14, 15. Is Christ, in a spe- 
 cial manner, the Redeemer of the elect ? Yes : ' I lay down 
 my life for the sheep,' John x, 15. Was their salvation par- 
 ticularly designed in Chrisfs undertaking ? Yes : ' thou hast 
 given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal 
 life to as many as thou hast given him,' John xvii, 2." 
 
 " Q. 30. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption 
 purchased hy Christ 1 
 
 " A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased 
 by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us 
 to Christ in our effectual calling. 
 
 " Does the Spirit work faith in us ? Yes : ' it is the faith 
 of the operation of God,' Col. ii, 12, Shall it be wrought 
 
 13 
 
290 " NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 in all the chosen 1 Yes : ' for it is the faith of God's elect.' 
 Tit. i, 1. Are we united to Christ in our effectual calling ? 
 Yes : ' for we are called into the fellowship of his Son, 
 Jesus Christ our Lord,' 1 Cor. i, 9. Will the common call 
 unite us to Christ ? No : ' for many are called, but few are 
 chosen,' Matt, xxii, 14. Is it the effectual call that does 
 it ? Yes : ' for whom he called, them he justified,' Rom. 
 viii, 10." 
 
 And under the next question and answer of the Shorter 
 Catechism, which relate to effectual calling, we find the 
 following : — " Is it the grace of God that turns us to him 1 
 Yes : 'the Lord opened the heart of Lydia,' Acts xvi, 14. 
 Is it special grace ? Yes : ' it is not of him that willeth, 
 nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,' 
 Rom. ix, 16. Shall this grace be given to all the elect ? Yes : 
 ' all that the Father hath given me shall come unto me,' 
 John vi, 37. Shall it be effectual ? Yes : ' his grace 
 which was bestowed on me was not in vain,' 1 Cor. xv, 10. 
 Can any turn to God without this sj^ecial grace 1 No : ' for 
 no man can come to me, except the Father which hath 
 sent me draw him,' John vi, 44." 
 
 " Q. 36. What are the benefits which in this life do either 
 accompany or fiow from justification, adoption, and sanclifica- 
 tion ? 
 
 " A. The benefits which in this life do either accom- 
 pany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification, 
 are assurance of God's love, peace of conscience, joy in 
 the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, and perseverance therein 
 to the end. 
 
 " Shall true believers persevere to the end ? Yes : ' for He 
 that hath begun a good work wiU perform it,' Phil, i, 6. 
 Will hypocrites persevere ? No : ' these have no root, 
 which for a while beUeve, and in time of temptation fall 
 away,' Luke viii, 13. Does it appear by their apostacy that 
 they were never sincere ? Yes : ' they went out from us, 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 291 
 
 because they were not of us ; for if they had been of us 
 they would no doubt have continued with us,' 1 Johnii, 19. 
 But shall any that are justified finally fall away ? No : '' for 
 whom he justified, them he glorified,' Rom. vii, 30. Can 
 true grace be finally lost ? No : it is ' that good part which 
 shall never be taken away,' " &c., &c. 
 
 We presume that this is sufiiciently plain for the un- 
 derstanding even of Methodists, who are esteemed by 
 some Calvinists, to be remarkably dull of apprehension on 
 such subjects. This catechism teaches that all the events 
 of time were ordained from eternity ; that every thin<r 
 comes to pass as God ordained it; that God executes his 
 own decrees, which extend to every event of time, and 
 that none of them can be defeated ; that he has from 
 eternity particularly designed to save, and chosen to salva- 
 tion, a portion of mankind, not for the sake of any thing 
 m themselves, but of his mere good pleasure, and that 
 the number of such is predetermined; that special grace 
 is required to enable any to turn to God ; that this grace 
 IS given to all the elect, and is effectual in every in- 
 stance ; that, although Christ is a universal Redeemer, 
 and died to purchase a general offer, he is in a special 
 manner the Redeemer of God's elect, and that their sal- 
 vation was particularly designed in his undertaking ; that 
 none but the elect are true believers ; that they can 
 never fall away and be lost ; and that all who make a 
 profession of religion and fall away, are hypocrites. 
 
 We are not a little tempted to enlarge on the inconsis- 
 tency of covering up these doctrines so carefully in the 
 " Form of Admission" into the church ; of reprobating in 
 the dedication sermon the inculcation of sectarian pecu- 
 liarities ; of publishing the sermon for general circulation 
 at the request of the officers of the church, and then in- 
 troducing these doctrines into the sabbath school, exube- 
 rant as they appear in this catechism, and instilling them 
 
292 NEW DIVINITV CALVINISM. 
 
 into the minds of children ; but with this hint, we will 
 leave our readers to their own reflections. 
 
 We would here remind the reader that the Rev. Dr. 
 Patton, one of the authors of this catechism, is a leading 
 New School man ; and was a prominent actor in the sepa- 
 
 i: ration which took place in the General Assembly of ] 838, 
 and also in the doings of the new Assembly. 
 
 One passage, expressive of Dr. Beecher's sentiments, 
 may suffice for the present. He says, " I have no sym- 
 pathy for the opinion that it depends on sinners whether 
 they be regenerated or not in the day of His power — or 
 that God does all he can, and leaves the event of submis- 
 sion or not to rebel man — and that sinners make them- 
 selves to differ, and are in fact the self-determining 
 authors of their own regeneration. The passages quoted 
 
 ' to prove .such an assertion are misunderstood and per- 
 verted." — Views in Theology, p. 209. 
 
 We have from the Rev. Dr. Cox, in his work on 
 Quakerism, the following avowal, which it would be 
 difficult to misinterpret : " Respecting predestination, 
 without discussing a subject so extensive, so sinned 
 against — not sinning, and so glorious and fundamental, 
 I would affectionately suggest the following things : 1 . 
 It is both foolish and unfair to charge its alleged diffi- 
 culties, as it is often done in this country, on Prcsbytc- 
 rianism, or Calvinism. Before either of these existed, 
 the very difficulties — which are wholly relative, and re- 
 ^ult from our ignorance, and folly, and unbelief alone — 
 
 - existed and were amply known. The premises of the 
 doctrine are fully contained in Barclay's Apology ; since 
 they are ultimately resolvable into the attributes of the 
 INFINITE God. Omniscience — who can deny ? — eter- 
 nally knows all things, and anticipates them infallibly, in 
 a system over which God presides, which he created and 
 constantly upholds. For, 'although in relation to the 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 293 
 
 foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all 
 things come to pass immediately and infallibly, yet by 
 the same providence he ordereth them to fall out accord- 
 ing to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, 
 freely, or contingently.' — Presbyterian Confession of Faith, 
 chap. V, sect. 2. No absolute contingency exists ; yet all 
 relative contingencies, such to us (and the world is full 
 of them) are infallibly and economically foreknown in the 
 system, and most wisely ordered and overruled by the 
 eternal owner of all things. The means and the end of 
 every related series are reciprocally connected and mutual- 
 ly dependent in the constitution of God." — Quakerism not 
 Christianity, p. 660. 
 
 In this passage we are told that, in consequence of the 
 decree of God, all things come to pass immediately and 
 infallibly ; that no absolute contingency exists ; and that 
 relative contingencies are all ordered, as well as overruled, 
 by God. 
 
 The state of theology in the Baptist and Congregational 
 churches generally, is the same as in the Presbyte- 
 rian Church. They are Calvinistic, and divided into par- 
 ties, which, if not distinguished by the appellations. Old 
 School and New School, are known by the same doctrinal 
 differences. Fuller, Hall, and Hinton among Baptists, are 
 leading advocates of New Divinity, and yet decided Cal- 
 vinists. We have before us the articles of belief of a 
 New Divinity Baptist Church, in Stanton-street, New- 
 York, which is supposed by some, to be quite Arminian. 
 It is under the pastoral care of the Rev. George Benedict, 
 a warm advocate apparently for free salvation. It con- 
 tains the following sentiments : — 
 
 " We believe — 
 
 " Art. IV. That it is the duty of all mankind to repent 
 of their sins, and believe upon Christ the Redeemer, and 
 that the guilt and final misery of those who reject the gos- 
 
294 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 pel will be greatly augmented by their unbelief, but that 
 from the enmity of the human heart, none will come to 
 Christ except by the special influences of the Holy Spirit, 
 sent forth to effect within them the work of regeneration. 
 
 " Art. V. That all who are thus brought to repentance 
 and faith receive the grace of regeneration, not of their 
 own merit, but of God's free grace, that they were chosen 
 in Christ to salvation before the foundation of the world, 
 and that nothing can separate them from the love of God, 
 but they shall be kept by his power through faith unto 
 salvation, the sure and final proof of their genuine faith 
 consisting in the continuance of their attachment and 
 obedience to Christ, to the end of their present life." 
 
 Here it is most explicitly avowed that none will come 
 to Christ without the special influence of the Holy Spirit ; 
 that all who were regenerated by it were chosen in 
 Christ to this distinction before the foundation of the 
 world, and that nothing can defeat their salvation. There 
 is, then, this grand distinction between those who are 
 saved and those who are lost — the former were elect- 
 ed to salvation before they were born, the latter were 
 not. It is not our intention to controvert this doctrine, 
 but we would suggest, that if the songs of the redeemed 
 are to be influenced by the principles on which their sal- 
 vation is achieved, and any of these non-elect, whose du- 
 ty it is to repent of their sins and believe in Christ, 
 should happen to perform their duty, and be saved, they 
 will compose a choir by themselves ; for while others 
 celebrate eternal election, and special influences, they 
 will be compelled to hymn the praises of natural ability, 
 and common grace. 
 
 Probably some of our readers have supposed, that, at 
 least, Mr. Finney, and his immediate disciples, are free 
 from Calvinism. This is not the case. He gives his 
 views of election in a sermon on this subject. After 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 295 
 
 stating in several propositions what it is not, he proceeds 
 to state positively what it is. He says : " But by the 
 doctrine of election is intended that a part of the human 
 family are chosen to eternal salvation; that not only are 
 they chosen as a whole, but as individuals, every one of 
 whom will be finally saved." He gives us to understand 
 that the elect are chosen to salvation previous to their 
 conversion. One of his negative propositions says : " Nor 
 that the unconverted elect are any better than the non- 
 elect." Again he proposes to " show when the election 
 was made," and on this point remarks, " The apostle says 
 it was before the world began, or from eternity." 
 
 Here, then, we have the election of a certain number 
 of individuals to eternal salvation, from eternity, every one 
 of whom will be finally saved, leaving none to be 
 damned, but those who are not thus elected. 
 
 Mr. F. attempts to vindicate the proceedings of God, in 
 this election, from the charge of impartiality and injustice. 
 He tells us that the atonement is sufficient for all ; that God 
 offers mercy to all ; that God as strongly desires the salva- 
 tion of the non-elect ; and that the only reason why the 
 non-elect will not be saved, is because they pertinaciously 
 refuse salvation. But he has already destroyed this pre- 
 tence by assuring us that the elect were no better than 
 the non-elect ; this therefore, cannot be the cause of the 
 difference in their destiny. He also informs us that God, 
 in confining election to those whom he has elected, has 
 done the best he could for the whole universe. He inti- 
 mates that it might have caused terrible confusion had he 
 elected more persons, or others than those he has elected ; 
 that in " the best possible administration of his govern- 
 ment he can bring sufficient amount of moral influence 
 to bear on the elect to convert them, and that it is a con- 
 tradiction to say that the same amount of moral influence 
 can be brought to bear upon eveiy individual of the 
 
296 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 
 
 human family." But with suitable deference to Mr. F.'s 
 acumen, we feel prompted to declare that we cannot see 
 what great harm could have resulted to angels or men, 
 from the election, conversion, holiness, and salvation of 
 all, on the same principle ; since the atonement is suffi- 
 cient for all, and God desired the salvation of all, and the 
 moral character of the elect, when elected to salvation, 
 was no better than that of the reprobate. 
 
 According to the Arminian doctrine of election, it is 
 easy to prove the impartiality and justice of God in 
 saving some and damning others, but on the Calvinistic 
 system it is utterly impossible. 
 
 Dr. Taylor, of New-Haven, in a letter to Dr. Hawes, 
 in which he states his theological opinions in view of the 
 fact that his orthodoxy was called in question, makes the 
 following avowals : — 
 
 " I believe, — 
 
 " 2. That the eternal purposes of God extend to all 
 actual events, sin not excepted ; or that God foreordains 
 whatsoever comes to pass, and so executes these purposes 
 as to leave the free moral agency of man unimpaired." 
 
 " 9. That the renewing grace of God is special (in dis- 
 tinction from that which is common, and is resisted by the 
 sinful mind) inasmuch as it is that which is designed to 
 secure, and does infallibly secure, the conversion of the 
 sinner. 
 
 " 10. That all who are renewed by the Holy Spirit are 
 elected or chosen of God from eternity, that they should 
 be holy, not on account of foreseen faith or good works, 
 but according to the good pleasure of his will. 
 
 "11. That all who are renewed by the Holy Spirit will, 
 through his continued influence, persevere in holiness to 
 the end, and obtain eternal life. 
 
 " Such is my faith in respect to some of the leading 
 doctrines of the gospel. These doctrines I preach ; these 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 297 
 
 doctrines I teach in the theological department of this 
 seminary ; these I have repeatedly published to the world. 
 With what truth or justice any regard me as a ' teacher 
 of theology introducing heresy into our churches,' the 
 candid can judge. 
 
 " But it may be asked whether, after all, there are not 
 some points on which I differ from my brethren generally, 
 or, at least, from some of them ? I answer. It would be 
 strange if any two men should be found to agree exactly 
 in all the minute matters of religious opinion. With res- 
 pect, however, to what is properly considered the ortho- 
 dox or Calvinistic system of doctrines, as including the 
 great facts of Christianity, and as opposed to, and dis- 
 tinguished from, the Unitarian, Pelagian, and Arminian 
 systeins, I suppose there is between the orthodox ministry 
 and myself an entire agreement." — Christian Spectator, 
 Vol. iv, No; 1. 
 
 Such, then, are the sentiments of Dr. Taylor, who is 
 supposed by many to be irrecoverably gone from Calvinism. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 Some of the prominent writers of the New School party 
 in the Calvinistic Churches, carry their Calvinism so far 
 as to involve in doubt the doctrine that all who die in in- 
 fancy are saved. 
 
 In an editorial article which appeared in the New- York 
 Evangelist, when edited by the Rev. Joshua Leavitt — a 
 paper which had its origin under the auspices of New 
 Divinity, and has been devoted to its interests ever since, 
 may be found the following sentiments : — 
 13* 
 
298 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 " As the Holy Ghost has not seen fit to give us definite 
 instructions on these points, and there seems to be nothing 
 which we can do for such little ones, to fit them for hea- 
 ven, would any thing be lost to the cause of practical 
 piety, if we should all consent to leave the whole case of 
 dying infants to the wisdom and benevolence of Him who 
 says, ' The secret things belong unto the Lord our God V " 
 
 Would an intelligent writer, who firmly believes in the 
 salvation of all who die in infancy, express himself thus ? 
 Would he place the whole case of dying infants among the 
 secret things belonging to God, and with reference to 
 which the Holy Ghost has not seen fit to give us definite 
 instructions, and suggest that there is nothing gained to 
 the cause of practical piety by discussing the subject? 
 This is not the language of Arminianism. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Cox assumes the same ground. In his 
 work on Quakerism he remarks : — 
 
 " There are questions and facts unresolved on this 
 article of the ' common faith,' which embarrass really, if 
 not equally, every theory that was ever soberly framed 
 for its elucidation. Such as these, — Have idiots souls ? 
 What becomes of them ? — and monsters, what of them ? — 
 and so of millions of unborn children, of dead-born, of de- 
 stroyed embryos, &c. ? Were all these represented in 
 Adam? How are they related to him — how to Christ? 
 Where there is no evidence, we had better have no 
 theory. The Scripture is often eloquent in its omissions. 
 If, for example, it had affirmed the salvation of all infants, 
 or any class of them, under a certain age, the conse- 
 quences had been terrible ! What fears for those who 
 should die ever so little past that age ! What temptations 
 to infanticide imder it, especially to guilty parents ! What 
 vain repinings and murmurings among some, that they did 
 not die earlier ! How were the value of life cheapened, 
 and a due preparation for death obstructed and postponed ! 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 299 
 
 These difficulties are not properly the opprohria theologies, 
 they are ' the secret things which belong to God.' " — p. 669. 
 
 It is clearly the doctrine of this passage, that we have 
 no more information respecting the fate of dying infants, 
 than on the questions. Have idiots souls 1 what becomes 
 of monsters ? &c. ; that this is one of the eloquent omis- 
 sions of Scripture ; that we have no information on this 
 subject, and therefore had better have no theory ; that this 
 is one of the secret things which belong to God. It is 
 argued that if the Scriptures had affirmed the salvation of 
 all infants, or any class of them, under a certain age, it 
 would have led to terrible consequences — to fears for those 
 who might die ever so little past that age — to vain re- 
 pinings among some, that they did not die earlier — to a 
 cheapening of the value of human life and the postpone- 
 ment of the preparation for death — and, finally, to strong 
 temptations- to infanticide. 
 
 Mr. Duffield adverts to this subject in the work to which 
 we have so often referred. His language is characterized 
 by great caution, but yet sufficiently indicates the position 
 he occupies. In the chapter on the " Moral Condition of 
 Deceased Infants," he remarks, — 
 
 " The death of the infant is no more proof of its final 
 condemnation, than the death of the believer. On the con- 
 trary, as the infant has neither done good nor evil, the pre- 
 sumption arising from its death would rather seem to be, 
 that inasmuch as its powers, if it had remained in this 
 world, would have been developed in sin, so its removal 
 to another and essentially different world — where all its 
 modes of acquiring knowledge, and also of acting, will be 
 essentially different — will most probably conduce to in- 
 stantaneous and lofty exhibitions of holiness. 
 
 "It is true, that the presumption may be applied. the 
 other way. Inasmuch as God visits on the infant the sin 
 of Adam — subjecting it to disease and death, and placing 
 
300 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 it in a world, and under the operation of laws which 
 operate with certainty to secure its voluntary sinning, as 
 soon as capable of moral agency ; and inasmuch as one 
 of the consequences of such rebellion against God is, that 
 a change will take place, either sooner or later, in the out- 
 ward circumstances and relations of men in this world, by 
 ■virtue of which much more rapid and frightful develop- 
 ments of iniquity shall be made — why may we not con- 
 clude that, in the exercise of his sovereignty, God sees fit 
 to anticipate such things, and transfer one and another, forth- 
 with as they come into this world, to a new scene of exist- 
 ence, where the full and final results of Adam's apostacy 
 are displayed 1 Especially so, it might be added, since the 
 promise of grace, iii the covenant, seems to contemplate 
 none other than the children of believers. ' I will be a God 
 to thee, and to thy seed after thee ;' and since there can 
 be no more inconsistency with divine justice to place an 
 infant in circmnstances where it will become a sinner 
 sooner than later, provided there is not to place it in such 
 circumstances at all. We confess, therefore, that nothing 
 ought to be rashly and positively asserted on this subject 
 either way. 
 
 " It would seem as if God had not seen it proper to give 
 us any decisive information on this subject ; and we can 
 see great wisdom and goodness too, in his keeping us in 
 absolute ignorance on this point. Were the former pre- 
 sumption an established truth, and reverently received 
 among men, there is no knowing what mischievous con- 
 sequences might result from it, nor how far men, to render 
 their darling babes eternally happy, might be tempted to 
 become the murderers of their own offspring. And were 
 the latter an established truth, with what heart-rending 
 agony would every sensitive soid see the infant consigned 
 to the tomb. It is well that Providence has thrown an 
 impenetrable veil over this thing. Yet, if we may be 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 301 
 
 allowed to indulge a fond conjecture, the presumption 
 seems strongest that the death of the infant is a procedure 
 of mercy, rather than of vindictive justice. For, as the 
 great rule of procedure on the judgment day shall be, that 
 God 'will render unto every one according to the deeds 
 done in the body, whether they be good or evil,' the 
 righteous and the wicked shall receive their award and 
 allotment upon a principle which it is manifest, in the 
 nature of things, cannot be adopted with regard to those 
 dying in infancy." — p. 351. 
 
 The import of this passage is obvious, notwithstanding 
 the cloudy verbiage in which some of its awful arguments 
 are clothed. It assumes that God has not seen fit to give 
 us any decisive information on this subject — that he has 
 thrown an impenetrable veil over it — that he has kept us 
 in absolute ignorance on this point — that he has manifested 
 great wisdom and goodness in this procedure — and that it 
 would be rash in us to assert any thing on this subject, 
 positively, either way. It contains several presumptions 
 in favour of the supposition that some infants are damned. 
 Mr. D. cannot see, if God may subject the infant to dis- 
 ease and death, and place it in a world where it will com- 
 mit sin, and may become a very wicked man or woman, 
 and from which it may pass into the state and place of 
 final punishment, why, in the exercise of his sovereignty, 
 he may not also " anticipate such things" by transferring 
 children to hell " forthwith," as soon " as they come into 
 the world." There is also a presumption to this effect, in 
 the estimation of Mr. D., arising from the well-known 
 doctrine, held by many, if not all Calvinists, that " the 
 promise of grace, in the covenant, seems to contemplate 
 none other than the children of believers." He further 
 concludes, that if there be no inconsistency with divine 
 justice in placing an infant in this world, in which it will 
 become a sinner, there can be none in placing it sooner 
 
302 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 than later in another world, where it will be a sinne/. 
 The rest you must imagine. 
 
 He argues against the supposition that all infants, dying 
 in infancy, are saved. If it were " an established truth, 
 and reverently believed, there is no knowing what mis- 
 chievous consequences might result from it, nor how far 
 men, to render their darling babes eternally happy, might 
 be tempted to become the murderers of their own offspring." 
 It is true he finds presumptions on the other side of the 
 question — but they are feeble and indefinite. As the in- 
 fant has done neither good nor evil, and as, in death, it is 
 removed to " another and essentially different world," the 
 circumstances amid which it is placed " will most pro- 
 bably conduce to instantaneous and lofty exhibitions of 
 holiness." He is not sure that this will be the case, but 
 thinks it probable. And indeed any one must perceive 
 that this will depend very much on the character of the 
 world to which it is removed, which is the very thing to 
 be ascertained, and about which there is so much un- 
 certainty. Again : if he " may be allowed to indulge a 
 fond conjecture, the presumption seems strongest that the 
 death of the infant is a procedure of mercy rather than of 
 vindictive justice." What he means by a procedure of 
 mercy, we are not certain. He may mean, for all that we 
 can see, that as none but the children of believers are in- 
 cluded in the covenant of mercy, and as God can, as con- 
 sistently with justice, send non-elect infants to hell, as 
 bring them into this world, keep them here until they 
 become adult sinners, and then consign them to that 
 destiny ; that to cut them off" and damn them in infancy 
 would be merciful rather than vindictive, inasmuch as their 
 living longer would only increase their responsibility, guilt, 
 and misery. But if we give these terms the most favour- 
 able construction, still he only indulges a fond conjecture 
 on this point — a fond conjecture that the presumption on 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 303 
 
 the side of mercy seems the strongest. Nor is there any 
 thing definite to be gathered from the suggestion, that the 
 principle on which the righteous and the wicked will re- 
 ceive their award, cannot be applied to infants, since there 
 are very strong presumptions in Mr. D.'s mind, of the 
 existence of some principle on which they may be 
 damned. 
 
 Mr. Barnes, in a note to his sermon on " The Way of 
 Salvation," disavows the doctrine of the damnation of in- 
 fants, not only in behalf of himself, but also of the whole 
 " Presbyterian Church in this country," and of " Calvin- 
 ists of the present day." " It is admitted," he says, " with 
 regret, that it has been held, by a few, that infants may he 
 lost. This must be conceded in regard to Dr. Gill, Dr. 
 Twisse, and a few others." He also denies that the doc- 
 trine ever " had any essential connection with Calvinism." 
 " It grew,'-' he says, " out of the doctrine of imputation of 
 Adam's sin, or our acting in him — a sentiment as fully held, 
 in principle, by Arminians, as it ever was by their op- 
 ponents." He says that " an assertion that such an 
 opinion is held — that it is maintained that ' there are in- 
 fants in hell not a span long,' unless the cases where it 
 has been done are distinctly and specifically referred to, 
 in the language of the law is slander." 
 
 We have no disposition to dispute about the length of 
 the infants whose fate we are discussing, and certainly as 
 little desire to be prosecuted for slander ; but we have 
 made up our mind to run the awful risk of disputing the 
 correctness of some of Mr. B.'s positions. We affirm that 
 the doctrine has an essential connection with Calvinism. 
 It results by the plainest process of deduction, not only 
 from the entire system, but from several of its leading 
 doctrines taken separately. 
 
 Take, first, the Calvinistic doctrine of election, as 
 stated in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of Mr. 
 
304, NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 B.'s Church, and as asserted by himself in his notes on 
 Romans ix. If God has elected to eternal salvation a de- 
 finite number of individuals — if these were elected before 
 they were born — before the foundation of the world — even 
 from eternity — if all these will be infallibly saved, and 
 none others — what is the most obvious inference respect- 
 ing the future condition of those infants dying in infancy, 
 who are not included among the elect? There can be 
 but one answer, and that is — that they are lost. The in- 
 ference is strengthened, if it be possible to add to its 
 strength, by the provision which Mr. B.'s creed makes for 
 the salvation of elect infants. " Elect infants dying in 
 infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the 
 Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he 
 . pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are 
 incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the 
 word." This provision is made for elect infants in view 
 of the existence of two classes, and in contradistinction to 
 those who are non-elect. But if it is made for them, and 
 them alone, what is to become of the other class ? Will 
 they be saved without regeneration " by Christ through 
 the Spirit ?" This will not answer. It is curious to ob- 
 serve how Mr. B. attempts to make it appear that the 
 language of the Confession of Faith respecting elect in- 
 fants does not imply that others may be lost. This infer- 
 ence, he says, " cannot be sustained. The authors of the 
 Confession, like the sacred writers, were in the habit of 
 calling all those who were saved, ' the elect.' They 
 spoke of inl'ants saved, as a part of the elect — a part of the 
 race chosen to salvation. They affirm not that any are 
 lost ; nor can it be proved that they meant to imply it." 
 It is not necessary to our argument to maintain that they 
 ajirm positively that any are lost, or to decide what they 
 meant to imply. The question at present is simply, What 
 is the logical inference from what they do assert ? 
 
NEW DIVIN'ITY CALVINISM. 305 
 
 We affirm it to be that non-elect infants, dying in in- 
 fancy, are not regenerated and saved by Christ through 
 the Spirit. Mr.' B. denies that any such inference fol- 
 lows. He says that the framers of the Confession were 
 merely classing saved infants among the elect. But this 
 mode of stating the case does not relieve the difficulty. 
 For if some are elected to salvation, while others are not 
 — and we are gravely informed that all infants saved are 
 of the elect — what is the obvious inference respecting 
 non-elect infants ? They must be classed with the un- 
 saved. The distinction between saved and unsaved in- 
 fants is as clearly recognised by Mr. B. as the distinction 
 between elect and non-elect infants. Thus his explanation 
 leads directly to the result which it was intended to ob- 
 viate. The fact that he resorted to such an explanation 
 shows that he felt himself to be in great difficulty ; for 
 any person, of ordinary intelligence can perceive, at one 
 glance, that the authors of the Confession were not merely 
 representing infants saved as a part of the elect. They 
 were stating by what means elect infants are regenerated 
 and saved ; and they do it in such a way as to restrict the 
 application of the specified means to those who are elect. 
 Our inference is sustained also by direct assertion in an- 
 other part of the same creed, where it is said, that " as 
 God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by 
 the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained 
 all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, 
 being fallen in Adam, are redeemed hy Christ, are effectu- 
 ally called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in 
 due season ; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by 
 his power, through faith unto salvation. Neither are any 
 other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, 
 sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." 
 
 It will not do for Calvinists to say that all infants are 
 elect ; for then, according to their scheme, all adults would 
 
306 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 be elect, and universal salvation virould be the result. Nor 
 is this inconsistency chargeable on Mr. B. He gives us 
 his views of the application of the doctrine of election to 
 infants in his Notes on the Epistle to the Romans. On the 
 words of the apostle, " Neither, because they are the seed 
 of Abraham, are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy 
 seed be called," ix, 7, he remarks, " Shall thy seed, &c. 
 — Thy true people. This implied a selection, or choice ; 
 and, therefore, the doctrine of election was illustrated in 
 the very commencement of the history of the nation ; and 
 as God had then made such a distinction, he might still do 
 it. As he had then rejected a part of the natural descend- 
 ants of Abraham, so he might still do it. This is the 
 argument the apostle is pursuing." And on the words 
 which occur in the next verse, " but the children of the 
 promise are counted for the seed," he remarks, " Jire count- 
 ed — Are regarded, or reckoned. God reckons things as 
 they are ; and therefore designed that they should be his 
 true children. As the seed — The spiritual children of 
 God ; the partakers of his mercy and salvation. This 
 refers, doubtless, to spiritual privileges and to salvation ; 
 and therefore has relation, not to nations as such, but to 
 individuals." And on verses 10 and 11, which relate to 
 the immediate posterity of Isaac and Rebecca, he says, 
 " Not only is the principle of making a distinction among 
 the natural descendants of Abraham thus settled by the 
 promise, but it is still further seen and illustrated in the 
 birth of the two sons of Isaac. He had shown that the 
 principle of thus making a distinction among the posterity 
 of Abraham was recognsied in the original promise, thus 
 proving that all the descendants of Abraham were of course 
 to be saved ; and he now proceeds to show that the prin- 
 ciple was recognised in the case of his posterity in the 
 family of Isaac. And he shows that it is not according to 
 any natural principles that the selection was made ; that 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. SOT 
 
 he not only made a distinction between Jacob and Esau, 
 but that he did it according to his good pleasure, choosing 
 the younger to be the object of his favour, and rejecting 
 the elder, who, according to the custom of the times, was 
 supposed to be entitled to peculiar honour and rights. And 
 in order to prove that this was done according to his own 
 good pleasure, he shows that the distinction was made 
 before they were born ; before they had formed any cha- 
 racter ; and, consequently, in such a way that it could not 
 be pretended that it was in consequence of any works they 
 had performed." 
 
 In these quotations it is maintained by Mr. B. that God 
 made a distinction among the immediate descendants of 
 Abraham, electing one of his sons and his posterity, and 
 rejecting the other and his posterity ; that the same dis- 
 tinction was made in the family of Isaac between Jacob 
 and Esau, " choosing the younger to be the object of his 
 favour, and rejecting the elder,;" that this was done ac- 
 cording to the good pleasure of God, which is proved by 
 the fact that he made this distinction between them " be- 
 fore they were born ; before they had formed any charac- 
 ter ; and, consequently, in such a way that it could not be 
 pretended that it was in consequence of any works which 
 they had performed ;" that the election and rejection " re- 
 fer, doubtless, to spiritual privileges and salvation," and 
 have relation " to individuals ;" and that those elected are 
 chosen to be " the spiritual children of God, the partakers 
 of his mercy and salvation ;" and, further, that as God has 
 made this distinction in times that are past, he may " still 
 do it." 
 
 We now ask, what must have become of those children 
 who were not chosen to spiritual privileges and salvation, 
 but rejected, had they died in infancy ? Would they have 
 been saved ? Certainly not; for that would have destroyed 
 the distinction between them and the others. It would have 
 
308 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 proved Inat they, too, were chosen to salvation. The in- 
 ference is inevitable that they must have been lost. 
 
 The only way that remains of avoiding this troublesome 
 inference is, by adopting the hypothesis that none but 
 elect infants die in infancy. Whether Mr. B. intends to 
 take refuge in this or not, we cannot positively affirm ; but 
 his language strongly implies it. In the first place, he 
 admits, with regret, that a few have held the doctrine that 
 infants may be lost. Of course he does not hold that doc- 
 trine. In the second place, he considers all saved infants 
 as belonging to the elect. If, then, no infants die in in- 
 fancy but what are saved, and all saved infants are of the 
 elect, it follows, incontestably, that none but elect chil- 
 dren die in infancy. But the mind that can seriously en- 
 tertain such a supposition must have a predilection for 
 absurdity. It must be prepared to believe, that while in- 
 fants are divided into two classes, elect and non-elect, of 
 all the infants that have died of ordinary sickness, of epi- 
 demics, or by accident, or war, or famine, or pestilence, 
 every non-elect infant has escaped, and those of the elect 
 alone have fallen ; that when the cruel edict of Herod 
 caused the blood of infants to be poured out like water, 
 and when that of Pharaoh consigned them by thousands 
 to the monsters of the Nile, not one single victim was 
 taken from among the reprobates — still the slain were all 
 God's elect ; that when the judgments of God are abroad, 
 he extends the mysterious protection of his providence, 
 not to those who are destined to be regenerated and saved, 
 and become the salt of the earth, but to those who are to 
 remain impenitent and rebellious ; that in the whole ante- 
 diluvian world that perished by the flood, there was not 
 one non-elect infant, or if there were, it was in the family 
 of Noah, and was carefully preserved, while the elect were 
 drowned ; that if God had suspended this judgment for a 
 while, he would have had no reason to complain that all 
 
NEW DIVINITl' CALVINISM. 309 
 
 flesh had corrupted its way, as there Avoiild have been a 
 generation of his own chosen people, equal in number to 
 all the infants that perished by the deluge ; that there was 
 not a single non-elect infant in the cities of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah when those cities were destroyed, but that 
 every infant consumed by that fearful conflagration was 
 of the elect. If this supposition be true, it may be made 
 a question, whether, in the case of non-elect infants, "the 
 flesh will quiver where the pincers tear," or " the blood 
 follow where the knife is driven." But it is needless to 
 enlarge on this point. 
 
 The doctrine of the damnation of infants results, inevita- 
 bly, from the doctrine that Christ did not make an atonement 
 for all. If all who are saved are saved on the ground of 
 atonement, those for whom Christ has not died must be 
 lost. This conclusion applies equally to children and adults. 
 
 Precisely the same conclusion follows the doctrine 
 which extends the atonement to all, but limits^ its applica- 
 tion to a part. This is Mr. B.'s theory. The application 
 of the atonement is supposed to be necessary to salvation, 
 but this is confined to the elect by the divine decree. Of 
 course, all to whom the atonement is not applied must be 
 lost, whether infants or adults. 
 
 This blood-freezing tenet is also deducible from the very 
 popular doctrine of the " perseverance of the saints," as 
 held by Calvinists. According to this doctrine, if any are 
 finally lost, it is because they were never in grace — never 
 in the favour of God — never within the limits of that king- 
 dom, the subjects of which are heirs of salvation. For 
 had they ever been in this condition, they would have been 
 saved infallibly. It follows, then, that if any are damned 
 at mature age, they were not in the favour of God Avhile 
 infants. If they were, they must have so continued while 
 adults, and so have been saved. What, then, must have 
 been the fate of those who are lost, had they died in 
 
310 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 infancy ? Must they not have been lost? Take the case of 
 the "rich man," spoken of in the gospels, for example. 
 It is declared by the Saviour that " in hell he lifted up his 
 eyes." Now it is undeniable, according to the Calvinistic 
 doctrine of final perseverance, that this man was never in 
 the favour of God — that he never, not even Avhile he was 
 an infant, stood in that relation to God which would have 
 secured to him eternal life, supposing him to have died in 
 that condition, otherwise he must have continued in that 
 condition, and so have been finally saved. What then 
 must have become of the rich man had he died in infancy ? 
 The question admits of but one answer. 
 
 Perhaps an attempt may be made to evade the force of 
 this reasoning, by affirming that all infants are in the fa- 
 vour of God, and therefore safe, dying in infancy. This 
 is, indeed, the very truth. But suppose the doctrine of 
 final perseverance, as held by Calvinists, to be true, and 
 it will follow, indubitably, that all adults are in the favour 
 of God, since all adults, except Adam and Eve, were once 
 infants. Thus we are fairly landed on the shores of Uni- 
 versalism. The only way to escape Universalism on the 
 one hand, or the damnation of infants on the other, is to 
 abandon this doctrine of " infallible perseverance." 
 
 It may possibly be suggested that the arrangement 
 which secures the infallible perseverance of the saints 
 does not take effect until conversion, and that, although 
 the infant is in the favour of God, it may lose that advan- 
 tage by personal transgression, as soon as it arrives at the 
 period of moral accountability. It would seem, then, that 
 men and women may fall into sin after their conversion — 
 may deny their Lord, and commit the sin of adultery, and 
 idolatry, like Peter, and David, and Solomon, and yet re- 
 main in a state of security, while the poor child f\ills un- 
 der the condemnation of the law of God, and is exposed 
 to hell for the first childish transgression. Can any one 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 311 
 
 believe that God administers the plan of salvation on prin- 
 ciples so very discordant, and so grossly partial to the 
 grown-up sinner ? Besides, such a subterfuge would be in 
 direct denial of " the immutability of the decree of elec- 
 tion," which applies equally to infants and adults, and on 
 which, the Confession says, the " perseverance of the 
 saints depends." It would be destructive of the entire 
 system of Calvinism. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 The doctrine which excludes from the covenant of 
 grace a portion of mankind, leads directly to the inference 
 that infants may be lost. This doctrine is advanced by 
 Mr. Duffield in the following passage, as furnishing a pre- 
 sumption on the side of the damnation of infants. " Es- 
 pecially so, it might be added, since the promise of grace, 
 in the covenant, seems to contemplate none other than the 
 children of believers, ' I will be a God to thee, and to thy 
 seed after thee.' " Now, if no human being can be saved 
 but by the covenant of grace, and that covenant includes 
 a particular class of mankind, and " none other," the dam- 
 nation of the rest is inevitable, whether they die in in- 
 fancy or old age ; and the appalling presumption of Mr. 
 D. is amply sustained. 
 
 Although it is essential to Calvinism thus to limit the 
 subjects of covenant mercy, it is not essential to it to in- 
 clude all the children of believers in the covenant, or con- 
 fine its advantages to them. The system would be unim- 
 paired by the supposition, that God elects tlie subjects of 
 salvation from among the children both of believers and 
 
312 NEW 0IVIMTY — CALVINISM. 
 
 unbelievers, and rejects others on the same principle. 
 The doctrine that all the children of believers, and none 
 other, are included in the covenant of grace, probably had 
 its origin in the emergencies which have grown out of 
 parental sensibility. It will be found a hard task to re- 
 concile a religious community to a system of doctrine 
 which spreads so gloomy an uncertainty over the destiny 
 of their deceased little ones. But that difficulty is oppor- 
 tunely removed by the assurance, that the children of be- 
 hevers are all safe. Let them be convinced of this, and 
 they will, probably, not only be reconciled to the system, 
 but feel a strong attachment to it. The Rev. Dr. Miller, 
 of Princeton, in an essay on infant baptism, founds an ar- 
 gument in favour of " the church membership of the infant 
 seed of believers" on parental sympathy. " The dose and 
 endearing connection between parents and children" he says, 
 " affords a strong argument in its favour. The voice of na- 
 ture is lifted up, and pleads most powerfully in behalf of 
 our cause. The thought of severing parents from their 
 offspring, in regard to the most interesting relations in 
 which it has pleased God in his adorable providence to 
 place them, is equally repugnant to Christian feeling and 
 natural law. Can it be, my friends, that when the stem 
 is in the Church the branch is out of it ? Can it be tha* 
 when the parent is within the visible kingdom of the Re- 
 deemer, his offspring, bone of his bone, and flesh of his 
 flesh, have no connection with it ? It is not so in any other 
 society that the great moral Governor of the world ever 
 formed. It is not so in civil society. Children are born 
 citizens of the state in which the parents resided at the 
 time of their birth. In virtue of their birth they are ple- 
 nary citizens, boimd by all the duties, and entitled to all 
 the privileges of that relation, whenever they become ca- 
 pable of exercising them. From these duties they cannot 
 be liberated — of these privileges they cannot be deprived, 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 313 
 
 but by the commission of crime. But why should this 
 principle be set aside in the Church of God ? Surely it is 
 not less obvious or less powerful in grace than in nature." 
 — Preslyterian Tracts, vol. i. 
 
 The effect of this reasoning is to extend a saving interest 
 in the covenant of mercy to all the children of believers. 
 For what are church membership, and baptism, if eternally 
 separated from the spiritual blessings necessary to sal- 
 vation ? Surely, if the thought of excluding " the infant 
 seed of believers" from these outward privileges would be 
 so revolting to " natural law" and " Christian feeling," it 
 would be much more so to suppose them excluded from 
 salvation, and thus severed from their parents. And this 
 is what the author intends. He tells us that the covenant 
 *' had a respect to spiritual as well as temporal blessings." 
 
 This comfortable notion, however, when connected with 
 the system of Calvinism, leads to endless perplexities and 
 contradictions ; for, if all who are entitled to the spiritual 
 blessings of the new covenant are elect, and must con- 
 tinue in that relation, it will follow that the whole pos- 
 terity of the first faithful parents must be saved. Noah 
 was a righteous man ; all his cliildren are therefore safe ; 
 and consequently all their children ; and, inasmuch as the 
 whole post-diluvian population descended from him, every 
 one who has lived since the flood is safe. Moreover, we 
 have only to suppose that Adam and Eve were at any 
 time the true children of God, and all the world is safe. 
 
 Thus we see that this consolatory provision destroys 
 Calvinism, by running it into Universalism. Nor is this 
 result avoided by the restricting clause ; since to restrict 
 the great and saving benefits of the covenant to the chil- 
 dren of believers, is, in eflfect, nothing more nor less than 
 to restrict them to every descendant of Adam. 
 
 We have been led to think that these difficulties have 
 not wholly escaped the observation of the advocates of 
 
 14 
 
314 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 this doctrine. On reading a work entitled " Household 
 Consecration," by Rev. N. E. Johnson, (a work evidently 
 based on this principle, and which, besides its inconsist- 
 encies, contains many excellences, and is, on the whole, 
 highly creditable to the heart and the intellect of its au- 
 thor,) we observe that, in tracing the principle, both before 
 and after the flood, he very wisely waits until there are 
 several distinct families in existence before he brings it 
 into operation, and in this way he obtains the distinction 
 of " pious and impious families." 
 
 The heterogeneousness of this doctrine, with the sys- 
 tem in which it is incorporated, is illustrated by a passage 
 in Barnes' Notes on Romans. The doctrine is supposed 
 to be inculcated by the terms of the covenant which God 
 made with Abraham : " I will be a God to thee, and to 
 thy seed after thee." But we find Calvinism making a 
 distinction in this particular among the immediate de- 
 scendants of Abraham. " On Rom. ix, 7 : " Neither be- 
 cause they are the seed of Abraham are they all children," 
 &c., Mr. B. remarks, " This implies a selection or choice: 
 and therefore the doctrine of election was illustrated in the 
 very commencement of the nation," &c. Thus the doc- 
 trine is fairly exploded : Abraham had but two children, 
 one of which was included in, and the other excluded from 
 the covenant. But Mr. B. is not at all daunted by this 
 aspect of affairs. He considers the doctrine established, 
 rather than endangered by this distinction. On verse 10, 
 he remarks, " He had shown that the principle of thus 
 making a distinction among the posterity of Abraham was 
 recognised in the original promise ; thus proving that all 
 the descendants of Abraham were of course to he saved.'''' 
 Now, then, we suppose that this principle will have fair 
 play, and be subject to no more interruptions. Is it so ? 
 Will all the descendants of Abraham in the line of Isaac 
 be saved as a matter of course ? So Mr. B. explicitly do- 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 315 
 
 clares. But the genius of Calvinism suddenly appears 
 with frowning brow — Mr. B. recognises his approach, 
 pays his profoundest homage to the awful apparition, and 
 consents that a distinction shall be made among the de- 
 scendants of Abraham, in the very next generation — that 
 Jacob shall be chosen, and Esau rejected ; and that such 
 distinctions in families shall be made throughout all future 
 generations. The grim visitant relaxes his frown, smiles 
 horrible satisfaction at the sacrifice, and retires. Mr. 
 B. must not, however, expect quite so submissive a de- 
 ference to his reasonings on the part of Arminians, when 
 he still insists that these distinctions among the descend- 
 ants of Abraham are not only consistent with the salvation 
 of all his posterity, but prove that they were all " of course 
 to be saved." / 
 
 The believers of Calvinism must, therefore, to be con- 
 sistent, choose between the alternatives of adopting Uni- 
 versalism, or giving up the doctrine that all the children 
 of believers are included in the covenant of election ; and 
 acknowledge that their children are as liable to be ex- 
 cluded from that covenant, and consequently from salva- 
 tion, as those of ungodly parents. Indeed, it is truly 
 remarkable that they should claim the benefit of such an 
 arrangement for themselves, and deny it to poor Isaac and 
 Rebecca ; one of whose twin children, they tell us, was 
 elected to eternal salvation before it was born, and the 
 other passed by, and left to live in sin and be destroyed. 
 The argument of Dr. Miller : " Can it be, my friends, that 
 when the stem is in the Church, the branch is out of it ?" 
 is considered of no avail here. The elect must therefore 
 be content with their own election, and not claim the same 
 advantage for all their children. 
 
 The reader will be able to perceive by this time with 
 how much reason Mr. B. so earnestly asserts that the doc- 
 trine that infants may be lost, has no essential connection 
 
316 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 with Calvinism. He refers it to " the doctrine of the 
 imputation of Adam's sin, or our acting in him," as its 
 source. This " sentiment," he says, " is as fully held in 
 principle by Arminians as it ever w^as by their oppo- 
 nents." He thus attempts to involve Arminians in the 
 • same difficulty with himself. But this representation is 
 ' grossly sophistical. The difference between Arminianism 
 and Calvinism at this point is vast and essential. There 
 is a great gulf between them ; for whatever views Armi- 
 nians may entertain respecting the condition in which 
 Adam's offence placed his posterity, they maintain that 
 the principles and provisions of the mediatorial econo- 
 my place all infants within the precincts of the kingdom 
 of grace, and, therefore, in a condition of perfect security 
 while infants. This condition, they believe, may be sub- 
 sequently forfeited by voluntary transgression. They deny 
 the Calvinistic view of election to eternal life, and hold 
 that the election proceeds on principles very different from 
 those alleged by Calvinists. Besides, it is not the doc- 
 trine of imputation simply, however far it may be carried, 
 which endangers the salvation of infants. For the most 
 rigid Calvinists hold that the elect are secure, notwith- 
 standing this imputation. It is the limitation of the re- 
 deeming covenant and its spiritual blessings — the doctrine 
 of the election of a definite number to these privileges, 
 exclusive of the rest, which creates all the difficulty. It is 
 not the fact that all are diseased, which renders the death 
 of some inevitable, but the restricted application of the re- 
 medy. Nor does Mr. B. escape the difficulty by rejecting 
 the doctrine of imputation. His theory places all mankind 
 in precisely the same condition, so far as their prospect of 
 salvation is concerned, although by another process. He 
 holds, as we have shown, to the election of a definite num- 
 ber to eternal life — that mankind are distinguished as elect 
 and non-elect before they are bom, and, therefore, while 
 
NEW DININITY — CALVINISM. 317 
 
 they are infants. He justifies God in choosing to salva- 
 tion a " definite number," by representing all as " justly 
 condemned," and argues that God has therefore a " right to 
 save whom he pleases." He illustrates his argument by 
 saying, " The executive of a country may select any num- 
 ber of criminals whom he may see fit to pardon, or who 
 may be forgiven, in consistency with the supremacy of the 
 laws, and the welfare of the community, and none has a 
 right to murmur, but every good citizen should rejoice that 
 ■ any maybe pardoned with safety." — Notes on Rom. ix, 15. 
 Mr. B. holds to what may be called, for distinction's 
 sake, the constitution theory. In a review of " The Case 
 of Mr. Barnes," in the Christian Spectator for June, 1831, 
 adverting to the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, the 
 reviewer says, " In this scheme it is of course implied that 
 the evils which came on the posterity, came in the way, or 
 in the mode of a strictly legal process ; that the evils were 
 the legal penalty due to sin, and as such were inflicted on 
 the ground that the first sin of Adam was in its ill desert 
 the sin of aU his posterity." He then goes on to repu- 
 diate this doctrine, and give what he considers the truth on 
 the subject. " Now this mode of consequence, the New- 
 England divines, for more than sixty years, have generally 
 denied, and strenuously opposed ; and maintained simply, 
 in respect to the mode, that if Adam sinned, all his posterity, 
 according to God's sovereign constitution, would be subject to 
 sin and death. By the sovereignty of God here spoken of, 
 these divines have not intended that God ordained things 
 thus without good and sufficient reasons ; or that none of 
 these reasons are within the limits of human conjecture. 
 But they maintain that God has not seen proper to reveal 
 those reasons, and of course that we are not authorized to 
 assert that those evils came on Adam's posterity in execu- 
 tion of a legal sentence, or in the way of retributive justice 
 for their ill desert."— p. 298. 
 
 * 
 
318 NEW DIVINITr CALVIXISM. 
 
 The difierence, then, between these two classes of theo- 
 rists is this — they both hold that the posterity of Adam, in 
 consequence of sin, are " subjected to sin and death;" but 
 one class assigns, as a reason for the infliction of these 
 evils, that the posterity of Adam partook of the ill desert 
 of his sin, or that .the guilt of it was imputed to them, and 
 that the evils were, therefore, inflicted as a punishment ; 
 while the other maintains that these evils came on the pos- 
 terity of Adam as a consequence of his sin, by a " divine 
 constitution or appointment," but that God has not seen 
 fit to reveal his reasons for the adoption of this constitu- 
 tion. They do not, therefore, feel authorized to adopt the 
 imputation theory as furnishing the explanation. It seems 
 'to be the object of the reviewer to prove that both parties 
 come to the same result, both as to the condition of Adam's 
 posterity, and the fact that they come into that condition in 
 consequence of the sin of Adam. He concludes, finally, 
 that the dispute is " solely a dispute about words." 
 
 The policy of Mr. B., in thus referring the offensive 
 tenet to a doctrine with which it has no necessary con- 
 nection, was probably to divert attention from those doc- 
 trines to which it necessarily adheres; and likewise secure 
 to himself the advantage of including in his denial both 
 the tenet in question and the theory in which he says it 
 had its origin. 
 
 Mr. B. may possibly expect to escape the doctrine that 
 non-elect infants are sent to hell, by arguing, that as " in- 
 fants have no moral character" they are not subjects of 
 punishment or reward, and therefore cannot be consigned 
 to that place. But he would be met at this point by an- 
 other difficulty. The fact of their having " no moral cha- 
 racter" would as certainly exclude them from heaven as 
 from hell. There woidd be this bar to their reception 
 there, in addition to the circumstance of their not being 
 elected to salvation. And, still worse, this doctrine would 
 
NEW DIVINITY— CALVINISM. 319 
 
 exclude elect infants from heaven as certainly as the non- 
 elect • for none can enter heaven Avithout a moral cha- 
 racter. From that place all but the holy are excluded. 
 So that some other place or places than heaven and hell 
 must be found for both classes, or they must be annihi- 
 lated, Avhich Mr. Finney says might be done without m- 
 
 ^''u Ts impossible to give Calvinism any modification 
 which does not involve a denial of the salvation of all who 
 
 ■ die in infancy. 
 
 Mr. B. very confidently asserts "that in no Presbyte- 
 rian church in this country is it maintained to be a fact, 
 that infants are actually damned." In answer to this, 
 supposing him to be correctly informed, it might be re- 
 marked,' that to hold a doctrine, and to mamtam it, or 
 annovmce it publicly, are not the same thing at the present 
 day There may be some who hold it, and yet lay it 
 aside among their "sectarian peculiarities," and consider 
 it a very "unprofitable part of popular mstruction. 
 Whether this be the case or not, we frequently meet with 
 expressions in our reading which not only involve, as a 
 locrical consequence, the insecurity of some who die m 
 infancy, but indicate very strikingly that the mind of the 
 writer is far from being assured that all who die m infancy 
 are saved. In a pamphlet on " Native Depravity," by the 
 Rev. Gardiner Spring, pastor of the Brick Presbyterian 
 Church in the city of New-York, may be found the fol- 
 lowing language :— -, , , 
 
 " The sentiment has often been imputed to the advo- 
 cates of native depravity, that they do not believe in the sal- 
 vation of infants. But nothing is more false or unjust than 
 this imputation. That the grace of God, through Jesus 
 Christ, rescues all infants from perdition, I do not deny, 
 but fondly hope ; that it rescues untold millions I have not 
 a doubt Out of the mouths of bales and sucklings hast thou 
 
 t 
 
320 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 perfected praise. Children are the heritage of the Lord, and 
 the fruit of the xvomb is his reioard. But while we say this, 
 we also say that God is not bound in justice to save them ; 
 and that whether he saves a whole or a part, he saves 
 them as a matter of mere mercy, through the blood of his 
 Son."— p. 52. 
 
 Let us consider this singular passage. It professes to 
 resent, as very false and unjust, the imputation that " the 
 advocates of native depravity do not believe in the salva- 
 tion of infants." But it is not the case, that this is im- 
 puted to the advocates of native depravity, as such, for the 
 Methodists hold to native depravity, and yet who imputes 
 ■ to them the belief that infants are not saved ? It is im- 
 puted to Calvinists, not because they believe in native de- 
 pravity, but because they believe in the election of a cer- 
 tain number to eternal life, before they were born, to the 
 exclusion of the rest. Besides, no one imputes to them 
 that they do not believe in the salvation of a?ii/ but that 
 they do not believe in the salvation of all infants. Dr. 
 S., however, represents the imputation as being that they 
 .do not believe in the salvation of infants ; so that he mis- 
 represents a little in making out the charge of misrep- 
 resentation against others. He can easily pronounce 
 such an imputation false and unjust, without committing 
 himself to the support of the doctrine that all who die in 
 infancy are safe. We must, however, accord to him the 
 credit of having fabricated the imputation for the pur- 
 pose of contradicting it ; and at the same time seeming to 
 contradict the imputation which is actually urged against 
 them. But mark how he treats the supposition that the 
 grace of God rescues all infants from perdition. He does 
 not deny it, hut fondly hopes that it is the case. This, then, 
 is the amount of his confidence when the proposition in- 
 cludes all infants. When it includes a part only, see how 
 he brightens up ! That the grace of God rescues untold 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 321 
 
 millions he has not a doubt. But how is it, that with re- 
 spect to the salvation of some infants, he merely declines a 
 denial, and but fondly hopes, while with respect to the 
 case of others he has the fullest assurance ? Why does he 
 not entertain the same delightful confidence respecting all 
 infants? His theory will solve these questions. Someof those 
 infants are elect, and others are not. And lest his readers 
 should be misled by his fond hopes in behalf of the non- 
 elect, he notifies them that, whether God saves the whole 
 or a part, he is not bound in justice to save them ; which 
 "implies that he might damn them without injustice. If 
 Dr. S. does not believe in the damnation of some infants, 
 he certainly Avalks very near the boundary wliich divides 
 a full belief in this doctrine from uncertainty respecting it ; 
 and we are quite inclined to thinlc that we might impute 
 to him that he does not confidently believe in the salvation 
 of all infants, without either falsehood or injustice. But 
 we have not done with this subject. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 Mr. Barnes admits, though with regret, that a few have 
 held the doctrine that infants may be lost. He mentions 
 Dr*. Gill and Dr. Twisse as of this number. He might 
 with equal propriety have mentioned Calvin in this con- 
 nection, after whom his favourite system is named. Per- 
 haps it was more in accordance with his feelings of re- 
 gret to throw him among the " few others." The following 
 passage is sufficient to declare Calvin's opinion on the sub- 
 ject : — " How came it to pass that the fall of Adam, inde- 
 pendent of any remedy, should involve so many nations, 
 14* 
 
322 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 with their infant children, in eternal death ? But such was 
 the will of God ! ! It was a horrible decree, I confess ; but 
 no one can deny that God foreknew the future state of man 
 before he created him ; and that he did foreknow it, because 
 it was appointed by his own decree.'''' — Calvin's Institutes, 
 b. iii, chap, xxiii, sect. 6. 
 
 There is, also, an avowal of this horrible doctrine in a 
 recent number of the New-York Observer, no less explicit 
 than that which we have just recorded. 
 
 A writer in the " Christian Review" advanced the fol- 
 lowing argument on the subject of war : — 
 
 " Look at an army in the hour of battle. See attagks 
 and retreats, battalions annihilated, commanders falling, 
 shouts of onset, groans of death, horses trampling the 
 fallen, limbs flying in the air, suffocating smoke, thunder- 
 ing artillery, thousands smarting in the agony of death, and 
 none to administer a cup of water. Do the precepts of 
 Christianity authorize such a scene ? Would such an ex- 
 hibition ever grow out of its legitimate effects ?" 
 
 To this the editor of the Observer replied : — " A scene 
 far more awful than this is certainly authorized by Chris- 
 tianity, and will ' grow out of its legitimate cfl'ects ;' a 
 scene which will call to suffering, not only the hardy sol- 
 dier, but human beings of every age, sex, and condition — > 
 male and female, the lame, the sick, the blind, the deaf, 
 the aged, and the infant. Even the grave shall be no hid- 
 ing place from its demands. The dust shall be gathered 
 up, and the mummy reanimated, and the power of feeling 
 pain shall be restored to them. And they shall be swept 
 off', millions on millions, into the lake of fire, burning with 
 brimstone, where their worm shall not die, neither shall 
 their fire be quenched, but the smoke of their torment shall 
 ascend up for ever and ever. And no one engaged in 
 bringing this to pass will shrink from this task, but ail will 
 perform their appointed parts with alacrity, and shout over 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 323 
 
 the sight of this vast destruction, Hallelujah, for the Lord 
 God omnipotent reigneth ! Neither, while thus engaged, 
 will they be impelled by any sinful passion, nor will any 
 unholy thought or feeling have place in their hearts ; but 
 they will be filled with the very spirit of their most kind 
 and merciful Master, and be guided in every act by the 
 mind which was also in him. 
 
 " That Christianity sanctions, and will bring on such a 
 scene as this, the reviewer, Ave doubt not, most fully be- 
 lieves. Why, then, should he think that Christianity, from 
 its very nature, cannot sanction the infliction of the sufier- 
 ings which he describes on those who come upon us for 
 the purpose of devastation and murder, and can be re- 
 strained in no other way from accomplishing their horrid 
 ohiectr—Neic -York Observer, Sept. 15, 1838. 
 
 The editors of the Christian Advocate and Journal 
 called attention to this open declaration of a doctrine, 
 which, wc are told, no Calvinists of the present day hold or 
 maintain. The editor of the Observer saw that he had 
 committed himself, and made an eflbrt to extricate him- 
 self from his unhappy position. But how? He could 
 not deny that he had affirmed the damnation of infants. 
 He had not only included in the destruction " human 
 beings of every age," but specified " the infant," placing 
 it in contrast with " the aged." Nor could he deny 
 that the " sufl'ering " predicated was damnation. For 
 he had said that the grave should be " no hiding place" 
 from it, whereas the grave is a hiding place from suffering 
 to all who are saved. He had said, moreover, that they 
 should " be swept off, millions on millions, into the lake 
 of fire, burning with brimstone," &c. He does not pretend 
 to deny that he had asserted the damnation of infants. In 
 Avhat Avay, then, does he attempt to work out his deliver- 
 ance ? By preposterously trifling with the meaning of 
 the term infant. But the entire reply of the Observer is 
 
324 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 worthy of a permanent record, as belonging to the history 
 of this controversy. 
 
 " Damnation of infants. — The editor of the Christian 
 Advocate thinks we have avowed an uncomfortable doc- 
 trine on this subject ; but very possibly he holds the same 
 doctrine as much as we do. What does he understand by 
 the word ' infant ?' Webster defines it, ' the first period 
 of life, beginning at birth,' — not telling us when it ends. 
 He adds that, in law, infancy extends to the age of twenty- 
 one. Some writers make infancy extend to the age of seven, 
 childhood from seven to fourteen, &c. Theologians scold 
 or speculate about ' infant damnation,' but do not stop to 
 think whether they have any meaning in particular or not ; 
 and generally they have none, except that those on the 
 'other side arc awful heretics. If the editor of the Advo- 
 cate will define the term, and then consider the question, 
 perhaps he will agree Avith us ; and perhaps we shall 
 amend our phraseology." — N. Y. Observer, Oct. 26, 1838. 
 
 It is clearly apparent to us, whatever impression may 
 be made on the minds of others, by the answer, that he 
 has no notion of giving up the doctrine asserted. On 
 the contrary, he intimates, that if the editor of the Ad- 
 vocate will define the term " infant," and then consider 
 the question, — if he Avill only make his definition wido 
 enough to include the ages of which moral accountability 
 may be undeniably predicated — if, for instance, he Avill 
 adopt the definition which extends infancy to twenty-one 
 years of age, " possibly,'' and " perhaps," he will hold the 
 same doctrine, and agree with the editor of the Observer. 
 So that the agreement is to be brought about, not by a de- 
 nial of this doctrine on the part of the Observer, but by an 
 admission of it on the part of the Advocate. 
 
 If the editors of the Christian Advocate and Journal, 
 and those for whom they write, held, the doctrine of " in- 
 fant damnation" and yet desired to escape the odium of it, 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 325 
 
 they would probably be very thankful for this definition. 
 It would render the term equivocal, which would be of 
 immense advantage. But they have no occasion for it. 
 They are satisfied with the signification attached to it by 
 theologians of all creeds. There is no term, the theologi- 
 cal use of which is more uniform and better understood. 
 
 We would ask what period of life Mr. Leavitt refers to, 
 when he says, " As there is nothing that we can do for 
 these little ones to fit them for heaven ;" or Mr. Duflield, 
 when he speaks of transferring them " forthwith, as soon 
 as they come into the Avorld ;" or Dr. Cox, when he tells 
 us that " if Scripture had affirmed the salvation of all in- 
 fants, or any class of them under a certain age, the conse- 
 quences had been terrible ;" or Dr Spring, when he calls 
 them " babes and sucklings ;" or Calvin, Avhen he quali- 
 fies the term children by the term infant ? Perhaps these 
 men never thought to define the term, and had no mean- 
 ing in particular, " except that those on the other side are 
 awful heretics." 
 
 We would suggest to the editor of the Observer, that 
 while he is engaged in bringing the Methodists over to 
 the doctrine of the damnation of infants, he might apply 
 the same means, with the same effect, for the purpose of 
 bringing the Baptists over to the doctrine of infant baptism. 
 Let them only give the term " infant" a definition which 
 will include the ages of fourteen, twenty, &c., and they 
 will have no right to " scold" or " speculate" on the sub- 
 ject, but will be fairly convicted of holding to infant bap- 
 tism " as much as we do." 
 
 This reply of the Observer is commended to the notice 
 of the reader, as a specimen of the manner in which Cal- 
 vinists frequently attempt to escape from the grasp of their 
 opponents. They avail themselves of some far-fetched, 
 and often ridiculous, interpretation ; they claim superior 
 precision and learning ; and intimate that the objections 
 
326 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 urged against them have their origin in ignorance, or a 
 misconception of tlie subject. Whether the readers of 
 the Observer are satisfied with the editor's explanation, or 
 not, we have no means of ascertaining. We suppose, 
 however, that all are satisfied with it, who have intelli- 
 gence enough to appreciate its profound erudition. 
 
 These, then, are the results of our inquiries on the sub- 
 ject under consideration : — 
 
 1. We have shown, we think, by clear and unanswer- 
 able argument, that the doctrine that all infants dying in 
 infancy are not saved, is a logical consequence of several 
 of the leading tenets of Calvinism. 
 
 2. We find one believer in that system expressing the 
 "Utmost confidence in the salvation of "untold millions," 
 
 but there are others pf whom he " fondly hopes" that they 
 are saved — he does not deny that this is the case. And 
 he cannot go beyond this in a passage written expressly 
 for the purpose of vindicating himself from the imputation 
 of not believing in the salvation of all infants. 
 
 3. Another declares, that we are left in entire ignorance 
 as to the fate of deceased infants — that this is one of the 
 secret things which belong to God. He declines, for this 
 reason, forming any opinion on the subject, and intimates 
 a reluctance to discuss it, affirming that the cause of piety 
 can gain nothing from its discussion. 
 
 4. Another not only asserts that Ave are wholly unin- 
 formed respecting the future condition of infants, but 
 brings forward a series of grave arguments against the 
 supposition that all infants dying in infancy are saved. 
 
 5. Another not only considers that we are in absolute 
 ignorance on this point, and argues against the doctrine 
 that all infants are saved, but also finds strong presump- 
 tions for the damnation of some infants. 
 
 6. While another positively affirms the doctrine that 
 infants are swept into the lake of fire and brimstone. 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 327 
 
 And all these writers are now living, and are ministers 
 of the gospel, or editors of leading periodicals. Three 
 of them, Rev. Messrs. Leavitt, Duffield, and Cox, are 
 known as leading New School Calvinists. Of the Rev. 
 Dr. Spring, a writer in the Presbyterian, (an Old School 
 paper,) says : " And does not Dr. Spring, of New-York, 
 one of the wisest men of the age, and once the glory of 
 the New School, now stand amazed at the daring strides 
 of error ? And has he not, on this account, retired, and 
 cast in his lot with the Old School ? And he is still a 
 Hopkinsian." The editor of the New-York Observer 
 professes to be neutral, but his sympathies are obviously 
 with the New School party, and the Old School papers so 
 understand him. 
 
 We therefore conclude that we are fully justified in 
 saying,- that the New School party carry their Calvinism 
 so far as to involve in doubt the doctrine that all who die 
 in infancy are saved. 
 
 Indeed the single position that God has made no reve- 
 lation on the subject of the future destiny of deceased in- 
 fants is very suspicious, especially in view of the Saviour's 
 declaration, " Suffer little children to come unto me, and 
 forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of God," 
 Luke xviii, 16, a declaration quoted by the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith to prove the salvation of elect infants. 
 If this position be true, no mother has a right to conclude 
 that her departed infant has gone to heaven. Nor can the 
 minister who believes it afford her this consolation. He 
 may say he does not believe that it is damned, but then he 
 means only that he is in absolute ignorance on the subject, 
 and therefore has no right to believe either way. We 
 would also suggest whether this position does not. entirely 
 destroy the basis of infant baptism. How can ministers 
 baptize infants, when they are in entire ignorance respect- 
 ing their relations to the kingdom of God ? But they con- 
 
328 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 tradict themselves grossly. For in the very argument in 
 which Mr. Duffield undertakes to prove our entire igno- 
 rance of the case of infants, he tells us that the children 
 of believers are included in the covenant of grace. 
 
 We are forcibly reminded by this doctrine of the an- 
 swer of the chief priests and elders to our Saviour, when 
 he asked them whether the baptism of John was " from 
 heaven, or of men." " They reasoned with themselves, say- 
 ing. If we shall say from heaven, he will say, Why then be- 
 lieved ye him not ? But if we say of men, all the people 
 will stone us, for they be persuaded that John was a pro- 
 phet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence 
 it was." The advocates of the Calvinistic system per- 
 ceive that if they admit that all infants dying in infancy 
 are safe, they destroy the foundation of their system. If 
 they admit the damnation of some infants, they arouse 
 against it one of the most powerful feelings of humanity. 
 They therefore beg to be excused from forming any 
 opinion on the subject. They have no information, and 
 so had better have no theory. They answer, " We can- 
 not tell." 
 
 The arguments used against the doctrine of Methodism, 
 respecting the salvation of infants, are too futile for refuta- 
 tion ; but they serve to conclusively show the sentiments 
 of those who employ them. Who could believe a doc- 
 trine which he supposes chargeable with such destructive 
 tendencies ? " If this doctrine were generally and reve- 
 rently received, it would lead to terrible consequences — 
 even to infanticide. Parents would probably put their 
 children to death, to secure their salvation." Hear this, 
 ye Arminians, and wonder how it is that you have not 
 murdered all your children, and been hung and damned, 
 long since ! ! 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 329 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 The evidence adduced to prove that the teachers of 
 New Divinity are Calvinists, must be more than sufficient 
 to convince our readers that this is the case. We now 
 propose to iUustrate the manner in which they endeavour 
 to reconcile the restrictive doctrines of Calvinism with the 
 offers of a free salvation, &c. This part of the argument 
 has been, to some extent, anticipated, but its importance 
 claims for it a more particular and extensive conside- 
 ration. 
 
 Foremost among the devices for this purpose stands the 
 distinction of ability into natural and moral. The manner 
 in which it is applied, has been already several times 
 pointed out. It is affirmed, that all have a natural ability 
 to repent and believe the gospel, but that all have not the 
 moral ability. The natural ability is relied on as justify- 
 ing the offer of salvation to all, the universal obligation to 
 repentance and faith, and the condemnation and eternal 
 punishment of all who do not repent, believe, and obey the 
 gospel ; while the moral inability secures the doctrines of 
 Calvinism. The grace of God is absolutely necessary to 
 overcome this inability, and that grace is imparted to none 
 but the elect. 
 
 A very striking exemplification of the position which 
 we have assumed, respecting the use of this distinction, is 
 furnished by Ryland's edition of the Life of the Rev. An- 
 drew Fuller, an eminent minister of the Baptist persuasion 
 in England, who was one of the warmest and ablest advo- 
 cates of modern Calvinism. He was educated in that 
 denomination, and very early imbibed the Calvinistic faith. 
 Very soon after his conversion, he became engaged in 
 
330 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 doctrinal disputes. The question of man's ability to obey 
 God seems tahave created his first difficulties, and started 
 his investigations. A short time after his baptism, and 
 uniting in church fellowship with the Baptists, an affair 
 occurred which brought it fairly before him^ The cir- 
 cumstances are related by himself. " One of the members 
 having been guilty of drinking to excess, I was the first 
 who knew of it. I immediately went and talked to him, 
 as well as I could, on the evil of his conduct. His an- 
 swer was, he could not keep himself, and that though I 
 bore so hard on him, I was not my own keeper. At this 
 I felt indignant, considering it as a bad excuse. I there- 
 fore told him that he could keep himself from such sins as 
 these, and that his way of talking was merely to excuse 
 what was inexcusable. I knew not what else to say at 
 that time, yet the idea of arrogating to be my own keeper 
 seemed too much. He however was offended, and told 
 me that I was young, and did not know the deceitfulness 
 of my own heart. Well, I went and told my pastor, who 
 liighly commended me, and said we could keep ourselves 
 from open sins. We had no power, he observed, to do 
 things spiritually good ; but as to outward acts, we had 
 power both to obey the will of God and to disobey it. 
 
 '.' The business soon came before the church, and the 
 offender was unanimously excluded ; the excuse which 
 he had made, too, was considered by all, I believe, as an 
 aggravation of his offence. But, this affair being disposed 
 of, the abstract question, of the power of sinful men to do 
 the will of God, and to keep themselves from sin, was taken 
 up by some of the leading members of the Church. They 
 readily excused me, as being a babe in religion ; but 
 thought the pastor ought to have known better, and to 
 have been able to ansAver the offender, Avithout betraying 
 the truth. They alleged, that the greatest and best of 
 characters, as recorded in Scripture, never arrogated to 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 331 
 
 themselves the power of keeping themselves from evil, but 
 constantly prayed for keeping grace ; that, were it not for 
 the restraining goodness and constraining grace of God, 
 earth would be a hell, and the best of men incarnate 
 devils. In short, that, though we are altogether blame- 
 worthy for our evil propensities, yet if they were restrained 
 or conquered, it was altogether to be ascribed to God, and 
 not to us. 
 
 " On the other hand, the pastor distinguished between 
 internal and external power. He allowed that men had no 
 power of themselves to perform any thing spiritually good ; 
 but contended that they could yield external obedience, 
 and keep themselves from open acts of sin. In proof of 
 this, he alleged a great number of Scripture exhortations ; 
 asking, if we had no power to comply with them, why 
 they were given us. The opponents did not deny our 
 being exhorted to do good, and to avoid evil, nor that it 
 was our duty to do both, and our sin to act otherwise ; 
 but they denied that this implied our being sufficient of 
 ourselves to do any tiling, even to think a good thought. 
 
 " In these disputes, I continued for some time on the 
 side of my pastor ; but, after a few months, I felt difficul- 
 ties on the subject, which I coidd not answer, and which 
 rendered me unhappy. I perceived that some kind of 
 power was necessary to render us accoimtable beings. If 
 we were like stocks or stones, or literally dead, like men 
 in a burying ground, we could with no more propriety 
 than they be commanded to perform any duty. If we 
 were mere machines, there could be no sin chargeable 
 upon us. Yet, on the other hand, the Scriptures expressly 
 affirm that ' the way of man is not in himself,' and repre- 
 sent the godly as crying to Heaven for preservation from 
 evil, ascribing all the good that was in them to Him who 
 worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure. 
 I prayed much, and laboured hard to solve this difficulty." 
 
332 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 This controversy eventuated in a separation between 
 the pastor and the church. The doctrine of ability con- 
 tinued to be the absorbing topic with Mr. Fuller ; and a 
 short time afterward he met with a distinction in reading 
 a work of Dr. Gill, between the power of the hand and 
 the power of the heart. He eagerly seized upon it, as 
 furnishing the all-important desideratum. He says, "This, 
 (thought I,) is the clew to our dispute. Every man has 
 it in the power of his hand to do good, and abstain from 
 evil ; and this is it which makes us accountable beings. 
 We can do, or forbear to do this or that, if we have a 
 mind ; but many have not a mind, and none would have 
 such a mind, but for the restraining goodness or constrain- 
 . ing grace of God. We have it in the power of our hands 
 to do good, but we are disposed to do evil ; and so to do 
 good is not naturally in the power of our hearts." 
 
 About the time of his conversion and entrance into the 
 ministry, the Calvinistic churches in England were agi- 
 tated by the question, " Whether it be the duty of aU men, 
 to whom the gospel is published, to repent and believe the 
 gospel." This was called the " modern question." 
 That such a question should ever divide ministers of the 
 gospel seems strange enough. Writers engaged warmly 
 on both sides. 
 
 Those Avho wrote on the negative side seem to have 
 argued from the principles of Calvinism, which amply and 
 firmly sustained them ; showing that inasmuch as the im- 
 regenerate or reprobate have no power to repent or believe 
 the gospel, and as God had not intended or provided for 
 their salvation, but predestinated their destruction, it can- 
 not be their duty to repent and believe ; that they have no 
 warrant to believe in Christ, as he did not redeem them ; 
 that for God to require them to believe in Christ as their 
 Saviour, would be to require them to believe a lie in order 
 to salvation ; and then, as there is no salvation for them, 
 
NEW DIVINITV CAIA^INISM. 333 
 
 to damn them at all events. Those who espoused the 
 affirmative argued from the word of God, which was un- 
 doubtedly on their side. But the task devolved on them 
 of reconciling the obligation of all men to repent and be- 
 lieve with the partial tenets of their creed. Here they 
 were compelled to labour with unavailing toil. As a mat- 
 ter of course, the manner of addressing sinners from the 
 pulpit, observed by these preachers, was greatly influenced 
 by the views which they respectively entertained on this 
 question. 
 
 Those who carried out the principles of Calvinism to 
 their legitimate consequences were " restrained from imi- 
 tating our Lord and his apostles, in calling sinners to re- 
 pent and beheve the gospel." The distinctions which 
 they made between internal and external pov/er — be- 
 tween the power of the hand and the power of the heart 
 — enabled them to address, to some extent, the consciences 
 of sinners — to admonish them to abstain from open and 
 flagrant wickedness, and attend on the means of grace, 
 and act like orderly citizens ; but they could say nothing 
 to them from the pulpit in the way of warning them to flee 
 from the wrath to come, or inviting them to apply to Christ 
 for salvation. 
 
 It is obvious that these distinctions, instead of relieving 
 Calvinism of its difliculties, serve only to render them 
 more fearfully visible. While they separate obedience to 
 that part of the law of God which relates to outward acts, 
 by wliich alone human society is directly benefited or in- 
 jured, from inward, spiritual principle, they lead to the 
 conclusion, that the utmost efforts of which the non-elect 
 are capable must be utterly unavailing to their salvation. 
 These outcasts may so far conform to the divine law as 
 to relieve the elect from the necessity of living in the 
 midst of an openly vicious and persecuting population, 
 help them to build churches, support ministers, acquire 
 
334 NKW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 property, and may become in all respects the more humble 
 servants of the elect ; but they cannot escape the damna- 
 tion of hell. 
 
 Mr. Fuller was at this time a decided and consistent 
 Calvinist ; and although his mind had become somewhat 
 agitated and unsettled by the disputes in which he had 
 been involved, he did not, durst not, for some years, address 
 an invitation to the imconverted to come to Jesus. He 
 had very little to say to the unconverted ; at least, nothing 
 in a way of exhortation to things spiritually good or cer- 
 tainly connected with salvation. He read some authors, 
 who, while they maintained the doctrines of election and 
 predestination, nevertheless held with the free offer of 
 salvation to sinners without distinction, and dealt in free 
 invitations to sinners to come to Christ and be saved — 
 Bunyan, for instance, and all the old writers of the six- 
 teenth and seventeenth centuries, that came in his way. 
 But the consistency of these invitations with personal elec- 
 tion he could not understand. These were things which 
 he could not then reconcile. He supposed that Bunyan, 
 though a great and good man, was not so clear in his 
 views of the doctrines of the gospel as the writers who 
 succeeded him. He perceived that the Scriptures abound- 
 ed with exhortations and invitations to sinners ; but he 
 supposed there must be two kinds of holiness — one of 
 which was possessed by man in innocence, and was bind- 
 ing on all his posterity — the other derived from Christ, 
 and binding only on his people. The exhortations to re- 
 pentance and faith, addressed in the Ncav Testament to 
 the unconverted, he supposed to refer only to such exter- 
 nal repentance and faith as were within their power, and 
 might be complied with without the grace of God. 
 
 Notwithstanding the plausibility with which these dis- 
 tinctions on the subject of power first presented themselves 
 to the mind of Mr. Fuller, he did not long continue satis- 
 
-\EW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 335 
 
 fied with them ; and no wonder. They show to what 
 desperate subterfuges Calvinism compels its votaries. 
 He began to doubt whether he had the truth respecting 
 this subject : — " I perceived," says he, " that the will of 
 God was not contined to mere outward actions, but ex- 
 N tended to the inmost thoughts and intents of the heart. 
 The distinction of duties therefore into internal and exter- 
 nal, and making the latter only concern the unregenerate, 
 wore a suspicious appearance. But as I perceived this 
 reasoning would aflect the whole tenor of my preaching, 
 I moved on with slow and trembling steps ; and, havin*!- 
 to feel my way out of a lab%Tinth. I was a Ion? time ere I 
 was satistied." 
 
 Shortly after tliis period he visited London, where he 
 met with a pamplilet which reWved all his doubts as to 
 the correctness of liis theorv', both with respect to the 
 duty of siimers, and of ministers in addressing them. 
 This pamphlet was written by Dr. Abraham Tavlor, of 
 London, on the atlinnative side of the modem question. 
 " I had never (says :Mr. Fidler) seen any thing relative to 
 this controversy before, although the subject, as I have 
 stated, had occupied my thoughts. I was but little im- 
 pressed by his reasonings till he came to the addresses 
 of John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles, which he 
 proved to be addressed to the ungodly, and to mean spi- 
 ritual repentance and faith, inasmuch as thev were con- 
 nected with the remission of sins. This set me fast. I 
 read and examined the Scripture passages ; and the more 
 I read and tliought, the more I doubted the justice of my 
 former views." He also, about the same time, met with 
 a sermon which increased liis ditlicultics, and he became 
 very unhappy. He doubted the correctness of his ^-iews 
 and his preaching, and yet was not fully convinced of 
 their inaccuracy. What he wanted was cvideutlv a more 
 satisfactory method of reconciling the obligation of all 
 
336 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 men to repent and believe the gospel, and the free offer 
 of salvation to sinners, with the foreorJination of all events, 
 and the personal unconditional election of a part of man- 
 kind to eternal life, to the absolute exclusion of all the 
 rest. 
 
 Very opportunely, at this most critical juncture, our be- 
 vi'ildered theologian met with the distinction of ability into 
 natural and moral, and the theory of natural ability and 
 moral inability. This relieved him. For, by attributing 
 to the sinner a natural or physical ability, he felt himself 
 justified in calling on sinners to repent and believe. While 
 by the doctrine of a moral inability, which nothing but the 
 special and distinguishing grace of God can remove, he 
 secured his darling Calvinism. This grace is given to 
 none but the elect, so that, notwithstanding the natural 
 ability, none but the elect can be saved. He particularly 
 mentions that his change of views on duty and ability 
 never abated his zeal for Calvinism, but, in some respects, 
 increased it. He declares that he never had any predi- 
 lections for Arminianism ; which appeared to him to as- 
 cribe the diff'erence between one sinner and another, not 
 to the effectual grace of God, but to the good improvement 
 made of grace given us in common with others. 
 
 The source to which Mr. F. was indebted for this won- 
 derful and invaluable discovery — this solution of all his 
 difficulties — was Dr. Jonathan Edwards' Treatise on the 
 Will ; to whom, it would seem, belongs the honour of 
 elaborating the subject of power to these sublimated forms 
 of exhibition. This work appears to have been working, 
 at that time, most wonderful effects on the minds of trans- 
 atlantic theologians. It was recommended to Mr. Fuller 
 by the Rev. Mr. Hall of Arnsby. 
 
 The case of Mr. Fuller has been introduced, at length, 
 because it clearly illustrates and confirms the position de- 
 signed to be established ; and presents the interesting 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISJI. 337 
 
 Spectacle of a great and honest mind struggling with the 
 difficulties of that perplexing creed to which he was de- 
 voted. And, no doubt, we have presented in this example 
 the process of hundreds of minds, in advancing from the 
 same starting point to the same conclusions. The Rev. 
 Mr. Ryland, the author of these memoirs, states his own 
 experience on this subject in a note : — " The sixty-second 
 of Samuel Rutherford's letters was one of the first things 
 that put me to a stand on this subject. Closely studying 
 Edwards on the Will, and entering into the distinction be- 
 tween natural and moral ability, removed the difficulties 
 which had once embarrassed my mind. In 1776, I bor- 
 rowed of Mr. Newton, of Olney, two sermons on this sub- 
 ject by Mr. Smalley, which Brother Sutcliffe afterward 
 reprinted from the copy which I transcribed. I well re- 
 member lending them to Mr. Hall, of Arnsby, to whom I 
 remarked, that I was ready to suspect that this distinction, 
 Avell considered, would lead us to see that the affirmative 
 side of the modern question was fulli/ consistent with the 
 strictest Calvinism. He replied, 'I do not think that.' 
 But, I believe, the next time I met him was at a ministers' 
 meeting at Kettering, when I found he was fully satisfied 
 with the truth of my observations. And in another note 
 he says, ' I question much if any man can steer clear of 
 false Calvinism, on the one hand, and real Arminianism 
 on the other, without entering into the distinction between 
 natural and moral ability, as it is called." 
 
 The sermons by Mr. Smalley, just referred to, fell into 
 our hands several years since. The distinction is thus 
 stated and applied by that author: "These two kinds 
 of inability, as I hinted, have commonly been distin- 
 guished by calling one a natural ability, the other a 
 moral ability; which distinction may be briefly stated 
 thus— moral inability consists only in the want of a 
 heart, or disposition, or will to do a thing. Natural 
 
 15 
 
338 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 inability, on the other hand, consists in, or arises from, 
 want of understanding, bodily strength, opportunity, or 
 whatever may prevent our doing a thing when we are 
 willing, and strongly enough disposed and inclined to do 
 it. Or in fewer words, thus — whatever a man could not 
 do if he would, he is under a natural inability of doing. 
 But when all the reason why one cannot do a thing is, 
 because he does not choose to do it, the inability is only 
 of a moral nature. 
 
 " The point of doctrine which I shall insist on from 
 these words is this : That none are able to comply with 
 the gospel but those who are the subjects of the special 
 and effectual grace of God, or those who are made willing 
 and do actually comply Avith it." 
 
 The title of these sermons is, " The Inability of the Sin- 
 ner to comply with the Gospel, and his Inexcusable Guilt 
 in not complying with it, and these two reconciled." 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 The distinction which is the subject of the preceding 
 chapter is resorted to by Mr. Barnes, for the same pur- 
 pose. In a note to his sermon on " The Way of Salva- 
 tion," he remarks : " If God requires more of men than 
 in any sense they are able to perform, then, in the practi- 
 cal judgment of all men, according to the reason he has 
 given them, he is unjust. That there is something which 
 makes certain the result that a sinner will not, of himself, 
 believe, is the doctrine of the New Testament, John 
 V, 40 ; vi, 44. If this be such as in all cases to put it be- 
 yond his power to do it, then it frees him from obligation ; 
 if not, he may be urged still to do it. The distinction, 
 
NEW DIVINITY— CALVINISM. 339 
 
 then, between natural and moral ability referred to here, 
 is not one of mere speculation." This passage plainly in- 
 dicates the use of this distinction. Man must be sup- 
 posed to have ability " in some sense," or he is " free 
 from obligation," and yet there is something which 
 " makes certain the result that the sinner will not of him- 
 self believe." This want of will on the part of the sinner, 
 which something makes certain, is the moral inability. 
 
 Mr. B. frequently asserts the necessity of the special 
 agency of the Holy Spirit in order to conversion. In the 
 sermon just referred to, he observes : " If the last point 
 which I suggested be true, that all are disposed to reject 
 the scheme, then it would seem to follow, that if any are 
 saved, it, will be by the special agency of God." — De- 
 fence^ p. 27. 
 
 His theory also restricts this indispensable agency to a 
 portion of mankind. "If then," he says, "God renews the 
 heart by his Holy Spirit — if he begins and carries on the 
 work in all that shall be saved, and holds the power of 
 doing this over all men, and does not thus incline all to 
 come to him, and it be asked, as well it may be, why he 
 does not renew and save all — we have only to say, that 
 all do not choose to be saved, and vnll not come to him." 
 This is a very convenient solution of the question, why 
 God does not exert the influence on all men which he 
 does on some. But Mr. B. knew that according to his 
 scheme there is a cause beyond the choice of the sinner. 
 He holds that none will " come to Christ" and " choose 
 to be saved, unless God makes them willing — that the re- 
 sult is invariably the expression of the divine decree." Is 
 it not remarkable, then, that he should assign as a reason 
 why God does not " incline all to come to him," that all 
 are not previously inclined? The reason assigned for 
 this special agency, in any case, is, that without it notv& 
 will "choose'^ and ^*will" and be inclined to come to 
 
340 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 Christ ; so that the reason why he inclines some, is given 
 as the reason why he does not incline others. 
 
 But he comes to the point at last. "If it be asked 
 why the great Sovereign of the world does not constrain 
 them to come, and bring all to heaven, I answer, my 
 power of reason fails ; my understanding faints, and is 
 weary ; and I ask also, why he did not keep by his power 
 men and devils from falling, and save the universe from 
 sin and sorrow altogether ? Secret things belong to God, 
 and I can only say, as God's only-begotten Son said long 
 since, ' Even so. Father, for so it seemeth good in thy 
 sight.' " 
 
 We are now clearly informed that the special influence 
 absolutely necessary to conversion and salvation, is 
 vouchsafed to some and withheld from others ; and Mr. 
 B. acknowledges his inability to account for the discrimi- 
 nation otherwise than by resolving it into the good plea- 
 sure of God. Here is the doctrine of the unconditional 
 election of some to eternal life. 
 
 He advances the same sentiment in the following note, 
 on the words " WAom he will he hardeneth" Rom. ix. " The 
 word hardeneth means only to harden in the manner spe- 
 cified in the case of Pharaoh. It does not mean to exert 
 a positive influence, but to leave a sinner to his chosen 
 course, and to place him in circumstances where the 
 character will be more and more developed. — See note 
 John xii, 40. It implies, however, an act of sovereignty 
 on the part of God in thus leaving him to his chosen 
 course, and in not putting forth that influence by which 
 he could be saved from death. Why this is the apostle 
 does not state. We should, however, not dispute a fact 
 every where prevalent, and should have sufficient confi- 
 dence in God to believe that it is in accordance with infi- 
 nite wisdom and rectitude." 
 
 We are here expressly informed that it is " a fact every 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 341 
 
 where prevalent" that God, as an " act of sovereignty,'* 
 leaves some sinners to their " chosen course," and declines 
 " putting forth the influence by which they could be saved 
 from death ;" and it as clearly implies that there are others 
 whom he does not leave to their " chosen course," but 
 " puts forth, in their case, the necessary influence." It is 
 also intimated that the reason for this discrimination 
 is unknown. 
 
 It is also a part of Mr. B.'s system, that God saves men 
 in every instance in which he designs to save them, notwith- 
 standing their unwillingness. In his note on " Not of him 
 that willeth" he remarks, '* This does not mean that he 
 that becomes a Christian and is saved does not choose 
 eternal life, or is not made willing ; or that he is com- 
 pelled to enter heaven against his choice. It is true that 
 men by nature have no desire of holiness, and do not 
 choose eternal life. But the efiect of the influence of 
 God's Spirit on the heart is to make it ' willing in the day 
 of his power.' " 
 
 The doctrine of this comment is, not only, that without 
 the influences of God's Spirit on the heart, " men have 
 no desire of holiness and do not choose eternal life," but 
 also, that the effect of the influence of the Spirit is to 
 make willing those who are unwilling. True, he cautions 
 against the supposition that men become Christians with- 
 out choosing, or that they are compelled against their 
 choice. But if they choose, it is, according to his theory, 
 because they are made to choose — because they are 
 " made willing." If they are not " compelled against 
 their choice" it is because their choice itself is compelled 
 in the prescribed direction. He tells us in his sermon 
 that " the Spirit of God acts on the will." — p. 28. 
 
 As this distinction between being made wUling, and 
 being compelled against the will, is deemed of great im- 
 portance in Calvinistic theology, and as some of our 
 
342 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 readers may not be familiar with it, we will present an 
 illustration by a Calvinistic writer, the Rev. Pharcellus 
 Church, of the Baptist persuasion. It occurs in his 
 " Prize Essay on Religious Dissensions." 
 
 " If a man slides from the edge of a precipice, and 
 nothing intercepts his course, there is a natural necessity 
 that he should fall to the bottom. However much he 
 might choose to stop, it would be in vain. Gravity is a 
 force over which the will could have no control imder 
 such circumstances. 
 
 " But suppose the man were to rise at midnight, enter 
 the dwelling of a neighbour, massacre him, and then rob 
 and burn his house ; and suppose the motive influencing 
 him to so foul a deed depended upon an assemblage of 
 incidents and circumstances which had been operating 
 from his childhood, and over which he had no more con- 
 trol than over the force of gravitation in his fall from the 
 precipice ; where would be the difference in the two 
 cases 1 Why, there wovdd be this important difference, 
 that the force of gravity would not conquer his desire not to 
 fall, while the incidents and circumstances which gave 
 strength to the motive leading him to commit the murder, 
 would overcome his desire not to commit it. In the one 
 case, he would be forced against his will, and in the other 
 his will would be led captive." — p. 143. 
 
 It is by the magic influence of the distinction, which 
 this writer so clearly illustrates, that they are enabled to 
 hold and aflirm that men are " made willing" — are com- 
 pelled to become Christians, and yet are not compelled 
 against their choice, but choose to become Clxristians. 
 Their wills are " led captive." 
 
 Here then is a basis broad enough to sustain the entire 
 fabric of Calvinism, notwithstanding its appendage of 
 " natural ability." The special agency of God is neces- 
 sary to the salvation of a sinner. That agency is vouch- 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 343 
 
 safed to some and not to others, — and those to whom it is 
 granted it makes willing to do whatever is necessary to 
 salvation. 
 
 On this subject Mr. DufReld remarks, " Now it is by 
 the Holy Spirit which proceedeth from the Father and 
 the Son, and whom the Son giveth to whomsoever he uill, 
 that a connection is established between him and the 
 guilty soul of man." — p. 348. 
 
 And in describing the progress and result of the Spirit's 
 operations on the heart of the sinner, he tells us, that 
 " object after object, truth after truth, motive after motive, 
 are presented. Reiterated appeals are made to the con- 
 science and the heart, and eventually, when he is pleased 
 in sovereign mercy to subdue, one and another beheve, and 
 are made' willing to forsake their sins. They never would 
 have done so, but for such a procedure of grace on the 
 part of God."— p. 484. 
 
 We have the views of Dr. Beecher in the following 
 passages : " The doctrine of the moral impotency of man 
 is not inconsistent with any other of the doctrines of 
 the Bible. It is not inconsistent with the doctrine of our 
 entire and absolute dependance for regeneration on the 
 special influence of the Holy Spirit ; for, while it includes 
 a natural ability to obedience, as the ground of obligation, 
 it teaches the certainty of its obstinate perversion, crea- 
 ting in point of fact a necessity of the Holy Ghost to 
 renew, as real and as great as if the impediment were a 
 natural impossibility." — Views in Theology, p. 118. 
 
 Compare the foregoing with the following : " The ques- 
 tion, as we have said, is not a question of possible or im- 
 possible, but a question of FACT, as to the manner in 
 which God does actually call effectually sinners into his 
 kingdom — a question of wisdom and goodness in doing 
 what is best in the best manner. 
 
 " I have no sympathy for the opinion that it depends 
 
344 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 on sinners whether they be regenerated or not in the day 
 of his power ; or that God does all he can, and leaves the 
 event of submission or not to rebel man," &c. — p. 209. 
 
 The reason assigned by Mr. Lord, the New- York 
 author of " Views in Theology," why " men are not led 
 earlier than they are to the exercise of right affections, 
 inasmuch as the same motives are often previously urged 
 in the same manner on their sensibilities," is, that " the 
 commandment has never been brought home to their sen- 
 sibilities, by the higher influences of the Spirit." — Vol. 3, 
 -No, 11, p. 294. 
 
 A writer in the Quarterly Christian Spectator gives 
 a most startling exhibition of this feature of the New 
 School theological system, in a " Review of Dr. Ty- 
 ler's Strictures on the Christian Spectator." We have 
 there the appalling declaration, that " there may be 
 acts requisite on the part of the sinner, without which, 
 renewing grace will never be exerted ; and yet that 
 grace may not be pledged to accompany those acts in any 
 instance." The writer adds, " It was thus we stated the 
 case in our concluding number. We there dwelt at length 
 on that most alarming fact to impenitent sinners, that the 
 intervention of the Holy Spirit is in no instance pledged 
 to any act of theirs ; that there is at best but a bare ' per- 
 adventure' that ' God will give them repentance.' Nor is 
 this inconsistent with saying that sinners have something 
 to do in order to be saved." — Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 156. 
 
 It is not common for the New School writers to present 
 the subject in this light. They generally teach that the 
 required acts are invariably connected with salvation ; 
 relying, for the safety of Calvinism, on the supposition 
 that none will ever perform the exercises required, but 
 the elect. We are indebted for this disclosure to an 
 attempt to reconcile Calvinism with the proper coudi- 
 tionality of salvation. 
 
NEW DIVINITY— CALVINISM. 345 
 
 The reader is now fully apprized of one of the securi- 
 ties by Avhich Calvinism is guarded, while salvation is 
 offered to all, and the ability and obligation of elect and 
 non-elect, to repent and believe, are strenuously inculcated. 
 
 Plausible as this theory of natural ability and moral in- 
 ability may appear at first sight, it is liable to fatal excep- 
 tions. 
 
 It fails to answer the end designed by those who resort 
 to it. It does not remove the difficulty for which it is in- 
 tended. It is utterly inefficient, except for the purpose of 
 temporary delusion. It may secure Calvinism effectually ; 
 but it does not furnish solid ground on which to base the 
 general invitations of the gospel, and to proclaim a free 
 salvation. 
 
 Of what advantage is it for me to possess a natural 
 ability to meet the requirements of the gospel, if, at the 
 same time, I am subject to a moral inability which ren- 
 ders me absolutely dependant on the special influence of 
 the Holy Spirit for regeneration ; so that it does not de- 
 pend on myself whether I am regenerated or not ; and God 
 has decreed to withhold that influence from me. So far 
 as my prospect of salvation is concerned, I might as well 
 be subject to a natural inability to comply with these re- 
 quirements. Nothing is gained by this theory, over that 
 which affirms an entire and unquaHfied inabiUty, on the 
 part of the unregenerate, to do any thing toward their sal- 
 vation except a delusive and tantalizing phraseology. The 
 man. who offers salvation to all, on this theory, beheves, at 
 the same time, that the repentance and salvation of any 
 depend on the vouchsafement of an influence which God 
 has determined to withhold from a great portion of out 
 race. 
 
 Neither does this theory vindicate the divine govern- 
 ment in requiring universal repentance and faith, and pun- 
 ishing the impenitent and unbelieving. If it would be just 
 15* 
 
346 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 for God to demand repentance and faith under these cir- 
 cumstances, it would be equally just in case the inability 
 were natural. And the infliction of punishment would be 
 equally just in both cases. The attempt to justify the pun- 
 ishment of the unregenerate on the ground that he pos- 
 sesses a "kind of ability," while another kind, wholly in- 
 dispensable, and for which he is dependant on God, is de- 
 signedly withheld from him, is grossly absurd. It would 
 not be more absurd to require an idiot to compose and de- 
 liver an eloquent oration, and then punish him severely 
 for the failure ; and undertake to justify the requisition and 
 the punishment, on the ground that he possesses a kind 
 or kinds of ability — that he possesses corporeal and moral 
 ability — the organs of speech and the faculty and power 
 of willing, and that all that is wanting is the intellectual 
 ability. It woxild be as reasonable to require a man to 
 distinguish objects amid total darkness, and punish him 
 on the ground that he possesses the organs of vision. There 
 is something necessary which the sinner is supposed to 
 possess ; but there is something else, equally indispensa- 
 ble which he does not possess — which God alone can im- 
 part, and yet purposely withholds. The Egyptians are 
 pronounced tyrants, because they compelled the Hebrews 
 to make bricks without the requisite quantity of straw ; 
 they did not cut off" the hands or put out the eyes of the 
 Hebrews, and then require the full quantity of bricks. 
 They merely withheld one necessary article. And we 
 now ask if it will be contended that the straw was of more 
 importance in the manufacture of bricks, than the influences 
 of the Holy Spirit to repentance and faith ; that while 
 there was execrable injustice in the former case, it is per- 
 fectly just to withhold those influences, and yet require the 
 exercises for Avhich they are absolutely indispensable ? 
 It is supposed that the government of God is sufliciently 
 vindicated by the consideration that the inability of the sin- 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 347 
 
 ner is moral. One writer makes use of this short argument : 
 " moral and therefore criminal." The conclusiveness of 
 this argument will depend altogether on the meaning at- 
 tached to the term moral. If it signify that the inability 
 or unwillingness is strictly voluntary, the inference is cor- 
 rect ; but then there will be this difficulty, that according to 
 the system which we oppose, the inability is not moral in 
 the sense of voluntary. The ability or willingness, which 
 is its opposite, is supposed to depend, at any imaginable 
 period of the sinner's existence, on the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit, and those influences have never been, and 
 never will be imparted to any but the elect. We caa 
 easily see how it would be crimuial in a man to starve him- 
 self to death, when he could honestly obtain plenty of food; 
 but the case would be altered if his starvation were owing 
 to his utter inability to procure it. In the one case he 
 would be pronounced giiilty of suicide, in the other an 
 object of pity. 
 
 The theory under review has to encounter this philoso- 
 phical difficulty, admitting for a moment, that the distinc- 
 tion on which it is founded is correct. The acts required 
 of the sinner are moral acts, and therefore require moral 
 power, just as lifting a weight requires muscular power. 
 But the power required by the sinner happens to be that 
 of which he is confessedly and helplessly destitute. So 
 that it may be as reasonably required of him to remove a 
 mountain, or build a house, by argumentation, as to repent 
 and believe in his present circumstances. 
 
 Again : this theory involves an absolute contradiction. 
 It represents men as possessing a real ability, and yet 
 subject to a real inability, with respect to the same thing 
 at the same time. It is quite possible for a man to possess 
 ability to do one thing, and yet, at the same time, be 
 wholly unable to perform another ; or to be able to per- 
 form a certain thing at one time, and unable to perform it 
 
348 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 at another time. But to be both able and unable, with refer- 
 ence to the same thing, and at the same time, is impos- 
 sible. If this scheme of ability does not express a contra- 
 diction, a contradiction is impossible. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXII. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 Hitherto, we have confined our argument on the dis- 
 tinction of ability into natural and moral, to the use to 
 which it is applied. But as it is made the basis of a per- 
 nicious system of doctrines, and relied on to effect an 
 apparent reconciliation between tenets which have no 
 affinities for each other, we may render som.e service to 
 the cause of truth by examining the distinction itself. 
 
 We do not object to distinguishing power into kinds. 
 This is frequently done with propriety and advantage. 
 Our constitutional faculties arc distinguished into corpo- 
 real or physical, intellectual, and moral. Each class of 
 faculties is supposed to possess its own peculiar energy, 
 and hence we have physical, intellectual, and moral 
 power. But the propriety of distinguishing power into 
 natural and moral is more than doubtful ; because these 
 faculties are all natural, and the power pertaining to one 
 class is as much natural as that which pertains to any 
 other class. The power may be moral, but it does not 
 follow that it is not natural. It is both natural and moral, 
 and not natural in contradistinction to moral. We may, 
 with as much reason, place natural and intellectual power 
 in contradistinction to each other, as natural and moral 
 power. 
 
 If the term " moral" were used, in this instance, in the 
 sense of supernatural, there would be a real distinction 
 
NEW DtVINITY— 'CALVINISM. 349 
 
 between natural and moral power. But this is not the 
 sense in which it is used. And, even if it were, our New 
 School brethren would be chargeable with the inconsist- 
 ency of maintaining, that man has natural ability to accom- 
 plish that for which supernatural ability is indispensable. 
 And further, if the term moral in this distinction were 
 used in the sense of supernatural, the distinction would 
 respect, not the kinds, but the sources of power. All the 
 kinds of power with which we are acquainted, are physi- 
 • cal or corporeal, intellectual, and moral. These kinds are 
 all natural to man ; and yet the physical, or intellectual, 
 or moral power, by which he performs particular actions, 
 may not be natural to him. For instance, the prophets 
 and apostles had intellectual power naturally ; but had 
 they naturally the power to conceive and utter those infal- 
 lible oracles by which Ave are required to regulate our faith 
 and practice ? Certainly not. Samson had naturally 
 physical or corporeal power, but that he had naturally the 
 power necessary to perform those astonishing feats ascribed 
 to him, is doubtfid. The history plainly indicates that it 
 was supernatural — given to him by God for the special 
 purposes for which it was exerted. " When the Philis- 
 tines shouted against him, the Spirit of the Lord came 
 mightily upon him ; and the cords that were upon his arms 
 became as flax that was burned with fire, and his bands 
 loosed from off" his hands. And he found a new jaw-bone 
 of an ass, and put forth his hand and took it, and slew a 
 thousand men therewith." Before he displaced the pillars 
 of his prison-house, and crushed beneath the falling fabric 
 himself and the lords of the Philistines, he " called on the 
 Lord, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, 
 and strengthen me. I pray thee, only this once, O God, 
 that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my 
 two eyes." The connection between his strength and 
 " the seven locks of his head," shows that his strength 
 
350 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 was supernatural. This connection was not natural ; — it 
 was arbitrary ; established by God for purposes similar to 
 those for which the Saviour anointed the eyes of the blind 
 man with clay and spittle. 
 
 When, therefore, the New School theologians use the 
 word natural to designate a " kind of power," and identify 
 natural power, as a kind, with physical and intellectual 
 power, in opposition to moral power, they most egregiously 
 misapply the term ; since moral power is just as much na- 
 tural as any other kind ; while the physical and intellectual 
 power necessary to the performance of certain actions, 
 may not be natural, as in the cases specified. The terms 
 *' natural power" and " supernatural power" do not repre- 
 sent particular kinds of power. They simply indicate the 
 sources of power — whether it belongs to the constitution 
 of the individual, or whether it is foreign to the constitu- 
 tion, and imparted to him by some other being. 
 
 But let us inquire what is this power, called moral, in 
 contradistinction to natural. It is said to consist in incli- 
 nation. But we have already seen that an individual may 
 possess the desire, inclination, or disposition, to perform a 
 particular action, and yet be wholly imable, notwithstand- 
 ing he may be in the possession of all his facldties. So 
 that the moral ability is an ability which does not constitute 
 him able, and, consequently, is no ability at all. But if 
 we grant, for argument's sake, that it is a real ability, this 
 absurdity will follow, — that I may have a real ability to 
 bestow money on a poor and suffering applicant, when, at 
 the same time, I have not a farthing at my disposal. 
 
 Again, this definition, by identifying power with inclina- 
 tion, leads to a most perplexing perversion of language, 
 and blends, in entire confusion, some of the plainest and 
 most distinct conceptions of the human mind. Inclination 
 and ability are universally understood to be distinct. Men 
 are every day pronounced willing, and yet unable to per- 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 351 
 
 form actions : and, on this account, are excused or justi- 
 fied. They are also pronounced able, and yet unwilling ; 
 and, on this account, are condemned. But this sapient dis- 
 tinction confounds what is thus universally distinguished, 
 and sanctions the following absurd and bewildering con- 
 clusions,— that those who are willing to perform an 
 action, but wholly destitute of the requisite power and 
 means, are at the same time able to perform it ; they have 
 the moral ability ; while those who have ample means, 
 and full power, and are merely unwilling, are neverthe- 
 less unable. Again, as ability is the ground of moral ob- 
 ligation, and justifies the punishment of disobedience, it 
 follows from these notions that men are under obligation 
 to do what they are unable because they are able ; and 
 likewise that they are justified in not doing what they are 
 unable to do, because they are able ; and likewise pimished 
 for not doing what they are able to do, not only wkile they 
 are unable, but also because they are unable. Such is the 
 jargon which this wonderful philosophy authorizes. 
 
 But while this distinction, as explained by its advocates, 
 leads to such horrible chaos of thought and expression, 
 it answers most admirably the purposes of New School 
 divinity. " Some kind of ability" to obey the gospel 
 must be attributed to the sinner, to give plausibility to the 
 doctrine of his accountability, and the offers of a free sal- 
 vation, while some kind of inability must be attributed to 
 him to secure Calvinism. On the ground of natural 
 ability, the sinner can be assured " that the reason why 
 he does not come to Christ is, he will not," — " that he may 
 be saved if he will." These propositions certainly look 
 very fair and unexceptionable. One might suppose that 
 the most rigid Arminian could not fail to be satisfied with 
 them. Surely no Methodist preacher preaches a freer 
 salvation than this. Ay! and who would suppose, that 
 these fair-faced, smooth-tongued propositions contained 
 
352 New divinity — calvtnism. 
 
 the doctrine of a real inability to come to Christ and be 
 saved ; and were carefully constructed, so as to secure the 
 doctrine that God has elected a certain number to salva- 
 tion from all eternity, to the exclusion of all the rest ; and 
 that the number is so definite, that it cannot be in- 
 creased or diminished ? But in what parts of the pro- 
 positions is this inability concealed ? In those which 
 relate to the will. In New Schoolism, inclination and 
 ability, disinclination and inability are identical. In the 
 New School vocabulary, the terms irill and cam, will not 
 and cannot, mean the same thing. They are employed 
 interchangeably, as orthodoxy, or the popular ear, may re- 
 quire. Give the term " will" its technical, New School 
 s'ignification, and these propositions mean, " The reason 
 why the sinner does not come to Christ is he cannot." 
 " The sinner may be saved if he can." In that portentous 
 and generally italicized clause " if he will" lies the awful 
 record of the fate of the poor reprobate. That " will" is 
 the moral ability which none have but those to whom God 
 gives it, and he has eternally decreed to gi\'e it to none 
 but the elect. 
 
 If by the iexm nnll we understand the power or faculty of 
 willing — as that is a constitutional faculty — essential to free 
 agency, the absence of it must constitute, according to the 
 distinction in question, a natural, and not a moral inability. 
 
 Perhaps it may be supposed that this theory will appear 
 to greater advantage if the term will be taken in the sense 
 of actual volition. This is the only alternative that re- 
 mains. But if it be thus explained and used, as it often 
 is in this controversy, and actual volition be considered to 
 constitute the moral ability, and the absence of it the mo- 
 ral inability, it will follow, indubitably, that the action and 
 the power to perform it, are identical. The moral ability 
 is not only the power by which the act is performed, but 
 it is the act itself. The act is its own cause. And the 
 
XEW DIVINITY CALVINIS5f. 353 
 
 explanation of the sinner's conduct is this, — he does not 
 obey God because he does not obey God ; he does not 
 perform the act because he has not the act. He has not 
 the ability because he does not perform the ability. The 
 very plausible propositions, that the sinner cannot obey 
 God unless he has the moral ability, he can if he will, 
 &c., convey to us this most important instruction — the 
 sinner cannot obey God tmless he does obey him ; he can 
 obey him if he obeys him. 
 
 The secret of the whole matter is this : It was found 
 necessary to distinguish the ability to serve God into 
 " sorts" or " kinds." The sinner must be allowed to have 
 some sort of ability, or it is useless to offer him salvation. 
 He must, at the same time, be considered subject to some 
 sort of inability, or the doctrines of partial redemption and 
 Calvinistic election are endangered. And then a nomen- 
 clature must be found for these kinds of ability. The 
 name of the ability which all are supposed to possess, 
 must convey the idea of a real ability, and yet have such 
 a definition as may be made to comport with the scheme 
 which it seems to contradict. It may therefore be called 
 a " natural" ability, and defined to consist in the posses- 
 sion of constitutional faculties, &c. 
 
 As for the other kind of ability, it may be called " mo- 
 ral ;" for there is not a more convenient word in the Eng- 
 lish language. It means almost every thing. We have 
 the distinction of conduct into moral and immoral, — of 
 faculties into moral, intellectual, and corporeal, — of laws 
 into moral and positive — moral and ceremonial, — of evi- 
 dence into moral and demonstrative, — of agents into moral 
 and unintelligent ; — and why cannot we have a moral 
 ability, as distinguished from natural ? This is the very 
 name. And if among all the senses of this wonderful 
 word, the sense which this distinction requires is not to 
 be found, learned men need only conspire to give it a new 
 
354 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 sense. Professors of colleges can honour it with a new 
 diploma. Both of these terms are perfectly arbitrary. 
 They are mere technicalities, which none but the initiated 
 are intended to understand. 
 
 Unreasonable as this distinction is, its advocates attempt 
 to justify it both by reason and Scripture. And it is not 
 to be wondered at, that men of superior learning and ge- 
 nius, should succeed in presenting it in somewhat plausi- 
 ble aspects. But the fact that the utmost efforts of such 
 men have utterly failed to establish it, furnishes no feeble 
 presumption of its invalidity. 
 
 They insist that it is universally recognised. Mr. Duf- 
 field says, " Every body understands the subject, and dis- 
 tinguishes thus between natural and moral ability. The 
 giddy and thoughtless child is puijighed who says he can- 
 not get his lesson, it being well understood that either a 
 dislike for his book, or some other considerations, prevent 
 him from applying his mind to it. The servant is ac- 
 counted guilty who makes the same plea. The parent 
 sees a thousand exemplifications of this thing, and if he 
 were, in all cases, to admit the truth of the child's decla- 
 rations as to ability, he might soon cease to command." 
 
 It is readily admitted that the word cannot is frequently 
 used to signify want of will or disposition, and that the 
 phrase " I cannot" is frequently given in reply to solicita- 
 tions, when the persons replying are merely unwilling. 
 But in such cases no real inability exists. In many in- 
 stances it is not intended to convey the idea of inability ; 
 but merely that of reluctance or inconvenience. It is 
 often employed to express an ill-natured refusal. It is 
 true, it is sometimes intended to convey the idea of real 
 inability, where there is nothing but uiiwillingness ; but 
 in such cases persons may either be mistaken as to the 
 power they possess, imagining themselves unable when 
 they are not ; or they may assert what they know to be 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 355 
 
 a falsehood. In the example of Mr. Duffield, the child is 
 punished who says " he cannot get his lesson." But why 
 is he punished ? Because his saying '* he cannot get his 
 lesson" is understood to be mere pretence. The parent 
 does not distinguish between natural and moral ability. 
 He distinguishes between inability and unwillingness. 
 He knows there is no inability in the case. The servant 
 makes the same plea, but the master does not believe him. 
 He knows the plea is false. " If the parent," says Mr. 
 Duffield, " were in all cases to admit the truth of the 
 child's declaration as to ability, he might soon cease to 
 command." And yet, is it not obvious that the fate of this 
 theory depends altogether on admitting " the truth of the 
 child's declarations ?" If their truth be not admitted, the 
 example furnishes no proof of the position it was brought 
 forward to establish. It proves merely that people everj^- 
 where distinguish between inability, and an attempt at 
 imposition, by falsely alleging an inability where it does 
 not exist. But if every person understands the distinction 
 of natural and moral ability — if the terms tmable and un- 
 willing, cannot and will not, are universally understood to 
 mean the same thing, is it not somewhat singular that men 
 should attempt to impose on each other, by saying that 
 they are unable, when they are merely unwilling ? Do 
 they not know that they are attempting to deceive by 
 words which convey no deceptive meaning ? Would they 
 not, if that were the case, invariably qualify their declara- 
 tions of inability, for the purpose of deception, by saying, 
 I am naturally unable ? The fact that men do attempt to 
 deceive by pretending to inability simply, when they are 
 merely unwilling, proves plainly that they do not consider 
 inability and unwillingness to be the same thing. 
 
 In order to make out the universal recognition of this 
 distinction, its advocates find it necessary to misstate the 
 question at issue. Dr. Beecher remarks, " I have said 
 
356 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 that this use of the terras cannot, unable, &c., to indicate 
 those things which men are able to perform, but do not 
 choose to do, is not a phraseology peculiar to the Bible, 
 but is a mode of speaking into which the universal mind 
 of man in all nations, ages, and languages, has fallen." 
 Again: "There is hardly an author of repute, from the 
 time of Alfred to the present day — whether a poet, a his- 
 torian, an essayist, or a metaphysician, who does not 
 afford abundant examples of such use of the word cannot^ 
 
 Now all this is wide of the mark. No one denies that 
 the " terms cannot, unable, &c.," are used " to indicate 
 those things which men are able to perform, but do not 
 choose to do." If this be all the doctor undertakes to 
 prove, he might have declined the unnecessary trouble. 
 But this is a very different thing from proving that when- 
 ever the terms cannot, unable, &c., are so used, they signify 
 a real inability, and that, therefore, there are two kinds of 
 inability. All that he has proved is, that these terms are 
 frequently used when it is understood that there is no ina- 
 bility in the case. 
 
 The supposed Scripture proofs consist chiefly in ex- 
 amples in which the word " cannot" is used, when it is 
 presumed that there is no absolute inability. The reason- 
 ings on these examples will be found to proceed on two 
 false assumptions. 
 
 In the first place, it is assumed that the word " cannot" 
 invariably implies a real inabiliti/. If this be not the case, 
 the texts in which it is used may furnish no proof of the 
 disputed distinction. Secondly, it is assumed Xhat while 
 the term cannot always implies real inability, it does not 
 in any of these examples import a natural inability. For 
 if it does, the texts not only furnish no proof of the dis- 
 tinction of ability into natural and moral, but expressly 
 contradict the doctrine that all have a natural ability 
 to serve God ; and thus, at the same time, directly dis- 
 
NEW DIVINITY — -CALVINISM. 357 
 
 prove the distinction, and uproot the theory which it is 
 intended to sustain. 
 
 Let us then test these assumptions. In the first phice, 
 we are not authorized to infer invariably the existence of 
 a real inability from the use of the term cannot. It is often 
 used when no inability is intended — to express mere re- 
 fusal. And in many instances when it is used purposely 
 to convey the idea of inability, we do not infer from it the 
 existence of inability. We suppose the individual to be 
 mistaken in the estimate of his power. He says, " he 
 cannot," but we have no doubt that he can. In other in- 
 stances it is used for deception. The individual who says, 
 " I cannot," knows at the same time that he can ; but he 
 intends to deceive. He asserts what he knows to be false. 
 The term sometimes signifies inconvenience. For in- 
 stance, I ask a friend to accompany me to some distant 
 place. He is pleased with the proposal, and unhesitat- 
 ingly consents. He makes all necessary preparation ; 
 but just as we are about to leave, some emergency arrests 
 his attention. He is ardently desirous to go, but it is very 
 inconvenient. He hesitates and resolves, and resolves 
 and hesitates ; and at last, by a powerful effort of self- 
 denial, he says, " I cannot go." He does not intend to 
 assert inability, but merely great inconvenience ; and this 
 he does in the strong hyperbolical language, " I cannot." 
 
 In reply to the second assumption, we affirm, that when- 
 ever the term imports real inability, that inability is natu- 
 ral. It may, perhaps, without any impropriety, be called 
 moral, but it is as certainly a natural inability, as it is an 
 inability at all. It will be found, on investigation, to have 
 its seat in the constitution of our nature. Moral inability 
 is said to consist in a want of will. The term will in this 
 controversy, signifies sometimes the faculty itself — the 
 power of willing — sometimes inclination or desire — some- 
 times the exercise of the faculty, or actual volition. Now, 
 
358 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 if we understand by this term, the faculty of willing — this 
 being a natural faculty, the inability which consists in its 
 absence must be natural. If we take it to mean inclina- 
 tion, and suppose that its absence constitutes a real ina- 
 bility, it must be because there is something in the consti- 
 tution of our nature, by which we are disqualified to do 
 what we have no inclination to do, or to do wliich we are 
 strongly disinclined ; and the inability is therefore natural. 
 But if there be nothing in the constitution of our nature 
 which disqualifies us for doing that for which we have no 
 inclination — if still we have ability, the want of inclina- 
 tion does not cause or constitute a real inability, and the 
 proof of the distinction fails. If the term " will" be un- 
 derstood to mean simple, actual volition, we have the ab- 
 surdity of identifying the act itself with the ability to per- 
 form it. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXm. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 We will now proceed to review the examples adduced 
 by Mr. Duffield and Dr. Beecher, in support of this dis- 
 tinction. The first, by Mr. D., is Samuel's reply, when 
 God commanded him to go and anoint David, " How can 
 I go ? if Saul hear it, he will kill me." He reasons thus : 
 " While Samuel's unbelief and fears prevailed, his will 
 was prevented from giving its consent to go, and he felt 
 as if it were a thing utterly impossible which the Lord re- 
 quired." It is here assumed that Samuel laboured under 
 a real inability, because he says, " How can I go ?" and 
 that it was not a natural inability, but consisted in a refu- 
 sal of the will. He could have gone if he would. And 
 the inference is, that it was therefore a moral inability. 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 359 
 
 Our answer Is, either that Samuel did not intend to assert 
 inability, but used the expression figuratively, to denote great 
 inconvenience or reluctance ; or his feeling that it was a 
 thing utterly impossible was a mistaken impression, sup- 
 posing that to be impossible which was not ; or if there 
 was a real inability, that inability was natural. It arose 
 out of the constitution of his nature — out of the conflict 
 between the emotion of fear, and the power of willing ; 
 which are constitutional principles, in which his fears 
 prevailed, and prevented that act of the will which was 
 naturally and absolutely necessary to obedience. 
 
 The next example is the passage in which the Apostle 
 Paul says, with respect to the " cherubim of glory over- 
 shadowing the mercy-seat" in the holy of holies, " of 
 which we cannot now speak particularly." The only re- 
 ply necessary is, that the apostle did not intend to assert 
 inability. The word " cannot" is used in a figurative 
 sense to signify inconvenience. It would have been an. 
 imnecessary digression from the subject which the apostle 
 was discussing. 
 
 The next example is in the words of our Saviour, " Can 
 the children of the bridegroom fast, while the bridegroom 
 is with them ? As long as the bridegroom is with them 
 they cannot fast." " This," says Mr. D., " is wholly an 
 inability of will." We reply, there is no inability in the 
 case. The Saviour did not intend to assert inability. 
 The language is figurative, and Mr. D.'s comment confirms 
 this declaration. He says, " The thing itself is not impos- 
 sible, but the season is one which is generally so joyous, 
 and is wont to be so connected with festivity as to render 
 it morally impossible to fast. Men are rendered unwilling, 
 reluctant to do what they are able, and under other circum- 
 stances they might be induced to do." It is true, he says 
 it is " morally impossible ;" but it would seem that in his 
 vocabulary, " morally impossible" and " not impossible" 
 
360 NEW DIVINITY — CALtlNlSM. 
 
 mean the same thing : and our Saviour is made to afKriU 
 that they are not able to do what it is " not impossible" fot 
 them to do ; but " what they are able, and under other 
 circumstances might be induced to do." Surely this text 
 and comment will multiply converts to the distinction very 
 rapidly ! 
 
 The fourth example is as follows : — " In like manner 
 the EA'^angelist John says, ' that there are many things 
 which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written 
 every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not 
 contain the books that should be written.' This was not 
 a natural impossibility." The reader will at once per- 
 ceive the special aptness of this illustration, and how ad- 
 mirably it sustains the author's distinction. The world, it 
 is supposed, possessed a natural ability to contain the 
 books, but was destitute of the moral ability — was unwil- 
 ling — positively refused. What a wicked world! The 
 reader will endeavour to suppress any irreverent disposi- 
 tion to smile, as this distinction is deemed of very great 
 importance. Desperate indeed must be the cause which 
 trusts to .such proofs for support. Who does not perceive, 
 at one glance, that the evangelist merely uses a strong 
 figurative expression, to suggest the vast number of books 
 which the sayings of Christ would fill, if recorded 1 
 
 Another example is this : " It is said of our Saviour, on 
 a certain occasion, that in going into his own country, 'he 
 could there do no mighty works.' No one will pretend 
 that this was a natural inability — that the Saviour lacked 
 energy or capacity." Certainly not. It is not necessary 
 to pretend that there was inability at all. Mr. D. himself 
 explains the matter sufficiently, " but such was the unbe- 
 lief of the people, that it did not comport with the plan of 
 God's gracious dealing Avith men, for him, under such cir- 
 cumstances, to exert his power." 
 
 Again : " He also prayed, ' If it be possible, let this cup 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 361 
 
 pass from me. The impossibility in the case was wholly 
 of a moral nature." To this we make a similar reply. 
 The terms do not always import real impossibility. The 
 Saviour may have meant, if it will comport with the de- 
 sign of my mission — with the plan of salvation. But if 
 there was impossibility in the case, it was natural. It can 
 be traced to the perfections of Jehovah, and the immuta- 
 bility of his nature ; it being contrary to the nature of God 
 not to do what he has absolutely purposed. 
 
 " Of the same description," says Mr. D., " is the ina- 
 bility under which God represents himself to have la- 
 boured. ' Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, 
 yet my mind could not be toward this people.' ' The new 
 moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, / cannot 
 away with.' And thus we say a holy God cannot do an 
 xmholy thing — a just God cannot do an unjust thing — a 
 faithful God cannot lie.' " The explanation of all these 
 examples has already been furnished. We will only add, 
 that if the inability which arises out of the natural consti- 
 tution be a natural inability, Jehovah is subject to a natural 
 inability to lie. We might as well say that it is a matter 
 of volition whether he continue to exist, as whether he 
 will contradict his own attributes. It is from a necessity 
 of nature that he is holy, and cannot do what is imholy. 
 
 Mr. D. continues, " Of the same nature is the inability 
 to sin which is predicated of those who are born again. 
 ' Whosoever,' says the Apostle John, ' is born of God, doth 
 not commit sin, his seed remaineth in him ; and he can- 
 not sin, because he is born of God.' " Whatever may be 
 the critical meaning of this text, it fails to answer Mr. D.'s 
 purpose. He thus comments upon it : " It is morally im- 
 possible that the believer should deliberately and wilfully, 
 or habitually sin against God, and yet no one will pretend 
 that he has not ability to do so." It seems, then, accord- 
 ing to his own interpretation, that the moral impossibility 
 
 16 
 
3G2 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 
 
 is not a real one, since he supposes that " no one will pre- 
 tend that the believer has not ability to sin against God," 
 unless indeed a real possibility and a real impossibility- 
 are the same. The truth is this : if there is an impossi- 
 bility in the case, which we neither affirm nor deny, it is 
 as much natural as moral. It is traceable to the constitu- 
 tion of human nature as acted upon by religious influence. 
 
 Among the Scriptural proofs brought forward by Dr. 
 Beecher, are several of the passages already considered. 
 Although there are slight characteristic differences in the 
 manner in which they are presented, they proceed, in both 
 cases, on the same principles, and one answer is sufficient. 
 We shall therefore confine ourselves to the additional ex- 
 amples presented by Dr. Beecher : — 
 
 " Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of ?" On this text 
 he remarks, " It was the cup of suffering and ignominy ; 
 and he meant not whether they could feel pain and perse- 
 cution, and shame, (for he told them that they should,) 
 but whether they were willing, and believed that they 
 should continue willing, to suffer with him — ' Can ye V 
 that is, are you, and shall you be willing?" It is very easy 
 to refute a man when he first refutes himself. We can 
 show by Dr. B.'s own explanation, that the Saviour had 
 no reference to ability whatever, although he uses the 
 word " can." He says, " he meant not whether they could 
 feel pain, and persecution, and shame, (for he told them 
 that they should,) but whether they were loilling" Of 
 course this text fails to prove two kinds of ability, since 
 the Saviour has no reference to ability. 
 
 " ' Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean ;' that 
 is, thou canst do it, if thou art willing — implying, as in 
 the case before, that he could not cleanse him, if unwil- 
 ling, calling unwillingness inability." To this we answer, 
 the text does not assert inability — but, on the contrary, 
 ability. The sense is, plainly, " Thou canst make me 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 363 
 
 clean." It therefore furnishes no proof of inability of any 
 kind. But does not the expression, " if thou wilt," imply 
 " that he could not cleanse him if unwilling ?" No. It is 
 a very common form of expression to affirm entire ability, 
 whether there be willingness or unwillingness. An indi- 
 vidual is asked to confer a favour. He replies, for the 
 purpose of refusing merely, " I cannot," knowing at the 
 same time that it is in his power. It is instantly rejoined, 
 " You can, if you will." In this rejoinder there is no in- 
 tention whatever of implying that unwillingness constitutes 
 inability. The meaning intended is, simply, you can. It 
 is intended to affirm the ability of the individual, in oppo- 
 sition to his declaration of inability. The form of expres- 
 sion may not be strictly accurate ; and it is worthy of 
 notice, that it is not the lang-uage of an inspired man, but 
 of the leper who came to Jesus Christ. To build an im- 
 portant metaphysical distinction, intended to sustain a 
 whole system of theology, on such an expression, is not 
 to build upon a rock, but on the sand. It is like placing 
 the world on the back of the elephant, and the elephant 
 on the back of the tortoise, and the tortoise upon — nothing! 
 Besides, we have shown that if unwillingness constitutes 
 inability, the inability is natural. It arises out of the con- 
 stitution of our nature. 
 
 " This is a hard saying — who can hear it ?" We are 
 under no necessity of inferring inability from this text. 
 Dr. B. says himself, " This means not that a sinner has 
 no power to hear the humbling doctrine of depravity ; but, 
 who, as we say, can bear it, that is, he toiUing — be pleased 
 with it ;" we shall only add, that the process by which a 
 real inability is proved, in this case, will prove that ability 
 natural. 
 
 " Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup 
 of de/ils." The apostle, when he penned these words, 
 was cautioning the Corinthians against idolatry ; and the 
 
364 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 most probable meaning of them is, Ye cannot, at the same 
 time, be Christians and idolaters. If this is the correct 
 interpretation, the inability asserted is natural. It is as 
 impossible as that a man should be in two places at the 
 same time. However, it is not necessary to enter criti- 
 cally into the meaning of the text, to show that it furnishes 
 no proof of the distinction. The doctor's own comment 
 refutes him. He considers the inability to be wholly 
 moral. He says, " The natural ability of man qualifies 
 him to sit at either table." It is to be observed, that the 
 apostle does not affirm an inability to sit at " either" table, 
 but at both tables. He does not say, " Ye cannot drink 
 of the cup of the Lord, or the cup of devils ; — ye cannot 
 ■ make your choice; "but "Ye cannot drink of the cup of the 
 Lord and the cup of devils." So the doctor himself pre- 
 sents it in the next clause : " but, while he prefers the 
 table of the Lord, he cannot prefer the table of devils." 
 It seems, then, that, in the estimation of Dr. B., a man 
 has a natural ability to prefer two things to each other, at 
 the same time ; and that the sole reason why he does not 
 is, that he is unwilling — and this is the moral inability. 
 Wonderful philosophy ! Who cannot perceive that it is as 
 naturally impossible for a man to prefer two things to 
 each other at the same time, as it is to exist and not exist 
 at the same time. The inability which the apostle here 
 asserts is therefore strictly natural. 
 
 " The carnal mind is enmity against God, not subject 
 to the law of God, neither indeed can be." It is a strange 
 thing, to find this text brought forward to prove that man 
 has a natural ability to keep the law of God, and that he 
 is merely unwilling. By a reference to the second chap- 
 ter it will be seen that it furnishes decisive proof to the 
 contrary. But let us see the doctor's own reasonino- 
 upon it. He says, " If this means a natural inability, 
 how does regeneration help the matter, as it includes the 
 
NEW DIVINITY' — CALVINISM. S<5S 
 
 creation of no new natural powers or faculties ?" Here 16 
 the absurdity again, of identifying ability with constitir- 
 tional powers or faculties. The doctor is at a loss to 
 know, if it be a natural ability, how regeneration will help 
 the matter, since it imparts no new natural powers or 
 facidties ? We think we can tell him in a few words. It 
 helps the matter, not by creating new powers or faculties, 
 but by imparting new power to the powers or faculties 
 already possessed. It helps the matter, by changing the 
 mind from " carnal" to " spiritual." He proceeds : " But 
 if it means that the carnal mind is one, which, by its 
 friendship for the world, is at enmity with God, then it is 
 plain that the mind which prefers the creature to God, 
 cannot at the same time prefer God to the creature, though 
 the hinderzlnce is not natural, but the inability of the will 
 — a moral inability." He seems determined to make the 
 public believe, that a man has a natural ability to prefer 
 two things opposite to each other at the same time ; 
 that the only reason why he does not " prefer the crea- 
 ture to God" and " at the same time prefer God to the 
 creature" is, he will not. Against an absurdity like this 
 I know of no argument ; and I am not disposed to wield 
 against its learned author the shafts of ridicule. 
 
 Again : " And Joshua said, Ye cannot serve the Lord, 
 for he is a holy God." And how are these words .to 
 prove the existence of two kinds of inability ? " The 
 people understood him to say, that they had no moral 
 ability — no heart to serve him, because they were so sin- 
 ful." But they replied, " Nay, but we will serve the Lord ; 
 we have the ability, because we have the will." 
 
 This is the most gratuitous interpretation that could be 
 imagined, as will appear on examining the whole passage. 
 It reduces the solemn address of Joshua, and the equally 
 solemn response of the people, to a mere dispute ; Joshua 
 affirming that they have " no moral ability, no heart fo serve 
 
366 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 God," and they replying that they have. But how does 
 Dr. B., or any other man, know that the people understood 
 Joshua to say, " that they had no moral ability to serve" 
 God 1 How does he know that they did not understand 
 him to say they had no natural ability ? 
 
 It cannot be inferred from the reply, because it would 
 be equally applicable on either supposition. Whether 
 Joshua meant natural or moral inability, the people are re- 
 presented by the doctor as flatly contradicting him. 
 
 The true meaning of this text may be determined by a 
 reference to the context. The Israelites were predisposed 
 to idolatry. Joshua exhorts them thus : " Now, therefore, 
 fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth, and 
 . put away the gods which your fathers served on the other 
 side of the flood, and in Egypt ; and serve ye the Lord." 
 He then calls upon them to decide immediately whether 
 they will serve God or not. " And if it seem evil unto 
 you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will 
 serve ; whether the gods which your fathers served, that 
 were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the 
 Amorites, in whose land ye dwell ; but as for me and my 
 house, we will serve the Lord." The people replied, 
 " God forbid that we should forsake the Lord to serve 
 other gods." They then recount his acts of mercy and 
 of power in their behalf as a people, and conclude " there- 
 fore will we also serve the Lord, for he is our God." 
 Joshua then said, " Ye cannot serve the Lord." He nei- 
 ther intended to assert inability, nor unwillingness, simply, 
 to serve the Lord, but the impossibility of their serv- 
 ing the Lord, and idols at the same time. The reason 
 which he assigns why they cannot serve the Lord, is 
 not their supposed unwillingness, but that " he is a 
 holy God ; he is a jealous God ; he will not forgive your 
 transgressions nor your sins. If ye forsake the Lord, 
 and serve strange gods, then will he turn and do you hurt. 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 367 
 
 and consume yon, after that he hath done you good." 
 Then the people answered, " Nay ; but we will serve the 
 Lord ;" — not meaning " we have the moral ability," in op- 
 position to Joshua's supposed assertion that they had not ; 
 but meaning that they would prefer the service of God to 
 the service of idols,— that they would serve God alone. 
 This was the decision to which Joshua urged them, when 
 he said, " Choose you this day whom ye will serve." 
 The verses following confirm this explanation : — " And 
 Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against 
 yourselves, that ye have chosen you the Lord to serve 
 him. And they said. We are witnesses. Now, therefore," 
 adds Joshua, " put away the strange gods which are among 
 you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel." 
 It is plain, therefore, that the people did not understand 
 Joshua as asserting their unwillingness to serve God ; but 
 their inability to serve God and idols at the same time, 
 which was certainly a natural inability ; and the Avords, 
 " Nay, but we will serve the Lord," record their selection. 
 They chose the Lord, and Joshua leads them to ratify the 
 choice by a solemn covenant. 
 
 " ' How can ye believe who receive honour one of 
 another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God V 
 That is, how can you believe who prefer the praise of man 
 more than the praise of God ; who voluntarily set at 
 naught Jesus Christ ?" This is intended, of course, for 
 another example of moral inability, in opposition to natu- 
 ral. Whether it answers the design or not, will depend 
 on whether a man has a natural ability to perform two 
 mental exercises, entirely opposite in their character, at 
 the same time. We apprehend that he has not ; and that 
 the inability is therefore natural. 
 
 " The natural man cannot know the things of the king- 
 dom of God." To this text the doctor appends the fol- 
 lowing questions and the answer : — " But why can he 
 
368 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 not ? — what hinders ?" — thus insinuating that this ia 
 another example of inability, consisting in unwillingness. 
 Ans. ' If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them who are lost, 
 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the hearts of 
 them that believe not.' ' No man can come unto me, ex- 
 cept the Father draw him ;' i. e. by his hearing and being 
 taught of God ; making the reading, and especially the 
 preaching of his word, the means of his effectual calling 
 by his Spirit." The reader will at once perceive that 
 this answer is highly Calvinistic. The natural man can- 
 not know these things because he is lost, and the gospel 
 is hid from him ; and the Father has not seen proper to 
 " draw him" — to give him the " effectual calling ;" so that 
 ' the natural ability of the sinner is an ability which exists 
 in the absence of the indispensable means. 
 
 We think we can answer the questions in a different 
 manner, and quite as perspicuously. The natural man 
 cannot know these things " because they are spiritually 
 discerned," — because they can be known only by the 
 spiritual man, and he is natural. They can be discerned 
 from one position only, and he occupies another. They 
 can be seen only from a high and commanding elevation, 
 and he refuses to ascend it. His inability is, therefore, 
 just as much natural as is Dr. B.'s inability to see New- 
 York from Cincinnati. Whether the natural man can be- 
 come spiritual or not — and whence the ability to become 
 spiritual is derived — are other questions. 
 
 This is his last Scripture example. He advertises his 
 readers in the next paragraph, that thousands might be 
 added. If among the reserved thousands there are none 
 more relevant than those presented, he has done well to 
 keep them back, thereby saving time, labour, and expense. 
 But if there be one in his prodigious list which bears 
 conclusively on this point, we would be glad to see it ; — 
 perhaps it may yet be furnished. 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 36f 
 
 He next undertakes to make it appear that this distinc- 
 tion is recognised, not only by the Scriptures, but by man- 
 kind in general, in all the varieties of social intercourse, 
 " from the familiarity of conversational and business dia- 
 lect, up to the most laboured efforts of argument and elo- 
 quence." For this purpose, he presents a number of 
 " examples from writers of eminence." Some of them 
 we will examine. 
 
 Edwards is first introduced : — " To give some instan- 
 ces of this moral inability, a woman of great chastity and 
 honour may have a moral inability to prostitute herself 
 to her slave." So she may, and a natural inability like- 
 wise. It is contrary to the nature of things, that a woman 
 should sustain such opposite characters at the same 
 time. But she may cease to be " a woman of great honour 
 and chastity," and then there may be no inability, either 
 natural or moral. 
 
 " A child of great love and duty may be unable to be 
 willing to kill his father." Certainly, and the inability is 
 strictly natural. He must cease to be " a child of great 
 love and duty," and then he may be able to " be willing to 
 kill his father." The faculties immediately employed in. 
 willing are just as much natural as those employed in 
 executing the volitions of the mind. 
 
 " A drunkard, under such and such circumstances, may 
 be unable to forbear taking strong drink." Perhaps he 
 may, and the inability may be natural, originating in the 
 human constitution as enfeebled by drunkenness, and 
 acted upon by " such and such circumstances." 
 
 " A very malicious man may be unable to exert benevo- 
 lent acts to an enemy, or to desire his prosperity; yea, 
 some may be so under the power of a vile disposition 
 that they may be unable to love those who are most 
 worthy of their esteem and affection." And whence the 
 inability ? Has it not its origin in the constitution of 
 
 16* 
 
370 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 things — in the natural impossibility of sustaining two 
 diametrically opposite characters at the same time — of 
 being both malicious and benevolent at the same time 
 tow^ard the same object ? It is therefore a natural ina- 
 bility. Whether the man may cease to be malicious, and 
 escape from the power of a vile disposition, is another 
 question. We believe, that, through the grace of God, 
 he may, and then the inability will cease. 
 
 " A strong habit of virtue, and a great degree of holi- 
 ness, may cause a moral inability to love wickedness in 
 general, may render a man unable to take complacence in 
 vv^icked persons or things ; or to choose a wicked life, and 
 prefer it to a virtuous life." That is, as I understand it, 
 while a man has " a strong habit of virtue, and a great de- 
 gree of holiness," he cannot "love wickedness in general," 
 nor " take complacence in wicked persons or things," nor 
 *' choose a wicked life in preference to a virtuous life." 
 Certainly not ; because to do these things would imply 
 that he had no holiness at all, and a strong habit of vice. 
 The inability in this case is like that which stands in the 
 way of his existing and not existing at the same time. It 
 is another question, whether he may suffer his " strong 
 habit of virtue and great degree of holiness" to be im- 
 paired and destroyed, and then " love wickedness in 
 general," &c. 
 
 " And on the other hand, a great degree of habitual 
 wickedness may lay a man under an inability to love and 
 choose holiness, and render him utterly unable to love an 
 infinitely holy being, or to choose and cleave to him as his 
 chief good." But what does the natural ability of a man 
 " to love and choose holiness" amount to, when from some 
 cause, or causes, he is not only " laid under an inability," 
 but is " utterly unable ?" It is evidently no ability. The 
 example sufficiently refutes itself. It is, however, the 
 doctrine of Methodism, that while man, in consequence of 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 371 
 
 depravity, has not naturally the ability " to love God and 
 choose holiness," the grace of God is given to counteract 
 that depravity, so that he may be enabled to perform, at 
 any time, the first of the series of acts which leads on, 
 with greater or less rapidity, to ultimate holiness ; and 
 likewise to assist him in the performance of each succes- 
 sive act ; and that this grace is given to every man. 
 
 Buck is next brought forward. It is the more important 
 to notice his examples, as his Dictionary, in which they 
 are found, has a very extensive circulation. Examples 
 of natural and moral inability are placed in opposite 
 columns. 
 
 With reference to those intended to illustrate natural 
 inability, there can be no dispute. They are what they 
 profess to be. 
 
 " Cain could not have killed Abel, if Cain had been the 
 weakest, and Abel aware of him. 
 
 " Jacob could not rejoice in Joseph's exaltation before 
 he heard of it. 
 
 " The woman mentioned in 2 Kings vi, 29, could not 
 kill her neighbour's son and eat him, when he was hid, 
 and she could not find him. 
 
 " Hazael could not have smothered Bcnhadad, if he had 
 not been suffered to enter his chamber." 
 
 The examples of moral, as distinguished from natural 
 inability, are, however, somewhat doubtful. 
 
 " Cain could not have killed Abel, if Cain had feared 
 God and loved his brother." That is, as we suppose, 
 while he feared God and loved his brother. We readily 
 assent to this ; but the inability is natural ; just as much so 
 as "if Cain had been the weakest, and Abel aware of him." 
 This example is of the same class as those from Edwards. 
 It arises out of man's constitutional inability to entertain 
 and manifest directly opposite dispositions and feelings, 
 toward the same object, at the same time. It was natu- 
 
372 NEW DIVINITY CAL\'INISM. 
 
 rally impossible that Cain should fear God and love his 
 brother, and be regardless of God, and hate and murder 
 his brother, at the same moment. 
 
 " Potiphar's wife could not rejoice in it (Joseph's ex- 
 altation) while she continued under it." Why ? What 
 reason can be assigned for this assertion ? How does this 
 prove the distinction ? The illustration is too brief to be 
 intelligible, and we will let it go for what it is worth. 
 
 " Had that woman (mentioned in 2 Kings, &c.) been a 
 very affectionate mother, she could not have killed her 
 son in a time of plenty, as she did in a time of famine." 
 Very well ! And why could she not as easily have killed 
 her son in a time of plenty 1 Because the act would have 
 been malignant and murderous. And is it not as much a 
 natural impossibility that " a very aifectionate mother" 
 should be, at the same time, actuated by cruel and mur- 
 derous dispositions toward her offspring, as that she 
 should be a mother and not a mother at the same time ? 
 The inability in the case is therefore natural. It is true, 
 she might have ceased to be a very affectionate mother, 
 and become a hard hearted and cruel one, and then the 
 inability Avould have been removed. 
 
 " If a dutiful and afi'ectionate son had been waiting on 
 Benhadad in Hazael's stead, he could not have smothered 
 him, as Hazael did." Why not 1 Evidently on account 
 of the natural impossibility of an affectionate son's being 
 at the same time actuated by murderous dispositions to- 
 ward his father. 
 
 He then proceeds to quote Lord Bacon, Dr. Johnson, 
 Shakspeare, Burke, Hon. Daniel Webster, Alexander 
 Hamilton, and Judge Story. It is remarkable, however, 
 that in none of the quotations, although most of these 
 authors are quite modern, is this distinction named or 
 referred to. Its advocates have not been able, Avith 
 all their ingenuity, and learning, to force it into the 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 373 
 
 current of general literature. The proof which these 
 examples furnish is precisely similar to that furnished by 
 the Scriptures. They use the term cannot when there 
 is obviously no inability. Dr. B. concludes that they 
 must surely mean inability, because they say cannot; and 
 infers that, inasmuch as there is ability to do the things 
 with respect to which inability is predicated, there must, 
 therefore, be two kinds of inability. 
 
 Some of these examples are not only irrelevant, but 
 also quite unfortunate for the distinction they are intended 
 to establish. Take the one from Dr. Johnson, introduced 
 as bringing natural and moral inability together in one 
 sentence. " There never can be wanting some who will 
 consider that a whole life cannot be spent on syntax and 
 etymology, and that even a whole life would not be suffi- 
 cient." It would be exceedingly difficult, we apprehend, 
 for any but a New School Calvinist to perceive the 
 slightest trace of the distinction in this passage. The 
 meaning of it appears to be simply this : — There will 
 always be some who will consider that a whole life can- 
 not conveniently or reasonably be spent on syntax and 
 etymology, and that if a whole life could be so spent, it 
 would be insufficient. But how would it read on Dr. B.'s 
 plan of interpretation 1 Here, however, we are at a loss ; 
 for he has furnished no satisfactory marks by which we 
 may ascertain where he locates the natural, and where 
 the moral inability. If he intends the terms " never can" 
 and " cannot" to represent the natural, and the terms 
 " would not" the moral inability, the sense is ridiculous. 
 Try it: — " It is naturally impossible that there should be 
 wanting some, who will consider that it is naturally im- 
 possible that a whole life should be spent on syntax and 
 etymology, and that even a whole life is morally unable, 
 unwilling to be sufficient." Indeed, construe the passage 
 
374 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 as you may, according to the doctrines it is brought for- 
 ward to establish, and it is perfect nonsense. 
 
 Equally inappropriate is the following quotation from 
 Mr. Webster : — " In the very nature of things, a charter 
 cannot be forced upon any body ; no one can be compelled 
 to accept a grant." — This is intended as an example of 
 moral inability. It is very plain, that Mr. W. did 
 not intend to assert inability to force a charter, &c. ; 
 but that the thing could not be done consistently, rea- 
 sonably, lawfully ; and the inability to do an unlawful 
 thing lawfully, is, to all intents and purposes, a natural 
 inability. No man can do it, let him will ever so reso- 
 lutely. But let us suppose that Mr. W. intended to 
 affirm a moral, in contradistinction to a natural inability, 
 and we must understand him as saying, " In the very 
 nature of things, a charter will not be forced upon any 
 body ; no one tdll be compelled to accept a grant." Thus 
 the passage is changed from its argumentative character into 
 a prophetical declaration that no such event will ever occur. 
 
 The passage from Shakspeare is eminently unfortunate : 
 
 " Pray, I cannot. — 
 Though inclination be as sharp as 'twill, 
 My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent, 
 And, like a man to double business bound, 
 I stand and pause where I shall first begin. 
 And both neglect. 
 
 But O what form of prayer 
 Can serve my turn ? Forgive me my foul murder! 
 That cannot be ; since 1 am still possess'd 
 Of those effects for which I did the murder; 
 My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen." 
 
 Hamlet, scene ii, act 3. 
 
 The dramatic personage is represented as saying that 
 he " cannot prayP Is this a natural or moral inability ? 
 The New School doctrine is, that every man has a natural 
 
NEW DIVINITY CAXVINISM. 375 
 
 ability to do what God requires of him, and that his ina- 
 bility is wholly moral — consisting in want of will. It is 
 to sustain this distinction and doctrine, that the poet is 
 quoted. But, most unhappily, he represents his hero as 
 unable to pray, notwithstanding he has the moral ability, 
 •' Though inclination be as sharp as 'twill." He has a 
 "strong intent," but his stronger guilt defeats it. 
 
 Thus, in our judgment, do all these examples signally 
 fail to support this distinction. It derives its plausibility, 
 chiefly, from varied, cautious, and vmfair modes of state- 
 ment. 
 
 Having corrected Dr. B. on this point, let us now no- 
 tice an instance by Mr. Barnes. He says, in his " De- 
 fence," p. 153, " There are two kinds of inability — one 
 arising from want of physical powers, the other from a 
 want of inclination or will. The inability of a man to 
 remove a mountain is one thing, and an inability to do 
 right, arising from a strong love of sin, is another." Now 
 this looks very plausible, but it is fallacious. It is, osten- 
 sibly, based on the well-known distribution of human 
 faculties into physical or corporeal, intellectual and moral, 
 and the corresponding and similar distinction of the 
 power by Avhich these classes of faculties are respectively 
 exercised. But, according to this distinction, there are 
 three kinds of power. Mr. B. does not say, " there are 
 two kinds of inability, the one arising from the want of 
 natural ability, the other from the want of moral ability," 
 although such is his meaning. He uses the wox^ physical 
 instead of natural. Now this word is ambiguous. It is 
 defined by lexicographers, and used by writers, to signify 
 sometimes what is material, in opposition to what is intel- 
 lectual or moral ; and sometimes whatever is natural or 
 constitutional. The advantage which Mr. B. gains by 
 substituting "physical" for natural, is this — if we deny 
 the distinction of physical and moral ability, he can take 
 
376 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 the word physical in the sense of material or corporeal, 
 and thus place us in the position of denying what we do 
 not intend to deny, and can confront us with authorities. 
 We must admit " that the inability to remove a mountain 
 is one tiling, and the inability" to compose an oration, or 
 " to do right, arising from a strong love of sin, is another." 
 When this point is gained, he can change the sense of 
 the word " physical" from corporeal, to constitutional or 
 natural, and claim to have established the distinction of 
 natural and moral ability. But the sophistry of all this 
 has been sufficiently exposed. While there is a real dis- 
 tinction between corporeal power and moral power, be- 
 tween the power to lift a weight, or " remove a moun- 
 tain," and the power to "vy^ill to obey God, there is not a 
 distinction between natural and moral power ; or if there is 
 a difference, it is merely that which exists between genus 
 and species — between bird and eagle. The natural ability 
 may not be moral, but it does not follow that the moral 
 ability is not natural. Its advocates find it necessary to 
 keep up a constant ambiguity of language. The terms 
 power, physical, natural, moral, can, cannot, are all used 
 ambiguously. It is not to be denied that the latter term 
 is often used figuratively ; but this causes no ambiguity — 
 no embarrassment. Its meaning is easily determined by 
 its connection. It is so frequently used, in all its modes 
 of application, in the most common intercourse of life, 
 that the most ignorant are in no danger of misunderstand- 
 ing it. It is only when employed in conveying the most 
 important instructions — the instructions of the gospel, 
 that it gives <an uncertain sound. The advocates of New 
 Divinity have undertaken to make it sustain two opposite 
 meanings at the same time. For instance — when it is 
 used figurativcdy, they construe it to mean unwillingness, 
 in contradistinction to inability. Thus far all is right. 
 But, in order to make out two kinds of ability, they con- 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 377 
 
 strue it at the same time to mean a real inability. To 
 this we must be permitted to object. 
 
 And while the philosophy of Shakspeare (whom Dr. 
 Beecher describes as being " as noted for using language as 
 men in every situation use it, as he is for delineation of cha- 
 racter") exhibits so little affinity to that of New School Cal- 
 vinism, it is remarkable how it harmonizes with the repre- 
 sentations of the apostle. So far from identifying will and 
 ability, Paul describes men as unable to do what they are 
 strongly inclined, and make repeated efforts to do. In Rom. 
 vii, he writes : — " For we know that the law is spiritual : 
 but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do / 
 allow not : for what / would that I do not ; but what I 
 hate that I do." " For to will is present with me ; but 
 how to perform that which is good I find not. For the 
 good that / would I do not ; but the evil which I would 
 not, that I do." " I find then a law that when I would 
 do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the 
 law of God after the inward man : but I see another law 
 in my members warring against the law of my mind, and 
 bringing me into captivity to the law of sin Avhich is in 
 my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall de- 
 liver me from the body of this death V But if we may 
 be unable to do the things which we are willing and 
 endeavour to do, it is plain, that willingness does not con- 
 stitute ability to do them, — that will and ability are not 
 the same ; unless we may be able to do that which we 
 are unable to do. The disagreement between the apostle 
 and these modern theorists is irreconcilable. They teach 
 that all men have a natural ability to do what God re- 
 quires, and all that is necessary to secure their obedience 
 is the will, which constitutes the moral ability ; from 
 which it follows that so soon as a man becomes willing 
 he is fully able — he had the natural ability before, he has 
 the moral ability now. The apostle most unequivocally 
 
378 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 teaches that men may be willing and yet unable, and 
 wretched on account of that inability, and wholly depend- 
 ant on a deliverer to supply the necessary power. He 
 therefore completely explodes the distinction of natural 
 and moral ability. 
 
 We conclude our argument with the following addi- 
 tional objection: — If God requires sinners to be willing 
 to serve him — if to be willing, is to be able, and to be un- 
 willing, is to be unable — and if the sinner has a natural 
 ability to do what is required, the sage conclusion inevita- 
 bly results, that the sinner has a natural alility to he able 
 to serve God. 
 
 Indeed, so perfectly trifling is this distinction, that it 
 would be matter of astonishment that men of understand- 
 ing, much more of learning, should advocate or counte 
 nance it, were it not for its importance in seeming to re- 
 concile a free salvation with Calvinism. It is a mere hy- 
 pothesis for the solution of a theological difficulty. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIV. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 The difficulties by which this distinction is encumbered, 
 have brought it into disfavour with some of the leading 
 writers of this school, who have surrendered it. They 
 have not surrendered the doctrines founded upon it, but 
 merely the terms by which they are represented. They 
 object to any language in prayer or direct instruction, 
 which asserts or implies that man is subject to inability to 
 comply with all the terms of salvation. They perceive 
 that the same end is secured by asserting a disinclination, 
 or want of will, merely, which is supposed to hinder the 
 repentance of the sinner as efFectuallv as if he were ab- 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 379 
 
 solutely unable ; and the removal of which depends on the 
 influences of the Spirit. Indeed, the distinction itself 
 could be of no particular service to Calvinism at anytime, 
 except as it may serve to prevent alarm at the doctrine of 
 the sinner's ability without grace. It is more than probable 
 that when it was introduced, any theory Avhich affirms the 
 ability of the unregenerate, without some neutralizing 
 qualification, would have been rejected at once by the great 
 body of Calvinists. But the doctrine of a moral inability, 
 which nothing but electing grace could remedy, would so 
 chime in with the orthodoxy of the times, as to make way 
 for its Pelagian spouse — the doctrine of a natural ability. 
 Among those Avho are disposed to proclaim a divorce 
 between this long wedded but somewhat quarrelsome pair, 
 we find Mr. Hinton. He says, " The appropriateness and 
 expediency of the term moral inability to denote a wrong 
 disposition is highly questionable. It satisfied the disputants 
 of past days ; but, at the time, it rather concealed than ex- 
 hibited the truth contended for, and ever since it has ra- 
 ther occasioned perplexity than facilitated inquiry. The 
 existence o{ inability on the part of sinners was the main 
 position which the opposing divines had maintained ; and 
 the adoption of the phrase in question, permitted them to 
 continue to maintain it. Its being qualified by the term 
 moral was of little consequence ; still, they said, you allow 
 inability to exist, and whether natural or moral makes no dif- 
 ference, IT IS INABILITY." p. 295. 
 
 Mr. H. is, however, careful to make it appear that, in 
 giving up the moral inability, he only abandons the phrase- 
 ology. He holds, most tenaciously, to an indisposition, 
 on the part of the sinner, to serve God, which renders the 
 influences of the Spirit absolutely necessary ; that these 
 influences are vouchsafed to some and not to others ; and 
 that the moral differences among men, in view of which 
 some are saved and others damned, are made by God him- 
 
380 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 self. One or two brief examples will suffice to justify our 
 affirmation. He says : — " What has been hitherto ad- 
 vanced may be thus briefly summed up. The influence 
 of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary to conver- 
 sion, and CERTAINLY EFFECTUAL to it. These are senti- 
 ments of grea,t glory and deep importance." — p. 76. 
 What he means by " certainly effectual" is explained at 
 the commencement of the chapter : — " By this language we 
 mean that whensoever the Spirit begins to operate upon 
 the heart of a sinner for his conversion, he invariably ac- 
 complishes the work. He never suspends his interference 
 until the work is achieved ; nor are there any cases in 
 which his influence is ineflfectual to its attainment." — p. 68. 
 The meaning of this is too plain for misapprehension ; and 
 the inference is too obvious for dispute, that if a sinner is 
 not converted, it is because the Spirit of God never began 
 to operate on the heart of that sinner for his conversion, 
 although such operations are absolutely necessary. 
 
 The first article in the American Biblical Repository 
 for January 1839, entitled, "Introductory observations," 
 contains an elaborate statement of doctrines professedly co- 
 pied from the correspondence between Drs. Woods and 
 Beecher, in 1832, as published in the " Spirit of the Pil- 
 grims," vol. V, p. 496, seq. " In the statement," it is said, 
 " the two distinguished and enlightened divines above 
 named express their cordial agreement. They also ex- 
 press it as their united opinion ' that, with few exceptions, 
 the ministers of the orthodox Congregational Church in 
 New-England, together with most, if not all the Presby- 
 terian ministers throughout the United States, will give 
 their full assent to this statement.' They also regard it as 
 ' a solid basis of ministerial fellowship and co-operation.' " 
 
 In the articles on " regeneration" and " election" 
 we have the following sentiments : — 
 
 ** The dependance of man, as a sinner, on the Holy Spi- 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 381 ' 
 
 rit, is so real, universal, and absolute, that no human 
 being ever was, or ever will be saved without special 
 grace. The natural ability which avails to create obliga- 
 tion, and to bring on the disobedient a just condemnation, 
 never avails, neither alone or by any power of truth or 
 help of man, to recover a sinner from alienation to evan- 
 gelical obedience, because of the inflexible bias of his will to 
 evir 
 
 Again : " An obstinate will demands as really and cer- 
 tainly the interposition of special influence, as if the ina- 
 bility were natural, though the difference in respect to ob- 
 ligation and guilt and deserved punishment is infinite." 
 
 Again : " But this persuasion of the Holy Spirit in ef- 
 fectual calling is not the moral suasion of man's exerting, 
 or sufficient grace of God's giving, whose efficacy depends 
 on the will of the sinner, and not on the energetic and 
 transforming influence of the Holy Spirit, ' as the Pela- 
 gians do vainly talk ;' nor is it of a kind which, when ex- 
 erted, the sinner by his free will ever does resist ; but it 
 is manifestly an operation supernatural, at the same time 
 most powerful and most sweet, wonderfid, secret, and in- 
 effable in its power, according to the Scripture, not less 
 than or inferior to creation, or the resurrection of the 
 dead : so that all those in whose hearts God works in this 
 admirable manner are certainly, infallibly, and effica- 
 ciously regenerated, and in fact believe." 
 
 Again : " All the subjects of God's special renewing 
 grace are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the 
 world, that they should be holy and without blame before 
 him in love, to the praise of the glory of his grace ; not on 
 principles of law as meriting this favour, and not on the 
 ground of repentance, faith, or good works foreseen."-p. 13. 
 
 We are here instructed, that such is the dependance of 
 the sinner on the special grace of God, that no man ever 
 was, or ever will be, saved without it : that natural ability, 
 
382 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 although it avails to create obligation and justify punish- 
 ment, never did, and never will, avail to repentance ; that 
 the difficulty in the way of the sinner's conversion " de- 
 mands as really and certainly the interposition of the Holy 
 Spirit as if the inability were natural ;" that the exertion 
 of the saving influence " does not depend on the will of 
 the sinner," nor does the free will of the sinner ever re- 
 sist it when exerted ; but all those on whose hearts it 
 operates " are certainly, infallibly, and efficaciously re- 
 generated, and in fact believe ;" and that all the subjects 
 of this influence were chosen to be the subjects of it be- 
 fore the foundation of the world, and " not on the ground 
 of repentance, or faith, or good works foreseen." Of 
 course, if any are not regenerated, it is not because they 
 have resisted the influences of the Spirit, which are ab- 
 solutely necessary to salvation ; but because those influ- 
 ences were never brought to bear upon them — because 
 they were not chosen to this distinction from all eternity. 
 We hope the authors and advocates of this creed will 
 hereafter pay some regard to consistency, and not charge 
 upon the will of the sinner the fact that he is not re- 
 generated.* 
 
 * The writer or writers of this article profess to consider these 
 doctrines among the " principal fundamental doctrines on which it 
 is supposed all Christians are substantially agreed." This is truly 
 astonishing. There has lately been (as the reader has already been 
 informed) a considerable clamour raised by certain sanguine, but 
 somewhat disappointed sectarista, against sectarianism. The sen- 
 timent has been inculcated that public religious instruction should 
 be confined to tenets in which all Christians are agreed. Those in 
 which they differ have been styled "sectarian Christianity," in con- 
 tradistinction to " substantial Christianity." The promulgators of 
 this sentiment have been verj' shy about stating the doctrines in 
 which it is supposed all Christians are agreed ; for they are not 
 without the sagacity to perceive that if they undertake this, and do 
 it fairly, they will exclude from public teaching many important doc- 
 
\EW DIVIN'ITV CALVINISM. 383 
 
 But this doctrine of moral inability or disinclination, re- 
 mediable only by the special and partially vouchsafed 
 influences of the Spirit, is not the only security for the 
 Calvinism of the New School. The definitions wliich are 
 
 trines, or deny to large sects the right to be called Christians.— 
 Occasionally, however, we have sermons and statements put forth, 
 containing, professedly, nothing but what all Christians can unite 
 in. The Rev. Dr. Skinner, who is terrible in his philippics against 
 sectarianism, has recently published a book of sermons, of consider- 
 able merit, entitled "Religion of the Bible." In his preface he says, 
 " It is earnestly hoped that, in perusing this book, he [the reader] 
 will not once find his thoughts conversant with a subject which he 
 himself will regard as a matter of doubtful disputation, or as among 
 the uncertainties of religion, or as pertaining to those peculiarities, 
 whether of doctrine, practice, or spirit, which have given Christians 
 different names, and have divided them into contending schools and 
 sects." Some of his friends, relying, we suppose, on his word, have 
 echoed this eulogy. We read the book with eagerness, not a little 
 anxious to see whether he could keep clear of disputed points ; and 
 were not disappointed in finding doctrines eminently Calvinistic — 
 such as are disputed and rejected by the great body of Arminian 
 Christians. He affirms, and represents the Saviour as defending, 
 the Calvinistic view respecting " God's sovereignty." It is fully 
 developed in these words : " If God be influenced at all by what 
 men themselves, in a moral respect, are or do, he would be in- 
 fluenced, not to save, but to destroy them," p. 3'20. Here is an 
 explicit avowal of the sentiment, that God is not influenced at all, in 
 saving men, by what they, in a moral respect, are or do ; or, in 
 other words, that he selects those whom he chooses to save from 
 among the ungodly and impenitent, without any regard to repent, 
 ance or faith foreseen, as a reason for their selection, while he re- 
 jects others, who, so far as moral character is concerned, are as 
 eligible to salvation as those whom he determines to save. He 
 closes this sermon by sajing that, if there be any mystery in this 
 doctrine, it is the mystery not of the subject, but of a perverse 
 and unteachable heart." 
 
 The sermon on " Restraints on Divine Influence" is eminently 
 warlike in its attitudes. If it does not discuss disputed doctrines, it 
 deals out censures unsparingly on "schools and sects," on "minis. 
 
384 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM, 
 
 given of the ability which the sinner is declared to pos- 
 sess are sufficient to preserve that system inviolate, with- 
 out any other guardianship. Let them assert, Avith the 
 utmost fulness of expression, that every sinner is fully 
 
 ters," '• particular churches," and on " peculiarities of practice and 
 spirit." He finds some ministers " under the sway of the spirit of 
 sect," who would fain draw down fire from heaven to burn up 
 those who do not fall in and build with them ;" and others who, 
 "labouring hard in angry controversy, suppose nothing to be a 
 more worthy object of pursuit than the confutation of speculative 
 errors on all points of divinity ;" and others, ministers of evangeli- 
 cal denominations, who, although they are not found among the open 
 opposers of revivals, are induced by "pecuUar circumstances of ex- 
 pediency" to " repress positive expressions of aversion." Among 
 churches he finds those who, " deeming no spirit so excellent as zeal 
 for orthodoxy, are afraid of the influence of revivals on their stand- 
 ards of faith, and so hold them in suspicion, if not in worse esteem ;" 
 and " others" who, " on the contrary, overpowered by the spirit of 
 party, long for nothing so much as an increase of numbers, and set 
 themselves against true revivals by contrivances designed to awa- 
 ken their assemblies into a great animal excitement, as a fruitful 
 means of proselytism." It is certainly encouraging to think that 
 there is one minister, and one church in the land, free from these 
 unseemly characteristics. 
 
 Now we do not care to decide whether these censures are merited 
 or not, nor do we object to this author's advancing his own peculiar 
 doctrines, or wielding the lash of censure on the backs of ministers 
 or churches that do not come up to his standard ; but we object to 
 his claiming to have advanced no doctrines but what all Christians 
 believe, and arrogating to himself the credit of a liberality and free- 
 dom from sectarianism of which others are represented as so deplo- 
 rably destitute. 
 
 What can all this mean ? Are these great and learned men real- 
 ly ignorant of the fact that the doctrines they set forth as received 
 by all Christians are warmly disputed among Christians ? Or do 
 they hope to spread Calvinism, by making the impression on the 
 minds of those who know no better, that it is undisputed truth ? 
 Or do they deny the character of Christians to all who reject these 
 doctrines ? 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 385 
 
 able to comply, at any moment, with the claims of the 
 gospel — let them argue vehemently in favour of the asser- 
 tion — let them insist upon it that the opposite opinion 
 represents Jehovah as a tyrant — let them, on this ground, 
 offer salvation to all, and urge all to come to Christ, with 
 all the eloquence of persuasion — let it be imagined, as it 
 is by many of their hearers, that they are genuine Armini- 
 ans, and that Calvinism is the object of their righteous 
 abhorrence ; and all this time Calvinism dwells securely, 
 and smiles at the misapprehensions of the multitude. 
 This ability consists in nothing more than the possession 
 of constitutional faculties, which may be possessed in the 
 absence of the power that is absolutely necessary to exer- 
 cise them in the way required. 
 
 Mr. Hintoh has adopted a definition of " power" differ- 
 ent from the above, in the management of Avhich he has 
 shown not a little ingenuity. Instead of taking the term 
 in its ordinary and strictly proper sense, he defines it to 
 consist in " the possession of means," He then gives 
 such illustrations of his definition, as seem to make the 
 possession of means equal to the possession of -power. 
 But when he comes to inquire what are the means neces- 
 sary to salvation, he takes care to leave out of liis enu- 
 meration something which he elsewhere assures us is 
 absolutely necessary — the Holy Spirit's influences. Hence. 
 the ability which he ascribes to the sinner is, after all, 
 an ability which is utterly and inevitably unavailing. 
 
 17 
 
386 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXV. 
 
 CALVINISM CONTINUED. 
 
 Besides these subtilties on ability, certain distinctions 
 on the atonement have been resorted to, for the same pur- 
 pose. There is so obvious an inconsistency in offering 
 salvation to all, on the supposition that Christ did not die 
 for all, that the man who ventures to connect these in the 
 pulpit is more likely to excite contempt than to commend 
 himself to the conscience. This is felt by Calvinists. 
 Hence they distinguish between the atonement and the 
 application of it — between atonement and redemption — be- 
 tween the sujfficiency of the atonement and its ejficicncy. 
 
 Two or three examples may suffice. The first we shall 
 select from Mr. Payne's Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, 
 referred to at the commencement of our discussions. 
 He affirms that " while, on the one hand, the Saviour can- 
 not have intended to secure the salvation of all men by 
 the act of offering himself up a sacrifice for sin ; yet that 
 the sacrifice must, on the one hand, have been in itself 
 adequate to the salvation of all men, so as to become a 
 suitable foundation for the general and unlimited calls of 
 the gospel. There is a broad line of distinction between 
 the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ and its efiiciency, 
 or rather, as I would say, the sovereign purpose of the 
 sacred three, in reference to its efficiency ; that is, in refer- 
 ence to the exertion of that holy influence upon the minds 
 of men, which secures to them the enjoyment of the 
 blessings which flow through the channel of the atone- 
 ment. It may be true (whether it is or not we shall in- 
 quire presently, my present object is merely to illustrate 
 the difference between the two things) that Jehovah did 
 not intend to put forth that influence which would render 
 the atonement the means of securing the salvation of all 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 387 
 
 men ; though, as it was to become the basis of moral 
 government, it was essential that it should be of infinite 
 worth, and so in itself adequate to the salvation of all 
 men. This I have long regarded as the true state of the 
 case." — p. 209. 
 
 Again, " If the question be ' Did Christ die with the de- 
 sign of laying a foundation of salvation for all men, or for 
 some men V I answer, that, in this sense, he died for all 
 men. If the question be ' Did he die with the design of 
 rendering the means effectual to the salvation of all men, 
 or of some men V I answer, that, in this sense, he died 
 for some men only." 
 
 " I believe in the unlimited, universal, infinite suffi- 
 ciency of the atonement of Christ — I believe it was the 
 intention of God, as the moral Governor, in giving his Son 
 as a sacrifice for sin, to provide a general remedy com- 
 mensurate with the disease. I believe, on the other hand, 
 in the limited application of the atonement. I believe it 
 was the intention of God, as a sovereign, to render the 
 remedy effectual, by special and sovereign influence, in 
 the case of certain individuals only who are affected with 
 the general disease, so that the intention of God as a 
 sovereign, and as a ruler, in reference to the atonement, 
 is different, the one being general, the other particular."— 
 Ihid. 
 
 We have the sentiments of Dr. Cox, on this subject, in 
 the appendix to his Avork on Quakerism. He remarks, 
 " In modern technology (which I approve) they only are 
 said to be redeemed who are actually accepted in Christ : 
 for all, atonement is made ; to all, it is offered ; the Spirit 
 striving through the truth as extensively as the sufficiency 
 and applicability of the atonement are extensive. Still, 
 to accept the offer and correspond with the offerer, is, in. 
 the very nature of things, the only way to be saved. 
 Are all men saved ? Yes — if all repent and believe the 
 
3,88 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 gospel! Do they all this? He that believes men are 
 saved in sin, or that all men renounce it, must have very- 
 strong faith ! We, however, do not believe that the atone- 
 ment was indefinite, in the sense of the Remonstrants of 
 Holland, or any other Arminians. God had a design in 
 making it, which no event could frustrate. Christ eter- 
 nally designed the salvation of the elect ; and for these, 
 in this sense exclusively, he gave his precious life. But 
 this makes not the atonement less full, or alters its nature 
 at all."— p. 667. 
 
 The reader will readily perceive, that, notwithstanding 
 all that is said in these passages of a " full," " unlimited," 
 *' universal" atonement, the writers hold most tenaciously 
 to the great Calvinistic principle, which limits the provi- 
 sion for salvation to a definite and favoured number. The 
 atonement was adequate to the salvation of all men. It 
 justifies the general and unlimited calls of the gospel. 
 But it is not indefinite, in the sense in which Arminians 
 understand it, which, we apprehend, is the sense in which 
 it is generally understood. Christ eternally designed the 
 salvation of the elect ; and for them, in this sense exclu- 
 sively, (in the sense of designing their salvation,) he 
 gave his precious life. " The Saviour cannot have intend- 
 ed to secure the salvation of all men," &c. " It was the 
 intention of God to render the remedy effectual in the ease 
 of certain individuals only." " The atonement was for all, 
 but the elect only are said to be redeemed." 
 
 It may serve to illustrate more vividly and impressively 
 the effect of these distinctions, if we furnish an example 
 of the manner in which they are applied, — first, for the 
 purpose of preaching a free salvation, and secondly, for 
 the purpose of securing the system of Calvinism. 
 
 In Mr. Barnes' sermon, on " The Way of Salvation," 
 there is a most eloquent assertion of the doctrine, that 
 salvation is free for, and sincerely oflfered to all. The 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 389 
 
 passage alluded to, is in the style of the most high-toned 
 and uncompromising Arminianism. He writes : — 
 
 " The atonement was for all men. It was an offering 
 made for the race. It had not respect so much to indivi- 
 duals, as to the law and perfections of God. It was an 
 opening of the way for pardon — a making forgiveness 
 consistent — a preserving of the truth — a magnifying of 
 the law, and had no particular reference to any class of 
 men. We judge that He died for all ; He tasted death 
 for every man. He is the propitiation for the sins of the 
 world. He came, that whosoever would believe on Him 
 should not perish, but have eternal life. 
 
 " The full benefit of the atonement is offered t;o all nien. 
 In perfect sincerity God makes the offer. He has com- 
 missioned his servants to go and preach the gospel — that 
 is, the good news that salvation is provided for them — to 
 every creature. He that does not this ; that goes to offer 
 the gospel to a part only ; to elect persons only ; or, that 
 supposes that God offers the gospel only to a certain por- 
 tion of mankind, violates his commission, practically 
 charges God with insincerity, makes himself ' wise above 
 what is written,' and brings great reproach on the holy 
 cause of redemption. The offer of salvation is not made 
 by man, but by God. It is Ms commission ; and it is his 
 solemn charge, that the sincere offer of Heaven should be 
 made to every creature. That all creatures have not 
 heard it ; that every heathen man, every Indian, African, 
 and Islander, have not heard it, has been owing to the un- 
 faithfulness of ministers — to the avarice of the church — to 
 the want of proper zeal among Christians, and not to the 
 command of God, or any want of fulness in the atone- 
 ment. 
 
 " I assume the free and full offer of the gospel to all 
 men, to be one of those cardinal points of the system by 
 which I guage all my, other views of truth. It is, in my 
 
390 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 view, a corner stone of the whole edifice ; that which 
 makes it so glorious to God, and so full of good will to 
 men. I hold no doctrines, and, by the grace of God, never 
 can hold any which will be in my view inconsistent with 
 the free and full offer of the gospel to all men ; or which 
 will bind my hands, or palsy my tongue, or freeze my 
 heart, when I stand before sinners to tell them of a dying 
 Saviour. I stand as the messenger of God, with the as- 
 surance, that all that will may be saved ; that the atone- 
 ment was full and free ; and that if any perish, it will be 
 because they choose to die, and not because they are 
 straitened in God. I have no fellow-feeling for any other 
 gospel ; I have no right hand of fellowship to extend to 
 any scheme that does not say that God sincerely offers all 
 the bliss of heaven to every wandering child of Adam, — 
 be he a CafTrarian, a Hindoo, a man of China, or a Lap- 
 lander ; a beggar or a king, a rich man, a learned man, a 
 moral man, or an abandoned wretch of Christian climes. 
 
 " The scheme of salvation I regard as offered to the 
 world, as free as the light of heaven, or the rains that burst 
 upon the mountains, or the full swelling of broad rivers 
 and streams, or the heavings of the deep. And though 
 millions do not receive it — though in regard to them the 
 benefits of the plan are lost, and to them, in a certain 
 sense, the plan may be said to be in vain, yet I see in 
 this the hand of the same God that pours the rays of noon- 
 day on barren sands, and genial showers on desert rocks, 
 and gives life, bubbling springs, and flowers, where no 
 man is, to our eyes, yet not to his, in vain. So is the offer 
 of eternal life, to every man here, to every man every- 
 where, sincere and full — an offer that, though it may pro- 
 duce no emotions in the sinner's bosom here, would send 
 a thrill of joy through all the panting bosoms of the suffer- 
 ing damned." 
 
 Such is the manner in which this eloquent preacher 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 391 
 
 sometimes takes occasion to assert the fulness and free- 
 ness of the atonement, and the universality and sincerity 
 of the gospel offers of eternal salvation. This passage, 
 taken alone, is sufficient to make the heart of the Chris- 
 tian or the penitent leap within him. And who that is 
 unacquainted with the turnings, and windings, and diversi- 
 fied subterfuges of New Divinity, would suppose, for a 
 moment, that the author of these glowing paragraphs is a 
 firm believer in the Calvinistic doctrines respecting pre- 
 destination and election ? He not only affirms that salva- 
 tion is provided for, and offered to, every creature, but 
 denounces with great severity the opposite doctrines. If 
 an Arminian were disposed to speak in terms severely 
 condemnatory of Calvinism, it would be difficult for him 
 to find language better suited to his purpose than that used 
 by Mr. B. This sermon gave dissatisfaction to some of 
 his brethren, as might have been expected, and he was 
 put on the defence of his orthodoxy. Let us see how he 
 proceeds. In his answer to the protest against his ser- 
 mon, he makes the following explanations. 
 
 " In denying that it was in itself efficacious, it was meant 
 to affirm that the atonement was something which could 
 be contemplated apart from the purpose to apply it ; that 
 it had a dignity and value which could not be adequately 
 measured by its actual application ; that it was in its na- 
 ture applicable to any number of men ; that if God had 
 chosen to apply it to all the loorld, or to have greatly in- 
 creased the number of the elect, the Redeemer would not 
 have been required to increase, renew, or prolong his suf- 
 ferings. Its actual application to man was supposed to be 
 the result of the good pleasure of God. It was supposed 
 that there was a covenant transaction between the Father 
 and the Son, assuring him that he should see of the travail 
 of his soul, and should be satisfied, and that his people 
 should be willing in the day of his power. It was not sup- 
 
392 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 posed that the exact amount of this number was fixed by 
 the nature of the atonement, but depended on the mercy 
 and promise of God. 
 
 " To the Redeemer's sufferings and death, contemplated 
 apart from the actual purpose to apply his merits, I chose, 
 in accordance Avith many writers, to apply the word atone- 
 ment. The actual application of his work, I supposed, 
 might be appropriately expressed by the word redemption. 
 It was not thought that this was a departure from Scripture 
 usage. The word atonement occurs but once as applica- 
 ble to the death of Christ in the New Testament ; the 
 word redemption often, and this latter word it is supposed 
 always with reference to the purpose to apply it. It did 
 not seem then to be a gross violation of Scripture usage, 
 to describe by the word atonement a thing which may and 
 must be contemplated — the highest and best gift of God — 
 the sufferer, the bleeding victim, the atoning sacrifice : still 
 less can it be seen how this usage can be construed into 
 an offence against the Confession of Faith. In all our 
 standards of doctrine the word atonement never occurs. 
 Nor is it the purpose of the standards to decide the thing 
 which I Avished to express by the word — the original in- 
 dependent applicability of the sufferings of Christ. The 
 Confession of Faith, states only its application ; for that it 
 uses the word redemption. It afllirms of that, that it is 
 limited and was intended to be limited. That the sermon 
 never denied." — Defence, p. 69. 
 
 The whole secret of this matter is now laid open. The 
 word atonement, it is said, occurs but once in the New 
 Testament as applicable to the sufferings of Christ. It 
 represents the original independent applicability of the suf- 
 ferings of Christ. It was in its nature applicable to anynum 
 ber of men, and if God had chpsen greatly to increase the 
 number of the elect, no additional suffering on the part of 
 Christ would have been requisite. But there is a distinction 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 39:^ 
 
 between the atonement and the application of it. The atone - 
 ment without the application is not adequate to the salvation 
 of any one ; the application is absolutely necessary. It is 
 the redemption which is in Christ Jesus ; and it would be 
 infidelity itself to suppose that a sinner can be saved whom 
 Christ has not redeemed. But the application of the 
 atonement, or the redemption, is by no means coextensive 
 with the atonement. It is determined by the good plea- 
 sure of God, and by a covenant transaction between the 
 Father and the Son, in which the exact number to whom 
 it is applied is fixed. It is limited to the elect. Mr. B. 
 claims to agree with the Confession of Faith on this sub • 
 ject. The Confession of Faith says nothing about atone- 
 ment, it states only its application. " For that it uses the 
 word redemption. It affirms of that, that it is limited, and was 
 intended to be limited. That the sermon never denied." 
 
 This distinction, and the doctrine based upon it, are thus 
 stated in his Introduction to Butler's Analogy. " But still 
 there are two points in the atonement so well substan- 
 tiated, and yet so apparently contradictory, that it becomes 
 an interesting inquiry, whether both positions can find an 
 analogy in the course of events. The first is, that the 
 atonement was originally applicable to all men — that it 
 was not limited by its nature to any class of men, or any 
 particular individuals — that it was an offering made for 
 the race, and is, when made, in the widest and fullest 
 sense, the property of man ; and the second is, that it is 
 actually applied to only a portion of the race, and that it 
 was the purpose of God that it should be so applied." 
 
 He then attempts an analogy between these doctrines 
 and the provisions of nature, in the course of which he 
 remarks, " We defy the most acute defender of the doc- 
 trine of a limited atonement, to produce an instance in the 
 provisions of God where there was a designed limitation 
 of the thing." Again : " But still it was the purpose — the 
 17* 
 
394 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 decree of God, that this atonement should be actually ap- 
 plied to but a part — we believe ultimately a large part of 
 the human family. By this we mean that it is in fact so 
 applied, and that this fact is the expression of the purpose 
 or decree of God." 
 
 Mr. B. here gives an example of the limitation Avhich he 
 so confidently denies. For if that provision is not limited, 
 the benefits of which are applied, by the decree of God, to 
 but a part of mankind, we have yet to ascertain the mean- 
 ing of the term. 
 
 It is in immediate connection with the foregoing pas- 
 sage that he makes this remark, to which the attention of 
 the reader has already been called. " We interpret the 
 decrees of God, so far as we can do it, hy facts ; and we 
 say that the actual result, by whatever means brought 
 about, is the expression of the design of God." So that if 
 any one is damned, the " result" proves that it was the 
 " decree" or " design" of God, not only that the atonement 
 should not be applied in his case, but that damnation 
 should be his eternal lot, notwithstanding all that might be 
 done, professedly, for his salvation. 
 
 From these quotations it appears that Mr. B. considers 
 the full, free, and sincere offer of salvation — of all the bliss 
 of heaven — to every creature perfectly compatible with the 
 supposed fact that the atonement, the application of which 
 is absolutely necessary to the salvation of a sinner, is ap- 
 plied to only a part of mankind, and that but a part of them 
 are redeemed : so that while it would bind his hands, and 
 palsy his tongue, and freeze his heart, to be required to be- 
 lieve and preach a limited atonement, his hands are per- 
 fectly free, and his tongue is as the pen of a ready writer, 
 and his heart warm when he comes to preach a dying Sa- 
 viour to sinners whom that Saviour never redeemed, to 
 whom the atonement is destined by the decree of God 
 never to be applied, whose damnation was decreed from 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 395 
 
 eternity, and who, consequently, have no more opportunity 
 of salvation than the devils in hell. 
 
 We confess that if this be Mr. B.'s commission, we have 
 not a very exalted opinion of it ; and we must go else- 
 where than to his theory for a satisfactory illustration of 
 the sincerity of God. 
 
 Mr. B. anticipates an objection to his doctrine of limited 
 redemption. " But it is still said that it is unreasonable 
 for men to suffer in consequence of not being put in pos- 
 ' session of the universal atonement ; and that Christianity 
 affirms there is no hope of salvation but in the Son of God. 
 So it does. But the affirmation is not that men are guilty 
 for not being acquainted with that scheme, but that they 
 lie under the curses of the antecedent state before mentioned, 
 from which Christianity came to deliver." — p. 45. 
 
 According to this, sinners are not condemned for failing 
 to avail themselves of the provisions of salvation, but for 
 the antecedent guilt wldch renders the means of salvation 
 necessary. 
 
 It is remarkable, however, that this argument does not 
 touch the question of the sincerity of God in ottering sal- 
 vation to those Avhose damnation he has decreed. It is 
 designed to vindicate his justice in withholding what is ab- 
 solutely necessary to salvation. We care not to dispute 
 this point at present. Admitting, then, for argument's sake, 
 that the justice of God is unimpeachable, we still ask, 
 can he sincerely offer salvation to those from whom he 
 withholds, in pursuance of his eternal decree, what is indis- 
 pensable to their salvation ? This is the point on which 
 we would fix attention. Suppose that a large number of 
 the subjects of an earthly sovereignty incur the penalty of 
 death. Their sovereign feels the necessity of enforcing 
 the claims of government, and yet is reluctant to cut off so 
 many of his subjects. He devises a scheme by which he 
 hinks the authority of government can be sustained, and 
 
396 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 the rebels pardoned. This scheme is equally applicable 
 to all ; but, as it is supposed that no injustice would be 
 done to any by the execution of the penalty, he concludes 
 to apply it to a certain number only, selecting the persons 
 to be saved. So far, we allow, for the sake of argument, 
 that all is right. But suppose that this sovereign were to 
 commission his ministers to go and announce to these 
 rebels the plan of mercy, and offer pardon to them indis- 
 criminately, when it was his settled purpose, known to his 
 messengers, that the scheme was intended to be made 
 available only to a part of their number — suppose he were 
 to hold those messengers punishable, as violaters of their 
 commission, in case they should intimate that pardon was 
 not equally the privilege of all — would that sovereign be 
 lauded for his sincerity? Would that governor be deemed 
 sincere who employs men to excite hopes of pardon in 
 the breasts of criminals whom he has predetermined shall 
 be executed ? And yet this is the very course which New 
 Divinity ascribes to the God of heaven. We would fain 
 vindicate Him from the praise with which it dishonours 
 him. We have no partiality for the Calvinism of the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith, but we like it much 
 better than New Divinity. It does not deceive by flou- 
 rishes about a general atonement, while it holds to a 
 limited redemption. 
 
 This distinction between the atonement and its applica- 
 tion, apart from the use to which it is applied, is, in our 
 estimation, wholly untenable. Suffering alone does not 
 constitute atonement. It must be suffering for that par- 
 ticular purpose. It must be suffering applied. The idea 
 of atonement includes, essentially, the idea of its applica- 
 tion. If there are those to whom the sufl'erings of Christ 
 are not applied for the purpose of atonement, there are 
 those for whom no atonement is made, whatever may be 
 the case as to the mere applicability of his sufferings. 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 397 
 
 Those who adhere to this distinction, will find them- 
 selves involved in this difficulty — either none of the great 
 and varied blessings which are conferred on the ungodly, 
 come to them through the atonement, or they receive those 
 blessings in consequence of an atonement that has never 
 been applied to them ; or the atonement is, and is not 
 applied to them, at the same time. 
 
 The state of the case is this — it is not the application 
 of the atonement that is needed, to make the sinner a 
 Christian, but the application of certain additional benefits 
 procured by the atonement, the application of which de- 
 pends upon our repentance and faith ; such as pardon, 
 adoption, and regenerating influences. The atonement 
 itself is applied to all. 
 
 The distinction between atonement and redemption is 
 also unwarrantable. Redemption includes the entire con- 
 nection between the sufferings of Christ and our salvation. 
 The great transactions of mercy which are represented 
 by the word atonement are far more frequently represented 
 by the word redemption. How, we ask, is atonement 
 effected ? By the sufferings of Christ. And are we not 
 redeemed by the same means ? " Ye are not redeemed 
 with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with 
 the precious blood of Christ, as of a liamb slain from the 
 foundation of the world." 
 
 The New School men are great sticklers for the doc- 
 trine of free agency. One might suppose, from the man- 
 ner in which they assert and contend for it, that they were 
 specially set for its defence. But the freedom they as- 
 cribe to man is merely nominal. It is just such freedom 
 as they can reconcile with the eternal and unalterable 
 foreordination of every action and event. It is true, there 
 is much dispute between the parties in the Calvinistic 
 churches respecting predestination ; but the controversy 
 relates to the reasons bv which Jehovah was influenced 
 
308 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 
 
 in his predeterminations, and to the manner in which he 
 brings them to pass. That he has, for some reason, fore- 
 ordained, and that in some way or other he brings to pass, 
 every event, they alike believe. 
 
 The means by which they attempt to reconcile these 
 hostile tenets, consist in plausible definitions of the terms 
 employed. But no matter how plentifully they use the 
 terms which convey the idea of freedom, or how they de- 
 fine them, the freedom of the human mind, according to 
 their system, is nothing more than the freedom of the dif- 
 ferent parts of a complicated machine to act according to 
 the plan on which it is constructed, and in obedience to 
 the impulses of the steam, or water power, by which it is 
 put in motion. Says Mr. Payne, " Upon the whole, I 
 have no hesitation in saying, that the utmost freedom, 
 which a man possesses, or can possess, is liberty to act 
 as he chooses." We should consider this liberty enough 
 for himian beings, and a little too much, were we not also 
 required to believe that every volition of the human mind 
 is predetermined by God himself, and produced by means 
 adapted and directed by him, to the production of the fore- 
 appointed result. 
 
 So far as we are able to gather the New School philo- 
 sophy of mental operations, and their connection with 
 divine influence, from their theological writings, it appears 
 ro be this : the volitions are determined by the emotions, the 
 emotions by the perceptions, the perceptions by surround 
 ing circumstances, and the circumstances by God himself. 
 When God would produce a certain class of actions, he 
 surrounds the mind with the corresponding objects ; these 
 produce infallibly the required perceptions ; the percep- 
 tions act upon the susceptibilities and produce the corres- 
 ponding emotions ; these cause the foreordained volitions ; 
 and the volitions are succeeded by the actions. In this 
 way is God supposed to bring to pass both good and evil 
 
NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 399 
 
 actions. The world of mankind is thus reduced to a vast 
 theatre of automata, consisting of corporeal machines, 
 each including a spiritual machine. The internal ma- 
 chinery is acted upon by external influences, entering by 
 certain avenues for that purpose. The internal puts the 
 external machinery in motion. The great Author of na- 
 ture acts as the wire-worker, who manages every move- 
 ment. Sitting in the centre of his vast resources of influ- 
 ence, he touches one cord, and men go to work ploughing, 
 sowing, reaping, making books, preaching sermons, or 
 killing each other, as may be ordained. He touches an- 
 other, and some sit in grave council on the affairs of the 
 automaton community. He brings to bear another class 
 of influences, and they proceed to dispute whether they 
 are free pr not, and to play oflf all the subtilties of theo- 
 logical controversy. This is the way in which, accord- 
 ing to this theory, God is supposed to govern mind ; and 
 all these movements, we are assured, were predetermined 
 by him before he originated this wonderfiU device. 
 
400 NEW DIVINITY — CONCLUSION. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVI. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Whatever differences may exist between he Old and 
 New School parties, it is certain that the latter have not 
 given up Calvinism. They hold on to its fundamental 
 principles. Their system is liable to all the objections 
 which they bring against that of the Old School. It has 
 the same Antinomian tendencies. All that is necessary to 
 make them apparent, is to strip it of its inconsistent ap- 
 pendages. It furnishes the same encouragement to pre- 
 sumption and religious inactivity, by teaching that the 
 • elect were chosen to salvation before they Avere born ; 
 and that every thing necessary to their salvation was 
 ordered as infallibly as the event itself. It renders the 
 case of the non-elect equally hopeless, and extinguishes 
 all motive for effort to obtain salvation, by the doctrine 
 that God withholds from them influences which are abso- 
 lutely necessary to their salvation. And when I hear the 
 advocates of this system address the sinner in the language 
 of severe warning and rebuke — when I hear them say to 
 him, in the language of Mr. Barnes, " Go home this day, 
 impenitent sinner, if God spares a rebel like you to get 
 home — go home and reflect, that if you pass through this 
 revival unmoved ; if you resist all the appeals that are 
 made to you from day to day, and week to week, the pro- 
 bability is, that you will be damned," I am affected with 
 indegcribable emotions. If I were to address my feelings 
 to the sinner, to whom the appeal is made, it would be in 
 language like this : Sinner, if the preacher's creed be true, 
 you arc elected to salvation from eternity, or excluded by 
 the decree of Jehovah, from the covenant of redemption, 
 and eternally consigned to misery. If the former, you 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CONCLUSION. 401 
 
 are safe : if the latter, there is no hope of salvation for 
 you. Your passing this revival unmoved will be a mat- 
 ter of course. You need not permit yourself to be flattered 
 into the persuasion that there is salvation for you. It is 
 true, you will be saved if you repent and believe, but God 
 has decreed to withhold from you the influences absolutely 
 necessary to repentance and faith : and hence it is as cer- 
 tain as that God lives, that you never will repent and be- 
 lieve. You have, it is said, a natural ability ; but that con- 
 sists in nothing more than the possession of your consti- 
 tutional faculties, and it exists in connection with a moral 
 inability or disinclination to obey God, which nothing but 
 his special grace can remove, and that is given to none 
 but the elect. You are told that Christ died for all — that 
 he died for you, and that he offers salvation to you ; all 
 this, however, can be of no avail, except to increase your 
 damnation, unless that atonement be applied ; but its appli- 
 cation is limited : — Christ has died for you, but he has not 
 redeemed you. You are called free agents, and are blamed 
 for your conduct, but He who has fixed beforehand your 
 destiny has also decreed all your actions, so that you have 
 done nothing, will do nothing, can do nothing, but what 
 God has foreordained. I pity you ; and the more so as you 
 are so insulted by those who, according to their own state- 
 ments, serve God only as he makes them willing, and 
 whom you would equal in every good thing, if God had 
 only shown you equal favour. 
 
 And while this part of their creed developes such re- 
 volting tendencies, the doctrine of natural ability tends to 
 destroy all sense of dependance on the Holy Spirit. We 
 do not say that those who hold the doctrine of natural 
 abiUty expunge from their creed the doctrine of the ne- 
 cessity of spiritual influence, but that these doctrines are con- 
 tradictory. In proportion as the one is believed and acted 
 upon, the influence of the other is neutralized. How can 
 
402 NEW DIVINITY— CONCLUSION'. 
 
 a man feel dependant on God for that which is at any mo- 
 ment within the reach of his natural ability ? This ten- 
 dency of the doctrine of natural ability is evidently felt by 
 its advocates. They sometimes endeavour to unite these 
 two doctrines in their preaching; with what success may 
 be illustrated by a reference to one of their own writers. 
 In an article in the Christian Spectator, entitled " An In- 
 quiry into the true Way of Preaching on Ability," we have 
 the following : — 
 
 " It has been common, if not universal, for the orthodox 
 pulpit of New-England, while insisting on man's natural 
 ability, to announce it as an absolute certainty, that he 
 ,never will obey, without a sovereign intervention of special 
 grace. This, unquestionably, was correct : it was but to 
 tell the truth, and truth of the highest importance. But 
 what is the state of an attentive, convinced mind, under 
 such instruction ? convinced, at the same time, that it has 
 natural power, and that, left to itself, it is as certain as its 
 own existence, that it never will exert that power. Let 
 such a mind, then, suppose itself left to itself; having no- 
 thing on which its hopes can rest but its natural power. 
 Would it not, under that impression, be without all reason 
 for exerting its power ? and could any one reasonably ex- 
 pect that it would exert it ?"* — Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 246. 
 
 ' * The author of this essay is the Rev. Dr. Skinner. We were 
 not aware of this fact until the publication of his recent work, en- 
 titled, " Aids to Preaching and Hearing," in which this essay is re- 
 published, with slight alterations in the style. It was in this article 
 that wc found the objection to the Arminian views of ability, (noticed 
 on page 64,) namely, — that it identifies divine and human agency. 
 To this objection Dr. S. refers in his preface, a circumstance which 
 shows that he considers it of great importance. 
 
 Had we known earlier the source of this article, we should have 
 considered it entitled to more particular notice, as from the reputa- 
 tion and undoubted ability of its author, wc may safely presume that 
 it presents the most eficctivc argument of which that side of the 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CONCLUSION. 403 
 
 What is this but a plain admission that one of these 
 doctrines neutraUzes the other, and that it is therefore 
 necessary to keep back the one, while insisting on the 
 other ? 
 
 question is capable. Not that any of its arguments have been over- 
 looked ; but we would have considered it an advantage to be able 
 to connect them with so distinguished a name. 
 
 But this essay, while it bears the impress of great talents, is a 
 ■singularly contradictory production. In the first part the author 
 maintains " that God unquestionably demands of every sinner an 
 instantaneous conversion, — a conversion begun and completed in the 
 same moment, from sin to himself," that " the Bible seems to know 
 nothing of ^raJwaZ conversions; though doubtless there are many 
 instances of persons, who, after a period longer or shorter of outward 
 reformations, and internal conflicts with the Spirit of grace, are at 
 length made willing to submit to God." — p. 210. Of the opposite 
 doctrine he remarks, " Law, grace, holiness, God, and all eternal 
 things, will, as a matter of course, be despised by the people, where 
 preachers, in any way, or on any pretext whatever, give them a 
 dispensation from strict duty, or consent to any kind or degree of 
 gradualism in conversion." — p. 214. Exercises performed as con- 
 ducing to conversion are reprobated on the ground that they are 
 impenitent and sinful. — pp. 170, 171, 208. He deprecates the pre. 
 valence of the style of preaching which grows out of the theory to 
 which he thus objects. 
 
 But he is not fully satisfied with the style of preaching to which 
 his own principles lead. He gives as a specimen "'Repent, repent 
 this very instant : we say not try to repent, or exercise thought in 
 order to repent, but instantly repent.' " " Such a strain," he says, 
 "has been so familiar, especially in seasons of revival, that I almost 
 tremble to express a suspicion of its not being precisely correct." — 
 p. 235. To this preaching, which is absurd enough, but perfectly 
 consistent with the doctrine, that God demands of every sinner 
 a conversion which must be "begun and completed in the same 
 moment," and which consists, as he elsewhere expresses it, in an 
 "indivisible act of the mind," he objects, that "It allows no place for 
 effort, preliminary to the very act of duty itself." — p. 234. He con- 
 tends that " the mind does not possess the power to put itself di- 
 rectly, or by a mere volition, into a repentant state." — p. 237. And 
 
404 NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 
 
 The doctrines of modern Calvinism do not constitute 
 one harmonious scheme. It is a system (if a system it 
 may be called) of contrary principles. It sets the gospel 
 against the law, and the law against the gospel. Instead 
 
 in the next article on " How to repent," he remarks, " Repenting, 
 or turning to God, is a state of mind which a man cannot bring him- 
 self into by one mere volition. He cannot repent simply by resolv- 
 ing or saying within himself, / will repent. That resolution may 
 fix his mind on repenting, and be the beginning of a series of mental 
 acts and exercises which will result in his repentance ; but his re- 
 pentance is not its immediate sequent, &c." — p. 256. If these are 
 not contradictions, we know not the meaning of the term. He first 
 denies that there is any kind or degree of gradualism in conversion, 
 and insists that it must be begun and completed in the same mo- 
 ment; and then denies that conversion can be accomplished by one 
 effort, and contends for gradualism, or a series of mental acts and 
 exercises which will result in repentance, &c. He anticipates and 
 refutes the very objections which he elsewhere brings against the 
 doctrine of preliminary effort, as held by Arminians, so that Dr. S. 
 in one part of his book refutes Dr. S. in another part. 
 
 Where, then, is now the difference between Dr. S. and Arminians? 
 Has he come over entirely ? Not yet. Although he admits of " ef. 
 forts preliminary," he has his own opinion as to what exercises are 
 admissible, and does not admit prayer among them. He objects to 
 it on the ground that, unless it is " an exercise of holiness," or the 
 act of one who already loves God, it is sin. — p. 24. The exercises 
 for which he pleads are thus stated: "All I have stated is, that, in 
 order to repent, the objects that work repentance in the mind must 
 be thought of and considered." — p. 259. We would, however, sug- 
 gest whether thought and consideration, unless they are " holy ex- 
 ercises," are not as certainly sinful as prayer. Does not the principle 
 apply equally to prayer and to all other exercises ? On what ground 
 will it be maintained that prayer, in order to become holy is impeni- 
 tent, and therefore sinful, while other acts, such as Dr. S.may choose 
 to enjoin, are perfectly right, although they confessedly precede re- 
 pentance, and are in order to it. It seems that Dr. S. has no objec- 
 tions to the sinner's performing acts as prerequisite to repentance, 
 so that he performs those for which the doctor has a preference. 
 
 There is another point of difference between Dr. S. and Armi- 
 
NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 405 
 
 of blowing its " wind of doctrine" steadily from one point, 
 it assails the church with contrary breezes, driving her 
 first in one direction and then in another. When she 
 sails too near the shore on one side, she must be blown 
 off toward the other, so that she is kept constantly tacking. 
 At one time it is important to preach the " doctrines of 
 grace" as Calvinists understand them ; then the church 
 runs into Antinomianism. The doctrine of natural ability 
 must next be preached as a corrective ; then the church 
 runs toward Pelagianism. 
 
 An exemplification of these remarks may be found in 
 Dr. Beecher's reply to Dr. Porter, already referred to. 
 Dr. P. had charged him with " exalting human agency, 
 so as virtually to lose sight of human dependence." Dr. 
 B. justified himself by stating that " the doctrine of de- 
 pendance had been reiterated and overstated till it had 
 produced, extensively in the community, the results of 
 
 nians. While he concedes the doctrine of exercises preliminary 
 and conducive to regeneration, he also asserts, in plain terms, the 
 doctrine which is falsely charged on Arminianism, namely, that iV«- 
 penitent exercises are to be performed as conducive to regeneration. 
 He contends for " effort preliminary to the very act of dutt/ itself," 
 — of course the effort cannot be an act of duty, and must therefore 
 be one not required by the law of God. He also contends for " a 
 series of acts and exercises" of which "repentance is not the imme. 
 diate sequent," but " which will result in repentance." Of course, 
 these acts, preceding repentance, must be impenitent. Here, then, 
 is the very doctrine of which he says, on page 171, "To state it, is 
 sufficient censure. Men directed to do what is admitted to be sin, 
 in order to their coming to repentance and securing the divine fa- 
 vour!" As his theory identifies repentance and regeneration, he is 
 compelled to forbid all preparatory exercises, or to require impeni- 
 tent ones. Sometimes he does the one, and sometimes the other. 
 To escape one absurdity he flies to another. As Arminians do not 
 consider repentance and regeneration to be the same, they can en. 
 join preliminary exercises, and yet require that they shall be strictly 
 penitent. 
 
40G NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 
 
 fatalism with multitudes. If free agency was admitted at 
 all, it was so out of sight, or so dimly seen in the back 
 ground, that a large portion of the community had ceased 
 to feel the practical influence of the doctrine of accounta- 
 bility, while many were in theory, and more in feeling, 
 fatalists. In this condition, the people did not need high- 
 toned Calvinism on the point of dependance: they had 
 been crammed with it, and were dying with excessive ali- 
 ment, and needed a long and vigorous prescription of free 
 agency to produce an alterative, and render the truth salu- 
 tary, by administering the proper potions in due season 
 Nor was there for a long time any danger of overaction 
 on the subject of free agency." — Harvey on Moral Agency , 
 p. 205. 
 
 Dr. B. administered his " vigorous prescription of free 
 agency," which operated so powerfully that his patients 
 were going over to the other extreme, as is intimated in 
 the following extract : " And before I received your letter, 
 I had felt the propriety of beginning to balance the over- 
 actings of free agency, by giving more prominence, and 
 frequency, and power to the doctrine of absolute depend- 
 ance on the Holy Ghost." — p. 206. 
 
 We are no longer at a loss how to account for the im- 
 patience which this class of theologians manifest, when 
 required to maintain something like systematic consist- 
 ency in their preaching. Robert Hall was not alone in 
 this particular. " It makes no small demand on our pa- 
 tience," says Mr. Barnes, " when we see the system- 
 maker remove angle after angle, and apply stroke after 
 stroke, to some great mass of truth which a mighty genius 
 has struck out, but which keen-eyed and jealous ortho- 
 doxy will not admit to its proper bearing on the souls of 
 men, until it is located in a creed, and cramped into some 
 frame-work of faith, that has been reared around the Bible. 
 Our sympathy with such men as Butler, and Chalmers, 
 
NEW DIVINITY — COXCLUSION. 407 
 
 aticl Foster, and Hall, is far greater than with Turreline 
 or Ridgely. With less patience still do we listen to those 
 whose only business it is to shape and reduce to a pre- 
 scribed form ; who never look at a passage in the Bible or 
 a fact in nature, without first robbing it of its freshness, 
 by an attempt to give it a sectarian location : who never 
 stumble on an original and unclassified idea, without asking 
 whether the system-maker had left any niche for the late- 
 born intruder ; and who applies to it all tests, as to a non 
 descript substance in chymistry, in order to fasten on it 
 the charge of an afiinity with some rejected confession, 
 or some creed of a suspected name." — Introductory Essay, 
 p. 16. 
 
 All this looks very pretty and plausible at first sight ; 
 but let us examine it. What, we ask, is the grand differ- 
 ence between a disciplined, and an undisciplined mind ? 
 Is it not that the former refers facts to principles, and 
 principles to systems; while the latter stores away its ac- 
 quisitions in disorder 1 Does Mr. B.'s knowledge consist 
 in "facts," and " xmclassified ideas," and "great masses 
 of truth," on which he has stumbled, or which his " mighty 
 genius has struck out," and for which he can find no 
 " niche" in his philosophical or religious theories ? We 
 cannot avoid regarding with suspicion that theological sys- 
 tem which furnishes no " niche" for a " great mass of 
 revealed truth ;" and we confess that it made " no small 
 demand on our patience" when Mr. B., acting the part of 
 the system-maker, applied stroke after stroke to the doctrine 
 of a general atonement, until it was made to unite with the 
 doctrine that God eternally and unchangeably decreed the 
 salvation of a definite number of the human race, and the 
 damnation of the rest. 
 
 It is alarming to reflect on the extent to which New 
 Divinity must have multiplied spurious conversions, and 
 unfounded hopes of salvation. We cannot see how it is 
 
408 NEW DIVINITY — CONCLUSION. 
 
 possible for any to be converted by attending to its spe- 
 cific directions. We have shown, not only that many of 
 its teachers forbid prayer, or attending to the means of 
 grace, as conducing to conversion, and insist that the sin- 
 ner shall perform the work in his own strength, by one 
 single act; but likewise, that this is precisely what the 
 system requires, and that any other directions v/ould be in- 
 consistent with its leading principles. We would not bo 
 understood to entertain the opinion that none are truly con- 
 verted in the churches where it is preached. We doubt 
 not that there are, in those churches, many holy men and 
 women, and many sound conversions. But these persons 
 are not indebted to this system for their conversion, or for 
 'their present excellence. There are several ways in which 
 genuine conversions in such churches may be accounted 
 for, without giving the credit to New Divinity. Some- 
 times individuals are powerfully awakened by the preach- 
 ing, (for many of its advocates preach the law with great 
 power and effect,) go to their homes, folloAv the directions 
 of the Bible, and obtain mercy, without knowing what 
 other directions might be given. Many are so deeply 
 awakened, that they follow their own prcvaous impres- 
 sions and the impulses of the Spirit, praying and agoniz 
 ing for pardon, and regeneration, and peace, in despite of 
 the intimations that. in so doing they are acting the part 
 of rebels, and growing worse and worse. Others, although 
 they suppose that these instructions must be right, and 
 conclude that they arc Christians because they have 
 changed their minds, purposed to serve God, or performed 
 some one act which they have been told is submission, 
 dissatisfied with their condition, and determined to enjoy 
 all that they believe to be the privilege of Christians, press 
 on to higher attainments, and thus reach, ultimately, the 
 character which they were previously supposed to pos- 
 sess. Besides, ministers of this faith frequently give 
 
NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 409 
 
 instructions directly opposite to their creed — the very in- 
 structions which they at other times condemn. It is 
 astonishing with what readiness and composure they con- 
 tradict themselves. But how fearful the probability that 
 thousands will conclude that they are Christians, because 
 they have " submitted," as it is called, by taking one single 
 step, — by doing what, according to Dr. Skinner, they 
 could " begin and complete in the same moment ;" and 
 that they will remain in that condition ; especially as they 
 are taught that, being once converted, they can never be 
 lost, and that Christian experience is perfectly compatible 
 with being carnal, sold under sin, and committing it every 
 day. It may be truly said with regard to this system, 
 Wide is, the gate and broad is the way that leadeth unto 
 life ; and that thousands more do not go in thereat, is 
 owing to the influence of those gospel truths on the public 
 mind, which New Divinity finds so much in its way. 
 
 We recognise one of the most pernicious tendencies of 
 this system in the necessity which it imposes, of conform- 
 ing the evidences of religious experience, and the stand- 
 ard of religious enjoyment, to its false views of regenera- 
 tion. It is not to be supposed that those whose efforts to 
 become Christians have gone no further than the per- 
 formance of one single mental act, can have the Spirit 
 of God bearing witness with their spirits that they are the 
 children of God, and also the consequent peace and joy. 
 They must, in the earlier stages of their profession, de- 
 rive all their evidence that they are Christians from the 
 consciousness merely of their having performed that one 
 act, which they are told is sufficient to make them such. 
 If this inference is not sufficient to make them happy, they 
 must be instructed that such feelings are not usually 
 attendant on conversion. It will be the more necessary 
 to guard them on this point, if they are surrounded by 
 Methodist converts, and have opportunities of contrasting 
 18 
 
410 NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 
 
 their experience with the experience of those who arc re- 
 joicing in God. Hence sennons have been preached, 
 and tracts written, in which the great object has been to 
 show that regeneration is perfectly consistent with the 
 absence of those feelings of enjoyment. The desire for 
 those emotions is stigmatized as a selfish desire for hap- 
 piness. Attempts are made to cast suspicion on the ex- 
 perience of those whose conversion is succeeded by 
 great joy. 
 
 The effect of this must be to strengthen the hands of 
 infidelity. Let one who has entertained doubts of the 
 truth of Christianity be awakened by the Spirit, after hav- 
 ,ing listened for years to animated and eloquent representa- 
 tions of the power as distinguished from i\ie form of reli- 
 gion — after having been accustomed to hear the disquie- 
 tude of the unconverted, contrasted with the " great peace" 
 of those who are bom of God ; let him be told that sub- 
 mission is one indivisible act, which he can perform this 
 moment ; and when he has performed what he supposes 
 is the act required, and finds himself counted among Chris- 
 tians, and looks in vain for the happiness which he has 
 heard so gloriously described, and is told that men may 
 be converted and exj)erience no change in their feelings, 
 and finds a disposition to class those feelings with de- 
 lusion — what will be the probable effect? He will re- 
 lapse into his former skepticism. He will say, I have 
 been of the opinion that all the enjoyment about wliich 
 Christians have made so much ado, was nothing more 
 than the feeling induced by the supposition, whether true 
 or false, that they were in the favour of God, that an infi- 
 del is quite as happy when he imagines himself safe, and 
 I am now confirmed in this opinion. 
 
 Indeed, this system runs into infidelity at several points. 
 We have an example of this tendency of the doctrine of 
 natural ability, in a passage in the essay of Dr. Skinner, 
 
NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 411 
 
 to which reference has just been made. He writes, " Be- 
 sides, what, according to Scripture, is the primary ground 
 of man's condemnation ? Not his having refused the prof- 
 fered power of the Spirit, but his not having used his 
 faculties aright. Thus the heathen are declared to be 
 inexcusable ; not because they have rejected the Spirit, 
 but because they are rational beings, and creation shows 
 to them the perfections of its Author. They are men; 
 God's glory is spread out before them, over his works ; 
 therefore, they are without excuse for not knowing and 
 loving God. The conclusion follows, from the premises 
 mentioned ; no other premise is required to justify it. 
 The heathen, depraved as they are, are condemned on 
 this sole account." 
 
 It is here plainly asserted that the heathen have every 
 thing that is necessary to their " knowing and loving God" 
 in their own faculties, and the works of creation. The 
 inference is irresistible, that neither revelation nor spiritual 
 influence is necessary; the very thing for which skeptics 
 contend. And we are told, with perfect consistency, that 
 the heathen are condemned, not because they have re- 
 jected the Spirit, but solely on account of their not having 
 availed themselves of the light of nature and the power 
 which they possessed naturally. Had these sentiments 
 been published from Tammany Hall, they would have 
 shocked the feelings of the religious portion of the com- 
 munity ; but coming from the eloquent and popular pastor 
 of the Mercer-street Presbyterian Church, they are to be 
 received as the pure gospel. This, however, is a consist- 
 ent exhibition of the doctrine of natural ability. 
 
 There will also be found a perfect agreement between 
 Deism and New Divinity, on the nature of depravity, 
 holiness, and regeneration. Deists do not hesitate to 
 attribute depravity to man. Grant, then, that it does not 
 adhere to the constitution as a source of depraved action ; 
 
412 NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSIOrf, 
 
 that it is not hereditary ; that it consists solely in vahm- 
 tary action, and they will not object. Grant them that re- 
 generation is nothing more than a change in the voluntary 
 exercises, which man is capable of effecting without super- 
 natnral influences ; and that holiness is nothing more than 
 such right voluntary action as man is naturally able to per- 
 form, and there will be a perfect agreement. They may 
 entertain no partiality for the technicalities by which these 
 doctrines are represented, but on the doctrines them- 
 selves there will be no dispute. In fact, New Divinity, 
 so far as religious experience is concerned, is nothing 
 more than the religion of nature, associateii with gospel 
 motives. 
 
 This system encourages the sinner in the postpone- 
 ment of repentance. He possesses the ability naturally, 
 and independently of the Holy Spirit — an ability which 
 no depravity can impair, to do all that is necessary to his 
 salvation at any moment, inasmuch as it consists in " one 
 indivisible act of the mind." The only danger that can 
 attend postponement, according to this theory, arises from 
 the possibility of dying so suddenly that there is not time 
 for a single volition. 
 
 And while this system on the one hand encourages aw- 
 ful presumption, on the other it overwhelms with despair. 
 If the sinner is not deeply convicted, he is in danger of 
 bein<T led by it to suppose himself a Christian, without 
 ever having experienced godly sorrow for sin, or Avilhout 
 having called on God, in earnest prayer, for pardon ; 
 merely because he has made up his mind to be a Chris- 
 tian, or performed some act which the sinner may begin 
 and complete in one moment. While those who are fully 
 awakened, and can be satisfied with nothing short of 
 genuine evidence of their acceptance with God, as the 
 ground of the conclusion that they are Christians, are for- 
 bidden to use the only means of obtaining that assurance, 
 
NEW DIVINITY — CONCLUSION. 413 
 
 and are in some instances driven to madness. They are 
 told that they are vk^holiy impenitent ; that if they were 
 penitent they would be Christians ; that their deep dis- 
 tress is nothing more than sorrow tor the consequences 
 of their sins ; it is mere selfishness ; they are afraid of 
 hell ; it makes them worse instead of better ; they are not 
 to pray, for the prayers of the wicked are an abomination ; 
 they can give their hearts to God, and be Christians in a 
 moment, if they will. The poor sinner makes an effort, 
 but it produces no perceptible change. He supposes that 
 conversion will bring peace of mind, but there remains 
 nothing, as yet, but a sense of condemnation. He cannot 
 be induced to imagine that any one act which he has per- 
 formed is regeneration, and to " indulge a hope ;" and he 
 is thus driven to despair, unless he receive other instruc- 
 tions. 
 
 Let it not be supposed that we judge of the moral and 
 religious character of the advocates of this theory, and the 
 members of their churches, by its logical and practical 
 tendencies. It is so operated upon and neutralized, by 
 other and purer systems, that it has not had the opportu- 
 nity of exhibiting its legitimate effects on society. Be- 
 sides opposition from other quarters, it finds in Methodism 
 an almost omnipresent foe. But if it were to succeed in 
 putting down all opposition, and securing the field to itself, 
 it woidd bring on the millennium of infidelity. 
 
 THE END. 
 
415 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Ability 
 
 7 
 
 II. 
 
 Ability — continued - . - 
 
 14 
 
 III. 
 
 Ability — continued - - - 
 
 42 
 
 IV. 
 
 Ability — continued . - - 
 
 59 
 
 V. 
 
 Depravity . - . - - 
 
 74 
 
 VI. 
 
 Depravity — continued 
 
 84 
 
 VII. 
 
 Depravity — continued - - - 
 
 93 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Depravity — continued 
 
 101 
 
 IX. 
 
 Holiness . - . - - 
 
 106 
 
 X. 
 
 Character of infants - - - 
 
 115 
 
 XI. 
 
 Regeneration . - - . 
 
 119 
 
 XII. 
 
 Regeneration — continued 
 
 134 
 
 XIII. 
 
 Regeneration — continued 
 
 141 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Regeneration — continued 
 
 153 
 
 XV. 
 
 Regeneration — continued 
 
 166 
 
 XVI. 
 
 Moral Suasion - - - - 
 
 170 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Moral Suasion — continued 
 
 178 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 Prayer - . . - - 
 
 190 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Prayer — continued . - - 
 
 204 
 
 XX. 
 
 Prayer — continued - - . 
 
 217 
 
 XXI. 
 
 Means of Grace - . - - 
 
 226 
 
 XXII. 
 
 Means of Grace — continued 
 
 236 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 Calvinism - - - - - 
 
 250 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 Calvinism — continued 
 
 263 
 
 XXV. 
 
 Calvinism — continued 
 
 - 271 
 
416 CONTENTS TO NEW DIVINITY. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chapter XXVI. Calvinism — continued - - 284 
 
 XXVII. Calvinism — continued - 297 
 
 XXVIII. Calvinism — continued - - 311 
 
 XXIX. Calvinism — continued - 321 
 
 XXX.. Calvinism — continued - - 329 
 
 XXXI. Calvinism — continued - 338 
 
 XXXII. Calvinism— continued - - 348 
 
 XXXIII. Calvinism — continued - 358 
 
 XXXIV. Calvinism — continued - - 378 
 XXXV. Calvinism — continued - 386 
 
 XXXVI. Conclusion - - - - 400 
 
CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. 
 
 BIOGRAPHIES. 
 
 LIFE OF REV. J. WESLEY. 
 
 By Richaid Watson, with Transla- 
 tions and Notes by John Eni'vy, 
 12iiio. .slieep 50 
 
 LIFEOFDR. ADAM CLARKE, 
 3 Vviis. in 1, 12mo. sheep 1 50 
 
 do English edition. 3 vols. 8vo. ca!f 
 extra 8 00 
 
 A few copies of 3d vol. 12nio. 
 Clarke's Lite, to complete sets, mus- 
 lin 44 
 
 Also, a few 8vo. 3d vol. 67 
 
 LIFEUF RE V.J. FLETCHER, 
 
 Compiled from I lie Narrative of Rev. 
 Mr Wesley, tlie Biographical Notes 
 of Rev. Mr. Oilpm, from his own let- 
 ters, and other anihentic documents. 
 By Rev. .loseph Benson. 12mo. 75 
 
 LIFE OF MRS. FLETCHER, 
 consort and relict of Kev. John 
 Fletcher, compiled from her journal 
 and other authetuic documents. By 
 Rev. Henry Moore 75 
 
 LIFE OF REV. DR. COKE, 
 inchidiii!; HI detail his various travels 
 aiul cxtiaordiiiury Missionary exer- 
 tions in England, Ireland, Anienca, 
 and the West Indies; intersper.sed 
 with numerous reflections. By Sam- 
 uel Drew 75 
 
 TdFE OF REV. FREEBORN 
 GARRETTSON, compiled fromhis 
 printed and manuscript journals, and 
 other authentic documents. By Na- 
 than Bangs, I). D. 75 
 
 LIFE OF LADY DA ROY MAX- 
 WELL, compiled from lier volumin- 
 ous diary anil correspondence, and 
 other anihentic documents. By Rev. 
 John Lancaster 1 00 
 
 MEMOIR OF Sl.MON EPIS- 
 COPIUS, the celehraied pupil of 
 Arminius, and suliseu.uently doctor 
 of divinity and professor of theology 
 in the University of Leyden ; who 
 was condemned by the Synod of 
 Dort as a clangerous heretic, and 
 sentenced to per[ietual hanishinent 
 by t\i~i civil authorities of Holland 
 for holding the doetnno of general 
 redemption. To which is added, A 
 Brief Account of the Synod of Dort, 
 &c., &c. By Frederick Calder 1 00 
 
 EXPERIENCE OF SEVE- 
 RAL EMINENT METHODIST 
 PREACHERS, with aii account of 
 their call to, and suc-ess m the mi« 
 nistry : in a series of letters written 
 by themselves to the Rev. John 
 Wesley 75 
 
 MEMOIR OF MRS. MARY 
 TATH A M, late of Nottingham. By 
 Rev. Jd.seph Beaumont, M. D 75 
 CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY, vol, 
 1, edited by ReV. I honias Jackson, 
 containing '^^he Life of Isaac Watt.s, 
 D. D., and of Mr. Tiiomas Hulilnir- 
 ton, 18ino. 50 
 
 vol. 2, containing the 
 
 Life of Rev. Peani Dickinson and 
 of Mr. John Janeway. 50 
 
 ol. 3, containing the 
 
 Life of Sir Matthew Hale, of Rev 
 Joseph A Heine, and of Mr.iNalhaiiiel 
 Keyuood 50 
 
 ■ vol. 4, containing tlie 
 
 Life of Rev. Samuel Pearce, of Rev. 
 .John Shower, of Mrs. Agnes Bf an- 
 mont, and of the Rev. Samuel 
 Nev\ell 50 
 
 vol. 5, containing the Lil'e 
 
 of Archbishop Cranmer, and Bishop 
 Latimer. 50 
 
 MEMOIR OF THK LIFE AND 
 MINISTRY OF MR. WILLIAM 
 BRA.MWELL, lately an Itinerant 
 Methodist Preacher; with ex'racts 
 from his interesting and extensive 
 coriespondence. By James Sig- 
 ston, iSino. 50 
 
 MEMOIRS OF THE REV. D.\. 
 VII) STONER, containing copious 
 exiracts from his diary and epistolary 
 correspondence, ISino 50 
 
 MEMOIR OF THE LIFK, 
 CH.\RAC1 ER, AND LABOURS 
 OF THE REV. JOHN SMITH, 
 late of Slictfield. By Richard Tref- 
 (ry, jr. 18ino. 50 
 
 ACCOUNT OF THE EXPK- 
 RIENCE OF HESTER ANINJ 
 RO'JERS; and her funeral- sermon, 
 by Rev. T. Coke, i^L.D. To which 
 are added, her Sjuritua'. Letters, 
 ISino. 38 
 
 LIFE OF HENRY LONODE.V, 
 Minister of the Gospel; c«>Mi|i:led 
 from his memoirs, diary, letters, 
 and other authentic documents, 18 
 mo. 38 
 
Catalogue of books. 
 
 EXPERIENCE AND GOSPEL 
 LABOURS OF THE REV. BEN- 
 JAMIN ABBOTT ; to which is an- 
 nexed a narrative of his life and 
 death. By John Ffirih 50 
 
 LIFE AND LABOURS OF 
 THE LATE REV. JOHN VaL- 
 TON ; written by himself, and now 
 edited, with many additions and let- 
 ters, by Joseph SutciilTe, A. M. 
 18mo. 38 
 
 MEMOIR, DIARY, AND LET- 
 TERS, OF MISS HANNAH S. 
 BUNTING, cf Philadelphia, vvho 
 depa.Jed this Life May 25, 183C, in 
 the thirty-first year of her age. Com- 
 piled by Rev. T. Merritl. In two 
 vols. 18mo. 60 
 
 A MEMOIR OF MR. WILLIAM 
 
 CARVOSSO, sixty years a chiss- 
 
 'Icadcr in the Wesieyan Methodi.st 
 
 Connci^tion, written by tiiniaelf, and 
 
 Edited by his sou 18ino. 60 
 
 MEMOIR OF REV. PEARD 
 DICKINSON: in which the dis- 
 pensations o*" Providence and Grace 
 toward individuals aree.xemplifird in 
 some remarkable instances. Written 
 by himself. Revised and corrected 
 by Joseph Benson. ISmo. 37 
 
 MEMOIRS OF MRS. ELIZA- 
 BETH MORTIMER : with selec- 
 tions from her corresporidenc! by 
 Agnes Biilmer, Author of " Mesi^i- 
 ah's Kingdom," iVc, 18ruo. 50 
 
 THE WALL'S END MINER; 
 or a brief Memory of the Life of 
 Mr. William ('risier: iiicludins an 
 Account of tlie catastrophe of June 
 I8th, 1835. By .lames EvertU, au- 
 thor of " E hvin," " Tlie Village 
 Blacksmith, ■' etc. 37 
 
 LIFE OF MRS. COOPER, of 
 London, who departed this life June 
 22, 1832, in the twentv-sixlh ytM of 
 hera^e : extracted from her diary and 
 epistolary eorrespondence. By Ad:im 
 Clarke, LL. D. 50 
 
 CALVINISTIC CONTROVER- 
 SY : cml-riicuii: a Senrion on Pre- 
 destination and Election ; ntul seve- 
 ral numbers of Ihe same subject. By 
 Kev. Wilbur Fisk, D. D., Presiilent 
 of Wesieyan University. 12ino. 75 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 By Admn Clarke, LL. D., F. A. S., 
 
 selected from his puUished and tra 
 published writings, and systemati- 
 cally arranged : with a Life of the 
 Author, by Samuel Dunn, l2rao. 1 00 
 
 CHRISTIANS' MANUAL; a 
 Treatise on Cluistian Perfection : 
 with directions for obtaining that 
 state. Compiled principally from the 
 works of Rev. John Wesley. By 
 Rev. T. Merritt. 32mo. 25 
 
 CHRISTIAN PATTERN; or, 
 a Treatise on the Imitation of Clirisl. 
 From the Latinof Thomas a Ken.pis, 
 by Rev. John Wesley. 32mo. 25 
 
 CHRISTIAN PERFECTION, 
 a Plain Account of, as believed 
 land taught by Rev. John Wesley. A 
 neat pocket edition. 32nio. 25 
 
 CHRISTIAN PERFECTION: 
 being an extract from Rev. John 
 Fletcher's Tiealise on that subject. 
 To which is aiMi-d, A Letter liy 
 Thomas Rutherfojd. Pocket edi- 
 tion. SCrrio. 2.5 
 
 CHRISTIANITY, INTRODUC- 
 TION TO, desijined to preserve 
 Young People from Irreligion and 
 Vice. By Itev. Josejih Sutclille 
 
 CHRISTIA.M BIOGRAPHY, vd. 
 1-5. See Bingraj/ktes. 
 
 COMMENTARTES. 
 
 CLARKE'S COMMENTA RV 
 ON THE OLD AND NEW TES- 
 TA:MENTS ; A New Edition, wiih 
 the Aullior's Pinal Corrections. 
 On Old and Now Testaments, impe- 
 rial octavo, j)lajn sheep 18 00 
 calf plain 22 00 
 do gilt 25 00 
 do extra 28 00 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OF THE 
 GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW 
 AND ST. Mark, AND OK 
 SOME OTHER DETACH HI) 
 PARTS OF THE HOLY SCRIP- 
 TURE. By Rev. Ri( hard Watson, 
 octavo sheep 2 00 
 
 Dodo calf 2 25 
 
 Do do ^-ilt 2 50 
 
 Do do do extra 2 75 
 
 EXPLANATORY NOTES 
 UPON THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT. By John Wesley, M. A. 
 8vo. sheep 2 Oi> 
 
 do calf 2 25 
 
CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. 
 
 BENSON'S COMMENTARY, 
 witti Critical, Explniiatory and Prac- 
 tical Notes : the Marjjinal Read- 
 ings of the most apjiroved printed 
 copies, with such olliprs as appear to 
 \>e countenanced by trie Hebrevvand 
 Greek Originals ; A copious collec- 
 tion of parallel texts ; Summaries 
 of each book and chapter; and the 
 date of ei'ery transaction and event 
 recorded in the Sacred Oracles, 
 agreeably to the calculations of the 
 most correct chronologors- Imperial 
 octavo, 5 volumes plain sheep, per 
 set 15 00 
 
 CONVERSATIONS FOR THE 
 YOUNG : designed to promote the 
 profitable reading of the Scriptures. 
 By Kev. Richard Watson, 12iiio. 75 
 
 DICTIONARY OFTHE HOLY 
 IJIBLE; designer! for the use of 
 Sunday School Teachers and Fa- 
 milies : with maps and numerous 
 fine engravings. By Rev. James 
 Covel. ji.. J8,no. 1 00 
 
 DOCTRINAL , TRACTS, in 
 l8mo. 50 
 
 ELOQUENCE. THE PRINCI- 
 PLES OF. Adapted to the Pulpit 
 and the Bar. By tiie Abbe Maury- 
 Tr.inslated from the French ; with 
 additional Notes, by John Neal 
 Lake, A. M. To which are added 
 Mr. Wesley's directions concerning 
 Pronunciation and Gesture. In 
 13ino. 50 
 
 EPISCOPAL CONTROVER- 
 SY REVIKWEl). and DEFENCE 
 OF OUR FATH[-:KS, bound toge- 
 ther. By Jo'iin Euiury, D. D-, wiih 
 likeness. 8vo. 1 50 
 
 EPISCOPAL CONTROVER- 
 SY REVIEWED, with likeness. 
 8vo. 1 25 
 
 ERRORS OF SOCINIAN- 
 ISM, l2mo. 75 
 
 ESSAY ON SECRET PRAY- 
 ER 6 
 
 FLETCHER'S WORKS, 4 vols. 
 8vo., sheep 7 50 
 
 Do do do calf 8 50 
 
 Do d:j do do gilt 9 50 
 
 Do do do do extra 10 50 
 
 Do Checks, 2 vols., 8vo., sheep 4 00 
 Do Appeal ISmo. 50 
 
 GERMS OF THOUGHT, in 
 
 18mo 38 
 
 HISTORY OF THE ME THO- 
 
 DIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH,— 
 
 from the year 1700 to the year 1828, 
 in 3 vols. By Rev. Nathan Bangs, 
 D. D. 12mo. 3 00 
 
 HARMONIST; being a collec- 
 tion of Tunes from the most approved 
 authors ; adapted to every variety of 
 metro in the Methodist Hymniiook : 
 together with a selection of Anthems, 
 &c. &c., either patent or round 
 notes.* half bound 1 12 
 
 do full bound in sheep 1 37 
 
 do calf extra 2 12 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 STUDY OF THE BIBLE; an 
 Analysis of" An Introduction to the 
 Critical Study and Knowledge of the 
 Holy Scriptures." By T. H. Home, 
 12mo. 1 00 
 
 JONES, MRS., NARRATIVE 
 OF, WRECK OF MISSIONA- 
 RIES, 8vo. 9 
 
 JOSEPHUS' WORKS, 1 vol. 
 Bvo. 2 00 
 
 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. By 
 Rev. T. Merritt. 9 
 
 LECTURES ON UNIVERSAL 
 SALVATION, in three lectures 
 and five answers aj:iin»t that doc- 
 trine. By Rev. T. Merritt. To 
 which are added two discourses on 
 the same subject, by Rev. Wilbur 
 Fisk, A. M. ISmo. 50 
 
 LESLIE'S METHOD WITH 
 DEISTS : wherein the truth of the 
 Christian Religion is demonstrated : 
 In a Letter to a Friend 6 
 
 MANNERS AND CUSTOMS 
 OF THE ANCIENT ISRAEL- 
 ITES, &e., with a Short Account 
 of the .Ancient and Mo.lern Samari- 
 tans. Transbited from the French 
 of Claude Fleury, by Adam Clarke, 
 LL. D., F. A. S. 50 
 
 METHODIST ALMANAC 6 
 
 METHODIST DISCIPLINE, 
 sheep 25 
 
 Do do calf plain 37 
 
 Do do roan tucks 75 
 
 Do do calf extra gilt edges 1 00 
 
 Do do morocco 1 12 
 
 * Pereona onlering will please spccily wbiclikiiui 
 they u'aut 
 
CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. 
 
 50 
 63 
 
 62 
 
 75 
 
 1 no 
 
 1 00 
 1 25 
 1 50 
 1 50 
 
 METHODIST HYMNS, 12mo : 
 
 well bound in sheep 1 25 
 
 Plain calf 1 50 
 
 Call fTllt 1 75 
 
 Calf extra 2 00 
 
 do ailt edges 2 25 
 
 Morocco do 2 50 
 
 With the Ritual added, for the use 
 of pulpits, emiiracing The Articles 
 of Religion — Genera! Rules of So- 
 ciety — Forms of Baptism — The 
 Lord's. Supper — Burial of the Dead, 
 and Mairiinony. 25 cents will be 
 added to the above prices. 
 
 HYMNS, 24 and 48mos. plain 
 sheep 
 
 Do sheep gilt 
 Do do plain calf 
 Do do calf gilt 
 Do do calf extra 
 Do do ro;in do 
 
 Do do call extra, gilt leaves 
 Dodo morocco do 
 
 Do do lio do with tucks _ _ 
 
 Methodist Hyiiiiis, Pearl, [smallest 
 
 size.] a beaulif«l edition, 
 PlHin slieep SI 
 
 Sheep jrilt 37 
 
 Plain calf 38 
 
 Calf gilt 50 
 
 Do extra 75 
 
 Roan extra 75 
 
 Calf extra, silt leaves 87 
 
 Morocco do 1 00 
 
 Do do with tucks 1 00 
 
 Do in sliccts---21mo. and 48mo., fold- 
 ed and collated, will be each, with- 
 out discount 20 
 The pearl edition, folded and colla- 
 ted, will be each 15 
 50 cents (>cr 100 additional if roll- 
 ed. 
 
 HYMNS 24mo., and DISCI- 
 PI,! NK bound together Oli 
 Do do in calf 75 
 Do do in calf extra 1 12 
 
 NKW DIVINITY, an Examina- 
 tion into the System of. By Rev. 
 Francis Hodgson. 12nio. 1 00 
 
 NKLSO.N'S JOITR.VAL 37 
 
 O R I G I N A I, CHI'IK^H OF 
 CHRIST; or. A Scriptural Vindi- 
 cation of the Ord.ers ami Poners of 
 the Ministry of the Mtthodi.si Fpis- 
 copal Church. By Nathan Baii,'s, 
 D. D. 1 vol. 12ino. 1 00 
 
 PARENTS' FRIEND; or Let. 
 
 ters on the GoverniTient and Educa- 
 tion of Ciiildren and Youth. By Rev. 
 Daniel Smith. iSaao. 37 
 
 PORTRAIT OF ST. PAITL, or 
 a True Model for Christians and 
 Pastors : Translated from the French 
 of Rev. John Fletcher, by the Rev. 
 John Gilpin. 8vo. 1 25 
 
 PREACHERS' MANUAL: in- 
 cludin:? Clavis Biblica, and A Letter 
 to a Methodist Preacher, by Adam 
 Clarke, LL. D , F. A. S. : al.s-o Four 
 Discourses on the Duties of a Minis- 
 ter of the Gospel, by Thomas Coke, 
 LL. D. 12ino. 75 
 
 REFORMED PASTOR ; show- 
 ing the nature of the Pastoral VVork. 
 By R. Baxter. Abridged by T. 
 Rutherford. 12mo. 75 
 
 RELIGION RFCOMMENDED 
 TO YOUTH, in a Series of Letters 
 addressed to a Young Lady. To 
 which are adfled, Poems on Variou.s 
 Occasions. By Caroline .M. Tli;iypr. 
 32mo. 25 
 
 RKMAINS OF .MF.LVILLE B. 
 COX, late .Mlssioiiarv to Liberia, 
 with a Memoir. By Rev. Gershom 
 F. Cox. l8mo. 50 
 
 RUTER'S ECCLESIASTICAL 
 HISTORY. 1 vol. 8vo 2 00 
 
 Do do do do calf 2 23 
 
 Do do do do do gilt 2 .''•O 
 
 Do do do do do extra 2 75 
 
 ROWE. [Mrs] DEVOUT EX 
 ERCISES OFTHE HKART 25 
 
 SAINTS' EVERLASTING 
 REST • or, A Treatise on the bless- 
 ed state of the Saints, in their enjoy- ■ 
 menl of God in Glory. Extrictcd 
 from Baxter's Works, by Rev. Jolin 
 Wesley, M. A. 12riio. 76 
 
 SERIOUS CALL TO A HOLY 
 LIFK. By Mr. Law. Aljridjicd by 
 Rev John Wesley, A. M. l8uio. 50 
 
 SERMONS :— Wesley's 2 vols, 
 common 3 00 
 
 do fine 4 Oo 
 
 do calf 4 50 
 
 rioc.ilfgilt 5 00 
 
 do calf extra 5 50 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 'l«INT«OINO.«.