I 
 
 BX 8955 .W66 1853 
 Wood. James, 1799-l«b/ 
 The doctrinal differences 
 which have agitated and 
 
a,^^'<^ 
 
 
 ?).£). 
 
 
. •m 
 
, Pv. /^-TT-'Z'Z^ 5^ a.-'i^^ 
 
 THE DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES 
 
 ^ % 
 
 AGITATED AND DIVIDE^ >» ^'^'^ ^^ A^ 
 
 THE 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: 
 
 OR 
 
 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 / 
 
 'I 
 
 V 
 By JAMES WOOD, D. D. 
 
 The old is better. — Luke v. 39. 
 
 ENLARGED EDITION. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 
 
 1853. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Introduction to the Third Edition 5 
 
 Preface to the First Edition in 1838 15 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 The character and government of God 25 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 God's covenant with Adam and our relation to him as our 
 federal head — involving the doctrine of imputation and 
 original sin 41 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The subject of the preceding chapter continued — exhibit- 
 ing the New Theology concerning God's covenant with 
 Adam as the federal head of his posterity, imputation, 
 original sin, &c • 55 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Remarks on imputation, original sin, &c. with reference to 
 the views presented in the preceding chapter 71 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The sufferings of Christ and our justification through him 89 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Justification—a continuation of the preceding chapter. ., 128 
 
4 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 CHAPTER yil. 
 
 Human ability, regeneration, and tlie influences of the 
 Holy Spirit 150 
 
 CHAPTER yill. 
 
 Human ability, regeneration, &c. continued from the pre- 
 ceding chapter 173 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 A contrast between the Old and New Theology, by way of 
 review, and a notice of the Perfectionism of Mr. Fin- 
 ney 193 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The measures adopted by the General Assembly for re- 
 moving these errors from the Presbyterian Church. . . . 217 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 The acts of the General Assembly in 1837 and 1838 238 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Present character and condition of the Old and New- 
 school bodies 274 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 The following treatise is designed to demonstrate 
 that the issue between the two parties in the late 
 controversy in the Presbyterian Church was strictly 
 a doctrinal one. Hence the work consists mainly of 
 a comparison of doctrinal views, as contained in the 
 productions of Old and New-school writers. Near 
 the close of the volume we remark, " It has been our 
 aim, both in our statements and quotations, to exhibit 
 the doctrines of the New Theology, just as they are, 
 without the least exaggeration. For this purpose 
 our extracts from New-school authors have been 
 numerous, and sufficiently extended as to length, to 
 give a correct view of their sentiments. But if it 
 can be made to appear that we have misrepresented 
 their views in a single important point, we shall 
 cheerfully rectify the mistake." The first edition 
 was published in 1838; and the second in 1845. It 
 has been circulated widely; but up to the present 
 time, (1853), no refutation has been attempted and 
 no corrections proposed. Is not this silence a virtual 
 admission of the fidelity of our quotations, and the 
 essential verity of our statements? It has been 
 denied, indeed, that the New-school Presbyterians 
 as a hody, maintain the errors imputed to them by 
 their Old-school brethren; and yet the existence of 
 those errors among them, they themselves acknow- 
 ledge. 
 
 In a volume recently prepared by a committee of 
 1* 
 
6 INTRODU CTION. 
 
 the Synod of New York and New Jersey, and pub- 
 lished under the sanction of the Synod, entitled 
 "A History of the Division of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America," I find the 
 following: "Before a refutation is attempted of the 
 charges of gross errors and irregularities against 
 constitutional Presbyterians, justice to them requires 
 that it be stated and borne in mind, that an over- 
 whelming majority of them have never denied that 
 there were errors in doctrine and irregularities in 
 practice in the churches, which required correction. 
 They believed there were, deplored their existence, 
 and were willing to co-operate in the employment of 
 constitutional and scriptural means for their removal. 
 They then resisted and have uniformly borne their 
 testimony against them. The evils complained of 
 were mainly attributable to a class of reckless evan- 
 gelists, and pastors who admitted them to their pul- 
 pits, some of whom doubtless approved and adopted 
 their doctrines and measures." The exact number 
 of those who embraced these errors, we have never 
 professed to state. We did not know; and could 
 therefore only say, that so far as we could infer 
 from circumstances, we believed the number to be 
 considerable. In 1838, we thought it probable they 
 formed a majority of the new Assembly; but if we 
 were mistaken, if "an overwhelming majority," were 
 opposed to those errors, and " deplored their exist- 
 ence," it affords us the highest satisfaction to acknow- 
 ledge our mistake. But whether they were few or 
 many, their number was sufficient to disturb the peace 
 of the whole church ; and so influential as to render 
 the ordinary method of church discipline ineifective 
 and impracticable. 
 
 After the above admission of the existence of 
 *' errors and irregularities which required correction," 
 and the declaration that they (the New-school) 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 "deplored their existence," that they "then resisted 
 and have uniformly borne their testimony against 
 them," &c., we were prepared to expect that due 
 credit would be given to their Old-school brethren 
 for their laudable zeal in endeavouring to remove 
 "the evils complained of;" however strongly they 
 might object to the measures adopted for this pur- 
 pose. But so far from this, the author of this vol- 
 ume, (strange to relate) does not give the Old-school 
 Assembly credit even for sincerity in assigning doc- 
 trinal errors as the main ground of their proceedings 
 in the case. The existence of errors exerted, accord- 
 ing to his statement, a very subordinate influence in 
 producing the alarm which was felt by their Old- 
 school brethren, and in leading to those measures 
 which resulted in a division of the church. The 
 real cause of anxiety, it is alleged, was their wan- 
 ing influence in the church, by the rapid increase 
 of the New-school party ; and their urgency for final 
 action arose from a determination to gain a perma- 
 nent ascendency by excluding a portion of those who 
 stood in their way. The proof of this, as adduced in 
 this volume, consists mainly of a historical statement 
 concerning the controversy with regard to benevolent 
 operations — the Old-school believing it to be the duty 
 of the Presbyterian Church in her organized capa- 
 city, to carry on the work of missions, &c. ; and the 
 New maintaining that this work could be prosecuted 
 more efiiciently by voluntary societies, in the support 
 of which all evano-elical churches should unite. 
 
 It is not our purpose to give the history of this 
 controversy. Before its termination, it had assumed 
 a serious aspect, considered merely as a question of 
 benevolent action. It had come to this — not whether 
 ecclesiastical boards are preferable, but whether they 
 should be tolerated, our New-school brethren made 
 repeated efiorts from 1828 to 1831, to secure a vote 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of the Assembly, and the consent of the church at 
 large, to merge the Board of Domestic Missions in 
 the American Home Missionary Society; and in 
 1836, they refused (being a majority of the Assem- 
 bly that year) to ratify the contract entered into the 
 year previous, with the Synod of Pittsburgh, by which 
 the Western Foreign Missionary Society, which had 
 been conducted by the latter body, was to become 
 the Assembly's Board of Foreign Missions. This 
 refusal is denominated in the volume before us, a 
 *^ signal defeat" of the ^'ultraists;" meaning the Old- 
 school minority in the Assembly. If then, as is 
 alleged, there was on the part of the latter, "a. con- 
 test for 'poiuer^'' it was for the power of clioiee in 
 regard to the channel through which their benevo- 
 lence should flow ; the power to exercise their Chris- 
 tian liberty as to the mode in which they should 
 endeavour to promote evangelical religion in our 
 country ; the power to act according to the dictates 
 of their own consciences in having our branch of the 
 church enrolled as a distinct and organized body 
 among the hosts of the Lord, while engaged in fulfill- 
 ing the Saviour's last command, " Go ye into all the 
 world and preach the gospel to every creature." 
 
 But though this was a matter which was justly 
 deemed to be of great importance, it might have been 
 adjusted, if nothing else had been involved in it. 
 With regard to Domestic Missions, a compromise was 
 effected in 1831, and acquiesced in by both parties. 
 But it was perceived that the difficulty lay deeper 
 than this — that the foundation of their disagreement 
 with regard to Ecclesiastical Boards, was a discre- 
 pancy in doctrinal views; and that the evil, instead of 
 being remedied by concession or delay, would be likely 
 to increase, through the influence of new Presbyteries, 
 which would be formed under the Plan of Union, and 
 the operation in our bounds of those societies, which 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 had now become, in the hands of our New-school 
 brethren, a powerful instrument to control the policy 
 and modify [''Americanize"] the character of the 
 church. If, again, there was, on the part of the Old- 
 school, a " contest for power ^'' it was for the power of 
 preserving the jownY?/ of the gospel^ as expressed in 
 our Confession of Faith ; and of maintaining a whole- 
 some and necessary discipline of those who had intro- 
 duced into our heritage strange and unscriptural 
 doctrines. If, as this volume asserts, our New-school 
 brethren "were willing to co-operate in the employ- 
 ment of constitutional and scriptural means for their 
 removal," how did it happen that in every case of 
 judicial process which came before the Assembly, on 
 charges of doctrinal errors, they took sides with the 
 accused ! under the convenient plea that latitude in 
 doctrinal belief was authorized by the Adopting Act 
 of 1729, and that the errors charged were not ''"fun- 
 damental ;'' as though any doctrine, the belief of 
 which does not absolutely peril our personal salvation, 
 may be held and preached in our church without 
 censure. This may be regarded as liberal; but in 
 our judgment, it is more so than is consistent with the 
 precepts of the gospel, or compatible with the purity, 
 peace and prosperity of the church. 
 
 But we have no intention of reviewing the work 
 alluded to. The numerous documents contained in it 
 are doubtless a faithful transcript from the records, 
 and give of course, as far as they go, a true history of 
 the case. If these had been published without notes 
 or comments, no objections could be reasonably made 
 to the book, either by Old-school or New. But the 
 accompanying remarks are very different from the 
 version which is given of those transactions by Old- 
 school men. In the three concluding chapters of the 
 following treatise, (10th, 11th and 12th — not published 
 in previous editions,) we shall give our views concern- 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ing these matters, without any particular reference, 
 however, to the "History" ahove noticed. 
 
 Though my observations and reasonings do not ac- 
 cord with those of New-school writers, I see no occa- 
 sion for imitating some of them in the use of severe 
 and opprobrious epithets. Our doctrinal dijBTerences 
 form no apology for personal abuse. The term New- 
 school, which we employ, is not designed as a reproach, 
 but as a convenient and appropriate designation of a 
 party, as distinguished from the other, who are com- 
 monly denominated Old-school. The writer of the 
 volume which we have had occasion to mention, does 
 not object to these terms, but endeavours to show that, 
 by a strange misnomer, they are applied exactly oppo- 
 site to what they ought to be. The manner in which 
 they came to be employed is well known. The first 
 issue in the late controversy was made in the case of 
 the Kev. Albert Barnes, in 1830 ; and his published 
 errors were made, five years afterwards, (1835) a 
 ground of prosecution. Immediately parties were 
 arrayed; one resolved to make him amenable for 
 these errors ; the other equally resolved to defeat the 
 attempt and hold him guiltless. During the protracted 
 controversy which followed, the conflicting points of 
 two materially variant systems of theology were 
 brought prominently to view. The question was, 
 Shall the doctrinal symbols of the Presbyterian 
 Church be maintained in their integrity, or shall every 
 one be allowed to interpret them according to his own 
 caprice ? The party maintaining these standards, 
 agreeably to their obvious and long settled meaning, 
 were soon and justly characterized as the Old-school ; 
 while that which contended for latitude of interpreta- 
 tion, and the allowance of novel schemes of doctrine, 
 were styled with equal propriety New-school. In 
 drawing the lines of demarcation, it was never sup- 
 posed or pretended that all the ministers, and espe- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 cially all the people who placed themselves under the 
 New-school array, really held the alleged errors of 
 some of their party ; but submitting to leaders who 
 did hold them, or who gave them their countenance, 
 by shielding such as had deserted the old landmarks, 
 they necessarily acquired the same name. How far 
 these reasons exist for appropriating to them this ap- 
 pellation at the present time, will appear from Chap, 
 xii. of this treatise. 
 
 We see no cause for altering the work as far as it 
 was published in former editions, notwithstanding the 
 allegation that we "quoted mostly from Congrega- 
 tional authors, with whom, on these points, the New- 
 school Presbyterians have but little sympathy." This 
 is a mistake. My quotations were mostly from authors 
 who at the time of the publication of the books quoted 
 from, were ministers in good standing in the Presbyte- 
 rian Church ; and with two or three exceptions they are 
 now in the New-school body. Mr. Finney, though 
 now a Congregationalist, was for some time a min- 
 ister in the Presbyterian Church, during which period 
 he preached with approbation in numerous Presbyte- 
 rian pulpits in Western New York, the substance of 
 those discourses which afterwards appeared in print; 
 and their publication, for the most part, was prior to 
 his leaving the Presbyterian Church. Since then he 
 has published his "System of Theology," in which 
 there is scarcely one trace of Calvinism; and the 
 extreme views which he now maintains, he alleges, 
 are the legitimate results of those doctrines. The 
 proof which we adduced from Congregationalist au- 
 thors, though indirect, was legitimate. New Haven 
 was the foster parent of these errors; and the Quar- 
 terly issued there, from which our quotations were 
 chiefly made, was not only read extensively by Pres- 
 byterian ministers, but was the medium through 
 which one of them (the Rev. Albert Barnes) published 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 some of his most objectionable matter. It was not 
 from a conviction of its irrelevancy that Andover was 
 not also referred to. As many of the ministers who 
 sided with the New-school were alumni of the Theo- 
 logical Seminary at Andover, the sentiments of one 
 of the Professors of that Institution might have been 
 quoted with propriety, as tending to show the essen- 
 tially anti-Presbyterian doctrines taught in that 
 school. The late Professor Stuart, who, with that 
 party, was a kind of oracle, repudiated, in some of 
 its most important particulars, that form of sound 
 words which has ever been the glory of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church. His pupils undoubtedly adopted many 
 of his peculiar sentiments. One of the present in- 
 cumbents. Professor Park, has diverged still more 
 widely from the doctrines of our church; and yet 
 what New-school journal has condemned his errors, 
 or cautioned their candidates for the ministry to 
 avoid his teachings ? 
 
 In an anonymous pamphlet which has just come 
 into my hands, the design of which is to show 
 that there is no essential difference between the 
 doctrines of the two schools, my treatise is barely 
 alluded to in two or three brief remarks, one of which 
 is, that I misunderstand the New-school Presbyterians 
 whom I quote. But as no intimation is given that 
 my quotations are incorrect, it is not very material 
 how I understand them. Every reader can interpret 
 them for himself. My office was rather that of a 
 compiler than an expositor. I submitted the question 
 of agreement or disagreement to an intelligent and 
 candid public ; to be decided by an extended compar- 
 ison of various authors. The decision has been made. 
 Disinterested observers, whatever may be their creed, 
 have been generally forced to admit that there are 
 material variations in faith between the two bodies. 
 No softening words, no extenuating pleas, no inge- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 nious explanations can make the two systems one and 
 the same. 
 
 But though we dare not attempt by the aid of nice, 
 philosophical distinctions, to make those differences 
 appear insignificant, we are equally indisposed to 
 magnify their importance beyond what truth and 
 candour require. It is to us a source of pain, and not 
 of pleasure, to record the errors of Christian breth- 
 ren ; and we shall be sincerely gratified and thankful 
 to God, when those which are noticed in this treatise 
 shall be known only in history. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION IN 1838. 
 
 In numerous instances during the past year, the 
 question has been proposed to me, "What is the 
 difference between the doctrinal views of the Old and 
 New-school?" Though several books and pamphlets 
 have been written on a number of these points, and 
 though most if not all of them have been discussed 
 at various times in our periodicals, there are many 
 in our churches who are not sufficiently informed on 
 the subject, particularly in those sections where the 
 new doctrines have not become prevalent, and where 
 but few publications on the points at issue have been 
 circulated. Recent occurrences render it peculiarly 
 important that all in our connection should fully 
 understand the merits of the question. It has now 
 become a practical one. A decision is now being 
 made whether we will continue with the church of 
 our former choice, or unite with those who, without 
 changing their name, havo organized a new body. 
 With a view of giving information to such as desire 
 to ascertain on which side the truth lies, we shall 
 present, in as concise a manner as the case will 
 admit, the distinguishing features of the New The- 
 ology — comparing them, as we proceed, with those 
 doctrines which have, by way of contrast, been 
 denominated Old, For the sentiments of the Old- 
 school we shall refer to the Confession of Faith of 
 
16 PREFACE 
 
 the Presbyterian Church and to standard Calvinistic 
 ■writers. We think this cannot be reasonably ob- 
 jected to, even by our New-school brethren; since 
 they have never charged the former with departing 
 from the Confession of Faith. For the New-school 
 doctrines, we shall make quotations from the pro- 
 fessors at New Haven, Mr. Finney, and various 
 ministers in the Presbyterian Church. We quote 
 from those first named, because Dr. Taylor and his 
 associates, though belonging to another denomination, 
 are regarded as the mode7m authors of these specula- 
 tions; and Mr. Finney, until within a few years past, 
 belonged to our body, and preached and published 
 most of his sentiments on these subjects before he 
 left the church. 
 
 Some of the new doctrines began to be broached 
 at New Haven in 1821-22, which created much 
 dissatisfaction in the minds of a number who were 
 made acquainted with the fact. In 1826 Professor 
 Fitch published his Discourses on the Nature of Sin, 
 and this was followed by a series of communications 
 in the Christian Spectator, on the Means of Regen- 
 eration, The former were reviewed by Dr. Green 
 in the Christian Advocate, and the latter called forth 
 a controversy between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler. 
 In 1828 Dr. Taylor delivered his Concio ad Clerum, 
 which was the cause of Dr. Woods writing his Letters 
 addressed to Dr. Taylor ; and the whole series taken 
 together drew from Dr. Griffin his Treatise on Divine 
 Efficiency, and led to the establishment of the East 
 Windsor Theological Seminary. 
 
 Mr. Finney, who was hopefully converted and 
 licensed to preach a few years previous, became 
 celebrated as an evangelist in Western New York, 
 in 1825-26. Though distinguished at first rather 
 by "new measures" than by nev/ doctrines, he soon 
 adopted the views of Dr. Taylor; and he has proba- 
 
PREFACE. 17 
 
 bly done more to give them currency in certain sec- 
 tions of the chm'cli than any other individual. On 
 some points he has gone further than his archetype; 
 and on all perhaps has expressed himself with more 
 frankness and less caution — asserting in positive 
 terms what the former taught only by affirming that 
 the contrary could not be proved. His lectures and 
 sermons were the subject of animadversion in several 
 periodicals; and as I happen to know, a certain 
 minister seriously urged one of his (Mr. Finney's) 
 co-presbyters to commence process against him ; but 
 nothing of this kind, I believe, was ever attempted. 
 
 In 1829 Mr. Barnes preached and published his 
 Sermon on the Way of Salvation; which disclosed 
 the fact that on a number of points he agreed sub- 
 stantially with the new system ; and upon his being 
 called, some months afterwards, to a pastoral charge 
 in Philadelphia, some of the members of the Philadel- 
 phia Presbytery objected to receiving and installing 
 him, on the ground that his sermon, which had been 
 extensively circulated in that city, contained impor- 
 tant errors in doctrine. The action of the Presbytery, 
 Synod, and General Assembly, in 1830-31, the pub- 
 lication of his Notes on the Romans in 1835, and the 
 charges and trials for heresy during that and the 
 following year, are too familiar to all connected 
 with our church, to need any particular notice. 
 The preceding statements have been made merely 
 to show the coincidence between the rise and pro- 
 gress of the new divinity in New England and its 
 commencement and extension in the Presbyterian 
 Church. 
 
 It has been said that the controversy in the Pres- 
 byterian Church does not respect doctrines at all, 
 except as a secondary thing. Some have told us it 
 is a strife for power — others a contest for the purse 
 — and others a thrust at Congregationalism, and 
 2* 
 
18 PRETACE. 
 
 througli that at New England. With whatever view 
 these allegations have been made, the effect of them 
 has been to produce distrust and disunion in many 
 cases where there would otherwise have been a hearty 
 concurrence in most if not all of the measures adopt- 
 ed for the reform of the church. This has been par- 
 ticularly the case with some whose partialities are 
 strong in favour of New England. It would seem 
 that such had forgotten for the time, that in New 
 England the same controversy is going on which has 
 agitated and ruptured the Presbyterian Church. If 
 it is a war against New England, how does it happen 
 that many of their ablest theologians have taken sides 
 with the assailants ? nay, that they were first in rais- 
 ing the note of alarm? The language of Dr. Green, 
 in 1831, undoubtedly expresses the feelings of a 
 large majority, if not of all the ministers in the Pres- 
 byterian Church. "'What!' we have heard it said, 
 even by some who love us, 'What! are you arraying 
 yourselves against the whole Theology of New Eng- 
 land?' No — we have answered privately, and now 
 answer publicly. No — we are arraying ourselves 
 against Taylorism, and Fitchism, and Murdochism, 
 and Emmonsism, and self-conversionism. But we 
 thank God, this is not 'the whole theology of New 
 England,' and w^e hope and believe it never will be. 
 We know that there is a host of men, sound in the 
 faith, who dislike and oppose most decidedly, this 
 whole mass of error; and we hail these men, and 
 love them as fellow labourers in the cause of truth, 
 and bid them God speed with all our hearts." 
 
 Though in the progress of the difficulties some 
 prominence has been given of late to Congregation- 
 alism, it was only from the circumstance that this 
 was believed to have an important connection with 
 the main question at issue. It is not the Congrega- 
 tionalism of New England that was the subject of 
 
PREFACE. 19 
 
 discussion, but Congregationalism in the Presbyte- 
 rian Church. Against Congregationalism, as such, 
 there exists no hostility; but when, through the 
 Plan of Union, it became the means, like the Trojan 
 horse, of introducing into our body many who were 
 unfriendly to our doctrines and government, it be- 
 came necessary, in self-defence, to free the church 
 from this improper, and to us, ruinous condition.* 
 
 The same remarks are applicable to the resolutions 
 of the General Assembly concerning certain benevo- 
 lent societies. Towards the American Home Mis- 
 sionary Society and the American Education Society, 
 in their incipient stages, and considered merely as 
 organizations for doing good, there was for a number 
 of years the greatest cordiality. This is evident 
 from the fact that they were repeatedly recommended 
 by the General Assembly. But when it was found 
 that their operations within our bounds, besides inter- 
 fering with the free action of our own Boards, were 
 made the instruments in the hands of those who 
 managed the various Presbyterian auxiliaries, of 
 increasing and extending our difficulties, and render- 
 ing them more unmanageable — the one by furnishing 
 young men for our pulpits whose sentiments did not 
 accord with our standards, and the other by direct- 
 ing and sustaining them in tlieir fields of labour — the 
 Assembly of 1837 withdrew their former recommen- 
 
 * According to the statement published by me, as corrected 
 in the second edition, there are in the four disowned Synods 
 three hundred and thirty-four churches nominally Presbyte- 
 rian, and two hundred and eighty-six Congregational. A 
 short time ago, a minister who was then a member of the 
 Otsego Presbytery, observed to me, If you have reported as 
 favourably concerning all the Presbyteries as you have con- 
 cerning ours, they have no reason to complain. Instead of 
 there being eight Presbyterian and eight Congregational 
 churches as reported by me, there are, he said, but six Pres- 
 byterian churches and ten Congregational. 
 
20 PREFACE. 
 
 dations and requested them to cease operating in our 
 churches. As in their action concerning the Plan of 
 Union and the four Synods, so in regard to these 
 societies, the ground of their proceedings was, that 
 they believed them to be (to use their own language) 
 '' excedingly injurious to the peace and purity of the 
 Presbyterian church" — and while they "hoped and 
 believed that the Assembly would not be behind the 
 protesters, [the patrons of those societies] in zeal for 
 the spread of divine truths they desire that in carry- 
 ing on those great enterprises, the church may not be 
 misled to adopt a system of action which may be 
 perverted to the spread of error." 
 
 It is not true, therefore, that the controversy has 
 little or no respect to doctrines. On the contrary, 
 the principal and primary ground of it, has been a 
 discrepancy in doctrinal sentiments. Its origin may 
 be traced to the opinion so prevalent of late, among 
 certain classes of men, that we ought to expect as 
 great improvements in theology as have been made 
 in the arts and sciences — that those formularies of 
 Christian faith, which have been received for cen- 
 turies as containing a correct statement of Scripture 
 doctrine, are too antiquated for this enlightened age ; 
 and if received now, are to be explained agreeably 
 to certain philosophical principles which were un- 
 known in the days of our ancestors — and that the 
 Bible itself is to be so expounded as to accord with 
 those theories of mind, of free agency, and of moral 
 government, which have been introduced by the new 
 philosophy. It is this which gives to* their theology 
 the denomination of new. Considered chronologically, 
 it is far from being new. Similar sentiments were 
 advanced on most of the points in dispute, as long 
 ago as the time of Pelagius, and they have sprung 
 up and flourished for a while at different periods 
 since. Were this the proper place, we could easily 
 
PREFACE. 21 
 
 substantiate this remark by a reference to docu- 
 ments. 
 
 The principles upon which these modern improve- 
 ments in theology profess to be based, appear to me 
 to be radically erroneous. If the doctrines of reli- 
 gion were as difficult to be discovered by a diligent 
 reader of the sacred Scriptures, as the laws and 
 motions of the heavenly bodies are to an observer of 
 the planets, the march of mind might be expected 
 to be as visible in the development of new theological 
 truths, as in the new discoveries of astronomy. But 
 the Bible, I have always supposed, has recorded truth 
 in order to reveal it; and not to place it so far beyond 
 the reach of common observation, as to require the 
 aid of a telescope to enable us to discern its cha- 
 racter and proportion. Truth is immutable. The^ 
 Bible is, therefore, not to be interpreted by a set of 
 philosophical dogmas, which vary, it may be, with 
 every successive age ; but by a careful examination 
 and comparison of its several words and phrases. 
 These obvious way-marks were the same in the time 
 of Augustine and Calvin, and the Westminster di- 
 vines, as they are now ; and it is by a faithful adhe- 
 rence to these, that so much uniformity has been 
 preserved among Christians of every age, in regard 
 to the doctrines of our holy religion. Abstruse meta- 
 physical speculations have now and then held out 
 their false lights, and led portions of the church into 
 error; but whenever the pride of intellect and learn- 
 ing has been humbled by the Spirit of God, and 
 there has been a return to that simple-hearted piety, 
 which is willing to receive the plain teachings of the 
 Bible, without stopping to inquire whether they are 
 consistent with certain new modes of philosophizing, 
 it has uniformly resulted in the revival of those old 
 and venerable doctrines, which have been the stability 
 
22 PREFACE. 
 
 and glory of the church in every period of her his- 
 tory. 
 
 We do not intend to convey the idea that all who 
 are now denominated New-school, or who have united 
 in organizing the new Assembly, embrace the new 
 doctrines. Various reasons have operated to produce 
 in the minds of some, so much sympathy for those 
 who maintain these sentiments, that they have taken 
 sides with them, and hence have received their name, 
 though they disclaim all affinity for their peculiar 
 views. Others receive the new divinity in a modified 
 form ; and a third class adopt some of its dogmas, 
 while they reject others. These last remarks apply to 
 some of those from whose productions we design to 
 make extracts in the following pages. 
 
 How large a proportion of the new Assembly embrace 
 the New Theology, we will not undertake to say. We 
 might state a number of facts, which appear to show 
 that it is adopted, at least, "/or substance of doctrine,'' 
 by a very considerable majority. On the contrary, 
 there are some who have expressed opposition to these 
 doctrines, but who have been influenced, it is probable, 
 by their local situation, or their connections and sym- 
 pathies, to join the new body. Our earnest wish is, 
 that they may exert a happy influence. We have no 
 malignant feelings to gratify — but shall rejoice to 
 know that every error has been corrected, every 
 ground of complaint removed, that as a body, they 
 may regain that Christian confidence, to which a 
 few of their number are now so justly entitled. It 
 is to be deeply regretted, that in one or two things 
 they would not pursue a difi"erent course. Twelve 
 months ago, a committee appointed by that party, 
 consented to take another name, and to leave their 
 brethren of the Old-school in the quiet possession of 
 their records, board of trustees, and certain invested 
 funds. An amicable division would doubtless have 
 
PREFACE. 23 
 
 taken place at that time, had it not been for the fact 
 that the committee from the New-school party, though 
 they consented to the above reasonable terms, insisted 
 upon such other conditions as could not be acceded to 
 •without jeoparding those very interests for the securing 
 of which a division had become necessary. Hence the 
 negotiation failed. But now they claim to be the true 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and 
 have appealed to the civil courts to wrest, if possible, 
 from the hands of their brethren, what, they virtually 
 acknowledged a year ago, does not belong in equity 
 to themselves, but to those whom they have thus as- 
 sailed. Such a procedure seems to us grossly impro- 
 per, as well as inconsistent. It is to be hoped, how- 
 ever, that on further reflection, they will be induced 
 to retrace their steps and pursue a course more agree- 
 able to their former professions and to the spirit of 
 the gospel. 
 
 But while we do not doubt that these suits, if pro- 
 secuted, will be decided in favour of the defendants, 
 provided law and justice do not conflict with each 
 other, we wish to remind the reader that the ques- 
 tion, which body is the true General Assembly^ does 
 not depend upon any decision which is to be made by 
 the civil courts. They can decide who shall have the 
 funds; but beyond this their jurisdiction does not 
 extend. The General Assembly was organized ten 
 years before they had a board of trustees ; and their 
 organization was as complete during that time as it 
 was afterwards. It had then its constitution — and 
 this constitution, be it remembered, makes the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, and not a civil court, the body of 
 final resort in all cases of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 
 This board of trustees was incorporated for the pur- 
 pose of managing certain funds in behalf of the 
 Assembly, and for nothing else. If their charter 
 had been a limited one, its expiration would not have 
 
24 PREFACE. 
 
 affected the cliaracter of the General Assembly; and 
 if it shall be taken away, the only result which can 
 follow, will be to deprive them of their funds; but as 
 an ecclesiastical body, they remain unimpaired. If 
 they w^re the true General Assembly in 1789, and 
 for the ten following years before their charter was 
 obtained, they are the true General Assembly now, 
 "whatever becomes of their property. 
 
 Though we shall be gratified to have them succeed 
 in this respect, we regard the result of these suits as 
 of little importance compared with other matters 
 ■which have been involved in the controversy, but 
 which we trust are now finally settled. In regard to 
 the question of property, we feel very much like a 
 native Christian of the South Sea Islands who had 
 lost his house by fire, and who in the act of rushing 
 into the flames to secure a copy of the New Testa- 
 ment, was severely scorched by the conflagration. 
 As the missionaries were condoling with him on the 
 loss of his house, he put his hand under his gar- 
 ment, and taking out the sacred treasure which he 
 had saved, exclaimed with ecstacy, " True, I have lost 
 my property, but I have saved my gospels !" We 
 may lose our property before the civil tribunals; 
 but if we have saved our "gospels," we shall be infi- 
 nite gainers, and ought therefore to "take joyfully 
 the spoiling of our goods." These remarks are made 
 in view of the prominence given in the New-school 
 prints to a judicial decision: but we are far from 
 believing that any professional ingenuity or legal 
 skill will be able to procure such a result as they 
 anticipate; even should they venture to bring the 
 question to trial. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE CHARACTER AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 
 
 In New England, tlie controversy on the subject of 
 the present chapter embraces some propositions which 
 have never been much discussed in the Presbyterian 
 church, and concerning which the great majority of 
 our ministers, we believe, have not expressed a decided 
 opinion. We refer to the following, which we give in 
 the language of Dr. Tyler: *'Dr. Taylor maintains, 
 contrary to my belief, that the existence of sin is not, 
 on the whole, for the best; and that a greater amount 
 of good would have been secured had all God's crea- 
 tures remained holy, than will result from the present 
 system." Again: *'Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary 
 to my belief, that God, all things considered, prefers 
 holiness to sin, in all instances in which the latter 
 takes place." It has been a common sentiment among 
 New England divines, since the time of Edwards, 
 "that sin is the necessary means of the greatest 
 good, and as such, so far as it exists, is preferable, 
 on the whole, to holiness in its stead." The senti- 
 ment is founded upon what has been denominated the 
 3 
 
2G THEORY OF LEIBNITZ. 
 
 Beltlstian Theory; which, it is said, was first taught 
 by Leibnitz, about the commencement of the last 
 century. This theory maintains, that "of all possible 
 systems, God, infinitely wise and good, must adopt 
 that which is best. The present system, therefore, 
 is preferable to every other; and since sin is a part 
 of the system, "its existence is, on the whole, for the 
 best." Not that "sin must be good in itself,'' as Dr. 
 Taylor disingenuously insinuates that they hold — 
 this is no part of their belief — but that God will so 
 overrule it, for the promotion of his glory and the 
 happiness of the universe, "that a greater amount of 
 good will result from the present system, than would 
 have been secured had all God's creatures remained 
 holy."* Concerning the principle of Leibnitz, from 
 which these conclusions are drawn, Dr. Witherspoon 
 remarks: "This scheme seems to me to labour 
 under two great and obvious difficulties — that the 
 infinite God should set limits to himself, by the 
 production of a created system — it brings creation 
 a great deal too near the Creator to say it is the 
 alternative of Omnipotence. The other difficulty is, 
 that it seems to make something which I do not 
 know how to express otherwise than by the ancient 
 stoical fate, antecedent and superior even to God 
 himself. I would therefore think it best to say, 
 with the current of orthodox divines, that God was 
 
 * New England optimism, as it is sometimes denominated, 
 arises from the theory that virtue consists in benevolence — 
 or that the tendency of holiness to produce happiness, is that 
 which gives it its chief, if not its only excellence. 
 
REMARKS OF DR. WITHERSPOON. 27 
 
 perfectly free in his purpose and providence, and that 
 there is no reason to be sought for the one or the 
 other beyond himself." 
 
 Admitting, then, that there was no necessiti/ on 
 the part of the Creator to form one particular system 
 rather than another, it becomes merely a question of 
 fact, whether more good will result to the universe 
 from the existence of sin, all things considered, than 
 would have been secured if sin had never been per- 
 mitted. To this question, most of the ministers in 
 our church, we are disposed to think, would reply 
 by saying, "We cannot tell." All agree that "the 
 existence of sin under the divine government is a 
 profound mystery ;" and also that God will make use 
 of it to display some of his illustrious perfections; 
 and to communicate to his creatures rich and eternal 
 blessings. But whether he might not have formed 
 a system, if it had been his pleasure, by which his 
 glory would have been still more displayed, and a still 
 greater amount of happiness secured to his creatures, 
 it is not our province to decide. As he has no where 
 told us that he has made the best system possible, 
 and as we cannot perceive that his infinite goodness 
 required him to do it, we are disposed to leave the 
 question to be contemplated and solved, (if a solution 
 be desirable,) when we shall have the advantage of 
 that expansion of mind, that increase of knowledge, 
 and that interchange of sentiment with other created 
 beings, which we shall enjoy in the heavenly world. 
 
 But while in regard to these propositions we ex- 
 press no opinion, we consider the reasoning of Dr. 
 
28 QUOTATIONS FROM DR. TAYLOR. 
 
 Taylor in attempting to refute them as involving 
 pernicious errors. It is on this account that we 
 have introduced the subject in the present volume. 
 Pressed with the difficulty that if sin under the divine 
 government will not on the whole be for the best, 
 why did God permit it? he has taken the bold, not 
 to say the impious ground, that God did all he could 
 to prevent the existence of sin, but could not, without 
 infringing on the moral agency of man — and that he 
 would make the world holier and happier now if he 
 could, without abridging human liberty. 
 
 His language on this subject is as follows: "It 
 will not be denied that free moral agents can do 
 wrong under every possible influence to prevent it. 
 The possibility of a contradiction in supposing them 
 to be prevented from doing wrong, is therefore 
 demonstrably certain. Free moral agents can do 
 wrong under all possible preventing influence." — 
 Christian Spectator, Sept. 1830, p. 563.* 
 
 "But in our view it is a question whether it is not 
 essential to the honour of God to suppose that he has 
 done all he could to secure the universal holiness of 
 his accountable creatures; and that nevertheless, 
 some, in defiance of it, would rebel. Such a propo- 
 sition we think neither violates the feelings of enlight- 
 ened piety, nor the decision of revelation." — Chris- 
 tian Spectator, 1832, p. 567. 
 
 " God not only prefers on the whole that his 
 
 * As I have not all the numbers of the Christian Spectator 
 in my possession, I shall, in my quotations from that work, 
 make free use of a pamphlet written by the Rev. Daniel Dow. 
 
QUOTATION FROM MR. FINNEY. 29 
 
 creatures should for ever perform their duties rather 
 than neglect them, but purposes on his part to do all 
 in his power to promote this object in his kingdom." 
 — ^Christian Spectator^ 1832, p. 660. 
 
 " It is a groundless assumption, that God could 
 have prevented all sin, or at least, the present degree 
 of sin in a moral system. If holiness in a moral sys- 
 tem be preferable to sin in its stead, why did not a 
 benevolent God, were it possible to him, prevent all 
 sin, and secure the prevalence of universal holiness? 
 Would not a moral universe of perfect holiness, and 
 of course perfect happiness, be happier and better 
 than one comprising 'sin and its miseries?' And 
 must not infinite benevolence accomplish all the good 
 he can? Would not a benevolent God, then, had it 
 been possible to him in the nature of things, have 
 secured the existence of universal holiness in his 
 moral kingdom?" Concio ad Clerum. 
 
 It is not surprising that the publication of such 
 sentiments created alarm among the orthodox clergy 
 of New England ; and that speedy efforts were made 
 to arrest their progress. 
 
 Unhappily, they soon found their way to New 
 York, and through the agency of Mr. Finney and 
 others, obtained considerable currency. Mr. Fin- 
 ney's views will appear from the following quotation. 
 In reply to an objection that as God " is almighty, he 
 could prevent sin if he pleased," &c., he observes: 
 *' To say nothing of his word and oath upon this sub- 
 ject, you have only to look into his law to see that he 
 has done all that the nature of the case admitted to 
 3* 
 
30 QUOTATIONS FROM MR. TYLER. 
 
 prevent the existence of sin. The sanctions of his 
 law are absolutely infinite: in them he has embodied 
 and held forth the highest possible motives to obe- 
 dience. His law is moral and not physical ; a gov- 
 ernment of motive and not of force. It is in vain to 
 talk of his omnipotence preventing sin. If infinite 
 motives cannot prevent it, it cannot be prevented 
 under a moral government, and to maintain the con- 
 trary is absurd and a contradiction. To administer 
 moral laws is not the object of physical power. To 
 maintain, therefore, that the physical omnipotence of 
 God can prevent sin, is to talk nonsense." — Sermons 
 on Important Subjects, p. 58. 
 
 Similar language is employed by him and other 
 writers of the same school with reference to the power 
 of God to convert sinners, and to make the world 
 holier and happier than it now is. Mr. Edward R. 
 Tyler [not Dr. Tyler] preached a sermon at New 
 Haven, Oct. 1829, (published by request,) in which 
 occur the following sentences:"^ "He [God] does 
 not prefer the present system to one which might 
 have presented itself to his choice, had it been possi- 
 ble to retain all moral beings in obedience; but pre- 
 fers it to the non-existence of a moral system, not- 
 withstanding sin is its unavoidable attjendant." " The 
 7iature of things, as they now exist, forbids, as far as 
 God himself is concerned, the more frequent existence 
 of holiness in the place of sin. Hoio do you knoiv 
 that the influence which He employs, even in respect 
 
 * Mr. Tyler was at that time Pastor of the South Church in 
 Middletown, Conn. 
 
VIEWS OF PROFESSOR FITCH. 81 
 
 to those who perish, is not all which the nature of the 
 case admits f How do you know that he can main- 
 tain his moral government, or preserve moral agents 
 in being as such, and prevent sin ? Do you not pass 
 the boundaries of human knowledge in saying that 
 he is able to prevent all sin, while he preserves, 
 unimpaired, the freedom of accountable beings? 
 Such may be the nature of free agents that they can- 
 not be governed in a manner to exclude sin, or to 
 restrict it to a smaller co77tpass than it actually pos- 
 sesses.'' "Such is the nature of free agents, that 
 God foresaw he could not create them without liability 
 to err and actual transgression. He knew at the 
 same time, that the best possible system included 
 such beings; that is, beings capable of knowing and 
 loving him. He regretted, as he abundantly teaches 
 us in his word, that some of those whom he was 
 about to create would sin. Had it been possible to 
 secure them all in obedience, more happiness would 
 have been enjoyed by his creatures, and equal glory 
 would have surrounded his own throne. But although 
 the system which he saw to be best, could not be 
 realized in consequence of the anticipated perversion 
 of moral agency, he perceived a system such as he 
 has adopted, notwithstanding the evil attending it, to 
 be preferable to any which should exclude moral 
 beings." "It is to him a subject of regret and grief, 
 yet men transgress ; they rebel in spite of his wishes ; 
 thet/ persevere in sin in spite of all which he can do 
 to reclaim them,'' 
 
 A writer in the Christian Spectator [believed to be 
 
32 REMARK or MR. BEECHER. 
 
 Professor Fitch,] advances the same ideas. "What- 
 ever degree or kind of influence" says he, "is used 
 with them, to favour their return to him, at any given 
 time, IB as strongly favourable to their conversion as 
 it CAN he made amid the obstacles which a world of 
 guilty and rebellious moral agents opioose to God's 
 works of grace.'' — "Review of Dr. Fisk's Discourse 
 on Predestination and Election." 
 
 In accordance with these sentiments, it was not 
 uncommon, a few years ago, in some parts of New 
 York, to hear from the pulpit and in the lecture- 
 room, that God is doing all he can to convert and 
 save sinners — that if he could, he w^ould convert 
 many more than he does — that he converts as many 
 as he can persuade to yield their hearts to him — and 
 other expressions to the same effect. Of very similar 
 import is the remark attributed to a son of Dr. 
 Beecher, which, according to the Hartford Christian 
 Watchman, was one cause of Dr. Porter's anxiety in 
 relation to the father — it having been reported that 
 he approved of the sentiment, viz. "that though God 
 is physically omnipotent, he has not acquired moral 
 power enough to govern the universe according to his 
 will." 
 
 How different these statements are from the old 
 theology, will appear by a reference to the Confes- 
 sion of Faith; which teaches that God "hath most 
 sovereign dominion over his creatures, to do by them, 
 for them, and upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth" 
 — that he is "Almighty, most absolute, working all 
 things according to the counsel of his own immutable 
 
god's happiness diminished. 33 
 
 and most righteous "will, for his own glory." They 
 are equally at variance with the word of God, which 
 declares that "he doeth according to his will in the 
 army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the 
 earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, 
 What doest thou?" 
 
 The positions assumed by Dr. Taylor and others, 
 besides being unscriptural, are believed by many to 
 involve principles which are subversive of some im- 
 portant Scripture doctrines. They place such limits 
 upon the power of God, as to be a virtual denial of 
 his omnipotence. They make him so dependent upon 
 his creatures, as to render him liable to disappoint- 
 ment^ and consequently to a diminution of his happi- 
 ness. Dr. Taylor, or one of his friends, admits that 
 his blessedness has been diminished by the existence 
 of sin. "It is admitted that what men have done to 
 impair the blessedness of God by sin, has not failed 
 of its results in the actual diminution of his blessed- 
 ness, compared with what it had been, had they 
 obeyed his perfect law." — Spirit of the Pilgrims, 
 Vol. V. p. 693. Mr. Tyler, who has just been re- 
 ferred to, makes the same admission. " This doc- 
 trine," he remarks, "is said to be inconsistent with 
 the happiness of God. And we admit, that as far as 
 his happiness is affected by the conduct of his crea- 
 tures, he would have been better pleased had angels 
 and men always remained steadfast in his fear and 
 service." 
 
 They involve a denial of the divine decrees — for if 
 God does not possess such absolute control over his 
 
34 DECREES AND ELECTION DENIED. 
 
 creatures that he can govern them according to his 
 pleasure, how could he have decreed any thing uncon- 
 ditionally concerning them, since it might happen, 
 that in the exercise of their free agency, they would 
 act contrary to the divine purpose? On the same 
 principle they virtually reject the Calvinistic doctrine 
 of election, and make election depend upon the fore- 
 knowledge of God and the will of the creature. This 
 is actually the way in which Mr. Finney explains the 
 doctrine. *' The elect, then," says he, "must be 
 those who God foresaw could be converted under the 
 wisest administration of his government. That ad- 
 ministering it in a way that would be most beneficial 
 to all worlds, exerting such an amount of moral influ- 
 ence on every individual as would result, on the whole, 
 in the greatest good to his divine kingdom, he fore- 
 saw that certain individuals could, with this wisest 
 amount of moral influence, be reclaimed and sancti- 
 fied, and for this reason, they were chosen to eternal 
 life." "The elect were chosen to eternal life, because 
 God foresaw that in the perfect exercise of their free- 
 dom they could be induced to repent and embrace the 
 gospel." "In choosing his elect, you must under- 
 stand that he has thrown the responsibility of their 
 being saved upon them : that the whole is suspended 
 upon their consent to the terms ; you are perfectly 
 able to give your consent, and this moment to lay 
 hold on eternal life. Irrespective of your own choice, 
 no election can save you, and no reprobation can 
 damn you." — Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 224, 
 25, 20, 33. Mr. Tyler, from whose sermon we have 
 
DENIAL OP saints' PERSEVERANCE. 35 
 
 already quoted, gives the same explanation of this 
 doctrine, or, in other words, virtually denies it. 
 *'God foresees," he observes, "whom he can make 
 willing in the day of his power, and resolves that 
 they shall be saved." Prof. Fitch also advances the 
 same idea in his review of Dr. Fisk's discourses on 
 Predestination and Election, in the Christian Spec- 
 tator. 
 
 The same remarks may be made, substantially, 
 concerning the saints' perseverance, and even their 
 stability in heaven. If the free will of sinners may 
 effectually resist all the influence which God can 
 use for their conversion, why may not the free will of 
 Christians, under the counter influence of temptation, 
 break through all the moral influences which God can 
 bring to bear upon them, and they completely and 
 eternally fall away? And if so, why may not the 
 same catastrophe befall them after they arrive at 
 heaven? To borrow the language of Dr. Tyler: 
 "If his creatures are so independent of him that he 
 cannot control them at pleasure, what assurance can 
 he give us that every saint and every angel will not 
 yet apostatize and spread desolation through the 
 moral universe?" 
 
 Horrible as this thought is, it appears to be a 
 legitimate consequence from the reasoning of the 
 New Haven divines. "But this possibility that moral 
 agents will sin, remains (suppose what else you will) 
 so long as moral agency remains; and how can it be 
 proved that a thing will not be, when, for aught that 
 appears, it may be? When in view of all the facts 
 
36 REMARKS FROM A PERIODICAL. 
 
 and evidence in the case it remains true that it may 
 be, what evidence or proof can exist that it will not 
 IqV^^CIu Spec, 1830, p. 563. Again: "We know 
 that a moral system necessarily implies the existence 
 of free agents, with the power to act in despite of all 
 opposing power. This fact sets human reason at 
 defiance in every attempt to prove that some of these 
 agents will not use that power and actually sin." 
 Ch. Spec, 1831, p. 617. If, then, the saints and 
 angels in heaven are ''free agents,'' they have, 
 according to the above reasoning, "the power to 
 act in despite of all opposing power," and it cannot 
 be proved "that some of these agents will not use 
 that power and actually sin." 
 
 On this subject we will quote some pertinent re- 
 marks from "Views in Theology," a periodical pub- 
 lished in New York. "It is as true of angels and 
 the spirits of just men made perfect, that they are 
 moral agents, and that their powers are the same in 
 kind that are known to originate sin, as it is of us ; 
 as clear that if God * should begin and pursue any 
 method of providence and government' over them, 
 * the causes which originate sin would still exist in 
 kind, under his providence,' as it is, that they 
 would among men; and * since under any system 
 of providence, the condition of his creatures must 
 be constantly changing;' as clear, therefore — if the 
 powers of moral agency alone be considered — Hhat 
 among these fluctuations, there may arise conjunctures 
 under any providence, in which temptations will rise 
 and prevail to the overthrow of some of those crea- 
 
REMARKS OP DR. GRIFFIN. 37 
 
 tures,' as it is that they may, under any providence, 
 over such beings as ourselves. 
 
 "On the principles, then, on which his reasoning 
 proceeds, we not only have no certainty of the con- 
 tinued obedience of holy, angelic, and redeemed 
 spirits, but have an absolute probability of their 
 universally yielding to rebellion at some period of 
 their existence, notwithstanding every species and 
 degree of preventing influence that God can exert 
 over them!" 
 
 To these, we will add the following from Dr. 
 Griffin: "If God could not have prevented sin in all 
 worlds and ages, he cannot prevent sin in any world 
 or age, or in any creature at any time, except by 
 preventing the particular occasion and temptation. 
 If God could not have prevented sin in the universe, 
 he cannot prevent believers from fatally falling; he 
 cannot prevent Gabriel and Paul from sinking at 
 once into devils, and heaven from turning into a hell. 
 And were he to create new races to fill the vacant 
 seats, they might turn to devils as fast as he created 
 them, in spite of any thing that he could do short of 
 destroying their moral agency. He is liable to be 
 defeated in all his designs, and to be as miserable as 
 he is benevolent. This is infinitely the gloomiest 
 idea that was ever thrown upon the world. It is 
 gloomier than hell itself. For this involves only the 
 destruction of a part, but that involves the wretch- 
 edness of God and his whole creation. And how 
 awfully gloomy as it respects the prospects of indi- 
 vidual believers! You have no security that you 
 4 
 
38 PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE NEW VIEWS. 
 
 shall stand an hour. And even if you get to heaven, 
 you have no certainty of remaining there a day. All 
 is doubt and sepulchral gloom. And where is the 
 glory of God? Where the transcendent glory of 
 raising to spiritual life a world dead in trespasses 
 and sins? Where the glory of swaying an undivided 
 sceptre, and doing his whole pleasure *in the army 
 of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth?"* 
 — Griffin on Divine Efficiency^ pp. 180, 181. 
 
 The practical influence of these assumptions is 
 believed to be no less objectionable than their ten- 
 dencies to error. 
 
 1. In relation to prayer. If we adopt the princi- 
 ple that God has not supreme control over the hearts 
 of all men, how can we with confidence plead the 
 fulfilment of those promises which are to be accom- 
 plished by the instrumentality of his creatures? 
 However willing he may be to answer our prayers, 
 there may be found among the various agents to be 
 employed, some Pharaoh, so much more obstinate 
 than the king of Egypt, that no influence which God 
 can employ, will incline him to let his people go — 
 or some Ahithophel, so much more sagacious and 
 influential than the counsellor of Absalom, that the 
 Lord will not be able to "turn his counsel to fool- 
 ishness," and bring back his own anointed to the 
 throDC of Israel. 
 
 2. If we believe ourselves so independent of God, 
 that we can successfully resist any moral influence 
 which he can bring to bear upon our minds, how feeble 
 will be the incentives to the exercise of humility! 
 
PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE NEW VIEWS. 39 
 
 Tell a carnal, unregenerate man, that though God 
 had physical power to create him, he has not moral 
 power to govern him, and you could not furnish his 
 mind with better aliment for pride and rebellion. 
 Should you, after giving this lesson, press upon him 
 the claims of Jehovah, you might expect to be 
 answered, as Moses was by the proud oppressor of 
 Israel: "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his 
 voice?" 
 
 3. The same may be said in regard to submission. 
 Of this, the case just referred to affords an ample 
 illustration. What a miserable reflection it would 
 have been to present to an enslaved Israelite, that 
 he ought to submit cheerfully to his bondage, because 
 it was -not in the power of the Lord to prevent it! 
 Men are free agents : in the exercise of that agency, 
 your ancestors would settle themselves in Egypt — 
 and in the exercise of the same agency, the Egyp- 
 tians would enslave them! God hnew that such 
 would be the result, and he would have hindered it if 
 he could, but could not, without destroying their free 
 agency! "Free moral agents can do wrong under 
 every possible influence to prevent it." 
 
 4. Such reflections afford as little foundation for 
 gratitude as for submission. Why do we feel grate- 
 ful to God for those favours which are conferred 
 upon us by the agency of our fellow men, except on 
 the principle that they are only instruments in Jiis 
 hand — who, without "offering the least violence to 
 their wills, or taking away the liberty or contingency 
 of second causes," "hath most sovereign dominion 
 
40 DIFFERENCE NOT IMAGINARY BUT REAL. 
 
 over them, to do by them, for them, and upon them, 
 whatsoever himself pleaseth!" On any other ground, 
 they would be worthy of the principal, and he only 
 of secondary praise. 
 
 In conclusion, we will observe, (adopting the lan- 
 guage of the "Views in Theology," already referred 
 to,) "The great questions involved in this contro- 
 versy, it is sufficiently apparent from the foregoing 
 discussion, are not of mere ordinary interest, but 
 vitally important ; and the decisions that are formed 
 respecting them by the teachers of religion, must 
 exert a momentous influence on the churches and 
 religion of our country. The subjects to which they 
 relate — the attributes of God, the reality and nature 
 of his government, the doctrines of his word, the 
 nature of the mind, the laws of its agency, the causes 
 that influence it — if any are entitled to that rank, 
 are fundamental: and the problems which it is the 
 object of the controversy to solve, whether God is 
 almighty as a moral and providential ruler as well as 
 creator, or weak and liable to perpetual frustration ; 
 whether he is wholly able or wholly unable, to pre- 
 vent moral beings from sinning; whether he can or 
 cannot determine and foresee the events of their 
 agency, and thence whether his predictions, threaten- 
 ings and promises are true or false — indisputably 
 involve all that is essential in Christianity ; and the 
 scheme which affirms the one is as diverse from that 
 which asserts the other, as light is from darkness, 
 and truth from falsehood." "The question between 
 them, is nothing less than the question — of two 
 
COVENANT WITH ADAM. 41 
 
 wholly dissimilar and contradictory systems, which 
 is it that is the gospel of the grace of God, and which 
 therefore is it that wholly contradicts and subverts 
 the gospel?" 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 god's covenant with ADAM, AND OUR RELATION TO HIM AS OUR 
 
 FEDERAL HEAD INVOLVING THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION AND 
 
 ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 According to Witsius, "A covenant of God with 
 man is an agreement between God and man, about 
 the method of obtaining consummate happiness, with 
 the addition of a threatening of eternal destruction, 
 with which the despiser of the happiness oflfered in 
 that way is to be punished." Such a covenant God 
 made with Adam before the fall; and through him 
 with all his posterity — -he acting as their federal head 
 and representative. " The first covenant made with 
 man," says our Confession of Eaith, "was a covenant 
 of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in 
 him, to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and 
 personal obedience" — (as our Catechism adds,) ** for- 
 bidding him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good 
 and evil upon pain of death." This has been the 
 common sentiment among the reformed churches 
 since the time of Luther and Calvin. It also formed 
 a part of the creed of the early Christian Fathers. 
 4* 
 
42 COVENANT WITH ADAM. 
 
 Some of the reasons for this doctrine are the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 1. The law given to Adam in Gen. ii. 16, 17, con- 
 tained all the essential properties of a covenant ; viz. 
 parties, a condition, a penalty, and an implied pro- 
 mise. It is not essential to a covenant that the par- 
 ties should be equal — nor was it necessary in the 
 present case, that Adam should give a formal consent 
 to the terms proposed; because they were binding 
 upon him as a creature of God, independent of his 
 consent. But inasmuch as he was created in the 
 image of God, and had his law written in his heart, 
 there was undoubtedly a cordial assent to the pro- 
 posed condition. 
 
 2. That transaction is referred to by the prophet 
 Hosea, under the name of a covenant. "But they 
 like men [Heb. like Adam,] have transgressed the 
 covenant." Hosea vi. 7. Upon this passage Henry 
 remarks, " Herein they trod in the steps of our first 
 parents; they, like Adam, have transgressed the cov- 
 enant; (so it might very well be read;) as he trans- 
 gressed the covenant of innocency, so they trans- 
 gressed the covenant of grace; so treacherously, so 
 foolishly; there in paradise, he violated his engage- 
 ments to God; and there in Canaan, another j^ara- 
 disc, they violated their engagements. And by their 
 treacherous dealing they, like Adam, have ruined 
 themselves and theirs." This text has no definite 
 sense, unless it refers to Adam. 
 
 3. Christ is said to have been given "for a cove- 
 nant of the people;" (Isa. xlii. 6,) and since a parallel 
 
ADAM OUR FEDERAL HEAD. 43 
 
 is drawn by the apostles between Christ and Adam, 
 the latter being called the first, and the former the 
 second Adam, the analogy requires us to regard the 
 first Adam as a party to a covenant. 
 . The representative character of Adam may be 
 proved by the following considerations. All the dis- 
 pensations of Jehovah concerning Adam before the 
 fall, respected his posterity as well as himself; such 
 as dominion over the creatures, liberty to eat of the 
 productions of the earth, the law of marriage, &c. 
 When God made this covenant with Adam, it does 
 not appear that Eve was yet formed — and yet it is 
 manifest from her reply to the tempter, (Gen. iii. 2, 
 3,) that she considered herself as included in the 
 transaction. Again; it is said (Gen. v. 2,) that when 
 God created man male and female, he called their 
 name Adam; which indicates that the woman was in- 
 cluded federally in the man. Further; the conse- 
 quences of Adam's transgression afi'ected his posterity 
 as well as himself. Gen. iii. 16, 19 ; Rom. v. 12 ; 
 1 Cor. XV. 22. The apostle also draws a paralled be- 
 tween Christ and Adam; in which he describes Christ 
 as the representative of his spiritual seed, as Adam 
 was of his natural seed. Rom. v. 12, 19; 1 Cor. xv. 
 22. But how did Christ represent his seed except in 
 the covenant of grace? Adam, therefore, must have 
 represented his in the covenant of works. 
 
 That covenant made with Adam, and through him 
 with his posterity, involves the doctrines of imputa- 
 tion and original sin. Destroy that and you destroy 
 these — they must stand or fall together. And as 
 
44 IMPUTATION AND ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 they are both based upon the same covenant, so they 
 are closely connected with each other. " So far as I 
 know," says President Edwards, "most of those who 
 hold one of these have maintained the other; and 
 most of those who have opposed one have opposed tl^e 
 other. And it may perhaps appear in our future 
 consideration of the subject, that they are closely 
 connected, and that the arguments which prove the 
 one, establish the other, and that there are no more 
 difficulties attending the allowing of one than the 
 other." 
 
 Upon these points the Confession of Faith teaches, 
 that our first parents "being the root of all mankind; 
 the guilt of this sin [eating the forbidden fruit] was 
 imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted 
 nature conveyed to all their prosperity, descending 
 from them by ordinary generation" — and that "from 
 this original corruption, whereby we are utterly 
 indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, 
 and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual 
 transgressions." The phrase "root of all mankind," 
 it is evident from the proof-texts, refers not merely 
 to natural relation, but also to covenant headship; 
 the latter being the principal foundation upon which 
 the guilt of Adam's first sin is imputed to us ; while 
 the former is the channel through which our cor- 
 rupted nature is conveyed. "Original sin is con- 
 veyed from our first parents unto their posterity by 
 natural generation, so as all that proceed from them 
 in that way, are conceived and born in sin." — Larger 
 Catechism. Imputation regards us as being respon- 
 
IMPUTATION — VIEWS OP DR. HODGE. 45 
 
 sible In law, for wliat Adam did as our representative 
 — and as a punishment for his sin, our original right- 
 eousness was lost, and we are born with a corrupt 
 disposition. That is what is meant by original sin. 
 
 As President Edwards is often referred to as a 
 standard author on these points we will quote a few 
 sentences from his work on original sin. " Bj origi- 
 nal sin, says he, as the phrase has been most com- 
 monly used by divines, is meant the innate sinful 
 depravity of the heart. But yet when the doctrine of 
 original sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly understood 
 in that latitude, as to include not only the depravity 
 of nature, but the imputation of Adam's first sin; 
 or, in other words, the liahleness or exposedness of 
 Adam's posterity in the divine judgment, to partake 
 of the punishment of that sin." 
 
 By the imputation of Adam's sin then, according 
 to President Edwards, is meant liability to punish- 
 ment on account of his sin — and by original sin, the 
 inherent depravity of our nature. This we believe is 
 in exact accordance with our standards, as they are 
 understood by our most approved commentators. 
 
 Dr. Hodge, in his commentary on the Romans, 
 observes, " This doctrine [of imputation] does not 
 include the idea of a mysterious identity of Adam and 
 his race ; nor that of a transfer of the moral turpitude 
 of his sin to his descendants. It does not teach that 
 his offence was personally or properly the sin of all 
 men, or that his act was, in any mysterious sense, the 
 act of his posterity." "The sin of Adam, therefore, 
 is no ground to us of remorse." "This doctrine 
 
46 IMPUTATION — VIEWS OF DR. HODGE. 
 
 merely teaches that in virtue of the union representa' 
 tive a7id natural, between Adam and his posterity, his 
 sin is the ground of their condemnation, that is, of 
 their subjection to penal evils.'" In reference to ori- 
 ginal sin, he says, "It is not, however, the doctrine 
 of the Scriptures, nor of the reformed churches, nor 
 of our standards, that the corruption of nature of 
 which they speak, is any depravation of the soul, or 
 an essential attribute, or the infusion of any positive 
 evil." " These confessions [of the reformers] teach 
 that original righteousness teas lost, and by that de- 
 fect the tendency to sin or corrupt disposition, or 
 corruption of nature, is occasioned. Though they 
 speak of original sin as being first negative, i. e. the 
 loss of righteousness; and secondly, positive, or cor- 
 ruption of nature; yet by the latter, they state, is to 
 be understood, not the infusion of any thing in itself 
 sinful, but an actual tendency or disposition to evil 
 resulting from the loss of righteousness." As some 
 of the strongest objections to these doctrines arise 
 either from misunderstanding or misrepresenting 
 them, the only answer which is necessary in many in- 
 stances, is, to show that the doctrines as held by those 
 who embrace them, are not what the objector sup- 
 poses. The above quotations will serve to show what 
 are the true doctrines on this subject. Some of the 
 proofs by which they are substantiated, together with 
 such remarks as may occur to us, will be reserved for 
 a subsequent chapter.* 
 
 * To any one who desires particular information on these 
 points, we recommend the commentary of the Kev. Dr. Ilodge, 
 
NEW-SCnOOL THEORY. 47 
 
 We will now sta-te with as mucli accuracy as we are 
 capable of, what we understand to be the New-school 
 doctrines in reference to this subject. According to 
 the New Theology, there was not, in the proper sense 
 of the word, any covenant made with Adam, but he 
 was merely placed under a law. He was not the fed- 
 eral head or representative of his posterity, but only 
 their natural parent. Though, as his descendants, 
 we feel the effects of his sin, and become sinful our- 
 selves in consequence of it, the doctrine that his sin 
 was imputed to us is unjust and absurd. All sin and 
 holiness consist in acts. To speak of a sinful or holy 
 nature^ (except in a figurative sense) is, therefore, 
 absurd. When Adam was created, he was neither 
 sinful nor holy, but he acquired a holy character by 
 the performance of holy acts, i. e. by choosing God 
 as his supreme good, and placing his affections upon 
 him. Jesus Christ, though called holy at his birth, 
 was so merely in the sense of dedicated, and not as 
 possessing (morally considered) a holy nature. When 
 we are born "yre possess no moral character any more 
 than brutes, but we acquire a moral character as soon 
 as we arrive at moral agency, and put forth moral 
 acts. In the sense in which it has been commonly 
 understood, there is no such thing as original sin, 
 
 from which we have just quoted. There is no work within my 
 knowledge, which to me is so clear and satisfactory in its state- 
 ments and reasonings on this subject, and I believe it expresses 
 the views which are generally entertained by those who are 
 denominated the " Old-scliool,^' or " Oriliodox" portion of the 
 Presbyterian Church. 
 
48 NEW-SCHOOL WRITERS STILL USE OLD TERMS. 
 
 there being no other original sin than the first sin a 
 child commits after arriving at moral agency. Chil- 
 dren are born with the same nature as Adam possessed 
 at his creation — and the difi*erence between us and 
 him is, that we are born in different circumstances ; 
 and that the inferior powers of our nature have ob- 
 tained greater relative strength ; from which it uni- 
 versally results as a matter of fact, that our first acts 
 are sinful, instead of being holy, as his were ; i. e. we 
 do not choose God as the object of our supreme affec- 
 tion, but the world — and this choice of the world as 
 our chief good is what constitutes human depravity. 
 
 Before referring to our authorities, we wish to ob- 
 serve that those who hold either wholly or in part to 
 the above doctrines, have not entirely laid aside the 
 use of the terms covenant, imputation, original sin, 
 &c. — but they employ them in a different sense from 
 that which has been generally attached to them by 
 Calvinistic writers. 
 
 Mr. Finney, for example, uses the term covenant, 
 in regard to the transaction between God and Adam ; 
 and yet he denies that Adam was the federal head of 
 his posterity. His doctrine appears to be that all 
 mankind were placed prospectively under the cove- 
 nant of works, and were to have a trial or probation, 
 each one for himself, similar to what Adam had; and 
 that from their connection with him as their natural 
 parent, it so happens that they all break the covenant 
 as soon as they arrive at moral agency, and thus be- 
 come sinners. His language is, "I suppose that 
 mankind were originally all under a coveyiant of 
 
NEW-SCHOOL WRITERS STILL USE OLD TERMS. 49 
 
 worJcs, and that Adam was not so their head or repre- 
 sentative, that his obedience or disobedience involved 
 them irresistibly in sin and condemnation, irrespec- 
 tive of their own acts." — Lectures to Professing 
 Christians, p. 286. Take these words in connection 
 with what precedes, and their import will be more 
 obvious. "It has been supposed by many," says he, 
 " that there was a covenant made with Adam such as 
 this, that if he continued to obey the law for a limited 
 period, all his posterity should be confirmed in holi- 
 ness and happiness for ever. What the reason is for 
 this belief I am unable to ascertain : I am not aware 
 that the doctrine is taught in the Bible." Here he 
 alludes in direct terms to the common doctrine, and 
 expresses his dissent from it. But what does he 
 hold? "Adam," says he, "was the natural head of 
 the human race, and his sin has involved them in its 
 consequences ; but not on the principle that his sin is 
 literally accounted their sin." \_Qusere: Who does 
 maintain this opinion?] "The truth," he adds, "is 
 simply this: that from the relation in which he stood 
 as their natural head, as a matter of fact, his sin has 
 resulted in the sin and ruin of his posterity." Then 
 follows what we first quoted. Thus it appears that 
 though he employs the terms covenant of works, he 
 rejects the doctrine which is generally entertained by 
 those who use them. He intends one thing by them, 
 and they another. 
 
 Mr. Barnes, in the seventh edition of his Notes on 
 the Romans, (p. 128,) uses the word impute, in refer- 
 ence to the guilt of Adam's first sin ; though by a 
 5 
 
50 NEW-SCHOOL WRITERS STILL USE OLD TERMS. 
 
 comparison Letween liis remarks here, and some 
 which are found in other parts of the book, it is evi- 
 dent he attaches a different meaning to the word, 
 from what is common among Calvinistic writers. He 
 says, (p. 95,) ^'I have examined all the passages," 
 where the word occurs in the Old Testament, "and as 
 the result of my examination, have come to the con- 
 clusion that there is not one in which the word is used 
 in the sense of reclconing or imputing to a man that 
 which does not strictly belong to him ; or of charging 
 on him that which ought not to be charged on him as a 
 matter of personal right. The word is never used to 
 denote imputing in the sense of transferring^ or of 
 charging that on one which does not properly belong 
 to him. The same is the case in the New Testament. 
 The word occurs about forty times, and in a similar 
 signification. No doctrine of transferring, or of set- 
 ing over to a man what does not properly belong to 
 him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, 
 from this word." 
 
 The transfer of the moral turpitude of Adam's sin 
 is no part of the doctrine, as held by its advocates — 
 but this is not what Mr. Barnes intends to deny; 
 because he expressly informs us, that by transferring 
 he means " setting over to a man what does not pro- 
 perly belong to him." The word impute, then, 
 according to him, is never used in the sense of "set- 
 ting over to a man what does not properly belong to 
 }iiin" — i. e. what ^^ ought not to be charged on him as 
 a matter of personal right." Nor is this doctrine 
 taught in any of these passages. How different is 
 
NEW-SCHOOL WRITERS STILL USE OLD TERMS. 51 
 
 this from the language of Turretin and Owen, as 
 quoted by Dr. Hodge. "Imputation," says the 
 former, "is either of something foreign to us, or of 
 something properly our own. Sometimes that is 
 imputed to us which is personally ours; in which 
 sense God imputes to sinners their transgressions. 
 Sometimes that is imputed to us which is without us, 
 and not performed hy ourselves ; thus the righteous- 
 ness of Christ is said to he imputed to us, and our 
 sins are imputed to him although he has neither sin 
 in himself, nor we righteousness. Here ive speak of 
 the latter kind of imputation, not the former, because 
 ive are talking of a sin committed hy Adam, and not 
 hy us The foundation, therefore, of imputa- 
 tion, is not only the natural connection which exists 
 between us and Adam, since, in that case, all his sins 
 might be imputed to us, but mainly the moral and 
 federal, in virtue of which God entered into covenant 
 with him as our head." Owen says, " Things which 
 are not our own originally, inherently, may yet he 
 imputed to us, ex justitia, hy the rule of righteous- 
 ness. And this may be done upon a double relation 
 unto those whose they are. 1. Federal. 2. Natu- 
 ral. Things done hy one may he imputed unto others, 
 propter relationem foederalem, because of a covenant 
 relation between them. So the sin of Adam was 
 imputed to all his posterity. And the ground hereof 
 is, that we stood in the same covenant with him who 
 was our head and representative." .... "Nothing 
 is intended by the imputation of sin unto an}^, but 
 
52 NEW-SCHOOL WRITERS STILL USE OLD TERMS. 
 
 the rendering them justly obnoxious unto the punish- 
 ishment due unto that sin." 
 
 Though, therefore, Mr. Barnes uses the word im- 
 pute, he does not mean with these authors, that 
 Adam's posterity were rendered legally liable to pun- 
 ishment on account of his sin ; but only that they are 
 "subject to pain, and death, and depravity, as the 
 consequence of his sin;" ^'subject to depravity as the 
 consequence;" i. e. liable to become depraved as soon 
 as they arrive at moral agency, on account of their 
 being descended from Adam, who was "the head of 
 the race;" and who having sinned, "secured as a 
 certain result that all the race will be sinners also;" 
 such being " the organization of the great society of 
 which he was the head and father." "The drunk- 
 ard," says he, "secures as a result, commonly, that 
 his family will be reduced to beggary, want and woe. 
 A pirate, or a traitor, will whelm not himself only, 
 but his family in ruin. Such is the great law or 
 constitution, on which society is now organized; and 
 we are not to be surprised that the same principle 
 occurred in the primary/ organization of human 
 affairs." Is this the sense in which our Confession 
 of Faith uses the word impute ? I will leave it for 
 the reader to judge. 
 
 Professor Fitch of New Haven has not laid aside 
 the phrase original sin, though the whole drift of 
 his discourses on the nature of sin is inconsistent 
 with the common doctrine, and was doubtless intended 
 to overthrow it. If it be true, according to him, 
 
REMARKS OF DR. MILLER. 53 
 
 " that sin, in every form and instance, is reducible 
 to the act of a moral agent, in which he violates a 
 known rule of duty," how can it be possible that 
 there is any such thing as is called by President 
 Edwards, 'Hhe innate sinful depravity of the heart?'* 
 Professor Fitch does not pretend that there is — and 
 yet he would make his readers believe that he holds 
 to original sin, and he tells us in one of his infer- 
 ences, that "the subject may assist us in making a 
 right explanation of the doctrine." And what is it? 
 "Nothing can in truth be called original sin, but his 
 first moral choice or preference being evil." One 
 can hardly exculpate him from disingenuousness in. 
 retaining the terms, after having adopted principles 
 subversive of their clear import ; and then employing 
 them in a sense materially different from common 
 and long established usage. He must certainly have 
 known that his definition of original sin is strikingly 
 at variance with that of Calvin ; who describes it as 
 ^' an hereditary depravity and corruption of our 
 nature, diffused through every part of the soul, which 
 first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and 
 then produces those works which the Scriptures de- 
 nominate the works of the flesh." 
 
 We have extended these remarks so much beyond 
 what we anticipated, that the quotations we intended 
 to make in proof of our statement concerning the 
 New-school doctrines, must be reserved for another 
 chapter. We will therefore close the present chapter 
 with a few appropriate and forcible observations of 
 Dr. Miller, taken from his Letters to Presbyterians. 
 5* 
 
54 REMARKS OF DR. MILLER. 
 
 After enumerating most of the New-school doctrines 
 "which are brought to view in this chapter, and some 
 others which we shall notice hereafter, he says: ''If 
 Pelagian and semi-Pelagian sentiments existed in 
 the fifth century^ here they are in all their unques- 
 tionable and revolting features. More particularly 
 in regard to the denial of original sin^ and the 
 assertion of the doctrine of human ability^ Pelagius 
 and his followers never went further than some of the 
 advocates of the doctrines above recited. To attempt 
 to persuade us to the contrary, is to suppose that the 
 record of the published language and opinions of 
 those ancient heretics is lost or forgotten. And to 
 assert that these opinions are reconcilable with the 
 Calvinistic system, is to offer a poor compliment to 
 the memory of the most acute, learned and pious 
 divines, that ever adorned the Church of God, from 
 the days of Augustine to those of the venerable band 
 of Puritans, who, after bearing a noble testimony 
 against surrounding errors on the other side of the 
 Atlantic, bore the lamp of truth and planted the 
 standard of Christ in this western hemisphere." 
 These observations are not introduced with a view 
 of influencing the reader to receive the statement 
 they contain, on the mere authority of a venerable 
 name ; nor of forestalling his judgment with regard 
 to the points under consideration. All that we expect 
 or desire is, that they will influence him to consider 
 the controversy not as consisting (as some profess to 
 believe) in a mere "strife about words," but as 
 involving important and dangerous errors; and will 
 
COVENANT WITH ADAM. 55 
 
 induce him to give such attention to the proofs we 
 are about to exhibit, and to other sources of evidence 
 to which he may have access, as will enable him to 
 ascertain to his entire satisfaction, whether these 
 things are so. If wise and good men now concur 
 with the "most acute, learned and pious divines that 
 ever adorned the Church of God" in former days, in 
 judging these sentiments to be heretical and perni- 
 cious; they claim the careful examination of those 
 who attach any importance to religious truth, and 
 desire to enjoy its invaluable and permanent benefits. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING CHAPTER CONTINUED, EXHIBITING 
 THE NEW THEOLOGY CONCERNING GOD's COVENANT WITH ADAM, 
 AS THE FEDERAL HEAD OF HIS POSTERITY, IMPUTATION, ORIGI- 
 NAL SIN, &C. 
 
 Our statement in the last chapter concerning the 
 New Theology, though embraced under three or four 
 general heads, involves as many other points, which 
 either grow out of the former, or are so connected 
 with them, that our views of the one will materially 
 affect our sentiments concerning the other. Accord- 
 ingly, in that statement, these several particulars 
 were presented; but they are so involved in each 
 other, it will not be easy in our quotations to keep 
 them entirely distinct. We shall therefore make no 
 
56 COVENANT WITH ADAM. 
 
 formal divisions, but introduce them in sucli order as 
 ■we find most convenient. 
 
 I will suppose myself in the company of several 
 prominent ministers, to whom a gentleman present 
 by the name of Querist, proposes the following ques- 
 tions : 
 
 Querist. — Mr. Barnes, I have recently perused 
 your sermon on the Way of Salvation, and your 
 Notes on the Romans. Am I correct in supposing 
 that you deny that any covenant was made with 
 Adam, as the federal head or representative of his 
 posterity ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — "Nothing is said of a covenant with 
 him. No where in the Scriptures is the term cove- 
 7iant applied to any transaction with Adam. All 
 that is established here is the simple'fact that Adam 
 sinned, and that this made it certain that all his pos- 
 terity would be sinners. Beyond this, the language 
 of the Apostle does not go; and all else that has 
 been said of this, is the result of mere philosophical 
 speculation." — JVotes on the Romans^ 1st edition, 
 p. 128. 
 
 Querist. — Was not Christ the covenant head of his 
 people, and does not the Apostle draw a parallel 
 between Adam and Christ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — "A comparison is also instituted 
 between Adam and Christ in 1 Cor. xv. 22 — 25. 
 The reason is, not that Adam was the representative 
 or federal head of the human race, about which the 
 Apostle says nothing, and which is not even implied, 
 but that he was the first of the race; he was the 
 
VIEWS OP MR. BARNES. 57 
 
 fountain, the head, the father; and the consequences 
 of that first act, introducing sin into the world, could 
 be seen every \yhere. The words representative and 
 federal head are never applied to Adam in the Bible. 
 The reason is, that the word representative implies an 
 idea which could not have existed in the case — the 
 consent of those who are represented. Besides, the 
 Bible does not teach that they acted in him, or by 
 him; or that he acted /(9r them. No passage has 
 ever yet been found that stated this doctrine." — 
 Notes on the Romans, 1st edition, pp. 120, 121, 
 
 Querist. — I perceive that in the later editions of 
 your Notes the above phraseology is considerably 
 changed — have you altered your sentiments ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — "Some expressions in the former 
 editions have been misunderstood; some are now 
 seen to have been ambiguous ; a few that have given 
 ojffence have been changed, because, without aban- 
 doning any principle of doctrine or interpretation, I 
 could convey my ideas in language more acceptable 
 and less fitted to produce offence." — Advertisement 
 to the fifth edition. "My views have never changed 
 on the subject that I can now recollect." — Mr. 
 Barnes's Defence before the Second Presbytery of 
 Philadelphia, in June and July, 1835. 
 
 Querist. — Do you then deny the doctrine of ir)ipU' 
 tation ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — " That doctrine is nothing but an 
 effort to explain the manner of an event which the 
 Apostle did not think it proper to attempt to explain. 
 That doctrine is, in fact, no explanation. It is intro- 
 
58 IMPUTATION — Edwards's views. 
 
 ducing an additional difficulty. For, to say that I 
 am blameworthy, or ill-deserving, for a sin in which 
 I had no agency, is no explanation, but is involving 
 me in an additional difficulty, still more perplexing, 
 to ascertain how such a doctrine can possibly be 
 just." — Notes on the Romans, Tth edition, pp. 121, 
 122. " Christianity does not charge on men crimes 
 of which they are not guilty. It does not say, as 
 I suppose, that the sinner is held to be personally 
 answerable for the transgressions of Adam, or of any 
 other man." — Sermon on the Way of Salvatio7i, 
 
 Querist. — You cannot be ignorant, sir, that these 
 views are at variance with the sentiments of Cal- 
 vinistic writers. The 5th chapter of Romans has 
 been universally considered as teaching this doctrine. 
 President Edwards says: "As this place, in general, 
 is very full and plain, so the doctrine of the corrup- 
 tion of nature, derived from Adam, and also the 
 imputation of his first sin, are both clearly taught in 
 it. The imputation of Adam's one transgression, is, 
 indeed, most directly and frequently asserted. We 
 are here assured that by ONE man's SIN, death passed 
 upon all; all being adjudged to this punishment, as 
 having sinned (so it is implied) in that one man's sin. 
 And it is repeated over and over, that all are con- 
 declined, many are dead, many made sinners, ^c, by 
 one mans offence, by the disobedience of ONE, and by 
 
 ONE offence,'' "Though the word impute 
 
 is not used with respect to Adam's sin, yet it is said, 
 all have sinned; which, respecting infants, can be 
 true only of their sinning by this sin. And it is said, 
 
VIEWS OF MR. BARNES. 59 
 
 hy his disohedience many were made sinners; and 
 judgment came upon all by that sin; and that by 
 this means, death (the wages of sin) passed on all 
 men, &c., which phrases amount to full and precise 
 explanations of the word impute; and, therefore, do 
 more certainly determine the point really insisted 
 on." — Edtvards on Original Sin, vol. 2, pp. 512, 
 517. 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — "It is not denied that this [my] lan- 
 guage varies from the statements which are often 
 made on the subject, and from the opinion which has 
 been entertained by many men. And it is admitted 
 that it does not accord with that used on the same 
 subject in the Confession of Faith, and in other stand- 
 ards of doctrine. The main difference is, that it is 
 difficult to affix any clear and definite meaning to the 
 expression "we sinned in him, and fell tvith him." 
 It is manifest, so far as it is capable of interpretation, 
 that it is intended to convey the idea, not that the sin 
 of Adam is imputed to us, or set over to our account ; 
 but that there was a personal identity constituted be- 
 tween Adam and his posterity, so that it was really 
 our act, and ours only, after all, that is chargeable on 
 us. This was the idea of Edwards. The notion of 
 IMPUTING sin is an invention of modern times ; and 
 it is not, it is believed, the doctrine of the Confession 
 of Faith." ..." Christianity affirms the fact, that, 
 in connection with the sin of Adam, or as a re- 
 sult, all moral agents in this world will sin, and sin- 
 ning, will die. — Rom. v. 12 — 19. It does not affirm, 
 however, any thing about the mode in which this 
 
60 COVENANT WITH ADAM. 
 
 would be done. There are many ways conceivable, 
 in whicb that sin might secure the result, as there are 
 many ways in which all similar facts may be ex- 
 plained. The drunkard commonly secures, as a re- 
 sult, the fact, that his family will be beggared, illite- 
 rate, perhaps profane or intemperate. Both facts are 
 evidently to be explained on the same principle as a 
 part of moral government." — Note to his Sermon on 
 the Way of Salvation. 
 
 Querist. — Are these the views of the other gentle- 
 men present? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — " If by [the union of representation] 
 is meant nothing more than that Adam did not act 
 exclusively for himself; but that his conduct was to 
 determine the character and conduct of those that 
 should come after him, we will not object. But if it 
 is meant to designate any positive procedure of Gfod, 
 in which he made Adam to stand, and required him 
 to act, as the substitute of the persons of his offspring, 
 numerically considered, and by name, head for head, 
 so that they might be held, as in commercial transac- 
 tions, personally liable for this sin, as being guilty 
 copartners with him in it, we certainly may require 
 other and better proof than what is commonly sub- 
 mitted." — Duffield on Regeneration^ p. 391. 
 
 Querist. — I know of no one who holds the doctrine 
 precisely as you have stated it — but let me inquire 
 whether you believe there existed any legal union 
 between Adam and his posterity on account of his 
 being their covenant head ; and, that the guilt of his 
 first sin was imputed to them, or set over in law to 
 
VIEWS OF MR. I>UFriELD. 61 
 
 their account, so that they were thereby subjected to 
 penal evils? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — "When it is said, in the second 
 commandment, that God visits the iniquities of the 
 fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth 
 generations," will it be contended that this is because 
 the former stood as the representatives of the latter, 
 acting leg alii/, in their name, and for them? We 
 presume not. And yet stronger language cannot be 
 employed to denote the results which flow from 
 Adam's sin, by virtue of our connection with him. 
 Why, then, must we suppose that there is a principle 
 in the one case different from that in the other? 
 And that what seems to flow out of the natural rela- 
 tion between parent and children, and to be the natu- 
 ral consequence of such relation, must be attributed 
 to a legal union or moral identity between Adam 
 and his offspring?" — Duffield on Regeneration, p. 
 392. 
 
 Querist. — According to this view, what becomes of 
 the old doctrine of original sin, as consisting in the 
 corruption or depravity of our nature? The doc- 
 trines of imputation and a corrupt nature have been 
 regarded as so closely connected, that the denial of 
 the former involved the rejection of the latter — and 
 the same proofs which have been relied upon to 
 establish the one, have generally been adduced to 
 defend the other. Thus, President Edwards, in the 
 passage already referred to, says: "And the doctrine 
 of original depravity is also here taught, [i. e. in 
 Kom. V. 12 — 21,] where the Apostle says, hy one 
 6 
 
G2 IxMPUTATION AND ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 man sin entered into the ivorld; having a plain respect 
 (as hath been shown) to that universal corruption 
 and wickedness, as well as guilt, which he had before 
 largely treated of." Is original sin to be given up; 
 or so modified as to become an entirely difi'erent doc- 
 trine ? 
 
 Dr. Beecher. — " The Reformers with one accord, 
 taught that the sin of Adam was imputed to all his 
 posterity, and that a corrupt nature descends from him 
 to every one of his posterity, in consequence of which 
 infants are unholy, unfit for heaven, and justly ex- 
 posed to future punishment. Their opinion seems to 
 have been, that the very substance or essence of the 
 soul was depraved, and that the moral contamination 
 extended alike to all its powers and faculties, inso- 
 much that sin became a property of every man's 
 nature, and was propagated as really as flesh and 
 blood." . . " Our Puritan fathers adhered to the doc- 
 trine of original sin, as consisting in the imputation 
 of Adam's sin, and in a hereditary depravity ; and 
 this continued to be the received doctrine of the 
 churches of New England until after the time of 
 Edwards. He adopted the views of the Reformers 
 on the subject of original sin, as consisting in the 
 imputation of Adam's sin, and a depraved nature, 
 transmitted hy descent. But after him this mode of 
 stating the subject was gradually changed, until long 
 since, the prevailing doctrine in New England has 
 been, that men are not guilty of Adam's sin, and 
 that depravity is not of the substance of the soul, nor 
 an inherent or physical quality, but is wholly volun- 
 
VIEWS OF DR. BEECHER. 63 
 
 tary^ and consists in a transgression of the law, in 
 such circumstances as constitute accountability and 
 desert of punishment." — Dr. Beecher's Controversy 
 with the editor of the Christian Examiner in the 
 Spirit of the Pilgrims, in 1828, as quoted in the Bib- 
 lical Repertory ^"^ 
 
 Querist. — Am I to understand by these remarks, 
 that the doctrine of a sinful or corrupt nature has 
 been abandoned? 
 
 Dr. Beecher. — "Neither a holy nor a depraved 
 nature is possible without understanding, conscience, 
 and choice. To say of an accountable creature, that 
 he is depraved by nature, is only to say that, ren- 
 dered capable by his Maker of obedience, he disobeys 
 from the commencement of his accountability." .... 
 "A depraved nature can no more exist without 
 voluntary agency and accountability, than a ma- 
 terial nature can exist without solidity and exten- 
 sion." "If, therefore, man is depraved by 
 
 nature, it is a voluntary and accountable nature which 
 is depraved, exercised in disobedience to the law of 
 God." .... "Native depravity, then, is a state of 
 the affections in a voluntary accountable creature, at 
 variance with divine requirement, from the beginning 
 
 * Since writing this chapter, I have seen the number of the 
 Spirit of the Pilgrims, in which the above is found, with Dr. 
 Beecher's own signature. In his "Views in Theology," he 
 appears to speak a different language — language not easily 
 reconciled with the above quotation. But as he does not pro- 
 fess to have changed his sentiments, the preceding must be 
 regarded as expressing his opinions. 
 
64 DEPRAVITY — VIEWS OF FINNEY AND FITCH. 
 
 of accountability." — Sermon on the Native Character 
 of Man. 
 
 Mr. Finney. — "All depravity [is] volu7itary — con- 
 sisting in voluntary transgression. [It is] the sinner's 
 own act. Something of his own creation. That over 
 which he has a perfect control, and for which he is 
 entirely responsible. ! the darkness and confusion, 
 and utter nonsense of that view of depravity which 
 exhibits it, as something lying back, and the cause of 
 all actual transgression." — Sermons on Important 
 Subjects, p. 139. 
 
 Querist. — Does all sin, then, consist in acts? 
 
 Professor Fitch. — "Sin, in every form and in- 
 stance, is reducible to the act of a moral agent, in 
 which he violates a known rule of duty." — Discourses 
 on the Nature of Sin. 
 
 Querist. — By parity of reasoning, all holiness must 
 likewise consist in acts. 
 
 Mr. Finney. — "All holiness in God, angels, or 
 men, must be voluntary, or it is not holiness." .... 
 "When Adam was first created, and awoke into 
 being, before he had obeyed or disobeyed his Maker, 
 he could have had no moral character at all ; he had 
 exercised no affections, no desires, nor put forth any 
 actions. In this state he was a complete moral 
 agent; and in this respect in the image of his Maker: 
 but as yet he could have had no moral character ; for 
 moral character cannot be a subject of creation,* but 
 attaches to voluntary actions.'' — Sermons on Im- 
 portant Subjects, pp. 7, 10, 11. 
 
 Querist. — If these views are correct, what must be 
 
VIEWS OF MR. DUFFIELD. 65 
 
 said concerning infants? Are they neither sinful 
 nor holy? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — "It is a question alike pertinent 
 and important, whether in the incipient period of 
 infancy and childhood there can be any moral char- 
 acter whatever possessed. Moral character is char- 
 acter acquired by acts of a moral nature. Moral acts 
 are those acts which are contemplated by the law, 
 prescribing the rule of human conduct." . . . "It is 
 obvious that in infancy and incipient childhood, when 
 none of the actions are deliberate, or the result of 
 motive, operating in connection with the knowledge of 
 law, and of the great end of all human actions, no 
 moral character can appropriately be predicated." . . 
 "Properly speaking, therefore, we can predicate 
 of it neither sin nor holiness, personally considered." 
 — Duffield on Regeneration^ pp. 377, 378, 379. 
 
 Querist. — Was not Jesus Christ holy from his 
 birth ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — "Things inanimate have, in scrip- 
 tural parlance, sometimes been called holy^ as the 
 inmost chamber of the temple was called the holy of 
 holies ; but then it was because of some especial and 
 peculiar relationship which it had to God. He dwelt 
 in it. It was set ajpart as pre-eminently and exclu- 
 sively appropriate to God. In this sense the yet 
 unconscious human nature of Christ may be denomi- 
 nated holy^ for it was the habitation of Gocl, and 
 singularly and exclusively appropriate to him, differ- 
 ing in this respect essentially and entirely from that 
 6* 
 
66 CHARACTER OF INFANTS. 
 
 of any of ij^e descendants of Adam." — Duffield on 
 Regeneration, p. 353. 
 
 Querist. — If infants are not sinful before they 
 arrive at moral agency, and have no legal or cove- 
 nant connection with Adam as their representative, 
 how can you account for their death ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — " There is no manner of necessity, 
 in order to account for the death of infants, to sup- 
 pose that the sin of Adam became their personal sin, 
 either in respect of its act, or its ill desert. Their 
 death eventuates according to that law of depend- 
 ence, which marks the whole government of God in 
 this world, by virtue of which the consequences of the 
 act of one man terminate ofttimes on the person of 
 another, when there is not the union of representa- 
 tion." — Duffield on Regeneration, p. 389. 
 
 Professor Goodrich, of New Haven. — " Infants die. 
 The answer has been given a thousand times ; brutes 
 die also. But, .... ''animals are not subjects of 
 the moral government of God. Neither are infants 
 previous to moral agency ; for what has moral gov- 
 ernment to do with those who are not moral agents?" 
 
 ''Animals, and infants previous to moral 
 
 agency do, therefore, stand on precisely the same 
 ground in reference to this subject. Suffering and 
 death afford no more evidence of sin in the one case 
 than in the other." — Christian Spectator, 1829, 
 p. 373 — attributed to Professor Goodrich. 
 
 Querist. — If infants do not possess a corrupt na- 
 ture, please to inform me by what process they 
 become sinful — and how it happens that not one of 
 
HOW DEPRAVITY COMMENCES. 67 
 
 the human family born in the ordinary way has ever 
 escaped this catastrophe. 
 
 Professor Goodrich. — "A child enters the world 
 with a variety of appetites and desires, which are gen- 
 erally acknowledged to be neither sinful nor holy. 
 Committed in a state of utter helplessness, to the as- 
 siduity of parental fondness, it commences existence, 
 the object of unceasing care, watchfulness, and con- 
 cession to those around him. Under such circum- 
 stances it is that the natural appetites are first deve- 
 loped, and each advancing month brings them new 
 objects of gratification. The obvious consequence is, 
 that self-indulgence becomes the master principle in 
 the soul of every child, long before it can understand 
 that this self-indulgence will interfere with the rights 
 or intrench on the happiness of others. Thus, by 
 repetition, is the force of constitutional propensities 
 accumulating a bias towards self-gratification, which 
 becomes incredibly strong before a knowledge of duty 
 or a sense of right and wrong can possibly have en- 
 tered the mind. That moment — the commencement 
 
 of moral agency, at length arrives." "Why 
 
 then is it so necessary to suppose some distinct evil 
 propensity — some fountain of iniquity in the breast 
 
 of the child previous to moral action?" 
 
 "But let us look at facts. Angels sinned. Was the 
 cause which led to their first act of rebellion, in itself 
 sinful? Eve was tempted and fell. Was her natural 
 appetite for food, or her desire for knowledge — to 
 which the temptation was addressed — a sinful feeling ? 
 And why may not our constitutional propensities 
 
68 HOW DEPRAVITY COMMENCES. 
 
 now, lead to the same result at the commencement of 
 moral agency, as was actually exhibited in fallen 
 angels and our first parents, even when advanced in 
 holiness?" .... "Did not vehement desire produce 
 sin in Adam's first act of transgression? Was there 
 any previous principle of depravity in him? Why 
 then may not strong constitutional desires be fol- 
 lowed now by a choice of their objects as well as in 
 the case of Adam?" — Christian Spectator, 1829, 
 pp. 366, 367, 368. 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — The infant "is placed in a rebel- 
 lious world, subject to the influence of ignorance, 
 with very limited and imperfect experience, and 
 liable to the strong impulses of appetite and pas- 
 sion." .... "Instinct, animal sensation, constitu- 
 tional susceptibilities create an impulse, which not 
 being counteracted by moral considerations or gra- 
 cious influence, lead the will in a wrong direction and 
 to wrong objects. It was thus that sin was induced 
 in our holy progenitors. No one can plead in Eve 
 an efficient cause of sin resident in her nature (any 
 l^rava vis) or operative power, sinful in itself, ante- 
 rior to and apart from her own voluntary acts. And 
 if she was led into sin, though characteristically holy, 
 and destitute of any innate propensity to sin, where 
 is the necessity for supposing that the sins of her 
 progeny are to be referred to such a cau^e?" .... 
 "Temptation alone is sufficient under present circum- 
 stances. "-i)i<^e?cZ on Regeneration, pp. 310, 379, 380. 
 "Mr. Finney. — "If it be asked how it happens 
 that children universally adopt the principle of self- 
 
VIEWS OP DR. TAYLOR. 69 
 
 isliness, unless their nature is sinful, I answer, 
 that they adopt the principle of self-gratification or 
 selfishness, because they possess human nature, and 
 come into being under the peculiar circumstances in 
 which all the children of Adam are born since the 
 fall; but not because human nature is itself sinful. 
 The cause of their becoming sinners is to be found in 
 their nature being what it is, and surrounded by the 
 peculiar circumstances of temptation to which they 
 are exposed in a world of sinners." .... "Adam 
 was created in the perfection of manhood^ certainly 
 not with a sinful nature^ and yet an appeal to his 
 innocent, constitutional appetites led him into sin. 
 If adult Adam, without a sinful nature, and after a 
 season of obedience and perfect holiness, was led to 
 change his mind by an appeal to his innocent, consti- 
 tutional propensities, how can the fact that infants 
 possessing the same nature with Adam, and sur- 
 rounded by circumstances of still greater temptation, 
 universally fall into sin, prove that their nature is 
 itself sinful ? Is such an inference called for ? Is it 
 legitimate ? What ! holy and adult Adam is led, by 
 an appeal to his innocent constitution, to adopt the 
 principle of selfishness, and no suspicion is or can be 
 entertained, that he had a sinful nature ; but if little 
 children under circumstances of temptation, aggra- 
 vated by the fall, are led into sin, we are to believe 
 that their nature is sinful ! This is wonderful phi- 
 losophy!" — Salmons on Important Subjects, p. 157. 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — " If no being can sin without a con- 
 stitutional propensity to sin, how came Adam to sin ? 
 
70 VIEWS OF DR. TAYLOR. 
 
 If one being, as Adam, can sin, and did in fact sin 
 "without such a propensity to sin, why may not 
 others?" — S'pirit of the Pilgrims, vol. 6, p. 13, as 
 quoted by Dow. 
 
 Querist. — Do you accord, Dr. Taylor, with the 
 sentiment just expressed by Mr. Finney, that "m- 
 fants possess the same nature with Adam'* at his 
 creation ? 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — "Mankind come into the world with 
 the same nature in kind as that with which Adam 
 was created." — Ibid. vol. 6, p. 5. 
 
 Querist. — What influence then has the fall exerted 
 on the posterity of Adam ? 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — "I answer, that it may have been to 
 change their nature, not in kind, but degree." — Ibid, 
 vol. 6. p. 12. 
 
 Querist. — On the supposition that the nature of 
 Adam and that of his posterity were alike in kind, 
 why did not he sin as soon as he commenced his 
 moral existence? 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — "I answer, that the reason may have 
 been, that his nature differed, not in kind, but in 
 degree from that of his posterity." — Ibid. 
 
 Querist. — On this principle, in what respect did 
 the human nature of Christ differ from that of other 
 children ? — and if he possessed in his human nature, 
 what other children possess, why did he not exhibit 
 the same moral character? 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — "I might answer as before, that his 
 human nature may have differed from that of other 
 children not in kind, but degree.'' — Ibid. 
 
VIEWS OF PELAGIUS. 71 
 
 We have given the preceding quotations at con- 
 siderable length, that those readers who may not have 
 attended to the controversy, may perceive from their 
 own statements, its various bearings and tendencies; 
 and how far those have gone who have been bold 
 enough to follow out their principles to their legiti- 
 mate and full results. We do not attribute to all 
 whose names we have introduced, every sentiment 
 which has been advanced by some of them — but it 
 cannot fail, we think, to strike the mind of the 
 reader that there is such an affinity between the 
 several parts of the series, that the man who adopts 
 one of the doctrines in this category, will be in great 
 danger of ultimately embracing the whole. They all 
 belong to the same system; and ought therefore to 
 be introduced in stating the distinguishing features of 
 the New Theology ; though many who adhere to the 
 system in part, do not go to the ne phis idtra of the 
 scheme, as it is here exhibited. 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 REMARKS ON IMPUTATION, ORIGINAL SIN, &C., WITH REFERENCE 
 TO THE VIEWS PRESENTED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER. 
 
 The controversy respecting our connection with 
 Adam, and the influence produced upon us by the 
 fall, commenced early in the fifth century, when 
 PelagiuSj a British monk, published opinions at vari- 
 
72 VIEWS OP PELAGIUS. 
 
 ance with the common doctrines of the church. He 
 and his followers entertained substantially the same 
 views which have been exhibited in the preceding 
 chapter; though they adopted a method somewhat 
 different to account for the commission of sin by little 
 children, and went farther in their views concerning 
 the influence of Adam's sin upon his descendants. 
 They maintained that "the sin of Adam injured 
 himself alone, and did not affect his posterity;" and 
 that we sin only by "imitation." But their senti- 
 ments concerning the nature of sin, original sin, and 
 imputation, were the same with those which dis- 
 tinguish the New Theology. 
 
 Concerning the first, Pelagius says, " And here, in 
 my opinion, the first inquiry ought to be. What is 
 sin 9 Is it a substance, or is it a mere name devoid 
 of substance; not a thing, not an existence, not a 
 body, nor any thing else (which has a separate exist- 
 ence) but an act; and if this is its nature, as I 
 believe it is, how could that which is devoid of sub- 
 stance debilitate or change human nature?" 
 
 "Every thing, good or evil, praiseworthy or censu- 
 rable, which we possess, did not originate with us, but 
 is done by us; for we are born capable both of good 
 and evil, but not in possession of these qualities ; for 
 in our birth we are equally destitute of virtue and 
 vice; and previously to moral agency, there is noth- 
 ing in man but that which God created in him." — 
 biblical ReiJertorif. 
 
 This question concerning the nature of sin was 
 regarded as decisive concerning the other two; and 
 
NATURE OF SIN. 73 
 
 it "was introduced by Pelagius with that view. Says 
 he, "It is disputed concerning this, whether our 
 nature is debilitated and deteriorated by sin. And 
 here, in my opinion, the first inquiry ought to be, 
 what is sin?" &c. So it is regarded at the present 
 time. Says Mr. Finney, "In order to admit the sin- 
 fulness of nature, we must believe sin to consist in 
 the substance of the constitution, instead of voluntary 
 action, which is a thing impossible." — Sermons on 
 Important Subjects, p. 158. 
 
 Mr. Dufiield, after stating several things which he 
 supposes may be meant by the phrase original sin, 
 gives as the views of the Westminster divines, that it 
 denotes " something which has the power to originate 
 sin, and which is necessarily involved in our very 
 being, from the first moment of its origination.'* 
 This he intimates was intended by the expression in 
 our Catechism, "the corruption of our whole nature." 
 He then says, (after some preliminaries) "It is 
 strange that ever it should have been made a ques- 
 tion, whether sin may be predicated of being or simple 
 existence, since sin is undeniably an act of a moral 
 character, and therefore can only be committed by 
 one who is possessed of moral powers, i. e. one who 
 is capable of acting according as the law requires or 
 
 prohibits." "Holiness, or sin which is its 
 
 opposite, has a direct and immediate reference to 
 those voluntary acts and exercises, which the law is 
 
 designed to secure or prevent." "How very 
 
 absurd, therefore, is it to predicate sin of that which 
 does not fall under cognizance of law at all!" 
 
74 VIEWS OF PELAGIUS; ETC. 
 
 Though he uses the phrase "being or simple exist- 
 ence," as that concerning which it is absurd to pre- 
 dicate sin, he refers unquestionably to the expression 
 in the Catechism which he had just quoted, and upon 
 which he was remarking, viz. "the corruption of our 
 whole nature." It is absurd, therefore, according to 
 him, to speak of our having a corrupt nature, since, 
 as he maintains, all sin consists in voluntary acts of a 
 moral agent, in violation of a known law. Hence the 
 imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, and 
 original sin, are rejected as unphilosophical and 
 absurd. 
 
 Says Pelagius, "When it is declared that all have 
 sinned in Adam, it sliould not he understood of any 
 original sin contracted hy their birth, but of imita- 
 tion." .... "How can a man be considered guilty 
 by God of that sin which he knows not to be his own ? 
 for if it is necessary, it is not his own ; but if it is his 
 own, it is voluntary; and if voluntary, it can be 
 avoided." 
 
 Julian, one of the disciples of Pelagius, says, 
 "Whoever is accused of a crime, the charge is made 
 against his conduct, and not against his birth." . . . 
 "Therefore we conclude that the triune God should 
 be adored as most just; and it has been made to 
 appear most irrefragably, that the sin of another 
 never can he imiouted hy him to little children.'' . . . 
 "Hence that is evident which we defend as most 
 reasonable, that no one is born in sin, and that God 
 never judges men to be guilty on account of their 
 birth." "Children, inasmuch as they are 
 
PELAGIANISM CONDEMNED. 75 
 
 children, never can be guilty, until they have done 
 something by their own proper will." — Biblical Rep- 
 ertory. 
 
 How striking is the resemblance between these 
 views and the following remarks of Mr. Barnes: 
 ''When Paul," says he, "states a simple fact, men 
 often advance a theory. ... A melancholy instance 
 of this we have in the account which the apostle 
 gives, (ch. 5.) about the effect of the sin of Adam. 
 .... They have sought for a theory to account for 
 it. And many suppose they have found it in the 
 doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over 
 by an arbitrary arrangement to beings otherwise 
 innocent, and that they are held to be responsible for 
 a deed committed by a man thousands of years before 
 they were born. This is the theory ; and men insen- 
 sibly forget that it is mere theory,'' .... "I under- 
 stand it, therefore, [Rom. v. 12,] as referring to the 
 fact that men sin in their oivn persons, sin in them- 
 selves — as indeed how can they sin in any other 
 ^Sb-yV — J}^otes on the Romans, pp. 10, 117. 
 
 We admit that this coincidence between the New- 
 school doctrines and Pelagianism, does not afford cer- 
 tain proof of their being untrue. It is however a 
 strong presumptive evidence, since Pelagianism has 
 been rejected as heretical by every Evangelical 
 Church in Christendom. 
 
 Coelestius, a disciple of Pelagius, is said to have 
 been more zealous and successful in the propagation 
 of these errors than his master. Hence, in early 
 times, they were perhaps associated with his name, 
 
76 DOCTRINE OF OUR STANDARDS. 
 
 more than with that of Pelagius. Among other coun- 
 cils who condemned his heresy, was the council of 
 Ephesus, A. D. 431; who ^'denominated it the ivicked 
 doctrine of Coelestius." — Biblical Repertory, 
 
 In a numher of the Confessions of Faith adopted 
 by different churches after the Reformation, Pela- 
 gianism is mentioned by name. Thus, in one of the 
 Articles of the Episcopal Church, it is said, " Original 
 sin standeth not in the following of Adam^ (as the 
 Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the fault and 
 corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally 
 is engendered of the offspring of Adam^ whereby 
 man is very far gone from original righteousness, 
 and is of his own nature inclined to evil." 
 
 Though in the Westminster Confession, this her- 
 esy is not expressly named, there can be no doubt 
 that the framers intended to reject and condemn it. 
 Compare the preceding doctrines of Pelagius and his 
 followers with our quotations from the Confession of 
 Faith in chap. iii. ; also the following from the 
 Larger Catechism: "The sinfulness of that estate 
 whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adanis 
 first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein 
 he was created, and the corruption of his nature, 
 whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made 
 opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly 
 inclined to all evil, and that continually: which is 
 commonly called original sin, and from which do 
 proceed all actual transgressions." 
 
 We have said that the denial of the doctrine of 
 imputation and original sin, arises in part from the 
 
ALL SIN DOES NOT CONSIST IN ACTS. 77 
 
 adoption of the theory that all sin consists in acts. 
 Upon this point, therefore, it will be pertinent to 
 make a few remarks. 
 
 1. Holiness and sin are predicated of the heart. 
 Thus the Bible speaks of an honest and good heart, 
 a broken heart, a clean heart, an evil heart, a hard 
 heart, &c., which convey the idea that there is some- 
 thing in man of a moral character, prior to his acts — 
 something which forms the basis from which his good 
 and evil actions proceed; and which determines the 
 character of those actions. Hence holiness and sin 
 do not consist wholly in acts, but belong to our 
 nature. 
 
 2. We are said to be conceived and born in sin ; 
 and if so, we must be sinful hy nature; for we have 
 not then put forth any moral acts. 
 
 3. We are declared to be by nature the children of 
 wrath — and if children of wrath by nature, then we 
 must be hy nature^ siniiers, for sin alone exposes to 
 wrath. All sin therefore cannot consist in acts. 
 
 4. Adam was created in the image of God — which 
 according to our standards, consisted in " knowledge, 
 righteousness, and holiness." By the fall this image 
 was lost. In regard to sjnritual things we became 
 ignorant. — "The natural man discerneth not the 
 things of the Spirit of God," &c. Our moral char- 
 acters became corrrupt and wicked. In other words, 
 we forfeited our original righteousness and became 
 prone to evil. By regeneration this image is re- 
 stored. Col. iii. 10: "And have put on the new 
 
 man which is renewed in knowledge after the image 
 
 7* 
 
78 laiAGE OF GOD. 
 
 of him that created him." Eph. iv. 24: "And that 
 ye put on the new man, which after God is created 
 in righteousness and true Jioliness.'" These texts are 
 decisive as to what the image of God consisted in, 
 viz. *' knowledge, righteousness and true holiness.'* 
 Yet in this image man was created; and of course 
 possessed it before he put forth moral acts. Conse- 
 quently all holiness and sin do not consist in acts, 
 but may be predicated of our nature. 
 
 The manner in which this argument has been dis- 
 posed of, is truly singular. On the principle that all 
 holiness consists in acts, it cannot be created. This 
 the advocates of the New Theology admit. Since 
 then, Adam was created in the image of God, a new 
 theory must be devised as to what that image was. 
 In this, however, there is not a perfect agreement. 
 According to Mr. Finney, it consisted in moral 
 agency. "In this state, says he, [i. e. when Adam 
 was first created,] he was a complete moral agent, 
 and in this respect in the image of his 3IaJcer." — 
 Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 11. Mr. Duffield 
 makes it consist principally in some imaginary resem- 
 blance to the Trinity. "Th-ere is, however," says he, 
 "one important respect in which this resemblance in 
 man to God may be seen, which, indeed, is generally 
 overlooked, but which we are disposed to think is of 
 principal consequence. It is not one person of the 
 Godhead only who is represented as speaking at the 
 formation of man, but the whole three. Jehovah, the 
 ever blessed Three in One, said, " Let us make man 
 in oun image" — not in the image of any one person, 
 
FUTURE STATE OF INFANTS. 79 
 
 nor of eacli distinctly, but of all conjointly. How 
 admirably are the distinct personality and essential 
 unity of the Godhead represented or imaged in man 
 possessing three distinct kinds of life, and yet consti- 
 tuting but one moral being ! In him are united the 
 vegetable, the animal, and the moral or spiritual life, 
 each having and preserving its distinct character, but 
 ail combined in one responsible individual." — Duf- 
 field on Regeneration, p. 143. 
 
 What a pity it is that the apostle Paul had not 
 become acquainted with this new theory concerning 
 the nature of sin and holiness ! He would not then 
 have committed such a mistake in describing the 
 image of God in which man was created, and to 
 which we are restored by divine grace ! 
 
 5. It will be perceived by the preceding remarks, 
 that this doctrine involves also a new theory of re- 
 generation. This is not denied — and hence the sen- 
 timents which have long prevailed on this subject are 
 rejected, and the notion of gradual regeneration by 
 moral suasion, is substituted in their place. But as 
 we intend to exhibit this feature of the New Theology 
 more at length in a subsequent chapter, we will not 
 dwell upon it here. 
 
 6. This doctrine places those who die in infancy in 
 a most unenviable position. If all sin and holiness 
 consist in the voluntary acts of a moral agent, in- 
 fants, before arriving at moral agency, have no moral 
 character; but stand in respect to moral government 
 on the same level with brute animals. This is the 
 New-school doctrine. Since, therefore, thousands die 
 
80 ' SALVATION or INFANTS. 
 
 in infancy, wliere do they go? If they have no 
 moral character, the blessings of the gospel are no 
 more adapted to them, than to the brutes. Hence if 
 they die before they become moral agents, they 
 must either be annihilated, or spend an eternity in 
 some unknown and inconceivable state of existence — 
 neither in heaven nor hell, but possibly between the 
 two — in some limhus infantum, similar, perhaps, to 
 that of the papists ; yet with this advantage in favour 
 of the latter, that their infants, possessing moral 
 character, may be renewed and saved. What a com- 
 fortless doctrine must this be to parents, when weep- 
 ing by the cradle of expiring infancy !* 
 
 7. The death of infants affords strong proof of the 
 doctrine of imputation and original sin. If there is 
 no legal connection between us and Adam, if his sin 
 is not imputed to us, and we are not horn with a cor- 
 rupt nature, where is the justice of inflicting upon 
 infants who have never committed actual transgres- 
 sion, a part of the penalty threatened upon Adam for 
 his disobedience? 
 
 8. The doctrine of imputation affords the only 
 evidence we can have, that those dying in infancy are 
 
 * The manner in whicli the advocates of the New Theology 
 attempt to relieve themselves from this difficulty, is the follow- 
 ing, viz. that the atonement places those who die in infancy 
 in such circumstances in the next world, as to result in their 
 becoming holy at the commencement of moral agency. But 
 this supposition has no foundation in Scripture. Christ is 
 never represented as entering our world to prevent men from 
 becoming sinners, but to save those who were sinners already. 
 
GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 81 
 
 saved. If Adam's sin was not imputed to them for 
 their condemnation, how can the righteousness of 
 Christ be imputed to them for their justification? 
 Christ came to "seek and save that which was lost" 
 — "to save sinners" — he saves no others. If, there- 
 fore, they were not lost in Adam — if they were not 
 made sinners by his sin — Christ did not come to save 
 them. But he did come to save such. He says, 
 "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid 
 them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 They are therefore sinners — and as they lost their 
 original righteousness through the first Adam, the 
 foundation was laid for their restoration and salvation 
 through the second. On any other principle there 
 would be no hope in their case. But here is ground 
 for consolation. In the language of Dr. Watts, 
 
 "A thousand new-born babes are dead, 
 By fatal union to their head : 
 But -whilst our spirits, filled with awe, 
 Behold the terrors of thy law, 
 We si-ng the honours of thy grace, 
 That sent to save our ruined race : 
 Adam the second, from the dust 
 Raises the ruins of the first." 
 
 9. The doctrine of imputation is essential to a cor- 
 rect view of the plan of salvation. As Dr. Hodge 
 has well expressed it: "The denial of this doctrine 
 involves also the denial of the scriptural view of the 
 atonement and justification. It is essential to the 
 scriptural form of these doctrines that the idea of 
 legal substitution should be retained. Christ bore 
 
82 GOSPEL PLAN OP SALVATION. 
 
 our sins; our iniquities were laid upon him; which, 
 according to the true meaning of Scripture language, 
 can only signify, that he bore the punishment of 
 those sins; not the same evils indeed either in kind 
 or degree ; but still penal, because judicially inflicted 
 for the support of law This idea of legal sub- 
 stitution enters also into the scriptural view of justifi- 
 cation. In justification, according to Paul's language, 
 God imputes righteousness to the ungodly. This 
 righteousness is not their own ; but they are regarded 
 and treated as righteous on account of the obedience 
 of Christ. That is, his righteousness is so laid to 
 their account, or imputed to them, that they are 
 regarded and treated as if it were their own, or as 
 if they had kept the law." — Hodge on the Romans^ 
 pp. 127, 128. 
 
 The connection of imputation with the work of 
 Christ, gives to this doctrine its chief importance. 
 The same principle is applied in the Bible both to 
 Adam and Christ. If, therefore, we deny our legal 
 connection with Adam, and the imputation of his 
 first sin to his posterity, we must necessarily adopt 
 views concerning the method of salvation by Jesus 
 Christ, materially difi'erent from those above given. 
 On the supposition that the principle of representa- 
 tion is inadmissible in the case of Adam, it must be 
 equally so in reference to Christ. If we cannot be 
 condemned in law by the disobedience of the one, we 
 cannot be justified by the obedience of the other. A 
 blow is thus struck at the foundation of our hope ; — 
 a blow, which, if it destroys our connection with 
 
REMARKS OF DR. OWEN. 83 
 
 Adam, destroys also our connection with Christ, and 
 our title to heaven. 
 
 Says Owen, "By some the imputation of the actual 
 apostacy and transgression of Adam, the head of our 
 nature, whereby his sin became the sin of the world, 
 is utterly denied. Hereby both the ground the 
 the apostle proceedeth on, in evincing the necessity 
 of our justification, or our being made righteous by 
 the obedience of another, and all the arguments 
 brought in confirmation of the doctrine of it, in the 
 fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, are evaded 
 and overthrown. Socinus confesseth that place to 
 give great countenance unto the doctrine of justifica- 
 tion by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ ; 
 and therefore he sets himself to oppose with sundry 
 artifices the imputation of the sin of Adam, unto his 
 natural posterity. For he perceived well enough that 
 upon the admission thereof, the imputation of the 
 righteousness of Christ unto his spiritual seed, would 
 unavoidably follow according unto the tenor of the 
 apostle's discourse." . . . "Some deny the deprava- 
 tion and corruption of our nature, which ensued on 
 our apostacy from God, and the loss of his image. 
 Or if they do not absolutely deny it, yet they so 
 extenuate it, as to render it a matter of no great 
 concern unto us." .... "That deformity of soul 
 w^hich came upon us in the loss of the image of God, 
 wherein the beauty and harmony of all our faculties, 
 in all their actings, in order unto their utmost end, 
 did consist; that enmity unto God, even in the mind 
 which ensued thereon ; that darkness with which our 
 
84 IMPUTATION AND ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 understandings were clouded, yea, blinded withal; 
 the spiritual death which passed on the whole soul, 
 and total alienation from the life of God ; that impo- 
 tency unto good, that inclination unto evil, that 
 deceitfulness of sin, that power and efficacy of cor- 
 rupt lusts, which the Scriptures and experience so 
 fully charge on the state of lost nature, are rejected 
 as empty notions, or fables. No wonder if such per- 
 sons look upon imputed righteousness as the shadow of 
 a dream, who esteem those things which evidence its 
 necessity to be but fond imaginations. And small hope 
 is there to bring such men to value the righteousness 
 of Christ, as imputed to them, who are so unacquaint- 
 ed with their own unrighteousness inherent in them." 
 
 10. The Scripture proofs relied upon to establish 
 the doctrine of imputation and original sin, are such 
 as the following. John iii. 3, 6: "Except a man be 
 born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. That 
 which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which 
 is born of the Spirit is spirit." Here our first or 
 natural birth is contrasted with our second or spiritual 
 birth. If at the first we are unfit for the kingdom of 
 heaven, and are qualified only by the second, then it 
 is clear we are horn sinners. 
 
 Rom. V. 12 — 21. "As by one man sin entered into 
 the world and death by sin, so death passed upon all 
 men, for that all have sinned, &c. We have already 
 quoted some remarks on this passage from President 
 Edwards, in the last chapter, to which we refer the 
 reader. The quotation commences as follows : " The 
 doctrine of the corruption of nature^ derived from 
 
SCRirTURAL PROOFS. 85 
 
 Adam, and also the imputation of his first sin, are 
 both clearly taught in it," &c. The phrases, "for 
 that, or in whom all have sinned/' "through the 
 oJBfence of one many be dead,'' "the judgment was by 
 one to condemnation," "by one man's offence, death 
 reigned by one," "by one man's disobedience many 
 were made sinners," and other similar ones, contain 
 so exact a description of the doctrine, that the proof 
 which they furnish would not be more conclusive, if 
 the very words impute and original sin had been 
 introduced. 
 
 Rom. vii. 18 — 23. " For I know that in me (that 
 is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing; for to will is 
 present with me ; but how to perform that which is 
 good, I find not," &c. This struggle between the 
 old and new man, between indwelling sin and the 
 principle of grace, affords strong evidence of the 
 natural propensity of man to sin. 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 22. "For as in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive." By simply revers- 
 ing the order of the passage, its relevancy to our 
 present purpose will be manifest. As all who shall 
 be made alive will enjoy this blessing by virtue of 
 their connection with Christ as their covenant head ; 
 so all who die, experience this calamity in conse- 
 quence of a similar connection with Adam ; who 
 " being the root of all mankind, the guilt of [his first 
 sin] was imputed, and the same death in sin, and 
 corrupted nature, conveyed to all his posterity, des- 
 cending from him by ordinary generation." 
 
 Eph. ii. 3. " And were by nature the children of 
 8 
 
86 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS. 
 
 wrath, even as others." This has been generally 
 understood, both by ancient and modern commenta- 
 tors, as teaching the doctrine that we are born in a 
 state of sin and condemnation. If we are children of 
 wrath by nature, we must have been born in that 
 condition; and if born children of wrath, we must 
 have been born in sin. 
 
 In the Old Testament, the following among others 
 may be referred to. Gen. vi. 5: "And God saw 
 that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, 
 and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart 
 was only evil continually." This is descriptive not 
 of one man only, but of the race ; and how can this 
 universal corruption be accounted for except on the 
 principle of original sin? Job xiv. 4: "Who can 
 bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." If, 
 then, parents are "unclean," if they are universally 
 sinful, children inherit from them the same charac- 
 ter. Psal. li. 5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, 
 and in sin did my mother conceive me." This is an 
 express declaration that the Psalmist was conceived 
 in sin; and if it was true of him, it is true of all 
 others. These three passages taken in connection, 
 form a complete syllogism in support of this doctrine. 
 If the first of them is applicable to all mankind, as 
 appears from the similarity of that description, and 
 those given by David and Paul ; and if the two latter 
 exhibit the fountain from which the evil imaginations 
 of the heart take their rise, as they appear clearly to 
 indicate ; then all men possess a depraved and sinful 
 nature, inherited from their parents. 
 
OUR CONNECTION WITH ADAM. 87 
 
 As the chief object of the present volume Is to 
 exhibit the difference between the Old and New The- 
 ology, we have not thought it expedient to enter 
 largely upon the proofs in favour of the former. But 
 what has been adduced is sufficient, we think, to 
 show the truth of the Old system, in opposition to 
 the New, and to serve as a kind of index to a more 
 minute and extensive examination of the subject. 
 
 Before closing the chapter we will make a few 
 remarks on the charge of injustice^ which is brought 
 against the views entertained by the Old-school di- 
 vines, with regard to this subject. We believe it to 
 be wholly unfounded; but against the opposite the- 
 ory, it might be made to lie with great force. Does 
 any one pronounce it unjust for a man to be held 
 liable for a debt contracted by one of his ancestors, 
 provided in becoming his heir, that was made one 
 of the legal conditions by which he should inherit 
 his estate ? But suppose he had no legal connection 
 with him at all, but simply the relation of natural 
 descent — which, according to the New-school doc- 
 trine, is our only connection with Adam — where 
 would be the justice in holding him responsible for 
 the payment of his ancestor's debts? He sustains 
 to him, remember, no legal connection, but is held 
 responsible, merely because he is his descendant. Is 
 this just? — Since then all are obliged to admit that 
 we suffer evils in consequence of Adam's sin, why 
 not adopt the scripture doctrine, that being included 
 with him in the covenant of works, we became legally 
 involved in the ruin brought upon the world by his 
 
88 OBSERVATIONS AND REMARKS. 
 
 sin? This covenant or legal connection, renders it 
 just that we should inherit these calamities — but on 
 any other principle their infliction upon us can not be 
 easily explained, without bearing painfully upon the 
 justice of God's dispensations. 
 
 Such is the organization of human governments, 
 that we are usually connected in law with those from 
 whom we have descended — and there is a fitness and 
 propriety in this arrangement. Hence, unless spe- 
 cial provision is made to the contrary, the natural 
 descendant becomes the legal heir. Such also is the 
 divine economy with regard to man. The appoint- 
 ment of Adam as our federal head was not altogether 
 arbitrary, as it would have been, had he been ap- 
 pointed the federal head of angels — but it was ac- 
 cording to the fitness of things. Hence our natu- 
 ral relation is made use of as the medium of bringing 
 about those results, which have their origin in our 
 federal relation. Original sin flows to us through the 
 channel of natural descent — and various evils which 
 now flow from parent to child, descend in the same 
 way : — but their foundation must be traced back to 
 the covenant made with our first father, as the repre- 
 sentative of his posterity ; the guilt of whose first sin 
 being imputed to us, a corrupt and depraved nature 
 and other penal evils follow as the consequence. Is 
 any one disposed to say, I never gave my consent to 
 that covenant, and therefore it is unjust to punish me 
 for its violation ? We ask in return, whether the indi- 
 vidual whose case has been supposed, gave his con- 
 sent that his ancestor should leave the estate which 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 89 
 
 he has inherited from him, encumbered with debt. 
 And yet, no sane man would ever think of calling in 
 question the propriety of his being held responsible. 
 If, however, he had no legal connection with that 
 ancestor, his natural relation would not be sufficient 
 to bind him. He is his heir, not merely because he 
 has descended from him, but because the law of the 
 land has made him such. The latter and not the 
 former, imposes upon him the liabilities which his 
 ancestor incurred ; and though he never gave his 
 consent, he regards it as just and right. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST AND OUR JUSTIFICATION THRCUOn HIM. 
 
 The nature and design of Christ's suiferings are gen- 
 erally described by theological writers of the present 
 day, under the name of Atonement- — a term not 
 found in our standards, and but once in the English 
 version of the New Testament. For a considerable 
 time after the Reformation, the mediatorial work of 
 Christ was commonly expressed by the words, recon- 
 ciliation^ redemption^ and satisfaction: which are the 
 terms employed in our Confession of Faith. This 
 accounts for the fact that the word atonement does 
 not occur in that volume. The mere use of a term is 
 of little consequence, provided the true doctrine is 
 retained. But many have not only laid aside the 
 8* 
 
90 EXPLANATORY REMARKS. 
 
 ancient phraseology, but with it, all that is valuable 
 in the atonement itself. Instead of allowing it to be 
 any proper satisfaction to divine justice, by which a 
 righteous and holy God is propitiated; some affirm 
 that it was designed merely to make an impression 
 on intelligent beings of the righteousness of God, 
 thus opening the way for pardon ; and others, that it 
 was intended only to produce a change in the sinner 
 himself by the influence which the scenes of Calvary 
 are calculated to exert on his mind. The latter is 
 the Socinian view, and the second that of the New- 
 school. 
 
 It is proper to remark that the view first alluded 
 to, includes the other two. While it regards the 
 atonement as primarily intended to satisfy the jus- 
 tice of God, by answering the demands, and sufiering 
 the penalty of his law, it was designed and adapted 
 to make a strong impression both upon the universe 
 and upon the sinner himself. But though the first 
 view includes the others as the greater does the less, 
 these do not include the first, but reject it. By 
 making the atonement consist wholly in the second 
 or third view, there is involved a denial that Christ 
 endured the penalty of the law, or assumed any legal 
 responsibility in our behalf, or made any satisfaction, 
 strictly speaking, to the justice of God — thus giving 
 up what has been regarded by most, if not all evan- 
 gelical churches since the Reformation, as essential to 
 the atonement. 
 
 We wish to observe farther, by way of explanation, 
 that by Christ's enduring the penalty of the law, is 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 91 
 
 not meant that lie endured literally the same suffer- 
 ing either in land ^or duration which would have been 
 inflicted upon the sinner, if a Saviour had not been 
 provided. In a penalty, some things are essential — 
 others incidental. It was essential to the penalty, 
 that Christ should suffer a violent and ignominious 
 death — but whether he should die by decapitation or 
 by crucifixion, was incidental. It was essential that 
 he should suffer /or our sins — but how lon(/ his suffer- 
 ings should continue, was incidental. If inflicted 
 upon us, they must necessarily be eternal — because 
 sin is an infinite evil, and finite beings cannot endure 
 the punishment which is due to it, except by an 
 eternal duration. But from the infinite dignity of 
 Christ's character, the penal demands of the law 
 could be fully answered by his suffering ever so short 
 a time. A similar remark may be made concerning 
 the remorse of conscience which forms a part of the 
 torments of the wicked. The imputation of our sins 
 to Christ does not involve a transfer of moral charac- 
 ter, but only of legal responsibility. In being 
 "made sin for us," Christ did not become personally 
 a sinner — but "was holy and harmless and unde- 
 filed." Of course he could have no remorse of con- 
 science, such as a convicted sinner suffers in view of 
 his guilt. But this is merely incidental, and depends 
 upon circumstances. Some sinners never appear to 
 feel remorse at all — and no sinner, probably, feels it 
 at all times. What is intended then by Christ's suf- 
 fering the penalty of the law as our substitute is, that 
 
92 DR. BEMAN^S VIEWS. 
 
 in law he assumed our place, and endured all that 
 was essential in its penal demands — whereby he fully 
 satisfied divine justice, and those who are united to 
 him by faith, are, as an act of justice to Christy but 
 of free unbounded mercy to theni^ " redeemed from 
 the curse of the law," he "being made a curse for 
 them." This doctrine, the Old Theology maintains 
 — the New denies. 
 
 The following quotations will exemplify the New- 
 school views. Dr. Beman,* in his " Sermons on the 
 Doctrine of the Atonement," observes: (p. 34,) 
 " The law can have no penal demand except against 
 the offender. With a substitute it has no concern; 
 and though a thousand substitutes should die, the 
 law, in itself considered, and left to its own natural 
 operation, would have the same demand upon the 
 transgressor which it always had. This claim can 
 never be invalidated. This penal demand can never 
 be extinguished." Speaking of those who entertain 
 opposite views, he says, (p. 45,) " They contend that 
 the real penalty of the law was inflicted on Christ ; 
 and at the same time acknowledge that the sufferings 
 of Christ were not the same, either in nature or 
 deo^ree, as those sufferino;s which were threatened 
 against the transgressor. The words of our text 
 [GaL iii. 13,] are considered by many as furnishing 
 unequivocal testimony to the fact, that Christ 
 
 * Dr. Beman has not, I believe, published his sentiments on 
 the other points embraced in the New Theology, and therefore 
 I cannot state with ccriainiy what they arc. 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 93 
 
 endured the penalty of the law in the room of his 
 people. ^' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse 
 of the law, being made a curse for us." But it is, in 
 no shape, asserted here, that Christ suffered the pe- 
 nalty of the law. The apostle tells us in what sense 
 he was "made a curse for us." "Cursed is every 
 one that hangeth on a tree." Believers are saved 
 from the curse or penalty of the law by the consider- 
 ation, that Christ was "made a curse" for them in 
 another and a very different sense. He was "made a 
 curse" inasmuch as he suffered, in order to open the 
 door of hope to man, the pains and ignominy of cruci- 
 fixion. He hung upon a tree. He died as a malefac- 
 tor. He died as one accursed." In a note on the 
 next page, with reference to some remarks in a ser- 
 mon by Dr. Dana, of Londonderry, he observes: 
 " But why is it necessary to support the position, that 
 the curse of the law was inflicted on Christ ? If it 
 should be said, the divine veracity was pledged to ex- 
 ecute the law — we reply that the divine veracity can 
 find no support in that kind of infliction of the curse 
 which is here supposed. A substantial execution of 
 the law — an endurance of the penalty so far as the 
 nature of the case admitted or required — an infliction 
 of suffering, not upon the transgressor, but upon a 
 surety, when the law had not made the most distant 
 allusion to a surety, certainly has much more the ap- 
 pearance of evasion than execution of the law." He 
 says, (p. 51,) "As to imputation, we do deny that the 
 sins of men, or of any part of our race, were so trans- 
 ferred to Christ, that they became his sins, or were 
 
94 DR. beman's views. 
 
 so reckoned to him, that he sustained their legal 
 responsibilities."* Again, (p. 68,) "There is no- 
 thing in the character of Christ's sufferings which 
 can affect or modify the penalty of the law. These 
 sufferings were not legal. They constituted no part 
 of that curse which was threatened against the trans- 
 gressor." 
 
 What then, according to him, was the nature of 
 Christ's sufferings? He says, (p. 35, 36,) "He suf- 
 fered and died, the just for the unjust;" and those 
 sufferings which he endured as a holy being, were in- 
 tended, in the case of all those who are finally saved, 
 as a substitute for the infliction of the penalty of the 
 law. We say a substitute for the infliction of the 
 fenalty ; for the penalty itself, if it be executed at 
 all, must fall upon the sinner, and upon no one else.'* 
 Again, (p. 50, 51,) " The atonement was a substitute 
 for the infliction of the penalty of the law — or the 
 sufferings of Christ were a substitute for the punish- 
 ment of sinners This is vicarious sujQfering. 
 
 It is the suffering of Christ in the place of the end- 
 less suffering of the sinner." Once more: (p. 64, ^^^ 
 " The penalty of the law, strictly speaking, was not 
 inflicted at all ; for this penalty, in which was [were] 
 embodied the principles of distributive justice, re- 
 quired the death of the sinner, and did not require 
 the death of Christ. As a substitute for the infliction 
 
 * The Old Theology does not maintain that our sins "be- 
 came his sins" — but only that he sustained our legal respon- 
 sibilities. 
 
THE SUrFERINGS OF CHRIST. 95 
 
 of this penalty, God did accept of the sufferings of 
 his Son." 
 
 Was there then no satisfaction made to divine jus- 
 tice? Says Dr. Beman, (p. 65,) " The law, or justice, 
 that is, distributive justice, as expressed in the law, 
 has received no satisfaction at all. The whole legal 
 system has been suspended, at least for the present, 
 in order to make way for the operation of one of a 
 different character. In introducing this system of 
 mercy, which involves a suspension of the penal curse, 
 God has required a satisfaction to the principles of 
 general or public justice — a satisfaction which will 
 effectually secure all the good to the universe which 
 is intended to be accomplished by the penalty of the 
 law when inflicted, and, at the same time, prevent all 
 that practical mischief which would result from arrest- 
 ing the hand of punitive justice without the interven- 
 tion of an atonement." But what does he mean by 
 '^ general or public justice?'' He says, (p. 63, 64,) 
 " It has no direct reference to law, but embraces 
 those principles of virtue or benevolence by which we 
 are bound to govern our conduct; and by which God 
 himself governs the universe. It is in this sense that 
 the terms "just" and ''righteousness" occur in our 
 text. [Rom. iii. 26.] .... This atonement was re- 
 quired, that God might be "just," or righteous, that 
 is, that he might do the thing w^hich was fit and pro- 
 per, and best and most expedient to be done: and at 
 the same time be at perfect liberty to justify " him 
 which believeth in Jesus." 
 
 Let me now inquire, is this what is meant in the 
 
96 DR. beman's views. 
 
 Confession of Faith, where it reads, " The Lord Jesus 
 Christ, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of him- 
 self, which he through the Eternal Spirit once ofi'ered 
 up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his 
 Father?'' We think not. No intimation of this 
 kind is given. The framers of our standards do not 
 appear to have learned that God governs the universe 
 by one kind of justice, viz. by the " principles of vir- 
 tue or benevolence;" and punishes sinners for rebel- 
 ling against his government, by another and a differ- 
 ent kind, viz. the justice which is " expressed in the 
 law." 
 
 Are these two kinds of justice in conflict with each 
 other? or is not God's justice "as expressed in the 
 law," the same kind of justice by which he "governs 
 the universe?" Was not the law founded on the 
 "principles of virtue or benevolence?" Why then 
 could not Jehovah exhibit those principles, by the 
 obedience and sacrifice of Christ in our behalf, in 
 conformity to the law? "But when the fulness of 
 the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of 
 a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that 
 ivere under the law, that we might receive the adop- 
 tion of sons." Gal. iv. 4, 5. Does this mean that 
 those "under the law," were exposed to the retribu- 
 tion of one kind of justice, and that Christ, who was 
 " made under the law, to redeem them," rendered 
 satisfaction to another and a different kind — to a spe- 
 cies of justice unknown to the law, and contrary to it? 
 Does not the law embody those things which " are fit 
 and proper, and best and most expedient to be done?" 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 97 
 
 If SO, why was it necessary to "suspend" it, in order 
 to introduce a code of justice, which ''has no direct 
 reference to law," but belongs to a system possessing 
 *^a dijfferent character?" 
 
 These positions, it appears to me, involve the sen- 
 timent, that the divine government and law, as the 
 former is now administered, are not in harmony with 
 each other — that the government of God could not 
 be administered according to the "principles of vir- 
 tue or benevolence," in a manner "fit and proper, 
 and most and best expedient to be done" — without a 
 suspension of "the whole legal system;" or, which is 
 the same thing, a disregard of his law. And if the 
 atonement proceeded on this principle, we cannot 
 perceive why it might not have been dispensed with 
 altogether — for if "the penalty of the law was not 
 inflicted at all," but a system was introduced "which 
 involves a suspension of the legal curse," w^hy might 
 not God as moral Governor, in the exercise of that 
 " virtue or benevolence, by which he governs the uni- 
 verse," and in pursuance of what "was fit and pro- 
 per, and best and most expedient to be done," have 
 suspended "the whole legal system," and extended 
 pardon to sinners without an atonement? 
 
 Dr. Beman assigns three reasons why the atone- 
 ment was necessary; all of which lose their force on 
 the supposition that Christ did not suffer the penalty 
 of the law. He says, "the atonement was necessary 
 as an expression of God's regard for the moral 
 law." But how could it express his regard for the 
 law, provided the law has received no satisfaction 
 9 
 
98 DR. beman's views. 
 
 at all, ^'but the whole legal system was suspended in 
 order to make way for the operation of one," which 
 "has no direct reference to law?" Again, he says, 
 "the atonement was necessary in order to evince the 
 divine determination to punish sin, or to execute the 
 penalty of the law." On the principle that Christ 
 acted as our surety, and sustained in our stead those 
 penal evils which were essential to the execution of 
 the threatening contained in the law, we can perceive 
 how "the divine determination to punish sin" was 
 evinced. Not so, however, if we " deny that the sins 
 of men were so reckoned to Christ, that he sustained 
 their legal responsibilities;" and view the atonement 
 as "a system of mercy," in which the "sufferings of 
 Christ were not legal, and constituted no part of that 
 curse which was threatened against the transgressor." 
 This makes the atonenent an entire departure from 
 law, and could therefore never be adduced to show 
 that God has determined to execute its penalty. 
 
 The other reason which he assigns for the necessity 
 of the atonement, is liable, on his principles, to the 
 same objection. "The necessity of the atonement, 
 (says he,) will further appear, if we contemplate 
 the relations of this doctrine with the rational uni- 
 verse." "We may naturally suppose, that 
 
 it was the intention of God, in saving sinners, to 
 make a grand impression upon the universe.". . . . 
 " What effect would the salvation of sinners without 
 an atonement, probably have upon the angels of 
 heaven?" .... "This example has taught them to 
 revere the law, and to expect the infliction of the 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 99 
 
 penalty upon every transgressor." "Every 
 
 angel feels the impression which this public act is 
 calculated to make; and while he dreads, with a new 
 sensation, the penalty, he clings more closely to the 
 precept of the law. But suppose the provisions of 
 this law were entirely set aside, in our w^orld, as 
 would be the case if sinful men were to be saved 
 without an atonement, and, in the estimation of fallen 
 angels, you create war between God and his own 
 eternal law." 
 
 Let me now ask, are not "the provisions of the 
 law entirely set aside in our world," according to his 
 scheme? Not, it is true, "by saving sinful men 
 without an atonement;" but by saving them through 
 that kind of atonement, which "has no direct refer- 
 ence to law," and "involves a suspension of its legal 
 curse." If the law "has no concern with a substi- 
 tute;" and if Christ's "sufiferings constituted no 
 part of that curse, which was threatened against the 
 transgressor; how can a vieiv of his sufferings teach 
 the angels "to revere the law, and to expect the 
 infliction of the penalty upon every transgressor!" 
 Would it not, on the contrary, produce the impression 
 that the law was given up; and its "provisions 
 entirely set aside in our world?" and if this would 
 be the impression upon holy angels, it would be the 
 same upon devils. To use his own language, "in the 
 estimation of fallen angels, you create war between 
 God and his own eternal law." On the principle 
 that Christ suffered the penalty of the law as our 
 substitute, all is plain — but if not, neither man nor 
 
100 VIEWS OP MR. JENKYN. 
 
 angel can tell satisfactorily, how ^'God can be just 
 while he justifies him that believeth; or why, if he 
 can be just in bestowing pardon ^vit^l an atonement, 
 he might not be just in bestowing it ivithout any. 
 
 Another work on the atonement, said to have been 
 founded on Dr. Beman's Sermons, has been published 
 in England, by Mr. Jenkyn, and republished in this 
 country, with an introductory recommendation by Dr. 
 Carroll. On these two accounts it may be properly 
 referred to as a specimen of the New Views.* Mr. 
 Jenkyn introduces seven arguments to prove- that 
 Christ did not sufi'er . the penalty of the law — but 
 that his sufferings were a substitute for the penalty. 
 According to him, the very idea of an atonement, 
 involves a suspension of the penalty. "An atone- 
 ment, (says he,) is a measure or an expedient, that is 
 a satisfaction for the suspension of the threatened 
 penalty. A suspension or a non-execution of the 
 literal threatening is always implied in an atone- 
 
 * Concerning Dr. Beman's Discourses, Mr. Jenkyn says : — 
 " This little work is a rich nursery of what Lord Bacon calls 
 *the seeds of things.' It abounds in living theological prin- 
 ciples, each of which, if duly cultivated and reared, would 
 unfold great and ample truths, illustrative of this great doc- 
 trine." Concerning Jenkyn's work. Dr. Carroll uses similar 
 language: — "As a treatise, (says he,) on the grand relations of 
 the atonement, it is a book which may be emphatically said to 
 contain 'the seeds of things' — the elements of mightier and 
 nobler combinations of thought respecting the sacrifice of 
 
 Christ, than any modern production." "We believe 
 
 that its influence on the opinions of theological students and 
 ministers will be great and salutary, beyond computation." 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 101 
 
 ment." p. 25. "If a man transgress a law, lie 
 must, in a just and firm government, be punished. 
 Why? Lest others have a bad opinion of the law 
 and transgress it too. But suppose that this end of 
 the law be secured without punishing the transgres- 
 sor ; suppose that a measure shall be devised by the 
 governor, which shall save the criminal, and yet keep 
 men from having a bad opinion of the law. Why, in 
 such case, all would approve of it, both on the score 
 of justice and on the score of benevolence. For 
 public justice only requires that men should be kept 
 from having such a bad opinion of the law as to 
 break it. If this can be done without inflicting what, 
 in distributive justice, is due to the criminal, pub- 
 lic justice is satisfied, because its ends are fully 
 answered. The death of Christ secures this end." 
 p. 140, 1. Again: "The truth of any proposition or 
 declaration consists more in the spirit than in the 
 letter of it. Truth in a 2jro7ni8e and truth in a threat- 
 ening, are different, especially in measures of gov- 
 ernment. Truth in a promise obliges the promiser to 
 perform his word, or else to be regarded as unfaithful 
 and false. But truth in a threatening does not, in 
 the administration of discipline or government, actu- 
 ally oblige to literal execution; it only makes the 
 punishment to be due and admissible. A threatened 
 penalty does not deprive the lawgiver of his sove- 
 reign and supra-legal power to dispense with it, if he 
 can secure the ends of it by any other measure." 
 "This supra-legal prerogative of sus- 
 pending punishment, God has exercised in many 
 9* 
 
102 VIEWS OP MR. JENKYN. 
 
 instances, as in the sparing of Nineveh, and I believe 
 in the sparing of our first parents. The identical 
 penalty of the Eden constitution was not literally 
 executed either on man or on Christ. It was not 
 executed on mariy for then there would have been 
 no human race. The first pair would have been 
 destroyed, and mankind would never have come into 
 being. It was not executed on Christ. He did no sin ; 
 he violated no constitution, and yet he died. Surely 
 no law or constitution under which he was, could 
 legally visit him with a penalty. If it be said, that 
 he suffered it for others, let it be remembered that 
 immutable verity as much requires that the penalty 
 should be inflicted on the literal sinner only, as that 
 it should be inflicted at all." p. 64, Qb. 
 
 In addition to the remarks already made on Dr. 
 Beman's views, which will answer equally well for 
 those of Mr. Jenkyn, we wish to notice a sentiment 
 not before alluded to. It is contained in the last 
 paragraph quoted from Jenkyn, and is as follows, 
 viz : that though God is bound to fulfil his promises, 
 he is not bound to execute his threatenings. This 
 distinction is resorted to for the purpose of avoiding 
 the difiiculty, that if God does not inflict the penalty 
 of the law either on the sinner or upon Christ as his 
 substitute, his veracity is thereby impeached. We 
 admit that the divine veracity does not require the 
 execution of a conditional threatening, as in the case 
 of Nineveh ; but no one will pretend that God's law 
 threatened punishment for disobedience conditionally. 
 The moment the law was violated, the transgressor 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 103 
 
 fell under the curse. And lie must either endure it 
 eternally, or be released by having satisfaction paid 
 to divine justice in some other way. " Cursed is 
 every one that continueth not in all things written in 
 the book of the law, to do them." "In the day thou 
 eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Accordingly, 
 as soon as Adam transgressed he began to feel the 
 curse. He lost God's image" and favour — he became 
 spiritually dead — and he would have suffered tem- 
 poral and eternal death, had they not been averted 
 by the interposition of a substitute.* The penalty of 
 the law must be substantially executed. 
 
 "Die he or justice must, unless for him, 
 Some other able and as willing, pay 
 The rigid satisfaction — death for death." 
 
 If God is not bound to fulfil his threatenings, how 
 can it be proved that the punishment of the wicked 
 will be eternal? Though it is distinctly and fre- 
 quently asserted in the Bible that such will be the 
 doom of the finally impenitent, yet if God's veracity 
 does not require the execution of this threatening, 
 there is no certainty that it will be inflicted : nay, 
 there is much reason to believe the contrary ; because 
 if there is nothing in God's character, or law, which 
 
 ^ It is sometimes said that God did not execute his threat- 
 ening upon Adam, because he did not die a temporal death 
 that very day. But the threatening began to be inflicted that 
 very day — and this was all which was intended by it. From 
 the nature of the case, eternal death cannot be inflicted in a 
 day, because it requires an endless duration. Even in the 
 case of the wicked in hell — it has only begun to be inflicted — 
 and yet who doubts that they are suffering the penalty of the 
 law? 
 
104 ATONEMENT — NEW-SCHOOL VIEWS. 
 
 requires him to punish sin, we may be sure, that his 
 infinite goodness will lead him to release the sinner 
 from condemnation ; and thus, atonement or no atone- 
 ment, all mankind will be saved. But if the nature 
 of God requires him to punish sin, and if when he 
 has threatened to punish it, his veracity requires him 
 to execute that threatening; then either Christ en- 
 dured what was essential in the penalty of the law as 
 our substitute, or our union to him by faith cannot 
 shelter us from its penal demands. Its threatenings 
 still lie against us, and must ere long be inflicted. It 
 is not true, therefore, that "there is no condemnation 
 to them that are in Christ Jesus." He is not "a 
 hiding place from the wind; a covert from the tem- 
 pest." 
 
 Mr. Barnes, in his sermon on the Way of Salva- 
 tion, and in his Notes on the Romans, gives substan- 
 tially the same view of the atonement with Dr. Beman 
 and Mr. Jenkyn. But in another production of his, 
 viz: an Introductory Essay to Butler's Analogy, 
 which was first published in the Christian Spectator, 
 and afterwards prefixed to a new edition of the Ana- 
 logy, he presents the subject in a manner still more 
 exceptionable. If I mistake not, it is such a view as 
 any Unitarian in the United States would subscribe 
 to. His language is as follows: "Now, in recurring 
 to the analogy of nature, we have only to ask, 
 whether calamities which are hastening to fall on us, 
 are ever put back by the intervention of another. 
 Are there any cases in which either our own crimes 
 or the manifest judgments of God, are bringing 
 
VIEWS OP MR. BARNES. 105 
 
 ruin upon us, where that ruin is turned aside by 
 the interposition of others ? Now we at once cast our 
 eyes backward to all the helpless and dangerous 
 periods of our being. Did God come forth directly, 
 and protect us in the defenceless period of infancy ? 
 Who watched over the sleep of the cradle, and guard- 
 ed us in sickness and helplessness? It was the ten- 
 derness of a mother bending over our slumbering 
 childhood, foregoing sleep, and rest, and ease, and 
 hailing toil and care that we might be defended. 
 Why then is it strange, that when God thus ushers us 
 into existence through the pain and toil of another, 
 he should convey the blessings of a higher existence 
 by the groans and pangs of a higher Mediator? God 
 gives us knowledge. But does he come forth to teach 
 us by inspiration, or guide us by his own hand to the 
 fountains of wisdom? It is by years of patient toil 
 in others that we possess the elements of science, the 
 principles of morals, the endowments of religion. He 
 gives us food and raiment. Is the Great Parent of 
 benevolence seen clothing us by his own hand, or 
 ministering directly to our wants? Who makes pro- 
 vision for the sons and daughters of feebleness, 
 gaiety, or idleness? Who but the care-worn and 
 anxious father and mother, who toil that their off- 
 spring may receive these benefits from their hands ? 
 Why then may not the garments of salvation and the 
 manna of life come through a higher Mediator, and 
 be the fruit of severer toil and sufferings ? Heaven's 
 highest, richest benefits are thus conveyed to the race 
 through thousands of hands acting as mediums be- 
 
106 ATONEMENT — NEW-SCHOOL VIEWS. 
 
 tween man and God. It is thus through the instru- 
 mentality of others, that the great Giver of life 
 breathes health into our bodies, and vigour into our 
 frames. And "why should he not reach also the sick 
 and weary mind — the soul languishing under a long 
 and wretched disease, by the hand of a Mediator? 
 Why should he not kindle the glow of spiritual health 
 on the wan cheek, and infuse celestial life into our 
 veins, by him who is the great Physician of our souls ? 
 The very earth, air, waters, are all channels for con- 
 veying blessings to us from God. Why then should 
 the infidel stand back, and all sinners frown, when we 
 claim the same thing in redemption, and affirm that 
 in this great concern, Hhere is one Mediator between 
 God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave him- 
 self a ransom for all?' 
 
 "But still it may be said, that this is not an atone- 
 ment. We admit it. We maintain only that it vin- 
 dicates the main principle of atonement, and shows 
 that it is according to a general law, that God imparts 
 spiritual blessings to us through a Mediator. What, 
 we ask, is the precise objectionable point in the atone- 
 ment, if it be not that God aids us in our sins and 
 woes, by the self-denial and sufferings of another? 
 And we ask, whether there is any thing so peculiar 
 in such a system, as to make it intrinsically absurd 
 and incredible? Now we think there is nothing more 
 universal and indisputable than a system of nature 
 like this. God has made the whole animal world 
 tributary to man. And it is by the toil and pain of 
 creation, that our wants are supplied, our appetites 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM MR. BARNES. 107 
 
 gratified, our bodies sustained, our sickness alleviated 
 — that is, the impending evils of labour, famine, or 
 disease, are put away by these substituted toils and 
 privations. By the blood of patriots he gives us the 
 blessings of liberty — that is, by their sufferings in our 
 defence we are delivered from the miseries of rapine, 
 murder, or slavery, which might have encompassed 
 our dwellings. The toil of a father is the price by 
 which a son is saved from ignorance, depravity, want, 
 or death. The tears of a mother, and her long 
 watchfulness, save from the perils of infancy, and 
 an early death. Friend aids friend by toil ; a parent 
 foregoes rest for a child ; and the patriot pours out 
 his blood on the altars of freedom, that others may 
 enjoy the blessings of liberty — that is, that others 
 may not be doomed to slavery, want, and death. 
 
 " Yet still it may be said, that we have not come, 
 in the analogy, to the precise point of the atonement, 
 in producing reconciliation with God by the sufferings 
 of another. We ask then, what is the Scripture ac- 
 count of the effect of the atonement in producing re- 
 conciliation? Man is justly exposed to suffering. 
 He is guilty, and it is the righteous purpose of God 
 that the guilty should suffer. God is so opposed to 
 him that he will inflict suffering on him, unless by 
 an atonement it is prevented. By the intervention of 
 an atonement, therefore, the Scriptures affirm that 
 such sufferings shall be averted. The man shall be 
 saved from the impending calamity. Sufficient for 
 all the purposes of justice and of just government, 
 has fallen on the substitute, and the sinner may be 
 
108 ATONEMENT — NE-W-SCHOOL VIEWS. 
 
 pardoned and reconciled to God. Now, we affirm 
 that in every instance of the substituted sufferings, or 
 self-denial of the parent, the patriot, or the benefac- 
 tor, there occurs a state of things so analogous to 
 this, as to show that it is in strict accordance with 
 the just government of God, and to remove all the 
 objections to the peculiarity of the atonement. Over 
 a helpless babe ushered into the world, naked, feeble, 
 speechless, there impend hunger, cold, sickness, sud- 
 den death — a mother's watchfulness averts these evils. 
 Over a nation impend revolutions, sword, famine, and 
 the pestilence. The blood of the patriot averts these, 
 and the nation smiles in peace. Look at a single in- 
 stance: Xerxes poured his millions on the shores of 
 Greece. The vast host darkened all the plains, and 
 stretched towards the capital. In the train there 
 followed weeping, blood, conflagration, and the loss 
 of liberty. Leonidas, almost alone, stood in his path. 
 He fought. Who can calculate the effects of the 
 valour and blood of that single man and his compa- 
 triots in averting calamities from Greece, and from 
 other nations struggling in the cause of freedom? 
 Who can tell how much of rapine, of cruelty, and of 
 groans and tears it turned away from that nation?" 
 
 It is due to Mr. Barnes to state, that he observes 
 in the words immediately following the above extract, 
 "Now we bv no means affirm that this is all that is 
 meant by an atonement, as revealed by Christianity." 
 Yet in his subsequent remarks he does not advance a 
 single idea which gives a higher view of that great 
 transaction, than is presented above : and in the pass- 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM MR. BARNES. 109 
 
 age "vve have quoted, he affirms that the view which 
 he has given, "vindicates the main principle of atone- 
 ment." If his illustrations vindicate the main prin- 
 ciple of atonement, they must convey a correct idea 
 of what the atonement is. But if the reader is left 
 to obtain his knowledge on this subject from these 
 statements, he would adopt a scheme unworthy the 
 name of atonement. Indeed, Mr. Barnes admits, 
 with reference to the first part of his statement, that 
 it is not an atonement ; though at the same time he 
 asserts that the "main principle of atonement" is vin- 
 dicated by the view which he had presented. But if 
 the ''main principtle" of atonement is exhibited in 
 any part of the above extract, or in the whole 
 taken together, we can see no reason for the neces- 
 sity of a divine Mediator ; and should be disposed 
 seriously to inquire whether Socinianism is not all 
 the Christianity that we need?* 
 
 ^' The Christian Examiner, a Unitarian periodical, published 
 at Boston, contains a review of Mr. Barnes's Notes on the 
 Romans, in which the writer observes, "On the atonement, 
 our author's views are far in advance of those of the church to 
 which he belongs. Though he maintains that Christ was in 
 some sense a substitute in the place of sinners, he denies a 
 strictly and fully vicarious atonement, and makes the Saviour's 
 death important chiefly as an illustration of the inherent and 
 essential connection between sin and sufiering." With 
 regard to the book, the reviewer says, "While, for the most 
 part, we would advise no additions, were the work re-edited 
 under Unitarian supervision, we should note exceedingly few 
 omissions. Indeed, on many of the standard and Trinitarian 
 proof-texts, Mr. Barnes has candidly indicated the inadequacy 
 of the text to prove the doctrine." .... "Sometimes Mr. 
 
 10 
 
110 ATONEMENT — NEW-SCHOOL VIEWS. 
 
 We shall give but one more specimen of tlie New 
 Theology on this subject. It will be taken from a 
 sermon of Dr. Murdock, preached before the students 
 at Andover in 1823. He was at that time a profes- 
 sor in the Andover Theological Seminary. 
 
 "In this text [Rom. iii. 25, 26,] Paul declares 
 explicitly, what was the immediate object of Christ's 
 atoning sacrifice; that is, what effect it had in the 
 economy of redemption, or how it laid a proper foun- 
 dation for the pardon and the salvation of sinful men. 
 It was the immediate object of this sacrifice to declare 
 the righteousness of God: in other words, to display 
 and vindicate the perfect holiness and uprightness of 
 his character as a moral Governor. This display 
 being made, he can with propriety forgive all that 
 believe in Christ Jesus." .... "To enable God 
 righteously to pardon the repenting sinner, the 
 atonement must give the same support to law, or 
 must display as impressively the perfect holiness and 
 justice of God, as the execution of the law on trans- 
 gressors would. It must be something different from 
 the execution of the law itself; because it is to be a 
 substitute for it, something which renders it safe and 
 proper to suspend the regular course of distributive 
 justice." .... "Now such an expedient, the text 
 represents the sacrifice of Christ to be. It is a de- 
 claration of the righteousness of God ; so that he 
 might be just" — might secure the objects of distribu- 
 
 Barnes does not so much as suggest a Trinitarian idea in com- 
 menting on texts which have been deemed decidedly and irre- 
 sistibly Trinitarian in their bearing.'' 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM DR. MURDOCK. Ill 
 
 tlve justice, as it becomes a righteous moral governor 
 to do — ^and yet might justify,' or acquit and ex- 
 empt from punishment him that believeth in Jesus. 
 It was in the nature of it, an exhibition or proof of 
 the righteousness of God. It did not consist in the 
 execution of the law on any being whatever ; for it 
 was a substitute for the execution of it." .... "Its 
 immediate influence was not on the character and 
 relations of man as transgressors, nor on the claims 
 of the law upon them. Its direct operation was on 
 the feelings and apprehensions of the beings at large, 
 who are under the moral government of God. In 
 two respects it coincided precisely with a public exe- 
 cution of the law itself: its immediate influence was 
 on the same persons; and that influence was pro- 
 duced in the same way — by means of a public exhibi- 
 tion." . . . " The only difficulty is to understand 
 how this exhibition was a display of the righteous- 
 ness of God. To solve it, some have resorted to the 
 supposition that the Son of God became our sponsor, 
 and satisfied the demands of the law by suff"ering in 
 our stead. But to this hypothesis there are strong 
 objections. To suppose that Christ was really and 
 truly our sponsor, and that he sufi'ered in this char- 
 acter, would involve such a transfer of legal obliga- 
 tions and liabilities and merits, as is inadmissible; 
 and to suppose any thing short of this, will not 
 explain the difficulty. For if, while we call him a 
 sponsor, we deny that he was legally holden or 
 responsible for us, and liable in equity to sufi*er in 
 our stead, we assign no intelligible reason why his 
 
112 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 sufferings should avail any thing for our benefit, or 
 display at all the righteousness of God." . . . "We 
 must, therefore, resort to some other solution. And 
 what is more simple, and at the same time satisfac- 
 tory, than that which is suggested by the text ? The 
 atonement was an exhibition or display; that is, it 
 was a symholical transaction. It was a transaction 
 in which God and his Son were the actors ; and they 
 acted in perfect harmony, though performing differ- 
 ent parts in the august drama." .... *'The object 
 of both, in this affecting tragedy, was to make an 
 impression on the minds of rational beings every 
 where and to the end of time. And the impression 
 to be made was, that God is a holy and righteous 
 God ; that while inclined to mercy he cannot forget 
 the demands of justice and the danger to his kingdom 
 from the pardon of the guilty; that he must show his 
 feelings on this subject; and show them so clearly 
 and fully that all his rational creatures shall feel that 
 he honours his law while suspending its operation, as 
 much as he would by the execution of it. But how, 
 it may be asked, are these things expressed or repre- 
 sented by this transaction ? The answer is — symbol- 
 ically. The Son of God came down to our world to 
 do and suffer what he did ; not merely for the sake 
 of doing those acts and enduring those sorrows, but 
 for the sake of the impression to be made on the 
 minds of all beholders, by his labouring and suffering 
 in this manner." 
 
 The principal difference between these views and 
 those of Dr. Beman and others of the same school, 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM DR. DANA. 11 
 
 f> 
 
 is tliat lie has laid aside the usual orthodox terms, 
 and expressed his sentiments in other language. 
 Perhaps this was one reason why such a sensation 
 was produced in the community hj the appearance 
 of the sermon. Professor Stuart published two dis- 
 courses, (if I remember correctly,) with a view to 
 counteract its influence; and Dr. Dana, of London- 
 derry, preached a sermon (probably for the same 
 end,) before the Convention of Congregational and 
 Presbyterian Ministers of New-Hampshire; which 
 was published by their request. From this sermon 
 we shall give some extracts as expressive of the Old 
 Theology on this subject. His text is in Isa. liii. 4, 
 5, 6 ; concerning which he observes : 
 
 "Jehovah, the just, the benevolent Jehovah, I's 
 pleased to bruise him and to put him to grief. Un- 
 paralleled mystery! How shall it be explained? 
 One fact, and that alone explains it. He suffered as 
 a substitute. He suffered not for himself, but for 
 those whom he came to save. This the prophet 
 unequivocally declares in the text; and declares in 
 such variety and accumulation of language, as is 
 calculated to make the very strongest impression 
 on the mind." ... "A moment's reflection may 
 convince us that if any of our sinful race are to 
 be pardoned and saved, an atonement is absolutely 
 necessary, God is holy and just; infinitely and 
 immutably holy and just. These attributes imply 
 that he has a perfect and irreconcilable aversion to 
 all sin ; and must manifest this aversion to his crea- 
 tures. But how can this be done if sin be pardoned 
 10* 
 
114 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 without an atonement? Would not the great Jehovah 
 in this case, practically deny himself? Would not the 
 lustre of his glorious attributes be awfully eclipsed 
 and tarnished? Further, as the Sovereign of the 
 universe, God has given his intelligent creatures a 
 law. This law, while it requires perfect obedience, 
 must likewise be enforced by penalties. Nor is it 
 enough that these penalties be merely denounced. 
 They must be executed on those who incur them by 
 transgression; or on a surety. Otherwise, where is 
 the truth of the Lawgiver? Where is the stability 
 of the law? Where is the dignity of government?" 
 . . . . " Still further, it is easy to see that satisfac- 
 tion, if made by a surety, must correspond with the 
 debt due from those in whose behalf it is rendered. 
 Mankind universally owe to their heavenly Sovereign, 
 a debt of perfect, undeviating obedience." . . . . 
 ''We have likewise contracted a debt of punishment. 
 This results from the penal sanction of the law, and 
 is proportionate to the evil of sin. It corresponds 
 with the majesty and glory of the Lawgiver, and with 
 our own obligations to obedience. Now if a surety 
 undertake for us, he must pay our debt in both these 
 regards." .... "As to his sufferings, we contend 
 not that the Hedeemer endured precisely the same 
 misery, in kind or degree, to which the sinner was 
 exposed, and which he must otherwise have endured. 
 This was neither necessary nor possible. Infinite 
 purity could not know the tortures of remorse. In- 
 finite excellence could not feel the anojuish of malio;- 
 nant passions. Nor was it needful that the Saviour, 
 
a 
 
 QUOTATIONS FROM DR. DANA. 115 
 
 in making atonement for human guilt, should sustain 
 sufferings without end. Such, it is admitted, must 
 have been the punishment of the sinner, had he borne 
 it in his own person. But this necessity results, not 
 directly from the penal sanction of the law, but from 
 the impossibility that a finite transgressor should, 
 within any limited period, render satisfaction for 
 his sins. But the infinite dignity of the Saviour 
 imparted an infinite value and efficacy to his tem- 
 porary sufferings. Indeed it cannot be doubted that 
 he endured as much of that same misery to which the 
 sinner stands exposed, as consisted with the perfect 
 innocence, dignity, and glory of his character. He 
 suffered not only the united assaults of human cruelty 
 and infernal rage, but the far more torturing pains of 
 divine dereliction. And inasmuch as the Scripture 
 expressly declares that in redeeming us from the 
 law he was made a curse for us, we are constrained 
 to conclude that his sufferings were a substantial 
 execution of the threatening of the law; a real en- 
 durance of its penalty, so far as the nature of the 
 case admitted or required. 
 
 With reference to Dr. Murdock's* views. Dr. Dana 
 observes: "In the first place, it tends, apparently at 
 least, to subvert the law. It declares that 'the 
 atonement is something different from the execution 
 of the law, and a substitute for it;' that 'it did not 
 fulfil the law, or satisfy its demands on transgres- 
 sors.' In accordance with these views, it declares 
 
 ■^ Dr. Murdock is not mentioned by name. 
 
116 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 tliat * tlie justification of believers is not founded on 
 the principles of law and distributive justice;' and 
 further, that it is a real departure from the regular 
 course of justice; and such a departure from it, as 
 leaves the claims of the law on the persons justified 
 for ever unsatisfied. Without commenting at large 
 on these suggestions so peculiar, and so grating (as I 
 apprehend) to the ears and hearts of most Christians, 
 I will simply set before you the Saviour's own inten- 
 tions, in his advent and mediation; and these as de- 
 clared in his own words: * Think not (says he) that I 
 am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am 
 not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say 
 unto yoUj till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one 
 tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be 
 fulfilled.' Surely then his atonement was not 'a, 
 substitute for the execution of the law.' On the con- 
 trary, his obedience and sufferings were a substantial 
 fulfilment of its precept and its penalty ; and were 
 designed to procure the justification and salvation 
 of men, not through a 'departure from the regular 
 course of justice;' not by 'leaving the claims of the 
 law for ever unsatisfied;' but in perfect accordance 
 with the immutable and everlasting principles both of 
 law and justice." .... 
 
 2. "This scheme gives us such views of the divine 
 character, as are equally inexplicable and distress- 
 ing." .... "A Being of spotless innocence, and 
 divine dignity; a Being adored by angels and dear 
 to God; a Being, in short, the most lovely and glori- 
 ous that the intelligent creation ever saw, is subjected 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM DR. DANA. 117 
 
 to sufferings more complicated and severe than were 
 ever before endured in our world ; and all this not by 
 way of substitution; not by way of satisfaction for 
 the sifis of others; but of exhibition or display !'^ 
 
 3. *'It is a serious question whether the theory in 
 view does not comprise a virtual denial of the atone- 
 ment itself. It leaves us the name ; but what does it 
 leave of the reality? An exhibition is not an atone- 
 ment. A display is not an atonement. A mere 
 symbolical transaction is not an atonement." . . . 
 
 "Where, then, let it be asked in the fourth place, 
 is the foundation of the believer's hope ? It is a no- 
 torious fact, that the great body of Christians in 
 every age have embraced the doctrine of the vica- 
 rious sufferings and obedience of their Saviour. 
 Pressed with a sense of guilt, they have taken refuge 
 in his atoning blood. Conscious of the imperfection 
 of their best obedience, they have trusted in his right- 
 eousness alone. United to their Redeemer by living 
 faith, they have assured themselves of a personal 
 interest in his atonement and righteousness. And 
 they have exulted in the thought that this method of 
 salvation met all the demands, and secured all the 
 honours, of the divine law and justice. Shall Chris- 
 tians now be told that this is mere dream and delu- 
 sion; that no proper satisfaction for their sins has 
 ever been made; that their justification is nothing 
 but an absolute pardon; and that even this is a 'de- 
 parture from the regular course of justice?' Doctrine 
 like this is calculated to appal the believer's heart, 
 and plant thorns in his dying pillow. It is even cal- 
 
118 ATONEMENT OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 culated to send a pang to the bosoms of the blest; 
 to silence those anthems of praise which the redeemed 
 on high are offering ' to* Him that loved them and 
 washed them from their sins in his own blood.' " 
 
 The Old-school Presbyterian views are likewise 
 expressed in the following language of Dr. Alexan- 
 der: "The penalty of a holy, violated law, was the 
 only thing which stood in the way. Mere sufferings 
 of any one are of no value, except in relation to some 
 end. The sufferings of Christ could no otherwise 
 open a way of pardon but by removing the penalty 
 of the law; but they could have no tendency to re- 
 move the penalty but by his enduring it. Sufferings 
 not required by law and justice must have been unjust 
 sufferings, and never could effect any good. Such 
 exhibition could not have the effect of demonstrating 
 God's hatred of sin, for it was not the punishment of 
 sin; nor could it make the impression on the world, 
 that the Ruler of the universe would hereafter punish 
 sin; for, according to this theory, sin goes unpun- 
 ished, and dreadful sufferings are inflicted on the 
 innocent, to whom no sin is imputed. This scheme as 
 really subverts the true doctrine of atonement, as 
 that of Socinus; and no reason appears why it was 
 necessary that the person making this exhibition 
 should be a divine person." — Treatise on Justifica- 
 tion. 
 
 The whole controversy concerning the nature of 
 the atonement, may be resolved into two questions: 
 1. Is God bound to punish sin? and 2. Does this 
 necessity arise from the nature of God, or from cir- 
 
REMARKS OP DR. SYMINGTON. 119 
 
 cumstances which lie without him? In other words, 
 do his holiness and justice require him to manifest his 
 abhorrence to sin by inflicting upon it deserved pun- 
 ishment? or does the necessity for manifesting this 
 abhorrence lie only in "reasons of state," as civilians 
 say — i. e. in the necessity of making a salutary im- 
 pression upon his moral government? 
 
 That the veracity of God requires him to execute 
 the threatenings of his law, we have already shown. 
 But why do we find such a law in existence ? — a law 
 binding him to punish sin? "The opposition of 
 God's laiv to sin," says Symington, is "just the 
 opposition of his nature to sin; his nature, not his 
 will, is the ultimate standard of morality. His deter- 
 mination to punish sin is not voluntary^ but necessary. 
 He does not annex a punishment to sin because he • 
 wills to do so, but because his nature requires it. If 
 the whole of such procedure could be resolved into 
 mere volition, then it is not only supposable that God 
 might not have determined to punish sin, but, which 
 is blasphemous, that he might have determined to 
 reward it. This is not more clearly deducible from 
 the nature of a being of perfect moral excellence, 
 than plainly taught in Scripture: '^ He will hy no 
 means clear the guilty. The Lord is a jealous God, 
 he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. 
 Thou art not a God that hath j^leasure in wickedness, 
 neither shall evil dwell with thee. God is angry with 
 the wicked every day. The Lord luill tahe vengeance 
 on his adversaries, and he reserveth lurath for his 
 enemies. Who can stand before his indignation ? and 
 
120 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 wJio can abide in the fierceness of Jiis anger? Is God 
 unrighteous who taketh vengeance? Our God is a 
 consuming fire." (Excel, xxiv. 7; Josh. xxiv. 19; 
 Ps. V. 4; vi. 11; Neh. i. 2, 6; Rom. iii. 5; Heb. xii. 
 29.) We may confidently appeal to every unpreju- 
 diced mind whether such descriptions as these do not 
 fully bear us out in the view we have taken of God's 
 retributive justice. And if this view is correct, sin 
 cannot go unpunished ; it cannot be pardoned without 
 a satisfaction; God cannot but take vengeance on 
 iniquity; to do otherwise would be to violate the 
 perfection of his nature. Just he is, and just he 
 ever must be ; and there is only one way, that of an 
 atoning sacrifice, by which he can be at once a JUST 
 God and a Saviour." — Symington on the Atonement. 
 If the only reason why God is bound to punish sin 
 arises from the efi'ect to be produced upon the uni- 
 verse, then if he had created no other intelligent 
 beings except man, no atonement would have been 
 necessary — because no moral beings would exist, upon 
 whom to make this impression — and of course he 
 might have forgiven us, irrespective of an atonement, 
 without doing any injury to his government. But, if 
 the necessity of punishing sin lies primarily in his 
 nature^ an atonement would be as necessary for 
 the redemption of a single sinner, if he had been 
 the only being in the universe, as it was under the 
 circumstances in which this scheme of mercy was 
 devised. And this we believe to be the fact. Other- 
 wise God does not possess essentially^ that holiness, 
 which the Scriptures represent as constituting the 
 glory of his character. 
 
VIEWS OF DR. BELLAMY. 121 
 
 If then the question be asked, Why is God bound 
 to punish sin? the first answer is, because it is right 
 — sin being opposite to his nature — and his nature 
 therefore requires him to manifest towards it his 
 abhorrence. Is the question repeated? We reply, 
 it is from a regard to his laiv and government. 
 Though the former is the 'primary reason, the latter 
 is of great importance, and must never be forgotten. 
 Taken together they show not only the necessity of 
 an atonement in order to the pardon of sin, but that 
 the atonement must consist in a substantial endurance 
 of the penalty of the law. On any other principle, 
 sin goes unpunished ; and we are driven to the con- 
 clusion before adverted to, that God is not "glorious 
 in holiness'' — "a just God," who "will by no means 
 clear the guilty." 
 
 The following extract from Dr. Bellamy will show 
 how nearly the above views correspond with the sen- 
 timents prevalent in New England a hundred years 
 ago: "It was fit, if any intelligent creature should at 
 any time swerve at all from the perfect will of God, 
 that he should for ever lose his favour and fall under 
 his everlasting displeasure, for a thing so infinitely 
 wrong: and in such a case it was fit the Governor of 
 the world should be infinitely displeased and publicly 
 testify his infinite displeasure by a punishment ade- 
 quate thereto, inflicted on the sinning creature. 
 This would satisfy justice; for justice is satisfied 
 when the thing which is wrong is punished according 
 to its desert. Hence, it was fit, when by a constitu- 
 tion, holy, just, and good, Adam was made a public 
 11 
 
122 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 head, to represent his race, and act not only for him- 
 self, but for all his posterity ; it was fit, I say, that 
 he and all his race, for his first transgression, should 
 lose the favour, and fall under the everlasting dis- 
 pleasure of the Almighty. It Tvas fit that God 
 should be infinitely displeased at so abominable a 
 thing — and that as Governor of the world, he should 
 publicly bear testimony against it, as an infinite evil, 
 by inflicting the infinite punishment the law threat- 
 ened ; i. e. by damning the whole world. This would 
 have satisfied justice; for justice is satisfied when 
 justice takes place — when the guilty are treated with 
 that severity they ought to be — when sin is punished 
 as being what it is. Now Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 God, has, by his Father's appointment and appro- 
 bation, assumed our nature — taken the place of a 
 guilty world — and had not only Adam's first trans- 
 gression, but the iniquities of us all laid upon him, 
 and in our room and stead, hath suffered the wrath 
 of God, the curse of the law, offering up himself a 
 sacrifice to God for the sins of men: and hereby the 
 infinite evil of sin and the righteousness of the law 
 are publicly owned and acknowledged, and the de- 
 served punishment voluntarily submitted unto by 
 man, i. e. by his representative: and thus justice is 
 satisfied; for justice is satisfied when justice takes 
 place ; and sin is now treated as being what it is, as 
 much as if God had damned the whole world; and 
 God, as Governor, appears as severe against it. 
 And thus the ric!;htcousness of God is declared and 
 manifested, by Christ's being set forth to be a propi- 
 
REMARKS OP BATES; OWEN; ETC. 123 
 
 tiatlon for sin ; and he may now be just and yet jus- 
 tify him that believes in Jesus." — True Beligioii 
 Delineated^ pp. 332, 333. 
 
 Similar to the views here expressed, were those of 
 the early European divines. "There was no defect 
 in the payment he made. We owed a debt of blood 
 to the law, and his life was offered up as a sacrifice; 
 otherwise the law had remained in its full vigour 
 and justice had been unsatisfied. That a divine 
 person hath suffered our punishment, is properly the 
 
 reason of our redemption." " The blood of 
 
 Christ shed, (Matt. xxvi. 28,) poured forth from his 
 veins and offered up to God, in that precise consid- 
 eration, ratifies the I^ew Testament. The sum is, 
 our Saviour by his death suffered the malediction of 
 the law, and his divine nature gave a full value to 
 his sufferings." "And God, who was infi- 
 nitely provoked, is infinitely pleased." — Bates. 
 
 "A surety, sponsor, for us, the Lord Christ was, 
 by his voluntary undertaking out of his rich grace 
 and love, to do, answer, and perform all that is re- 
 quired on our parts, that we may enjoy the benefits 
 of the covenant, the grace and glory prepared, pro- 
 posed, and promised in it, in the way and manner 
 determined on by divine wisdom. And this may be 
 reduced unto two heads: 1. His answering for our 
 transgressions against the first covenant. 2. His 
 purchase and procurement of the grace of the new. 
 He was made a curse for us, that the blessing of 
 Abraham might come upon us. Gal. iii. 13 — 15. 
 .... That is, he underivent the punishment due 
 
124 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 unto our sins, to make atonement for us, by offering 
 himself a i^ropitiatory sacrifice for the expiation of 
 our sins." — Oiven, 
 
 " Christ hath redeemed us who believe in his name 
 from the terrible curse of the law, and bought us off 
 from that servitude and misery to which it inexorably 
 doomed us, by being himself made a curse for us, and 
 enduring the penalty which our sins had deserved." — 
 Doddridge. 
 
 " I wonder that Jerome and Erasmus should labour 
 and seek for I know not what figure of speech, to 
 show that Christ was not called accursed. Truly in 
 this is placed all our hope : in this the infinite love 
 of God is manifested : in this is placed our salvation, 
 that God properly and without any figure, poured out 
 all Ms wrath on his own Son; caused him to be 
 accursed, that he might receive us into his favour. 
 Finally, without any figure, Christ was made a curse 
 for us, in such a manner that unless he had been 
 truly God, he must have remained under the curse 
 for ever, from which, for our sakes, he emerged. For 
 indeed, if the obedience be figurative and imaginary, 
 so must our hope of glory be." — Beza, as quoted by 
 Scott. 
 
 These several quotations all proceed on the princi- 
 ple that the necessity of the atonement lay i^rimarily 
 in the nature of God: that his justice must be ap- 
 peased by a true and proper satisfaction, before it 
 was possible for him to regard sinners with favour ; 
 and that this satisfaction having been made by the 
 vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who 
 
SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 125 
 
 "hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice 
 to God for a sweet smelling savour," pardon and sal- 
 vation are freely bestowed upon believing sinners, in 
 perfect harmony with all the divine attributes. 
 With the work which Christ performed, God the 
 Father was infinitely well pleased, and through him 
 he looks with complacency upon all who are united to 
 him by faith. He was well pleased, because Christ 
 performed all that law and justice required — for, as 
 Bellamy observes, "justice is satisfied when justice 
 takes place." "I have finished the work," said 
 Christ, "which thou gavest me to do." And again, 
 just before he expired he said, "It is finished." His 
 work of active obedience was finished when he uttered 
 the first; and when he spake the last, his work of 
 suffering was also completed. We behold him now 
 as ''i\iQLamh of God," sacrificed to propitiate the 
 divine favour; John i^29: as "the propitiation for 
 our sins;" 1 John ii. 2: as a '^ sin-offering'' pre- 
 sented to God for a sacrifice or expiation ; 2 Cor. v. 
 21, Gr. : as "a ransom," or redemption-price, to 
 "redeem us from the curse of the law;" Matt. xx. 28 ; 
 Gal. iii. 13: as "the man, God's fellow;" "on whom 
 was laid the iniquity of us all;" who "bare. our sins 
 in his own body on the tree;" Zech. xiii. 7; Isa. liii. 
 6; 1 Pet. ii. 24: as, in fine, both the offering and 
 the priest, who having "appeared to put away sin by 
 the sacrifice of himself," "offered himself without 
 spot to God," and, "by his own blood, entered into 
 the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption 
 for us;" Heb. ix. 12, 14, 26. How explicit are 
 11* 
 
126 SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 
 
 these passages with regard to the nature of Christ's 
 sufferings ! If Christ did not offer himself a sacrifice 
 for our sins; if he did not endure substantially the 
 penalty of the law in order to make satisfaction to 
 divine justice in behalf of those who should believe in 
 him, we know not how to interpret the plainest lan- 
 guage. 
 
 It has been objected that the idea of j^itni's/iweni 
 was not involved in the Jewish sacrifices, and hence 
 that those passages which describe Christ's mediato- 
 rial work by allusions to those sacrifices, do not teach 
 that his sufferings were i^enal. By a reference to 
 Magee on "Atonement and Sacrifice," it will be seen 
 that the Jews regarded the victims offered in sacrifice 
 as ^'hearing the guilt" of the people; which is the 
 same thing as saying that they bore their punish- 
 ment, because guilt and punishment are correlates of 
 each other. The following remarks of Patrick in his 
 Commentary on Lev. xvi. 21, 22, are to the same 
 effect: "Laying of the hand upon the head of the 
 beast was a rite used in all sorts of sacrifices, 
 whether burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, or sin-offer- 
 ings." .... "This rite signifies as much as if they 
 had said, whatever we have done amiss, let not us, 
 but this sacrifice be charged with it ; that is, let it 
 bear the punishment which we deserve." .... "By 
 putting his hand on the head of the goat and confess- 
 ing their sins over him (with prayer to God to remit 
 them) they were all charged upon the goat, and the 
 punishment of them transferred from the Israelites 
 unto it." .... "And it appears by the form of all 
 
SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 127 
 
 other sin-offerings, whicli were occasionallj offered at 
 other times, that he who brought them put off the 
 guilt which he had contracted, from himself, and laid 
 it on the sacrifice which was to die for him." 
 Again; "This [i. e. the goat's bearing upon him all 
 their iniquities] shows more fully still the nature of 
 this sacrifice, in which all their iniquities, i. e. the 
 punishment of them was laid, that he might carry 
 them away. For this goat was not capable to bear 
 their sins, but only their punishment; as Christ also 
 did, who knew no sin, and yet was made sin, by 
 having the punishment of our sins laid on him." 
 
 So clearly is this doctrine taught, and so adapted 
 is it to remedy the guilt and misery of our fallen con- 
 dition, that we doubt whether a mind truly enlight- 
 ened can fail to perceive it, or an awakened con- 
 science be insensible to its value. In view of it, I 
 am disposed to exclaim with grateful emotions, "0 
 Lord, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry 
 with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou com- 
 fortest me." "God is in Christ reconciling the 
 world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto 
 them." "Whosoever believeth on him shall not be 
 confounded." 
 
 "With joy, with grief, that healing hand I see ; 
 Alas ! how low ! how far beneath the skies. 
 The skies it formed, and now it bleeds for me — 
 But bleeds the balm I want — 
 There hangs all human hope ; that nail supports 
 The falling universe : that gone, we drop ; 
 Horror receives us, and the dismal wish 
 Creation had been smothered in her birth." 
 
128 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 CHAPTER yi. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION — A CONTINUATION OF THE PRECEDING CHAPTER. 
 
 Intimately connected "witli the doctrine of atone- 
 ment, is that of justification. The different views, 
 therefore, with regard to the former, which have been 
 exhibited in the last chapter, will give a correspond- 
 ing complexion to our sentiments concerning the lat- 
 ter. Those who maintain that Christ obeyed the law 
 and suffered its penalty in our stead, and thereby 
 made a true and proper satisfaction to divine justice, 
 believe that his obedience and sufferings, constituting 
 what is usually styled his righteousness, are imputed 
 to the believer for his justification; Christ's right- 
 eousness being received by faith as the instrument. 
 Accordingly, justification consists not only in the 
 pardon of sin, or, in other words, in the release of 
 the believing sinner from punishment; but also in the 
 acceptance of his person as righteous in the eye of 
 the law, through the obedience of Christ reckoned or 
 imputed to him ; by w^hich he has a title to eternal 
 life. 
 
 On the contrary, those who deny that Christ obeyed 
 the law and suffered its penalty as our substitute, 
 deny also the imputation of his righteousness for our 
 justification; and though they retain the word justi- 
 fication, they make it consist in mere 'pardon,^ In 
 
 * "The pardon of sin alone can with no propriety be deno- 
 minated justification. Pardon and justification are not only 
 
 ( 
 
VIEWS OP LUTHER. 129 
 
 tte eye of the law, the believer, according to their 
 views, is not justified at all, and never will be through 
 eternity. Though on the ground of what Christ has 
 done, God is pleased to forgive the sinner upon his 
 believing, Christ's righteousness is not reckoned in 
 any sense as his, or set down to his account. He be- 
 lieves, and his faitli^ or act of believing, is accounted 
 to him for righteousness ; that is, faith is so reckoned 
 to his account, that God treats him as if he were 
 righteous. 
 
 That the views first given accord with the general 
 sentiments of the church since the Reformation is ca- 
 pable of abundant proof. Though in the time of the 
 Reformers the opponents of the true doctrine did not 
 take the same ground, in every respect, which has 
 been taken since, and which is described in the state- 
 ment just made concerning the views entertained by 
 the advocates of the New Theology ; in one particu- 
 lar they are all agreed, viz: in rejecting the imputa- 
 tion of Christ's righteousness; the adoption or denial 
 of which is the basis of all the other diflferences that 
 exist on this subject. To this doctrine, therefore, 
 the Reformers clung, as the sheet-anchor of the 
 
 distinct, but in common cases, utterly incompatible. A culprit 
 tried and condemned may among men be pardoned, but it 
 would be a solecism to say, that such a man was justified." .... 
 "But by the plan of salvation through Christ, there is not only 
 a ground for pardon, but there is rendered to the law a right- 
 eousness, which lays the foundation for an act of justification. 
 By pardon the sinner is freed from condemnation; by justifi- 
 cation he is entitled to the heavenly inheritance." — Dr. Alex- 
 wider. 
 
130 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 Christian faith. Justification by faith, through tho 
 imputed righteousness of Christ — this was their doc- 
 trine. And so important did they regard it, that 
 Luther was accustomed to denominate it, (as is well 
 known,) articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesise; the 
 very pillar on which the church rests, a denial of 
 which must result in her ruin. The manner in which 
 his mind was brought to entertain clear views on this 
 subject is highly interesting. "Three days and three 
 nights together he lay upon his bed without meat, 
 drink, or any sleep, like a dead man, (as some do 
 write of him,) labouring in soul and spirit upon a 
 certain place of St. Paul in the third chapter of the 
 Romans, "to declare his righteousness," [or justice,] 
 thinking Christ to be sent for no other end but to 
 show forth God's justice, as an executor of his law ; 
 till at length being assured and satisfied by the Lord, 
 touching the right meaning of these words, signifying 
 the justice of God to be executed upon his Son to 
 save us from the stroke thereof, he immediately upon 
 the same, started up from his bed, so confirmed in 
 faith, as nothing afterwards could appal him." — Life 
 of Luther, prefixed to his Commentary on the Gala- 
 tians. 
 
 The following extracts from Owen on Justification 
 will show the nature of the controversy soon after 
 the Reformation. " There are two grand parties by 
 w4iom the doctrine of justification by the imputation 
 of the righteousness of Christ is opposed, namely, 
 the Papists and the Socinians. But they proceed on 
 difi'erent principles, and unto difi'erent ends. The 
 
EXTRACTS FROM OWEN. 131 
 
 design of the one is to exalt their own merits; of 
 
 the other, to destroy the merit of Christ." 
 
 " Those of the Roman church plainly say, that upon 
 the infusion of a habit of grace, with the expulsion of 
 sin and the renovation of our natures thereby, which 
 they call the first justification, we are actually justi- 
 fied before God, by our own works of righteousness." 
 
 "They say, 'that this righteousness of 
 
 works is not absolutely perfect, nor in itself able to 
 justify us in the sight of God, but owes all its worth 
 and dignity unto this purpose unto the merit of 
 
 Christ.' But ' Christ hath only merited the 
 
 first grace for us, that we therewith, and thereby, 
 
 may merit life eternal.' Hence Hhose 
 
 other ingredients of confession, absolution, penances, 
 or commutations, aids from saints and angels, espe- 
 cially the blessed Virgin, all warmed by the fire of 
 purgatory, and confidently administered unto persons 
 
 sick of ignorance, darkness, and sin.'" "The 
 
 Socinians, who expressly oppose the imputation of the 
 righteousness of Christ, plead for a participation of 
 
 its eiFects or benefits only." "He [Socinus] 
 
 supposeth, that if all he did in a way of obedience, 
 was due from himself on his own account, and was 
 only the duty which he owed unto God for himself in 
 his station and circumstances, as a man in this world, 
 it cannot be meritorious for us, nor any way imputed 
 unto us. And in like manner to weaken the doctrine 
 of his satisfaction, and the imputation thereof unto 
 us, he contends that Christ ofi'ered as a priest for 
 himself, in that kind of offering which he made on the 
 
132 RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 
 
 cross." "Hereby he excludes the church 
 
 from any benefit by the mediation of Christ, but only 
 ■what consists in his doctrine, example, and the exer- 
 cise of his power in heaven for our good." 
 
 a We grant an inherent righteousness in all that do 
 believe." . . . . " ^For the fruit of the Spirit is in all 
 goodness, and righteousness, and truth.' Eph. v. 9. 
 ' Being made free from sin, we became the servants 
 of righteousness,' Rom. vi. 18. And our duty it is 
 to ^follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, 
 meekness,' 1 Tim. ii. 22." .... "But although this 
 righteousness of believers be on other accounts like the 
 fruit of the vine, that glads the heart of God and man, 
 yet as unto our justification before God, it is like the 
 wood of the vine — a pin is not to be taken from it to 
 hang any weight of this cause upon." .... "That 
 righteousness which neither answereth the law of God, 
 nor the end of God in our justification by the gospel, 
 is not that whereon we are justified. But such is this 
 inherent righteousness of believers, even of the best 
 of them." . . . . "It is imperfect with respect unto 
 every act and duty of it, whether internal or external. 
 There is iniquity cleaving unto our holy things, and 
 all our 'righteousness are as filthy rags.' Isa. Ixiv. 
 6." 
 
 "That which is imputed, is the righteousness of 
 Christ; and briefly I understand hereby, his whole 
 obedience unto God in all that he did and suflfered 
 for the church. This I say is imputed unto believers, 
 so as to become their only righteousness before God 
 unto the justification of life." .... "The judgment 
 
EXTRACTS FROM OWEN. 133 
 
 of tlie reformed cliurclies herein is known unto all." 
 . . . . " Especially the Church of England is in her 
 doctrine express as unto the imputation of the right- 
 eousness of Christ, both active and passive, as it is 
 usually distinguished. This hath been of late so fully 
 manifested out of her authentic writings, that is, the 
 articles of religion, and books of homilies, and other 
 writings publicly authorized, that it is altogether 
 needless to give any further demonstration of it." 
 . . . . "The law hath two parts or powers; 1. Its 
 preceptive part 2. The sanction on supposi- 
 tion of disobedience, binding the sinner unto punish- 
 ment." .... "The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the 
 whole law for us ; he did not only undergo the penal- 
 ty of it due unto our sins, but also yielded that per- 
 fect obedience which it did require." .... "Christ's 
 fulfilling the law in obedience unto its commands, is 
 no less imputed unto us for our justification, than his 
 undergoing the penalty of it is." .... "For why 
 was it necessary, or why would God have it so, that 
 the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant, should 
 undergo the curse and penalty of the law, which we 
 had incurred the guilt of, by sin, that we may be jus- 
 tified in his sight? "Was it not that the glory and 
 honour of his righteousness, as the author of the law, 
 and the supreme Governor of all mankind thereby, 
 might not be violated in the absolute impunity of the 
 infringers of it? And if it was requisite unto the 
 glory of God, that the penalty of the law should be 
 undergone for us, or suffered by our surety in our 
 stead, because we had sinned; wherefore is it not as 
 12 
 
134 RIGHTEOUSNESS OP CHRIST. 
 
 requisite unto the glory of God, that the preceptive 
 part of the law be complied withal for us, inasmuch 
 as obedience thereunto is required of us? And as we 
 are no more able of ourselves to fulfil the law, in a 
 way of obedience, than to undergo the penalty of it, 
 so as that we may be justified thereby ; so no reason 
 can be given, why God is not as much concerned in 
 honour and glory, that the preceptive power and part 
 of the law be complied withal by perfect obedience, 
 as that the sanction of it be established by undergoing 
 its penalty." .... "The conscience of a convinced 
 sinner, who presents himself in the presence of God, 
 finds all practically reduced unto this one point, viz : 
 whether he will trust unto his own personal inherent 
 righteousness, or in a full renunciation of it, betake 
 himself unto the grace of God, and the righteousness 
 of Christ alone." .... "The latter is the true and 
 only relief of distressed consciences, of sinners who 
 are weary and heavy laden — that which alone they 
 may oppose unto the sentence of the law, and inter- 
 pose between God's justice and their souls, w^herein 
 they may take shelter from the storms of that wrath 
 which abideth on them that believe not." 
 
 These views of Owen accord with the doctrine of 
 our Confession of Faith and with the sentiments of 
 other standard writers. The language of our Con- 
 fession is as follows: "Those whom God efi'ectually 
 calleth, he also freely justifieth; not by infusing 
 righteousness into them, but by pardoning their 
 sins, and by accounting and accepting their per- 
 sons as righteous, not for any thing wrought in 
 
Q 
 
 VIEWS OP CALVIN. 135 
 
 them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone : 
 not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, 
 or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their 
 righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and 
 satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and 
 resting on him and his righteousness by faith." 
 Says Calvin, "He is said to be justified in the sight 
 of Crod, who in the divine judgment is reputed right- 
 eous, and accepted on account of his righteousness." 
 . . . "He must be said, therefore, to be justified hy 
 works, whose life discovers such purity and holiness 
 as to deserve the character of righteousness before 
 the throne of God; or who, by the integrity of his 
 works, can answer and satisfy the divine judgment. 
 On the other hand, he will be justified hy faith, who 
 being excluded from the righteousness of works, ap- 
 prehends by faith the righteousness of Christ, invest- 
 ed in which he appears in the sight of God, not as 
 a sinner, but as a righteous man. Thus we simply 
 explain justification to be an acceptance by which 
 God receives into his favour and esteems us as 
 righteous persons; and we say that it consists in 
 the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ's 
 righteousness. — Qalvin's Institutes, vol. 2, pp. 203, 
 204. 
 
 These remarks, let it be remembered, refer to our 
 relation to God in point of law. "Imputation is 
 never represented as affecting the moral character, 
 but merely the relation of men to God and his law. 
 To impute sin, is to regard and treat as a sinner; 
 and to impute righteousness is to regard and treat 
 
136 RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 
 
 as righteous." — Hodge on the Romans, pp. 225, 226. 
 Though personally considered, we are sinners, and as 
 such, wholly undeserving, yet when we are united to 
 Christ by faith, his righteousness is so imputed to us, 
 or reckoned in law to our account, that God regards 
 and treats us as righteous — "the righteousness of the 
 law being" considered as "fulfilled in us," because 
 Christ has fulfilled it for us. It is therefore no 
 ground for self-complacency, but of humiliation and 
 gratitude. 
 
 With reference to those to whom Christ's righteous- 
 ness is imputed for their justification, our standards 
 say, " Yet inasmuch as he [Christ] was given by the 
 jFather for them, and his obedience and satisfaction 
 accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any 
 thing in them, their justification is only of free grace ; 
 that both the exact justice and rich grace of God 
 might be glorified in the justification of sinners." 
 Thus, according to this view of the doctrine, justice 
 and mercy are harmoniously and sweetly blended. 
 While the sinner is saved without confiicting with the 
 claims of God's law, it is "all to the praise of his 
 glorious grace." We have other quotations to make 
 on this subject, but shall reserve them until we pre- 
 sent a few specimens of the New Theology. 
 
 Says Mr. Finney, "Gospel justification is not by 
 the imputed righteousness of Christ. Under the gos- 
 pel, sinners are not justified by having the obedience 
 of Jesus Christ set down to their account, as if he 
 had obeyed the law for them or in their stead. It 
 is not an uncommon mistake to suppose that when 
 
SPECIMENS OP NEW VIEWS. 137 
 
 sinners are justified under the gospel they are ac- 
 counted righteous in the eye of the law, by having 
 the obedience or righteousness of Christ imputed to 
 them. I have not time to go into an examination of 
 this subject now. I can only say that this idea is 
 absurd and impossible, for the reason that Jesus 
 Christ was bound to obey the law for himself, and 
 could no more perform works of supererogation, or 
 obey on our account, than any body else."* .... 
 "Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteous- 
 ness, because it was itself an act of righteousness, and 
 because it worked by love, and therefore produced 
 holiness. Justifying faith is holiness, so far as it 
 goes, and produces holiness of heart and life, and is 
 imputed to the believer as holiness, not instead of 
 holiness." — Lectures to Professing CliristianSy pp. 
 215, 216. 
 
 Mr. Barnes says, " The phrase righteousness of 
 God is equivalent to Cfod's plan of justifying men'* 
 — in regard to which, he observes, " It is not that Ids 
 righteousness becomes ours. This is not true; and 
 there is no intelligible sense in which that can be un- 
 derstood. But it is God's plan for pardoning sin, 
 and for treating %is as if we had not committed it." — 
 Notes on the Romans, pp. 28, 29. Again, (p. 94,) in 
 reference to the phrase, "Abraham believed God, 
 and it was counted unto him for righteousness," he re- 
 marks, " The word 4t' here, evidently refers to the act 
 
 * This is a Socinian objection ; and on Socinian principles 
 it is valid ; but if Christ be divine, it has no force. 
 
 12* 
 
138 JUSTIFICATION — NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 of believing. It does not refer to tlie righteousness of 
 another — of Grod, or of the 3Iessiah; but the discus- 
 sion is solely of the strong act of Abraham's faith, 
 which in some sense was counted to him for righteous- 
 ness. In what sense this was, is explained directly 
 after. All that is material to remark here is, that 
 the act of Abraham, the strong confidence of his mind 
 in the promises of God, his unwavering assurance that 
 what God had promised he would perform, was reck- 
 oned for righteousness. The same thing is more fully 
 expressed, verse 18, 22. When, therefore, it is said 
 that the righteousness of Christ is accounted or im- 
 puted to us ; when it is said that his merits are trans- 
 ferred and reckoned as ours; whatever may be the 
 truth of the doctrine, it cannot be defended by this 
 passage of Scripture. Faith is always an act of the 
 mind." .... " Grod promises; the man believes; and 
 this is the whole of it." It is manifest that Mr. 
 Barnes intended in these passages to deny that we 
 are justified by the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
 ness; and with regard to the manner in which we are 
 justified, he is directly at variance with the Confes- 
 sion of Faith. He teaches that the act of believing is 
 imputed for righteousness; and the Confession of 
 Faith declares expressly to the contrary — "not by 
 imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any 
 other evangelical obedience to them, as their right- 
 eousness." The Confession teaches, moreover, that 
 we are justified on principles of law and justice, as 
 well as of grace and mercy — all of them harmonious- 
 ly meeting together in the cross of Christ. He inti- 
 
JUSTIFICATION — NEW THEOLOGY. 139 
 
 mates that legal principles have nothing to do in the 
 matter. " It [Rom. i. 17,] does not touch the question, 
 whether it is by imputed righteousness or not ; it does 
 not say that it is on legal principles." — Notes on the 
 Romans, p. 28. This sentence, though it does not 
 amount to a positive denial, was designed, we have 
 no doubt, to convey this idea. Similar forms of ex- 
 pression often occur in this volume, where it is evi- 
 dent from the connection, he means to be understood 
 as denying the doctrine. 
 
 The New Haven divines appear to entertain the 
 same sentiments ; as the following from the Christian 
 (Spectator will serve to show: "What then is the 
 ground on which the penitent sinner is pardoned? It 
 is not that the sufferings of Christ were of the nature 
 of punishment; for being innocent, he had no sins of 
 his own to be punished for; and as he was a distinct 
 being from us, he could not be strictly punished for 
 ours." . . . . "It is not that by his death he satisfied 
 the penal justice of God; for if he did, punishment 
 could not be equitably inflicted on sinners, whether 
 penitent or not. Nor indeed is it that the righteous- 
 ness of Christ is imputed to those who are pardoned, 
 either as a personal quality, or in such a manner as 
 to be accounted to them as if it were theirs. Nothing 
 can be imputed but that which is their own personal 
 attribute or act. Hence, though Dr. B.* does in one 
 
 * The person referred to here is not Dr. Beman ; but if one 
 vrill turn to Beman on the Atonement, p. 51, he will perceive 
 that most of what is here said is more applicable to him than 
 to Dr. Bellamy, whom it is believed the reviewer has treated 
 
140 JUSTIFICATION — NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 place speak of the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
 ness to believers, he obviously refers not to its trans- 
 fer, but to the enjoyment of its consequences; and he 
 more commonly speaks 'of faith,' a personal quality 
 of the saints, *as imputed for righteousness.' What 
 then is the ground on which forgiveness is bestowed? 
 It is simply this, that the death of Christ removed 
 the difficulties which would otherwise have eternally 
 barred the exercise of pardoning mercy." — Christian 
 Spectator, September, 1830. 
 
 How radically different are these sentiments from 
 the doctrines of justification as held by most evan- 
 gelical churches ! If they are scriptural, then multi- 
 tudes of Christians have mistaken the way of salva- 
 tion. But if they are erroneous, (as we believe them 
 to be,) then those who embrace them have reason to 
 examine anew the foundation of their hopes for eter- 
 nity. The two systems can never be made to har- 
 monize with each other. If the one is scriptural, the 
 other must fall ; and they involve points which affect 
 so seriously the great and everlasting interests of 
 man, that no one ought to be indifferent with regard 
 to them. Indifference here would be highly criminal. 
 
 For the purpose of showing how fully the Old The- 
 ology on this subject accords with the general voice 
 of the church since the Reformation, we shall intro- 
 duce a few additional quotations. 
 
 Bates. — ''There are but two ways of appearing 
 before the righteous and supreme Judge : 1. In sin- 
 unfairly. See quotations from Dr. Bellamy in subsequent 
 pages. 
 
JUSTIFICATION — BATES — BELLAMY. 141 
 
 less obedience Whoever presumes to appear 
 
 before God's judgment-seat, in his own righteousness, 
 shall be covered with confusion. 2. By the right- 
 eousness of Christ. This alone absolves from the 
 guilt of sin, saves from hell, and can endure the trial 
 of God's tribunal. This the apostle prized as his 
 invaluable treasure, (Phil. iii. 9,) in comparison of 
 which all other .things are hut dross and dung, "that 
 I may be found in him, not having mine own right- 
 eousness, which is of the law, but that which is 
 through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which 
 is of God by faith." That which he ordained and 
 rewarded in the person of our Redeemer, he cannot 
 but accept. Now this righteousness is meritoriously 
 imputed to believers.'" — Harmony of the Divine 
 Attributes, pp. 298, 299. 
 
 Bellamy. — "By the first covenant, the constitution 
 with Adam, his perfect obedience through his ap- 
 pointed time of trial, would, by virtue of that con- 
 stitution or covenant, have entitled us to everlasting 
 life. By the second covenant, the perfect righteous- 
 ness of Christ, the second Adam, entitles all true 
 believers to everlasting life, by and according to this 
 new and living way. A perfect righteousness was 
 necessary according to the law of nature, and a per- 
 fect righteousness is insisted upon in both covenants. 
 According to the law of nature, it was to be per- 
 formed personally ; but according to both covenants, 
 it is appointed to be performed by a public head. 
 According to the first covenant we were to have been 
 interested in the righteousness of our public head, by 
 
142 JUSTIFICATION — ^EDWARDS. 
 
 virtue of our union to him as his posterity, for whom 
 he was appointed to act. According to the second 
 covenant, we are interested in the righteousness of 
 Christ, our public head, by virtue of our union to him 
 by faith." — True Religion Delineated, pp. 421, 422. 
 Edwards. — "It is absolutely necessary, that in 
 order to a sinner's being justified, the righteousness 
 of some other should be reckoned to his account; for 
 it is declared that the person justified is looked upon 
 as (in himself) ungodly ; but God neither will nor can 
 justify a person without a righteousness; for justifi- 
 cation is manifestly di. forensic term, as the word is 
 used in Scripture, and a judicial thing, or the act of 
 a judge. So that if a person should be justified with- 
 out a righteousness, the judgment would not be 
 according to truth. The sentence of justification 
 would be a false sentence, unless there be a righteous- 
 ness performed, that is by the judge properly looked 
 upon as his. To say that God does not justify the 
 sinner without sincere, though an imperfect obedi- 
 ence, does not help the case ; for an imperfect right- 
 eousness before a judge is no righteousness." . . . . 
 "God doth in the sentence of justification pronounce 
 a sinner perfectly righteous, or else he would need a 
 further justification after he is justified." .... 
 "By that [Christ's] righteousness being imputed to 
 us, is meant no other than this, that the righteous- 
 ness of Christ is accepted for us, and admitted 
 instead of that perfect inherent righteousness which 
 ought to be in ourselves. Christ's perfect obedience 
 shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall 
 
JUSTIFICATION — EDWARDS. 143 
 
 have tlie benefit of it, as though we had performed it 
 ourselves. And so we suppose that a title to eternal 
 life is given us as the reward of this righteousness.'* 
 . . . . " There is the very same need of Christ's 
 obeying the law in our stead, in order to the reward, 
 as of his sufi*ering the penalty of the law in our stead, 
 in order to our escaping the penalty; and the same 
 reason why one .should be acepted on our account, as 
 
 the other." "Faith justifies, or gives an 
 
 interest in Christ's satisfaction and merits, and a 
 right to the benefits procured thereby, as it thus 
 makes Christ and the believer one in the acceptance 
 of the supreme Judge." .... "What is real in the 
 union between Christ and his people, is the foun- 
 dation of what is legal; that is, it is something really 
 in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the 
 ground of the suitableness of their being accounted 
 as one by the judge." .... " God does not give 
 those that believe, an union with or an interest in 
 the Saviour as a reivard for faith, but only because 
 faith is the soul's active uniting with Christ, or is 
 itself the very act of union, on their part.'' 
 
 Concerning the opinion of those who believe justifi- 
 cation to be nothing more than pardon, Edwards ob- 
 serves : " Some suppose that nothing more is intended 
 in Scripture by justification than barely the remission 
 of sins. If so, it is very strange, if we consider the 
 nature of the case; for it is most evident, and none 
 will deny, that it is with respect to the rule or latv of 
 God, we are under, that we are said in Scripture to 
 be either justified or condemned. Now, what is it to 
 
144 JUSTinCATION — EDWARDS. 
 
 justify a person as the subject of a law or rule, but to 
 judge him as standing right with respect to that rule ? 
 To justify a person in a particular case, is to approve 
 of him as standing rights as subject to the law in that 
 case; and to justify in general, is to pass him in 
 judgment, as standing right in a state correspondent 
 to the law or rule in general ; but certainly, in order 
 to a person's being looked on as standing right 
 with respect to the rule in general, or in a state 
 corresponding with the law of God, more is need- 
 ful than not having the guilt of sin; for whatever 
 that law is, whether a new or an old one, doubtless 
 something positive is needed in order to its being 
 answered. We are no more justified by the voice of 
 the law, or of him that judges according to it, by a 
 mere pardon of sin, than Adam, our first surety, was 
 justified by the law at the first point of his existence, 
 before he had fulfilled the obedience of the law, or 
 had so much as any trial, whether he would fulfil it 
 or no. If Adam had finished his course of perfect 
 obedience, he would have been justified ; and certainly 
 his justification would have implied something more 
 than what is merely negative; he would have been 
 approved of, as having fulfilled the righteousness of 
 the law, and accordingly would have been adjudged 
 to the reward of it. So Christ, our second surety, 
 was not justified till he had done the work the Father 
 had appointed him, and kept the Father's command- 
 ments through all trials ; and then in his resurrection 
 he was justified. When he had been put to death in 
 the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, 1 Pet. iii. 18, 
 
JUSTIFICATION — DR. ALEXANDER. 145 
 
 then he that was manifest in the flesh was justified in 
 the Spirit, 1 Tim. iii. 16; but God, when he justified 
 him in raising him from the dead, did not only re- 
 lease him from his humiliation for sin, and acquit him 
 from any further sufi'ering or abasement for it, but 
 admitted him to that eternal and immortal life, and 
 to the beginning of that exaltation that was the 
 reward of what he had done. And, indeed, the justifi- 
 cation of a believer is no other than his being admit- 
 ted to communion in the justification of this Head and 
 Surety of all believers; for as Christ suffered the 
 punishment of sin, not as a private person, but as our 
 Surety; so when, after this sufi'ering, he was raised 
 from the dead, he was therein justified, not as a pri- 
 vate person, but as the Surety and Representative of 
 all that should believe in him." .... "To suppose 
 that all Christ does is only to make atonement for us 
 by sufi'ering, is to make him our Saviour but in part. 
 It is to rob him of half his glory as a Saviour. For 
 if so, all that he does is to deliver us from hell; he 
 does not purchase heaven for us." — Discourse on 
 Justification. 
 
 Alexander. — " Some have attempted to evade the 
 doctrine [of the imputation of Christ's righteousness] 
 by alleging, that not the righteousness of Christ but 
 its efi*ects are imputed to us. They who talk thus do 
 not seem to understand what they say. It must be 
 by the imputation of the righteousness that the good 
 eff'ects are derived to us; but the imputation of the 
 eff'ects themselves cannot be. To talk of imputing 
 pardon — of imputing justification — imputing peace, 
 13 
 
146 VIEWS or DR. ALEXANDER. 
 
 &c., is to use words without meaning. What we are 
 inquiring after, is the reason why these blessings 
 become ours. It cannot be on account of our own 
 righteousness, which is of the law; it must be on 
 account of the righteousness of Christ. The next 
 question is, how does that righteousness avail to 
 obtain for us pardon and justification and peace with 
 God? The answer is, by imputation; that is, it is set 
 down to our credit. God accepts it on our behalf; 
 yea, he bestows it upon us. If there be any such 
 thing as imputation, it must be of the righteousness 
 of Christ itself, and the benefits connected with 
 salvation flow from this imputation. We conclude, 
 therefore, that the righteousness of Christ can only 
 justify us, by being imputed to us." 
 
 In reply to the objection that this doctrine "makes 
 the sinner's justification a matter of justice and not 
 of grace," he says, "All theories which suppose that 
 grace is exercised at the expense of justice, or that in 
 order to the manifestation of grace, law and justice 
 must be suspended, labour under a radical mistake in 
 theology, which cannot but introduce darkness and 
 perplexity into their whole system. Indeed, if law 
 and justice could have been set aside or suspended, 
 there had been no occasion for the plan of redemp- 
 tion. The only reason why sinners could not be 
 saved was, that the law and justice of God stood in 
 the way; but if, by a sovereign act, these obstacles 
 could have been removed, salvation might have been 
 accomplished without an atonement. But though the 
 Scriptures, everywhere, ascribe salvation to grace, 
 
JUSTIFICATION — DE. ALEXANDER. 147 
 
 FREE grace; yet they never teach that this grace 
 requires God to deny himself, as to his attribute of 
 justice; or that law and justice are at all interfered 
 with, or for a moment suspended. On the contrary, 
 the idea is continually kept in view, that grace reigns 
 through righteousness; that the propitiation of Christ 
 is necessary, that God may be just and yet the justi- 
 fier of the ungodly. Redemption is the obtaining 
 deliverance by paying a price; and yet redemption 
 and grace, so far from being inconsistent, are con- 
 stantly united, as parts of the same glorious plan, 
 according to the Scriptures. 'In whom we have 
 redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, 
 according to the riches of his grace.' (Eph. i. 7.) 
 The only way in which it was possible for grace to 
 be exercised, was by a plan which made provision for 
 the complete satisfaction of law and justice. This 
 was the great problem, to the solution of which no 
 finite wisdom was competent; but which the infinite 
 wisdom of Jehovah has accomplished by the mission 
 and sacrifice of his own dear Son. What is objected, 
 therefore, is a thing essential to the exercise of grace. 
 And the whole appearance of plausibility in the ob- 
 jection arises from not distinguishing between God's 
 dealings with our substitute and with us. To him 
 there was no mercy shown; the whole process was in 
 strict execution of law and justice. The last farthing 
 due, so to speak, was exacted of our Surety, when he 
 stood in our place, under the holy and sin-avenging 
 law of God. But this exercise of justice towards him 
 was the very thing which opened the way for super- 
 
148 REMARKS OF DR. DODDRIDGE. 
 
 abounding mercy towards us. And this cost at which 
 the sluices of grace were opened, so far from lessen- 
 ing, constitutes its riches and glorj."* 
 
 We will close our extracts by a few sentences bear- 
 ing upon the New-school doctrine, that the act of he- 
 lieving is imputed for righteousness. They shall be 
 from the pen of Dr. Doddridge, in his note on the 
 phrase, "imputed to him [Abraham] for righteous- 
 ness;" which is the principal text relied upon to 
 prove the new doctrine. He says, "I think nothing 
 can be easier than to understand how this may be 
 said in full consistence with our being justified by the 
 imputation of the righteousness of Christ, that is, our 
 being treated by God as righteous, for the sake of 
 what he has done and suffered: for though this be 
 the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God, 
 yet faith may be said to be imputed to us, in order to 
 our being justified, or becoming righteous: that is, 
 according to the view which I have elsewhere more 
 largely stated, as we are charged as debtors in the 
 book of God's account, what Christ has done in fulfill- 
 ing all righteousness for us is charged as the grand 
 balance of the account ; but that it may appear that 
 we are according to the tenor of the gospel entitled 
 
 ■^ This extract from Dr. Alexander, and those which have 
 "been before given from his pen, are contained in a short and 
 able Treatise on Justification by Faith, written by him for the 
 Presbyterian Tract Society, now the Board of Publication of 
 the Presbyterian Church. This tract, and the other tracts 
 published by that Board, we recommend to the perusal of our 
 readers. 
 
REMARKS OP DR. BELLAMY. 149 
 
 to the benefit of this, it is also entered in the book of 
 God's remembrance "that we are believers:" and 
 this appearing, we are graciously discharged, yea, 
 rewarded, as if we ourselves had been perfectly inno- 
 cent and obedient." 
 
 In concluding the present chapter, we wish again 
 to call the attention of the reader to the intimate 
 connection which exists between the doctrine of justi- 
 fication and most of the other doctrines which have 
 been brought to view in the preceding pages. Though 
 this has been already alluded to, when speaking of 
 imputation and original sin, the truth of the remark 
 was not, perhaps, so obvious as it must be now. The 
 federal headship of Adam, the imputation of the guilt 
 of his first sin to his posterity, original sin, the atone- 
 ment and justification, are so closely connected, that 
 if we have incorrect views with regard to the one, we 
 shall err respecting the others. The views concern- 
 ing these doctrines which we regard as scriptural, and 
 which we have endeavoured to substantiate, so far as 
 the design of the work would permit, are all different 
 parts of the same system. If one of them be mate- 
 rially modified or denied, it involves a similar modi- 
 fication or denial of the whole. "While men are dis- 
 puting," says Dr. Bellamy, "against the original 
 constitution with Adam,''"' they unawares undermine 
 the second constitution, which is the foundation of all 
 
 ^ Dr. Bellamy's views concerning God's covenant vrith 
 Adam, original sin, &c., are the same with those of President 
 Edwards; from whom extracts on this subject have been given. 
 — See Ti'ue Rdigioii Delineated, pp. 2G0, 271. 
 13^- 
 
150 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 our hopes. Eager to avoid Adam's first sin, "where- 
 by comes condemnation, they render of none effect 
 Christ's righteousness, whereby comes justification." 
 .... "What remains, therefore, but deism and infi- 
 delity?" 
 
 Truth is harmonious. The several doctrines of the 
 Bible, like the stones in Solomon's temple, unite 
 together, without the use of an "axe or hammer," to 
 pare down their edges. But if one be rejected, there 
 is not only a vacancy left in the building, which no 
 art or ingenuity can supply, but the edifice itself is in 
 danger of falling. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 HUMAN ABILITY, REGENERATION, AND THE INFLUENCES OF THE 
 
 HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 That the fall of man has not released us from obli- 
 gation to love and obey God, is maintained by all. 
 This, however, it is believed, is perfectly consistent 
 with the doctrine, that from our "original corruption, 
 we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made oppo- 
 site to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." As 
 our inability is not only our misfortune, but our sin, 
 it can never destroy moral obligation. Upon these 
 points Calvinistic writers are generally agreed. But 
 as the subject is attended with difiiculties, which 
 some have been anxious to avoid, a distinction has 
 
HUMAN ABILITY. 151 
 
 been resorted to between natural and moral inabil- 
 ity ; the latter of which, it is supposed, is the inability 
 under which the sinner lies; and that he still pos- 
 sesses natural ability to do his duty. By this it is 
 meant that he merely has the physical powers, or 
 the faculties of mind, which are requisite to enable 
 him to do what God requires — but that his mind is, 
 nevertheless, wholly disinclined to that which is 
 good; or, in other words, that he is morally unable 
 to exercise holy affections. This distinction, it might 
 be easily shown, is not without foundation; and yet 
 "when applied to the subject of religion, it is doubted 
 by many, whether its use really solves any difficul- 
 ties, or is productive of any practical good ; chiefly 
 from the ambiguity of the terms, and their liability 
 to be misunderstood. 
 
 It is no part of our present purpose to discuss 
 this question. We have introduced it in order to 
 prepare the way for the observation, that those 
 •whose sentiments we are now considering, retain the 
 term natural in connection with ability; and thus 
 appear to accord with those who are in the habit of 
 making the distinction to which we have referred; 
 though in reality they occupy very different ground. 
 Though when they speak of ability, they frequently 
 annex to it the word Tiatural, they seldom speak of 
 inahilitj at all — but produce the impression that the 
 ability which they preach is fully adequate to enable 
 the sinner, independently of divine grace, to do all 
 that God requires. 
 
 This was the opinion of Dr. Porter concerning Dr. 
 
152 HUMAN ABILITY — DR. BEECHER. 
 
 Beecher's preaching, prior to 1829. In a letter 
 addressed to him which has been published in various 
 papers, he says, "You exalt one part of Calvinism, 
 viz: human agency^ so as virtually to lose sight of 
 its correlate human dependence, and thus make 
 regeneration so much a result of means and instru- 
 mentality, that the sinner is born rather ' of blood or 
 of the will of man than of God.' " 
 
 A similar opinion has been formed by some con- 
 cerning his "Views in Theology," published in 1836. 
 Dr. Harvey says concerning them, "Dr. Beecher's 
 Views, it is true, have many shades and shadows of 
 orthodoxy. The superstructure looks fair and im- 
 posing; but the philosophy is Pelagian, and all the 
 orthodoxy in his ' Views' is undermined by a false 
 theory of moral agency, on which the whole is found- 
 ed." — Harvey on Moral Agency, p. 6. The follow- 
 ing quotations will show what foundation Dr. Harvey 
 had for this opinion. 
 
 Dr. Beecher says, (p. 30, 31,) "That man possesses 
 since the fall the powers of agency requisite to obli- 
 gation, on the ground of the possibility of obedience, 
 is a matter of notoriety. Not one of the powers of 
 mind which constituted ability before the fall has 
 been obliterated by that event. All that has ever 
 been conceived, or that can now be conceived, as en- 
 tering into the constitution of a free agent, capable of 
 choosing life or death, or which did exist in Adam 
 when he could and did obey, yet mutable, survived 
 the fall." He says, (p. 31, 32,) "Choice, in its 
 very nature, implies the possibility of a different or 
 
REMARKS OF DR. HARVEY. 153 
 
 contrary election to that which is made. There is 
 always an alternative to that which the mind decides 
 on with the conscious j?o^^er of choosing either.'' .... 
 "The question of free will is not whether man 
 chooses — this is notorious, none deny it; but whether 
 his choice is free as opposed to a fatal necessity." 
 Again, (p. 35,) " Choice, without the possibility of 
 other or contrary choice, is the immemorial doctrine 
 of fatalism:" and further, (p. 47,) "This doctrine of 
 the natural ability of choice^ commensurate with obli- 
 gation^ has been, and is, the received doctrine of the 
 universal orthodox church, from the primitive age 
 down to this day." 
 
 The first of these propositions speaks without any 
 qualification of the ''possibility of obedience,'' in re- 
 ference to fallen man — and makes this essential to 
 obligation. The second and third predicate this 
 possibility of obedience upon the possession of a self- 
 determining power of the will, by which we can not 
 only choose, but alter our volitions at pleasure. This, 
 according to his view, is essential to free agency. 
 The third affirms that "this natural ability of choice," 
 by which we understand him to mean the power 
 which we naturally possess as free agents, over our 
 volitions, ''is commensurate with obligation." If 
 these are the ideas which he intends to convey, it fol- 
 lows, that man since the fall possesses all the powers 
 which are requisite to enable him to change his sinful 
 volitions for those which are holy : or, to use the lan- 
 guage of Dr. Harvey, "that man possesses, since the 
 fall, the powers of agency requisite to obligation, on 
 
154 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 the ground of possessing a power of contrary choice, 
 by which he can recover himself from perfect sinful- 
 ness to perfect holiness." — Harvey on Moral Agency, 
 pp. 80, 81. "Natural ability of choice, commensu- 
 rate with obligation," says Dr. Harvey, "must mean 
 something more than the mere power of choice; it 
 means natural ability not only to do right, if one 
 is disposed, but natural ability to overcome every 
 moral impediment. In other words, it means natural 
 ability to overcome moral inability, or natural ability 
 •which can produce ability enough to overcome moral 
 inability. Thus, as I have before had occasion to re- 
 mark, the great object is to render man, in his fallen 
 state, independent of the grace of God. To accom- 
 plish this purpose. Dr. Beecher introduces the extra 
 power of contrary choice as an addition to the simple 
 power of choice, and which he deems sufficient to 
 equal obligation, and if so, to bring the sinner out of 
 darkness into light, to raise him from death to life. 
 Thus Dr. Beecher, in effect, coincides with Pelagius, 
 "who denied all moral inability, Pelagius takes the 
 city by undermining and sinking the "wall; Dr. 
 Beecher by building an embankment which shall 
 overtop the wall. One sinks the wall to the surface, 
 the other raises the surface to the wall's top ; and in 
 both cases, the obstacle of moral inability is annihi- 
 lated." — Harvey on Moral Agency, pp. 115, 116. 
 
 We have exhibited Dr. Beecher's views in the 
 above form, because the language of his several pro- 
 positions is such, that the sentiments intended to be 
 conveyed are not perfectly obvious upon a simple 
 
VIEWS OF DUFFIELD AND FINNEY. 155 
 
 perusal. The deductions wliich we have made, or 
 which we have quoted from Dr. Harvey, we do not 
 of course, ascribe to Dr. Beecher, as expressing what 
 he believes — but if we have not mistaken his views, 
 they appear to lead, by legitimate consequence, to 
 these conclusions — and to some of them it is probable 
 he would not refuse his assent; since it would be 
 going no further than has been expressed by two or 
 three who belong to the same school. 
 
 Says Mr. Duffield — "Not much less deluding are 
 the system and tactics of those who, fearing to invade 
 the province of the Spirit, are careful to remind the 
 sinner, that he is utterly unable by his own unassisted 
 powers either 'to believe or to repent to the saving of 
 his soul. It might as truly be said, that he cannot 
 rise and walk, by his own unassisted powers." — Duf- 
 field on Regeneration, p. 542. 
 
 Mr. Finney's language is that *'as God requires 
 men to make themselves a new heart, on pain of 
 eternal death, it is the strongest possible evidence 
 that they are able to do it — to say he has com- 
 manded them to do it, without telling them they are 
 
 able, is consummate trifling." "If the sinner 
 
 ever has a new heart, he must obey the command of 
 
 the text, and make it himself." "Sinner! 
 
 instead of waiting and praying for God to change 
 your heart, you should at once summon up your 
 powers, put forth the effort, and change the gov- 
 erning preferences of your mind. But here, some 
 one may ask, Can the carnal mind, which is enmity 
 against God, change itself? I have already said that 
 
156 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 this text in the original, reads, ' The minding of the 
 flesh is enmity against God.' This minding of the 
 flesh then, is a choice or preference to gratify the 
 flesh. Now it is indeed absurd to say, that a choice 
 can change itself; hut it is not absurd to say, that the 
 agent who exercises this choice can change it. The 
 sinner that minds the flesh, can change his mind, 
 and mind God." — Sermons on Important Subjects^ 
 pp. 18, 87, 38. 
 
 This exposition of the "carnal mind" is a favourite 
 one with writers of this class. Says Mr. Barnes, 
 "The amount of his [Paul's] affirmation is simply, 
 that the minding of the fleshy the supreme attention 
 to its dictates and desires, is not and 6annot be sub- 
 ject to the law of God. They are wholly contradic- 
 tory and irreconcilable." .... "But whether the 
 mmi himself might not obey the law, whether he has, 
 or has not, ability to do it, is a question w^iich the 
 Apostle does not touch, and on which this passage 
 should not be adduced." — Notes on the Romans, p. 
 164. In commenting on the phrase, "neither indeed 
 can be," he repeats the same sentiment concerning 
 ability which is expressed above. Also in his exposi- 
 tion of the passage, " when we were w^ithout strength 
 Christ died for the ungodly." "The remark of the 
 Apostle here," says he, "has reference only to the 
 condition of the race before an atonement was made. 
 It does not pertain to the question whether man has 
 strength to repent and to believe, after an atonement 
 is made, which is a very dififerent inquiry." Though 
 Mr. Barnes expresses himself with much more caution 
 
REMARKS OP EDWARDS. 157 
 
 * 
 
 than Messrs. Finney and Duffield, it is apparent that 
 he favours their sentiments. 
 
 There is so striking a similarity between the views 
 of these men and those of Dr. John Taylor of Nor- 
 wich, England, a Socinian, that it will be appropriate 
 to refer to the latter, with the remarks of President 
 Edwards upon them, showing what he thought of 
 their tendency. They are contained in his work on 
 Original Sin. "It will follow," says he, "on our 
 author's principles [Dr. Taylor's principles] not only 
 with respect to infants, but even adult persons, that 
 that redemption is needless^ and Christ is dead in 
 vain. Not only is there no need of Christ's redemp- 
 tion in order to deliverance from any consequences of 
 Adams sin, but also in order to perfect freedom from 
 personal sin, and all its evil consequences. Eor God 
 has made other sufficient provision for that, viz. a 
 sufficient power and ability^ in all mankind^ to do all 
 their duty and wliolly to avoid sin. Yea, he insists 
 upon it, that 'when men have not sufficient power to 
 do their duty, they have no duty to do. We may 
 safely and assuredly conclude, (says he,) that mankind 
 in all parts of the world, have sufficient power to do 
 the duty which God requires of them ; and that he 
 requires of them NO more than they have sufficient 
 powers to do.' And in another place, 'God has given 
 powers EQUAL to the duty which he expects.' And 
 he expresses a great dislike at R. R's supposing 
 ' that our propensities to evil and temptations are too 
 strong to be effectually and constantly resisted ; 
 or that we are unavoidably sinful IN A degree; that 
 14 
 
158 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 our appetites and passions will be breaking out, not- 
 withstanding our everlasting watchfulness.' These 
 things fully imply that men have in their own na- 
 tural ability sufficient means to avoid sin, and to 
 be perfectly free from it; and so from all the bad 
 consequences of it. And if the means are sufficient, 
 then there is no need of more ; and therefore there is 
 no need of Christ's dying in order to it. What Dr. 
 Taylor says, fully implies that it would be unjust in 
 God to give mankind being in such circumstances, 
 as that they would be more likely to sin, so as to be 
 exposed to final misery, than otherwise. Hence then, 
 ■without Christ and his redemption, and without any 
 grace at all, mere justice makes sufficient provision 
 for our being free from sin and misery by our own 
 power." 
 
 "If all mankind, in all parts of the world, have 
 sufficient power to do their whole duty, without being 
 sinful in any degree, then they have sufficient power 
 to obtain righteousness by the law : and then, accord- 
 ing to the apostle Paul, Christ is dead in vain. Gal.. 
 ii. 21. ' If righteousness come by law, Christ is dead 
 in vain ;' — hi/ laiu, or the rule of right action, as our 
 author explains the phrase. And according to the 
 sense in which he explains this very place, 'it would 
 have frustrated, or rendered useless, the grace of God, 
 if Christ died to accomplish what was or might have 
 been effected by law itself without his death. 'So 
 that it most clearly follows from his own doctrine, 
 that Christ is dead in vain, and the grace of God is 
 useless. The same apostle says. If there had been a 
 
REMARKS or EDWARDS. 159 
 
 law which COULD have given life, verily righteousness 
 should have been by the law, Gal. iii. 21 ; i. e. (accord- 
 ing to Dr. Taylor's own sense,) if there was a law, 
 that man, in his present state, had sufficient power to 
 fulfil. For Dr. Taylor supposes the reason why the 
 law could not give life, to be 'not because it was weak 
 in itself, but through the weakness of our flesh, and 
 the infirmity of human nature in the present state.' 
 But he says, ' We are under a mild dispensation of 
 GRACE making allowance for our infirmities.' By our 
 infirmities, we may, on good ground, suppose he 
 means that infirmity of human nature, which he gives 
 as the reason why the law cannot give life. But 
 what ^ra<?.e_is_there for making that allowance for our 
 infirmities, which justice itself (according to his doc- 
 trine,) most absolutely requires, as he supposes divine 
 justice exactly proportions our duty to our ability ? 
 
 "Again, if it be said, that although Christ's re- 
 demption was not necessary to preserve men from 
 beginning to sin, and getting into a course of sin, 
 because they have sufficient power in themselves to 
 avoid it; yet it may be necessary to deliver men, 
 after they have by their own folly brought themselves 
 under the dominion of evil appetites and passions ; I 
 answer, if it be so, that men need deliverance from 
 those habits and passions which are become too 
 strong for them, yet that deliverance, on our author's 
 principles, would be no salvation from sin. Por the 
 exercise of passions which are too strong for us, and 
 which we cannot overcome, is necessary: and ho 
 strongly urges, that a necessary evil can be no moral 
 
160 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 evil. It is true it is the effect of evil, as it is the 
 effect of a bad practice, while the man had power to 
 have avoided it. But then, according to Dr. Taylor, 
 that evil cause alone is sin; for he- expressly says, 
 * The cause of every effect is alone chargeable with 
 the effect it produceth, or which proceedeth from it.' 
 And as to that sin which was the cause, the man 
 needed no Saviour from that, having had sufficient 
 power in himself to have avoided it. So that it fol- 
 lows by our author's scheme, that none of mankind, 
 neither infants nor adult persons, neither the more or 
 or less vicious, neither Jeius nor Gentiles, neither 
 heathens nor Qh7Hstians, ever did or even could stand 
 in any need of a Saviour ; and that with respect to 
 all, the truth is, Christ is dead in vain, 
 
 "If any should say, although all mankind in all 
 ages have sufficient ability to do their whole duty, and 
 so may by their own power enjoy perfect freedom 
 from sin, yet God foresaw that they would sin, and 
 that after they had sinned they would need Christ's 
 death ; I answer, it is plain, by what the apostle says 
 in those places which were just now mentioned, (Gal. 
 ii. 21, and iii. 21,) that God would have esteemed it 
 needless to give his Son to die for men, unless there 
 had been a prior impossibility of their having right- 
 eousness by any law ; and that if there had been a law 
 which COULD have given life, this other way by the 
 death of Christ would not have been provided. And 
 this appears agreeable to our author's own sense of 
 things, by his words which have been cited, wherein 
 he says, ' It would have fkustiiated or rendered use- 
 
REMARKS OF EDWARDS. 161 
 
 LESS the grace of God, if Christ died to accomplish 
 ■what was or might have been effected by law itself, 
 without his death.' " 
 
 The new views concerning human ability have 
 an exact counterpart in the description which is 
 given by different writers of this school, of the work 
 of regeneration, and the agency of the Holy Spirit. 
 According to them, regeneration consists in the mere 
 change of the governing purpose or preference of the 
 soul — by which the sinner renounces the world as the 
 supreme object of pursuit, and makes choice of God 
 and heavenly things. Prompted by self-love, or in 
 other words, by a constitutional desire for happiness, 
 which is neither sinful nor holy, and the selfish prin- 
 ciple in his heart being suspended, he enters upon a 
 serious consideration and comparison of the various 
 objects of happiness, until he discovers the infinite 
 superiority of God and divine things to every other 
 object. Then, by "desperate efforts," he fixes his 
 heart upon them, and thus becomes a Christian. The 
 part which the Holy Spirit performs in the work is, 
 to present truth powerfully before the mind in the 
 form of motives, like an advocate arguing a cause be- 
 fore a jury; or as one man influences and persuades 
 another in the common affairs of life; though with 
 infinitely greater skill and force than can be employed 
 by any human agent. His attention is thus arrested 
 — he revolves in his mind the points at issue — and at 
 length being convinced where his true interest lies, 
 he is prevailed upon by the moral suasion of the Spi- 
 rit, to change the governing purpose or preference of 
 14* 
 
162 REGENERATION — DR. TAYLOR. 
 
 his mind, and to choose God as his supreme por- 
 tion. 
 
 The language of Dr. Taylor is as follows: "AYe 
 proceed to say then, that before the act of the will or 
 heart in which the sinner first prefers God to any 
 other object, the object of the preference must be 
 viewed or estimated as the greatest good. Before 
 the object can be viewed as the greatest good, it 
 must be compared with other objects, as both are 
 sources or means of good. Before this act of com- 
 paring, there must be an act dictated not by selfish- 
 ness but self-love, in which the mind determines to 
 direct its thoughts to the objects for the sake of con- 
 sidering their relative value, of forming a judgment 
 respecting it; and of choosing one or the other as 
 the chief good." — Christian Spectator , 1829, pp. 19, 
 20. 
 
 "Divine truth does not become a means to this 
 end, until the selfish principle so long cherished in 
 the heart is suspended ; and the mind is left to the 
 control of that constitutional desire of happiness 
 which is an original principle of our nature. Then it 
 is, we apprehend, that God and the world are contem- 
 plated by the mind as objects of choice, substantially 
 as they would be by a being who had just entered on 
 existence, and who was called upon for the first time 
 to select the one or the other as his supreme good." 
 — Christian Spectator, 1829, p. 210. 
 
 "Now we readily concede that sinners never use 
 the means of regeneration with a holy heart, nor 
 with an unholy or sinful heart. But does it there- 
 
VIEWS OF FINNEY AND DUFFIELD. 163 
 
 fore follow that they never use them with any heart 
 at all? What is that heart with which God in his 
 law requires sinners to love him? Surely not a 
 heart which is holy before they love him. Still less 
 with a sinful heart ; and yet he requires them to love 
 him with some heart, even their heart. Is this no 
 heart at all? We think on the contrary it is a real 
 heart, a heart with which sinners can love God, even 
 without the grace of the Spirit^ and certainly with 
 it." — Christian Spectator, 1830, pp. 149, 150. 
 
 Concerning the nature of the Spirit's agency, we 
 believe Dr. Taylor has not published his views. But 
 the author of ''Letters on the New-Haven Theology" 
 informs us that his sentiments correspond with those 
 of Mr. Finney. 
 
 Mr. Finney says, "The Spirit pours the expostula- 
 tion home with such power, that the sinner turns. 
 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 him over." 
 
 "He does not act by direct physical contact upon 
 the mind, but he uses the truth as his sword to pierce 
 the sinner; and the motives presented in the gospel 
 are the instruments he uses to change the sinner's 
 heart. Some have doubted this, and supposed that 
 it is equivalent to denying the Spirit's agency alto- 
 gether to maintain that he converts sinners by mo- 
 tives. Others have denied the possibility of chang- 
 
164 REGENERATION. 
 
 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 power over mind as he can?" .... "From 
 these remarks it is easy to answer the question some- 
 times put by individuals who seem to be entirely in 
 the dark on this subject, whether in converting the 
 soul the Spirit acts directly on the mind, or on the 
 truth. This is the same nonsense as if you should 
 ask whether an earthly advocate who had gained his 
 cause, did it by acting directly and physically on the 
 
 jury or on his argument." "The power which 
 
 God exerts in the conversion of a soul is moral 
 power ; it is that kind of power by which a statesman 
 sways the mind of a senate; or by which an advocate 
 moves and bows the heart of a jury." — Sermons on 
 Imiportant Subjects^ pp. 21, 27, 28, 30. 
 
 As to what regeneration consists in, Mr. Finney 
 observes: "A change of heart, then, consists in 
 changing the controlling preference of the mind in 
 regard to the end of pursuit. The selfish heart is a 
 preference of self-interest to the glory of God and 
 the interests of his kingdom. A new heart consists 
 in a preference of the glory of God and the interests 
 of his kingdom to one's own happiness." . . . "It is 
 a change in the choice of a Supreme Ruler.'' — Ihid. 
 pp. 9, 10. In describing the process by which the 
 sinner effects this change, he occupies nearly a whole 
 sermon, which we cannot of course, with propriety, 
 transfer to these pages. It corresponds substantially 
 with the views already given from Dr. Taylor. 
 
VIEWS OP MR. DUFFIELD. 165 
 
 Mr. Duffield's account of regeneration is as fol- 
 lows: "It is going altogether beyond the analogy in 
 the case, to assert that there is in regeneration the 
 injection, infusion, or implantation, or creation of a 
 new "principle of spiritual life.'" .... "Whenever 
 the Spirit of God excites and secures in the mind 
 and heart of man those acts and emotions which are 
 appropriate to his rational soul, i. e. when they are 
 directed to God, as his supreme good and chief end, 
 he is renewed, regenerated, born again." — WorJc on 
 Jlegeneration, pp. 202, 203, 204. But how does the 
 Spirit produce this result?" According to him it is 
 done by moral suasion. He has two whole chapters, 
 occupying thirty-five pages, entitled "The Moral 
 Suasion of the Spirit." In one of these he illustrates 
 liis views of the nature of the Spirit's agency by the 
 power of persuasion exerted by one man over another, 
 and the greater success which a man of "practical 
 knowledge and tact and particular acquaintance with 
 dispositions," &c. has above one who is less skilful. 
 "Shall we suppose, (says he,) that God cannot do 
 ■with sinners in reference to himself what one man 
 has done with another ? — that a physical efficiency is 
 necessary to make the sinner willing to confide in 
 him and repent of his rebellion ? To suppose this, is 
 in fact to attribute a moral influence to a man more 
 potent than that which, in such a case, it would be 
 requisite God should exert ! It would in efi'ect be to 
 say that man can subdue Jiis foe, and by an appro- 
 priate moral influence convert him into a friend ; but 
 
166 REGENERATION. 
 
 that God cannot convert Ms enemy, and bring him 
 to believe, except he puts forth his physical power 
 and literally creates him over again." Pp. 492, 
 493.* 
 
 During the progress of the discussion concerning ' 
 the New Theology, it was alleged by some, by way of 
 objection to the new theory, that it involved the 
 principle that regeneration is not an instantaneous 
 but a gradual work. This allegation, so far as I 
 recollect, was for a time neither admitted nor denied. 
 But recently the doctrine of gradual regeneration 
 has been avowed. Mr. Gilbert,t of Wilmington, 
 Delaware, published in the Philadel'pMan in 1833, a 
 number of communications on this subject; which 
 were afterwards revised and enlarged, and in 1836, 
 at the "earnest request" of the "members of the 
 Ministers' Meeting of New Castle County, Dela- 
 ware," were published in a pamphlet form, under the 
 title of "Moral Suasion ; or Regeneration not a Mira- 
 
 * This power of moral suasion is the kind of influence 
 referred to by a certain preacher who said, *'If I were as elo- 
 quent as the IIolj Ghost I could convert sinners as well as 
 He.'^ In the Natio7ial Preaclier for February 1832, a sermon 
 furnished by Dr. Grifl&n commences by quoting the above 
 remark. It being; attributed by some to a Presbyterian minis- 
 ter of my acquaintance, I asked him whether he had ever 
 used this expression. He replied that he had, and vindicated 
 its correctness; though he said it did not appear in the 
 connection in which he used it, as it does when standing by 
 
 itself. 
 
 t In the organization of the New-school General Assembly 
 in May, 1838, Mr. Gilbert was chosen pcrmahent clerk. 
 
VIEWS OF MR. GILBERT. 1G7 
 
 cle," &c. It is dedicated to the members of the 
 Ministers' Meeting, and to the elders of the churches 
 under their pastoral charge. These facts appear to 
 show that Mr. Gilbert's views accord with the senti- 
 ments of the other ministers with whom he is asso- 
 ciated in that State, and that they desire to have 
 them prevail throughout their churches. 
 
 Mr. Gilbert affirms that " the Bible knows no in- 
 stantaneous regeneration; this is a refinement of the- 
 ological philosophers. Being born again, and chang- 
 ing the heart of stone to a heart of flesh, is di, gradual 
 process; although under some circumstances it may 
 be a very sJiort one,'' The remark of Dr. Griffin, 
 that "motives can never change an unholy temper,'" 
 &c. he calls "strange philosophy; flying not only in 
 the face of Scripture, but of every day matters of 
 fact." "How often," (says he,) " do we see enmity to 
 a neighbour, corrected, moderated, subdued and turned 
 to love, by proper motives presented to the mind ? 
 And enmity to God is restrained and subdued in the 
 same manner." These motives, he maintains, are 
 presented in the latter case by the Holy Spirit, who 
 convicts, converts, and sanctifies, " by the influence 
 of truth presented to the mind and in no other way." 
 In one place, he says: '''Regeneration cannot he 
 wrought without the truth. It is in view of the 
 truth, through the truth, and by the truth, the soul 
 is convicted, converted, and sanctified from begin- 
 ning to end." 
 
 To illustrate his views he has furnished a diagram 
 consisting of an arc of a circle, in the centre of which 
 
168 REGENERATION. 
 
 he has placed the Holy Spirit. From this centre are 
 drawn straight lines to various points in the arc, repre- 
 senting truth as employed by the Spirit. A sinner 
 pursuing his way to hell is represented as being met by 
 one of these lines, through the influence of which ho 
 is persuaded to diverge a little from the path he was 
 pursuing, and proceeding at an angle of about forty- 
 five degrees, he passes gradually through the several 
 steps of conviction, regeneration, and sanctification, 
 describing in his progress the arc of the circle; until 
 arriving at a point directly opposite from where he 
 started, he becomes perfect and ascends to heaven. 
 
 That the reader may see for himself this new and 
 improved method of regeneration by attraction, we 
 will give the diagram with the author's explanation.* 
 We ought to remark, however, that he uses the terms 
 co7ivictio7i and sanctification in accommodation to 
 the views and language of others. According to his 
 own views the whole process from beginning to end 
 belongs to the work of regeneration. "By regenera- 
 tion,'" says he, "is understood the divine agency in 
 the ivliole 'process of a sinner's conviction and conver- 
 sion ; but in this discussion I use it as it is used by 
 Dr. Griffin, Mr. Smith and others, in the restricted 
 sense as distinguished from previous conviction and 
 subsequent sanctification." "It [the Bible] knows 
 of no regeneration as distinct from conviction and the 
 beo'innino; of sanctification." 
 
 ■^ As a matter of taste we would exclude this diagram from 
 our pages — but other considerations which we regard as para- 
 mount, induce us to insert it. 
 
VIEWS OF MR. GILBERT. 
 
 1G9 
 
 Truth.' C 
 
 Heaven. 
 G 
 
 o 
 
 C4 
 
 THE author's explanation, 
 
 "Let the semicircle, ABC, represent the sin- 
 ner's course from sin to holiness. Let D E repre- 
 sent the road to hell, in which the impenitent sinner 
 is found by the Holy Spirit, and influenced at the 
 point A by a new presentation of truth, to stop and 
 turn gradually from his downward course, through 
 the curve of conviction, towards the point B when 
 his conviction becoming perfect and irresistible, he 
 yields and turns from his downward course, through 
 the process of sanctification, until at C (or at death,) 
 becoming perfect, he flies ofi", if you please, in a tan- 
 gent, to heaven. Till he reaches the point B though 
 turning gradually from the more direct road to hell, 
 he is still in the downward course, and should the 
 15 
 
170 REGENERATION — NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 Spirit let go of him, at any point, he flies off, by his 
 own centrifugal force, in a moment towards perdi- 
 tion. The 'point B represents what these writers 
 call 'Regeneration.' " 
 
 " The Holy Spirit, like the sun in the centre, is' 
 the source of all right motion; and the power by 
 which he attracts or influences the sinner, is the 
 power of truth, or moral motive; by which the moral 
 agent is checked at A, and moved and controlled 
 through the whole course from A to C. It is under- 
 stood, of course, that the whole process may be longer 
 or shorter, according to circumstances; may begin 
 and be perfected, as with the thief on the cross, in a 
 single day; or as in the case of Methuselah, may 
 occupy nine hundred or one thousand years. Con- 
 viction, also, may be short, and sanctification long, 
 or the reverse. But conviction must, from the nature 
 of the case, precede regeneration, or regeneration 
 cannot be a rational change. A physical change 
 may take place without conviction ; but physical re- 
 generation is a thing which I cannot comprehend, 
 any more than physical conviction or physical sanc- 
 tification. The doctrine of the moral suasionists is, 
 that the influence which convicts, also regenerates 
 and sanctifies. That the same power which moves 
 the sinner from A to B moves him through the 
 point B and along the line to C. And that the whole 
 change is wrought through appropriate means, with- 
 out a miracle, by the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Agreeably to these ideas of gradual progress from 
 the first point to the last, he says; " There is very lit- 
 
MR. gilbert's views. 171 
 
 tie distinction between the last degree of sin and the 
 lowest degree of holiness; between the last exercise 
 of an unconverted and the first of a converted man ; 
 between the last feeble struggle of selfishness and the 
 first feeble exercise of love." .... "There is a 
 great difference between supreme selfishness and su- 
 preme love iyi their extremes; but between the last 
 feeble influence of selfishness and the first feeble ex- 
 ercise of love to God, the diff"erence is as impercepti- 
 ble, as between the adjacent sides of the equatorial 
 line.'' .... "The point B on the diagram repre- 
 sents the transition line. And it may be asked, Is 
 it not an important one ? I answer, Yes. Important 
 on many accounts, but not because of any special in- 
 fluence used then, but like the equator, as a measure 
 of relative progress, and as the era of a great change 
 in all our moral relations and circumstances. Like 
 the equatorial line, however, it is in itself of no con- 
 sequence at all." 
 
 If this were not a subject too serious for ridicule, 
 Mr. Gilbert might be successfully assailed by this wea- 
 pon. He has fairly exposed himself to this mode of 
 attack. But if I possessed a talant for the humorous, 
 and were disposed to indulge in it, I feel too much 
 shocked at his method of illustration to treat it with 
 ridicule. He appears to have felt himself, that he 
 would run "the risk of being counted very presump- 
 tuous;" and I doubt not he was correct in his appre- 
 hensions. A majority of his readers, it seems to me, 
 (unless they belong to a particular class) will feel 
 that he has "trodden on holy ground," without 
 
172 REGENERATION — NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 'Haking his slices from off his feet;" that he has "put 
 forth his hand and touched the ark of God," with- 
 out "sanctifying himself;" or in other words, that he 
 has so presented the subject, as to make him appear 
 almost profane. 
 
 This very circumstance, however, serves to show 
 the fallacy of these new doctrines. Mr. Gilbert 
 uses no irreverent language — he does not caricature 
 the New Theology. The views expressed by dif- 
 ferent writers as quoted in the present chapter, if 
 carried out to their full extent, and illustrated by a 
 diagram, could not perhaps be exhibited more accu- 
 rately than by that which has been presented. But 
 a description given in words, which have often an 
 equivocal or doubtful import, produces not only a 
 less vivid, but a less accurate impression than that 
 which is made by a figure faithfully drawn and pre- 
 sented to the eye. This remark is true not only in 
 reference to landscapes, &c., but to a certain extent 
 in regard to moral and religious truth. Mr. Gilbert 
 has shown by his diagram, that it is capable of being 
 employed in the present instance; and possibly it 
 may be of service to the cause of truth, by showing 
 in a more striking manner than can be exhibited by 
 quoting their language, the dangerous extremes to 
 which those men are tending. Give not only words 
 but visibility to their doctrines — let them be seen as 
 well as heard — and they will arouse the feelings of 
 many who have not before been seriously alarmed. 
 
HUMAN ABILITY. 173 
 
 CHAPTER VIIL 
 
 HUMAN ABILITY, REGENERATION, &C., CONTINUED FROM THE PRE- 
 CEDING CHAPTER. 
 
 We observed in chapter fifth that the New Theology 
 concerning the- nature of sin and holiness, viz: that 
 they consist in acts, involves a new theory of regen- 
 eration. What this theory is may be learned from 
 the statements made in the preceding chapter. It is 
 the following : That in regeneration no principle of 
 holiness is implanted in the soul, prior to the exercise 
 of holy acts, from which principle, or "• moral state of 
 the soul," those acts proceed; but that the whole 
 change consists in the acts of the soul itself; which 
 from having been sinful now become holy. A pre- 
 vious holy relish or taste, which, according to the old 
 doctrine, is essential in order to give to these acts a 
 holy character, is regarded by these new system- 
 makers, as unphilosophical and absurd; involving 
 what they term physical regeneration, passivity, &c. 
 
 If by physical regeneration is meant a mechanical 
 change in the substance of the soul, it forms no part 
 of the Old Theology. But if it mean a direct 
 agency of the Spirit upon the soul, by which its fac- 
 ulties are so renewed, that it receives the principles 
 of a new and holy life, and therefore may be properly 
 said to possess a new nature, it is what I understand 
 to be the true doctrine. '' The scriptural representa- 
 tions of conversion, (says President Edwards,) strong- 
 15* 
 
174 REGENERATION — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 ly imply and signify a change of nature; such as 
 being horn again; becoming new creatures; rising 
 from the dead; being renewed in the spirit of the 
 mind; dying to sin, and living to righteousness ; 
 putting off the old man and puttiyig on the new 
 man; being ingrafted into a neiv stock; having a 
 divine seed implanted in the heart; being made 
 
 partakers of the divine nature,'' ^c "He 
 
 [God] gives his Spirit to be united to the faculties of 
 the soul and to dwell there as a principle of spiritual 
 life and activity. He not only actuates the soul, but 
 he abides in it. The mind thus endued with grace is 
 possessed of a new nature." — Edtvards on the Affec- 
 tions. 
 
 That the soul is passive in regeneration, is the doc- 
 trine of our standards — and it necessarily results 
 from the preceding view concerning the nature of 
 the change. In the chapter on Eifectual Calling, 
 both are presented in connection with each other. 
 The change itself is declared to consist in " enlighten- 
 ing the minds [the minds of those whom he effectually 
 calls] spiritually and savingly, to understand the 
 things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and 
 giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their 
 wills, &c. It is then added, in the next section, 
 " This effectual call is of God's free and special grace 
 alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who 
 is altogether passive therein, until being quickened 
 and renewed by the Holy Spirit," &c. The former 
 part of this quotation exhibits the implantation of a 
 holy principle, or the change of our natures, by con- 
 
DOCTRINE OP OUR STANDARDS. 175 
 
 ferring spiritual illumination, removing the heart of 
 stone and giving a heart of flesh, and by renewing 
 the "will. The latter affirms that this new nature was 
 not imparted to us by our own agency, but by God, 
 who works upon us by his Holy Spirit, to quicken 
 and renew us ; and that we must of course, as to this 
 particular point in the history of the change, be the 
 passive recipients of divine grace — not bringing it 
 about by our own acts, but being acted upon by the 
 renovating power of God. 
 
 This doctrine, however, does not imply that we are 
 not to be active beforehand in the diligent use of the 
 means of grace — nor that we are inactive at the time, 
 with respect to the effects of the change. Simul- 
 taneously with this change, and as the immediate con- 
 sequence of it, the sinner is " persuaded and enabled 
 to embrace Jesus Christ, as he is freely offered to him 
 in the gospel." In this he is not passive, but active. 
 When God "by his almighty power determines the 
 sinner to that which is good," or in other words, gives 
 him an apprehension of the excellence of divine things, 
 and of the all-sufficiency of Christ as his Saviour, and 
 thus "effectually draws" him to Christ, he comes, not 
 reluctantly, but "most freely, being made willing by 
 his grace." Regeneration, or the implanting of a 
 holy principle, is the cause ; and our conversion, or 
 turning to God, is the effect. In the former we are 
 passive, in the latter active. Though in the order of 
 time they are simultaneous, in the order of nature 
 the former is the antecedent, the latter the conse- 
 quent; just as breathing, though simultaneous with 
 
176 REGENERATION — DR. COX. 
 
 the existence of life, is nevertheless the effect of it, 
 and would never occur, unless life had been previously 
 communicated. 
 
 Dr. Cox, who does not appear to have adopted "all 
 the principles of the New Theology, has expressed 
 himself on the subject of regeneration in a manner 
 very different from what has been customary among 
 Calvinistic writers.* To the doctrine that " God 
 creates or inserts some holy principle in us, which 
 constitutes regeneration, and in which we are entirely 
 passive, but that thereafter we actively do our duty," 
 he strongly objects, and says "it can command the 
 confidence of no well disciplined mind." He adds, 
 it is true, " till we have both a definition of what is 
 meant by holy principle, and a demonstration of its 
 existence," &c. ; and he wishes to have it understood 
 that he does not object to its use, if explained in a 
 particular way — but the doctrine, as it has been com- 
 monly received, he does not embrace. In his letter 
 to the conductors of the Biblical Repertory, in reply 
 to their review of his sermon, he asks, "Is not a 
 Christian active in all his moral relations? In be- 
 lieving and obeying God? Certainly active in the 
 total progress of religion, in the soul and life : then 
 why not also in its rise? If active progressively, 
 
 * Since the pubhcation of the first edition, Dr. Cox has pub- 
 lished a series of numbers in the New York Evangelist, enti- 
 tled "The Hexagon," in which he has discussed at length 
 several important points of difference between the Old and New 
 Schools, and sided strongly with the latter, maintaining their 
 particular views of doctrine. 
 
REGENERATION — DR. COX. 177 
 
 then why not initially too ? If active in the work of 
 sanctification, why not in the whole of it, in its com- 
 mencement as well as its continuance ; in regenera- 
 tion as well as sanctification ? How is a man regene- 
 rated^ hut as he believes and obeys the gospel? Is he 
 regenerated before he does this ? Is he more depen- 
 dent in regeneration one whit than in sanctification?" 
 What he terms the passivity doctrine, or the doctrine 
 of passive regeneration, he explicitly and freely dis- 
 avows. 
 
 The remarks of the editors of the Repertory, in 
 their review of his sermon, are so much in point, that 
 we shall transcribe a paragraph of considerable length, 
 in the place of any further observations of ours upon 
 this subject. 
 
 "As to the point which Dr. Cox thinks so * intrin- 
 sically absurd,' and about which he says so much, 
 whether a man is passive in regeneration, it will be 
 seen that, for its own sake, it does not merit a mo- 
 ment's discussion. It depends entirely on the pre- 
 vious question. If regeneration be that act of the 
 soul by which it chooses God for its portion, there is 
 an end of all debate on the subject. For no one will 
 maintain that the soul is passive in acting. But if 
 there be any change in the moral state of the soul, 
 prior to its turning unto God, then it is proper to say, 
 that the soul is passive as to that particular point; 
 that is, that the Holy Spirit is the author, and the 
 soul the subject of the change. For all that is meant 
 by the soul's being passive, is, that it is not the agent 
 of the change in question. Its immediate and delight- 
 
178 REGENERATION — BIBLICAL REPERTORY. 
 
 ful turning unto God is its own act; the state of mind 
 which leads to this act is produced directly by the Spirit 
 of God. The whole question is, whether any such an- 
 terior change is necessary; whether a soul polluted 
 and degraded by sin, or in Scripture language, carnal, 
 needs any change in its moral taste before it can be- 
 hold the loveliness of the divine character. Por that 
 this view must precede the exercise of affection, wo 
 presume will not be denied. If this point be decided, 
 the propriety of using the word passive to denote that 
 the soul is the subject and not the agent of the change 
 in question, need not give us much trouble. Sure it 
 is that this change is in Scripture always referred to 
 the Holy Spirit. It is the soul that repents, believes, 
 hopes and fears ; but it is the Holy Spirit that rege- 
 nerates. He is the author of our faith and repent- 
 ance by inducing us to act, but no man regenerates 
 himself. The soul, although essentially active, is still 
 capable of being acted upon. It receives impressions 
 from sensible objects, from other spirits, and from the 
 Holy Ghost. In every sensation, there is an impres- 
 sion made by some external object, and the immediate 
 knowledge which the mind takes of the impression. 
 As to the first point, it is passive, or the subject ; as 
 to the second, it is active, or the agent. These two 
 are indeed inseparably connected, and so are regene- 
 ration and conversion And if the 
 
 Holy Spirit does make such an impression on the 
 mind, or exert such an influence as induces it imme- 
 diately to turn to God, then it is correct to say that 
 it is passive in regeneration, though active in conver- 
 
REGENERATION INSTANTANEOUS. 179 
 
 sion. However, this is a very subordinate point ; the 
 main question is, whether there is not a holy * relish,* 
 taste, or principle produced in the soul prior, in the 
 order of nature, to any holy act of the soul itself. If 
 Dr. Cox can show this to be 'intrinsically absurd,' we 
 shall give up the question of * passivity' without a mo- 
 ment's demur. To relinquish the other point, how- 
 ever, will cost us a painful struggle. It will be giving 
 up the main point in debate between the friends and 
 opposers of the doctrine of grace from Augustine to 
 the present day. It will be the renunciation of what 
 Calvinists, old and new, have believed to be the scrip- 
 tural doctrine of original righteousness, original sin, 
 and efficacious grace. It will be the rejection of that 
 whole system of mingled sovereignty and love which 
 has been the foundation, for ages, of so many hopes, 
 and of so much blessedness to the people of God." 
 
 We mentioned in the last chapter that the New 
 Theology involves the doctrine of gradual regenera- 
 tion ; and we quoted from Mr. Gilbert's pamphlet to 
 show that this sentiment is now avowed by some of 
 the advocates of the new system. On this point Dr. 
 Griffin remarks, "The evidence of the change maybe 
 earlier or later in its appearance, and more or less 
 rapid in its developments, but the change itself is 
 always instantaneous. Is not such an idea more than 
 implied in the text? [Ezek. xi. 19.] What is the 
 blessing promised ? Not the gradual improvement of 
 an o/c^ temper, but "a 7^g^^ spirit ;" — "the stony heart" 
 not softened hy degrees into flesh, but by one decisive 
 effort removed, and a heart of flesh substituted in its 
 
180 THE spirit's agency direct. 
 
 room." " This doctrine, however, 
 
 does not militate against the idea of an antecedent 
 preparation in the conscience, wrought by the means 
 of grace and the enlightening influences of the Spirit." 
 — Park Street Lectures, pp. 91, 101. 
 
 These means according to our standards are " the 
 word, sacraments, and prayer." In answer to the 
 question. How is the word made effectual to salvation ? 
 the following answer is given: "The Spirit of God 
 maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of 
 the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convinc- 
 ing and humbling sinners, of driving them out of 
 themselves, and drawing them unto Christ," &c. 
 Thus the law is said to be " our schoolmaster to lead 
 us to Christ;" " The law of the Lord is perfect, con- 
 verting the soul;" "Of his own will begat he us, by 
 the word of truth." But the word, let it be remem- 
 bered, is only the means, which the Holy Spirit can 
 employ or not as he pleases ; and which when he 
 does employ (as is usually the case) does not become 
 effectual to salvation, till he by a direct influence 
 upon the heart, prepares it to receive and embrace 
 the truth. Lydia did not attend to the things spo- 
 ken by Paul, until ^Hhe Lord opened her heart. '^ 
 In order that David might behold wondrous things 
 out of God's law, he prayed that God would ''open 
 his eyes.''' The primitive Christians had access by 
 faith into God's grace, and rejoiced in the hope of 
 the glory of God, exercising the grace of patience in 
 their tribulations, "because the love of Crodwas shed 
 
DEPRAVITY. 181 
 
 abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto 
 them." 
 
 Though all these texts do not refer to regenera- 
 tion in the restricted sense, they prove the doctrine of 
 the direct influence of the Spirit upon the heart — 
 and it is for this purpose we have referred to them. 
 If the Spirit exerts an immediate influence upon the 
 hearts of believers, in order to make the word eff*ec- 
 tual to their sanctification, much more on the hearts 
 of sinners to make it efi'ectual to their conversion. 
 In the mind of the believer there is something conge- 
 nial with the spirit of the gospel ; something, there- 
 fore, for divine truth to act upon in the form of 
 motives: but, to use the language of Dr. Griffin, 
 "motives can never change an unholy temper; there 
 is no tendency in truth to change a depraved 'taste,' 
 The change must take place before light can act." 
 
 This doctrine of the direct agency of the Spirit,'and 
 the implantation of a principle of holiness in the 
 heart, is inseparably connected with the sentiment 
 that the change is instantaneous. Motives operate 
 gradually upon the mind; but the communication to 
 the soul of a new spiritual taste, is the work of a 
 moment. We either possess this holy temper or we 
 do not; there is no point of time when we have 
 neither enmity nor love; or when our afiections 
 are suspended in equilibrio between the two. Our 
 souls are necessarily either in one state or its oppo- 
 site; and our transition, therefore, from one to the 
 other must be instantaneous; as when God said, "Let 
 there be light, and there was light." 
 16 
 
182 DOCTRINE or OUR STANDARDS. 
 
 It may, perhaps, be thought by some that the dif- 
 ference between instantaneous and gradual regenera- 
 tion is not important, since both recognize the neces- 
 sity of becoming holy. But a little reflection will 
 show the contrary. Gradual regeneration is founded 
 on the principle that there is something good in the 
 unregenerate man, which needs only to be fostered 
 and cherished, in order to make him holy. Of course 
 it involves a denial of total depravity, and of the neces- 
 sity of an entire radical change of character. It fos- 
 ters pride and self-righteousness ; and produces hos- 
 tility to those doctrines of grace which distinguish 
 the gospel from the religion of nature. It is, in 
 short, taking a step towards infidelity. 
 
 In regard to human ability, our Confession of Faith 
 uses the following language : "Man, by his fall into a 
 state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any 
 spiritual good accompanying salvation ; so as a natural 
 man being altogether averse from that which is good, 
 and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to 
 convert himself, or prepare himself thereunto." Some 
 have endeavoured to prove from this passage that, 
 according to the Confession of Faith, depravity be- 
 longs exclusively to the will. But this, it appears to 
 me, is not a correct exposition. As the design of the 
 chapter was to treat " Of Free Will," it would of 
 course state explicitly what effect the fall had upon 
 the will, without speaking, as a matter of course, con- 
 cerning the other powers of the soul. There is, how- 
 ever, a clause introduced, which was evidently designed 
 to refer to the whole moral man: '''Dead in sin.'' The 
 
DEPRAVITY — SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 183 
 
 preceding clause, viz. "so as a natural man being 
 altogether averse from tliat -which is good," refers to 
 the will ; but to this, the other is sujoeradded — " and 
 dead in sin" — which was intended to convey an 
 additional idea, embracing, perhaps, the former, but 
 amplifying and extending it, so as to include the 
 depravity of our whole nature. This will appear by 
 a reference to the chapter on the " Fall of Man;" 
 where it reads as follows: "By this sin they [our first 
 parents] fell from their original righteousness, and 
 communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and 
 wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul 
 and body." It will also appear, by a reference to the 
 chapter on "Efi'ectual Calling;" where, in describing 
 the manner in which we are brought " out of that 
 state of sin and death," it is not only said that oui: 
 wills are renewed, but our minds spiritually and 
 savingly enlightened to understand the things of God ; 
 and our heart of stone taken away and a heart of flesh 
 given unto us. If depravity belongs to the will only, 
 that alone needs to be operated upon in efi'ectual call- 
 ing. It is evident, therefore, that our standards 
 teach the doctrine not only that the will is depraved, 
 but likewise "all the faculties of the soul." 
 
 This view also accords with Scripture. " There is 
 none that under standeth.'' Rom. iii. 11. "Having 
 the understanding darkened, being alienated from 
 the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, 
 because of the blindness of their heart." Eph. iv. 18. 
 " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the 
 Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; 
 
184 DOCTRINE OF OUR STANDARDS. 
 
 neither can he hnow them, because they are spiritual- 
 ly discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14. Here it is manifest that 
 our depravity affects the understanding. Hence in 
 conversion it is necessary that we he enlightened to 
 discern spiritual things. *'The eyes of your under- 
 standing being enlightened." Eph. i. 18. ^Tor God 
 who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 
 hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the 
 knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus 
 Christ." 2 Cor. iv. 6. "And have put on the new 
 man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image 
 of him that created him." Col. iii. 10. 
 
 Depravity is also predicated of the heart and con- 
 science. "The heart is deceitful above all things, 
 and desperately wicked." Jer. xvii. 9. "But unto 
 them that are defiled and unbelieving, is nothing 
 pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." 
 Tit. i. 15. Do these texts refer exclusively to the 
 will ? or do they not include also the other moral 
 powers ? As the heart is the seat of the affections, to 
 say that the heart is wicked, is equivalent to declaring 
 the affections to be depraved and alienated from God. 
 Accordingly, to change the heart is to give us a holy 
 temper — to renew our affections. "The Lord thy 
 God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy 
 seed, to love the Lord thy God." Deut. xxx. 6. "And 
 I will put a new spirit within you, and I will take the 
 stony heart out of their flesh and will give them a 
 heart of flesh." Ezek. xi. 19. When this is done, our 
 conscience will likewise be rectified. " Having our 
 hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." Heb. x. 22. 
 
REMARKS OF DR. WITHERSPOON. 185 
 
 Then, too, the will which is controlled by the state of 
 the heart, is sweetly inclined by the same Spirit to 
 choose and rest upon Christ as the portion of the soul. 
 "My people shall be willing in the day of thy power." 
 Psa. ex. 3. 
 
 From this view of the subject, it appears that the 
 fall has affected the whole moral man. What God 
 says of Judah is applicable to all mankind. "The 
 whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From 
 the sole of the foot even unto the head, there is no 
 soundness in it." Isa. i. 5, 6. This doctrine, we 
 admit, is very humiliating, and calculated to^make 
 the sinner feel his dependence upon God. But this, 
 instead of being an objection, is a proof of its correct- 
 ness. While it must not be so interpreted as to anni- 
 hilate or even impair the sinner's obligation, or form 
 any excuse for his impenitence and unbelief, it is a 
 doctrine which is pre-eminently adapted to drive him 
 from those refuges of self-righteousness and self-suffi- 
 ciency, which prove the ruin of so many souls, and 
 lead him to seek salvation only through the grace and 
 righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is, indeed, the very 
 point to which sinners always come before they em- 
 brace the Saviour. 
 
 On this subject Dr. Witherspoon uses the following 
 language : " On a conviction of our own inability, one 
 would think we should but the more humbly and the more 
 earnestly apply to Him, who is all-sufficient in power 
 and grace. The deplorable and naturally helpless 
 state of sinners, doth not hinder exhortations to them 
 in Scripture ; and therefore takes not away their obli- 
 16* 
 
186 DEPENDENCE — VIEWS OF WITHERSPOON. 
 
 gation to duty. See an address, where the strongest 
 metaphors are retained, the exhortation given in these 
 very terms, and the foundation of the' duty plainly 
 pointed out: 'Wherefore he saith. Awake thou that 
 sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall 
 give thee light.' From which it is very plain, that 
 the moral inability, under which sinners now lie, as a 
 consequence of the fall, is not of such a nature as to 
 take away the guilt of sin, the propriety of exhorta- 
 tion to duty, or the necessity of endeavours after 
 recovery." "I make no scruple to acknow- 
 ledge, that it is impossible for me; nay, I find no diffi- 
 culty in supposing that it is impossible for any finite 
 mind, to point out the bounds between the 'dependence' 
 
 and 'activity' of the creature." "The new 
 
 birth is a ' supernatural change;' it is the eifect of the 
 power of God ; it is the work of the Holy Ghost. I 
 have been at the more pains to establish this truth, 
 because I am persuaded, that until it be truly received 
 there may be a form, but there can be nothing of the 
 
 power of godliness." " But what shall we 
 
 say? Alas! the very subject we are now speaking 
 of affords a new proof of the blindness, prejudice, and 
 obstinacy of sinners. They are self-condemned ; for 
 they do not act the same part in similar cases. The 
 affairs of the present life are not managed in so pre- 
 posterous a manner. He that ploughs his ground, 
 and throws in his seed, cannot so much as unite one 
 grain to the clod ; nay, he is not able to conceive how 
 it is done. He cannot carry on, nay, he cannot so 
 much as begin one single step of this wonderful pro- 
 
DEPRAVITY. 187 
 
 cess towards the subsequent crop ; the mortification of 
 the seed, the resurrection of the blade, and gradual 
 increase, till it come to perfect maturity. Is it, there- 
 fore, reasonable that he should say, ' I for my part 
 can do nothing ; it is, first and last, an effect of divine 
 power and energy: and God can as easily raise a crop 
 Avithout sowing as with it ; in a single instant, and in 
 any place, as in. a long time by the mutual influence 
 of soil and season ; I will therefore spare myself the 
 hardship of toil and labour, and wait with patience 
 till I see what he will be pleased to send V Would 
 not this be madness? Would it not be universally 
 reputed so ? And w^ould it not be equal madness to 
 turn the grace of God into licentiousness ? Believe it, 
 the warning is equally reasonable and equally neces- 
 sary, in spiritual as in temporal things. 'Be not 
 deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man 
 soweth, that shall he also reap : for he that soweth to 
 the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he 
 that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life 
 everlasting.' " — Practical Treatise on Regeneration, 
 Sect. 4. 
 
 But while the doctrine of human inability and de- 
 pendence upon God, as understood and believed by 
 the friends of the Old Theology, does not destroy 
 accountableness, nor impair obligation, nor discourage 
 effort; but brings the sinner to his proper place, be- 
 fore the throne of divine mercy; we think the doctrine 
 of ability^ as maintained by the advocates of the New 
 Theology, is calculated to produce such independence 
 of feeling, w^th regard to the Spirit's influences, as to 
 
188 REVIVALS— MR. FINNEY. 
 
 be a serious obstacle to genuine conversion. Among 
 the "false comforts for sinners," which Mr. Finney 
 enumerates, one is, "telling the sinner io pray for a 
 new heart,'' He asks, "Does God say. Pray for a 
 ne^Y heart? Never. He says, 'Make you a new 
 heart.' And the sinner is not to be told to pray to 
 God to do his duty for him, but to go and do it him- 
 self." — Lectures on Revivals^, ^. 318. Thus it ap- 
 pears, we must not direct sinners to seek God for 
 renewing grace, because they have sufficient ability of 
 their own to perform the work. To preach to them 
 the necessity of the Spirit's influences, while exhorting 
 them to duty, would be according to him "unphiloso- 
 phical." AVe must tell them "to go and do it them- 
 selves." AVhat kind of conversions is such instruction 
 as this calculated to produce?* It is no wonder that 
 
 * Let the reader judge of the probable effect upon the sinner 
 of preaching such doctrines as are developed in the follo"wing 
 conversation between a licentiate, a student from New Haven, 
 and two highly respectable ministers, in 1832. It was taken 
 down at the time by one of the ministers, as he has informed 
 me, " the paper sealed up, and has been kept since a secret." 
 In communicating it to me a few weeks ago, he observes : "If 
 you judge it to be proper, you are now at liberty to use the 
 document in your forthcoming book ; suppressing the names 
 for the present, but considering me as responsible for the state- 
 ment, and ready to give the names hereafter if necessary." 
 
 **Mr. , [one of the ministers,] in the course of general 
 
 conversation, alluded to New Haven as a school of Theology, 
 
 and asked finally that Mr. , [the licentiate,] would state 
 
 what were the peculiarities of Professor Fitches scheme of na- 
 tural depravity. Mr. avowed himself a believer in that 
 
 scheme, and stated among other things, in substance as fol- 
 
REVIVALS — MR. FINNEY. 189 
 
 the revivals of religion wliicli have occurred within 
 the last ten years, under the ministry of such men, 
 should furnish so many examples of apostacy. In a 
 
 lows: (many of the following views, he said, however, were 
 Ids oivn, and not chargeable upon any others, or any particular 
 school:) that 'moral character was predicated entirely on 
 choice between good and evil : that man was not regarded with 
 displeasure in the sight of God, either by impiitatioji of origiiial 
 sin, or as having a disposition to evil. He was in no sense a 
 sinner, until of sufi&cient age and capacity to choose for him- 
 self; and t/" there was a period in his existence previous to 
 that, during that period he was an innocent being.' " 
 
 " The bearing of this on the doctrine of regeneration was then 
 
 suggested ; whereupon Mr. stated in substance, that he 
 
 did not regard the saying of Christ to Nicodemus, * that which 
 is born of the JlesJi is Jlesh, and that which is born of the Spirit 
 is spirit,' as implying any thing like a new moral nature, oppo- 
 site to his first nature, as given to him in regeneration. He 
 believed that subject had been misunderstood. There was 
 indeed a necessity for regeneration, but it consisted not in the 
 implantation of new principles, but the rational turning of the 
 same principles to a new course. As to the loay in which it was 
 produced, God's help was indeed necessary, but no more so 
 than in every other action of man. He presented motives, and 
 when a man sincerely made up his resolution to follow them, 
 and did decide to do so, that was the beginning of a new life.' 
 
 Mr. asked him if any sinner ever did come to Christ 
 
 without yeeZm^ his helpless and lost condition? Mr. said 
 
 ' he thought, yes; and mentioned his own case.' " 
 
 "The bearing of the subject on atonement and justification 
 
 was next alluded to ; and Mr. [the licentiate,] observed 
 
 * that it was a scheme which did indeed run through the whole. 
 As to atonement, he believed in it, but he semed to consider it 
 as consisting in what lay between God and his intelligent uni- 
 verse exclusively, and that for laying a ground of justifying his 
 own proceedings; as such, a man ought to trust in or believe 
 
190 REVIVALS — MR. FINNEY. 
 
 discourse delivered by Mr. Finney in Chatham street 
 chapel, in 1836, are found such sentences as the fol- 
 
 the atonement: but in [the] matter of personal experience we 
 had nothing to do with it; the righteousness of Christ is in no 
 sense imputed to us : we must be accepted on the ground of 
 our own obedience.' " 
 
 "Much was said also oitlie practical influence of such a style 
 
 of preaching; and it was objected to Mr. 's scheme, that 
 
 taking men as they are, they would be likely to interpret his 
 views of their own powers and independency as even more 
 favourable to themselves than he probably intended: and Mr. 
 
 [one of the ministers] remarked that as the gospel was 
 
 represented * to be a seeking and saving that which was lost;* 
 *to kill and make alive;' he had always felt it to be more 
 necessary to show men their helplessness connected with their 
 guilt, and a way of hope, than to persuade them of their own 
 powers. Mr. [the licentiate,] held the opposite opin- 
 ion. He seemed to think that the reason why many moro 
 were not pious, was, that too many and unnecessary difficulties 
 were left in the way. They ought to be reasoned with more: 
 show them that this work is not so hard and unreasonable: 
 they could be persuaded to make a choice if you would only 
 present the thing as rational; and many were thus won, 
 where this scheme was now adopted.' He said much of the 
 figurative language of Scripture, and seemed to think that 
 such passages as *the carnal mind is enmity against God,' did 
 not apply to men at the present age of the world, but peculiar- 
 ly to the Jews, on account of their prejudices. The opposition 
 which we have often witnessed against religion in natural men 
 is not so much against God or religion itself, as against the 
 prejudiced representations of it by mistaken teachers.' " 
 
 This individual, who is denominated by my correspondent 
 "a respectable young man," was at that time, as I infer from 
 his letter, seeking a settlement in a Presbyterian congrega- 
 tion. 
 
REMARKS OF DR. REED. 191 
 
 lowing :* "You profess that you want to have sinners 
 converted. But what avails it if they sink right back 
 again into conformity to the world?" .... "Where 
 are the proper results of the glorious revivals we have 
 had?" "The great body of them [the con- 
 verts of the last ten years] are a disgrace to religion." 
 . ..." Of what use is it to convert sinners and make 
 them such Christians as these?" This is an acknow- 
 ledgment that the fruits of those revivals are not such 
 as were anticipated — and so long as converts are 
 made under the influence of such doctrines, and that 
 system of measures which corresponds with them, we 
 must expect similar results. Their goodness will be 
 as the morning cloud, and as the early dew it will 
 pass away. 
 
 The following remarks of Dr. Reed, one of the 
 delegates from England to the American churches, 
 accord with the sentiments and observation of very 
 many in America, who have been " witnesses of these 
 things." "The New Divinity and the New Measures 
 have greatly coalesced, and they have given for the 
 time, currency to each other. Many pious and ardent 
 persons and preachers, from the causes to which I 
 have adverted, were disposed to think that the new 
 opinions had all the advantage in a revival, and this "-M 
 gave them all the preference in their judgment. Where 
 they in connection with the New Measures have been 
 
 * We quote from the Literary and Theological Review. The 
 sermon it appears was reported in the New York Evangelist, 
 February 13, 183G. 
 
192 REMARKS OP DR. REED. 
 
 vigorously applied, there has, indeed, been no want 
 of excitement. The preacher who firmly believes that 
 the conversion of men rests on the force of moral 
 suasion^ is not unlikely to be persuasive. And the 
 hearer whoTs' told ' he can convert himself,' that it is 
 ' as easy for him to do so as to walk,' that he has only 
 * to resolve to do it and it is done,' is not unlikely to be 
 moved into self-complacent exertion. But it may be 
 asked, does either the preacher or the hearer possess 
 those sentiments which are likely to lead to a true 
 conversion, and to bring forth fruits meet for repent- 
 ance?" 
 
 "By their fruits ye shall know them. There has 
 certainly been good done where there has been much 
 evil, for with this evil there has been a large portion 
 of divine truth. But I fear not to say, that where 
 I there has been the largest infusion of the New Divi-. 
 j nity into the New Measures, there has been the- 
 / greatest amount of unwarrantable extravagance.} 
 I There has been great excitement, much animal emo-l 
 tion and sympathy, high resolves, and multiplied con-j 
 versions, hut time has tested them and they have] 
 t failed,''' 
 
 
CONTRAST — OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 193 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY, BY WAY 
 OF REVIEW, AND A NOTICE OF THE PERFECTIONISM OF MR. 
 FINNEY. 
 
 That the reader may see at a single view the most 
 prominent points of difference between the Old and 
 New Theology, we shall exhibit them in few words by 
 way of contrast : — in doing which we shall take a kind 
 of retrospect of the subject, and exemplify some of 
 the principles which have been noticed, by a few addi- 
 tional quotations. 
 
 1. The Old Theology places God upon the throne 
 of the universe, and makes him competent to say con- 
 cerning all creatures and events, "My counsel shall 
 stand, and I will do all my pleasure." The New 
 makes him so dependent upon the volitions of moral 
 agents, that he is liable to suffer disappointment, and 
 to have his happiness diminished, by the uncontrolla- 
 ble agency of men : — and this not only in the present 
 world, but in the next. Prof. Fitch affirms that God's 
 " purpose was to confer on the beings composing his 
 moral kingdom, the power of volition and choice, and 
 to use the best influence Gfod could use on the whole 
 to secure the holiness and prevent the sin of such 
 beings, wh^o themselves, and not he, were to have im- 
 mediate 'power over their volitions.''' Again: "We 
 affirm that the causes in Mnd which originate sin, 
 being inseparably inherent in a moral universe, may 
 so accumulate in degree under every system of pro- 
 17 
 
194 CONTRAST — THE FALL. 
 
 vidence and government which can he loursued, as to 
 render sure the occurrence of sin. If in a universe 
 of such beings, no possible system of providence 
 adopted mid pursued through eternity can shut 
 out all occasions of the outhreahings of sin, it is easy 
 to see, that as to his preventing it, sin is unavoidably 
 incidental to the acts of the Creator in creating and 
 
 governing such a kingdom." " The causes 
 
 in hind which are known to originate sin in the pre- 
 sent universe, must necessarily be present in any pos- 
 sible universe of moral beings." "If the 
 
 causes of defectibility are thus inseparable from the 
 existence of a universe of moral beings, is there not a 
 ground of prohahility that they will lead to actual 
 defection in every jyossible system as tvell as in 
 this?'' — "Review of Dr. Fisk's Discourse on Predes- 
 tination and Election, and a Defence of that Review 
 in the Christian Spectator." What low and unwor- 
 thy views does this statement convey concerning the 
 Deity ! What dismal prospects it presents to the ex- 
 pectant of future and eternal bliss ! 
 
 2. The Old Theology regards the fall of man as a 
 c atastr ophe so direful in its effects, that no power less 
 than Omnipotence is adequate to "quicken sinners 
 who are dead in trespasses and sins." The New 
 treats it as a calamity, which the sinner is able, since 
 the introduction of a system of mercy through Jesus 
 Christ, to repair himself. Says Mr. Finney, " Now 
 suppose God to have come out upon Adam with the 
 command of the text, ^ Make you a new heart, for why 
 will ye die V Could Adam have justly answered, 
 
CONTRAST — COVENANT WITH ADAM. 195 
 
 Dost thou think that I can change my own heart 'i 
 Can I, who have a heart totally depraved, can I 
 change that heart ? Might not the Almighty have 
 answered him in words of fire, Rebel, you have just 
 changed your heart from holiness to sin, now change 
 it back from sin to holiness." — Servians on Important 
 Subjects^ p. 13. See also Mr. Barnes's remarks on 
 the text, " When we were without strength, Christ 
 died for the ungodly," in Chap. vii. We shall like- 
 wise give one or two additional quotations in the pre- 
 sent chapter, under the head of Ability. 
 
 3. The Old Theology maintains that Adam was tho 
 federal head of his posterity, and that, by breaking 
 the covenant under which he was placed, he involved 
 not only himself, but all his posterity, in sin and 
 misery — the guilt of his first sin being imputed to them, 
 or set over in law to their account ; so that they all 
 come into the world with depraved and sinful natures. 
 The New denies that we sustain a covenant relation 
 to Adam ; and maintains that he was only our natural 
 head and father — from whose sin it results as a mat- 
 ter of fact, according to the common laws of human 
 society, and that all his posterity become sinners 
 when they arrive at moral agency; before which time 
 they are neither sinful nor holy ; and that they 
 become sinners by their own voluntary act, after a 
 trial, it would seem, similar to what Adam had. 
 Says Dr. Taylor, in reply to a supposed objection, 
 " Why render this universal sinfulness of a race, the 
 consequence of one man's act ? why not give to each 
 a fair trial for himself?" " I answer, God does give 
 
Q 
 
 196 CONTRAST — DR. TAYLOR' S REMARKS. 
 
 to each a fair trial for himself. Not a human heing 
 does or can become thus sinful or depraved but by his 
 own choice, God does not compel him to sin by the 
 nature he gives him. Nor is his sin, although a con- 
 sequence of Adam's sin, in such a sense its conse- 
 quence as not to be a free voluntary act of his own. 
 He sins freely, voluntarily. There is no other way 
 of sinning. God, (there is no irreverence in saying 
 it,) can make nothing else sin but the sinner's act." — 
 Concio ad Clerum. 
 
 Mr. Barnes observes: "If it were a dogma of a 
 pretended revelation, that God might at pleasure, 
 and by an arbitrary decree, make crime pass from 
 one individual to another — striking onward from 
 age to age, and reaching downward to ' the last sea- 
 son of recorded time' — punished in the original offen- 
 der ; repunished in his children ; and punished again 
 and again by infinite multiples, in countless ages and 
 individuals; and all this judicial infliction, for a sin- 
 gle act, performed cycles of ages before the individ- 
 uals lived, we see not how any evidence could shake 
 our intrinsic belief that this is unjust and improba-^ 
 
 ble." "We never can adopt that system 
 
 which tramples on the analogies which actually exist, 
 and holds men to be personally answerable, and actu- 
 ally 'punished by a just God, for an act committed 
 thousands of years before they were born. Such a 
 doctrine is no where to be found in the Scriptures." — 
 Introductory Essay to Butler s Analogy, pp. 35, 39. 
 
 All that we deem it necessary to say concerning 
 the views contained in these extracts, is, that U7ii- 
 
CONTRAST — THE ATONEMENT. 197 
 
 tarians consider them '^ sound and lucid." In the 
 Review of Mr. Barnes's Notes on the Romans, in the 
 Christian Examiner, already referred to, [a Unitarian 
 Quarterly] the reviewer says: "On the subject of 
 man's nature, capacities, and duty, our author is 
 sound and lucid. The idea of hereditary depravity 
 he spurns, as unworthy of even a passing notice. He 
 asserts repeatedly that men sin only in their own 
 person, in themselves, as indeed how can they sin in 
 any other way? The imputation of Adam's trans- 
 gression he treats as a scholastic absurdity." .... 
 f ''Of the figment of Adam's federal headship and the 
 I condemnation of his posterity for partnership in his 
 I sin, Mr. Barnes says ' there is not one word of it in 
 ! the Bible.' "* 
 
 ■^" The views of Socmus are as follows: 
 
 Quest. 1. "Is it in our power fully to obey the command- 
 ments of God?'' 
 
 Answ. "Certainly; for it is evident, that the first man was 
 so formed by God, that he was endued with free will; and no 
 reason existed why he should be deprived of this power after 
 the fall; nor was it consistent with the justice of God, that 
 man should be deprived of free will. Accordingly, in the 
 punishment inflicted on his sin, there is no mention made of 
 any such loss." 
 
 Quest. 2. " But is not the will of man vitiated by original 
 sin?" 
 
 Answ. "There is no such thing as original sin; the Scrip- 
 ture teaches no such doctrine ; and the will of man could not 
 be vitiated by a cause which had no existence. The sin of 
 Adam, being a single act, could not corrupt his own nature, 
 much less had it power to deprave the nature of all his poste- 
 rity. That this sin should be charged on them, is, as has been 
 
 17* 
 
 ^ 
 
198 CONTRAST — THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 4. The Old Theology maintains that the atone- 
 ment consisted in rendering satisfaction to divine jus- 
 tice by the vicarious sufferings of Christ, who endured 
 in our stead the penalty of the law, and offered up 
 himself an acceptable sacrifice to God : by which of- 
 fering God's "favour was propitiated for us," his law 
 magnified, and his government sustained: so that 
 without doing violence to his holy nature, or relin- 
 quishing the claims of his law, or dishonouring his 
 government, he secured the salvation of those who 
 were given to Christ in the covenant of redemption ; 
 John xvii. 2 ; Isa. liii. 11, 12 ; and laid the founda- 
 tion for a free offer of mercy to all who hear the gos- 
 pel. Mark xvi. 15 ; John iii. 16. 
 
 The New Theology considers the atonement as in- 
 volving a suspension of the penalty of the law, and 
 as consisting in a ''symbolical display'' to the uni- 
 verse, for the purpose of producing such an impres- 
 sion of God's hatred to sin, as would render it safe 
 and proper for him as moral Governor, to bestow 
 pardon upon sinners : and as to sinners themselves, 
 it is an ''experiment,'' made by God for their salva- 
 tion; which, through his impotency to control moral 
 agents, may fail of its intended result.* Among 
 
 said, a doctrine unknown to the Scriptures; and it is utterly 
 incredible, that God, who is the fountain of equity, should be 
 willing to impute it to them." — Racovian tna^ec/iiswi^ compiled 
 from the writings of Socinus, anopublished A. D. 1606 ; trans- 
 lated for the Biblical Repertory ; q. v. 
 
 * I have not met with any writer who expressed himself in 
 this revolting form, except Mr. Jenkyn, in his work on the 
 
CONTRAST — THE ATONEMENT. 199 
 
 other relations of the atonement discussed bj Mr, 
 Jenkyn, he considers it in relation to the purposes 
 and providences of God. Under the former he ob- 
 serves, "The various dispensations of probation are 
 various experiments in moral government, in which 
 God submits Ms own plans and ways to the accept- 
 ance and for the use of free agents. If any object 
 to the word ^ experiment , I beg to refer them for the 
 meaning of it, to the parable of the barren fig-tree, 
 and to that of the husbandman sending his servants, 
 and afterwards his son to the vineyard. These dis- 
 pensations or experiments are capable of failure. 
 The Eden experiment failed — and the Sinai experi- 
 ment failed. Such susceptibility of failure has been \ 
 shown to be incidental to a moral government and a | 
 state of trial," Under its relation to providence he 
 says, "The measures of providence are liable to fail- 
 ure. A medicine may fail, notwithstanding the virtue 
 which providence has given it. The crop of the hus- 
 bandman may fail, notwithstanding the provision 
 that seed-time and harvest-time shall continue. The 
 morbid fear of acknowledging such a liableness to 
 failure in the measures of providence is unaccounta- 
 ble, when Crod declares his own government of the 
 Jeu)s^ under the theocracy^ to have failed of its end, 
 ' In vain have I smitten them, they have refused to 
 
 Atonement. But this is a correct statement, it appears to me, 
 of the doctrine, as held by those (if they are consistent) who, 
 in connection with the New-school view of atonement, adopt 
 also the new theory concerning the character and government 
 of God. 
 
 i 
 
200 CONTRAST — Christ's righteousness. 
 
 receive correction.' Jer. ii. 30. The word of God 
 distinctly and expressly recognizes the same liableness 
 to failure in the great measure of atonement. Are 
 you sure that it is not attachment to system rather 
 than attachment to the truth that makes you hesitate 
 to avow it?" pp. 97, 168. Quere. If God's "plan' 
 or '"'experiment,'" or '•'measure of atonement,'' is 
 liable to failure; and if it does fail in numerous 
 instances, as Mr. Jenkyn intimates, and elsewhere 
 admits, what security have we that it will not fail 
 altogether? What if it should happen, that when 
 '' submitted to the acceptance of free agents,'' they 
 should all object to it, and refuse to comply with its 
 conditions ! Has God poiver to control the exercise 
 of their free agency and persuade them to change 
 their minds? or may they not, in despite of his 
 mightiest influence, persist in rejecting Christ, and 
 so despoil him of his mediatorial reward ? 
 
 5. The Old Theology arrays the believer in the 
 robe of Christ's righteousness ; which being imputed 
 to him and received by faith, is the ground of his 
 justification before God. "This is his name whereby 
 he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.'* 
 Jer. xxiii. 6. "And be found in him, not having 
 mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that 
 which is through the faith of Christ, the righteous- 
 ness of God by faith." Phil. iii. 9. "And to her 
 [the Lamb's wife, the church,] was granted, that she 
 should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white : for 
 the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." Rev. 
 xix. 8. "You have here," says Henry, "a descrij)- 
 
CONTRAST — Christ's righteousness. 201 
 
 tion of the bride, how she appeared ; in fine linen, 
 clean and white, which is, the righteousness of saints; 
 in the robes of Christ's righteousness, both imputed 
 for justification, and imparted for sanctification." 
 
 The New Theology discards the doctrine of impu- 
 ted righteousness, and maintains that the believer's 
 faith, being an act which God approves, and which 
 leads to other holy acts, is reckoned to him for right- 
 eousness ; and in consequence of it God pardons his 
 sin and receives him into favour. "Faith," says Mr. 
 Finney, " is the appointed instrument of our justifi- 
 cation, because it is the natural instrument of sancti- 
 fication. It is the instrument of bringing us back to 
 obedience, and therefore is designated as the means 
 of obtaining the blessings of that return. It is not 
 imputed to us by an arbitrary act, for what it is not, 
 but for what it is, as the foundation of all real obe- 
 dience to God. This is the reason why faith is made 
 the medium through which pardon comes. It is sim- 
 ply set down to us for what it really is ; because it 
 first leads us to obey God from a principle of love to 
 him." — Lectures to Professing Christians, p. 221. 
 
 Which of these doctrines is more calculated to 
 humble the creature and to honour Christ? "If faith 
 itself is our justifying righteousness, then it justifies 
 as a work, as truly as any other works could; and" 
 . . . . "if a man is justified on account of the act 
 of believing, and that act he can perform by the 
 power of free will, he has as much ground of boasting 
 as he could possibly have, if he had been justified 
 by other works." — Dr, Alexander. 
 
202 CONTRAST — HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 6. The Old Theology places the sinner at the 
 threshold of sovereign mercy, a dependent though 
 guilty suppliant for grace and salvation. The New 
 gives him sufficient ability to do all that God requires 
 of him, without divine aid. In a review of Watson's 
 Institutes in the Christian Spectator, are found the 
 following: "He [Mr. Watson] repeatedly speaks of 
 the power of the will, by which he intends, of course, 
 its 'gracious ability' before the fall, as being lost by 
 Adam, 'for himself and for his descendants.' " . . . . 
 "Admitting it to be true in Adam's case, that by sin- 
 ning he was shorn of his power to obey God, what 
 Las this to do with his posterity'^ The principle 
 assumed in the argument, renders it impossible, that 
 their moral agency should be unhinged, until they 
 exist and sin; therefore Adams sin could have no 
 more tendency to destroy their power to choose good, 
 or to set their teeth on edge, than it had to produce 
 the same effects upon Satan and his apostate host,'' 
 " We should like to know, whether the ad- 
 mirers of Mr. Watson believe it impossible for God to 
 create a being, possessing in himself the ability to 
 choose good a?id be holy, without the gift of the Sp)irit? 
 and if so, where is his omnipotence ? If it is admitted 
 that he can create such a being, we ask whether the 
 principles of divine government do not fully demon- 
 strate, that mayi is such a being? If he is not, is 
 God's government adapted to him? What notion 
 f can be formed of a subject of moral government, who 
 is destitute of moral liberty? or in other words, 
 who, in every instance of obedience or disobedience, 
 
CONTRAST — THE HOLY SPIRIT. 203 
 
 does not act with inherent power to the contrary 
 choiCQV''— Christian Spectator, 1835, pp. 376, 377. 
 
 7. The Old Theology makes regeneration a radical 
 change — a change in the disposition and temper of 
 the sinner, as well as in his acts. The New regards 
 it as merely giving a different direction to our consti- 
 tutional desires; but appears to make little or no dif- 
 ference between .the 'princij)les of action, in converted 
 and unconverted men. They differ only as to the 
 
 ( "..fZi^ ^^ pursuit." In reference to a sentiment ad- 
 vanced by Dr. Griffin, that the sinner has no taste for 
 holiness, and therefore cannot be regenerated by 
 motives, Mr. Gilbert remarks, " The impenitent sin- 
 ner has no Haste' for conviction; his unholy temper 
 is as really opposed to truth as to holiness ; and this 
 philosophy would make it as impossible to convict as 
 to convert him; to sanctify as to regenerate him. 
 The unconverted man has no Haste' for conviction, 
 nor the converted man for more sanctification." 
 Mark, " Tlie unconverted man has no taste for con- 
 viction, nor the converted 7nan for more sanctifica- 
 tion !" What then is the difference between the taste 
 or temper, or disposition of an impenitent sinner, and 
 a child of God ? For aught we can perceive, they 
 are precisely the same. 
 
 8. The Old Theology gives honour to Christ and 
 the Holy Spirit — the New has a tendency to throw 
 them, particularly the latter, into the shade. "You 
 
 * Concerning the power of contrary choice, see Dr. Beecher's 
 views, and Dr. Harvey's remarks upon them in Chapter vii. 
 
204 CONTRAST — PREACHING CHRIST. 
 
 see (says Mr. Finney) how unphilosopliical it is, "while 
 pressing the sinner to submission, to divert his mind 
 and turn his attention to the subject of the Spirit's 
 influence. While his attention is directed to that 
 subject, his submission is impossible." Sermons on 
 Important Subjects, p. 61. Of course, those who 
 would be instrumental in converting sinners, must 
 say little or nothing about the Spirit.* And it is 
 true, as a matter of fact, that the class of preachers 
 
 * I have in my possession a written statement communi- 
 cated to me by a very respectable minister, which affords 
 another illustration of this sentiment. Says he, "In the sum- 
 mer of 1832, while travelling in the valley of the Mississippi, 
 
 I spent a few weeks in the city of , and gave assistance, 
 
 as I was able, by request of the pastor in church of that 
 
 place. Unusual attention to religion existed when I arrived, 
 and continued for some time. A strong tendency was mani- 
 fested both to new doctrines and new measures. One evening 
 when on the way to the church with the pastor, where I had 
 engaged to preach, Tie requested I should say nothing in my 
 preaching, concerning the influences of the Spirit, as he had 
 new views on repentance. He did not deny the work of the 
 Spirit, but thought it should not be preached. He was then, 
 and still remains a leading member of his Synod." To this 
 we will add the following: 
 
 A former student of Dr. Taylor has informed me, verbally, 
 that he heard Dr. Taylor advance the sentiment in two differ- 
 ent sermons, "that sinners must act in the loork of conversion 
 just as if there was no Holy Ghost." To prove the truth of his 
 remark, he alluded to Acts xix. 2. "We have not so much as 
 heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.'' He had heard, 
 also, through others, of Dr. Taylor's advancing the same senti- 
 ment at different times ; and he believed he was in the habit of 
 doing it where he preached a course of revival sermons. 
 
CONTRAST — THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 205 
 
 to which we now refer, say almost as little about 
 Christ as about the Spirit. They preach much about 
 submitting to Grod; but they seldom exhibit the 
 second person of the Trinity, in his mediatorial cha- 
 racter, and the duty of embracing him as a Saviour. 
 The apostolic direction, "Believe in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ," is exchanged for a phraseology which is cal- 
 culated to convey the impression that conversion con- 
 sists in the mere choice of God as a moral Governor. 
 This indeed is Mr. Finney's account of it. "It [a 
 change of heart] is a change in the choice of a Su- 
 'preme Ruler J' .... "The world is divided into 
 two great political parties; the difference between 
 them is, that one party choose Satan as the God of 
 this world;" .... "the other party choose Jehovah 
 for their Governor." Jesus Christ, as a distinct per- 
 son in the Godhead, and faith in him as our Ke- 
 deemer, appear to have little to do in the process.* 
 
 9. The Old Theology honours the Holy Scriptures, 
 by drawing its doctrines and proofs from this source 
 
 * In the summer of 1834, I heard a sermon from Professor 
 of New Haven. I do not recollect that there was a 
 
 sentiment in it to which I took exceptions ; and yet there was 
 such an absence of what a Christian desires and expects to 
 find, in a sermon which professed to teach us how we may ap- 
 proach God with acceptance, as to affol'd too much reason for 
 the observation of a pious and intelligent lady soon after, viz : 
 *' that he kept Christ and the Holy Spirit so much out of view, 
 she could not help thinking that he was a deist." This lady 
 had not yet heard the name or residence of the preacher; and 
 of course could not have been influenced by any considerations 
 of this kind. 
 
 18 
 
206 CONTRAST — PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 alone, without calling in the aid of philosophy. The 
 ^New resorts to the latter, in order to obtain its first 
 (p principles; and then interprets the former so as to 
 make them accord with these philosophical opinions. 
 This remark, we are aware, may be called in ques- 
 tion. The leaders in the New-school party have had 
 much to say concerning the '' facts'' of Scripture, and 
 have charged their brethren of the Old-school with 
 resorting to philosophy. But a little investigation of 
 this subject, will show the statement first made to be 
 strictly true. In Mr. Finney's two sermons on the 
 duty of sinners to change their own hearts, he uses 
 the words philosophy, philosophical, unphilosophical, 
 &c., at least fourteen times. He tells us about " the 
 fliilosoipliy of conversion," "the philosophy of self- 
 examination," and "the philosophy of special efi'orts 
 to promote revivals of religion." Every step in the 
 change is brought to the test of philosop)hy: and the 
 failure of the sinner to submit to God is ascribed in] 
 one instance to his not understanding the fhilosophy\ /q 
 of the process. " He, therefore, (says he) who does^ 
 not understand the philosophy of this ; who does not 
 understand the use and power of attention^ the use 
 and power of conscience, and upon what to fix his 
 mind, to lead him to a right decision, will naturally 
 complain that he does not know how to submit." The 
 Scriptures are also brought forward and compared by 
 this rule. " When he [Joshua] assembled the people 
 of Israel and laid their duty before them, and said, 
 * choose you this day whom ye will serve,' he did not 
 unphilosophically remind them at the same time of 
 
CONTRAST — OBSERVATIONS. 207 
 
 their dependence upon the Spirit of God." Thus we 
 have philosophical preaching, philosophical protracted 
 meetings, philosophical self-examination, philosophical 
 submission, and philosophical conversion. May not 
 the result of the whole be a merely philosophical J 
 christian f Other proofs which might be adduced, 
 from different writers, we must leave to those who 
 desire to examine this subject. *^^ 
 
 It may possibly be said that we have given more 
 prominence to Mr. Finney than was proper; since he 
 goes further than most of his brethren, and is not, 
 therefore, a fair specimen of their views. We admit 
 he has expressed himself more freely than perhaps 
 any one else; but if we compare the quotations made 
 from various authors, we shall perceive they all belong 
 to the same family. It has been our aim both in our 
 statements and quotations, to exhibit the doctrines of 
 the New Theology, just as they are, without the least 
 exaggeration. For this purpose our extracts from 
 New-school authors have been numerous, and suffi- 
 ciently extended as to length, to give a correct view 
 of their sentiments.* But if it can be made to ap- 
 pear that we have misrepresented their views in a 
 single important point, we shall cheerfully rectify the 
 mistake. 
 
 ^' In the succeeding chapters, not found in the first two edi- 
 tions, additional facts are given touching their views — also 
 other important matters. 
 
208 MR. Finney's perfectionism. 
 
 PERFECTIONISM OF MR. FINNEY. 
 
 There is one extreme into which Mr. Finney has 
 fallen, that we by no means charge upon the New 
 School, as a body — and we have therefore as yet 
 entirely omitted it. We mean his perfectionism. In 
 this we presume he has few followers. We will how- 
 ever bestow upon it a little attention, that it may 
 serve as a beacon to admonish those who have em- 
 barked on the voyage of religious discovery. 
 
 In his Lectures to professing Christians, he has two 
 on Christian Perfection ; and he adverts to the sub- 
 ject in several others. He defines perfection in the 
 following words : " It is to love the Lord our God 
 with all our heart and soul and mind and strength, 
 and to love our neighbour as ourselves." This he 
 maintains is attainable in the present life. " 1. God 
 wills it. 2. All the promises and prophecies of God 
 that respect the sanctification of believers in this 
 world, are to be understood of course of their perfect 
 sanctification. 3. Perfect sanctification is the great 
 blessing promised throughout the Bible. 4. The per- 
 fect sanctification of believers is the very object for 
 which the Holy Spirit is promised. 5. If it is not a 
 practicable duty to be perfectly holy in this world, 
 then it will follow that the devil has so completely 
 accomplished his design in corrupting mankind, that 
 Jesus Christ is at a fault, and has no wag to sanctifg 
 his peop)le, but to take them out of the world, 6. If 
 
PERFECTION IN KNOWLEDGE. 209 
 
 perfect sanctification is not attainable in this world, 
 it must be, either from a want of motives in the 
 gospel, or a want of sufficient power in the Spirit of 
 God." 
 
 In another lecture he appears to teach perfection 
 in knowledge as well as in holiness ; amounting to an 
 illumination little short of divine inspiration. " The 
 manner in which the Spirit of God does this," says 
 he, i. e. communicates ideas to the mind without the 
 use of words, "is what we can never know in this 
 world. But the fact is undeniable, that he can reach 
 the mind without the use of words, and can put our 
 minds in possession of the ideas themselves, of which 
 the types, or figures, or words, of the human teacher, 
 are only the signs or imperfect representatives." .... 
 *' The needed influences of the Spirit of God may be 
 
 possessed by all men freely under the gospel." 
 
 " They [ministers] should not attempt to explain pas- 
 sages of which they are not confident they have been 
 taught the meaning by the Holy Spirit. It is pre- 
 sumption. And they need not do it, for they may 
 always have the teachings of the Spirit by asking." 
 
 " This is applicable both to preachers and 
 
 to teachers in Sabbath schools and Bible classes." 
 
 " Will you lay your hearts open to God, 
 
 and not give him rest, till he has filled you with divine 
 knowledge?'^ 
 
 In other lectures he goes further still, and main- 
 tains, if I understand his language, that when the 
 Christian has thus given himself up entirely to Christ, 
 to be taught and governed by him, he becomes so 
 18* 
 
210 CHRIST BECOMES RESPONSIBLE. 
 
 identified with Christ, that his spirit and Christ's 
 Spirit are, morally considered, one — Christ becomes 
 responsible for his acts; and of course he not only 
 ceases from sin, but he cannot commit sin. Whatever 
 he does, Christ is responsible for it. This he calls 
 entering into rest. " When one ceases from his own 
 works, he so perfectly gives up his own interest and 
 his own will, and places himself so perfectly under 
 the dominion and guidance of the Holy Spirit, that 
 whatever he does is done by the impulse of the Spirit 
 
 of God." " They are in one sense our works, 
 
 because we do them by our voluntary agency. Yet in 
 another sense they are his works, because he is the 
 
 moving cause of all." "He [Christ] is just 
 
 as absolutely your sanctification, as your justification. 
 If you depend upon him for sanctification, he will no 
 more let you sin than he will let you go to hell." .... 
 " The reputation of the wife is wholly united to that 
 of her husband, so that his reputation is hers, and her 
 reputation is his. What afi'ects her character affects 
 his; and what afi'ects his character afi'ects hers. Their 
 reputation is one, their interests are one. So with 
 the church; whatever concerns the church is just as 
 much the interest of Christ, as if it was personally his 
 own matter." .... " If any actions or civil liability 
 come against the wife, the husband is responsible. If 
 the wife has committed a trespass, the husband is 
 answerable. It is his business to guide and govern 
 her, and her business to obey, and if he does not 
 restrain her from breaking the laws, he is responsi- 
 ble." "In like manner, Jesus Christ is Lord 
 
MR. pinney's perfectionism. 211 
 
 over his diurch, and if he does not actually restrain 
 
 his church from sin, he has it to answer for." 
 
 '^ It is his business to take care of the church, and 
 control her, and keep her from sin; and for every sin 
 of every member, Jesus Christ is responsible, and must 
 
 answer." "0! if believers would only throw 
 
 themselves wholly on Christ, and make him responsi- 
 ble, by placing themselves entirely at his control, they 
 would know his power to save, and would live without 
 sin." 
 
 We have given these extracts at some length, that 
 those who have not access to his Lectures, may 
 obtain a full view of his sentiments. It is scarcely 
 necessary to remark, that the sentences last quoted 
 are Antinomian. The history of Antinomianism 
 does not furnish many expressions, more licentious 
 in their tendency than these. This heresy is more 
 frequently the result of an abuse of the doctrines of 
 grace ; but in the present instance, it appears to have 
 originated in an opposite cause, viz: in those views 
 of human ability, which render grace in a measure 
 superfluous.* "There is," says he, "no more moral 
 
 * It is supposed by some that there is no logical connection 
 between Mr. Finney's former and present views — but that ho 
 has got upon a new track. Formerly, as one observes, '* he 
 left Christ and the Holy Spirit almost out of view ; he hardly 
 preached the gospel at all; but now Christ and the Holy Spirit 
 are every thing. He pushes union with Christ, imputation, 
 covenant relation, &c., into Antinomianism.^' The only con- 
 nection, he says, between the latter and his Pelagianism, is 
 that he "is a fanatic now as he was before.^' But as others 
 think differently, we shall state the probable process by which 
 
212 MR. FINNEY^ S PERFECTIONISM. 
 
 inability to be 'perfectly holy, than there is to be holy 
 at all." On the same principle, therefore, that he 
 could preach to the sinner the practicability of chang- 
 ing his own heart, he might argue that the Christian 
 can arrive at perfect holiness in this life. He actually 
 adopts the same mode of reasoning in both cases. It 
 is therefore very natural to conclude, that the frequent 
 discussion of the subject of ability in reference to the 
 sinner, had much to do in forming his opinions with 
 regard to Christian perfection. Having arrived at 
 this point, he applied his ideas of perfection, not only 
 to our sanctification, but to all our relations to God. 
 In a lecture from the text, " Who of God is made 
 unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, 
 and redemption;" he considers each of the terms as 
 conveying an idea equally expressive. Since then, 
 according to the views which he had previously 
 adopted, sanctification was to be taken as implying 
 perfect holiness, the perfectibility of wisdom would 
 seem to follow as a consequence. Hence he says in 
 regard to this, " As he [Christ] is the infinite source 
 of wisdom, how can it be said that he is made unto us 
 wisdom, unless we are partakers of his wisdom, and 
 have it guarantied to us ; so that, at any time, if we 
 trust in him, we may have it as certainly, and in any 
 degree we need, to guide us as infallibly, as if we had 
 
 it is supposed he was led into these errors. Yet whether they 
 are the "logical sequence'' of his former views or not, they 
 furnish an instructive lesson to those who are disposed to 
 countenance error. 
 
PERFECTIONISM. 213 
 
 it originally ourselves?" Thus we are brought into 
 the field of fanaticism. 
 
 The only condition required in order to obtain 
 either wisdom or sanctification, is faith. " The act of 
 the mind, says he, that thus throws the soul into the 
 hand of Christ for sanctification, is faith. Nothing is 
 wanting, but for the mind to break off from any confi- 
 dence in itself, and to give itself up to hica, to be led 
 and controlled by him absolutely." Then Christ 
 asumes the responsibility ; he undertakes to do all for 
 him that he needs; he becomes accountable for his 
 conduct. Says he, "Until an individual receives 
 Christ, he does not cease from his own works. The 
 moment he does that, by this very act he throws the 
 entire responsibility upon Christ. The moment the 
 mind does fairly yield itself up to Christ, the respon- 
 sibility comes upon him, just as the person who under- 
 takes to conduct the blind man is responsible for his 
 safe conduct. The believer by the act of faith pledges 
 Christ for his obedience and sanctification. By giving 
 himself up to Christ, all the veracity of the Godhead : 
 is put at stake, that he shall be led aright, or made 
 Toly." Here we have the final result of the whole 
 process. By the proper exercise of our free will, we 
 can first change our own hearts, or in other words, 
 put forth the "act" of saving faith upon Jesus Christ. 
 By the proper exercise of the same free will, we can 
 put forth a stronger "act" of faith, and make him our 
 wisdom and sanctification : — our wisdom, in such a 
 sense, that he will "guide us infallibly, as if we had 
 it originally ourselves:" — and our sanctification, so 
 
214 EXTRACT FROM THE THEOLOGICAL REVIEW. 
 
 entire and absolute, that Christ becomes responsible 
 ffor our conduct, and ''if he does not restrain us from 
 [sin, he has it to answer for." 
 
 In the March number of the Literary and Theolo- 
 gical Review for the year 1838, there is an able arti- 
 cle on this subject, from which we will make the fol- 
 lowing extract. " In the works before us [referring 
 to Mr. Finney's Sermons and Lectures,] we have an 
 authentic genealogy of o, family of errors. We are 
 not obliged, as in other instances, to trace them 
 through successive generations of men. They are all 
 found in the same mind, and Pelagianism^ as con- 
 tained in the preceding extracts, is the venerable 
 ancestor of them all. From his infancy it was re- 
 marked that he was an uncommon child. Unlike 
 other children, he was by nature neither ' sinful nor 
 holy.' Unhappily, however, very soon after his birth, 
 he 'fell into a state of supreme selfishness,' from 
 which even the ' physical power of God' could not 
 extricate him. But he had rare abilities, and a 
 * giant strength' of will, which he could hardly re- 
 frain from calling ' the strength of Omnipotence,' 
 And therefore, he always believed himself to be one 
 of those who could be recovered 'with the wisest 
 amount of moral influence.' He had elevated notions 
 of human virtue, and would suffer no change to be 
 made in his condition, which was not produced by 
 'his own act.' He was willing, indeed, that the Holy 
 Spirit should operate on him, provided it were only 
 as an earthly advocate acts on a jury. He was willing 
 that ' motives should he gathered from all worlds and 
 
PERFECTIONISM OF MR. FINNEY. 215 
 
 'poured in a focal blaze on Ms mind.' He was anx- 
 ious to receive good counsel from Ms friends, and reve- 
 rently to hear divine truth; but the change from 
 ^supreme selfishness' he declared to be his own 'ap- 
 propriate work;' and he was at length accustomed to 
 say, that he had effected it by '■Ms own act.' It was 
 natural to suppose, that the theological children of 
 such a system would have some remarkable charac- 
 teristics. In Pelagius and Coelestius it had produced 
 Perfectionism, and there was reason to fear that in 
 the mind of Mr. Finney it would generate the same 
 progeny. In various parts of the land the system 
 had been earnestly inculcated. Its most sagacious 
 disciples were beginning to declare themselves to ^ he] 
 jperfect^' to have ''rolled the responsibility of their, 
 future and eternal obedience on an everlasting arm;*\ 
 to receive 'immediate communications from God;' to 
 be 'personally united to Mm^' and have ''entered 
 into rest.' " 
 
 These heresies were early demonstrated to have 
 had their origin in the system itself. As Mr. Fin- 
 ney had been the Apostle of this system in these 
 latter days, it was intimated that his doctrines, as 
 inculcated in his preaching and by the press, had 
 tended to produce these impieties. This view of the 
 subject was indignantly repelled even by the candid 
 ones among his followers. The thought that his doc- 
 trines had produced such results, they could not for a 
 moment entertain. Although others had no doubt 
 that Mr. Finney was the true parent of Perfectionism, 
 they had more opinion of his caution, than to sup- 
 
216 LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL REVIEW. 
 
 pose he could soon be induced openly to own and 
 adopt it. But, to the amazement of all, he now comes 
 forth, bringing with him for induction into the church, 
 the doctrine of the perfection of the saints in this life,, 
 of the responsihility of Christ for his people^ of imme- 
 diate communications to them from Grod, and of their 
 entrance into rest even in this tvorld. These last views 
 were not developed till he had abandoned the Presby- 
 terian Church. Ever since their publication, it is 
 almost inconceivable by those "vvho have heard of him 
 chiefly as a promoter of revivals, and have been un- 
 willing to listen to the notes of warning, so long 
 honestly and responsively sounded by individuals — it 
 is almost inconceivable, that he has inculcated these 
 fanatical doctrines. Even the Christian Spectator, 
 though it fears " he may be liable to misconstruction, 
 and injure the consciences of many weak and pious 
 persons," declares, "we do not believe he means any 
 thing more than we should fully admit — the possibility 
 and duty of obedience to God in all things command- 
 ed." But this view of his meaning it is impossible to 
 sustain, either by individual sentences, or the evident 
 design of his Lectures on these subjects. His errors 
 are written so legibly, that he who runs may read. Mr. 
 Finney now stands before the community as a practi- 
 cal illustration of the effects of rejecting the doctrine, 
 that human nature is depraved: and of believing, that 
 in regeneration and sanctification, the word of the 
 Spirit is confined chiefly to the understanding. 
 
MEASURES OP THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 217 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR REMOVING 
 THESE ERRORS FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 On the supposition that the errors specified in the 
 preceding chapters were prevalent in any portion of 
 the Presbyterian Church, it is no wonder that many 
 should feel alarmed. Some of these doctrines had 
 been made the ground of discipline at different times 
 before this period. In 1798, the case of Rev. H. 
 Balch came before the Assembly, by way of refer- 
 ence from the Synod of the Carolinas. The follow- 
 ing is a part of the minutes of the Assembly on this 
 subject : " With regard to his doctrine of original 
 sin, it is to be observed, that he is erroneous in re- 
 presenting personal corruption as not derived from 
 Adam ; making Adam's sin to be imputed to his 
 posterity, in consequence of a corrupt nature already 
 possessed, and derived from, we know not what ; thus 
 in effect setting aside the idea of Adam's being the 
 federal head, or representative, of his descendants, 
 and the whole doctrine of the covenant of works." 
 
 "It is also manifest that Mr. B. is greatly errone- 
 ous, in asserting that the formal cause of a believer's 
 justification is the imputation of the fruits and effects 
 of Christ's righteousness, and not that righteousness 
 itself; because righteousness, and that alone, is the 
 formal demand of the law, and consequently the sin- 
 ner's violation of the divine law can be pardoned only 
 by virtue of the Redeemer's perfect righteousness 
 19 
 
218 MEASURES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 being imputed to Mm and reckoned as his. It is also 
 not true that the benefits of Christ's righteousness are, 
 "with strict propriety, said to be imputed at all, as 
 these benefits floiv to, and are 'possessed hy, the be- 
 liever, as a co7isequence of his justification and having 
 an interest in the infinite merits of the Saviour." 
 
 In 1810, a work of the Rev. William C. Davis, en- 
 titled the " Gospel Plan," came before the Assembly, 
 by an overture from the Synod of the Carolinas. 
 Among the doctrines contained in the book, of an ex- 
 ceptionable character, and which the Assembly con- 
 demned, are the following : " That the active obedi- 
 ence of Christ constitutes no part of that righteousness 
 by which a sinner is justified;" that "God could not 
 make Adam, or any other creature, either holy or un- 
 holy;" and that "if God has to plant all the princi- 
 pal parts of salvation in a sinner's heart, to enable 
 him to believe, the gospel plan is quite out of his 
 reach, and consequently does not suit his case ; and 
 it must be impossible for God to condemn a man for 
 unbelief, for no just law condemns or criminates any 
 person for not doing what he cannot do." Concern- 
 ing these doctrines the Assembly resolved that they 
 are " contrary to the Confession of Faith of our 
 chmcli:'— Assembly's Digest, pp. 130, 145, 146, 14T. 
 
 The first of these cases was adjudicated ten years, 
 and the second twenty-two years, after the organization 
 of the General Assembly; and they show that for 
 twenty-two years after that event, those doctrines 
 which led to the division of tiiO church in 1837, 
 were regarded and treated as heretical and danger- 
 
THE ADOPTING ACT. 219 
 
 ous. They serve also as a key to the received inter- 
 pretation of the Confession of Faith prior to that 
 period, and to the proper understanding of the famous 
 "Adopting Act" of 1729. 
 
 CHARACTER OF THE ADOPTING ACT. 
 
 The act denomifiated the "Adopting Act," which 
 was unanimously agreed to by the Synod of Philadel- 
 phia, in 1729, required " that all the ministers of this 
 Synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted to this 
 Synod, shall declare their agreement in and approba- 
 tion of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and 
 Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at 
 Westminster, as being, in all essential and necessary 
 articles, good forms and sound words, and systems of 
 Christian doctrine; and [we] do also adopt the said 
 Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the confession 
 of our faith. And we do also agree that the Presby- 
 teries within our bounds shall always take care not to 
 admit any candidate for the ministry into the exercise 
 of the sacred functions, but what declares his agree- 
 ment in opinion with all essential and necessary arti- 
 cles of said Confession, either by subscribing the said 
 Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by verbal 
 declaration of his assent thereto, as such minister or 
 candidate shall think best. And in case any minister 
 of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall 
 have any scruples with regard to any article or arti- 
 cles of said Confession of Faith or Catechisms, he 
 shall, at the time of his making such declaration, de- 
 clare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who 
 
220 THE ADOPTING ACT. 
 
 sliall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of 
 the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial 
 communion, if either the Presbytery or Synod shall 
 judge his scruples or mistakes to be only about arti- 
 cles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, 
 or government." 
 
 This provision appears to be understood by some of 
 our New-school brethren as giving so wide a latitude 
 for diversity of sentiment, that, in their opinion, it 
 was only by a departure from the design and spirit of 
 that instrument, and the introduction into the church 
 of a narrow and intolerant spirit, that the new theo- 
 logy was not allowed to remain quietly, and spread 
 itself throughout our bounds. How utterly unfound- 
 ed this opinion is, will appear from the manner in 
 which the Synod carried the ^^Adopting Act" into 
 effect. On the same day in which it was passed, all 
 the ministers present, except one who was not then 
 prepared, but who subsequently acceded to the reso- 
 lution, " after proposing all the scruples that any of 
 them had to make against any articles and expressions 
 in the Confession of Faith, and Larger and Shorter 
 Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, 
 unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, 
 and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to 
 be the confession of their faith, excepting only some 
 clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, 
 concerning which clauses the Synod unanimously de- 
 clared that they did not receive those articles in any 
 such sense as to suppose the civil magistrate hath a 
 controlling power over Synods, with respect to the 
 
THE ADOPTING ACT. 221 
 
 exercise of their ministerial authority, or power to 
 persecute any for their religion, or in any sense con- 
 trary to the Protestant succession to the throne of 
 Great Britain." 
 
 The following year, and again in 1736, the Synod 
 adopted a resolution explanatory of their former 
 action. In the latter they say, '' that the Synod have 
 adopted and still do adhere to the AVestminster Con- 
 fession, Catechisms, and Directory, without the le.ast 
 variation or alteration." "And we do fur- 
 ther declare this was our meaning and true intent in 
 our j&rst adopting of the said Confession." 
 
 In 1741 a schism took place, by which two Synods 
 were formed, and an unhapj^y alienation existed be- 
 tween them for seventeen years. During this separa- 
 tion both parties adopted resolutions to the effect that 
 they adhered "to the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, without the least 
 variation or alteration," agreeably to the action of 
 the Synod in 1729 — and neither party charged the 
 other with practising or desiring any unwarranted 
 latitude of interpretation. The division did not origi- 
 nate in doctrinal differences. Hence, when the over- 
 ture was made for a re-union, the Synod of New York 
 say to the Synod of Philadelphia, "We esteem mutual 
 forbearance a duty, since we all profess the same 
 Confession of Faith and Directory." The latter 
 Synod, in reply to the former, employed similar lan- 
 guage. "Upon these terms (viz. the terms specified 
 in their letter) we heartily agree with the Synod of 
 New York, that since we profess the same Confession 
 19* 
 
222 THE ADOPTING ACT. 
 
 of Faith and Directory for worship, all our former 
 differences be buried in perpetual oblivion." Accord- 
 ingly, one of the terms of union unanimously adopted 
 by the two bodies was the following : " Both Synods 
 having always approved and received the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, 
 as an orthodox and excellent system of Christian doc- 
 trine, founded upon the word of God, we do still 
 receive the same as the confession of our faith, and 
 also adhere to the plan of worship, government, and 
 discipline, contained ^in the Westminster Directory: 
 strictly enjoining it on all our ministers and proba- 
 tioners for the ministry, that they preach and teach 
 according to the form of sound words in the said Con- 
 fession and Catechisms, and avoid and oppose all 
 errors contrary thereto." 
 
 In 1786, two years before the organization of the 
 General Assembly, a plan of union was proposed be- 
 tween the Presbyterian, Dutch, and Associate Re- 
 formed Churches. The committee on the part of the 
 Synod of New York and Philadelphia, were instructed 
 to say, that the Synod " adopt, according to the known 
 and established meaning of terms, the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith, 
 save that every candidate for the gospel ministry is 
 permitted to except against so much of the twenty- 
 third chapter as gives authority to the civil magistrate 
 in matters of religion." For a full account of the 
 Adopting Act, see Hodge s Constitutional History of 
 the Preshyterian Church, Vol. i.. Chap. iii. 
 
 From these several particulars, it is very evident 
 
THE ADOPTING ACT. 223 
 
 that the liberty granted in the Adopting Act, to any 
 minister or candidate, to state his "scruples with 
 regard to any article or articles of the Confession of 
 Faith and Catechisms," and that he should be ad- 
 mitted "to the exercise of the ministry," if either the 
 Presbytery or Synod shall judge his scruples or mis- 
 takes to be only about articles not essential and neces- 
 sary in doctrine, worship, or government," was re- 
 stricted practically to a very few things ; and that 
 with regard to these and all others, the scruples of 
 the minister or candidate were not be confined to his 
 own breast, nor even stated in general terms, but par- 
 ticularized before the Presbytery or Synod ; and that 
 his brethren were to judge, not the applicant himself, 
 whether his scruples or mistakes were a valid bar to 
 his reception as a member. How widely different from 
 this, is that mode of assenting to the Confession of 
 Faith, which professes to receive it only for " substance 
 of doctrine," and which requires of the candidate no 
 statement of his "scruples" to the Presbytery, but 
 loaves it wholly to his own decision whether they are 
 such as are "essential and necessary," or otherwise. 
 It is evident, from the cases adjudicated by the As- 
 sembly in 1798 and 1810, already referred to, that 
 that body did not so understand the "Adopting Act," 
 as to allow this mode of receiving the Confession of 
 Faith, nor interpret it in such a manner as to permit 
 the new theology to exist in the church without cen- 
 sure. They arraigned and condemned some of those 
 very errors which have been enumerated in the pre- 
 ceding chapters — and in doing this they did not de- 
 
224 PREVALENCE OF ERRORS. 
 
 part in the least from tlie provisions of tlie "Adopting 
 Act," nor from the views expressed concerning it by 
 successive Synods, up to the time of the formation of the 
 General Assembly — but were carrying out those views 
 in the way which had been definitely stipulated and 
 agreed to, by the articles of union between the Synods 
 of New York and Philadelphia, in 1758, viz : " strict- 
 ly enjoining it on all their ministers and probationers 
 for the ministry, that they preach and teach accord- 
 ing to the form of sound words in the said Confession 
 and Catechisms, and avoid and oppose all errors con- 
 trary thereto." 
 
 PREVALENCE OF ERRORS. 
 
 The question now arises, did those errors prevail in 
 the bounds of the Presbyterian Church for some years 
 prior to 1837 ? and if so, to w4iat extent ? The 
 answer is found partly in the statements contained in 
 the preceding chapters. But as the action of the 
 Assembly, at that time, was directed chiefly towards 
 the three Synods of Western New York, and the Sy- 
 nod of the Western Reserve, it will be proper to state 
 some facts with special reference to them. 
 
 At the Auburn Convention, in 1837, (composed of 
 ministers and elders called together to consider the 
 Assembly's acts,) a distinguished member observed, 
 that "he must say there had been hitherto a disposi- 
 tion to conceal ; that errors and irregularities in this 
 section of the church have been greater than we 
 have been willing to acknowledge." At the same 
 meeting the committee on doctrines reported a paper 
 
PREVALENCE OF ERRORS. 225 
 
 similar in its statements to one agreed upon in 1797, 
 by a committee of the Presbyterian, Reformed Dutch, 
 and Associate Reformed Churches, as the basis of an 
 agreement for uniting in sending missionaries to the 
 new settlements ; accompanied by a list of errors, the 
 same as those specified by the preceding General As- 
 sembly. One member proposed, as a substitute for 
 the paper, the protest of the minority of the preced- 
 ing Assembly. A second did not think that some of 
 the errors there specified were fundamental, and he 
 could not, therefore, solemnly pledge himself (as the 
 report recommended) to discipline those whom he 
 might know to hold them. A third said, he was per- 
 suaded that the Convention could not agree, either 
 in the statement of doctrine in detail made in the re- 
 port of the committee, or in that of the protestants 
 in the last Assembly. A fourth expressed his concur- 
 rence with the one last referred to, and proposed 
 that they should adopt the first part of the report 
 of the committee without going into detail ; which was 
 accordingly done. 
 
 During the discussion of the above report, a pro- 
 minent elder objected to the report, because some of the 
 errors there specified he did not consider to be errors — 
 for example, he did not believe that Adam's sin was 
 imputed to his posterity. He was satisfied they never 
 could agree on any creed as extensive as this ; while 
 we agree in substantials, we cannot agree in minor 
 points; here every man must be allowed to have 
 his own creed. This is the fault of our Confession of 
 Faith — it is too extensive for agreement. State a 
 
226 PREVALENCE OF ERRORS. 
 
 few general points involving that we are sinners and 
 are saved by the grace of God, through Jesus Christ 
 and the agency of the Holy Ghost, and we can agree ; 
 but Avhen you come to speak of the quo modo we can- 
 not be expected to agree. We have a right to differ ; 
 if we agree on these points, woe to him who pro- 
 nounces such men heretics — we must have the right 
 of private judgment. There are two opposite doc- 
 trines in the church ; I can agree to receive as Chris- 
 tians those who hold to either, and sit under their 
 ministry, though I differ from some of them. There 
 are some who hold that we are born sinners before we 
 arrive at moral agency; and they carry out the sys- 
 tem to Antinomianism. Others hold God to be a moral 
 governor, who governs man in a manner analogous to 
 "what is done in other governments. They are both 
 substantially true — both contain the gospel, yet they 
 are opposite." 
 
 Another member of the Convention (a minister) 
 observed to me, in private conversation, " We are so 
 trammelled and shackled, and under tyranny by Con- 
 fessions of Faith, that if we advance any thing new, 
 we are suspected of heresy. We ought to be making 
 improvements in theology as much as in other mat- 
 ters." While, therefore, he would have a Confession 
 of Faith, it should not be a permanent and fixed 
 one, but subject to be modified with every additional 
 light that should be thrown on the subject. Every 
 minister, every church, and every Presbytery, should 
 write a new confession of faith as often as once a 
 year, and then, by comparing it with the old, see what 
 
PREVALENCE OF EP.ROHS. 227 
 
 changes (if any) were necessary to be made. I asked 
 him whether he would not recommend the same course 
 to the General Assembly, and have our Confession of 
 Faith undergo a revision. He said he thought it 
 ought to be altered in a number of particulars. I 
 asked him how he could adopt it while entertaining 
 such views. He replied, ^'I adopt it only as a system^ 
 without intending to subscribe to the whole of it. 
 As a system I believe it ; and provided I hold doc- 
 trines belonging 'peculiarly to another system — such 
 as Arminian or Pelagian — I could not consistently, I 
 confess, adopt the Confession, unless I stated my 
 exceptions at the time of adopting it. When I 
 first adopted it, I entertained different views on seve- 
 ral points from what I do now, viz : atonement, the 
 moral government of God, imputation, and original 
 sin — but I believe I am as near the Confession now 
 as I was then. I believe suhstantially as I did then, 
 and I suppose that all the changes which might bo 
 required from time to time, with the addition of new 
 light, would not alter it so as to make it another sys- 
 tem. When it was written, a different philosophy 
 prevailed from what does now — a false philosophy — 
 through which some expressions were introduced into 
 the Confession which are not true — e, g. ' sinned in 
 him and fell with him in his first transgression' — 
 which conveys a false idea." Do you mean, said I, 
 that it contains a false idea, as the framers of the 
 Confession understood it? "Yes, he said, as they un- 
 derstood it. Their philosophy was false — they held 
 that we were really there in the garden, and par- 
 
228 PREVALENCE OF ERRORS. 
 
 took of the forbidden fruit ; he would, therefore, have 
 this clause altered so as to make it accord with modern 
 philosophy.* On the subject of God's moral govern- 
 ment, he thought the Confession defective — he would 
 have a whole chapter added on this subject." This is 
 a specimen of a conversation which was continued in 
 a similar strain for half an hour. 
 
 After these statements the reader will not be sur- 
 prised that the report of the committee on doctrine 
 was amended, by expunging from it "all the details" 
 both of what the Convention believed, and what they 
 regarded as errors. The paper as adopted was good 
 as far as it went, but it was brief, and expressed in 
 general terms. Some of the members would have 
 been glad to adopt the report without alteration or 
 abridgment, but they were overruled by others who 
 thought differently. How many of them actually 
 entertained the views narrated above, I cannot say; 
 
 * A similar caricature of Old-school views has been recently 
 put forth, in a volume published by a committee of the Synod 
 of New York and New Jersey. " Some of them believe in the 
 identity of the posterity of Adam with him in his first trans- 
 gression ; others, that there was a literal transfer of his sin to 
 them, as also of the righteousness of Christ to his people." We 
 presume it will not be pretended that any portion of the church 
 since the beginning of the present century, have gone further 
 in maintaining these phases of doctrine than was done previous 
 to that time. In the case adjudicated by the General Assembly 
 in 1798, already noticed in this chapter, the Assembly say, 
 "that the transferring of personal sin or righteousness has 
 never been held by Calvinistic divines, nor by any person in 
 our church, as far as is known to us.'' 
 
PREVALENCE OP ERRORS. 229 
 
 but I have reason for believing that those two were 
 not the only ones — and also that there were min- 
 isters and laymen in considerable numbers, belonging 
 to those Synods, but not present at the Convention, 
 whose theology was of the same stamp. In a letter, 
 understood to have been written by a member of the 
 Synod of Geneva, and published in the Hartford 
 Christian Watchman, soon after the meeting of the 
 General Assembly in 1837, the writer states: "I 
 declared more than once before the Assembly, that 
 the errors against which the Convention testified, do 
 exist" — meaning the Convention which had been sit- 
 ting for several days previous in Philadelphia. An- 
 other minister belonging to that Synod, wrote the 
 same year to the author of this volume: "A conside- 
 rable number of members, and two ministers (alluding 
 to his own Presbytery), incline strongly to Taylor- 
 ism — I should say are Taylorites — more are not sound 
 Calvinists of the Edwards stamp. Our theology has 
 many shades." From personal intercourse with dif- 
 ferent ministers in the Synod of Utica, and from 
 other reliable testimony, I am warranted in saying 
 that some of the ministers in each of the Presbyteries 
 connected with that Synod, from 1830 to 1837, em- 
 braced the New Haven Theology ; and that it pre- 
 vailed to a considerable extent in their churches. A 
 letter now in my possession, written by one of their 
 ministers in 1833, to a clerical friend, contains the 
 following : " my dear brother, beware of that doc- 
 trine of a limited atonement. I hope I do not go too 
 far, when I say it had its rise from the devil." . . . 
 20 
 
230 PREVALENCE OF ERRORS. 
 
 . . . *' It is astonishing, that at the present day of 
 light and knowledge, men's understandings should be 
 so blinded. For my part^ I am awfully prejudiced 
 
 against the Old-school divinity." "I want 
 
 you candidly to answer the following questions. Do 
 you believe infants have a moral character ? Are we 
 to be accountable for the moral act of our first pa- 
 rents? What do you think of the New Haven Theo- 
 logy? Do you acquiesce in Dr. Taylor's notions? 
 Do you consider them agreeable with the Scriptures ? 
 Mis divinity is spreading very widely ^ . . . . "I am 
 
 really glad that — • has commenced his studies." 
 
 . . . . "I hope he will not imbibe the principles of 
 the Princeton Divinity." 
 
 A minister in the Synod of Genessee, in a letter 
 penned in 1837, wrote thus: "Ministers and churches 
 in this section have become so much disposed to favour 
 Arminian doctrines, and are so fond of new things, 
 that it is difficult to preach the doctrine of our Con- 
 fession, or even to use our endeavours to correct 
 abuses and extravagances in measures, without hear- 
 ing the cry of Old-school, opposed to revivals," &c. 
 Another minister wrote as follows: "New Theology 
 and new measures have received a number of checks 
 in our Presbytery, and, indeed, in this region general- 
 ly — especially since the Old-school in the Assembly 
 began to be so earnest for reform. Though I do not 
 by any means suppose but what the roots of the evil 
 remain among us yet, ready to spring up when per- 
 mitted. Indeed, in one sense, almost the entire 
 theology of this whole region is "iVe?^," if strictly 
 
PREVALENCE OF ERRORS. 231 
 
 compared with our standards." At a protracted 
 meeting in one of tlieir churches in May, 1837, the 
 officiating minister, after preaching a sermon on the 
 ability of Christians to keep the law of God, called 
 upon them to confess their sins, and promise to keep 
 the law. Most of them were willing to confess, but 
 when they came to make promises, there was a reluc- 
 tance ; as but few were prepared to fall in practically 
 with the doctrine of the sermon. Some said. We will 
 try — others. We will endeavour hy Qod's assistance, 
 &c.; but this did not satisfy him — he called it 
 Antinomianism — and told them he wished them to 
 promise, not that they would try to keep the law, 
 but that they would keep it. A spice of perfection- 
 ism existed at that time in several of their churches, 
 and also in some churches belonging to the Synods 
 before named — but it was discountenanced, and made 
 a ground of discipline by some of the Presbyteries, 
 perhaps by all where it was known to exist. The 
 same cannot be stated concerning the Synod of 
 the Western Reserve, a majority of whose ministers 
 and churches, we have reason to believe, accorded in 
 doctrine with Mr. Finney. This is inferred concern- 
 ing the ministers, from the fact, that in 1834 or 1835, 
 a paper was signed by fifty ministers or more, invit- 
 ing Mr. Finney to become Professor of Theology in 
 the Western Reserve College; and concerning minis- 
 ters and people both, it may be inferred from the fact 
 that the labours of Mr. Foote, as an evangelist, (who 
 preached extensively among them) were generally ap- 
 proved. Mr. Foote, it was understood, agreed sub- 
 
232 ATTEMPTS TO CHECK THESE ERRORS. 
 
 stantiallj witli Mr. Finney, but went further than the 
 latter in some points, from what is called Old- school 
 theology. 
 
 ATTEMPTS TO CHECK THESE ERRORS. 
 
 Attempts were made to check these errors as early 
 as 1829 or 1830, and were continued every year till 
 the occurrence of those decisive measures adopted by 
 the Assembly in 1837. Individual efforts were made 
 through the press, by the publication of books, 
 pamphlets, and periodicals. Besides the able Quar- 
 terly at Princeton, which had been commenced a lit- 
 tle previous, and a monthly Magazine at Philadel- 
 phia, both of which did good service in defence of 
 the truth, four weekly newspapers were either estab- 
 lished or resuscitated for the special purpose of coun- 
 teracting these errors, and those "new measures" 
 which were generally associated with them — one in 
 Utica, a second in Albany, a third in Philadelphia, 
 and a fourth in Pittsburgh. The last two have been 
 continued to this day. Prosecutions for heresy were 
 instituted in two instances, against distinguished indi- 
 viduals " before their Presbyteries, on the charge of 
 holding and teaching some of those errors. The 
 Board of Missions refused to commission men as mis- 
 sionaries, who were suspected of entertaining those 
 views. The gratuitous distribution of the Confession 
 of Faith "among the more remote and destitute 
 churches," was provided for by vote of the Assem- 
 bly. That body enjoined on Presbyteries to take 
 special care to require of candidates for licensure and 
 
ATTEMPTS TO CHECK THESE ERRORS. 233 
 
 ordination, and of ministers entering our Church 
 from other ecclesiastical connections, to give their 
 assent to the " Constitution of the Presbyterian 
 Church;" and a paper was adopted by the Assembly 
 to the effect, that an assent to this constitution had 
 always been considered as a reception and adoption 
 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Larger 
 and Shorter Catechisms as the confession of our faith. 
 Particular attention was directed to operation of the 
 Plan of Union of 1801, between Presbyterians and 
 Congregationalists; and the Synod of the Western 
 Reserve was especially directed to examine the state 
 of the churches under its care, with reference to 
 alleged departures from the Constitution of the 
 Church, in ordaining ministers and receiving them 
 from other churches "without being required by the 
 Presbyteries to receive and adopt the Confession of 
 Paith of the Presbyterian Church." (See Minutes 
 of Assembly for 1832 and 1833.) Appeals from 
 lower judicatories were also brought before the 
 Assembly, containing charges of doctrinal error, and 
 efforts were made (though unsuccessful) to secure the 
 suspension of the persons on trial, from the office of 
 the ministry. — Minutes of the Assembly for 1836. 
 
 The inefficiency of these measures was owing to 
 several causes. One was, the earnest desire for 
 peace, which induced many sound men to favour a 
 conciliatory and compromising policy, so long as 
 there was in their judgment any reasonable hope 
 that the evils complained of would gradually cure 
 themselves, without a resort to extreme measures. 
 20* 
 
234 OPERATION OF THE PLAN OP UNION. 
 
 A second was the effect of the Plan of Union 
 to introduce into our body many ministers who 
 regarded themselves as having a right under the pro- 
 visions of that Plan, to receive our Confession of 
 Faith only for substance of doctrine : and being men 
 of loose doctrinal views (in the strict Presbyterian 
 sense of this term) they were opposed to the exercise 
 of discipline for doctrinal errors. By the operation 
 of the same Plan (though by its perversion) hundreds 
 of Congregational and mixed churches, claimed 
 the right of being represented in our Presbyteries, 
 Synods, and General Assembly, by men who were 
 not ruling elders, and had never assented to, and did 
 not profess to receive (except in the largest sense) 
 the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. A third was 
 the influence of the Home Missionary and American 
 Education Societies, particularly the former, in intro- 
 ducing into our pulpits unsound men, who in some 
 localities became so numerous as to form majorities in 
 our church courts. These last two points may 
 require some illustration. 
 
 OPERATION OF THE PLAN OF UNION. 
 
 As the Plan of Union permitted churches formed 
 under it to enjoy their preferences either to be or- 
 ganized as Presbyterian or Congregational churches, 
 or to be a mixture of the two, as circumstances 
 might seem to render expedient; and as a large 
 portion of the material for the churches in Western 
 New York and Northern Ohio, called the Western 
 Reserve, was composed of immigrants from New 
 
OPERATION OF. THE PLAN OF UNION. 235 
 
 England, where most of the churches were Congre- 
 gational, it was to be expected that there would exist 
 very extensively a partiality for the Congregational 
 form of government. Hence it is not surprizing that 
 in 1837 about one half of the churches in those 
 Synods, taken as a whole, were Congregational, and 
 that portions of many others preferred that kind of 
 organization — some of them to such a degree as to be 
 quite restive under the government of a church ses- 
 sion. In the Synod of Utica the churches were 
 about equally divided with respect to organization; 
 in the Synods of Geneva and Genessee, about two- 
 thirds were nominally Presbyterian, and in the Sy- 
 nod of the Western Reserve about three fourths were 
 Congregational. In all of them, though there was 
 an understanding that as churches they received in a 
 very general manner the Confession of Faith of the 
 Presbyterian Church, there was no formal adoption 
 of it by the churches even as a "system" or for 
 "substance of doctrine." The Assembly's Shorter 
 Catechism was understood to be an epitome of the 
 Presbyterian Confession of Faith, and that Cate- 
 chism was held in high estimation in the New Eng- 
 land churches, and hence those who left them and set- 
 tled in Western New York and the Western Reserve 
 felt no objection on doctrinal grounds to be connect- 
 ed with the Presbyterian body. Yet they did not 
 feel themselves committed even to the Catechism, as 
 their confession of faith. Each church had its own 
 confession, and this might be enlarged or abbre- 
 viated, changed or modified, at the pleasure of the 
 
236 THE AMERICAN EDUCATION 
 
 communicants. Through the influence of those evan- 
 gelists called "revival men," who laboured exten- 
 sively among them for eigKt or ten years, commencing 
 in 1826, many of these confessions were altered, 
 some in one way and some in another, so as to meet 
 (in the judgment of their advisers) the demands of 
 Christian charity, or to keep pace with the increasing 
 light of the age. I state these facts, not conjec- 
 turally, but from the most reliable testimony. Many 
 of their ministers were also from New England, and 
 professed to receive the Confession of Faith only as a 
 "system;" while s-ome of them entered the Presby- 
 terian Church without any formal adoption of our 
 Standards. This is admitted by the Synod of the 
 Western Reserve in its communication to the General 
 Assembly in 1833. (See Assemhly's Minutes for that 
 year.) From these facts it is manifest, that in a 
 Presbytery or Synod composed largely of such men, 
 there would exist but little disposition to call any of 
 its members to account for a departure from our 
 Confession of Faith; — and that should they be ad- 
 mitted to seats in the General Assembly, they might 
 be expected to oppose any measure brought forward 
 in that body, having in view the prosecution either of 
 ministers or churches for doctrinal error. 
 
 THE AMERICAN EDUCATION AND HOilE MISSIONARY SOCIETIES. 
 
 The injurious influence of the American Education 
 Society in our Church, arose chiefly from the nature 
 of its organization. It aided Congregationalists, 
 Presbyterians, Lutherans, &c., but exercised no 
 
AND HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETIES. 237 
 
 ecclesiastical control over its candidates. This en- 
 larged and liberal policy was often held up in certain 
 quarters, by way of contrast with the rigid and sec- 
 tarian course pursued by the Board of Education, 
 which required its beneficiaries to subscribe a pledge 
 containing their assent to the Confession of Faith, 
 and their purpose to become preachers of the gospel 
 in the Presbyterian Church. The tendency of this 
 comparison, in its influence upon the Presbyterian 
 beneficiaries of the American Education Society, was 
 to diminish their attachment to their own church ; to 
 make them feel that its doctrinal standards, according 
 to their obvious and commonly received sense, were 
 too rigid, unfriendly to revivals, and to the spirit of 
 the age; and that these formularies must be under- 
 stood in a lax sense, in order to enable those who 
 adopt them to preach the gospel with sincerity, 
 earnestness, and success. 
 
 The Home Missionary Society exerted an un- 
 friendy influence among us in several ways. The 
 policy of that Society, and perhaps its Constitution 
 also, were antagonistic to strict Presbyterianism. It 
 was at first the rival, and then the opponent of our 
 own Board of Missions. What the latter was au- 
 thorized and required to do, in order to check the 
 progress of error, by refusing to commission unsound 
 men, the former either could not constitutionally do, 
 or did not attempt. Many of those sent out by this 
 Society to labour in our churches, were more or less 
 favourable to the "New Theology." Circumstances 
 appeared also to indicate that in some instances their 
 
238 ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 location was selected for them with reference to their 
 "liberal" views concerning doctrine and polity. It 
 was spoken of at the time, as being no uncommon 
 event, for the majority in small Presbyteries to be- 
 come, in a few months, the minority, by the accession 
 of three or four missionaries of that Society. And 
 in most cases, as members of our judicatories, whether 
 in the majority or minority, they were found, on ques- 
 tions of doctrinal controversy, to argue and vote 
 against the Old-school, and in favour of the New. 
 From these particulars, it is easy to see what a power- 
 ful influence that Society was exerting over the several 
 judicatories of the Presbyterian Church; and how 
 difficult it was, under these circumstances, to obtain a 
 verdict against the errors and irregularities which 
 existed within our bounds. After a struggle of 
 several years, the crisis at length arrived, and the 
 General Assembly of 1837 adopted those decisive 
 measures, which were condemned by one party as 
 unconstitutional and oppressive, but regarded by the 
 other as being authorized by the Constitution of the 
 Church, and demanded by the necessity of the case. 
 To those acts we will now direct our attention. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 1837 AND 1838. 
 
 As the Plan of Union agreed to in 1801 by the 
 General Assembly and the General Association of 
 Connecticut, was believed to be a prolific source of 
 
ACTS OP THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 239 
 
 the errors whicli had for some years disturbed the 
 peace of our Church, the first act of the Assembly, 
 touching the subject of reform, was the abrogation of 
 that Plan. This was done in the following terms: 
 **But as the 'Plan of Union' adopted for the new 
 settlements, in 1801, was originally an unconstitu- 
 tional act on the part of that Assembly — these 
 important standing rules having never been sub- 
 mitted to the Presbyteries — and as they were totally 
 destitute of authority as proceeding from the General 
 Association of Connecticut, which is invested with no 
 power to legislate in such cases, and especially to 
 enact laws to regulate churches not within her limits ; 
 and as much confusion and irregularity have arisen 
 from this unnatural and unconstitutional system of 
 union ; therefore, it is resolved, that the Act of the 
 Assembly of 1801, entitled a 'Plan of Union,' be, 
 and the same is hereby abrogated." 
 
 As this resolution was the basis of others which 
 succeeded, it is important to correct two or three mis- 
 takes which appear to be current in certain quarters 
 with regard to the Plan of Union. One of these 
 relates to its origin. It has been often asserted that 
 the General Assembly proposed the plan. This is a 
 mistake. It has probably arisen from the fact, that 
 the only authority which has been relied upon for the 
 history of the affair, is the Assembly's Digest, which 
 unfortunately contains only a part of the record. 
 The Minutes of the Assembly for 1800 and 1801, 
 show that the plan was proposed by the General As- 
 sociation of Connecticut, and not by the General 
 Assembly. 
 
240 ACTS OP THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 In the Minutes for 1800, is the following: "The 
 Rev. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, the Rev. Asa Hillyer 
 and Jonathan Freeman were appointed delegates 
 from this Assembly to the General Association of 
 Connecticut," &c. Not a word is said about instruct- 
 ing them to negotiate a plan of union. In the Min- 
 utes of 1801 we find their report as follows: "The 
 delegates from the General Assembly to the General 
 Association of Connecticut report, that they all at- 
 tended according to appointment through the whole 
 course of the session of the General Association. 
 That besides the business peculiar to the churches of 
 Connecticut, the General Association appointed a 
 committee to confer with a committee that may he ap- 
 pointed hy the Qeneral Assembly, on measures which 
 may promote union among the inhabitants of the neto 
 settlements and the missionaries to those settlements, 
 as appears hy the enclosed paper.'' Immediately 
 after the committee had reported, the paper referred 
 to above was read, the minute concerning which is as 
 follows: "A communication was read from the Gene- 
 ral Association of the State of Connecticut, appoint- 
 ing a committee to confer with a committee of the 
 Presbyterian Church, to consider the measures proper 
 to be adopted by the General Association and the 
 General Assembly, for establishing a uniform system 
 of church government between the inhabitants of the 
 new settlements who are attached to the Presbyterian 
 form of government, and those who prefer the Con- 
 gregational form. Ordered that the said communica- 
 tion lie on the table. Succeeding this, on the same 
 
ACTS OP THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 241 
 
 page, is the following: "The Rev. Drs. Edwards, 
 McKnight and Woodhull, the Rev. Mr. Blatchford 
 and Hutton, were appointed a committee to consider 
 and digest a plan of government for the churches in 
 the new settlements, agreeably to the proposal of tlie 
 General Association of Connecticut, and report the 
 same as soon as convenient." 
 
 Again — it has been often affirmed, that during the 
 whole period of thirty-six years, in which this plan was 
 in operation [prior to 1837,] no objection was made to 
 it ; and consequently it is to be considered as having 
 received during this long period the silent approba- 
 tion of the whole church. But this is a mistake. 
 First, it is not true, in the sense intended by those 
 who revert to it, that the Plan had been in operation 
 for so long a time — I mean in such a sense as to give 
 to the fact that force which it is supposed to have in 
 determining its validity. For ten or twelve years 
 after it was formed, its influence upon the church was 
 scarcely felt; and for as many more, the evils grow- 
 ing out of it had not developed themselves as they 
 did after that time. The Plan was originally intend- 
 ed not as a medium through which Congregationalism 
 would be perpetuated in the Presbyterian Church, 
 but to afford opportunity for Congregationalists, (if 
 after learning the character of our system they ap- 
 proved of it) to become Presbyterian. This remark 
 applies to both parties in the arrangement. The 
 ministers of Connecticut were favourable to the Pres- 
 byterian form of government; one feature of it was 
 already in existence in their churches, and they were 
 21 
 
242 ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 "willing (not to say desirous) to have their people, who 
 should emigrate to other States, become Presbyterian. 
 This idea, we think, is clearly implied in the account 
 which has been published of the interview of the 
 committee of the Assembly with a committee of the 
 Association in 1826. "As to the union, they said, 
 (the Connecticut committee) that it had not been 
 gone into for their accommodation, but for ours; that 
 they had agreed to it for two reasons : first, because 
 it was a help to many New England people in the 
 infant settlements towards obtaining gospel ordi- 
 nances: and secondly, because it assisted the Assem- 
 hly in spreading Preshyterianism tlirough that re- 
 gion.'^ But instead of spreading Preshyterianism, it 
 spread, in a large number of cases, Congregational- 
 ism under the Presbyterian name. Presbyteries 
 were not only formed of Congregational materials, 
 but with an express stipulation placed at the begin- 
 ning of their Records, that they might always remain 
 so, and yet continue in the Presbyterian Church.* 
 And then, by such a construction of the Plan of Union 
 as was never intended by the original framers, they 
 claimed the right of sending commissioners, who were 
 not ruling elders, to the General Assembly. This is 
 the point of time at which the Plan ought to be dated, 
 if it is designed to have any bearing on the constitu- 
 tional question ; because at this time, and not before, 
 
 * See a pamphlet entitled "Facts and Observations/^ &c. 
 published by the author in 1837. Some of the matter contain- 
 ed in it is now transferred to these pages. 
 
ACTS OP THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 243 
 
 were its effects upon our cliurch order fully manifest; 
 and this would be not thirty-six years, but less than 
 twenty. 
 
 We are now prepared to observe, secondly, that as 
 soon as these effects of the Plan of Union were per- 
 ceived, objections began to be made to it, and they 
 were repeated at different times, and in one form or 
 another, until its abrogation. In 1826, a commis- 
 sioner from the Rochester Presbytery was received 
 by the Assembly, who was not a ruling elder; but a 
 protest was immediately entered against it, signed by 
 forty-two members. In 1831, a committee-man was 
 received by the Assembly as a commissioner from the 
 Grand River Presbytery, against which sixty-seven 
 members entered their protest. A part of this pro- 
 test is as follows: "The articles of agreement alluded 
 to in the beginning of this paper," (referring to the 
 Plan of Union of 1801,) "are supposed to give this 
 individual, and all others similarly situated, a seat in 
 this Assembly. That agreement is altogether anoma- 
 lous to our form of government, and, so far as it does 
 
 extend, is in derogation of it." " Those 
 
 articles can never cover this case, because they ex- 
 pressly stipulate the church session and Presbytery, 
 as the church courts to which these ' committee-men' 
 may have access, in the character of ruling elders, 
 and mention no others." "If, how- 
 ever, they are so construed as to place members here 
 who are, by our constitution, forbidden to be here, or 
 as in any degree to affect the principles of the organ- 
 ization of this house, as clearly defined in our books, 
 
244 ACTS OP THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 then it is manifest that the articles must be con- 
 sidered utterly null and void.'' 
 
 Though the Assembly received the commissioner 
 above referred to, they adopted a resolution that " the 
 appointment, by some Presbyteries, as has occurred 
 in a few cases, of members of standing committees 
 to be members of the General Assembly, is inexpe- 
 dient, and of questionable constitutionality, and there- 
 fore ought not, in future, to be made." The next 
 year, that same Presbytery delegated two committee- 
 men as commissioners to the Assembly; but their 
 commissions, after having been placed in the hands 
 of a committee, were withdrawn. At the same meet- 
 ing, there was a commissioner from a Presbytery in 
 Western New York, who was neither an elder nor a 
 committee-man; but being commissioned as an elder, 
 and no one present being acquainted with the circum- 
 stance, or disposed to make it known, he was received 
 as a member. The year following a committee-man 
 appeared from the Presbytery of Oswego, and would 
 have been received, (as his commission did not speci- 
 fy his true character,) had not a member who had 
 incidentally become acquainted with the fact, made ifc 
 known to the house, when leave was given him to 
 withdraw his commission. These facts show with 
 what tenacity those Presbyteries which were formed 
 in pursuance of the Plan of Union, persisted in the 
 practice of sending up commissioners, even after the 
 Assembly had adopted a resolution against it; and 
 the course which the Assembly pursued in regard to 
 
ACTS OP THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 245 
 
 tliem, was an expression of disapprobation against 
 their interpretation of the Plan, if not against the 
 Plan itself. In 1835, the Assembly resolved that no 
 more churches should be organized on the Plan of 
 Union, and in 1837 the plan was abrogated. Thus 
 for eleven years previous to this last act, there was 
 evidently a growing dissatisfaction with the manner 
 in which the Plan of Union was found to operate ; 
 its constitutionality was more than once called in 
 question, and intimations were given, in no doubtful 
 language, that the Assembly ought either to " amend 
 or annul" it. 
 
 With reofard to the measure itself — it has been ob- 
 jected that the Assembly were bound, before passing 
 such an act, to ask the consent of the other contract- 
 ing party — meaning thereby either the General Asso- 
 ciation of Connecticut, or the churches formed on the 
 Plan of Union. Were they bound to ask the consent of 
 the Association ? For an answer to this question, we 
 refer the reader to the opinion of George Wood, Esq., 
 given in 1837, at the request of some of our New- 
 school brethren. " I do not think that this Plan of 
 Union formed, or was the result of a compact between 
 the General Assembly and the Association of Con- 
 necticut, so as to render it obligatory upon the Gene- 
 ral Assembly to carry into effect the measure, or to 
 continue its operation any longer than they should 
 
 deem proper." ^'It may be questioned 
 
 whether the assent of the Association to the adoption 
 by the Assembly of this Plan was necessary. The 
 Congregationalists to be affected by this Plan were 
 21* 
 
246 ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 out of the jurisdiction of that Association, and beyond 
 their control ; but they no doubt felt themselves 
 under a moral influence, which rendered it a matter 
 of delicacy and expediency on the part of the Gene- 
 ral Assembly to obtain the assent of that Association. 
 But supposing the assent of the Association to have 
 been indispensable when it was given, they had 
 nothing further to do with the Plan. It then became 
 the measure of the G-eneral Assembly alone, to be 
 dropped, or acted upon, or modified as they should 
 deem advisable.'' If this opinion be correct, then 
 the churches alone, if any body, were the party to 
 be consulted. On this point we need only observe, 
 that if there is obligation on either side to ask the 
 consent of the other before the connection might be 
 dissolved, this obligation must be equally binding 
 upon both. But did the churches ever feel any obli- 
 gation of this kind ? Did they not always consider it 
 as optional with them, either to continue their con- 
 nection with the Presbyterian Church, to become 
 independent, or join an Association, without asking 
 the consent of the General Assembly? As a matter 
 of courtesy, they usually notified the Presbytery to 
 which they belonged, that they were about to change 
 their ecclesiastical connection ; but not from a belief 
 of the existence of any contract with the Presbytery, 
 which obliged them to do so ; and it frequently hap- 
 pened that the Presbyteries had no knowledge of their 
 intention, until after the formation of their new alli- 
 ances. If, therefore, the churches formed on the 
 Plan of Union did not understand the Plan as in- 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OP THE ASSEMBLY. 247 
 
 volving any obligation upon themselves of the kind 
 supposed, it would be unreasonable in them to main- 
 tain that any such obligation rested on the Assembly, 
 or to expect that an overture should have been made 
 to them by the Assembly, asking their consent for a 
 dissolution of the union. 
 
 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 The bond which connected the three Synods of 
 Western New York and the Synod of the Western 
 Reserve with the General Assembly being now sun- 
 dered, it was a grave question for the Assembly to 
 consider, whether they should -proceed to declare this 
 fact, and thence regard and treat those Synods as 
 being separated from the Presbyterian Church, and 
 of course no longer amenable to the Assembly ; or 
 whether the separation of the Congregational from 
 the Presbyterian materials, should be effected through 
 the action of Presbyteries and churches. There were 
 in those Presbyteries ministers and churches, or at 
 least parts of churches, thoroughly Presbyterian, 
 whose rights and privileges were in some way to be 
 provided for; but the number of Congregationalists 
 was so large as to render it very difficult, if not im- 
 practicable, to carry out the views of the Assembly 
 through the action of Presbyteries or churches. On 
 the other hand, there were in some Synods not owing 
 their existence to the Plan of Union, a few Congre- 
 tional churches, whose future relations were to be de- 
 termined by some method of proceeding to be adopted 
 by the Assembly ; and would it not be best to pursue 
 
248 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OP THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 a uniform course with regard to all ? These were 
 questions which demanded serious deliberation. Ac- 
 cordingly no further action was taken on this subject 
 for a day or two ; and the Assembly resolved to intro- 
 duce judicial process against " such inferior judicato- 
 ries as should appear to be charged by common fame 
 with the toleration of gross errors in doctrine and dis- 
 orders in practice." This resolution was carried by 
 a majority of 6 only — 122 voting in the negative and 
 102 entering their protest against it! What hope 
 was there that citations issued under such circum- 
 stances, would be of any avail? This vote, and the 
 previous one abrogating the Plan of Union, (on which 
 110 voted in the negative,) showed also how ineffectual 
 would be the attempt to reach the evils complained of, 
 by directing the Presbyteries or churches to take action 
 based on the abrogation of that Plan. A determina- 
 tion was manifested by the commissioners from those 
 Synods, and by the New-school party in general, to 
 adhere to the Plan, and to preserve the integrity of 
 the churches which had been formed under it. 
 
 Judicial proceedings appearing to be impracticable, 
 a proposition was next made, on the part of the Old- 
 school, for a voluntary separation of the two parties 
 in the church, and a committee of ten was appointed, 
 five on each side, to confer together and report to the 
 Assembly a plan for an amicable division. This com- 
 mittee agreed upon "the propriety of a voluntary 
 separation," "the corporate funds, the names to be 
 held by each denomination, the records of the church, 
 and its boards and institutions." But they differed 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 249 
 
 " as to the propriety of entering at once by the Assem- 
 bly upon the division;" "as to the power of the As- 
 sembly to take effectual initiative steps, as proposed 
 by the majority" — i. e. by the Old-school members; 
 the New wishing to refer the question to the Presby- 
 teries ; and '^ as to the breaking up of the succession 
 of that General Assembly, so that neither of the 
 new Assemblies proposed be considered that proper 
 body continued ;" in regard to which the Old-school 
 portion of the committee "could not consent to any 
 thing that should even imply the final dissolution of 
 the Presbyterian Church as now organized in this 
 country ;" though they " were perfectly disposed to do 
 all that the utmost liberality could demand, and to 
 use in all cases such expressions as should be wholly 
 unexceptionable." The committee failing to agree, 
 each portion presented to the Assembly a separate 
 report, and the subject was dropped. 
 
 The Assembly then proceeded to carry into effect 
 the resolution before adopted, abrogating the Plan of 
 Union. They declared first, the Synod of the Western 
 Reserve to be "no longer a part of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America;" and after- 
 wards adopted a similar resolution with regard to the 
 Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genessee. Though 
 the Assembly assigned as their reason for this course, 
 and their "urgency for the immediate decision of it," 
 the "gross disorders which were ascertained to have 
 prevailed in those Synods;" they nevertheless affirmed 
 as to their present action, that they had "no inten- 
 tion, by these resolutions," .... "to affect in any 
 
250 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OP THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 way the ministerial standing of any members of either 
 of said Synods; nor to disturb the pastoral relations 
 of any church ; nor to interfere with the duties or 
 relations of private Christians in their respective 
 congregations ; but only to declare and determine 
 according to the truth and necessity of the case, and 
 by virtue of the full authority existing in [the Assem- 
 bly] for that purpose, the relation of all said Synods 
 and all their constituent parts to that body, and 
 to the Presbyterian Church in the United States." 
 The Assembly also provided that any ministers and 
 churches in those Synods that were strictly Presby- 
 terian in doctrine and order, might be exempted from 
 the operation of these resolutions, by applying to the 
 Presbyteries in our connection most convenient to 
 them; and that Presbyteries of this character might 
 be exempted, by making a statement of their case to 
 the next General Assembly. 
 
 The Assembly likewise dissolved the Third Presby- 
 tery of Philadelphia, and "recommended" that the 
 American Home Missionary Society and the Amer- 
 ican Education Society "should cease to operate 
 within any of our churches." These measures require 
 no special vindication at present — as the authority of 
 the Assembly to adopt them was not denied by our 
 New-school brethren; though for other reasons they 
 were opposed to their adoption. The motives which 
 influenced the Assembly to their action with regard 
 to those Societies, have been alluded to already in 
 the preceding chapter, and also in the Preface to the 
 first edition, published in 1838. 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OP THE ASSEMBLY. 251 
 
 Witli regard to the propriety of those acts, styled 
 opprobriously, in New-school prints, the "exscinding" 
 acts, the discussion of two questions will embrace all 
 that is necessary to a correct decision of the case. 
 The first is, Was it a legitimate and constitutional 
 mode of proceeding, for the Assembly to act upon 
 Synods as such? And the second, Had those four 
 Synods any such connection with the Plan of Union, 
 as to be virtually separated from the Assembly and 
 the Presbyterian Church, by its abrogation? As to 
 the first — According to our form of government, the 
 higher judicatories possess the power of review and 
 control over the lower; and in carrying out this 
 principle, the ordinary mode of action is for the next 
 higher to take cognizance of that which is immediately 
 below it. The Presbytery acts on the church, by di- 
 recting the session ; and the Synod on both the session 
 and church, by an order directed to the Presbytery. 
 In like manner, the General Assembly usually acts 
 on the lower judicatories through the Synods. Though 
 that body is not bound invariably to this course, it 
 will not be denied by any acquainted with our Con- 
 stitution, that this is not only a legitimate one, but 
 that it ought not to be departed from, except for 
 special reasons. Suppose, in the case under consid- 
 eration, the Assembly had attempted to act upon the 
 Presbyteries, or (as some maintained they ought to 
 •have done) directly upon the churches. In the former 
 case it might have been said, they had assumed the 
 prerogatives of the Synod, and in the latter, that 
 they had taken into their hands a work which be- 
 
252 FURTHER PROCEEDIN^GS OE THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 longed exclusively to the Presbyteries. Those wlio 
 opposed the measures of the Assembly, would have 
 objected with as much earnestness, we have reason to 
 believe, to the other course. Many of them did 
 virtually object to it soon after in their Presbyteries, 
 by the adoption of resolutions "assuring the churches 
 under their care, that the Plan of Union, so far as 
 they were concerned, was still in force, and its stipu- 
 lations would be preserved by them inviolate." 
 
 It was urged against the application of the vote to 
 Synods, that those bodies, as such, could not have 
 been formed on the Plan of Union, but were regularly 
 constituted according to the directions of the Book; 
 and therefore they could not be affected by the 
 abrogation of the Plan. As to the manner in which 
 Synods are brought into existence, we admit that all 
 of them, except the first, must necessarily be or- 
 ganized alike, viz: by the division of other Synods — 
 and again, that they all must necessarily be alike, in 
 being composed of at least three Presbyteries. But 
 suppose one or two of the three Presbyteries of 
 which a particular Synod is composed, though they 
 bear the name of Presbyteries, are in reality Congre- 
 gational Associations; would the Synod in this case 
 be regularly constituted? Or suppose the Presby- 
 teries generally of which it is composed, though 
 consisting in part of Presbyterian churches, have 
 in them so large a number of Congregationalists, 
 as to give to the Presbyteries a Congregational 
 character ; would a Synod composed of such Presby- 
 teries be a regular Synod according to our Consti- 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 253 
 
 tutlon? Must it not, on the contrary, be styled, 
 speaking in strict propriety, a Congregational Synod, 
 however agreeable to the Constitution may have been 
 the mere form of its erection? On the same princi- 
 ple, though churches alone, in the first instance, 
 could be organized on the Plan of Union, yet as 
 churches, in connection with their pastors, compose 
 Presbyteries, and Presbyteries compose Synods; if 
 such a number of the churches are formed on this 
 Plan as to control the action and policy of the Pres- 
 byteries and Synods, the latter, for aught we can 
 perceive to the contrary, must also be regarded as 
 organized on the Plan of Union. 
 
 Again: — it is objected that this mode of applying 
 the act operated unjustly; as many of the churches 
 in those Synods Avere strictly Presbyterian. If this 
 objection be valid, it would effectually have closed 
 the door against any action whatever ; except by dis- 
 solving the churches formed on the Plan of Union, 
 and directing them to organize anew — at least, all 
 such churches as are partly composed of Presbyte- 
 rian members. There would be the same reason to 
 complain of the injustice of an act, w^hich disowns a 
 Presbyterian member, as of one that disowns a 
 church. It is true that the mode of remedying an 
 evil by acting upon communities, often if not always 
 subjects individuals among them to temporary incon- 
 venience, who, if they w^ere not thus connected, could 
 not justly be brought into such circumstances. But, 
 if the measure is necessary for the public good, and 
 provision is made by which (if they avail themselves 
 22 
 
254 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 of it) tliey "will not in the end be affected injuri- 
 ously, they ought not to complain — especially if the 
 evil to be remedied could not be reached in any 
 other way. 
 
 In order to ascertain whether those acts were just, 
 it is important to understand their true nature. 
 Were they acts of exeommunication as some affirm ? 
 or did they leave the disowned Synods in this 
 respect, just as they stood before? The effect of 
 excommunication is to suspend ministers from their 
 clerical functions, and church members from Chris- 
 tian communion. Was this done, or designed to be 
 done by the General Assembly? If their disclaimer 
 at the time of adopting those resolutions be not 
 deemed sufficient, the uniform conduct of the Old- 
 school towards the New in their official and Christian 
 intercourse with them, has been from that time to 
 the present, a standing rebuke to those who attempt 
 to excite popular indignation against the Assembly, 
 on the ground that those Synods have been "ex- 
 scinded," "cut off," "expelled," without citation or 
 trial. Those acts, it is true, implied some censure. 
 But its severity was greatly softened, and with regard 
 to the sound portion of them, entirely removed by the 
 form in which it was administered. There was no 
 citation or trial, because all judicial proceedings were 
 dropped ; and the Assembly simply said to them, 
 " We will not disturb your ecclesiastical relations as 
 they exist among yourselves ; but we cannot consent 
 to have the Presbyterian Church revolutionized and 
 remodelled through your instrumentality ; especially, 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINas OF THE ASSEMBLY. 255 
 
 as you came into it at first only by courtesy and com- 
 promise ; and we therefore regard it as right and pro- 
 per to inform you, that from this time forward, you 
 shall not be represented in our body." Is not this a 
 fair statement of what the Assembly did? If so, (and 
 we believe it cannot be successfully controverted,) we 
 cannot perceive any substantial reason for the charge 
 of injustice — especially as the individuals and churches 
 who (as is alleged) ought to have been excepted, were 
 expressly informed that the door was left open for 
 them to reunite with the Assembly, if they should 
 think this to be more for their edification and for 
 the glory of God, than to remain connected with 
 those Synods. Chief Justice Gibson, in giving the 
 opinion of the Court in bank in 1839, observed as 
 follows: "The apparent injustice of the measure 
 arises from the contemplation of it as a judicial sen- 
 tence, pronounced against parties who were neither 
 cited nor heard, which it evidently was not. Even 
 as a legislative act, it may have been a hard one, 
 though certainly constitutional, and strictly just." 
 
 If then the Assembly acted constitutionally and 
 justly in applying those resolutions to Synods taken 
 as a body, the only question which remains to be set- 
 tled is, Had those four Synods such a connection with 
 the Plan of Union, that their separation from the 
 General Assembly and the Presbyterian Church was 
 a legitimate consequence of its abrogation? With 
 regard to the Synod of the Western Reserve, there 
 is no ground for doubt. A member of that Synod, 
 the Rev. J. Seward, in an article communicated to 
 
256 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OP THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 the Ohio Observer^ in 1837, wrote as follows: "The 
 Presbytery of Grand River, agreeably to the order of 
 the Synod of Pittsburgh, was organized in the autumn 
 of 1814, and as it covered ground on which a union 
 had been established between Presbyterians and Con- 
 gregationalists, according to the regulations adopted 
 by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, 
 it was deemed necessary that this Presbytery should 
 be so organized as to consolidate and perpetuate this 
 union, and thus carry out the recommendations and 
 injunctions of the General Assembly. To accomplish 
 this object, a number of articles, adapted to the pecu- 
 liar situation of the churches in this region, was 
 adopted by this Presbytery, and afterwards by the 
 Presbyteries of Portage and Huron, as they were 
 respectively organized. The design of these articles 
 was to secure to all connected with these Presbyteries 
 the rights and privileges pledged in the regulations 
 adopted by the General Assembly and the General 
 Association in 1801." . . . . "At a meeting of the 
 General Assembly in 1825, a petition was presented 
 for a division of the Synod of Pittsburgh, and the 
 erection of a new Synod, to be composed of the three 
 Presbyteries above named, and to be known by the 
 name of the Synod of the Western Reserve. This 
 
 request was granted." From this statement 
 
 it will be perceived that the three Presbyteries of 
 which this Synod was composed, were formed expli- 
 citly on the Plan of Union. Had it not been for that 
 Plan, neither they nor the Synod could have been 
 organized. 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 257 
 
 The oldest of the three Synods in AVestern New 
 York is Geneva; which was constituted in 1812, by 
 a division of the Synod of Albany, and consisted at 
 that time of three Presbyteries, viz: Geneva, Cay- 
 uga, and Onondaga. The Geneva Presbytery was 
 formed from the Presbytery of Oneida in 1805; at 
 which time the latter Presbytery reported twenty 
 churches, about one-half of which appear to have 
 been Congregational; and as that part of its terri- 
 tory which was set off to form the Geneva Presby- 
 tery, was particularly intended for the operation of 
 the Plan of Union, it is reasonable to infer that a 
 large proportion of the churches belonging to the 
 new Presbytery were Congregational. But my 
 information with regard to it, is not so definite as 
 concerning the other two Presbyteries. In 1808, 
 * the Synod of Albany, by permission of the General 
 Assembly, received the Middle Association of the 
 Western District, as a constituent part of that Synod. 
 In 1809, it reported to the Synod twenty-one congre- 
 gations; and in the Minutes of the General Assem- 
 bly for that year and the year following, the Associa- 
 tion is named in the statistical account. In 1810, 
 the Presbytery of Geneva and the "Middle Associa- 
 tion" made a joint request to Synod to be organized 
 into three Presbyteries, which was accordingly done. 
 By this arrangement, that part of Geneva Presbytery 
 which lay east of Cayuga lake, was detached from it 
 (containing, however, but a single church) and in 
 connection with the churches belonging to the Asso- 
 ciation, two Presbyteries were formed, viz: Cayuga 
 
 09* 
 
258 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 and Onondaga; tlie former having fifteen and the 
 latter thirteen churches. Eight years afterwards 
 (1819) these two Presbyteries were doubled by acces- 
 sions from the Onondaga Association, which was 
 dissolved and its ministers and churches received 
 into these Presbyteries on the Plan of Union. 
 
 Several of the Presbyteries which were subse- 
 quently added to the Synod had a similar origin. 
 One of them (Cortland) can be traced to the Middle 
 Association. Two others, viz: Chenango and Dela- 
 ware, derived their materials from the Union Associ- 
 ation ; which was dissolved, or rather "broken up," 
 by the action of its ministers ; who without the consent 
 or knowledge of their churches, joined the Otsego 
 Presbytery ; immediately after which, the Presbytery 
 applied to the General Assembly, to form them into 
 a new Presbytery, to be called Chenango; which 
 request being granted, the Presbytery was formed in 
 1826, consisting of ministers only. A plan of union 
 was adopted by the new Presbytery on the basis of 
 the action of the General Assembly in 1808, soon 
 after which most of their churches united with the 
 Presbytery. The Delaware Presbytery was formed 
 from a part of Chenango, and of course had the same 
 origin. 
 
 From these facts, it appears that the Synod of 
 Geneva not only grew out of the Plan of Union, but 
 that when it was organized, it had not sufficient 
 materials to form a Constitutional Synod. Two of 
 its three original Presbyteries, were the twin daugh- 
 ters of the Middle Association, whose name had 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OP THE ASSEMBLY. 259 
 
 been dropped, but the organization of its churcbes 
 continued to be substantially the same as before. 
 Nor did the growth of the Synod for fifteen years 
 afterwards materially change its character in this 
 respect. Two other Congregational associations 
 were dissolved during this period, and without any 
 change in their form of government as churches, or 
 with very slight ones it may be in some cases, were 
 received into the different Presbyteries of this Synod. 
 The reader must recollect that we do not mention 
 these things as a crime, but only to show what is the 
 constitutional relation of this Synod to the Presbyte- 
 rian Church. 
 
 The Synod of Genessee was constituted in 1821, 
 by a division of the Synod of Geneva, and consisted 
 of four Presbyteries, viz: Niagara, Ontario, Genes- 
 see, and Rochester. I name them in the order of 
 their organization. The first two were formed in 
 1817, from the Presbytery of Geneva; and the last 
 tw^o in 1819, from the Presbytery of Ontario. The 
 Genessee Presbytery, at the time or soon after it was 
 formed, adopted a paper containing an exposition of 
 the Plan of Union, and transcribed it in their Presby- 
 terial Records, for the information of the churches 
 under their care. Whether any of the other Presby- 
 teries adopted a similar course on this subject, I am 
 not informed. But from the testimony of personal 
 friends and acquaintances, who then resided in the 
 bounds of this Synod, I feel no hesitation in saying, 
 that the prevailing impression in all the Presbyteries 
 was, that they grew up under the Plan of Union; 
 
260 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 and that previously to 1837, the churches in general 
 ■were so much attached to this Plan, viewed as a mod- 
 ification of Presbyterian^ government, that rather 
 than give it up, they would have seceded from the 
 Presbyterian Church, and have become wholly Con- 
 gregational. 
 
 The Synod of Utica was constituted in 1829, by a 
 division of the Synod of Albany, and consisted of five 
 Presbyteries, viz: Oneida, Watertown, Otsego, St. 
 Lawrence, and Oswego. Though this Synod is the 
 youngest of the three in Western New York, one of 
 its Presbyteries, viz: Oneida, is the oldest of all. It 
 ■was formed from a part of the Presbytery of Albany 
 in 1802, one year after the date of the Plan of Union. 
 It consisted at that time of six ministers. No churches 
 are named; but from an examination of the statisti- 
 cal reports of the Presbytery of Albany up to this 
 time, it will appear that there Avere five or six churches 
 embraced in the territory assigned to the new Pres- 
 bytery. In 1803 it had seventeen, and in 1805, twenty 
 churches, about one-half of which were Congregational. 
 The next year it reported but eight, the others having 
 been detached to form the Presbytery of Geneva. 
 From this time there was a gradual increase till 1816, 
 ■when there was an accession of twelve ministers and 
 nine churches. All the ministers except one were from 
 Congregational Associations; and all the churches, it 
 is believed, were Congregational. This large acces- 
 sion was owing to the dissolution of the Oneida Asso- 
 ciation, Avhich has been represented as an interesting 
 and flourishing body; but as the Plan of Union 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 261 
 
 opened a door for their admission into tlie Presbyte- 
 rian Church, and as the ministers were desirous of 
 forming such a connection, the people were persuaded 
 to yield. The Association was accordingly dissolved, 
 and most of its ministers and churches joined the 
 Presbytery. 
 
 The Presbytery of Watertown (called at first St. 
 Lawrence) was constituted from the Oneida Presby- 
 tery in 1816, consisting of five ministers and two 
 churches. In 1819, the number of churches reported 
 to the General Assembly was eleven, seven of which 
 were Congregational. Their history in this respect, 
 from that time onward, I am unable to give. But the 
 Congregational character of the Presbytery taken as 
 a body, may be inferred from a fact related to me in 
 1834 or 1835, by a clerical brother who had resided 
 ten or twelve months in that section of the State; 
 viz : that a number of ministers in that Presbytery 
 belonged to a Congregational Association, and were 
 acting members both of the Presbytery and Associa- 
 tion at the same time; that in one case a candidate, 
 who was refused license by the Presbytery, applied 
 immediately afterwards to a part of the same men, 
 who, laying aside their Presbyterial character, and 
 acting in the capacity of Congregational ministers, 
 made out and subscribed his licensure. The Otsego 
 and Oswego Presbyteries were also constituted from 
 the Presbytery of Oneida; the former in 1819, and 
 and the latter in 1822. As the materials for these 
 Presbyteries were derived mainly from the Oneida 
 Association, an account of which has just been given. 
 
262 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 their connection with the Plan of Union is sufficiently 
 manifest, without any particular statement concerning 
 their churches. In 1837, one-half of those in Otsego 
 Presbytery were Congregational, and in the Oswego 
 Presbytery two-thirds. 
 
 The St. Lawrence Presbytery (called at first Og- 
 densburg) was constituted in 1821, by a division of 
 the Presbytery of Champlain. The latter Presbytery, 
 previous to this time, extended over the whole terri- 
 tory of Northern New York, and was in a great de- 
 gree missionary ground. Many of the churches in 
 that region were organized by an excellent and labo- 
 rious Congregational missionary,* whom I have heard 
 relate many thrilling incidents concerning his labours, 
 his discouragements, and his success. I heard him 
 also, at the same time, express his partiality for the 
 Congregational mode of government ; and listened to 
 one of his sermons, which he read to several persons 
 present, and which had been delivered by him on a 
 former occasion, a part of which was designed to 
 show, by way of contrast, the superior excellence of 
 Congregationalism. Some of the churches which he 
 formed were, perhaps, Presbyterian; but the major 
 part were undoubtedly Congregational ; and as those 
 churches composed afterwards (at least in part) the 
 St. Lawrence Presbytery, it is highly probable that it 
 had for its basis the Plan of Union. 
 
 We have thus noticed each of the Presbyteries be- 
 longing to this Synod, and the result is, that all of 
 
 * lie belonged to the Northern Associated Presbytery. 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 2G3 
 
 them except one were Congregational in their origin, 
 and continued to be more or less so in their elements, 
 form and spirit, after they were constituted as Pres- 
 byteries. And the same we have found to be true 
 concerning the other two Synods. If this statement 
 needs corroborating by other proof, I can adduce the 
 testimony of one of the oldest ministers in Western 
 New York, the Rev. Mr. Hotchkin, author of a History 
 of the Churches there, and a member of the Auburn 
 Convention in 1837. In a speech made by him on 
 that occasion, he said that " the churches in the three 
 Synods of Western New York" (with the exception of 
 two or three which were formed on the plan of 1801) 
 came in on the plan of 1808, when the Northern As- 
 sociated Presbytery, and the Middle Association of 
 the Western District, were received by the Synod of 
 Albany.* In 1809, the delegates from the Middle As- 
 sociation were received in the General Assembly, and 
 their names, together with the name of the Association, 
 appear on the minutes of the Assembly of that year. 
 But the Association soon lost its name, and in con- 
 
 * The action of that Synod, so far as it related to the North- 
 ern Associated Presbytery, did not go into eiFect for many 
 years. The older ministers belonging to this body were opposed 
 to the change; and out of regard to their feelings, the Presby- 
 tery was not dissolved until they had either died or consented 
 to join some other Congregational Association; at which time, 
 (not earlier than 1815 or 1816,) the one or two ministers that 
 remained, united with the Presbytery of Albany. Not long 
 afterwards, eight or ten of the churches joined the same Pres- 
 bytery — about half of them having previously changed their 
 organization, by appointing ruling elders. 
 
264 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 nection with the Presbytery of Geneva, which was 
 organized several years, three Presbyteries were 
 formed out of it, viz : Greneva, Cayuga, and Onon- 
 daga. The Onondaga Association was afterwards dis- 
 solved, by the advice of the Rev. Mr. Chapman, and 
 received by the Synod of Geneva on the same plan." 
 Speaking of these churches having for several years 
 waived their right (as he regarded it) to be repre- 
 sented in the General Assembly, in order to avoid 
 dijfficulty, he said that he had great influence in bring- 
 ing about the change ; and that if he had not exerted 
 his influence in the case, instead of there being three 
 Synods, there would probably have been now (1837) 
 but one Presbytery." 
 
 The connection of those four Synods with the Pres- 
 byterian Church, on the basis of the Plan of Union, 
 having been (as we think) sufficiently established, it fol- 
 lows, that the action of the General Assembly concern- 
 ing them was authorized, if not required, by the opera- 
 tion of the previous resolution adopted by the Assembly 
 abro2;atino; that Plan. In this conclusion I am sustained 
 by the Court in bank for the State of Pennsylvania, 
 whose opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Gibson, 
 in 1839. His language is as follows: "Surely this 
 [Plan of Union] was not intended to outlast the ina- 
 bility of the respective sects to provide separately for 
 themselves, or to perpetuate the innovations on Pres- 
 byterian government which it was calculated to pro- 
 duce. It was obviously a missionary arrangement 
 from the first; and they who built up Presbyteries 
 and Synods on the basis of it, had no reason to ex- 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 265 
 
 poet that their structures would survive it, or that 
 Congregationalists might, by force of it, gain a foot- 
 hold in the Presbyterian Church, despite of Presby- 
 terian discipline. They embraced it with all its de- 
 feasible properties plainly put before them ; and the 
 power which constituted it might fairly repeal it, and 
 dissolve the bodies that had grown out of it, whenever 
 the good of the church should seem to require it." 
 
 As we have quoted a part of the opinion of the 
 Court in this case, it may not be amiss to make a 
 remark or two concerning its final decision. The 
 trial before the Court of Nisi Prius resulted in favour 
 of the New-school party; in view of which the 
 closing words of the opinion delivered by the Court 
 in bank were — " Rule for a new trial made absolute." 
 This has been represented in New-school publications 
 as deciding nothing in favour of the Old-school except 
 to grant them an opportunity for another hearing; 
 whereas it was a virtual decision of the whole case in 
 their favour. Every important principle involved in 
 it was fully discussed, and the concluding sentences, 
 preceding the grant for a new trial, were as follows : 
 " Other corroborative views have been suggested ; but 
 it is difficult to compress a decision of the leading 
 points in this case into the old fashioned limits of a 
 judicial opinion. The preceding observations, how- 
 ever, are deemed enough to show the grounds on w^hich 
 we hold that the Assembly which met in the First 
 Presbyterian Church (z. e. the New-school Assembly) 
 was not the legitimate successor of the Assembly of 
 1837, and that the defendants (the Old-school) are not 
 23 
 
206 FURTHER PROCEEDINaS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 guilty of the usurpation with which they are charged." 
 Were these words intended to decide nothing touching 
 the merits of the case ? The New-school, and not the 
 Old, were the plaintiffs ; and hence the former, and 
 not the latter, were the party to renew the prosecu- 
 tion, if a new trial was ever to be had. Why did they 
 not recommence the suit? For this obvious reason, 
 that there was no hope of success. Every point on 
 which the decision of the case depended, was ruled in 
 favour of the Old-school Assembly. 
 
 In 1838 the commissioners appointed by the Pres- 
 byteries belonging to the four Synods above named, 
 and those from other Presbyteries who chose to act 
 with them, formed a separate General Assembly, and 
 appealed to the civil court to sustain them in their 
 new position. The result of the suit we have just 
 noticed. There being now two bodies, the Old-school 
 Assembly, in order to perfect those measures of reform 
 which had been commenced the preceding year, and 
 to make special provision for the future, adopted a 
 paper containing three acts; which provided for the 
 reception of all such ministers and church merpbers 
 as were thrown by circumstances with the Presbyte- 
 ries represented in the new Assembly, but who might 
 desire to remain with the Old-school body; and 
 directed them particularly what course to pursue in 
 order to be recognized by the Assembly. These acts 
 were designed to operate, on the one hand, as a check 
 to the continuance in our communion of any who 
 might entertain loose doctrinal views ; and on the 
 other, as an expression of cordial welcome to the ad- 
 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 267 
 
 mission of all who adopted the Confession of Faith 
 according to its obvious sense. Some words and 
 phrases which they contained, were unfortunately am- 
 biguous; on which account objections were made to 
 them by various persons, who understood them as re- 
 quiring those who adhered to the Old-school Assembly 
 to express their approbation of the acts of the Assem- 
 bly in 1837 and 1838. Objections were also made to 
 them on other grounds. An explanatory resolution 
 was accordingly adopted in 1843, declaring that " in 
 requiring an adherence to our church on the basis of 
 the Assembly of 1837 and 1838, they (the Assembly) 
 did not create nor introduce any new basis of Presby- 
 terianism, but required an adherence to the true and 
 only basis of our organization and communion, viz : 
 the doctrinal standards and constitution of our church, 
 as founded on the word of God, a deplorable depar- 
 ture from which had been suffered through the opera- 
 tion of the Plan of Union." And further, "that it 
 was not then, and is not now, required of those who 
 would adhere to us as a branch of the church of 
 Christ, that, as a term of membership in this church, 
 they should approve the acts of the Assembly of 1837 
 and 1838 ; but simply that they should recognize tho 
 church as then and subsequently constituted as the 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 
 and acknowledge their subjection to its judicatories." 
 This explanation was intended partly to disabuse the 
 minds of those who desired to unite with us, but could 
 not assent to the required conditions, according to 
 their understanding of the acts of the Assembly of 
 
268 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 1838, and partly to vindicate the Assembly from the 
 charge which had been opprobriously made against 
 them, of establishing a "new basis" wholly unknown 
 to the constitution. Our New-school brethren main- 
 tained that there could not be a constitutional General 
 Assembly without admitting the commissioners from 
 the four Synods of Western New York and the West- 
 ern Reserve. The acts of the Assembly of 1838, 
 assuming that what had been done the preceding year 
 on this subject was "constitutional and just," required 
 of those who would unite with us, an adherence to the 
 Assembly as then constituted, and a recognition of it 
 as the true General Assembly. They could not have 
 required less than this without receding from the 
 ground which they had taken, re-enacting the Plan of 
 Union, and restoring those Synods to their former 
 connection with the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 The question, which of the two Assemblies of 1838 
 was the true General Assembly, the legitimate and 
 legal successor of the Assembly of 1837 may be 
 easily determined. Our New-school brethren admit 
 that the acts of the Assembly of 1837 excluding the 
 four Synods, did not destroy that body or render 
 their subsequent acts during the same sessions inva- 
 lid. They found their claim to the succession on the 
 manner of constituting the Assembly of 1838. The 
 standing committee of commissions, agreeably to the 
 instructions of the preceding Assembly, refused at 
 the opening of the sessions of 1838, to enrol the 
 names of the commissioners from the Presbyteries 
 belonging to these four Synods, and the moderator 
 
TRUE SUCCESSION OP THE ASSEMBLY OP 1837. 269 
 
 declared it out of order to put to the house a motion 
 which was offered, touching this subject, until the 
 Assembly should be organized by the election of a 
 new moderator; whereupon the New-school commis- 
 sioners, by the advice, as they said, of ^' counsel learn- 
 ed in the law," proceeded immediately to appoint a 
 new moderator and clerks, and then adjourned to 
 meet in another house, leaving the Old-school portion 
 in the quiet occupancy of their seats. By this ma- 
 noeuvre they claim to have deposed the moderator 
 and to have elected another in his place ; and then 
 after having in like manner elected new clerks, to 
 have carried with them as they left the house the 
 true and legal succession. The silence of the Old- 
 school commissioners while these hasty and disorderly 
 proceedings were going on, is construed by them as 
 having been a legal acquiescence in this extraor- 
 dinary movement. A few considerations will place 
 this matter in its true light. 
 
 1. If the acts of the Assembly of 1837 disowning 
 the four Synods were "constitutional and strictly 
 just," as was affirn?ed by the Court in bank for the 
 State of Pennsylvania, then the exclusion of the com- 
 missioners from those Synods in 1838, was constitu- 
 tional and just, because this was nothing more than 
 adhering to what had been done the preceding year. 
 
 2. The refusal of the clerks t'o enrol the names of 
 those commissioners, whether right or wrong, did not 
 prevent the Assembly of 1838 from being validly 
 constituted, our New-school brethren themselves being 
 judges. The tender of those commissions to the 
 
 23* 
 
270 TRUE SUCCESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837. 
 
 house through the moderator, by one of their num- 
 ber, and his motion to have their names enrolled, 
 assumed that there was a regular moderator in the 
 chair, and a judicatory thus far validly constituted; 
 for otherwise they were not competent to receive and 
 act upon his motion. 
 
 3. If, then, the legal existence of the body was de- 
 stroyed at all, this was done by the suicidal act of 
 the moderator who refused to put the motion, on the 
 ground that it was out of order. On this point let it 
 be remembered, that though at the time these com- 
 missions were offered, he had just called for addition- 
 al commissions, if there were any in the house which 
 had not been presented to the clerks; this call ap- 
 plied exclusively to those concerning whose right to 
 seats there was no doubt, and not to commissions 
 refused by the clerks. Contested rights could not 
 properly be debated and settled at that time, as the 
 next business in order was to elect a new moderator; 
 after which, commissions of this description might 
 either be considered by the Assembly, or referred to 
 a special committee on elections to examine and 
 report thereon. The moderator was therefore not at 
 fault in this particular. But on the supposition that 
 it was his duty to put the motion (which we do not 
 admit) his refusal to do so did not depose him from 
 office. This could h6 done, (even though it should be 
 conceded that he deserved deposition) in no other 
 •way than by a distinct motion to this effect, and a 
 vote of the house upon such motion ; which it is not 
 pretended was done or attempted. 
 
TRUE SUCCESSION OP THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837. 271 
 
 4. It follows therefore, that the proceedings of the 
 New-school commissioners, which were based on the 
 assumption that the moderator's chair was virtually 
 vacated by his own act, had no foundation in truth ; 
 and hence those proceedings did not possess either 
 ecclesiastical or legal validity to effect the end which 
 their members who participated in them had in view. 
 The body which they thought proper to leave, con- 
 tained at the time, and after the New-school members 
 left the house, all the regularly constituted officers of 
 the Assembly, and a majority of all the commission- 
 ers in attendance. The New-school members organ- 
 ized a General Assembly ; but it was another and a dif- 
 ferent body from the General Assembly of 1837 — 38;- 
 the constitutional links of connection between the 
 two not being possessed by them; while in the or- 
 ganization of the Old-school Assembly were found all 
 the requisite elements of a true and legal succession. 
 
 The following extract from the opinion of the 
 Court in bank already referred to, fully sustains us 
 in these views. "It appears, therefore, {i, e. it fol- 
 lows from the preceding argument) that the commis- 
 sioners from the exscinded Synods, were not entitled 
 to seats in the Assembly, and that their names were 
 properly excluded from the roll. The inquiry might 
 be rested here ; for if there was no colour of right in 
 them, there was no colour of right in the adversary 
 proceedings which w^ere founded on their exclusion. 
 But even if their title were clear, the refusal of an 
 appeal from the decision of the moderator, would be 
 no ground for the degradation of the officer at the call 
 
272 TRUE SUCCESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837. 
 
 of a minority ; nor could it impose on the majority an 
 obligation to vote on a question put unofficially, and 
 out of the usual course. To all questions put by the 
 established organ, it is the duty of every member to 
 respond, or be counted with the greater number, be- 
 cause he is supposed to have assented beforehand to 
 the result of the process pre-established to ascertain 
 the general will ; but the rule of implied assent is cer- 
 tainly inapplicable to a measure which, when justij&able 
 even by extreme necessity, is essentially revolutionary, 
 and based on no pre-established process of ascertain- 
 ment whatever. 
 
 '' To apply it to an extreme case of inorganic action, 
 as was done here, might work the degradation of any 
 presiding officer in our legislative halls, by the motion 
 and actual vote of a single member, sustained by the 
 constructive votes of all the rest ; and though such an 
 enterprise may never be attempted, it shows the 
 danger of resorting to a conventional rule, when 
 the body is to be resolved into its original elements, 
 and the rules and conventions to be superseded, by 
 the very motion. For this reason, the choice of a 
 moderator to supplant the officer in the chair, even if 
 he were removable at the pleasure of the commission- 
 ers, would seem to have been unconstitutional. 
 
 "But he was not removable by them, because he 
 had not derived his office from them; nor was he 
 answerable to them for the use of his power. He 
 "was not their moderator. He was the mechanical 
 instrument of their organization; and till that was 
 accomplished, they were subject to his rule — not he 
 
TRUE SUCCESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837. 273 
 
 to theirs. They were chosen by the authority of his 
 mandate, and with the power of self-organization, 
 only in the event of his absence at the opening of the 
 session. Corporally present, but refusing to perform 
 his functions, he might be deemed constructively 
 absent, for constitutional purposes, insomuch that the 
 commissioners might proceed to the choice of a sub- 
 stitute without him; but not if he had entered on 
 the performance of his task ; and the reason is that 
 the decision of such questions as were prematurely 
 pressed here, is proper for the decision of the body 
 when prepared for organic action, which it cannot be 
 before it is fully constituted, and under the presidency 
 of its own moderator ; the moderator of the preceding 
 session being functus officio. ..... It seems, then, 
 
 that an appeal from the decision of the moderator did 
 not lie; and that he incurred no penalty by the 
 disallowance of it. The title of the exscinded com- 
 missioners could be determined only by the action of 
 the house, which could not be had before its organiza- 
 tion was complete; and, in the mean time, he was 
 bound, as the executive instrument of the preceding 
 Assembly, to put its ordinance into execution ; for to 
 the actual Assembly, and not to the moderator of the 
 preceding one, it belonged to repeal it." 
 
274 PRESENT CHARACTER AND CONDITION OF 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 PRESENT CHARACTER AND CONDITION OF THE OLD AND NEW-SCHOOL 
 
 BODIES. 
 
 As nearly fifteen years have transpired since the 
 division of the Presbyterian Church into two bodies, 
 there has been sufiicient opportunity for judging 
 "whether those causes which contributed to produce 
 the separation were real or imaginary; temporary or 
 permanent. It has never been denied that a subor- 
 dinate cause of the division was the difference in the 
 views of the two parties concerning voluntary socie- 
 ties and ecclesiastical boards; though this of itself 
 could not have resulted in the formation of two dis- 
 tinct churches. No better evidence of this could be 
 required than the fact, that since that time our New- 
 school brethren have so nearly approximated to the 
 views of the Old-school church on this subject, that 
 if this were all, or even the chief cause of our separa- 
 tion, the union of the two divisions could at present 
 be very easily effected. But, though in this respect 
 we now occupy nearly the same ground, no approach 
 has been made to a coalescence of the separated parts. 
 On what principle can this be accounted for, except 
 that the main cause, which produced the division still 
 exists, viz: the more serious and less reconcilable 
 difference on doctrinal subjects? 
 
 We admit that one question not pertaining to doc- 
 trine interposes a bar to reunion. There are many 
 
THE OLD AND NEW-SCHOOL BODIES. 275 
 
 Congregational churches in the New-school connec- 
 tion, with reference to which the Presbyteries to which 
 they belong have taken action, guaranteeing to them 
 the permanency of their present relations; and the 
 New-school General Assembly at their last meeting 
 reaffirmed the existence of the Plan of Union; 
 thereby virtually perpetuating Congregationalism in 
 their bounds. It is well known however that many 
 Congregational churches connected with their body 
 have been for years more or less uneasy in their 
 anomalous position; and the course pursued on this 
 subject by the Convention at Albany last autumn, is 
 adapted to increase their uneasiness and to lead them 
 one after another to Independency. It was probably 
 with a view to allay their dissatisfaction and to pre- 
 vent any movement towards a separate organization, 
 that the New-school Assembly adopted the resolution 
 just referred to. But would they have done this, if 
 they had believed that the chief bar to a reunion 
 with the Old-school Church was the existence of Con- 
 gregationalism in their own body? Many of them 
 had in different forms intimated their desire for a con- 
 nection with us, provided they could come in as a 
 body; and they were acquainted with the fact that 
 the Congregational churches under the care of their 
 Presbyteries, so far from feeling themselves bound to 
 continue their connection with those Presbyteries by 
 virtue of the Plan of Union, were now and then 
 becoming Independent; and that for ten years past 
 Congregational editors have been urging upon the 
 people holding their views of church government, to 
 
276 PRESENT CHARACTER AND CONDITION OP 
 
 carry out their denominational preferences by organ- 
 izing themselves into Congregational Associations. 
 Under these circumstanced, that Assembly could have 
 easily opened the way (if they had been so disposed) 
 for the voluntary separation of the Congregational 
 churches from their body; without any violation of 
 an existing compact even with their own understand- 
 ing of its binding force. But the truth was, they were 
 conscious that if this barrier should be removed, there 
 existed another which would render it very difficult, if 
 not impossible, for the Old and New-school divisions 
 to form collectively a, reunion, without a change in the 
 views of one of the parties. First, the same difference 
 exists as formerly, with regard to what is implied in 
 adopting our Confession of Faith. In a recent work 
 authorized by the Synods of New York and New Jer- 
 sey, a notice of which is found in our Introduction, the 
 writer acknowledges that the New-school party, which 
 he represents, admits "of diversity of views on points 
 not affecting the integrity of the system," and that 
 " perfect uniformity in reference to a system so com- 
 prehensive and minute in its details, is not to be 
 expected, and ought not to be required." In this 
 acknowledgment we have the starting point of the 
 differences between the two schools. The Old-school 
 do require an honest, full and hearty subscription to 
 the creed of the church ; the New leaves every one to 
 judge what is essential to the system; and under this 
 convenient subterfuge, the protean forms of new the- 
 ology have crept into the church. Again, the same 
 difference exists as in former years, on several im- 
 
THE OLD AND NEW-SCHOOL BODIES. 277 
 
 portant points of Scripture doctrine. Tlie extravagant 
 manner of speaking which was then common in some 
 sections of our country is now unknown ; and there 
 are indications of a sounder faith in a number of minis- 
 ters who were once of questionable orthodoxy. But 
 several of those men whose published errors were the 
 main ground of our former troubles, are now in the 
 New-school body, take a prominent and leading part, 
 and maintain and teach the same doctrines as in years 
 past. The Rev. Albert Barnes, as Moderator of the 
 New-school General Assembly of 1851, delivered a 
 discourse before that body, in which he not only re- 
 affirmed his former errors, but caricatured those doc- 
 trines which from time immemorial have been esteemed 
 orthodox, and which are known to be held by the Old- 
 school. When a motion was made to print it, one or 
 two members (perhaps more — I write from recollec- 
 tion) expressed their dissent from some points con- 
 tained in it, and objected to its being published under 
 the sanction of the Assembly. The motion was with- 
 drawn, but with the understanding that the discourse 
 should be printed, which was accordingly done. How 
 many of that Assembly dissented from its teachings I 
 have no means of knowing ; but not an individual 
 protested against them, or even expressed disapproba- 
 tion except in the manner above mentioned. We are 
 not aware that the accredited organs of that body con- 
 tained any strictures on the sermon after it came from 
 the press ; and in one section of the country (we can- 
 not speak for all) we happen to know that pains were 
 taken by persons belonging to that church to circulate 
 ' 24 
 
278 EFFECTS OF THE DIVISION. 
 
 it among the people. The periodicals alluded to, as 
 for example the Biblical Repository, the New York 
 Evangelist, and the Philadelphia Christian Observer, 
 furnish also positive evidence, from the character of 
 some of their articles, that those errors are held by 
 some, we fear a considerable number, in that connec- 
 tion. 
 
 EFFECTS OF THE DIVISION. 
 
 The necessity for a division of the church was 
 deprecated by all; and by none more sincerely than 
 the Old-school. It was anticipated that temporary 
 evils and inconveniences would result from it, which 
 no legislation could wholly prevent. But it was 
 deemed preferable to submit to these evils, for the 
 sake of avoiding still greater ones which appeared to 
 be inevitable, if the two parties in the church should 
 continue any longer in the same body. To use the 
 language of an excellent and distinguished brother in 
 the ministry, "We were reduced to this simple question, 
 Is the Presbyterian Church worth an effort to save?" 
 The effort was made, and in the good providence of 
 God it has been crowned with success. Our condition 
 as a Church, we are persuaded, is far better than it 
 would have been if the division had not occurred, unless 
 (an event not to have been expected) our New-school 
 brethren had materially modified their former views. 
 
 One beneficial effect of the separation has been the 
 enjoyment of greater harmony and peace. However 
 humiliating the acknowledgment, it is nevertheless 
 true, that for seven years or more previous to the 
 
EFFECTS OF THE DIVISION. 279 
 
 division, so heterogeneous were tlie materials •which 
 composed the highest judicatory of our church, that 
 the floor of the General Assembly had become an 
 arena of strife and controversy. Irrespective of the 
 question which of the two parties were in the wrong, 
 the simple facts that they were at variance, and that 
 their differences could not be reconciled, were suffi- 
 cient reasons, as in the case of Abraham and Lot, 
 (Gen. xiii. 8, 9) not only for justifying but demanding 
 separation. The removal of these discordant ele- 
 ments, and the organization of another body by that 
 portion of the church which differed from us, restored 
 to our Assembly that harmony of action which char- 
 acterized its early history. 
 
 Another effect of the division has been the restora- 
 tion to our body of its former unity in doctrinal views. 
 A half century ago it was sufficient to know that a man 
 was a Presbyterian minister, in order to feel assured 
 that he was sound in the faith, according to the Calvin- 
 istic sense of this phrase. But for ten years previous 
 to 1837, this test was quite insufficient. Under the 
 Presbyterian name, and with Presbyterian credentials, 
 ministers passed from congregation to congregation 
 in certain parts of our country, and promulgated 
 Arminian and even Pelagian tenets. At the former 
 period, in changing one's ministerial connection from 
 one Presbytery to another, a certificate of good and 
 regular standing was deemed sufficient, without a 
 personal examination. But during the latter, the 
 presenting of "clean papers" was found to be no 
 certain evidence of soundness in the faith. Distrust 
 
280 EFFECTS OF THE DIVISION. 
 
 and suspicion took the place of confidence. Some 
 Presbyteries began to examine applicants for admis- 
 sion to their bodies from other Presbyteries, however 
 satisfactory might be their written credentials. This 
 practice being objected to, the question was brought 
 before the General Assembly. In 1834, the right to 
 re-examine was denied. But in 1835, (the Old-school 
 being in the majority,) the Assembly decided that 
 *'it is the right of every Presbytery to be entirely 
 satisfied of the soundness in the faith of those minis- 
 ters who apply to be admitted into the Presbytery as 
 members." This was a partial remedy of the evil; 
 but our former unity of sentiment was not restored, 
 until the separate organization of the New-school 
 body. 
 
 The "History of the Division" already referred to, 
 after quoting the Adopting Act of 1729, observes: 
 *' This instrument does immortal honour to its authors, 
 and those who receive it as a bond of Christian union 
 and fellowship. It provides for the preservation, 
 *pure and entire,' of the system of doctrine" (the 
 italics are not in the Adopting Act) " embraced in the 
 Confession of Faith and Catechism. To errors which 
 are subversive of this system, it gives not the least 
 approval or even toleration, and at the same time 
 admits what is undoubtedly true of every human 
 symbol of doctrinal belief, equally extensive and 
 minute in its details, that it embraces some things in 
 regard to which those who sincerely adopt it, may 
 lawfully differ. It likewise bound those who adopted 
 it, to treat each other, their minor differences not- 
 
EFFECTS OF THE DIVISION. 281 
 
 "withstanding, with Christian courtesy and brotherly 
 affection. It is difficult to conceive how it could have 
 been better adapted to keep ' the unity of the Spirit 
 in the bond of peace.' Had the Presbyterian Church 
 in this country been governed by the pacific and 
 magnanimous principles of this act, she would, at this 
 time, have been a united body." To this last remark 
 we give our assent. It was to preserve the unity which 
 is here so much lauded, that the Old-school made such 
 strenuous efforts before the division of the church. 
 They have not, to my knowledge, either before or 
 since, taken any higher ground than that required by 
 the Adopting Act of 1729. A reference to Chapter 
 X. of this treatise will show that our New-school 
 brethren contended for much greater latitude than 
 was authorized by that act. The errors which they 
 refused to condemn, were believed by their Old- 
 school brethren to be "subversive" of the "system 
 of doctrine embraced in the Confession of Faith and 
 Catechismg^;" and hence, according to the author's 
 own showing, that act did " not give them the least 
 approval or even toleration." If the New-school 
 had co-operated with the Old in adopting efficient 
 measures to counteract those errors when they first 
 made their appearance, they might have been rectified 
 without a division, and the church "have been at 
 this time a united body." The truly catholic spirit 
 of the Adopting Act is felt and manifested as heartily 
 and consistently by the Old-school body as the New. 
 The cases alluded to in the "History" for a different 
 purpose, show that there is among us no disposition 
 24* 
 
282 EFFECTS OP THE DIVISION. 
 
 to place our ministers on the "bed of Procrustes," 
 and require them, on pain of excommunication, to be 
 exactly conformed to this iron model. Uniformity in 
 Christian doctrine is not understood as requiring a 
 perfect agreement in ^' minor' points; but it is 
 equally removed from that false liberality which 
 includes under the head of minor points, important 
 and dangerous errors. The Bible rule is, "first pure, 
 theil peaceable." To secure this purity, and the 
 peace that succeeds it, was the end which the Old- 
 school hoped to obtain by the separation; it having 
 become apparent that neither was practicable while 
 the two parties remained together. And as far as we 
 are able to judge by a reference to the past history of 
 the church, there is now as much unity of doctrinal 
 views in the Old-school body as at any former period 
 since the organization of the Presbyterian Church in 
 this country. The present character of the New- 
 school church in this respect, I shall not attempt to 
 describe. At the Auburn Convention in 1837, a 
 prominent member observed to me, "You find us 
 here of all colours;" but I trust they have become 
 more homogeneous in sentiment since that time. 
 
 A third result of the division has been the existence 
 of more harmony and efiiciency in henevolent action. 
 Above a century ago, the work of sending missiona- 
 ries to our frontier settlements and the Indian tribes 
 received the attention of the church ; and simultane- 
 ously with this, the education of pious and talented 
 young men for the gospel ministry. The records of 
 old Synods of New York and Philadelphia, before and 
 
EPrECTS OF THE DIVISION. 283 
 
 after the union, show that a great deal was accom- 
 plished in these several departments; and after the 
 organization of the General Assembly, in 1789, these 
 objects occupy a prominent place in the minutes of 
 that body. In 1802, the Assembly appointed a 
 Standing Committee of Missions ; and in 1817 they 
 constituted the Board of Missions, with enlarged 
 powers and a permanent organization. An overture 
 was sent down to the Presbyteries in 1805, respecting 
 the education of pious youth for the gospel ministry, 
 and action was taken on the subject 'at the following 
 and one or two subsequent meetings of the Assembly, 
 till 1819, when the Board of Education was consti- 
 tuted, to superintend and carry on this department in 
 behalf of the Assembly. But for some time these 
 Boards were rather bonds of union between the differ- 
 ent judicatories of the church, than the sole agents to 
 prosecute the work. Presbyteries and Synods, in 
 many instances, conducted both missions and educa- 
 tion in their own bounds, and reported their doings 
 annually, either to the Boards or directly to the As- 
 sembly. Important good, however, was accomplished 
 by the direct agency of these Boards, both in training 
 candidates and in sending missionaries to destitute 
 white settlements, to the coloured population of the 
 South, and to different Indian tribes. In 1809, the 
 Assembly adopted a resolution, " earnestly recom- 
 mending that each Synod take measures for establish- 
 ing as many religious tract societies within their 
 bounds, by the associating of one or more Presbyte- 
 ries, as may be most convenient for this purpose." 
 
284 EFFECTS OF THE DIVISION. 
 
 One sucli society was subsequently organized by the 
 Synod of Philadelphia, denominated the Presbyterian 
 Tract Society, which published fifteen or twenty valu- 
 able tracts, forming two volumes of the series of works 
 now issued by the Assembly's Board of Publication. 
 
 The formation of the American Board of Commis- 
 sioners for Foreign Missions, the American Education 
 Society, the American Home Missionary Society, and 
 the American Tract Society, modified the policy and 
 divided the action of the Presbyterian Church, with 
 regard to these several objects. Except the Synod 
 of Pittsburgh, who carried on the missionary work 
 among several tribes of Indians, our efi*orts for Foreign 
 Missions were made principally through the American 
 Board. The mission among the Cherokees, which had 
 been commenced by the Committee of Missions ap- 
 pointed by the Assembly, and conducted successfully 
 for seven years, at an expense of eight or ten thousand 
 dollars, was placed under the care of that Board ; and 
 the Synods of Virginia and North Carolina formed 
 therewith a direct auxiliary connection ; though with 
 the condition incorporated in their constitution, that 
 they might withdraw from it w^ithout offence, or a 
 breach of courtesy, whenever the General Assembly 
 should think proper to resume the work of Foreign 
 Missions. The American Education Society had a 
 Presbyterian Branch, and the American Tract and 
 Home Missionary Societies were allowed free ac- 
 cess to our churches for the collection of funds 
 to carry on their operations. In the department of 
 Domestic Missions and Ministerial Education, for the 
 
EFFECTS OF THE DIVISION. 285 
 
 promotion of wliich our own Boards were operating at 
 the same time, difficulties and collisions were found to 
 result from the action of two independent organiza- 
 tions for these objects in the same field, to say nothing 
 of the doctrinal errors which were incidentally intro- 
 duced among us through the operation of those socie- 
 ties. The action of our Boards was restrained and 
 embarrassed, and far less was accomplished than 
 would have been under more favorable circumstances. 
 This was one source of the difficulty between the two 
 parties in the church, some particulars of which have 
 been already given. The resolutions adopted by the 
 last New-school Assembly on this subject, are a virtual 
 admission that the Old-school were right in that con- 
 test. Since the division, these four objects, viz ; Do- 
 mestic Missions, Foreign Missions, Ministerial and 
 General Education, and the Publication of Evangelical 
 Books and Tracts, have been all conducted by as many 
 distinct but co-ordinate Boards, under the supervision 
 of the General Assembly. We regard them as wisely 
 adapted to accomplish the ends which they have in 
 view. For harmony and energy in action, for effi- 
 ciency and usefulness in their results, they are unsur- 
 passed by any similar organizations in our country. 
 Next to the stated ministry of the gospel, they con- 
 stitute the power and glory of our church. Their 
 success and usefulness afford pleasing evidence of the 
 divine favour. Yes ! I record it, not with boasting, 
 but gratitude, that (as I verily believe) the Holy Spirit 
 is with these Boards of the church, and that the pro- 
 vidence of God is over them — the former to impart to 
 
286 EFFECTS OP THE DIVISION. 
 
 them unity and vitality; the latter to defend and 
 prosper them: — as in Ezekiel's vision of the four 
 wheels, (i. 15 — 28) whose co-ordinate and involved 
 movemeiits were regular, harmonious, and constant, 
 receiving their impetus from an invisible spirit within 
 them, while above, directing and controling the whole, 
 appeared the enthroned Redeemer, encircled with the 
 bow of covenant love. We have now no pretext for 
 inaction. While we rejoice in the zeal and success of 
 every branch of Christ's church who are engaged in 
 promoting his cause, let us not be behind them, either 
 in the expansiveness or efficiency of our benevolence. 
 Finally; we have enjoyed as a church greater 
 prosiJerity and enlargement since the division, than 
 could have been reasonably anticipated, if the two 
 parties had continued together. Had there been a 
 unanimity of sentiment in the whole church, our 
 growth, like that of our nation, might have been con- 
 stant; and our prosperity increased rather than di- 
 minished, by preserving the integrity of the body, 
 and " consecrating our united energies to the ad- 
 vancement of Christ's kingdom." But we were vir- 
 tually divided, for several years before the organi- 
 zation of two separate bodies — divided in sentiment 
 though nominally acting in concert. Under these 
 circumstances, a merely nominal union added nothing 
 either to the beauty or strength of the church ; and 
 our continuance in the same body gave no promise of 
 future prosperity. After the separation, each party 
 was in a position to act more unitedly and efficiently 
 than before. Wc have since experienced no hin- 
 
PROPER TREATMENT OF EACH OTHER. 287 
 
 derance from our New-school brethren or they from 
 us. As to which of the two bodies has enjoyed 
 greater prosperity, or received a larger number to its 
 communion, we shall make no particular estimate. 
 Comparisons of this kind may be regarded as invidi- 
 ous ; and besides, numerical increase is not a sure 
 test of the divine approbation. But so far as an 
 appeal to this circumstance is admissible, we have 
 abundant reason to be satisfied and thankful to God 
 for our present relative position. A detailed statis- 
 tical account would show that in the increase of 
 numbers, in the extension of territory, and in what- 
 ever else constitutes external prosperity we have 
 made great and pleasing progress. But in the pre- 
 sent connection I am not disposed to particularize. 
 There is an apostolic caution, " Be not high minded 
 but fear." Since we are so highly favoured in 
 outward circumstances, let it be our earnest prayer 
 and diligent effort to enjoy in an equal degree 
 interrial prosperity. Our growth in grace and holi- 
 ness should be in grand parallel with our progress in 
 numbers and influence. 
 
 PROPER TREATMENT OF EACH OTHER. 
 
 As we are now two distinct bodies, it is obvious that 
 the same principles should govern us in our inter- 
 course with each other, as are applicable to all evan- 
 gelical churches. The circumstance that we have 
 recently been one church, has a tendency (such is 
 human nature) to make us more cold in exchanging 
 ordinary Christian courtesies, than we should be, if 
 
288 PROPER TREATMENT OF EACH OTHER. 
 
 we had never belonged to the same body. This ten- 
 dency has been counteracted, in a great degree, by 
 the lapse of fifteen years; and it will be ere long 
 removed, unless a vindictive and jealous spirit is fos- 
 tered and kept alive by those who control public sen- 
 timent. The Old-school, as far as I am acquainted, 
 are generally disposed to treat their New-school 
 brethren with kindness ; to throw no obstacle in the 
 way of their prosperity ; to hold with them occasional 
 communion; to supply their pulpits when invited, 
 and to extend to their ministers who may be known 
 to be sound in the faith, ministerial fellowship and 
 confidence. These feelings are reciprocated by some 
 of the New-school body. But others among them 
 continue to reiterate, in censorious and even abusive 
 language, the charge of injustice and oppression, in 
 the measures adopted by the General Assembly of 
 1837, to accuse us of an intolerant and bigoted spirit 
 in not noAV consenting to a reunion of the two bodies, 
 and yet insinuate that we contemplate a union at no 
 distant day, by the " absorption of their ministers 
 and churches." We refer to these things, not to dis- 
 cuss their merits, but for the purpose of remarking, 
 
 (1) that it is a singular preparation for reunion, to 
 abuse the party with whom it is proposed to unite; 
 
 (2) that if we were to form a reunion, and if such a 
 spirit as is here manifested towards the Old-school 
 body should be exhibited witliin it, a second division 
 would be as necessary as the first ; (3) that when the 
 chief causes which produced the separation shall cease 
 to exist, the Old-school church will unquestionably be 
 
PROPER TREATMENT OP EACH OTHER. 289 
 
 as cordial in listening to an overture for reunion 
 from the New-school division, as they always have 
 been when receiving similar applications from other 
 churches of the same faith and order with ourselves; 
 (4) that we never have been distinguished as a prose- 
 lyting church, are not so now, and of course are not 
 accustomed to make any attempts to ** absorb the min- 
 isters and churches" of other denominations; yet we 
 always open oui* doors to receive those, whether min- 
 isters, churches, or individual members, who embrace 
 the doctrines contained in our standards, and express 
 a desire to enter our communion ; (5) that though for 
 a number of years before the separation, we were un- 
 happily too often coming into collision, it becomes us 
 now to lay aside former jealousies, and "study the 
 things which make for peace." There is no good 
 reason why "Ephraim should envy Judah, or Judah 
 vex Ephraim." 
 
 It is on the whole no disadvantage that there are 
 different Christian denominations. The numerical 
 unity of the Papal church, or even its boasted unity 
 of religious faith, is very dissimilar to the catholic 
 unity which is commended and enjoined in the Holy 
 Scriptures. The Reformed churches in the days of 
 Luther and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox, though not 
 in every respect identical in creed, form of govern- 
 ment, or mode of worship, were characterized by as 
 much real unity as though they had all acknowledged 
 one visible head; and they probably acted with 
 greater efficiency in their varied yet concurring ef- 
 forts to advance the Redeemer's kingdom. The same 
 25 
 
290 PROPER TREATMENT OF EACH OTHER. 
 
 may be true now ; and hence it should be regarded as 
 an object of less importance to secure an organic 
 union of all evangelical churches in the same body, 
 than to see them all faithfully and zealously perform- 
 ing the work of the Lord under their own banners ; 
 while towards each other they keep "the unity of the 
 Spirit in the bond of peace." This idea carried out 
 to perfection, with the additional one of the glorious 
 presence of Christ with his people, contains the chief 
 elements in those sublime descriptions recorded in 
 God's word, of the future state of the Church during 
 her best and brightest period on earth. 
 
 THE END. 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JO 1 9 '53 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 mmmmMl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •n^ 
 
 
 
 
 ««f-----''^' 
 
 
 
 
 ^...^mmmmm 
 
 w» 
 
 
 
 '-- ^«-^^' 
 
 
 
 
 -i,-*'*^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iicrr3-i98 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 ftftt VToTW 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f^sap*^***"wifc^, 
 
 .<v' 
 
 
 
 j.i*-*-*^* 
 
 liMIMIP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (|) 
 
 
 
 
vr'-^-'^v