A 
 
 I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 
 t Princeton, N. J. ^SSjSf 
 
 ^ 
 
 **• ^-^^a S<^^>9 S-r'^^ - 
 
 Division 
 
 I Case, 
 
 © Shelf, Seci 
 
 *' Booky Mo 
 
 
 BX 8955 .W66 18A5 
 Wood, James, 1799-1867 
 Old and new theology 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY 
 
 BY 
 
 / 
 
 JAMES^ WOOD, D.D 
 
 ALSO 
 
 A REVIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 BIBLICAL REPERTORY 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 
 
 1845. 
 
Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 
 1845, by A. W. Mitchell, M. D., in the office of the 
 Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY, 
 
 OR AN EXHIBITION OF 
 THOSE DIFFERENCES WITH REGARD TO 
 
 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINES, 
 
 WHICH HAVE RECENTLY AGITATED AND NOW DIVIDED 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 No man having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new; for he 
 saith, the old is better.— Ldke v. 39. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Bt JAMES WOOD, D. D. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 Introduction 9 
 
 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 im- 
 putation and original sin 42 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The subject of the preceding chapter continued — ex- 
 hibiting the New Theology concerning God's cove- 
 nant with Adam as the federal head of his posterity, 
 imputation, original sin, &c 57 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Remarks on imputation, original sin, &c. with refer- 
 ence to the views presented in the preceding 
 chapter 74 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The sufferings of Christ and our justificatiou through 
 him 93 
 
8 ^CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Justification — a continuation of the preceding chapter. 133 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Human ability, regeneration, and the influences of 
 the Holy Spirit 157 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Human ability, regeneration, &c. continued from the 
 preceding chapter 181 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 A contrast between the Old and New Theology, by 
 way of review, and a notice of the Perfectionism of 
 Mr. Finney 202 
 
 Conclusion 227 
 
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 seve- 
 ral books and pamphlets have been written 
 on a number of these points, and though most 
 if not all of them have been discussed at va- 
 rious times in our periodicals, there are many 
 in our churches who are not sufficiently in- 
 formed on the subject, particularly in those 
 sections where the new doctrines have not be- 
 come prevalent, and where but few publica- 
 tions on the points at issue have been circu- 
 lated. Recent occurrences render it peculiar- 
 ly important that all in our connexion should 
 fully understand the merits of the question. 
 1 
 
10 PREFACE. 
 
 It has now become a practical one. A de- 
 cision is now being made whether we will 
 continue with the church of our former choice, 
 or unite with those who, without changing 
 their name, have organized a new body. 
 With a view of giving information to such as 
 desire to ascertain on which side the truth 
 Hes, v/e shall present, in as concise a manner 
 as the case will admit, the distinguishing fea- 
 tures of the New Theology — 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 the 
 Presbyterian church and to standard Calvin- 
 istic writers. We think this cannot be rea- 
 sonably objected 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 professors at 
 New Haven, Mr. Finney, and various minis- 
 ters in the Presbyterian church. We quote 
 from those first named, because Dr. Taylor 
 and his associates, though belonging to an- 
 other denomination, are regarded as the rtio- 
 dern authors of these speculations j and Mr. 
 
PREFACE. 11 
 
 Finney, until within a few years past, belong- 
 ed to our body, and preached and published 
 most of his sentiments on these subjects be- 
 fore 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 Regene- 
 ration. The former were reviewed by Dr. 
 Green in the Christian Advocate, and the lat- 
 ter 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 Trea- 
 tise on Divine Efficiency, and led to the esta- 
 blishment 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 West- 
 ern New-York, in 1825-26. Though distin- 
 
12 PREFACE. 
 
 guished at first rather by " new measures" 
 than by new doctrines, he soon adopted the 
 views of Dr. Taylor ; and he has probably 
 done more to give them currency in certain 
 sections of the church than any other indivi- 
 dual. 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 animadver- 
 sion 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 substantially with the new system ; 
 and upon his being called, some months after- 
 wards, to a pastoral charge in Philadelphia, 
 some of the members of the Philadelphia 
 Presbytery objected to receiving and instal- 
 ling him, on the ground that his sermon, 
 which had been extensively circulated in that 
 
PREFACE. 13 
 
 city, contained important errors in doctrine. 
 The action of the Presbytery, Synod and Ge- 
 neral Assembly, in 1830-31, the publication 
 of his Notes on the Romans in 1835, and 
 the charges and trials for heresy during that 
 and the following year, are too familiar to all 
 connected with our church, to need any par- 
 ticular notice. The preceding statements have 
 been made merely to show the coincidence 
 between the rise and progress of the new 
 divinity in New England and its commence- 
 ment and extension in the Presbyterian 
 church. 
 
 It has been said that the controversy in the 
 Presbyterian church does not respect doctrines 
 at all, except as a secondary thing. Some 
 have told us it is a strife for power — others a 
 contest for the purse — and others a thrust at 
 Congregationalism, and through that at New 
 England. With whatever view these allega- 
 tions 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 adopted for the reform of the church. 
 This has been particularly the case with some 
 whose partialities are strong in favour of 
 
14 PREFACE. 
 
 New England. It would seem that such 
 had forgotten for the time, that in New Eng- 
 land 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 assail- 
 ants? nay, that they were the first in raising 
 the note of alarm? The language of Dr. 
 Green, in 1831, undoubtedly expresses the 
 feehngs of a large majority, if not of all 
 the ministers in the Presbyterian church. 
 "What!" we have heard it said, even by 
 some who love us, "What! are you arraying 
 yourselves against the whole Theology of 
 New England?'^ No — we have answered 
 privately, and now answer publicly. No — 
 we are arraying ourselves against Taylorism 
 andFitchism, and Murdochism,and Emmons- 
 ism, and self-conversionism. But we thank 
 God, this is not " the whole theology of New 
 England," and we hope and believe it never 
 will be. We know that there is a host of 
 men, sound in the faith, who dislike and op- 
 pose most decisively, this whole mass of error ; 
 and we hail these men, and love them as fel- 
 
PREFACE. 15 
 
 low labourers in the cause of truth, and bid 
 them God speed with all our hearts. 
 
 Though in the progress of the difficulties 
 some prominence has been given of late to 
 Congregationalism, it was only from the cir- 
 cumstance that this was believed to have an 
 important connexion with the main question 
 at issue. It is not the Congregationalism of 
 New England, that was the subject of discus- 
 sion, 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 became ne- 
 cessary, in self-defence, to free the church 
 from this improper, and to us, ruinous con- 
 dition.* 
 
 * According- to the statement published by me, as cor- 
 rected in the second edition, there are in the four disown- 
 ed Synods three hundred and thirty-four churches nomi- 
 nally Presbyterian, and two hundred and eighty-six Con- 
 gregational. 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 Pres- 
 byteries as you have concerning ours, they have no reason 
 
16 PREFACE. 
 
 The same remarks are applicable to the 
 resolutions of the General Assembly concern- 
 ing certain benevolent societies. Towards 
 the American Home Missionary Society and 
 the American Education Society, in their in- 
 cipient stages, and considered merely as or- 
 ganizations for doing good, there was for a 
 number of years the greatest cordiality. This 
 is evident from the fact that they were re- 
 peatedly recommended by the General As- 
 sembly. But when it was found that their 
 operations within our bounds, besides niter- 
 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 rendering them more unman- 
 ageable — the one by furnishing young men 
 for our pulpits whose sentiments did not ac- 
 cord with our Standards, and the other by 
 directing and sustaining them in their fields 
 of labour — the Assembly. of 1837 withdrew 
 
 to complain. Instead of there being eight Presbyterian 
 and eight Congregational churches as reported by me, 
 there are, he said, but six Presbyterian churches and ten 
 Congregational. 
 
PREFACE. 17 
 
 their former recommendations and requested 
 them to cease operating in our churches. As 
 in their action concerning the Plan of Union 
 and the four Synods, so in regard to these 
 societies, the ground of their proceedings 
 was, that they beUeved them to be (to use 
 their own language) "exceedingly injurious 
 to the peace and purity of the Presbyterian 
 church'' — and while they "hoped and be- 
 lieved that the Assembly would not be behind 
 the protesters, [the patrons of those societies] 
 in zeal for the spread of divine truth, they 
 desire that in carrying on those great enter- 
 prises, 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 controver- 
 sy 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 centuries as 
 
18 PREFACE. 
 
 containing a correct statement of Scripture 
 doctrine, are too antiquated for this enlighten- 
 ed age ; and if received now, are to be ex- 
 plained agreeably to certain philosophical 
 principles which were unknown in the days 
 of our ancestors — and that the Bible itself 
 is to be so expounded as to accord with those 
 theories of mind, of free agency, and of moral 
 government, which have been introduced by 
 the new philosophy. It is this which gives 
 to their theology the denomination of new. 
 Considered chronologically, it is far from be- 
 ing 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 pe- 
 riods since. Were this the proper place, we 
 could easily substantiate this remark by a re- 
 ference to documents. 
 
 The principles upon which these modern 
 improvements in theology profess to be 
 based, appear to me to be radically erroneous. 
 If the doctrines of religion 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 expect- 
 
PREFACE. 19 
 
 ed to be as visible in the development of 
 new theological truths, as in the new disco- 
 veries 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 re- 
 quire the aid of a telescope to enable us to 
 discern its character and proportion. Truth 
 is immutable. The Bible is, therefore, not 
 to be interpreted by a set of philosophical 
 dogmas, which vary, it may be, with every 
 successive age : but by a careful examination 
 and comparison of its several words and 
 phrases. These obvious way-marks were the 
 same in the time of Augustine and Calvin, 
 and the Westminster divines, as they are 
 now; and it is by a faithful adherence to 
 these, that so much uniformity has been pre- 
 served among Christians of every age, in re- 
 gard to the doctrines of our holy religion. 
 Abstruse metaphysical speculations have now 
 and then held out their false lights, and led 
 portions of the church into error; but when- 
 ever the pride of intellect and learning has 
 been humbled by the Spirit of God, and there 
 has been a return to that simple hearted piety, 
 which is willing to receive the plain teachings 
 
20 PREFACE. 
 
 of the Bible, without stopping to inquire 
 whether they are consistent with certain new 
 modes of philosophizing, it has uniformly re- 
 sulted in the revival of those old and vener- 
 able doctrines, which have been the stability 
 and glory of the church in every period of 
 her history. 
 
 We do not intend to convey the idea, that 
 all who are now denominated New School, 
 or who have united in organizing the new 
 Assembly, embrace the new doctrines. Va- 
 rious 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 dis- 
 claim 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 Assem- 
 bly embrace the New Theology, we will not 
 undertake to say. We might state a number 
 of facts, which appear to show that it is 
 
PREFACE, 21 
 
 adopted, at least "/or substance of doc- 
 trine,^^ by a very considerable majority. On 
 the contrary, there are some who have ex- 
 pressed opposition to these doctrines, but who 
 have been influenced, it is probable, by their 
 local situation, or their connexions and sym- 
 pathies, to join the new body. Our earnest 
 wish is, that they may exert a happy influ- 
 ence. We have no malignant feelings to 
 gratify — but shall rejoice to know that every 
 error has been corrected, every ground of 
 complaint removed, and 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 difl"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 taken place at 
 that time, had it not been for the fact that 
 the committee from the New School party 
 though they consented to the above reason- 
 able terms, insisted upon such other condi- 
 
22 PREFACE. 
 
 tions as could not be acceded to without 
 jeoparding those very interests for the secur- 
 ing of which a division had become neces- 
 sary. Hence the negotiation failed. But 
 now they claim to be the true General As- 
 sembly of the Presbyterian Church, and have 
 appealed to the civil courts to wrest, if possi- 
 ble, from the hands of their brethren, what, 
 they virtually acknowledged a year ago, does 
 not belong in equity to themselves, but to 
 those whom they have thus assailed. Such 
 a procedure seems to us grossly improper, as 
 well as inconsistent. It is to be hoped, how- 
 ever, that on further reflection, they will be 
 induced to retrace their steps and pursue a 
 course more agreeble to their former profes- 
 sions and to the spirit of the gospel. 
 
 But Avhile we do not doubt that these suits, 
 if prosecuted, will be decided in favour of 
 the defendants, provided law and justice do 
 not conflict with each other, we wish to re- 
 mind the reader that the question, which body 
 is the true General Jissemhly, does not de- 
 pend 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 
 
PREFACE. 23 
 
 Assembly was organized ten years before 
 they had a board of trustees ; and their organi- 
 zation was as complete during that time as it 
 was afterwards. It had then its constitution 
 — and this constitution, be it remembered, 
 makes the General 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 purpose of 
 managing certain funds in behalf of the As- 
 sembly, and for nothing else. If their char- 
 ter had been a limited one, its expiration 
 would not have affected the character of the 
 General Assembly ; and if it shall be taken 
 away, the only result which can follow, will 
 be to deprive them of their funds ; but as an 
 ecclesiastical body, they remain unimpaired. 
 If they were the true General Assembly in 
 1789, and for the ten following years before 
 their charter was obtained, they are the true 
 General Assembly now, whatever becomes 
 of their property. 
 
 Though we shall be gratified to have them 
 succeed in this respect, we regard the result 
 of these suits as of little importance compared 
 with other matters which have been involved 
 in the controversy; but which we trust are 
 
24 PREFACE. 
 
 now finally settled. In regard to the ques- 
 tion 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 Testament, was severely 
 scorched by the conflagration. As the mis- 
 sionaries were condoling Avith him on the 
 loss of his house, he put his hand under his 
 garment, and taking out the sacred treasure 
 which he had saved, exclaimed with extacy, 
 " True, I have lost my property, but I have 
 saved my gospels!" We may lose our pro- 
 perty 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 an- 
 ticipate ; 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, the controversy on the 
 subject of the present chapter embraces some 
 propositions which have never been much 
 discussed in the Presbyterian church; and 
 concerning which the great majority of our 
 ministers, we beUeve, have not expressed a 
 decided opinion. We refer to the following, 
 which we give in the language of Dr. Tyler : 
 " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my belief, 
 that the existence of sin is not, on the whole, 
 for the best ; and that a greater amount of 
 good would have been secured had all God's 
 creatures remained holy, than will result from 
 the present system." Again : " Dr. Taylor 
 maintains, contrary to my belief, that God, 
 all things considered, prefers holiness to sin, 
 in all instances in which the latter takes 
 place." It has been a common sentiment 
 among New England divines, since the time 
 3 
 
26 THEORY OF LEIBNITZ, 
 
 of Edwards, " that sin is the necessary means 
 of the greatest good, and as such, so far as it 
 exists, is preferable, on the whole, to holiness 
 in its stead." The sentiment is founded upon 
 what has been denominated the Beltistian 
 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 adapt 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 insinu- 
 ates 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 crea- 
 tures remained holy."^ Concerning the prin- 
 ciple of Leibnitz, from which these conclu- 
 sions are drawn. Dr. Witherspoon remarks: 
 " This scheme seems to me to labour under 
 two great and obvious ditficulties — that the 
 infinite God should set hmits to himself, by the 
 production of a created system — it brings cre- 
 ation a 2:reat deal too near the Creator to sav 
 
 * New England optimism, as it is sometimes denomi- 
 nated, arises from the theory that virtue consists in bene- 
 volence — or that the tendency of holiness to produce hap- 
 piness, is that which gives it its chief, if not its only ex- 
 cellence. 
 
REMARKS OF DR. WITIIERSrOON. 2i 
 
 it is the alternative of Omnipotence. The 
 other difficulty is, that it seems to make some- 
 thing which I do not know how to express 
 otherwise than by the ancient stoical fate, 
 antecedent and superior even to God himself. 
 I would therefore think it best to say, with 
 the current of orthodox divines, that God was 
 perfectly free in his purpose and providence, 
 and that there is no reason to be sought for 
 the one or the other beyond himself." 
 
 Admitting then, that there was no necessity 
 on the part of the Creator to form one parti- 
 cular system rather than another, it becomes 
 merely a question of fact, whether more good 
 will result to the universe from the existence 
 of sin, all things considered, than would have 
 been secured if sin had never been permitted ? 
 To this question, most of the ministers in our 
 church, we are disposed to think, would reply 
 by saying, "We cannot tell." All agree that 
 " the existence of sin under the divine govern- 
 ment is a profound mystery ;" and also that 
 he 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 hap- 
 piness secured to his creatures, it is not our 
 province to decide. As he has no where told 
 us that he has made the best sysiem 2J0ssible, 
 and as we cannot perceive that his infinite 
 goodness required him to do it, we are dis- 
 
28 auoTATio^'s FRo:\r dr. taylor. 
 
 posed to leave the question to be contempla- 
 ted and solved, (if a solution be desirable,) 
 when we shall have the advantage of that ex- 
 pansion 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 express no opinion, we consider the rea- 
 soning of Dr. Taylor in attempting to refute 
 them as involving pernicious errors. It is 
 on this account that we have introduced the 
 subject in the present volume. Pressed with 
 the difficulty that if sin under the divine go- 
 vernment 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 possihility of a contra- 
 diction 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. bQi2,J^ 
 
 * As I have not all the numbers of the Christian Specta- 
 tor in my possession, I shall, in my quotations from that 
 work, make free use of a pamphlet written by the Rev. 
 Daniel Dow. 
 
QUOTATIO^'S FROM DR. TAYLOR. 29 
 
 " 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 account- 
 able creatures; and that nevertheless^ some, 
 in defiance of it, .would rebel. Such a propo- 
 sition we think neither violates the feelings 
 of enlightened piety, nor the decision of reve- 
 lation.'' — Christian Spectator, 1832, p. 567. 
 
 "God not only prefers on the whole that 
 his creatures should for ever perform their 
 duties rather than neglect them, but purposes 
 on his part to do all in his power to promote 
 this object in his kingdom." — Christian Spec- 
 tator, 1S32, p. 660. 
 
 " It is a groundless assumption, that God 
 could have prevented all sin, or at least, the 
 present degree of sin in a moral system. If 
 holiness in a moral system be 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 holi- 
 ness? 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 holi- 
 ness in his moral kingdom?" Concio ad 
 Clerura. 
 
 It is not surprising that the publication of 
 such sentiments created alarm among the 
 
30 QUOTATION FROM MR. FINNEY. 
 
 orthodox clergy of New-England; and that 
 speedy efforts were made to arrest their pro- 
 gress. 
 
 Unhappily, they soon found their way to 
 New York, and through the agency of Mr. 
 Finney and others, obtained considerable 
 currency. Mr. Finney's views will appear 
 from the following quotation. In reply to an 
 objection that as God " is almighty, he could 
 prevent sin if he pleased," &c., he observes: 
 " To say nothing of his word and oath upon 
 this subject, you have only to look into his 
 law to see that he has done all that the na- 
 ture of the case admitted to prevent the ex- 
 istence of sin. The sanctions of his law are 
 absolutely infinite: in them he has embodied 
 and held forth the highest possible motives 
 to obedience. His law is moral and not 
 physical; a government of motive and not 
 of force. It is in vain to talk of his omnipo- 
 tence preventing sin. If infinite motives can- 
 not prevent it, it cannot be prevented under 
 a moral government, and to maintain the 
 contrary is absurd and a contradiction. To 
 administer moral laws is not the object of 
 physical power. To maintain, 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 refer- 
 ence 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 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM MR. TYLER. 31 
 
 Dr. Tyler] preached a sermon at New Haven, 
 Oct. 1829, (published by request,) in whicli 
 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 possible to retain all 
 moral beings in obedience; but prefers it to 
 the non-existence of a moral system, notwith- 
 standing sin is its unavoidable attendant." 
 " The nature of things, as they now exist, 
 forbids, as far as God himself is concerned, 
 the more frequent existence of holiness in 
 the place of sin. How do you know that 
 the influence which He employs, even in 
 respect to those who perish, is not all ivhich 
 the nature of the case admits ? How do you 
 know that he can maintain his moral govern- 
 ment, or preserve moral agents in being as 
 such, and prevent sin ? Do you not pass the 
 boundaries of human knowledge in saying 
 that He is able to prevent all sin, while He 
 preserves, unimpaired, the freedom of ac- 
 countable beings ? Such may be the nature 
 of free agents that they cannot be governed 
 in a manner to exclude sin, or to restrict if 
 to a smaller co77ipass 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 transgres- 
 sion. He knew at the same time, that the 
 best possible system included such beings; 
 
 * Mr. Tyler Avas at that time Pastor of the South Church 
 in r^Iiddletown; Conn. 
 
32 VIEWS OF PROFESSOR FITCH. 
 
 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 adopt- 
 ed, 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 ; they persevere 
 in sin in spite of all lohich he can do to 
 reclaim them.'''' 
 
 A writer in the Christian Spectator [believ- 
 ed to be Professor Fitch,] advances the same 
 ideas. " Whatever degree or kind of influ- 
 ence'^ says he, " is used with them, to favour 
 their return to him, at any given time, is as 
 strongly favourable to their conversion as 
 it CAN be made amid the obstacles ivhich a 
 loorld of guilty and rebellious moral agents 
 opp)ose to God's ivorks 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 
 
REMARK or MR. BEECIIER. 33 
 
 can to convert and save sinners — that if He 
 could, He would convert many more tlian 
 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 ac- 
 quired 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 Confession of Faith; which teaches 
 that God "hath most sovereign dominion over 
 his creatures, to do by them, for them, and 
 upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth" — 
 that He is "Almighty, most absolute, work- 
 ing all things according to the counsel of His 
 own immutable 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 be- 
 lieved by many to involve principles which 
 are subversive of some important Scripture 
 doctrines. They place such limits upon the 
 
34 god's happiness diminished. 
 
 2iower 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 
 disappointment, and consequently to ,a di- 
 minution of his happiness. Dr. Taylor, 
 or one of his friends, admits that his bless- 
 edness has been diminished by the existence 
 of sin. "It is adm.itted that what men 
 have done to impair the blessedness of God 
 by sin, has not failed of its results in the ac- 
 tual diminution of his blessedness, 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 referred 
 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 creatures, 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 de- 
 crees — for if God does not possess such abso- 
 lute control over his creatures that he can 
 govern them according to his pleasure, how 
 could he have decreed any thing uncondition- 
 ally 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 foreknowledge of 
 God and the will of the creature. This is 
 actually the way in which Mr. Finney ex- 
 
DECREES AND ELECTION DENIED. 35 
 
 plains the doctrine. " The elect, then," says 
 he, " must be those who God foresaw could 
 be converted under the wisest administra- 
 tion of his government. That administering 
 it in a way that would be most beneficial to all 
 worlds, exerting such an amount of moral in- 
 fluence on every individual as would result, on 
 the whole, in the greatest good to his divine 
 kingdom, he foresaw that certain individuals 
 could, with this wisest amount of moral in- 
 fluence, be reclaimed and sanctified, and for 
 this reason, they were chosen to eternal life." 
 " The elect were chosen to eternal life, be- 
 cause God foresaw that in the perfect exer- 
 cise of their freedom they could be induced 
 to repent and embrace the gospel." " In 
 choosing his elect, you must understand that 
 he has thrown the responsibility of their being 
 saved upon them: that the whole is suspend- 
 ed upon their consent to the terms; you are 
 perfectly able to give your consent, and this 
 moment to lay 'hold on eternal life. Irrespec- 
 tive of your own choice, no election can save 
 you, and no reprobation can damn you." — 
 Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 224, 25, 
 29, 33. Mr. Tyler, from whose sermon Ave 
 have already quoted, gives the same explana- 
 tion of this doctrine, or, in other words, vir- 
 tually 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 
 
36 DENIAL OF SAIIS'TS PERSEVERANCE. 
 
 Predestination and Election, in the Christian 
 Spectator. 
 
 The same remarks may be made, substan- 
 tially, 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 in- 
 fluences 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 plea- 
 sure, what assurance can he give us that 
 every saint and every angel will not yet apos- 
 tatize and spread desolation through the mo- 
 ral universe?" 
 
 Horrible as this thought is, it appears to 
 be a legitimate consequence from the reason- 
 ing 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 and evidence in the case 
 it remains true that it may be, what evidence 
 or proof can exist that it loill not be?" — 
 Ch. Spec. 1830, p. 563. Again: "We know 
 that a moral system necessarily implies the 
 
REaiARKS FR03I A PERIODICAL. 37 
 
 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 perti- 
 nent remarks from " Views in Theology," a 
 periodical published in New York. " It is as 
 true of angels and the spirits of just men 
 made perfect, that they are moral agents, and 
 that their powers are the same in kind that 
 are known to originate sin, as it is of us; as 
 clear that if God '^ should begin and pursue 
 any method of providence and government" 
 over them, " the causes which originate sin 
 would still exist in kind, under his provi- 
 dence," as it is, that they would among men; 
 and " since under any system of providence, 
 the condition of his creatures must be con- 
 stantly changing;" as clear, therefore — if the 
 powers of moral agency alone be considered 
 — " that among these fluctuations, there may 
 arise conjunctures under any providence, in 
 which temptations will rise and prevail to 
 the overthrow of some of those creatures," 
 as it is that they may, under any providence, 
 over such beings as ourselves. 
 
38 REMARKS OF DR. GRIFFIX. 
 
 " On the principles then, on which his rea- 
 soning proceeds, we not only have no cer- 
 tainty of the continued obedience of holy, 
 angelic, and redeemed spirits, but have an 
 absolute probability of their universally yield- 
 ing to rebellion at some period of their exis- 
 tence, notwithstanding every species and de- 
 gree of preventing influence that God can 
 exert over them!'^ 
 
 To these, we will add the following from 
 Dr. Griffin: " If God could not have prevent- 
 ed sin in all worlds and ages, he cannot pre- 
 vent sin in any world or age, or in any crea- 
 ture 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 fall- 
 ing; 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 de- 
 struction of a part, but that involves the 
 wretchedness of God and his whole creation. 
 And how awfully gloomy as it respects the 
 prospects of individual believers. You have 
 no security that you shall stand an hour. 
 
PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE NEW VIEWS. 39 
 
 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 transcend- 
 ent 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 assump- 
 tions is believed to be no less objectionable 
 than their tendencies to error. 
 
 1. In relation to prayer. If we adopt the 
 principle that God has not supreme control 
 over the hearts of all men, how can we with 
 confidence plead the fulfilment of those pro- 
 mises which are to be accomplished 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 nuich more sagacious and influential than 
 the counsellor of Absalom, that the Lord will 
 not be able to "turn his counsel to foolish- 
 ness,'' and bring back his own anointed to 
 the throne of Israel. 
 
 2. If we believe ourselves so independent 
 of God, that we can successfully resist any 
 moral influence which he can bring to bear 
 upon our minds, how feeble will be the in- 
 
40 PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE NEW VIEWS. 
 
 centives to the exercise of humility? Tell a 
 carnal, unregenerate man, that though God 
 had physical power to create him, he has not 
 moral power to govern him, and you could 
 not furnish his mind with better aliment for 
 pride and rebellion. Should you, after giv- 
 ing 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 1 should obey 
 his voice?" 
 
 3. The same may be said in regard to sub- 
 mission. Of this, the case just referred to 
 affords an ample illustration. What a miser- 
 able reflection it would have been to present 
 to an enslaved Israelite, that he ought to sub- 
 mit 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 loould settle them- 
 selves in Egypt — and in the exercise of the 
 same agency, the Egyptians ivould enslave 
 them ! God knew that such would be the re- 
 sult, 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 aflbrd as little founda- 
 tion for gratitude as for submission. Why 
 do we feel grateful to God for those favours 
 which are conferred upon us by the agency 
 of our fellow men, except on the principle 
 that they are only instruments in his hand — 
 
DIFFERENCE >0T IXAGIXARY BUT REAL. 41 
 
 who, without " offering the least violence to 
 their wills, or taking away the liberty or 
 contingency of second causes," '^*hath most 
 sovereign dominion over them, to do by 
 them, for them, and upon them, whatsoever 
 himself pleaseth!" On any other ground, 
 they would be worthy of the principal^ and 
 he only of secondary praise. 
 
 In conclusion, we will observe, (adopting 
 the language of the " Views^in Theology," 
 already referred to.) " The great questions in- 
 volved in this controversy, it is sufficiently 
 apparent from the foregoing discussion, are 
 not of mere ordinary interest, but vitally im- 
 portant ; 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 govern- 
 ment, 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 prevent moral beings from sinning; whe- 
 ther he can or cannot determine and foresee 
 the events of their agency, and thence whether 
 his predictions, threatenings and promises are 
 true or false — indisputably involve all that is 
 4 
 
42 COVENANT WITH ADAM. 
 
 essential in Christianity; and the scheme 
 which affirms the one is as diverse from that 
 which asserts tlie other, as hght is from dark- 
 ness, and truth from falsehood." " The ques- 
 tion between them, is nothing less than the 
 question — of two wholly dissimilar and con- 
 tradictory systems, which is it that is the gos- 
 pel 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 IMPU- 
 TATION AND ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 According to Witsius, " A covenant of God 
 with man is an agreement between God and 
 man, about the method of obtaining consum- 
 mate happiness, with the addition of a threat- 
 ening of eternal destruction, with which the 
 despiser of the happiness offered 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 Confes- 
 sion of Faith, " was a covenant of works, 
 wherein life was promised to Adam, and in 
 him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect 
 
COVENANT WITH ADAM. 43 
 
 and personal obedience" — (as our catechism 
 adds,) " forbidding him to eat of the tree of 
 knowledge of good and evil upon pain of 
 death." This has been the common senti- 
 ment among the reformed churches since the 
 time of Luther and Calvin. It also formed 
 a part of the creed of the early Christian 
 Fathers. 
 
 Some of the reasons for this doctrine, are 
 the following: 
 
 1. The law given to Adam in Gen. ii. 16, 
 17, contained all the essential properties of a 
 covenant; viz. parties, a condition, a penalty, 
 and an implied promise. It is not essential 
 to a covenant that the parties should be equal 
 — nor was it necessary in the present case, 
 that Adam should give a formal consent to 
 the terms proposed ; because they were bind- 
 ing upon him as a creature of God, indepen- 
 dent of his consent. But inasmuch as he 
 was created in the image of God, and had his 
 law written in his heart, there was undoubt- 
 edly a cordial assent to the proposed con- 
 dition. 
 
 2. That transaction is referred to by the 
 prophet Hosea, under the name of a cove- 
 nant. " 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 cove- 
 nant; (so it might very well be read;) as he 
 transgressed the covenant of innocency, so 
 they transgressed the covenant of grace; so 
 
44 ADA3I OUR FEDERAL HEAD. 
 
 treacherously, so foolishly; there in paradise, 
 he violated his engagements to God; and 
 there in Canaan, another paradise, they vio- 
 lated their engagements. And by their trea- 
 cherous dealing they, like Adam, have ruin- 
 ed themselves and theirs.^' This text has no 
 definite sense, unless it refers to Adam. 
 
 3. Christ is said to have been given *^ for 
 a covenant of the people;" (Isa. xlii. 6,) and 
 since a parallel is drawn by the apostles be- 
 tween Christ and Adam ; the latter being 
 called the first, and the former the second 
 Adam ; the analogy requires us to regard the 
 first Adam, as a party to a covenant. 
 
 The representative character of Adam may 
 be proved by the following considerations. 
 All the dispensations of Jehovah concerning 
 Adam before the fall, respected his posterity 
 as well as himself; such as dominion over 
 the creatures, liberty to eat of the productions 
 of the earth, the law of marriage, &c. When 
 God made this covenant with Adam, it does 
 not appear that Eve was yet formed — and 
 yet it is manifest from her reply to the temp- 
 ter, (Gen. iii. 2, 3,) that she considered her- 
 self as included in the transaction. The con- 
 sequences of Adam's transgression affected 
 his posterity as well as himself Gen. iii. 16, 
 19 ; Rom. v. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22. The apos- 
 tle draws a parallel between 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 repre- 
 
IMPUTATION AND ORIGINAL SIN. 45 
 
 sent 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 
 doctrine of imputation and original sin. De- 
 stroy that and you destroy these — they must 
 stand or fall together. And as they are both 
 based upon the same covenant, so they are 
 closely connected with each other. " So far 
 as I know,'^ says President Edwards, " most 
 of those who hold one of these have main- 
 tained the other ; and most of those who have 
 opposed one have opposed the other. And 
 it may perhaps appear in our future consid- 
 eration 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 posterity, 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 evi- 
 dent from the proof texts, refers not merely 
 to natural relation, but also to covenant head- 
 
46 ORIGI^iAL SIN — EDWARDs' DEFINITION'. 
 
 ship ; the latter being the principal founda- 
 tion upon which the guilt of Adam's first sin 
 is imputed to us ; while the former is the 
 channel through which our corrupted nature 
 is conveyed. '^ Original sin is conveyed from 
 our first parents unto their posterity by na- 
 tural generation, so as all that proceed from 
 them in that way, are conceived and born in 
 sin." — Larger Catechism. Imputation re- 
 gards us as being responsible in law, for 
 what Adam did as our representative — and 
 as a punishment for his sin, our original 
 righteousness was lost, and we are born with 
 a corrupt disposition. This 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 ori- 
 ginal sin. " By original sin, says he, as the 
 phrase has been most commonly used by 
 divines, is meant the innate sinful depravity 
 of the heart. But yet when the doctrine of 
 original sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly under- 
 stood in that latitude, as to include not only 
 the depravity of ?iature, hut the imputation 
 of Adarri^s first sin; or, in other words, the 
 liableness 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 punishment on account of his sin 
 — and by original sin, the inherent depravity 
 of our nature. This we believe is hi exact 
 
IMPUTATION VIEWS OF DR. HODGE. 47 
 
 accordance with our standards, as they are 
 understood by our most approved commen- 
 tators. 
 
 Dr. Hodge, in his commentary on the Ro- 
 mans, observes, " This doctrine [of imputa- 
 tion] 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 mysteri- 
 ous sense, the act of his posterity. "The 
 sin of Adam, therefore, is no ground to us of 
 remorse.'^ " This doctrine merely teaches 
 that in virtue of the union representative and 
 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 original sin, he says, " it is 
 not, however, the doctrine of the Scriptures, 
 nor of the reformed churches, nor of our 
 standards, that the corruption of nature of 
 which they speak, is any depravation of the 
 soul, or an essential attribute, or the infusion 
 of any positive evil." " These confessions 
 [of the reformers] teach that original right- 
 eousness ivas lost, and by that defect the 
 tendency to sin, or corrupt disposition, or 
 corruption of nature, is occasioned. Though 
 they speak of original sin as being first nega- 
 tive, i. e. the loss of righteousness ; and 
 secondly, positive, or corruption of nature; 
 yet by the latter, they state, is to be under- 
 stood, not the infusion of any thing in itself 
 
48 NEW SCHOOL THEORY. 
 
 sinful^ but an actual tendency or disposition 
 to evil resulting from the loss of righteous- 
 ness." As some of the strongest objections to 
 these doctrines arise either from misunder- 
 standing or misrepresenting them, the only- 
 answer which is necessary in many instances, 
 is, to show that the doctrines as held by those 
 who embrace them, are not what the objector 
 supposes. The above 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.* ♦ 
 
 We will now state with as much accuracy 
 as we are capable of, what we understand to 
 be the New School doctrines in reference to 
 this subject. According to the New Theo- 
 logy, there was not in the proper sense of the 
 word any covenant made with Adam, but he 
 was merely placed under a law. He was 
 not the federal head or representative of 
 his posterity, but only their natural parent. 
 Though as his descendants, we feel the effects 
 of his sin, and become sinful ourselves in 
 consequence of it, the doctrine that his sin 
 was imputed to us is unjust and absurd. All 
 
 * To any one who desires particular information on 
 these points, we recommend the commentary of the Rev. 
 Dr. Hodge, from which we have just quoted. There is no 
 work within my knowledge, which to me is so clear and 
 satisfactory in its statements and reasonings on this sub- 
 ject ; and I believe it expresses the views which are gene- 
 rally entertained by those who are denominated the " Old 
 School" or " Orthodox" portion of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
NEW SCHOOL THEORY. 49 
 
 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 perform- 
 ance of holy acts, i. e. by choosing God as 
 his supreme good, and placing his affections 
 upon him. Jesus Christ, though called holy 
 at his birth, was so merely in the sense of 
 dedicated, and not as possessing (morally 
 considered) a holy nature. When we are 
 born we possess no moral character any more 
 than brutes, but we acquire a moral charac- 
 ter as soon as we arrive at moral agency, and 
 put forth moral acts. In the sense in which 
 it has been commonly understood, there is 
 no such thing as original sin, there being no 
 other original sin than the first sin a child 
 commits after arriving at moral agency. 
 Children are born with the same nature as 
 Adam possessed at his creation — and the dif- 
 ference 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 universally results as a matter of fact, that 
 our first acts are sinful, instead of being holy 
 as his were; i. e. we do not choose God as 
 the object of our supreme affection, but the 
 world — and this choice of the v/orld as our 
 chief good is what constitutes human de- 
 pravity. 
 
 Before referring to our authorities, we 
 wish to observe that those who hold either 
 5 
 
50 NEW SCHOOL WRITERS STILL USE OLD TERMS. 
 
 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 
 fromi that which has been generally attached 
 to them by Calvinistic writers. 
 
 Mr. Finney, for example, uses the term 
 covenant, in regard to the transaction be- 
 tween God and Adam; and yet he denies 
 that Adam was the federal head of his pos- 
 terity. His doctrine appears to be that all 
 mankind were placed prospectively imder 
 the covenant of works, and were to have a 
 trial or probation, each one for himself, simi- 
 lar to what Adam had; and that from their 
 connexion with him as their natural parent, 
 it so happens that they all break the cove- 
 nant as soon as they arrive at moral agency, 
 and thus become sinners. His language is, 
 "I suppose that mankind were originally 
 all under a covenant of ivorks, and that 
 Adam was not so their head or representa- 
 tive, that his obedience or disobedience in- 
 volved them irresistibly in sin and condem- 
 nation, irrespective of their own acts." — Lec- 
 tures to Professing Christians, p. 286. Take 
 these words in connexion with what pre- 
 cedes, 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 holiness and happi- 
 ness for ever. What the reason is for this 
 
NEW SCHOOL WRITERS STILL USE OLD TERMS. 51 
 
 belief, I am unable to ascertain: I am not 
 aware that the doctrine is taught in the Bi- 
 ble." 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 hu- 
 man race, and his sin has involved them in 
 its consequences ; but not on the principle 
 that his sin is literally accounted their sin." 
 S^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 reference to the guilt of Adam's 
 first sin; though by a comparison between 
 his remarks here, and some which are found 
 in other parts of the book, it is evident he 
 attaches a different meaning to the word, 
 from what is common among Calvinistic wri- 
 ters. 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 conclusion 
 that there is not one in which the word is 
 used in the sense of reckoning or imputing 
 
52 EXTRACT FROM TURRETIN AND OWE^^ 
 
 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 mat- 
 ter of personal right. The word is never 
 used to denote irnputing in the sense oi titans- 
 ferring, 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 simi- 
 lar signification. No doctrine of transferring, 
 or of setting over to a man what does not 
 properly belong to him, be it sin or holiness, 
 can be derived, therefore, from this word." 
 The transfer of the moral turpitude of 
 Adam's sin is no part of the doctrine, as held 
 by its advocates — but this is not what Mr. 
 Barnes intends to deny; because he express- 
 ly 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 " setting over to a man what does not 
 properly belong to him" — i.e. what ^^ ought 
 not to be charged on him as a matter of y^er- 
 sonal right." Nor is this doctrine taught in 
 any of these passages. How different is 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 per- 
 sonally ours; in which sense God imputes to 
 sinners their transgressions. Sometimes that 
 is imputed to us which is without us, and not 
 
NEW SCHOOL WRITERS STILL USE OLD TERMS. 53 
 
 performed by ourselves ; thus the righteous- 
 ness of Christ is said to be imputed to us, and 
 our sins are imputed to him, although he 
 has neither sin in himself nor we righteous- 
 ness. Here we speak of the latter kind of 
 imputation, not. the former, because we are 
 talking of a sin committed by Jidam,andnot 
 
 by us The foundation, therefore, of 
 
 imputation, is not only the natural connexion 
 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 be imputed to us, exjustitia, by the rule 
 of righteousness. And this may be done 
 upon a double relation unto those whose they 
 are. 1. Federal. 2. Natural. Things done 
 by one w,ay be imputed unto others, propter 
 relationein foederalem, because of a covenant 
 relation between them. So the sin of Adam 
 ivas imputed to all his posterity. And the 
 ground hereof is, that we stood in the same 
 covenant with him who was our head and 
 representative.^' .... "Nothing is intended 
 by the imputation of sin unto any, but the 
 rendering them justly obnoxious unto the 
 punishment due unto that sin.'' 
 
 Though, therefore, Mr. Barnes uses the 
 word impute, he does not mean with these 
 authors, that Adam's posterity were rendered 
 legally liable to punishment on account of his 
 sin ; but only that they are " subject to pain, 
 
54 NEW SCHOOL WRITERS STILL USE OLD TEEMS. 
 
 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 
 drunkard," says he, " secures as a result, 
 commonly, that his family will be reduced to 
 beggary, want and wo. A pirate, or a traitor, 
 will whelm not himself only, but his family 
 m ruin. Such is the great law or constitution, 
 on which society is now organized; and we 
 are not to be surprised that the same princi- 
 ple 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, " 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, " the innate sinful de- 
 pravity of the heart .?" Professor Fitch does 
 
REMARKS OF DR. MILLER. 55 
 
 not pretend that there is — and yet he would 
 make liis readers believe that he holds to ori- 
 ginal 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 re- 
 taining the terms, after having adopted prin- 
 ciples 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 corrup- 
 tion of our nature^ diffused through every 
 part of the soul, which first makes us ob- 
 noxious to the wrath of God, and then pro- 
 duces 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 quota- 
 tions we intended to make in proof of our 
 statement concerning the New School doc- 
 trines, must be reserved for another chapter. 
 We will therefore close the present chapter 
 with a fe^ appropriate and forcible observa- 
 tions of Dr. Miller, taken from his Letters to 
 Presbyterians. After enumerating most of the 
 New School doctrines which are brought to 
 view in this chapter and some others which 
 we shall notice hereafter, he says : " If Pela- 
 
56 REMARKS OF DR. MILLER. 
 
 gian and semi-Pelagian sentiments existed 
 in the Jifth century, here they are in all their 
 unquestionable and revolting features. More 
 particularly in regard to the denial oi origi- 
 nal sin and the assertion of the doctrine of 
 hitman ability, Pelagius and his followers 
 never went further than some of the advo- 
 cates of the doctrines above recited. To at- 
 tempt to persuade us to the contrary, is to 
 suppose that the record of the published lan- 
 guage 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 bear- 
 ing 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 state- 
 ment 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 dan- 
 gerous errors ; and will induce him to give 
 that attention to the proofs we are about to 
 
COVENANT WITH ADAM. 57 
 
 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 pious divines that ever adorned the 
 Church of God" in former days, in judging 
 these sentiments to be heretical and pernici- 
 ous ; 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, EXHIB- 
 ITING THE NEW THEOLOGY CONCERNING GOd's COVENANT 
 WITH ADAM, AS THE FEDERAL HEAD OF HIS POSTERITy, 
 IMPUTATION, ORIGINAL 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 par- 
 ticulars were presented; but they are so in- 
 volved in each other, it will not be easy in 
 our quotations to keep them entirely distinct. 
 
58 COVENANT WITH ADAM. 
 
 We shall therefore make no formal divisions, 
 but introduce them in such order as we find 
 most convenient. 
 
 I will suppose myself in the company of 
 several prominent ministers, to whom a gen- 
 tleman present by the name of Querist, pro- 
 poses the following questions: 
 
 Querist. — Mr. Barnes, I have recently pe- 
 rused your sermon on the Way of Salvation, 
 and your Notes on the Romans. Am I cor- 
 rect in supposing that you deny that any 
 covenant was made with Adam, as the fed- 
 eral head or representative of his posterity? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — " Nothing is said of a cove- 
 nant with him. No where in the Scriptures 
 is the term covenant applied to any transac- 
 tion with Adam. All that is established here 
 is the simple fact that Adam sinned, and that 
 this made it certain that all his posterity 
 would be sinners. Beyond this, the lan- 
 guage of the Apostle does not go; and all 
 else that has been said of this, is the result 
 of mere philosophical speculation.'' — Notes 
 on the Romans, 1st edition, p. 128. 
 
 Querist. — Was not Christ the covenant 
 head of his people, and does not the Apostle 
 draw a parallel between Adam and Christ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — " A comparison is also insti- 
 tuted between Adam and Christ in 1 Cor. 
 XV. 22 — 25. The reason is, not that Adam 
 was \]\Q representative ox 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 OF MR. BARNES. 59 
 
 fountain, the head, the father ; and the con- 
 sequences of that first act, introducing sin 
 into the world, could be seen ev^ery wliere. 
 The words representative and federal head 
 are never appUed 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 2vho are 
 represented. Besides, the Bible does not 
 teach that they acted in him, or by him; or 
 that he acted /or 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 edi- 
 tions of your Notes the above phraseology is 
 considerably changed — have you altered your 
 sentiments? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — "Some expressions in the 
 former editions have been misunderstood; 
 some are now seen to have been ambiguous; 
 a few that have given offence have been 
 changed, because, without abandoning any 
 principle of doctrine or interpretation, I 
 could convey my ideas in language more 
 acceptable and less fitted to produce offence." 
 — Advertisement to the fifth edition. " My 
 views have never changed on the subject, 
 that I can now recollect." — Mr. Barnes' De- 
 fence before the Second Presbytery of Phila- 
 delphia, in June and July, 1835. 
 
 Querist. — Do you then deny the doctrine of 
 imputation? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — "That doctrine is nothing 
 but an effort to explain the manner of an 
 
60 
 
 event which the Apostle did not think it 
 proper to attempt to explain. That doctrine 
 is, in fact, no explanation. It is introducing 
 an additional difficnlty. For, to say that I 
 am blameworthy, or ill-deserving, for a sin in 
 which I had no agency, is no explanation, 
 bnt is involving me in an additional difficulty, 
 still more perplexing, to ascertain how such a 
 doctrine can possibly be just." — Notes on the 
 Romans, 7th edition, pp. 121, 122. " Chris- 
 tianity 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 Salvation. 
 
 Querist. — You cannot be ignorant, sir, that 
 these views are at variance with the senti- 
 ments of Calvinistic writers. The 5th chap- 
 ter of Romans has been universally consider- 
 ed as teaching this doctrine. President Ed- 
 wards says: "As this place, in general, is 
 very full and plain, so the doctrine of the 
 corruption of nature, derived from Adam, 
 and also the imputation of his 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 im- 
 plied) in that one man's sin. And it is re- 
 peated over and over, that all are condemned, 
 many are dead, many made sinners, c^-c, by 
 
VIEWS OF MR. BAENES. 61 
 
 one mail's offence, by the disobedience of 
 
 ONE, and by one off'ence.^^ " 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, by 
 his disobedience many were made sinners; 
 and judgment came upon all by that sin; 
 and that by this means, death (the wages of 
 sin) passed on all men, &c., which phrases 
 amount to full and precise explanations of the 
 word impute; and, therefore, do more cer- 
 tainly determine the point really insisted on." 
 — Edwards on Original Sin, vol. 2, pp. 512, 
 517. 
 
 Mr. Barnes. — " It is not denied that this 
 [my] language varies from the statements 
 which are often made on the subject, and 
 from the opinion which has been entertained 
 by many men. And it is admitted that it 
 does not accord with that used on the same 
 subject in the Confession of Faith, and in 
 other standards of doctrine. The main dif- 
 ference is, that it is difficult to affix any clear 
 and definite meaning to the expression " we 
 sinned in him and fell with him." It is mani- 
 fest, 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 per- 
 sonal identity constituted between Adam 
 and his posterity, so that it was really our 
 act, and ours only, after all, that is charge- 
 able on us. This was the idea of Edwards. 
 
62 COVENANT WITH ADA3I. 
 
 The notion o/" imputing sin is an invention 
 of modern times; and it is not, it is believed, 
 thedoctrineof the Confession of Faith. ^' . . . 
 "Christianity affirms the fact, that, in connex- 
 ion with the sin of Adam, or as a result, 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 would be done. There are 
 many ways, conceivable, in which that sin 
 might secure the result, as there are many 
 ways in which all similar facts may be ex- 
 plained. The drunkard commonly secures, 
 as a result, the fact, that his family will be 
 beggared, illiterate, perhaps profane or intem- 
 perate. Both facts are evidently to be ex- 
 plained 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 
 gentlemen present? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — " If by [the union of repre- 
 sentation] 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 proce- 
 dure of God, in which he made Adam to 
 stand, and required him to act, as the substi- 
 tute of the persons of his offspring, numeri- 
 cally considered, and by name, head for head, 
 so that they might be held, as in commercial 
 transactions, personally liable for this sin, as 
 
VIEWS OF MR. DUFFIELD. 63 
 
 being guilty copartners with him in it, we 
 certainly may require other and better proof 
 than what is commonly submitted.'' — Duf- 
 field on Regeneration, p. 391. 
 
 Querist. — I know of no one who holds the 
 doctrine precisely as you have stated it — but 
 let me inquire whether you believe there 
 existed any legal union between Adam and 
 his posterity on account of his being their 
 covenant head; and, that the guilt of his first 
 sin was imputed to them, or set over in law 
 to their account, so that they were thereby 
 subjected to joena/ evils? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — " When it is said, in the se- 
 cond commandment, that God visits the ini- 
 quities 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 legally, in their name, and for them? 
 We presume not. And yet stronger language 
 cannot be employed to denote the results 
 which flov/ from Adam's sin, by virtue of our 
 connexion 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 
 relation between parent and children, and to 
 be the natural consequence of such relation, 
 must be attributed to a legal union ox moral 
 identity between Adam and his offspring?" 
 ^Dufheld on Regeneration, p. 392. 
 
 Querist. — According to this view, what be- 
 comes of the old doctrine of original sin, as 
 
64 IMPUTATION AND ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 consisting in the corruption or depravity of 
 our nature? The doctrines 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 origi- 
 nal depravity is also here taught, [i.e. in Rom. 
 V. 12-21,] where the apostle says, by oneman 
 sin entered into the world; having a plain 
 respect (as hath been shown) to that univer- 
 sal corriqjtion 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 different doctrine ? 
 
 Dr. Beecher. — " The Reformers with one 
 accord, taught that the sin of Adam was im- 
 puted 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, insomuch that 
 sin became a property of every man's nature, 
 and was propagated as really as flesh and 
 blood.". . . " Our Puritan fathers adhered 
 to the doctrine of original sin, as consisting 
 in the imputation of Adam's sin, and in a 
 
VIEWS OF DR. BEECHER. 65 
 
 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 ou 
 the subject of original sin, as consisting in the 
 imputation of Adam's sin, and a depraved 
 7\ature^ transmitted by descent. But after 
 him this mode of stating the subject was gra- 
 dually changed, mitil long since, the prevail- 
 ing doctrine in New England has been, that 
 men are not guilty of Jidain's sin, and that 
 depravity is not of the substance of the soul, 
 nor an inherent or physical quality, but is 
 ivholly voluntary, and consists in a trans- 
 gression of the law, in such circumstances 
 as constitute account ahility and desert of 
 pimishment." — Dr. Beecher's Controversy 
 with the editor of the Christian Examiner in 
 the Spirit of the Pilgrim.s, in 1828, as quoted 
 in the Biblical Repertory.* 
 
 Querist. — Am 1 to understand by these re- 
 marks, that the doctrine of a sinful or cor- 
 rupt nature, has been abandoned? 
 
 Dr. Beecher. — " Neither a holy nor a de- 
 praved nature are possible without under- 
 standing, conscience, and choice. To say of 
 an accountable creature, that he is depraved 
 
 * Since writing this chapter, I have seen the number 
 of the Spirit of the Pilgrims, in which the above is fomid, 
 ■with Dr. Beecher's own signature. In his "Views in Theo- 
 logy," he appears to speak a different language — language 
 not easily reconciled with the above quotation. Bat as he 
 does not profess to have changed his sentiments, the pre- 
 ceding must be regarded as expressing his opinions. 
 
 6 
 
bb DEPRAVITY — VIEWS OF DR. BEECHER. 
 
 by nature, is only to say that rendered capa- 
 ble by his Maker of obedience, he disobeys 
 from the commencement of his accounta- 
 bility/' .... "A depraved nature can no 
 more exist without voluntary agency and 
 accountability, than a material nature can 
 
 exist without solidity and extension. '^ 
 
 " If, therefore, man is depraved by nature, it 
 is a voluntary and accountable nature which 
 is depraved, exercised in disobedience to the 
 law of God.'' . . . . " Native depravity, then, 
 is a state of the affections, in a voluntary 
 accountable creature, at variance with divine 
 requirement, from the beginning of accounta- 
 bility." — Sermon on the Native Character of 
 Man. 
 
 Mr. Finney. — "All depravity [is] volun- 
 tary — consisting in voluntary transgression. 
 [It is] the sinnner'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 ac^^.? 
 
 Professor Fitch. — " Sin, in every form and 
 instance, is reducible to the act of a moral 
 agent, in which he violates a known rule of 
 duty." — Discourses on the Nature of Sin. 
 
 Querist. — By parity of reasoning, all holi- 
 ness must likewise consist in acts. 
 
 Mr. Finney. — "All holiness in God, angels, 
 
VIEWS OF MR. FINNEY AND DUFFIELD. 67 
 
 or men, must be voluntary or it is not holi- 
 ness." .... "When Adam was first created, 
 and awoke into being, before he had obeyed 
 or disobeyed his Maker, he conld 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 can- 
 not be a subject of creation, but attaches to 
 voluntary actions.^^ — Sermons on Important 
 Subjects, pp. 7, 10, II. 
 
 Querist. — If these views are correct, what 
 must be said concerning infants? Are they 
 neither sinful nor holy? 
 
 Mr. DufReld. — " It is a question alike per- 
 tinent and important whether in the incipient 
 period of infancy and childhood there caji be 
 any moral character whatever possessed. 
 Moral character is character acquired by 
 acts of a moral nature. Moral acts are those 
 acts which are contemplated by the law, pre- 
 scribing the rule of human conduct." 
 
 " It is obvious that in infancy and incipient 
 childhood, when none of the actions are de- 
 liberate, or the result of motive, operating in 
 connexion wUh the knowledge of law, and 
 of the great end of all human actions, no 
 moral character can appropriately be predi- 
 cated." . . . . " Properly speaking, therefore, 
 we can predicate of it neither sin nor holi- 
 ness, personally considered." — Duffield on 
 Regeneration, pp. 377, 378, 379. 
 
68 CHARACTER OF INFANTS. 
 
 Querist. — Was not Jesus Christ holy from 
 his birth? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — " Things inanimate have, in 
 scriptural 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 rela- 
 tionship which it had to God. He dwelt in 
 it. It was set apart as pre-eminently and 
 exclusively appropriate to God. In this sense 
 the yet unconscious human nature of Christ 
 may be denominated holy, for it was the 
 habitation of God, and singularly and exclu- 
 sively appropriate to him, differing in this 
 respect essentially and entirely from that of 
 any of the descendants of Adam." — Duffield 
 on Regeneration, p. 353. 
 
 Querist. — If infants are not sinful before 
 they arrive at moral agency, and have no 
 legal or covenant connexion with Adam as 
 their representative, how can you account for 
 their death ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. — "There is no manner of 
 necessity, in order to account for the death 
 of infants, to suppose that the sin of Adam 
 became their personal sin, either in respect 
 of its act, or its ill desert. Their death 
 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 
 oft-times on the person of another, when 
 there is not the union of representation." 
 Work on Regeneration, p. 3S9. 
 
HOW DEPRAVITY COMMENCES. 69 
 
 Professor Goodrich, of New Haven. — " In- 
 fants die. The answer has been given a 
 thousand times; brntes die also. But, .... 
 " animals are not subjects of the moral gov- 
 ernment of God. Neither are infants pre- 
 vious to moral agency ; for what has moral 
 government to do with those who are not 
 moral agents?" "Animals, and in- 
 fants previous to moral agency do, therefore, 
 stand on precisely the same ground in refer- 
 ence 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 Good- 
 rich. 
 
 Querist. — If infants do not possess a cor- 
 rupt nature, please to inform me by what 
 process they become sinful — and how it hap- 
 pens that not one of 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 generally acknowledged to be 
 neither sinful nor holy. Committed in a 
 state of utter helplessness, to the assiduity of 
 parental fondness, it commences existence, 
 the object of unceasing care, watchfulness 
 and concession to those around him. Under 
 such circumstances it is that the natural ap- 
 petites are first developed, and each advancing 
 month brings them new objects of gratifica- 
 tion. The obvious consequence is, that self 
 indulgence becomes the master principle in 
 
70 HOW DEPRAVITY COMMENCES. 
 
 the soul of every child, long before it can un- 
 derstand that this self indulgence will inter- 
 fere with the rights or intrench on the happi- 
 ness of others. Thus, by repetition, is the 
 force of constitutional propensities accumu- 
 lating a bias towards self-gratification, which 
 becomes incredibly strong before a knowledge 
 of duty or a sense of right and wrong can 
 possibly have entered the mind. That mo- 
 ment — 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 ap- 
 petite for food, or her desire for knowledge — 
 to which the temptation was addressed — a 
 sinful feeling ? And why may not our con- 
 stitutional propensities 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 transgres- 
 sion ? Was there any previous principle of 
 depravity in him ? Why then may not strong 
 constitutional desires be followed now by a 
 choice of their objects as well as in the case 
 of Adam?" — Christian Spectator, 1829, pp. 
 366, 367,368. 
 
 Mr. Duifield. — The infant "is placed in a 
 
VIEWS OF GOODRICH AND DUFFIELD. 71 
 
 rebellious world, subject to tbe influence of 
 ignorance, with very limited and imperfect ex- 
 perience, and liable to the strong impulses of 
 appetite and passion/' . . . . " Instinct, ani- 
 mal sensation, constitutional susceptibilities 
 create an impulse, which not being counter- 
 acted by moral considerations or gracious in- 
 fluence, lead the will in a wrong direction and 
 to wrong objects. It was thus that sin was in- 
 duced in our holy progenitors. No one can 
 plead in Eve an efficient cause of sin resident 
 in her nature (any prava vis) or operative 
 power, sinful in itself, anterior to and apart 
 from her own voluntary acts. And if she 
 was led into sin though characteristically 
 holy, and destitute of any innate propensity 
 to sin, where is the necessity for supposing 
 that the sins of her progeny are to be referred 
 to such a cause?" "Tempta- 
 tion alone is sufficient under present circum- 
 stances." — Work on Regeneration, pp. 310, 
 379, 3S0. 
 
 Mr. Finney. — " If it be asked how it hap- 
 pens that children universally adopt the prin- 
 ciple of selfishness, unless their nature is sin- 
 ful ? 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's being 
 what it is, and surrounded by the peculiar 
 
72 now DEPRAVITY COMMENCES. 
 
 circumstances of temptation to which they 
 
 are exposed in a world of sinners." 
 
 " Adam was created in the perfection oi man- 
 hood, 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 inno- 
 cent, constitutional propensities, how can the 
 fact ih^l infants possessing the same nature 
 with Adam, and surrounded by circumstan- 
 ces of still greater temptation, universally fall 
 into sin, prove that their nature is itself s\n- 
 ful? Is such an inference called for? Is 
 it legitimate? What, holy and adult Adam 
 is led, by an appeal to his innocent constitu- 
 tion, to adopt the principle of selfishness, and 
 no suspicion is or can be entertained, that he 
 had a sinful nature; but if little children un- 
 der circumstances of temptation, aggravated 
 by the fall, are led into sin, we are to believe 
 that their nature is sinful ! This is wonder- 
 ful philosophy!" — Sermons on Important 
 Subjects, p. 157. 
 
 Dr. Taylor. — " If no being can sin without 
 a constitutional propensity to sin, how came 
 Adam to sin? If one being, as Adam, can 
 sin, and did in fact sin, without such a pro- 
 pensity to sin, why may not others?" — Spirit 
 of the Pilgrims, vol. 6, p. 13, as quoted by 
 Dow. 
 
 Querist. — Do you accord. Dr. Taylor, with 
 the sentiment just expressed by Mr. Finney, 
 
VIEWS OF DR. TAYLOR. 73 
 
 that " infants possess the same nature with 
 tddanV^ 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 na- 
 ture 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 pos- 
 terity.''— 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 diflered 
 from that of other children not in kind, but 
 degree,''^ — Ibid. 
 
 We have given the preceding quotations 
 at considerable length, that those readers 
 who may not have attended to the contro- 
 versy, may perceive from their own state- 
 ments, its various bearings and tendencies; 
 7 
 
74 VIEWS OF PELAGIUS. 
 
 and how far those have gone who have been 
 bold enough to follow out their principles to 
 their legitimate and full results. We do not 
 attribute to all whose names we have intro- 
 duced, every sentiment which has been ad- 
 vanced 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 embrac- 
 ing 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 
 plus ultra of the scheme, as it is here exhib- 
 ited. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 REMARKS ON IMPUTATION, ORIGINAL SIN, &C., WITH REFER- 
 ENCE TO THE VIEWS PRESENTED IN THE PRECEDING CHAP- 
 TER. 
 
 The controversy respecting our connexion 
 with Adam, and the influence produced upon 
 \is by the fall, commenced early in the fifth 
 century, when Pelagius, a British monk, 
 published opinions at variance with the com- 
 mon doctrines of the church. He and his 
 followers entertained substantially the same 
 
VIEWS OP PELAGIUS. 75 
 
 views which have been exhibited in the pre- 
 ceding chapter; though they adopted a me- 
 thod somewhat different to account for the 
 commission of sin by httle children, and went 
 farther in their views concerning the influ- 
 ence 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 "imita- 
 tion.'' But their sentiments concerning the 
 nature of sin, original sin, and imputation, 
 were the same with those which distinguish 
 the New Theology. 
 
 Concerning the first, Pelagius says, " And 
 here, in my opinion, the first inquiry ought 
 to be. What is sin? Is it a substance, or is 
 it a mere name devoid of substance ; not a 
 thing, not an existence, not a body, nor any 
 thing else (which has a separate existence) 
 but an act ; and if this is its nature, as I be- 
 lieve it is, how could that which is devoid of 
 substance debihtate or change human na- 
 ture?" "Every thing, good or evil, 
 
 praiseworthy or censurable, which we pos- 
 sess, 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 quali- 
 ties; for in our birth we are equally destitute 
 of virtue and vice ; and previously to moral 
 agency, there is nothing in m.an but that 
 which God created in him." — Biblical Re- 
 pertory. 
 
 This question concerning the nature of sin 
 was regarded as decisive concerning the other 
 
76 NATUKE OF SIN. 
 
 two; and it was introduced byPelagius with 
 that view. Says he, " It is disputed concern- 
 ing 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 sinfuhiess of nature, we must beheve sin 
 to consist in the substance of the constitution, 
 instead of vokmtary action, which is a thing 
 impossible." — Sermons on Important Sub- 
 jects, p. 158. 
 
 Mr. Duffield, after stating several things 
 which he supposes may be meant by the 
 phrase original sin, gives as the views of the 
 Westminster divines, that it denotes " some- 
 thing which has the power to originate sin, 
 and which is necessarily involved in our 
 very being, from the first moment of its origi- 
 nation." This he intimates was intended by 
 the expression in our catechism, "the cor- 
 ruption of our whole nature." He then says, 
 (after some preliminaries) " It is strange that 
 ever it should have been made a question, 
 whether sin may be predicated of being or 
 simple existence, since sin is undeniably an 
 act of a moral character, and therefore can 
 only be committed by one who is possessed 
 of moral powers, i. e. one who is capable of 
 acting according as the law requires or pro- 
 hibits." " Holiness, or sin which is its 
 
 opposite, has a direct and immediate refer- 
 ence to those voluntary acts and exercises, 
 which the law is designed to secure or pre- 
 
VIEWS OF PELAGIUS, ETC. 77 
 
 vent." . . . . " How very absurd, therefore, 
 is it to predicate sin of that which does not 
 fall under cognizance of law at aU !'^ Though 
 he uses the phrase " being or simple exist- 
 ence/' as that concerning which it is absurd 
 to predicate sin, he refers unquestionably to 
 the expression in the catechism which he had 
 just quoted, and upon which he was remark- 
 ing, 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 should not be 
 understood of any original sin contracted 
 by their birth, but of imitation." .... 
 " How can a man be considered guilty by 
 God of that sin which he knows not to be 
 his own ? for if it is 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 be imputed by him to little chil- 
 dren.^' . . . . " Hence that is evident which 
 
78 PELAGIANISM CONDEMNED. 
 
 we defend as most reasonable, that no one is 
 born in sin, and that God never judges men 
 to be guihy on account of their birth. '^ .... 
 " Children, inasmuch as they are children, 
 never can be guilty, until they have done 
 something by their own proper will." — Bibli- 
 cal Repertory. 
 
 How striking is the resemblance between 
 these views and the following remarks of 
 Mr. Barnes: "When Paul," says he, "states 
 a simple fact^ men often advance a theory. 
 . . . . A melancholy instance of this we 
 have in the account which the apostle gives, 
 (ch. 5.) about the effect of the sin of Adam. 
 .... They have sought for a theory to ac- 
 count 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 ar- 
 rangement to beings otherwise innocent, and 
 that they are held to be responsible for a 
 deed committed by a man thousands of years 
 before they were born. This is the theory; 
 and men insensibly forget that it is mere 
 theory. ''"' .... "I understand it, therefore, 
 [Rom. v. 12,] as referring to the fact that 
 men sin in their own persons, sin in them- 
 selves — as indeed how can they sin in any 
 other way?" — Notes on the Romans, pp. 10, 
 117. 
 
 We admit that this coincidence between 
 the New School doctrines and Pelagianism, 
 does not afford certain proof of their being 
 untrue. It is however a sixox\^ presumptive 
 evidence, since Pelagianism has been reject- 
 
DOCTRINE OF OUR STANDARDS. 79 
 
 ed as heretical by every Evangelical Church 
 in Christendom. 
 
 Ca3lestius, 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 .limes, they were perhaps 
 associated with his name, more than with 
 that of Pelagius. Among other councils who 
 condemned his heresy, was the council of 
 Ephesus, A. D. 431; who "denominated it 
 the wicked doctrine of Coelestius." — Biblical 
 Repertory. 
 
 In a number of the Confessions of Faith 
 adopted by different churches after the Refor- 
 mation, Pelagianism is mentioned by name. 
 Thus, in one of the Articles of the Episcopal 
 Church, it is said, " Original sin standeth not 
 in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians 
 do vainly talk,) but it is the fault and corrup- 
 tion of the nature of every man, that natur- 
 ally is engendered of the offspring oi Adam, 
 whereby man is very far gone from original 
 righteousness, and is of his own nature in- 
 clined to evil." 
 
 Though in the Westminster Confession, 
 this heresy is not expressly named, there can 
 be no doubt that the framers intended to re- 
 ject and condemn it. Compare the preced- 
 ing doctrines of Pelagius and his followers 
 with our quotations from the Confession of 
 Faith in chap. iii. ; also the following from the 
 Larger Catechism: " The sinfulness of that 
 estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the 
 guilt of Adam^s first sin, the want of that 
 
80 ALL SIN DOES NOT CONSIST IN ACTS. 
 
 righteousness wherein he was created, and 
 the corruption of his nature, whereby he is 
 utterly indisposed, disabled, and made oppo- 
 site unto all that is spiritually good, and 
 wholly inclined to all evil, and that continu- 
 ally: which is commonly called original sin, 
 and from which do proceed all actual trans- 
 gressions/' 
 
 We have said that the denial of the doc- 
 trine of imputation and original sin, arises in 
 part from the adoption of the theory that all sin 
 consists in acts. Upon this point, therefore, 
 it will be pertinent to make a few 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 something 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 deter- 
 mines 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 by na- 
 ture; for we have not then put forth any 
 moral acts. 
 
 3. We are declared to be by nature the 
 children of wrath — and if children of wrath 
 by nature, then we must be by nature, sin- 
 ners, for sin alone exposes to wrath. All sin 
 therefore cannot consist in acts. 
 
 4. Adam was created in the image of God 
 
IMAGE OF GOD. 81 
 
 — which according to onr standards, consist- 
 ed in " knowledge, righteousness, and holi- 
 ness." By the fall this image was lost. In 
 regard to spiritual things we became ignor- 
 ant. — "•' The natural man discerneth not the 
 things of the Spirit of God," &.c. Our moral 
 characters became corrupt and wicked. In 
 other words, we forfeited our original right- 
 eousness and became prone to evil. By re- 
 generation this image is restored. Col. iii. 
 10: " And have put on the new man which 
 is renewed in knowledge after the image of 
 Him that created him." Eph. iv. 24 : " And 
 that ye put on the new man, which after 
 God is created in righteousness and true ho- 
 liness.''^ These texts are decisive as to what 
 the image of God consisted in, viz. "know- 
 ledge, righteousness and true holiness." Yet 
 in this image man was created; and of course 
 possessed it before he put forth moral acts. 
 Consequently all holiness and sin do not con- 
 sist in acts, but may be predicated of our 
 nature. 
 
 The manner in which this argument has 
 been disposed of, is truly singular. On the 
 principle that all holiness consists in acts, it 
 cannot be created. This the advocates of the 
 New Theology admit. Since then, Adam 
 was created in the image of God, a new theo- 
 ry must be devised as to what that image 
 was. In this, however, there is not a per- 
 fect agreement. According to Mr. Finney, 
 it consisted in moral agency. " In this state, 
 says he, [i. e. when Adam was first created,] 
 
82 IMAGE OF GOD. 
 
 he was a com,plete moral agents and in this 
 respect in the image of his Maker.^^ — Ser- 
 mons on Important Subjects, p. 11. Mr. 
 Duffield makes it consist principally in some 
 imaginary resemblance to the Trinity. "There 
 is, however,'' says he, " one important res- 
 pect 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 re- 
 presented as speaking at the formation of 
 man, but the whole three. Jehovah, the 
 ever blessed Three in One, said, ^^I^et us 
 make man in our image" — not in the image 
 of any one person, nor of each 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 
 constituting but one moral being ! In him are 
 miited the vegetable, the animal, and the 
 moral or spiritual life, each having and 
 preserving its distinct character, but all com- 
 bined in one responsible individual." — Work 
 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 re- 
 
FUTURE STATE OF INFANTS. S3 
 
 marks, that this doctrine involves also a new 
 theory of regeneration. This is not denied — 
 and hence the sentiments which have long pre- 
 vailed on this subject are rejected, and the 
 notion oi gradual regeneration by moral sua- 
 sio?i, 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, infants, before arriving at 
 moral agency, have no moral character; but 
 stand in respect to moral government, on the 
 same level with brute animals. This is the 
 New School doctrine. Since, therefore, thou- 
 sands die in infancy, where do they go? If 
 they have no moral character, the blessings 
 of the gospel are no more adapted to them, 
 than to the brutes. Hence if they die before 
 they become moral agents, they must either 
 be annihilated, or spend an eternity in some 
 unknown and inconceivable state of existence 
 — neither in heaven nor hell, but possibly 
 between the two — in some limbus infantum, 
 similar, perhaps, to that of the pa^pists; 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 
 weeping by the cradle of expiring infancy!* 
 
 * The manner in which the advocates of the New The- 
 ology attempt to relieve themselves from this difficulty, is 
 
84 SALVATION OF INFANTS. 
 
 7. The death of infants affords strong proof 
 of the doctrine of itnputation and original 
 sin. If there is no /e^a/ connexion between 
 us and Adam, if his sin is not imputed to ns, 
 and we are not born with a corrupt nature; 
 where is ihe justice of inflicting upon infants 
 who have never committed actual transgres- 
 sion, a part of the penaUy threatened upon 
 Adam for his disobedience? 
 
 8. The doctrine of imputation affords the 
 only evidence we can have that those dying 
 in infancy are saved. If Adam's sin was not 
 imputed to them to 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. Says he, "Suffer lit- 
 tle children to come unto me and forbid 
 them not, for of such is the kingdom of hea- 
 ven." 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 
 
 the following, 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, 85 
 
 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 sing the honours of thy grace, 
 That sent to save our ruined race: 
 Adam the second, from the dust 
 Raises the ruins of the first." 
 
 9. The doctrine of imputation is essential 
 to a correct view of the plan of salvation. 
 As Dr. Hodge has well expressed it: "The 
 denial of this doctrine involves also the denial 
 of the scriptural view of the atonement and 
 justification. It is essential to the scriptural 
 form of these doctrines that the idea of legal 
 substitution should be retained. Christ bore 
 our sins; our iniquities were laid upon him; 
 which, according to the true meaning of Scrip- 
 ture 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 sup- 
 port of law. . . . This idea of legal substitu- 
 tion enters also into the scriptural view of 
 justification. 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." — Com- 
 mentary on the Romans, pp. 127, 128. 
 
86 REMARKS OF DR. OWEN. 
 
 The connexion of imputation with the 
 work of Christ, gives to this doctrine its chief 
 importance. The same principle is apphed 
 in the Bible both to Adam and Christ. If, 
 therefore, we deny our legal connexion with 
 Adam, and the imputation of his first sin 
 to his posterity, we must necessarily adopt 
 views concerning the method of salvation by 
 Jesus Christ, materially different from those 
 above given. On the supposition that the 
 principle of representation is inadmissible in 
 the case of Adam, it must be equally so in 
 reference to Christ. If we cannot be con- 
 demned 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 connexion with Adam, des- 
 troys also our connexion with Christ, and our 
 title to heaven. 
 
 Says Owen, " By some the imputation of 
 the actual apostasy and transgression of 
 Adam, the head of our nature, whereby his 
 sin became the sin of the world, is utterly 
 denied. Hereby both the ground the apostle 
 proceedeth on, in evincing the necessity of 
 our justification or our being made righteous 
 by the obedience of another, and all the argu- 
 ments brought in confirmation of the doctrine 
 of it, in the fifth chapter of his epistle to the 
 Romans, are evaded and overthrown. Soci- 
 nus confesseth that place to give great coun- 
 tenance unto the doctrine of justification by 
 the imputation of the righteousness of Christ j 
 
REMARKS OF DR. OWEN. 87 
 
 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 admis- 
 sion thereof, the imputation of the righteous- 
 ness of Christ unto his spiritual seed, would 
 unavoidably follow according unto the tenor 
 of the apostle's discourse." . . . *' Some deny 
 the depravation and corruption of our nature, 
 Avhich ensued on our apostasy from God, and 
 the loss of his image. Or if they do not ab- 
 solutely deny it, yet they so extenuate it as 
 to render it a matter of no great concern unto 
 us." . . . . " That deformity of soul which 
 came upon us in the loss of the image of God, 
 wherein the beauty and harmony of all our 
 faculties, in all their actings, in order unto 
 their utmost end, did consist; that enmity 
 unto God, even in the mind which ensued 
 thereon; that darkness with which our un- 
 derstandings were clouded, yea, blinded with- 
 al ; the spiritual death which passed on the 
 whole soul, and total alienation from the life 
 of God; that impotency unto good, that in- 
 clination unto evil, that deceitfulness of sin, 
 that power and efficacy of corrupt lusts, 
 which the Scriptures and experience so fully 
 charge on the state of lost nature, are rejected 
 as empty notions, or fables. No wonder if 
 such persons look upon imputed righteous- 
 ness as the shadow of a dream, who esteem 
 those things which evidence its necessity to 
 but fond imaginations. And small hope is 
 there to bring such men to value the right- 
 
88 IMFUT^TION AND ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 eousness of Christ, as impiUed to them, who 
 are so unacquainted with their own unright- 
 eousness inherent in them." 
 
 10. The Scripture proofs reUed upon to 
 estabhsh the doctrine of imputation and ori- 
 ginal 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 
 born 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 Ed- 
 wards, in the last chapter, to which we refer 
 the reader. The quotation commences as 
 follows: " The doctrine of the corruption of 
 nature^ derived from Adam, and also the 
 imputation of his first sin, are both clearly 
 taught in it," &c. The phrases, " for that, 
 or in whom all have sinned,^^ " through the 
 05*6 nee of one many be dead,^^ "the judg- 
 ment was by one to condemnation,^^ "by one 
 man's offence, death reigned by o?2e," "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 
 
SCRIPTURAL PROOFS. 89 
 
 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) dvvelleth no good 
 thing; for to will is present with me; but 
 how to perform that which is good, I find 
 not/' &c. This struggle between the old and 
 new man, between indwelling sin and the 
 principle of grace, affords strong evidence of 
 the natural propensity of man to sin. 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 22. " For as in Adam all die, 
 even so in Christ shall all be made alive.'' 
 By simply reversing the order of the passage, 
 its relevancy to our present purpose will be 
 manifest. As all who shall be made alive 
 will enjoy this blessing by virtue of their 
 connexion with Christ as their covenant 
 head; so all whodie, experience this calamity 
 in consequence of a similar connexion with 
 Adam ; who "being the root of all mankind, 
 the guilt of [his first sin] was imputed, and 
 the same death in sin, and corrujrted nature, 
 conveyed to all his posterity, descending 
 from him by ordinary generation." 
 
 Eph. ii. 3. " And were by nature the 
 children of wrath, even as others." This 
 has been generally understood both by an- 
 cient and modern commentators 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 horn 
 in that condition; and if born children of 
 wrath, we must have been born in sin. 
 
 In the Old Testament, the following among 
 8 
 
90 PROOFS AND REMARKS. 
 
 Others may be referred to : . Gen. vi. 5. 
 '' And God saw that the wickedness of man 
 was great in the earth, and every imagina- 
 tion 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 character. 
 Psal. li. 5. "Behold I was shapen in iniqui- 
 ty, and in sin did my mother conceive me." 
 This is an express declaration that the Psal- 
 mist was conceived in sin ; and if it was true 
 of him, it is true of all others. These three 
 passages taken in connexion 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 descrip- 
 tion, 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. 
 
 As the chief object of the present volume 
 is to exhibit the difference between the Old 
 and New Theology, we have not thought it 
 expedient to enter largely upon the proofs m 
 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 
 
OUR CONNEXION WITH ADAM. 91 
 
 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 divines with regard to this 
 subject. We believe it to be wholly unfound- 
 ed; but against the opposite theory, it might 
 be made to lie with great force. Does any 
 one pronounce it unjust for a man to be held 
 liable for a debt contracted by one of his an- 
 cestors, provided in becoming his heir, that 
 was made one of the legal conditions by 
 which he should inherit his estate ? But sup- 
 pose he had no legal connexion with him at 
 all, but simply the relation of natural de- 
 scent — which, according to the New School 
 doctrine, is our only connexion 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 connexion, but is held responsible, 
 merely because he is his descendant. Is this 
 j^lst? — 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 sin? 
 This covenant or legal connexion, renders it 
 just that we should inherit these calamities — 
 but on any other principle their infliction 
 upon us can not be easily explained, without 
 
92 
 
 OBSERVATIONS AND REMARKS. 
 
 bearing painfully upon the justice of God's 
 dispensations. 
 
 Such is the organization of human govern- 
 ments, that we are usually connected in law 
 with those from whom we have descended — 
 and there is a fitness and propriety in this 
 arrangement. Hence, unless special provi- 
 sion is made to the contrary, the natural 
 descendant becomes the legal heir. Such 
 also is the Divine economy with regard to 
 man. The appointment of Adam as our 
 federal head was not altogether arbitrary, as 
 it would have been, had he been appointed 
 the federal head of angels — but it was accord- 
 ing to the fitness of things. Hence our na- 
 tural relation is made use of as the medium 
 of bringing about those results, which have 
 their origin in our /ec^er«/ relation. Original 
 sin flows to us through the channel of na- 
 tural descent — and various evils which now 
 flow from parent to child, descend in the 
 same way: — but i\\QU foundation must be 
 traced back to the covenant made with our 
 first father, as the representative of his pos- 
 terity; the guilt of whose first sin being im- 
 puted to us, a corrupt and depraved nature 
 and other penal evils follow as the conse- 
 quence. Is any one disposed to say, I never 
 gave my consent to that covenant, and there- 
 fore it is unjust to punish me for its violation? 
 We ask in return, whether the individual 
 whose case has been supposed, gave his con- 
 sent that his ancestor should leave the estate 
 which he has inherited from him, encum- 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 93 
 
 bered with debt? And yet, no sane man 
 would ever think of caUing in question the 
 propriety of his being held responsible. If, 
 however, he had no legal connexion 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 
 THROUGH HIM. 
 
 The nature and design of Christ's sufferings 
 are generally described by theological wri- 
 ters of the present day, under the name of 
 Atonement — a term not found in our stand- 
 ards, 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, reconciliation, redemption, and 
 satisfaction : which are the terms employed 
 in our Confession of Faith. This accounts 
 
94 EXPLANATORY REMARKS. 
 
 for the fact that the word atonement does not 
 occur in that volume. The mere use of a 
 term is of little consequence, provided the 
 true doctrine is retained. But many have 
 not only laid aside the ancient phraseology, 
 but with it, all that is valuable in the atone- 
 ment 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 inteUigent beings of the 
 righteousness of God, thus opening the way 
 for pardon — and others, that it was intend- 
 ed 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 -justice of God, by answering 
 the demands, and suffering 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 con- 
 sist 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 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 95 
 
 of God — thus giving up what has been re- 
 garded by most, if not all evangelical 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 not meant that he en- 
 dured literally the same suffering either in 
 hind 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 es- 
 sential to the penalty, that Christ should 
 suffer a violent and ignominious death — but 
 whether he should die by decapitation or by 
 crucifixion, was incidental. It was essential 
 that he should suffer for our sins — but how 
 long his sufferings should continue, was in- 
 cidental. If inflicted upon us, they must 
 necessarily be eternal— because sin is an in- 
 finite 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 de- 
 mands of the law could be fully answered 
 by his suffering ever so short a time. A simi- 
 lar remark may be made concerning the re- 
 morse of conscience which forms a part of 
 the torments of the wicked. The imputation 
 of our sins to Christ does not involve a trans- 
 fer of moral character, but only of legal 
 responsibility. In being ^' made sin for us,*' 
 
 Christ did not become personally a sinner 
 
 but ^- was holy and harmless and undefiled.'' 
 
96 VIEWS OF DR. EEMAN. 
 
 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 inciden- 
 tal, and depends upon circumstances. Some 
 smners never appear to feel remorse at all — 
 and no sinner, probably, feels it at all times. 
 What is intended then by Christ's suffering 
 the penalty of the law as our substitute is, 
 that in law he assumed our place, and en- 
 dured 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 oi justice to Christ, but 
 oifree unbounded mercy to them, " redeem- 
 ed 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 Atone- 
 ment," 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 de- 
 mand upon the transgressor which it al ways 
 had. This claim can never be invalidated. 
 This penal demand can never be extinguish- 
 ed." Speaking of those who entertain oppo- 
 
 * Dr. Beman has not, I believe, published his senti- 
 ments on the other points embraced in the New Theo- 
 ology, and therefore I cannot state with certainty what 
 they are. 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 97 
 
 site views, he says, (p. 45,) " Tiiey contend 
 that the real penalty of the law was inflicted 
 on Christ; and at the same time acknowledge 
 that the sufferings of Christ were not the 
 same, either in nature or degree, as those 
 sufferings which were threatened against the 
 transgressor. The words of our text [Gal. 
 iii. 13,] are considered by many as furnish- 
 ing unequivocal testimony to the fact, that 
 Christ endured the penalty of the law in the 
 room of his people. " Christ hath redeemed 
 us from the curse of the law, being made a 
 curse for us.'' But it is, in no shape, asserted 
 here, that Christ suffered the penalty of the 
 law. The apostle tells us in what sense lie 
 was "made a curse for us.'' "Cursed is 
 every one that hangeth on a tree." Believ- 
 ers are saved from the curse or penalty of 
 the law by the consideration, that Christ was 
 " made a curse" for them in another and a 
 very different sense. He was "made a 
 curse" inasmuch as he suffered, in order to 
 open the door of hope to man, the pains and 
 ignominy of crucifixion. He hung upon a 
 tree. He died as a malefactor. He died as 
 one accursed." In a note on the next page, 
 with reference to some remarks in a sermon 
 by Dr. Dana, of Londonderry, he observes: 
 " But why is it necessary to support the po- 
 sition, that the curse of the law was inflicted 
 on Christ? If it should be said, that the 
 Divine veracity was pledged to execute the 
 law — we reply that the Divine veracity can 
 find no support in that kind of infliction of 
 9 
 
98 
 
 the curse which is here supposed. A sab- 
 stantial execution of the law — an endurance 
 of the penalty so far as the nature of the case 
 admitted or required — an infliction of suffer- 
 ing, not upon the transgressor, but upon a 
 surety, when the law had not made the most 
 distant allusion to a surety, certainly has 
 much more the appearance of evasion than 
 execution of the law.^' He says, (p. 51,) 
 '^As to imputation, we do deny that the sins 
 of men, or of any part of our race, were so 
 transferred to Christ, that they became his 
 sins, or were so reckoned to him, that he sus- 
 tained their legal responsibilities."* Again, 
 (p. QS,) " There is nothing in the character of 
 Christ's sufferings which can affect or modify 
 the penalty of the law. These sufferings were 
 not legal. They constituted no part of that 
 curse which was threatened against the trans- 
 gressor." 
 
 What then, according to him, was the na- 
 ture of Christ's sufferings? He says, (p. 35, 
 36,) " He suffered and died the just for the 
 unjust;" "and those sufferings which he en- 
 dured as a holy being, were intended, in the 
 case of all those who are finally saved, as a 
 substitute for the infliction of the penalty 
 of the law. We say a substitute for the in- 
 fliction of the penalty ; for the penalty itself, 
 if it be executed at all, must fall upon the 
 sinner, and upon no one else." Again, (p. 
 
 * The Old Theolog-y does not maintain that our sins 
 " became his sins" — but only that he sustained our legal 
 responsibilities. 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 99 
 
 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 punishment of sinners This is 
 
 vicarious suff'ering. It is the suff'ering of 
 Christ in the place of the endless suffering of 
 the sinner/' Once more: (p. 64, 65,) "The 
 penalty of the law, strictly speaking, was not 
 inflicted at all; for this penalty, in which was 
 [were] embodied the principles of distribu- 
 tive justice, required the death of the sinner, 
 and did not require the death of Christ. As 
 a substitute for the infliction of this penalty, 
 God did accept of the suff'erings of his Son." 
 Was there then no satisfaction made to 
 divine justice? Says Dr. Beman, (p. 65,) 
 " The law, or justice, that is, distributive jus- 
 tice, 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 diff"erent character. In introducing 
 this system of mercy, which involves a sus- 
 pension of the penal curse, God has required 
 a satisfaction to the principles of general or 
 public justice — a satisfaction which will eff'ec- 
 tually secure all the good to the universe 
 which is intended to be accomplished by the 
 penalty of the law when inflicted, and, at the 
 same time, prevent all that practical mischief 
 which would result from arresting the hand 
 of punitive justice without the intervention 
 of an atonement." But what does he mean 
 by "general or public justice?'' He says, 
 (p. 63, 64,) "It has no direct reference to 
 
100 DR. beman's views. 
 
 law, but embraces those principles of virtue 
 or benevolence by which we are bound to 
 govern our conduct ; and by which God him- 
 self governs the universe. It is in this sense 
 that the terms "just" and "righteousness" 
 occur in our text. [Rom. iii. 26.] .... This 
 atonement was required, that God might be 
 "just," or righteous, that is, that he might do 
 the thing which was fit and proper, and best 
 and most expedient to be done: and at the 
 same time be at perfect liberty to justify 
 "him which believeth in Jesus." 
 
 Let me now inquire, is this what is meant 
 in the Confession of Faith, where it reads, 
 " The Lord Jesus Christ, by his perfect obe- 
 dience and sacrifice of himself, which he 
 through the Eternal Spirit once offered up 
 unto God, h3.ihfull7/ satisfied the justice of 
 his FatherV^ 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 jus- 
 tice, viz. by the " principles of virtue or bene- 
 volence;" and punishes sinners for rebeUing 
 against his government, by another and a 
 different kind, viz. the justice which is "ex- 
 pressed 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 jus- 
 tice 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 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 101 
 
 obedience and sacrifice of Christ in our be- 
 half, ill conformity to the law? " But when 
 the fnhiess 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 adoption of 
 sons." Gal. iv. 4, 5. Does this mean that 
 those " under the law," were exposed to the 
 retribution of one kind of justice-, and that 
 Christ, who was " made under the law, to 
 redeem them," rendered satisfaction to an- 
 other and a different kitid — to a species 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?" If so, why was it 
 necessary to "suspend" it, in order to intro- 
 duce a code of justice, which " has no direct 
 reference to law," but belongs to a system 
 possessing "a different character?" 
 
 These positions, it appears to me, involve 
 the sentiment, that the Divine government 
 and law, as the former is now administered, 
 are not in harmony with each other — that the 
 government of God could not be administered 
 according to the " principles of virtue or bene- 
 volence," 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 altoge- 
 ther — for if " the penalty of the law was not 
 
102 DR. BEMAN^S VIEWS. 
 
 inflicted at all," but a system was introduced 
 " which involves a suspension of the legal 
 curse," why might not God as moral Gover- 
 nor, in the exercise of that " virtue or bene- 
 volence, by which he governs the universe,*' 
 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 sinnners without an 
 atonement? 
 
 Dr. Beman assigns three reasons why the 
 atonement 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 expres- 
 sion 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 
 at all, " but the whole legal system was sus- 
 pended in order to make way for the opera- 
 tion 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 essen- 
 tial to the execution of the threatening con- 
 tained 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 responsi- 
 bilities;" and view the atonement as " a sys- 
 
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 103 
 
 tern 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 atone- 
 ment 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 ne- 
 cessity of the atonement, (says he,) will fur- 
 ther appear, if we contemplate the relations 
 of this doctrine with the rational universe." 
 
 " We may naturally suppose, that it 
 
 was the intention of God, in saving sinners, 
 to make a grand impression upon the uni- 
 verse." ..." What effect would the salva- 
 tion of sinners without an atonement, proba- 
 bly have upon the angels of heaven ?" . . . . 
 "This example has taught them to revere 
 the law, and to expect the infliction of the 
 
 penalty upon every transgressor." 
 
 "Every angel feels the impression which this 
 public act is calculated to make; and while 
 he dreads, with a new sensation, the penalty, 
 he clings more closely to the precept of the 
 law. But suppose the provisions of this law 
 were entirely set aside, in our world, as would 
 be the case if sinful men were to be saved 
 without an atonement, and, in the 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 entu'ely set aside in our world," 
 
104 DR. beman's views. 
 
 according to his scheme? Not, it is true, 
 " by saving sinful men without an atone- 
 ment;-' but by saving them through that 
 kind of atonement, which "has no direct 
 reference to law," and " involves a suspen- 
 sion of its legal curse.'' If the law " has no 
 concern with a substitute;" and if Christ's 
 " sufferings constituted no part of that curse, 
 which was threatened against the transgres- 
 sor;" how can a vieiv of his sufferings teach 
 the angels " to revere the law, and to expect 
 the infliction of the penalty upon every trans- 
 gressor!" 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 lan- 
 guage, " 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 substi- 
 tute, all is plain — but if not, neither man nor 
 angel can tell satisfactorily, how " God can 
 he just while he justifies him that believeth;" 
 or why, if he can be just in bestowing par- 
 don ivitk an atonement^ he might not be 
 just in bestowing it without any. 
 
 Another work on the atonement, said to 
 have been founded on Dr. Beman's Sermons, 
 has been published in England, by Mr. Jen- 
 kyn, and republished in this country with an 
 introductory recommendation by Dr. Carroll. 
 On these two accounts it may be properly re- 
 
VIEWS OF MR. JENKYN. 105 
 
 ferred to as a specimen of the New Views.* 
 Mr. Jenkyn introduces seven arguments to 
 prove that Christ did not suffer the penaUy 
 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 atonement." P. 25. 
 " If a man transgress a law, he must, in 
 a just a)id firm government, be punished. 
 Why? Lest others have a bad opinion of 
 the law and transgress it too. But suppose 
 that this end of the law be secured without 
 punishing the transgressor; suppose that a 
 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, 
 
 * Concerning Dr. Beman's Discourses, Mr. Jenkyn 
 says : — " This little work is a rich nursery of what Lord 
 Bacon calls ' The seeds of things.' It abounds in living- 
 theological principles, each of which, if duly cultivated 
 and reared, would unfold great and ample truths, illustra- 
 tive of this great doctrine." 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 in- 
 fluence on the opinions of theological students and minis- 
 ters will be great and salutary, beyond computation," 
 
106 THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 
 
 both on the score of justice and on the score 
 of benevolence. For public justice only re- 
 quires that men should be kept from having 
 such a bad opinion of the law as to break it. 
 If this can be done without inflicting what, 
 in distributive justice, is due to the criminal, 
 public justice is satisfied, because its ends are 
 fully answered. The death of Christ secures 
 this end." 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 promise and truth in a threatening^ are dif- 
 ferent, especially in measures of government. 
 Truth in a promise obliges the promiser to 
 perform his word, or else to be regarded as 
 unfaithful and false. But truth in a threaten- 
 ing does not, in the administration of discip- 
 hne or government, actually oblige to literal 
 execution; it only makes the punishment to 
 be due and admissible. A threatened penalty 
 does not deprive the lawgiver of his 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 suspending punishment, God 
 has exercised in many instances, as in the 
 sparing of Nineveh, and I believe in the spa- 
 ring of our first parents. The identical penal- 
 ty of the Eden constitution was not literally 
 executed, either on man or on Christ. It was 
 not executed on man^ 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 
 
VIEWS OF MR. JENKYN. 107 
 
 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 penal- 
 ty. If it be said that he suffered it for others, 
 let it be remember-ed 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, QS. 
 
 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 difficuhy, 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 ad- 
 mit 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 punish- 
 ment for disobedience conditionally. The 
 moment the law was violated, the transgressor 
 fell under the curse. And he must either 
 endure it eternally, or be released by having 
 satisfaction paid to divine justice in some 
 other way. "Cursed is every one that con- 
 tinueth not in all things written in the book 
 of the law to do them.'' " In the day thou 
 
108 THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 
 
 eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Ac- 
 cordingly, as soon as Adam transgressed he 
 began to feel the curse. He lost God's im- 
 age and favour — he became spiritually dead 
 — and he would have suffered temporal 
 and eternal death, had they not been averted 
 by the interposition of a substitute.* The 
 penalty of the law must be substantially exe- 
 cuted. 
 
 " 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 threaten- 
 ings, how can it be proved that the punish- 
 ment of the wicked will be eternal ? Though 
 it is distinctly and frequently asserted in the 
 Bible that such will be the doom of the finally 
 impenitent, yet if God's veracity does not re- 
 quire the execution of this threatening, there 
 is no certainty that it will be inflicted: nay, 
 there is much reason to beUeve the contrary; 
 because if there is nothing in God's charac- 
 ter, or law, which requires him to punish sin, 
 we may be sure that his infinite goodness 
 will lead him to release the sinner from con- 
 demnation; and thus, atonement or noatone- 
 
 * It is sometimes said that God did not execute his 
 threatening upon Adam, because he did not die a temporal 
 death that very day. But the threatening began to be in- 
 flicted that very day — and this was all which was intend- 
 ed by it. From the nature of the case, eternal death can- 
 not 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 suifering the penalty of the law ? 
 
VIEWS OF MR. BARNES. 109 
 
 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 endured what 
 was essential in the penalty of the law as 
 our substitute, or our union to him by faith 
 cannot shelter us from its penal demands. 
 Its threatenings still lie against us, and must 
 ere long be inflicted. It is not true, there- 
 fore, that "there is no condemnation to them 
 that are in Christ Jesus." He is not " an 
 hiding place from the wind ; a covert from the 
 tempest.'^ 
 
 Mr. Barnes in his sermon on the Way of 
 Salvation, and in his Notes on the Romans, 
 gives substantially the same view of the 
 atonement with Dr. Beman and Mr. Jenkyn. 
 But in another production of his, viz: an In- 
 troductory Essay to Butler's Analogy, which 
 Avas first published in the Christian. Specta- 
 tor, and afterwards prefixed to a new edition 
 of the Analogy, he presents the subject in a 
 manner still more exceptionable. If I mis- 
 take 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 inter- 
 vention of another ? Are there any cases in 
 which either our own crimes or the manifest 
 judgments of God, are bringing ruin upon 
 us, where that ruin is turned aside by the 
 
110 ATONEMENT NEW SCHOOL VIEWS. 
 
 interposition of others ? Now we at once cast 
 our eyes backward to all the helpless and 
 dangerous periods of our being. Did God 
 come fortli directly, and protect us in the 
 defenceless period of infancy ? Who watched 
 over the sleep of the cradle, and guarded us 
 in sickness and helplessness? It was the ten- 
 derness of a mother bending over our slum- 
 bering childhood, foregoing sleep, and rest, 
 and ease, and hailing toil and care that we 
 might be defended. Why then is it strange, 
 that when God thus ushers us into existence 
 through the pain and toil of another, he 
 should convey the blessings of a higher ex- 
 istence 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 reli- 
 gion. 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 provisions for the sons 
 and daughters of feebleness, gaiety, or idle- 
 ness ? 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 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM MR. BARNES. Ill 
 
 thousands of hands acting as mediums be- 
 tween man and God. It is thus through the 
 instrumentahty of others, that the great Giver 
 of life breathes heaUh into our bodies, and 
 vigour into our frames. And why should he 
 not reach also the.sick and weary mind — the 
 soul languishing under a long and wretched 
 disease, by the hand of a mediator? Why 
 should he not kindle the glow of spiritual 
 health on the wan cheek, and infuse celestial 
 life into our veins, by him who is the great 
 Physician of our souls? The very earth, air, 
 waters, are all channels for conveying bless- 
 ings to us from God. Why then should the 
 infidel stand back, and all sinners frown, 
 when we claim the same thing in redemp- 
 tion, and affirm that in this great concern, 
 "there is one Mediator between God and 
 man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave him- 
 self a ransom for all? 
 
 " But still it may be said, that this is not 
 an atonem^ent. We admit it. We maintain 
 only that it vindicates 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 atonement, if it be not that God aids us 
 in our sins and woes, by the self-denial and 
 sufterings of another ? And we ask, whether 
 there is any thing so peculiar in such a sys- 
 tem, as to make it intrinsically absurd and 
 incredible ? Now we think there is nothing 
 more universal and indisputable than a sys- 
 
112 ATONEMENT NEW SCHOOL VIEWS. 
 
 tern 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 gratified, 
 our bodies sustained, our sickness alleviated 
 — that is, the impending evils of labour, fam- 
 ine, or disease are put away by these substi- 
 tuted toils and privations. By the blood of 
 patriots he gives us the blessings of liberty — 
 that is, by /Ae^V sufferings in our defence we 
 are delivered from the miseries of rapine, 
 murder, or slavery, which might have en- 
 compassed our dwellings. The toil of a 
 father is the price by which a son is saved 
 from ignorance, depravity, w^ant, or death. 
 The tears of a mother, and her long watch- 
 fulness, save from the perils of infancy, and 
 an early death. Friend aids friend by toil ; 
 a parent foregoes rest for a child; and the 
 patriot pours out his blood on the altars of 
 freedom, that others may enjoy the blessings 
 of liberty — that is, that others may not be 
 doomed to slavery, want, and death. 
 
 " Yet still it may be said, that we have not 
 come, in the analogy, to the precise point of 
 the atonement, in producing reconciliation 
 with God by the sufferings of another. We 
 ask then, what is the Scripture account of 
 the effect of the atonement in producing re- 
 conciliation ? Man is justly exposed to suffer- 
 ing. 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 
 
aUOTATIONS FROBI MR. BARNES. 113 
 
 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 par- 
 doned and reconciled to God. Now, we 
 affirm that in every instance of the substi- 
 tuted sufferings, or self-denial of the parent, 
 the patriot, or the benefactor, there occurs a 
 state of things so analogous to this, as to 
 show that it is in strict accordance with the 
 just government of God, and to remove all 
 the objections to the peculiarity of the atone- 
 ment. Over a helpless babe ushered into the 
 world, naked, feeble, speechless, there im- 
 pend hunger, cold, sickness, sudden death — 
 a mother's watchfulness averts these evils. 
 Over a nation impend revolutions, sword, 
 famine, and the pestilence. The blood of the 
 patriot averts these, and the nation smiles in 
 peace. Look at a single instance: Xerxes 
 poured his millions on the shores of Greece. 
 The vast host darkened all the plains, and 
 stretched towards the capital. In the train 
 there followed weeping, blood, conflagration, 
 and the loss of hberty. Leonidas, almost 
 alone, stood in his path. He fought. Who 
 can calculate the effects of the valour and 
 blood of that single man and his compatriots 
 in averting calamities from Greece, and from 
 other nations struggling in the cause of free- 
 dom? Who can tell how much of rapine, of 
 10 
 
114 ATONEME>T NEW SCHOOL VIEWS. 
 
 cruelty, and of groans and tears it turned 
 away from that nation ?" 
 
 It is due to Mr. Barnes to state, that he 
 observes in the words immediately following 
 the above extract, " Now we by no means 
 affirm that this is all that is meant by an 
 atonement, as revealed by Christianity." Yet 
 in his subsequent remarks he does not ad- 
 vance a single idea which gives a higher 
 view of that great transaction, than is present- 
 ed above : and in the passage we have quoted, 
 he affirms that the view which he has given 
 " vindicates the main j^^^inciple of atone- 
 ment." If his illustrations vindicate the main 
 principle of atonement, they must convey a 
 correct idea of what the atonement is. But 
 if the reader is left to obtain his knowledge 
 on this subject from these statements, he 
 would adopt a scheme unworthy the name of 
 atonement. Indeed, Mr. Barnes admits, 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 vindicated by the view 
 which he had presented. But if the <^ main 
 principle'''' of atonement is exhibited in any 
 part of the above extract, or in the whole 
 taken together, we can see no reason for the 
 necessity of a Divine Mediator ; and should 
 be disposed seriously to inquire whether So- 
 cinianism is not all the Christianity that we 
 need?* 
 
 * The Christian Examiner, a Unitarian periodical, 
 published at Boston, contains a review of Mr. Barnes's 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM DR. MURDOCK. 115 
 
 We shall give but one more specimen of 
 the 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 professor in 
 the Andover Theological Seminary. 
 
 ''In this text [Rom. iii. 25, 26J Paul de- 
 clares explicitly, what was the immediate 
 object of Christ's atoning sacrifice; that is, 
 what effect it had in the economy of redemp- 
 tion, or how it laid a proper foundation 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 right- 
 eously to pardon the repenting sinner, the 
 
 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 chief- 
 ly as an illustration of the inherent and essential connex- 
 ion between sin and suffering." With regard to the book, 
 tlie reviewer says, " While, for the most part, we would 
 advise no additions, were the work re-edited under Unita- 
 rian supervision, we should note exceedingly few omis- 
 sions. Indeed, on many of the standard and Trinitarian 
 proof-texts, Mr. Barnes has candidly indicated the inade- 
 quacy of the text to prove the doctrine." . . . . " Sometimes 
 Mr. Barnes does not so much as suggest a Trinitarian idea 
 in commenting on texts which have been deemed decided- 
 ly and irresistibly Trinitarian in their bearing." 
 
116 ATONEMENT NEW SCHOOL VIEWS. 
 
 atonement must give the same support to 
 law, or must display as impressively the per- 
 fect holiness and justice of God, as the exe- 
 cution of the law on transgressors would. 
 It must be something different from the exe- 
 cution 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 declaration of the right- 
 eousness of God; so that he might be just" 
 — might secure the objects of distributive jus- 
 tice, as it becomes a righteous moral gover- 
 nor to do — <^ and yet might justify," or acquit 
 and exempt from punishment him that be- 
 lieveth 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 transgres- 
 sors, Uor 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 execution of the law itself: its imme- 
 diate influence was on the same persons ; 
 and that influence was produced in the same 
 way — by means of a public exhibition." . . . 
 " The only difficulty is to understand how 
 this exhibition was a display of the righteous- 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM DR. MURDOCK. 117 
 
 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 suffering in our stead. But to this 
 hypothesis there are strong objections. To 
 suppose that Christ was really and truly our 
 sponsor, and that he suffered in this charac- 
 ter, would involve such a transfer of legal 
 obligations 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 suffer in our stead, we 
 assign no intelligilDle reason why his suffer- 
 ings 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 satisfactory, than that 
 which is suggested by the text? The atone- 
 ment was an exhibition or display ; that is, 
 it was a symbolical transaction. It was a 
 transaction in which God and his Son were 
 the actors; and they acted in perfect harmony, 
 though performing different parts in the au- 
 gust drama." " The object of both, in 
 
 this affecting tragedy, was to make an im- 
 pression on the minds of rational beings every 
 where and to the end of time. And the im- 
 pression to be made was, that God is a holy 
 and righteous God; that while inclined to 
 mercy he cannot forget the demands of jus- 
 tice and the danger to his kingdom from the 
 
118 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 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 sus- 
 pending 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 — 
 symbolically. 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 suffer- 
 ing in this manner." 
 
 The principal difference between these 
 views and those of Dr. Beman and others of 
 the same school, is that he has laid aside the 
 usual orthodox terms, and expressed his sen- 
 timents in other language. Perhaps this was 
 one reason why such a sensation was pro- 
 duced in the community by the appearance 
 of the sermon. Professor. Stuart published 
 two discourses (if 1 remember correctly.) 
 with a view to counteract its influence; and 
 Dr. i)ana, of Londonderry, preached a ser- 
 mon (probably for the same end,) before the 
 Convention of Congregational and Presby- 
 terian Ministers of New-Hampshire; which 
 was published by their request. From this 
 sermon we shall give some extracts, as ex- 
 pressive of the Old Theology on this subject. 
 His text is in Isa. liii. 4, 5, 6; concerning 
 which he observes: 
 
aUOTATIONS FROM DR. DANA. 119 
 
 "Jehovah, the just, the benevolent Jeho- 
 vah, is pleased to bruise him and to put 
 him to grief. Unparalleled mystery! 
 How shall it be explained? One fact, and 
 that alone explains it. Pie 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 accumula- 
 tion of language, as is calculated to make the 
 very strongest impression on the mind." . . . 
 "A moment's refiectioa may convince us 
 that if any of our sinful race are to be par- 
 doned and saved, an atonement is absolutely 
 necessary. God is holy and just; infinitely 
 and immutably holy and just. These attri- 
 butes imply that he has a perfect and irre- 
 concilable aversion to all sin ; and must 
 manifest this aversion to his creatures. But 
 how can this be done if sin be pardoned, 
 without an atonement? Would not the great 
 Jehovah in this case, practically deny him- 
 self? 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 ?" 
 
120 ATONEMENT OLD THEOLOGY, 
 
 .... " Still further, it is easy to see that 
 satisfaction, if made hy a surety, must cor- 
 respond with the debt due from those in 
 whose behalf it is rendered. Mankind uni- 
 versally 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 ma- 
 jesty and glory of the Lawgiver, and with 
 our own obligations to obedieuce. 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 Re- 
 deemer 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. Infinite excellence could 
 not feel the anguish of malignant passions. 
 Nor was it needful that the Saviour, in 
 making atonement for human guilt, should 
 sustain sufferings without end. Such, it is 
 admitted, must have been the punishment of 
 the sinner, had he borne it in his own per- 
 son. But this necessity results, not directly 
 from the penal sanction of the law, but from 
 the impossibility that a finite transgressor 
 should, within any limited period, render 
 satisfaction for his sins. But the infinite dig- 
 nity of the Saviour imparted an infinite value 
 and efficacy to his temporary sufferings. 
 
aUOTATIONS FROM DR. DANA. 121 
 
 Indeed it cannot be doubted that he endured 
 as much of that same misery to which the 
 sinner stands exposed, as consisted with tiie 
 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 threaten- 
 ing of the law; a real endurance of its penal- 
 ty, 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 tlie 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 that * the 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 forever unsatisfied. Without com- 
 menting at large on these suggestions so 
 peculiar, and so grating (as I apprehend) to 
 
 * Dr. Murdock is not mentioned by name. 
 11 
 
122 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY, 
 
 the ears and hearts of most Christians, I will 
 simply set before you the Saviour's own in- 
 tentions, in his advent and mediation; and 
 these as declared in his own words: * Think 
 not (says he) that I am come to destroy the 
 law or the prophets. I am not come to 
 destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto 
 you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or 
 one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law 
 till all be fulfilled,' Surely then his atone- 
 ment was not ^a substitute for the execu- 
 tion of the law.' On the contrary, his obe- 
 dience and sufferings were a substantial ful- 
 filment 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 forever unsat- 
 isfied;' 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 inexpli- 
 cable and distressing." .... "A Being of 
 spotless innocence, and Divine dignity; a 
 Being adored by angels and dear to God; a 
 Being, in short, the most lovely and glorious 
 that the intelligent creation ever saw, is sub- 
 jected to sufferings more complicated and 
 severe than were ever before endured in our 
 world; and all this not byway of substitu- 
 tion; not by way oi satisfaction f 07^ the sins 
 of others; but oi exhibition or displayP^ 
 
 3. " It is a serious question whether the 
 
QUOTATIONS FROM DR. DANA. 123 
 
 theory in view does not comprise a virtual 
 denial of the atonement itself. It leaves us 
 the name; but what does it leave of the 
 reaHty? An exhibit ion is not an atonement. 
 A display is not an atonement. A mere sytn- 
 bolical transaction is not an atonement." . . 
 "Where, then, let it be asked in ihe fourth 
 place, is the foundation of the believer's 
 hope? It is a notorious fact, that the great 
 body of Christians in every age have em- 
 braced the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings 
 and obedience of their Saviour. Pressed with 
 a sense of guilt, they have taken refuge in 
 his atoning blood. Conscious of the imper- 
 fection of their best obedience, they have 
 trusted in his righteousness 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 jus- 
 tice. Shall Christians now be told that this 
 is mere dream and delusion; that no proper 
 satisfaction for their sins has ever been made; 
 that their justification is nothing but an abso- 
 lute pardon; and that even this is a 'depar- 
 ture from the regular course of justice?' Doc- 
 trine like this is calculated to appal the 
 believer's heart, and plant thorns in his dying 
 pillow. It is even calculated to send a pang 
 to the bosoms of the blest ; to silence those 
 anthems of praise which the redeemed on 
 high are offering *to Him that loved them 
 
124 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 and washed them from their sms in his own 
 blood.' ^' 
 
 There was the same necessity for Christ's 
 suffering the penalty of the law, as for his 
 suifering at all. To employ the language of 
 a venerable professor, "The penalty of a holy, 
 violated law, was the only thing which stood 
 in the way. Mere sufferings of any one are 
 of no value, except in relation to some end. 
 The sufferings of Christ could no otherwise 
 open a way of pardon but by removing the 
 penalty of the law; but they could have no 
 tendency to remove the penalty but by his 
 enduring it. Sufferings not required by law 
 and justice must have been unjust sufferings, 
 and never could effect any good. Such ex- 
 hibition could not have the effect of demon- 
 strating God's hatred of sin, for it was not 
 the punishment of sin; nor could it make the 
 impression on the world, that the Ruler of 
 the Universe would hereafter punish sin; for, 
 according to this theory, sin goes unpunished, 
 and 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 rea- 
 son appears why it was necessary that the 
 person making this exhibition should be a 
 Divine person." — Dr. Alexander. 
 
 The whole controversy concerning the na- 
 ture of the atonement, may be resolved into 
 two questions: 1. Is God bound to punish 
 sin? and 2. Does this necessity arise from 
 the nature of God, or from circumstances 
 
REMARKS OF DR. SYMINGTON. 125 
 
 which lie without him? In other words, do 
 his holiness 3ind justice require him to mani- 
 fest his abhorrence to sin by inflicting upon 
 it deserved punishment ? or does the neces- 
 sity for manifesting this abhorrence lie only 
 in "reasons of state," as civilians say — i. e. 
 in the necessity of making a salutary impres- 
 sion 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 /«z^; 
 to sin," says Symington, is "just the opposi- 
 tion of his nature to sin ; his nature, not his 
 will, is the ultimate standard of morality. 
 His determination to punish sin is not volun- 
 tary^ but necessary. He does not annex a 
 punishment to sin because he ivills to do so, 
 but because his nature requires it. If the 
 whole of such procedure could be resolved 
 into mere volition, then it is not only sup- 
 posable that God might not have determined 
 to punish sin, but, which is blasphemous, 
 that he might have 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 ivill by 
 no means clear the guilty. The Lord is a 
 jealous God, he ivill not forgive your trans- 
 gressions nor your sins. Thou art not a 
 God that hath pleasure in wickedness, nei- 
 ther shall evil dwell with thee. God is 
 angry with the wicked every day. The 
 
126 ATONEMENT OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 Lord tvilltake vengeance on his adversaries, 
 and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. 
 Who can stand before his indignation? and 
 ivho can abide in the fierceness of his anger? 
 Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? 
 Our God is a consuming fir e.^^ (Exod. xxiv. 
 7; Josh. xxiv. 19; Ps. v. 4; vi. 11; Neh. i. 
 2^^\ Rom. iii. 5; Heb. xii. 29.) We may 
 confidently appeal to every unprejudiced 
 mind whether such descriptions as these do 
 not fully bear us out in the view we have 
 taken of God's retributive justice. And if 
 this view is correct, sin cannot go unpunish- 
 ed ; it cannot be pardoned without a satis- 
 faction; 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 Sa- 
 viour." — Symington on the Atonement. 
 
 If the only reason why God is bound to 
 punish sin arises from the effect to be pro- 
 duced upon the universe, then if he had cre- 
 ated no other inteUigent 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 punish- 
 ing sin lies primarily in his nature, diW atone- 
 ment would be as necessary for the redemp- 
 tion of a single sinner, if he had been the 
 
VIEWS OF DR. BELLAMY. 12T 
 
 only being in the universe, as it was under 
 the circumstances in which this scheme of 
 mercy was devised. And this we beheve to 
 be the fact. Otherwise God does not possess 
 essentially, that holiness, which the Scrip- 
 tures represent as. constituting the glory of 
 his character. 
 
 If then the question be asked, why is God 
 bound to punish sin? the first answer is, be- 
 cause it is right — si7i 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 re- 
 quired from a regard to his law and govern- 
 tnent. 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 atone- 
 ment 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 conclusion before adverted 
 to, that God is not " glorious in holiness^'' — 
 " 3, just God,^' who " will by no means clear 
 the guilty." 
 
 The following extract froni Dr. Bellamy 
 will show how nearly the above views cor- 
 respond with the sentiments prevalent in 
 New England a hundred years ago : " It was 
 fit, if any intelligent creature should at any 
 time swerve at all from the perfect will of 
 God, that he should for ever lose his favour 
 and fall under his everlasting displeasure, for 
 
12S ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 a thing so infinitely wrong: and in such a 
 case it was fit the Governor of the world 
 should be infinitely displeased and pubhcly 
 testify his infinite displeasure by a punish- 
 ment adequate thereto, inflicted on the sin- 
 ning creature. This Avould satisfy justice; 
 for justice is satisfied when the thing which 
 is wrong is punished according to its desert. 
 Hence, it was fit, when by a constitution, 
 holy, just, and good, Adam was made a pub- 
 lic head, to represent his race, and act not 
 only for himself, but for all his posterity; it 
 was fit, I say, that he and all his race, for his 
 first transgression, should lose the favour, and 
 fall under the everlasting displeasure of the 
 Almighty. It was fit that God should be 
 infinitely displeased at so abominable a thing 
 — and that as Governor of the world, he 
 should publicly bear testimony against it, as 
 an infinite evil, by inflicting the infinite pun- 
 ishment the law threatened; i. e. by damning 
 the whole world. This would have satisfied 
 justice; for justice is satisfied when justice 
 takes place — when the guihy 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 approbation, assumed our 
 nature — taken the place of a guilty world — 
 and had not only Adam's first transgression, 
 but the iniquities of us all laid upon him, and 
 in our room and stead, hath suflered the 
 wrath of God, the curse of the law, olfering 
 up himself a sacrifice to God for the sins of 
 
REMARKS OF BATES, OWEN, ETC. 129 
 
 men: and hereby the infinite evil of sin and 
 the righteousness of the law are piibhcly 
 owned and acknowledged, and the deserved 
 punishment voluntarily submitted unto by 
 man, i. e. by his representative : and thus 
 justice is satisfied ; for justice is satisfied 
 when justice takes place; and sin is now 
 treated as being what it is, as much as if God 
 had damned the whole world; and God, as 
 Governor, appears as severe against it. And 
 thus the righteousness of God is declared and 
 manifested, by Christ's being set forth to be a 
 propitiation for sin ; and he may now be just 
 and yet justify him that believes in Jesus." 
 —True Religion Delineated, pp. 332, 333. 
 
 Similar to the views here expressed, were 
 those of the early European divines. " There 
 was no defect in the payment he made. We 
 owed a debt of blood to the law, and his life 
 was offered up as a sacrifice ; otherwise the 
 law had remained in its full vigour and justice 
 had been unsatisfied. That a Divine person 
 hath suffered our punishment, is properly the 
 
 reason of our redemption." " The blood 
 
 of Christ shed, (Matt. xxvi. 28,) poured forth 
 from his veins and offered up to God, in that 
 precise consideration, ratifies the New Testa- 
 ment. The sum is, our Saviour by his death 
 suffered the malediction of the law, and his 
 Divine nature gave a full value to his suffer- 
 ings." '' And God, who was infinitely 
 
 provoked, is infinitely pleased." — Bates. 
 
 "A surety, sponsor, for us, the Lord Christ 
 was, by his voluntary undertaking out of his 
 
130 ATONEMENT — OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 rich grace and love, to do, answer, and per- 
 form all that is required on our parts, that 
 we may enjoy the benefits of the covenant, 
 the grace and glory prepared, proposed, and 
 promised in it, in the way and manner deter- 
 mined on by Divine wisdom. And this may 
 be reduced unto two heads: 1. His answer- 
 ing 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 underwent the ^punishment due 
 unto our sins, to make atonement for us, by 
 offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice for 
 the expiation of our sins.^^ — Owen. 
 
 " Christ hath redeemed us who believe ia 
 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 en- 
 during the penalty which our sins had 
 deserved." — Doddridge. 
 
 " I wonder that Jerome and Erasmus should 
 labour and seek for I know not what figure 
 of speech, to show that Christ was not called 
 accursed. Truly in this is placed all our 
 hope: in this the infinite love of God is mani- 
 fested: in this is placed our salvation, that 
 God properly and without any figure, poured 
 out all his wrath on his own Son; caused 
 him to be accursed, that he might receive us 
 into his favour. Finally, without any figure, 
 Christ was made a curse for us, in such a 
 
SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 131 
 
 manner that unless he had been truly God, 
 he must have reaiained under the curse for- 
 ever, from which, for our sakes, he emerged. 
 For indeed, if the obedience be figurative 
 and imaginary, so must our hope of glory 
 be/' — Beza, as quoted by Scott. 
 
 These several quotations all proceed on the 
 principle that the necessity of the atonement 
 lay primarily in the nature of God: that 
 his justice must be appeased by a true and 
 proper satisfaction, before it was possible for 
 him to regard sinners with favour; and that 
 this satisfaction having been made by the 
 vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of Jesus 
 Christ, who "hath given himself for us an 
 offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet 
 smelling savour," pardon and salvation are 
 freely bestowed upon believing sinners, in 
 perfect harmony with all the Divine attri- 
 butes. With the work which Christ per- 
 formed, 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 com- 
 pleted. We behold him now as " the Lamb 
 
132 SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 
 
 of God/' sacrificed to propitiate the Divine 
 favour; John i. 29: sls "the propitiation for 
 our sins;" 1 John ii. 2: as a " sin-offer ing^' 
 presented to God for a sacrifice of expiation; 
 2 Cor. V. 21, Gr.: as "a ransom," or redemp- 
 tion-price, to "redeem us from the curse of 
 the law;" Malt. 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. 
 hii. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 24: as, in fine, both the 
 offering and the priest, who having "appear- 
 ed to put away sin by the sacrifice of him- 
 self," "oifered himself without spot to God," 
 and, " by his own blood, entered into the 
 holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- 
 tion for us;" Heb. ix. 12, 14, 26. How- 
 explicit are 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 Di- 
 vine justice in behalf of those who should 
 believe in him, we know not how to inter- 
 pret the plainest language. So clearly is this 
 doctrine taught, and so adapted is it to 
 remedy the guilt and misery of our fallen 
 condition, that we doubt whether a mind 
 truly enlightened can fail to perceive it, or 
 an awakened conscience be insensible to its 
 value. In view of it, I am disposed to ex- 
 claim with grateful emotions, "0 Lord, I will 
 praise thee: though thou wast angry w4th 
 me, thine anger is turned away, and thou 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 133 
 
 comfortest me." " God is in Clirist recon- 
 ciling 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." 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION — A CONTINUATION OF THE rRECEDING CHAPTER. 
 
 Intimately connected with the doctrine of 
 atonement, is that of justification. The dif- 
 ferent views, therefore, with regard to the 
 former, which have been exhibited in the last 
 chapter, will give a corresponding complexion 
 to our sentiments concerning the latter. 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 suffer- 
 ings, constituting what is usually styled his 
 righteousness, are imputed to the believer for 
 his justification; Christ's righteousness being 
 received by faith as the instrument. Accord- 
 
134 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 ingly justification consists not only in the 
 pardon of sin, or in other words, in the re- 
 lease of the beheving sinner from punish- 
 ment ; but also in the acceptance of his person 
 as righteous in the eye of the law, through 
 the obedience of Christ reckoned or imputed 
 to him; by which he has a title to eternal 
 life. 
 
 On the contrary, those who deny that Christ 
 obeyed the law and suffered its penalty as our 
 substitute, deny also the imputation of his 
 righteousness for our justification; and though 
 they retain the word, justification, they make 
 it consist in mere pardon.^ In the eye of the 
 law, the believer, according to their views, is 
 not justified at all, and never will be through 
 eternity. Though on the ground of what 
 Christ has done, God is pleased Xofoi^give the 
 sinner upon his believing; Christ's righteous- 
 ness IS not reckoned in any sense as his, or 
 set down to his account. He believes, and 
 his faith, or act of believing' is accounted to 
 him for righteousness; that is, faith is so reck- 
 oned to his account, that God treats him as 
 if he were righteous. 
 
 * " The pardon of sin alone can with no propriety be 
 denominated justification. Pardon and justification are 
 not only distinct, but in common cases, utterly incom- 
 patible. 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 righteousness, which lays 
 the foundation for an act of justification. By pardon the 
 sinner is freed from condemnation, by justification he is 
 entitled to the heavenly inheritance." — Dr. Alexander. 
 
VIEWS OP LUTHER. 135 
 
 That the views first given accord with the 
 general sentiments of the church since the 
 Reformation is capable of abundant proof. 
 Though in the time of the Reformers the 
 opponents of the true doctrine did not take 
 the same ground, in every respect, which has 
 been taken since, and which is described in 
 the statement just made concerning the views 
 entertained by the advocates of the New 
 Theology; in one particular they are all 
 agreed, viz: in rejecting the imputation of 
 Christ's righteousness; the adoption or denial 
 of which is the basis of all the other differ- 
 ences that exist on this subject. To this doc- 
 trine, therefore, the Reformers clung, as the 
 sheet-anchor of the Christian faith. Justifi- 
 cation by faith, through the imputed right- 
 eousness of Christ — this was their doctrine. 
 And so important did they regard it, that 
 Luther was accustomed to denominate it, (as 
 is well known,) articulus stantis vel caden- 
 tis 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,) labour- 
 ing 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 execu- 
 
136 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 tor of his law; till at length being assured 
 and satisfied by the Lord, touching the right 
 meaning of these words, signifying the jus- 
 tice of God to be executed upon his Son to 
 save us from the stroke thereof, he imme- 
 diately upon the same, started up from his 
 bed, so confirmed in faith, as nothing after- 
 wards could appal him." — Life of Luther, 
 prefixed to his Commentary on the Galatians. 
 The following extracts from Owen on Jus- 
 tification will show the nature of the contro- 
 versy soon after the Reformation. " There 
 are two grand parties by whom the doctrine 
 of justification by the imputation of the right- 
 eousness of Christ is opposed, namely, the 
 Papists and the Socinians. But they proceed 
 on different principles, and unto diflferent 
 ends. The design of the one is to exalt their 
 own merits ; of the other, to destroy the me- 
 rit 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 justified before God, by our own 
 
 works of righteousness." They say, 
 
 ^ that this righteousness of Avorks is not abso- 
 lutely 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 me- 
 rited the first grace for us, that we therewith, 
 
 and thereby, may merit life eternal.' 
 
 Hence ' those other ingredients of confession, 
 
EXTRACTS FROM OWEN. 137 
 
 absolution, penances or commutations, aids 
 from saints and angels, especially 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 im- 
 putation of the righteousness of Christ, plead 
 for a participation of its effects or benefits 
 
 only." "He [Socinus] supposeth, that 
 
 if all he did in a way of obedience, was due 
 from himself on his own account, and was 
 only the duty Avhich 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 offered as a priest 
 for himself, in that kind of offering which he 
 made on the cross." " Hereby he ex- 
 cludes the church from any benefit by the 
 mediation of Christ, but only what consists 
 in his doctrine, example, and the exercise of 
 his power in heaven for our good." 
 
 " We grant an inherent righteousness in all 
 that do believe." ...."' 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 righteous- 
 ness,' 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 
 12 
 
138 EIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 
 
 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 nei- 
 ther answereth the law of God, nor the end 
 of God in our justification by the gospel, is 
 not that whereon we are justified. Bat such 
 is this inherent righteousness of believers, 
 even of the best of them." . ..." It is imper- 
 fect with respect unto every act and duty of 
 it, whether internal or external. There is 
 iniquity cleaving unto our holy things, and 
 all our ^righteousnesses are as filthy rags.' 
 Isa. Ixiv. 6." 
 
 " That which is imputed is the righteous- 
 ness of Christ; and briefly I understand here- 
 by, his whole-obedience unto God in all that 
 he did and suffered for the Church. This I 
 say is imputed unto believers, so as to become 
 their only righteousness before God unto the 
 justification of life." .... "The judgment of 
 the reformed churches herein is known unto 
 all." . . . . " Especially the Church of Eng- 
 land is in her doctrine express as unto the 
 imputation of the righteousness of Christ, 
 both active and passive, as it is usually dis- 
 tinguished. This hath been of late so fully 
 manifested out of her authentic writings, that 
 is, the articles of religion, and books of homi- 
 lies, and other writings publicly authorized, 
 that it is altogether needless to give any fur- 
 ther demonstration of it." . . . . " The law 
 hath two parts or powers; 1. Its preceptive 
 
EXTRACTS FROM OWEN. 189 
 
 part 2. The sanction on supposition of 
 
 disobedience, binding the sinner unto punish- 
 ment.^' " The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled 
 
 the whole law for us; he did not only under- 
 go the penalty of it due unto our sins, but 
 also yielded that perfect obedience which it 
 did require." .... "Christ's fulfilling the law 
 in obedience unto its commands, is no less 
 imputed unto us for our 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 incur- 
 red the guilt of, by sin, that we may be justi- 
 fied in his sight ? Was it not that the glory 
 and honour of his righteousness, as the au- 
 thor 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; where- 
 fore is it not as requisite unto the glory of 
 God, that the preceptive part of the law be 
 complied withal for us, inasmuch as obedi- 
 ence 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 justi- 
 fied 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 
 
140 RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 
 
 the law be complied withal by perfect obedi- 
 ence, as that the sanction of it be established 
 by undergoing its penalty." . . . . " The con- 
 science of a convinced sinner, Avho presents 
 himself in the presence of God, finds all prac- 
 tically reduced unto this one point, viz : whe- 
 ther he will trust unto his own personal 
 inherent righteousness, or in a full renuncia- 
 tion of it, betake himself unto the grace of 
 God, and the righteousness of Christ alone." 
 . . . . " The latter is the true and only relief 
 of distressed consciences, of sinners who are 
 
 weary and heavy laden that which alone 
 
 they may oppose unto the sentence of the 
 law, and interpose between God's justice and 
 their souls, wherein they may take shelter 
 from the storms of that wrath which abideth 
 on them that believe not." 
 
 These views of Owen accord with the doc- 
 trine of our Confession of Faith and with the 
 sentiments of other standard writers. The 
 language of our Confession is as follows: 
 "Those whom God effectually calleth, he 
 also freely justifieth; not by infusing right- 
 eousness into them, but by pardoning their 
 sins, and by accounting and accepting their 
 persons as righteous, not for any thing 
 wrought in them, or done by them, but for 
 Christ's sake alone: not by imputing faith 
 itself, the act of believing, or any other evan- 
 gelical obedience to them, as their righteous- 
 ness; but by imputing the obedience and 
 satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiv- 
 ing and resting on him and his righteousness 
 
VIEWS OF CALVIN. 141 
 
 by faith." Says Calvin, " He is said to be 
 justified in the sight of God, who in the 
 Divine judgment is reputed righteous, and 
 accepted on account of his righteousness." . . . 
 "He must be said, therefore, to hQ justified 
 by works, whose hfe discovers such purity 
 and hohness 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 by faith, 
 who being excluded from the righteousness 
 of works, apprehends by faith the righteous- 
 ness of Christ, invested in which he appears 
 in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as a 
 righteous man. Thus we simply explain 
 justification to be an acceptance by which 
 God receives into his favour and esteems us 
 as righteous persons; and we say that it con- 
 sists in the remission of sins and the impu- 
 tation of Christ's righteousness." — Calvin's 
 Institutes, vol. 2, pp. 203, 204. 
 
 These remarks, let it be remembered, refer 
 to our relation to God in point of law. "Im- 
 putation 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 im- 
 pute righteousness is to regard and treat as 
 righteous." — Hodge on the Romans, pp. 225, 
 226. Though personally considered, we are 
 sinners, and as such wholly undeserving, 
 yet when we are united to Christ by faith, 
 his righteousness is so imputed to us or reck- 
 
142 BIGHTEOUSNESS OP CHRIST. 
 
 oned in law to our account, that God re- 
 gards and treats us as righteous — " the right- 
 eousness 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 grati- 
 tude. 
 
 With reference to those to whom Christ's 
 righteousness is imputed for their justifica- 
 tion our standards S3.y, "Yet inasmuch as 
 he [Christ] was given by the Father for them, 
 and his obedience and satisfaction accepted 
 in their stead, and both freely, not for any 
 thing in them, their 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 conflicting with 
 the claims of God's law, it is "all to the 
 praise of his glorious grace." We have other 
 quotations to make on this subject, but shall 
 reserve them until we present a few speci- 
 mens of the New Theology. 
 
 Says Mr. Finney, " Gospel justification is 
 not by the imputed righteousness of Christ. 
 Under the gospel, 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 uncom- 
 mon mistake to suppose that when sinners 
 are justified under the gospel they are ac- 
 counted righteous in the eye of the law, by 
 
SPECIMENS OF NEW VIEWS. 143 
 
 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 Ciirist 
 was bound to obey the law for himself, and 
 could no more perform works of supereroga- 
 tion, or obey on our account, than any body 
 else."* . . . . " Abraham's faith was imput- 
 ed to him for righteousness, because it was 
 itself an act of righteousness, and because it 
 worked by love, and therefore produced holi- 
 ness. 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 Pro- 
 fessing Christians, pp. 215, 216. 
 
 Mr. Barnes says, " The phrase righteous- 
 ness of God is equivalent to God^s plan of 
 justifying men^^ — in regard to which he ob- 
 serves, " It is not that his righteousness be- 
 comes owr^. This is not true; and there is 
 no intelligible sense in which that can be un- 
 derstood. But it is God's plan for pardon- 
 ing sin, and for treating us as if we had 
 not committed it." — Notes on the Romans, 
 pp. 28, 29. Again, (p. 94,) in reference to 
 the phrase, " Abraham believed God, and it 
 was counted unto him for righteousness," he 
 remarks, "The Avord 'it' here, evidently re- 
 fers to the act of believing. // does not re- 
 
 * This is a Socinian objection; and on Socinian princi- 
 ples it is valid ; but if Christ be Divine^ it iiaa no force. 
 
144 JUSTIFICATION — NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 fer to the righteousness of another — of God 
 or of the Messiah; but the discussion is sole- 
 ly of the strong act of Abraham's faith, 
 which in some sense was counted to him for 
 righteousness. 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 pro- 
 mises of God, his unwavering assurance that 
 what God had promised he would perform, 
 w^as reckoned for righteousness. The same 
 thing is more fully expressed, verse 18,22. 
 When, therefore, it is said that the righteous- 
 ness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us ; 
 when it is said that his merits are transferred 
 and reckoned as ours; whatever may be the 
 truth of the doctrine, it cannot be defended by 
 this passage of Scripture. Faith is always 
 an act of them.iud." .... '^ God promises ; 
 the man believes; and this is the whole of 
 it.^^ It is manifest that Mr. Barnes intend- 
 ed in these passages to deny that we are 
 justified by the imputation of Christ's right- 
 eousness; and with regard to the manner in 
 which we «re justified, he is directly at vari- 
 ance with the Confession 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 righteousness." The Contession teaches 
 moreover that we are justified on principles 
 of law and justice, as well as of grace and 
 
JUSTIFICATION — NEW THEOLOGY. 145 
 
 mercy — all of them harmoniously meeting to- 
 gether in the cross of Christ. He intimates 
 that legal principles have nothing to do in 
 the matter. " It [Rom. i. 17,] does not touch 
 the question, whether it is by imputed right- 
 eousness or not ; it does not say that it is on 
 legal principles.'^ — Notes on the Romans, p. 
 28. This sentence, though it does not amount 
 to a positive denial, was designed, we have 
 no doubt, to convey this idea. Similar forms 
 of expression often occur in this volume, 
 where it is evident from the connexion, he 
 means to be understood as denying the doc- 
 trine. 
 
 The New Haven divines appear to enter- 
 tain 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 
 righteousness of Christ is imputed to those 
 who are pardoned, either as a personal quali- 
 ty, 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 person- 
 13 
 
146 JUSTIFICATION — NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 al attribute or act. Hence, though Dr. B.* 
 does in one place speak of the imputation of 
 Christ's righteousness to beHevers, he obvi- 
 ously refers not to its transfer, but to the enjoy- 
 ment of its consequences ; and he more com- 
 monly speaks 'of faith,' a personal quality 
 of the saints, 'as imputed for righteousness.' 
 What then is the ground on which forgive- 
 ness 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 senti- 
 ments from the doctrine of justification as 
 held by most evangelical churches! If they 
 are scriptural, then multitudes of Christians 
 have mistaken the way of salvation. But if 
 they are erroneous, (as we believe them to 
 be,) then those who embrace them have rea- 
 son to examine anew the foundation of their 
 hopes for eternity. The two systems can 
 never be made to harmonize with each other. 
 If the one is scriptural, the other must fall; 
 and they involve points which affect so seri- 
 ously the great and everlasting interests of 
 man, that no one ought to be indifferent with 
 regard to them. Indifference here would be 
 highly criminal. 
 
 * The person referred to here is not Dr. Eeman ; but if 
 one will turn to Beman on the Atonement, p. 51, he will 
 perceive that most of what is here said is more applicable 
 to him than to Dr. Bellamy, whom it is believed the re- 
 viewer has treated unfairly. See quotations from Dr. 
 Bellamy in subsequent pages. 
 
JUSTIFICATION — BATES BELLAMY. 1 47 
 
 For the purpose of showing how fully the 
 Old Theology on this subject accords with 
 the general voice of the church since the 
 Reformation, we shall introduce a few addi- 
 tional quotations. 
 
 Bates. — " There are but two ways of ap- 
 pearing before the righteous and Supreme 
 Judge: 1. In sinless obedience Who- 
 ever presumes to appear before God's judg- 
 ment-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 "a// 
 other things are but dross and dung, that I 
 may be found in him, not having mine own 
 righteousness, 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 per- 
 son of our Redeemer, he cannot but accept. 
 Now this righteousness is meritoriously 
 imputed to believers.^^- — Harmony of the Di- 
 vine Attributes, p. 298, 299. 
 
 Bellamy. — " 'Ej the first covenant, the con- 
 stitution with Adam, his perfect obedience 
 through his appointed time of trial, would, 
 by virtue of that constitution or covenant, 
 have entitled us to everlasting life. By the 
 second covenant, the perfect righteousness of 
 Christ, the second Adam, entitles all true 
 believers to everlasting life, by and according 
 
148 JUSTIFICATION EDWARDS. 
 
 to this new and living way. A perfect 
 righteousness was necessary according to the 
 law of nature, and a perfect righteousness is 
 insisted upon in both covenants. According 
 to the law of nature, it was to be performed 
 personally ; but according to both covenants, 
 it is appointed to be performed by a public 
 head. According to the first covenant we 
 were to have been interested in the righteous- 
 ness of our public head, by virtue of our 
 union to him as his posterity, for whom he 
 was appointed to act. According to the 
 second covenant, we are interested in the 
 righteousness of Christ, our public head, by 
 virtue of our union to him by faith.^' — True 
 Religion Delineated, p. 421, 422. 
 
 Edwards. — "It is absolutely necessary, that 
 in order to a sinner's being justified, the 
 righteousness of some other should be reckon- 
 ed to his account ; for it is declared that the 
 person justified is looked upon as (in him- 
 self) ungodly; but God neither will nor can 
 justify a person without a righteousness; for 
 justification is manifestly a forensic term, as 
 the word is used in Scripture, and a judicial 
 thing, or the act of a judge. So that if a per- 
 son should be justified without a righteous- 
 ness, the judgment would not be according 
 to truth. The sentence of justification would 
 be a false sentence, unless there be a right- 
 eousness performed, that is by the judge 
 properly looked upon as his. To say that 
 God does not justify the sinner without sin- 
 cere, though an imperfect obedience, does 
 
JUSTIFICATION — EDWARDS. 149 
 
 not help the case; for an imperfect righteous- 
 ness 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 righteousness 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 have the 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 suffering the penalty of the 
 law in our stead, in order to our escaping 
 the penalty; and the same reason why one 
 should be accepted on our account, as the 
 
 other." " Faith justifies, or gives an 
 
 interest in Christ's 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 foundation of what is 
 legal; that is, it is something really in them, 
 and between them, uniting them, that is the 
 ground of the suitableness of their being 
 accounted as one by the judge." .... "God 
 does not give those that believe, an union 
 
150 JUSTIFICATION EDWARDS. 
 
 with or an interest in the Saviour as a reward 
 for faith, but only because faith is the soul's 
 active uniting with Christ, or is itself the 
 very act of union, on their part. "^^ 
 
 Concerning the opinion of those who be- 
 Ueve justification to be nothing more than 
 pardon, he observes: "Some suppose that 
 nothing more is intended in Scripture by jus- 
 tification than barely the remission of sins. 
 If so, it is very strange, if we consider tlie 
 nature of the case; for it is most evident, and 
 none will deny, that it is with respect to the 
 rule or law of God, we are under, that we 
 are said in Scripture to be either justified or 
 condemned. Now what is it to justify a per- 
 son as the subject of a laio or rule, but to 
 judge him as standing right with respect to 
 that rule? To justify a person in a particu- 
 lar case, is to approve of him as standing 
 right, as subject to the law in that case ; and 
 to justify in general, is to pass him in judg- 
 ment, as standing right in a state corres- 
 pondent 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 needful than not 
 having the guilt of sin; for whatever that law 
 is, whether a new or an old one, doubtless 
 something positive is needed in order to its 
 being answered. We are no more justified 
 by the voice of the law, or of him that judges 
 according to it, by a mere pardon of sin, 
 than Adam, our first surety, was justified by 
 
JUSTIFICATION EDWARDS. 151 
 
 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 justifi- 
 cation 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 
 commandments 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, 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 release him from his humiliation 
 for sin, and acquit him from any further suf- 
 fering 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 justification of a believer is no other than 
 his being admitted to communion in the jus- 
 tification of this head and surety of all be- 
 lievers; for as Christ suffered the punishment 
 of sin, not as a private person, but as our 
 surety; so when, after this suffering, he was 
 raised from the dead, he was therein justified, 
 
152 JUSTIFICATION — DR. ALEXANDER. 
 
 not as a private person, but as the surety arftl 
 representative of all that should believe in 
 him," .... "To suppose that all Christ does 
 is only to make atonement for us by suffer- 
 ing, 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 effects are 
 imputed to us. They who talk thus do not 
 seem to understand what they say. It must 
 be by the imputation of the righteousness 
 that the good effects are derived to us; but 
 the imputation of the effects themselves can- 
 not be. To talk of imputing pardon — of 
 imputing justification — imputing peace, &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 ob- 
 tain 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 
 
VIEWS OF DR. ALEXANDER. 153 
 
 with salvation flow from this imputation. 
 We conclude, therefore, that the righteous- 
 ness 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 theo- 
 ries 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 dark- 
 ness and perplexity into their whole system. 
 Indeed, if law and justice could have been 
 set aside or suspended, there had been no 
 occasion for the plan of redemption. The 
 only reason why sinners could not be saved 
 was, that the law and justice of God stood in 
 the way; but if, by a sovereign act, these 
 obstacles could have been removed, salvation 
 might have been accomplished without an 
 atonement. But though the Scriptures, every 
 where, ascribe salvation to grace, free 
 grace; yet they never teach that this grace 
 requires God to deny himself, as to his attri- 
 bute of justice; or that law and justice are 
 at all interfered with ; or for a moment sus- 
 pended. On the contrary, the idea is contin- 
 ually kept in view, that grace reigns through 
 righteousness; that the propitiation of Christ 
 is necessary, that God may be just and yet 
 the justifier of the ungodly. Redemption is 
 the obtaining deUverance by paying a price; 
 and yet redemption and grace, so far from 
 being inconsistent, are constantly united, as 
 
154 JUSTIFICATION — DR. ALEXANDER. 
 
 parts of the same glorious plan, according to 
 the Scriptures. 'In whom we have redemp- 
 tion 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 objec- 
 tion arises from not distinguishing between 
 God's deahngs 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 superabounding mercy 
 towards us. And this cost at which the 
 sluices of grace were opened, so far from 
 lessening, constitutes its riches and glory."* 
 
 * This extract from Dr. Alexander, and those which 
 have been before given from his pen, are contained in a 
 short and able 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 OF DR. DODDRIDGE. 155 
 
 We will close our extracts by a few sen- 
 tences bearing upon the New School doc- 
 trine, that the act of believing is imputed for 
 righteousness. They shall be from the pen 
 of Dr. Doddridge, in his note on the phrase, 
 " Imputed to hini [Abraham] for righteous- 
 ness;" which is the principal text relied upon 
 to prove the new doctrine. Says he, " I 
 think nothing can be easier than to under- 
 stand 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 accept- 
 ance 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 large- 
 ly stated, as we are charged as debtors in the 
 book of God's account, what Christ has done 
 in fulfilling all righteousness for us is charged 
 as the grand balance of the account; but that 
 it may appear that we are according to the 
 tenor of the gospel entitled to the benefit of 
 this, it is also entered in the book of God's 
 remembrance " that we are believers:" and 
 this appearing, we are graciously discharged, 
 yea, rewarded, as if we ourselves had been 
 perfectly innocent and obedient." 
 
 In concluding the present chapter we wish 
 again to call the attention of the reader to the 
 intimate connexion which exists between the 
 doctrine of justification and most of the other 
 
156 REMARKS OF BELLAMY. 
 
 doctrines which have been brought to view 
 ill 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 atonement and 
 justification, are so closely connected, that if 
 we have incorrect views with regard to the 
 one, we shall err respecting the others. The 
 views concerning these doctrines which we 
 regard as scriptural, and which we have en- 
 deavoured to substantiate, so far as the de- 
 sign of the work would permit, are all difler- 
 ent parts of the same system. If one of them 
 be materially modified or denied, it involves 
 a similar modification or denial of the whole. 
 " While men are disputing,'' says Dr. Bella- 
 my, " against the original constitution with 
 Adam,* they unawares undermine the se- 
 cond constitution, which is the foundation of 
 all our hopes. Eager to avoid Adam's first 
 sin, whereby comes condemnation, they ren- 
 der of none effect Christ's righteousness, 
 whereby comes justification." .... "What 
 remains, therefore, but Deism and Infideli- 
 ty?" 
 
 Truth is harmonious. The several doc- 
 trines of the Bible, like the stones in Solo- 
 
 * Dr. Bellamy's views concerning God's covenant with 
 
 Adam, original sin, &.C., are the same with those of Fresi. 
 
 dent Edwards; from whom extracts on this subject have 
 
 ' been given. — See True Religion Delineated, pp. 269, 271. 
 
HUMAN ABILITY. 157 
 
 mon's temple, unite together, without the use 
 of an "ax or hammer" to pare down their 
 edges. But if one be rejected, there is noi 
 only a vacancy left in the building, which no 
 art or ingenuity can supply, but the edifice 
 itself is in danger of falling. 
 
 CHAPTER Vir. 
 
 HUMAN ABILITY, REGEXERATION, AND THE INFLUENCES OF 
 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 That the fall of man has not released us 
 from obligation to love and obey God, is 
 maintained by all. This, however, it is be- 
 lieved, is perfectly consistent with the doc- 
 trine, that from our " original corruption, we 
 are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made 
 opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to 
 all evil." As our inability is not only our 
 misfortune, but our sin, it can never destroy 
 moral obligation. Upon these points Calvin- 
 istic writers are generally agreed. But as the 
 subject is attended with difficulties, which, 
 some have been anxious to avoid, a distinc- 
 tion has been resorted to between natural 
 and moral inability; the latter of which, it is 
 supposed, is the inability under which the 
 sinner lies; and that he still possesses na- 
 iural ability to do his duty. By this it is 
 meant that he merely has the physical pow- 
 er's, or the faculties of rnind, which are re- 
 
158 HUMAISr ABILITY. 
 
 quisite to enable him to do what God re- 
 quires — but that his mind is, nevertheless, 
 wholly disiiiclined io 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 foun- 
 dation; and yet when applied to the subject 
 of religion, it is doubted by many, whether 
 its use really solves any difficulties, or is pro- 
 ductive 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 dis- 
 cuss this question. We have introduced it 
 in order to prepare the way for the observa- 
 tion, that those whose sentiments we are now 
 considering, retain the term natural in con- 
 nexion with abihty; and thus appear to ac- 
 cord with those who are in the habit of mak- 
 ing 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 na- 
 tural, they seldom speak of mability 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 con- 
 cerning Dr. Beecher's preaching, prior to 
 1829. In a letter addressed to him which 
 has been published in various papers, he 
 says, " You exalt one part of Calvinism, viz: 
 human agency, so as virtually to lose sight 
 
VIEWS OF DK. BEECHER. 159 
 
 of its correlate human dependence^ and thus 
 make regeneration so much a result of means 
 and instrumentality, that the sinner is born 
 rather ' of blood or of the will of man than of 
 God.' " 
 
 A similar opinion has been formed by some 
 concerning his " Views in Theology," pub- 
 lished in 1S36. Dr. Harvey says concerning 
 them, " Dr. Beecher's Views, it is true, have 
 many shades and shadows of orthodoxy. 
 The superstructure looks fair and imposing ; 
 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 founded." — Harvey on Moral Agen- 
 cy, p. 6. The following quotations will show 
 what foundation Dr. Harvey had for this 
 opinion. 
 
 Br. Beecher says, (p. 30, 31,) "That man 
 possesses since the fall the powers of agency 
 requisite to obhgation, on the ground of the 
 possibility of obedience, is a matter of noto- 
 riety. Not one of the powers of mind which 
 constituted abiHty before the fall has been 
 obliterated by that event. All that has ever 
 been conceived, or that can now be conceived, 
 as entering 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 con- 
 trary election to that which is made. There 
 is always an alternative to that which the 
 
160 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 mind decides on, with the conscious ^02^;er of 
 choosing either.''^ . . . . " The question of free 
 will is not whether man chooses — this is no- 
 torious, 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^ coniniensurate loith obligation, has 
 been, and is, the received doctrine of the uni- 
 versal orthodox church, from the primitive 
 age down to this day." 
 
 The first of these propositions speaks with- 
 out any qualification of the ^^possibility of 
 obedience,^^ in reference 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 afiirms 
 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 follows, that man 
 since the fall possesses all the powers which 
 are requisite to enable him to change his sin- 
 ful volitions for those which are holy: or, to 
 use the language of Dr. Harvey, '' that man 
 possesses, since the fall, the powers of agency 
 
REMARKS OF DR. HARVEY. 161 
 
 requisite to obligation, on the ground of pos- 
 sessing a power of contrary choice, by which 
 he can recover himself from perfect sinfulness 
 to perfect holiness." — Harvey on Moral Agen- 
 cy, pp. 80, 81. "Natural ability of choice, 
 commensurate with obligation, says Dr. Har- 
 vey, must mean something more than the 
 mere power of choice; it means natural abili- 
 ty not only to do right, if one is disposed, 
 but natural ability to overcome every moral 
 impediment. In other words, it means natu- 
 ral 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 remark, the 
 great object is to render man, in his fallen 
 state, independent of the grace of God. To 
 accomplish this purpose. Dr. Beecher intro- 
 duces the extra power of contrary choice as 
 an addition to the simple power of choice, 
 and which he deems sufficient to equal obli- 
 gation, 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 
 annihilated." — Harvey on Moral Agency, 
 pp. 115, 116. 
 
 We have exhibited Dr. Beecher's views in 
 14 
 
162 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 the above form, because the language of his 
 several propositions is such, that the senti- 
 ments intended to be conveyed are not per- 
 fectly obvious upon a simple perusal. The 
 deductions which we have made, or which 
 we have quoted from Dr. Harvey, we do not 
 of course, ascribe to Dr. Beecher, as express- 
 ing 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 de- 
 luding 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 un- 
 assisted powers.^' — Work on Regeneration, 
 p. 542. 
 
 Mr. Finney's language is that " as God re- 
 quires men to make themselves a new heart, 
 on pain of eternal death, it is the strongest 
 possible evidence that they are able to do it 
 — to say he has commanded them to do it, 
 without telling them they are able, is con- 
 summate 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 
 
VIEWS OF MR. BARNES. 163 
 
 God to change your heart, you should at once 
 summon up your powers, put forth the effort, 
 and change the governing preferences of your 
 mind. But here, some one may ask, Can the 
 carnal mind, which is enmity against God, 
 change itself? I have already said that this 
 text in the original reads, ' The minding of 
 the flesh is enmity against God.' This mind- 
 ing of the flesh then is a choice or preference 
 to gratify the flesh. Now it is indeed absurd 
 to say, that a choice can change itself; but 
 it is not absurd to say, that the agent who 
 exercises this choice can change it. The sin- 
 ner that minds the flesh, can change his mind, 
 and mind God." — Sermons on important Sub- 
 jects, pp. 18, 37, 38. 
 
 This exposition of the "carnal mind" is a 
 favourite one w4th writers of this class. Says 
 Mr. Barnes, " The amount of his [Paul's] 
 aflirmation is simply, that the minding of the 
 flesh, the supreme attention to its dictates 
 and desires, is not and cannot be subject to 
 the law of God. They are wholly contra- 
 dictory and irreconcilable." . . . . " But 
 whether the man himself might not obey 
 the law, whether he has, or has not, ability 
 to do it, is a question which the Apostle does 
 not touch, and on which this passage should 
 not be adduced." — Notes on the Romans, p. 
 164. In commenting on the phrase "neither 
 indeed can be," he repeats the same senti- 
 ment concerning ability which is expressed 
 above. Also in his exposition of the passage, 
 " when we were without strength Christ died 
 
164 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 for the ungodly:" "The remark of the 
 Apostle here," says he, " has reference only 
 to the condition of the race before an atone- 
 ment is 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 different inquiry." Though 
 Mr. Barnes expresses himself with much more 
 caution than Messrs. Finney and DufField, 
 it is apparent that he favours their sentiments. 
 Tliere is so striking a similarity between 
 the views of these men and those of Dr. John 
 Taylor of Norwich, that it will be appropri- 
 ate to refer to the latter; with the remarks of 
 President Edv/ards upon them, showing what 
 he thought of their tendency. They are con- 
 tained in his work on Original Sin. " It will 
 follow," sa^'s he, " on our author's principles 
 [Dr. Taylor's principles] not only whh re- 
 spect to infants, but even adult persons, that 
 redemption is needless, and Christ is dead in 
 vain. Not only is there no need of Christ's 
 redemption in order to deliverance from any 
 consequences of Adani's sin, but also in or- 
 der to perfect freedom from personal sin, and 
 all its evil consequences. For God has made 
 other sufficient provision for that, viz. a suf- 
 ficient power and ability, in all mankind, 
 to do all their duty and wholly to avoid sin. 
 Yea he insists upon it, that ' when men have 
 not sufficient power to do their duty, they 
 have no duty to do. We may safely and 
 assuredly conclude, (says he,) that mankind 
 in all parts of the world have sufficient 
 
REMARKS OF EDWARDS. 165 
 
 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 disUke at R. R.'s sup- 
 posing Uhat our propensities to evil, and 
 temptations are too strong to be effectu- 
 ally and CONSTANTLY resisted; or that we 
 are unavoidably sinful in a degree; that 
 our appetites and passions will be breaking 
 out, notwithstanding our everlasting watch- 
 fulness.' These things fully imply that men 
 have in their own natural ability sufficient 
 means to avoid sin, and to be perfectly free 
 from it ; and so from all the bad consequences 
 of it. And if the means are sufficient, then 
 there is no need of more ; and therefore there 
 is no need of Christ's dying in order to it. 
 What Dr. Taylor says fully implies that it 
 would be unjust in God to give mankind 
 being in such circumstances, as that they 
 would be more likely to sin, so as to be ex- 
 posed 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, according to the apos- 
 tle Paul, Christ is dead in vain. Gal. ii. 
 
166 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 21. ^If righteousness come by law, Christ 
 is dead in vain ;" — hy law, or the rule of 
 right action, as our author explains the 
 phrase. And according to the sense in which 
 he explains this very place, * it would have 
 frustrated, or rendered useless, the grace of 
 God, if Christ died to accomplish what was 
 or MIGHT have been effected by law itself 
 without his death. * So that it most clearly fol- 
 lows 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 
 laio luhich could have given life, verily 
 righteousness should have been by the laiv. 
 Gal. iii. 21.; i. e. (according to Dr. Taylor's 
 own sense,) if there was a law, that man, in 
 his present state had sufficient power to fulfil. 
 For Dr. Taylor supposes the reason why the 
 law could not give life, to be ' not because it 
 was weak in itself, but through the weak- 
 ness of our flesh, and the infirmity of human 
 nature in the present state.' Bat 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, Avhich he gives as the reason why 
 the law cannot give life. But what grace is 
 there for making that allowance for our in- 
 firmities, which justice itself (according to 
 his doctrine,) most absolutely requires, as he 
 supposes Divine justice exactly proportions 
 our duty to our ability ? 
 
 '' Again, if it be said, that although Christ's 
 
REMARKS OF EDWARDS. 167 
 
 redemption 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 deUver men, after they have 
 by their own folly brought themselves un- 
 der the dominion of evil appetites and pas- 
 sions; 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. For the 
 exercise of passions which are too strong for 
 us, and which we cannot overcome, is neces- 
 sary: and he strongly urges, that a necessary 
 evil can be no moral evil. It is true it is the 
 effect of evil, as it is the effect of a bad prac- 
 tice, while the man had power to have avoid- 
 ed it. But then, according to Dr. Taylor that 
 evil cause alone is sin; for he says expressly, 
 * The cause of every effect is alone charge- 
 able 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 
 poiver in himself to have avoided it. So 
 that it follows by our author's scheme, that 
 none of mankind, neither infants nor adult 
 persons, neither the more or less vicious, 
 neither Jews nor Gentiles, neither Heathens 
 nor Christians, ever did or even could stand 
 in any need of a Saviour ; and that with re- 
 spect to all, the truth is, Christ is dead in 
 vain. 
 
168 HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 " 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, 3^et God fore- 
 saiv that they would sin, and that offer 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 righteous- 
 ness by any law; and that if there had been 
 a law ivhich could have given life, this other 
 way by the death of Christ would not have 
 been provided. And this appears so agree- 
 able to our author's own sense of things, by 
 his words which have been cited, wherein he 
 says, * It would have frustrated or render- 
 ed USELESS the grace of God, if Christ died 
 to accomplish what was or might have been 
 effected by law itself, without his death.' " 
 
 The new views concerning human ability 
 have an exact counterpart in the description 
 which is given by different writers of this 
 school, of the work of regeneration, and the 
 agency of the Holy Spirit. According to them, 
 regeneration consists iti 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. Prompt- 
 ed by self-love, or in other words, by a con- 
 stitutional desire for happiness, which is nei- 
 
REGENERATIO?{ — DR. TAYLOR. 169 
 
 ther sinful nor holy, and the selfish prmciple 
 in his heart being suspended, he enters upon 
 a serious consideration and comparison of the 
 various objects of happiness: until he dis- 
 covers the infinite superiority of God and di- 
 vine 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 advo- 
 cate arguing a cause before a jury; or as one 
 man influences and persuades another in the 
 common affairs of life ; though with infinitely 
 greater skill and force than can be employed 
 by any human agent. His attention is thus 
 arrested — he revolves in his mind the points 
 at issue-;r-and at length being convinced where 
 his true interest lies, he is prevailed upon by 
 the moral suasion of the Spirit, to change the 
 governing purpose or preference of his mind, 
 and to choose God as his supreme portion. 
 
 The language of Dr. Taylor is as follows: 
 " We 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 comparing, there must be an act dictated 
 not by selfishness but self-love, in which the 
 mind determines to direct its thoughts to the 
 15 
 
170 REGENERATION. 
 
 objects for the sake of considering their rela- 
 tive 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 prm- 
 ciple of our nature. Then it is, we apprehend, 
 that God and the world are contemplated by 
 the mind as objects of choice, substantially as 
 they would be by a being who had just en- 
 tered on existence, and who was called upon 
 for the first time to select the one or the other 
 as his supreme good." — Christian Spectator, 
 1829, p. 210. 
 
 "Now we readily concede that sinners 
 never use the means of regeneration with a 
 holy heart, nor with an unholy or sinful heart. 
 But does it therefore follow that they never 
 use them with any heart at all? What is 
 that heart with which God in his law re- 
 quires 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. 
 
VIEWS OF FINNEY AND DUFFIELD. 171 
 
 Concerning the nature of the Spirit's agency, 
 "we beUeve Dr. Taylor has not pubUshed 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 
 expostulation 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 sup- 
 posed that it is equivalent to denying the 
 Spirit's agency altogether to maintain that he 
 converts sinners by motives. Others have 
 denied the possibility of changing the heart 
 by motives. But did not the serpent change 
 Adam's heart by motives ? and cannot the 
 Spirit of God with infinitely higher motives 
 exert as great power over mind as he 
 can ?"...." From these remarks it is easy 
 to answer the question sometimes put by 
 individuals who seem to be entirely in the 
 dark on this subject, whether in converting 
 the soul the Spirit acts directly on the mind, 
 or on the truth. This is the same nonsense 
 
172 REGENERATION. 
 
 as if you should ask whether an earthly ad- 
 vocate 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 rnoral 
 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 Important 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-inter- 
 est to the glory of God and the interests of 
 his kingdom. A new heart consists in a pre- 
 ference 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?^ Ibid. 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 sub- 
 stantially with the views already given from 
 Dr. Taylor. 
 
 Mr. Duffield's account of Regeneration is as 
 follows: "It is going altogether beyond the 
 analogy in the case, to assert that there is in 
 Regeneration the injection^ infusion, or ini- 
 j)lantation,ox creation Qi "a. new principle of 
 spiritual lifeP .... " Whenever the Spirit 
 of God excites and secures in the mind and 
 
VIEWS OF DUFFIELD. 173 
 
 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, regene- 
 rated, born again.^' — Work on Regeneration, 
 pp. 202, 203, 204. But how does the Spirit 
 produce this result? According to him it is 
 done by moral suasion. He has two whole 
 chapters, occupying thirty-five pages, entitled 
 " The Moral Suasion of the Spirit." In one 
 of these he illustrates his views of the nature 
 of the Spirit's agency by the power of per- 
 suasion exerted by one man over another, 
 and the greater success which a man of "prac- 
 tical knowledge and tact and particular ac- 
 quaintance 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 con- 
 fide in him and repent of his rebellion ? To 
 suppose this, is in fact to attribute a moral 
 influence to man more potent than that 
 which, in such a case, it would be requisite 
 God should exert ! It would in effect be to 
 say that man can subdue his foe, and by an 
 appropriate moral influence convert him into 
 a friend; but that God cannot convert his 
 enemy, and bring him to believe, except he 
 puts forth his physical power and literally 
 creates him over again." Pp. 492, 493.* 
 
 * This power of moral suasion is the kind of influence i 
 referred to by a certain preacher who said, " If I were as ' 
 
174 REGENERATION. 
 
 During the progress of the discussion con- 
 cerning the New Theology, it was alleged by 
 some by way of objection to the new theory, 
 that it involved the principle that regenera- 
 tion 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 regene- 
 ration has been avowed. Mr. Gilbert,"* of Wil- 
 mington, Delaware, published in the Philadel- 
 phian in 1833, a number of communications 
 on this subject; which were afterwards re- 
 vised and enlarged, and in 1836, at the 
 " earnest request'^ of the " members of the 
 Ministers' Meeting of New Castle County, 
 Delaware," were published in a pamphlet 
 form, under the title of "Moral Suasion; or 
 Regeneration not a Miracle,'' &c. It is dedica- 
 ted to the members of the Ministers' Meeting, 
 and to the elders of the churches under their 
 pastoral charge. These facts appear to show 
 that Mr. Gilbert's views accord with the 
 sentiments of the other ministers with whom 
 he is associated in that State, and that they 
 
 eloquent as the Holy Ghost I could convert sinners as 
 well as He." In the National Preacher for February 
 1832, a sermon furnished by Dr. Griffin commences by 
 quoting the above remark. It being attributed by some 
 to a Presbyterian minister of my acquaintance, I asked 
 him whether he had ever used this expression. He re- 
 plied that he had, and vindicated its correctness ; though 
 he said it did not appear in the connexion in which he 
 used it, as it does when standing by itself. 
 
 * In the organization of the New School General As- 
 sembly in May, 1838, Mr. Gilbert was chosen permanent 
 clerk. 
 
VIEWS OF MR. GILBERT. 175 
 
 desire to have them prevail throughout their 
 churches. 
 
 Mr. Gilbert affirms that " the Bible knows 
 no instantaneous regeneration; this is a re- 
 finement of theological philosophers. Being 
 born again, and changing the heart of stone 
 to a heart of flesh, is a gradual process; 
 although under some circumstances it may- 
 be a very short oneP The remark of Dr. 
 Griffin, that " motives can never change an 
 unholy temper,^^ &c. he calls " strange philo- 
 sophy; flying not only in the face of Scrip- 
 ture, but of every day matters of fact." 
 " How often," (says he,) "do we see enmity 
 to a neighbour, corrected, moderated, sub- 
 dued and turned to love, by proper motives 
 presented to the mind? And enmity to God 
 is restrained and subdued in the same man- 
 ner." These motives, he maintains, are pre- 
 sented 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 be 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 beginning to end." 
 
 To illustrate his views he has furnished a 
 diagram consisting of an arc of a circle, in 
 the centre of which he has placed the Holy 
 Spirit. From this centre are drawn straight 
 lines to various points in the arc, represent- 
 ing truth as employed by the Spirit. A sin- 
 
176 REGENEEATION. 
 
 ner pursuing his way to hell is represented 
 as being met by one of these lines, through 
 the influence of which he is persuaded to 
 diverge a little from the path he was pursuing, 
 and proceeding at an angle of about forty- 
 five degrees, he passes gradually through the 
 several steps of conviction, regeneration, and 
 sanctification, 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 re- 
 mark, however, that he uses the terms con- 
 viction and sanctification in accommodation 
 to the views and language of others. Ac- 
 cording to his own views the whole process 
 from beginning to end belongs to the work 
 qf regeneration. " By regeneration,^^ says 
 he, " is understood the divine agency in the 
 whole process of a sinner's conviction and 
 conversion ; 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 sanctifi- 
 cation." " It [the Bible] knows of no regene- 
 ration as distinct from conviction and the 
 beginning of santcification." 
 
 * As a matter of taste we would exclude this diagram 
 from our pages — but other considerations which we regard 
 as paramount, induce us to insert it. 
 
VIEWS OF MR. GILBERT. 
 
 177 
 
 Heaven. 
 G 
 
 E 
 
 HeU. 
 
 THE AUTHOR S EXPLANATION. 
 
 " Let the semicircle, A. B. C. represent the 
 sinner's course from sin to holiness. Let D. 
 E. represent the road to hell, in which the 
 impenitent sinner is found by the Holy Spi- 
 rit, and influenced at the point A.*by a new 
 presentation of truth, to stop and turn gra- 
 dually 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,) be- 
 coming perfect, he flies off, if you please, in 
 a tangent, to heaven. Till he reaches the 
 
178 REGENERATION NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 point B. though turning gradually from the 
 more direct road to hell, he is still in the 
 downward course, and should the Spirit let 
 go of him, at any point, he flies off", by his 
 own centrifugal force, in a moment towards 
 perdition. The point B. represents what 
 these writers call ' Regeneration.^ ^^ 
 
 " The Holy Spirit, like the sun in the cen- 
 tre, 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 mo- 
 tive ; by which the moral agent is checked at 
 A., and moved and controlled through the 
 whole course from A. to C. It is understood, 
 of course, that the whole process may be 
 longer or shorter, according to 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. Conviction, also, may 
 be short, and sanctification long, or the re- 
 verse. But conviction must, from the nature 
 of the case, precede regeneration, or regene- 
 ration cannot be a rational change. A phy- 
 sical change may take place without convic- 
 tion ; but physical regeneration is a thing 
 which I cannot comprehend, any more than 
 physical conviction or physical sanctification. 
 The doctrine of the moral suasionists is, that 
 the influence which convicts, also regene- 
 rates and sanctifies. That the same power 
 which moves the sinner from A. to B. moves 
 him through the point B. and along the Une 
 
MR. gilbert's views. 179 
 
 to C. And that the whole change is wrought 
 through appropriate means, without a mi- 
 racle, by the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Agreeably to these ideas of gradual pro- 
 gress from the first point to the last, he says: 
 " There is very little distinction between the 
 last degree of sin and the lowest degree of 
 hoUness; between the last exercise of an un- 
 converted and the first of a converted man ; 
 between the last feeble struggle of selfishness 
 and the first feeble exercise of love.'^ .... 
 *' There is a great difference between su- 
 preme selfishness and supreme love m their 
 extremes ; but between the last feeble influ- 
 ence of selfishness and the first feeble exercise 
 of love to God, the difference is as impercep- 
 tible, as between the adjacent sides of the 
 Equatorial line.^^ . . . . " The point B. on the 
 diagram represents the transition line. And 
 it may be asked. Is it not an important one ? 
 I answer, yes. Important on many accounts, 
 but not because of any special influence used 
 then, but like the Equator, as a measure of 
 relative progress, and as the era of a great 
 change in all our moral relations and cir- 
 cumstances. Like the Equatorial line, how- 
 ever, it is in itself oi no consequence at all." 
 
 If this were not a subject too serious for 
 ridicule, Mr. Gilbert might be successfully 
 assailed by this weapon. He has fairly ex- 
 posed himself to this mode of attack. But if 
 I possessed a talent for the humorous, and 
 were disposed to indulge in it, I feel too much 
 shocked at his method of illustration to treat 
 
180 EEGENERATION — NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 it. with ridicule. He appears to have felt 
 himself, that he would run " the risk of being 
 counted very presumptuous;" and I doubt 
 not he was correct in his apprehensions. A 
 majority of his readers, it seems to me, (unless 
 they belong to a particular class) will feel 
 thai he has "trodden on holy ground," with- 
 out "taking his shoes from off his feet;" that 
 he has " put forth his hand and touched the 
 ark of God," without " 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 different writers as quo- 
 ted 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, pro- 
 duces not only a less vivid, but a less accu- 
 rate impression than that which is made by 
 a figure faithfully drawn and presented to 
 the eye. This remark is true not only in 
 reference to 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 
 
HUMAN ABILITY. 181 
 
 Striking manner than can be exhibited by- 
 quoting their language, the dangerous ex- 
 tremes to which those men are tending. 
 Give not only words but visibility to their 
 doctrines — let them be seen as well as heard 
 — and they will arouse the feelings of many 
 who have not before been seriously alarmed. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 HUMAN ABILITY, REGENERATION, &C., CONTINUED FROM THE 
 PRECEDING CHAPTER. 
 
 We observed in chapter fifth that the New 
 Theology concerning the nature of sin and 
 holiness, viz; that they consist in acts, in- 
 volves a new theory of regeneration. What 
 this theory is may be learned from the state- 
 ments made in the preceding chapter. It is 
 the following: that in regeneration no jwrm- 
 ciple of holiness is implanted in the soul, prior 
 to the exercise of holy acts, from which prin- 
 ciple, or " moral state of the soul," those acts 
 proceed; but that the whole change consists 
 in the acts of the soul itself; which from hav- 
 ing been sinful now become holy. A previ- 
 ous 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 
 
182 REGENERATION OLD THEOLOGY. 
 
 and absurd; involving what they term physi- 
 cal 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 ifit mean a direct agency of the Spirit upon 
 the soul, by which its faculties are so renewed, 
 that it receives the principles of a new and holy 
 life, and therefore may be properly said to 
 possess a new nature, it is what I understand 
 to be the .true doctrine. "The scriptural 
 representations of conversion, (says Presi- 
 dent Edwards,) strongly imply and signify a 
 change of nature; such as being born again; 
 becoming new creatures; rising from the 
 dead; being renewed in the spirit of the 
 mind; dying to sin, and living to right- 
 eousness; putting off the old man and put- 
 ting on the new man; being ingrafted into 
 a new stock; having a divine seed implant- 
 ed 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.'' — Edwards on the Affections, 
 vol. 5th. 
 
 That the soul is passive in regeneration, is 
 the doctrine of our standards — and it neces- 
 sarily results from the preceding view con- 
 cerning the nature of the change. In the 
 chapter on Effectual Calling, both are present- 
 
DOCTRINE OF OUR STANDARDS. 183 
 
 ed in connexion with each other. The change 
 itself is declared to consist in " enlightening 
 the minds [the minds of those whom he effec- 
 tually calls] spiritually and savingly, to under- 
 stand 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 any thing 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 ex- 
 hibits the implantation of a holy principle, or 
 the change of our natures, by conferring spi- 
 ritual 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 pow- 
 er of God. 
 
 This doctrine, however, does not imply 
 that we are not to be active beforehand in the 
 dihgent use of the means of grace — nor that 
 we are inactive at the time, with respect to 
 the effects of the change. Simultaneously 
 with this change and as the immediate con- 
 sequence of it, the sinner is " persuaded and 
 
184 REGENERATION DR. COX. 
 
 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 reluct- 
 antly, but "most freely, being made willing 
 by his grace. " Regeneration, or the implant- 
 ing of a holy principle, is the cause; and our 
 conversion, or turning to God, is the effect. 
 In the former we are passive, in the latter 
 active. Though in the order of time they 
 are simultaneous, in the order of nature the 
 former is the antecedent, the latter the con- 
 sequent; just as breathing, though simulta- 
 neous with the existence of life, is neverthe- 
 less the effect of it, and would never occur, 
 unless life had been previously communi- 
 cated. 
 
 Dr. Cox, who does not appear to have 
 adopted all the principles of the New Theo- 
 logy, 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 
 
 * Since the publication of the first edition, Dr. Cox has 
 published a series of numbers in the New York Evange- 
 list, entitled " 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. 
 
BIBLICAL REPEKTORY. 185 
 
 inserts somQ holy pinnciph in us, which consti- 
 tutes regeneration, and in which we are en- 
 tirely passiv^e, 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 un- 
 derstood that he does not object to its use, if 
 explained in a particular way — but the doc- 
 trine, as it has been commonly received, he 
 does not embrace. In his letter to the con- 
 ductors of the Biblical Repertory, in reply to 
 their review of his sermon, he asks, " Is not 
 a Christian active in all his moral relations ? 
 In believing and obeying God? Certainly 
 active in the total progress of religion, in the 
 soul and life: then why not also in its rise? 
 If active progressively, then why not initially 
 too? If active in the work of sanctification, 
 why not in the whole of it, in its commence- 
 ment as well as its continuance ; in regenera- 
 tion as well as sanctification? Hoiu is a man 
 regenerated^ but as he believes and obeys the 
 gospel? Is he regenerated before he does 
 this? Is he more dependent in regeneration 
 one whit than in sanctification?" What he 
 terms the passivity doctrine, or the doctrine 
 of passive regeneration, he explicitly and fre- 
 quently disavows. 
 
 The remarks of the editors of the Reper- 
 tory, in their review of his sermon, are so 
 much in point, that we shall transcribe a 
 16 
 
186 EEGENERATION BIBLICAL REPERTORY. 
 
 paragraph of considerable length, in the place 
 of any further observations of ours upon this 
 subject. 
 
 " As to the point which Dr. Cox thinks so 
 * intrinsically absurd,' and about which he 
 says so much, whether a man is passive in 
 regeneration, it will be seen that, for its own 
 sake, it does not merit a moment's discussion. 
 It depends entirely on the previous question. 
 If regeneration be that act of the soul by 
 which it chooses God for its 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 delightful turn- 
 ing unto God is its own act; the state of mind 
 which leads to this act is produced directly 
 by the Spirit of God. The whole question 
 is, whether any such anterior change is ne- 
 cessary. Whether a soul polluted and degra- 
 ded by sin, or in Scripture language, carnal, 
 needs any change in its moral taste before it 
 can behold the loveliness of the Divine cha- 
 racter. For that this view must precede the 
 exercise of affection, we presume will not be 
 denied. If this point be decided, the pro- 
 priety of using the word passive to denote 
 
BIBLICAL REPERTORY. 187 
 
 that the soul is the subject and not the agent 
 of the change in question, need not give us 
 much trouble. Sure it is that this change is 
 in Scripture always referred to the Holy 
 Spirit. It is the soul that repents, believes, 
 hopes and fears; but it is the Holy Spirit 
 that regenerates. He is the author of our 
 faith and repentance by inducing us to act, 
 but no man 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 impression made by some exter- 
 nal object, and the immediate knowledge 
 which the mind takes of the impression. As 
 to the first point, it is passive, or the subject; 
 as to the second, it is active, or the agent. 
 These two are indeed inseparably connected, 
 
 and so are regeneration and conversion 
 
 And if the Holy Spirit does make such an 
 impression on the mind, or exert such an 
 influence as induces it immediately to turn to 
 God, then it is correct to say that it is passive 
 in regeneration, though active in conversion. 
 However, this is a very subordinate point ; 
 the main question is, whether there is not a 
 holy ^ relish,' taste, or principle produced in 
 the soul prior, in the order of nature, to any 
 holy act of the soul itself. If Dr. Cox can 
 show this to be * intrinsically absurd,' we 
 shall give up the question of 'passivity' with- 
 out a moment's demur. To relinquish the 
 other point; however, will cost us a painful 
 
188 REGENERATION INSTANTANEOUS. 
 
 Struggle. It will be giving up the main point 
 in debate between the friends and opposers 
 of the doctrine of grace from Augustine to 
 the present day. It will be the renunciation of 
 what Calvinists, old and new, have believed 
 to be the scriptural doctrine of original right- 
 eousness, original sin, and efficacious grace. 
 It will be the rejection of that whole system 
 of mingled sovereignty and love which has 
 been the foundation, for ages, of so many 
 hopes, and of so much blessedness to the 
 people of God." 
 
 We mentioned in the last chapter that the 
 New Theology involves the doctrine of gra- 
 dual regeneration; and we quoted from Mr. 
 Gilbert's pamphlet to show that this senti- 
 ment is now avowed by some of the advo- 
 cates 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 old temper, but " a new spirit ;" — " the 
 stony heart" not softened by degrees into 
 flesh, but by one decisive effort removed, and 
 a heart of flesh substituted in its room." .... 
 "This doctrine, however, does not militate 
 against the idea of an antecedent prepara- 
 tion in the conscience, wrought by the means 
 of grace and the enlightening influences of 
 the Spirit. "-Pa.rk Street Lectures, pp. 91,101. 
 
THE spirit's agency DIRECT. 189 
 
 These means according to our standards 
 are *Uhe 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, 
 convincing and humbling sinners, of driving 
 them out of themselves, and drawing them 
 unto Christ," &c. Thus the law is said to 
 be "our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ;" 
 " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting 
 the soul;" " Of his own will begat he us, by 
 the word of truth," But the word, let it be 
 remembered, is only the means, which the 
 Holy Spirit can employ or not as he pleases; 
 and which when he does employ (as is usual- 
 ly the case) does not become effectual to sal- 
 vation, till he by a direct influence upon the 
 heart, prepares it to receive and embrace the 
 truth. Lydia did not attend to the things 
 spoken by Paul, until " the Lord opened her 
 heartP In order that David might behold 
 wondrous things out of God's law, he prayed 
 that God would " open his eyes.^^ The pri- 
 mitive 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 God 
 was shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy 
 Ghost given unto them." 
 
 Though all these texts do not refer to re- 
 generation in the restricted sense, they prove 
 the doctrine of the direct influence of the 
 
190 DEPRAVITY. 
 
 Spirit upon the heart — and it is for this pur- 
 pose we have referred to them. If the Spirit 
 exerts an immediate influence upon the hearts 
 of believers, in order to make the word effec- 
 tual to their sanctification: much more on the 
 hearts of sinners to make it effectual to their 
 conversion. In the mind of the believer 
 there is something congenial with the spirit 
 of the gospel ; something, therefore, for Di- 
 vine truth to act upon in the form of motives; 
 but, to use the language of Dr. Griffin, "mo- 
 tives can never change an unholy temper; 
 there is no tendency in truth to change a de- 
 praved ^ 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 
 \Y\\\\ the sentiment that the change is instan- 
 taneous. Motives operate gradually upon the 
 mind ; but the communication to the soul of 
 a new spiritual taste, is the work of a mo- 
 ment. 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 affections are suspended in equilibrio be- 
 tween the two. Our souls are necessarily 
 either in one state or its opposite; and our 
 transition, therefore, from one to the other 
 must be instantaneous; as when God said, 
 "Let there be light, and there was light." 
 
 It may, perhaps, be thought by some that 
 the difference between instantaneous and 
 gradual regeneration is not important, since 
 
DOCTRINE OF OUR STANDARDS. 191 
 
 both recognize the necessity of becoming 
 holy. But a Uttle 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 the necessity of an en- 
 tire radical change of character. It fosters 
 pride and self-righteousness; and produces 
 hostility to those doctrines of grace which 
 distinguish the gospel from the religion of 
 nature. It is, in short, taking a step 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 him- 
 self thereunto." Some have endeavoured to 
 prove from this passage that, according to the 
 Confession of Faith, depravity belongs exclu- 
 sively 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 eflect 
 the fall had upon the will, without speaking, 
 as a matter of course, concerning the other 
 powers of the soul. There is, however, a 
 clause introduced, which was evidently de- 
 signed to refer to the whole moral man; 
 
192 SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 
 
 '^ Dead in sinP The preceding clause, viz. 
 *' so as a natural man being altogether averse 
 from that which is good," refers to the will; 
 but to this, the other is superadded — " and 
 dead in sirC^ — which Avas intended to con- 
 vey 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 facul- 
 ties and parts of soul and body." It will also 
 appear by a reference to the chapter on " Ef- 
 fectual Calling;" where, in describing the 
 manner in which we are brought " out of that 
 stcite of sin and death," it is not only said 
 that our wills are renewed, but our minds 
 spiritually and savingly enlightened to under- 
 stand 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 
 effectual calling. It is evident, therefore, 
 that our standards teach the doctrine not only 
 that the will is depraved, but Ukewise " all 
 the faculties of the soul." 
 
 This view also accords with Scripture. 
 " There is none that understandelh.''^ Rom. 
 iii. 11. "Having the understanding dark- 
 ened^ being alienated from the life of God 
 through the ignorance that is in them, be- 
 
DEPRAVITY SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 193 
 
 cause 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 
 foohshness unto him; neither can he know 
 them, because they are spiritually discerned." 
 1 Cor. ii. 14. Here it is manifest that our 
 depravity affects the understanding. Hence 
 in conversion it is necessary that we be 
 enlightened to discern spiritual things. "The 
 eyes of your understanding being enlighten- 
 ed." Eph. i. IS. "For God who commanded 
 the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined 
 in our hearts, to give the light of the know- 
 ledge 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 conscience. "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 
 afi"ections; to say that the heart is wicked, is 
 equivalent to declaring the affections to be 
 depraved and alienated from God. Accord- 
 ingly, to change the heart is to give us a 
 holy temper — to renew our aftections. "The 
 Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, 
 and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord 
 17 
 
194 DEPRAVITY — SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 
 
 thy God." Deut. xxx. 6. "And I will put a 
 new spirit within you, and I will take the 
 stony heart out of their flesh and will give 
 them a heart of flesh." Ezek. xi. 19. When 
 this is done, our conscience will likewise be 
 rectified. "Having our hearts sprinkled from 
 an evil conscience." Heb. x. 22. Then too 
 the will which is controlled by t?ie state of 
 the heart, is sweetly inclined by the same 
 Spirit, to choose and rest upon Christ, as the 
 portion of the soul. "J^i^ 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 aff'ected 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 sound- 
 ness 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 objec- 
 tion, is a proof of its correctness. While it 
 must not be so interpreted as to annihilate 
 or even impair the sinner's obligation, or 
 form any excuse for his impenitence and 
 unbelief, it is a doctrine which is pre-eminent- 
 ly adapted to drive him from those refuges of 
 self-righteousness and self-sufficiency, which 
 prove the ruin of so many souls, and lead 
 him to seek salvation only through the grace 
 and righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is in- 
 deed the very point to which sinners always 
 come before they embrace the Saviour. 
 
REMARKS OF DR. WITHERSrOON. 195 
 
 On this subject Dr. Witherspoon uses the 
 following language: "On a conviction of our 
 own inabiUty, 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 ex- 
 hortations to them in Scripture; and there- 
 fore takes not away their obligation to duty. 
 See an address, where the strongest meta- 
 phors 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 
 hght.' From which it is very plain, that the 
 moral inability, under which sinners now lie, 
 as a consequence of the fall, is not of such a 
 nature as to take away the guilt of sin, the 
 propriety of exhortation to duty, or the neces- 
 sity of endeavours after recovery.'' .... "I 
 make no scruple to acknowledge, that it is 
 impossible for me; nay, 1 find no difficulty 
 in supposing that it is impossible for any 
 finite mind to point out the bounds between 
 the ^dependence' and ^activity' of the crea- 
 ture." .... *^ The new birth is a ^supernatu- 
 ral change;' it is the effect of the power of 
 God; it is the work of the Holy Ghost. I 
 have been at the more pains to establish this 
 truth, because I am persuaded, that until it be 
 truly received, there may be a form, but there 
 can be nothing of the power of godUness." . . 
 
196 DEPENDENCE VIEWS OF WITHERSPOOPf. 
 
 "Bat 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-condemn- 
 ed; for they do not act the same part in simi- 
 lar cases. The affairs of the present life are 
 not managed in so preposterous a manner. 
 He that ploughs his ground, and throws in 
 his seed, cannot so much as unite one grain 
 to the clod; nay he is not able to conceive 
 how it is done. He cannot carry on, nay, he 
 cannot so much as begin one single step of 
 this wonderful process toward the subsequent 
 crop; the mortification of the seed, the resur- 
 rection of the blade, and gradual increase, till 
 it come to perfect maturity. Is it, therefore, 
 reasonable that he should say, ^ I for my part 
 can do nothing; it is, first and last, an effect 
 of Divine power and energy: and God can 
 as easily raise a crop without sowing as with 
 it; in a single instant, and in any place, as in 
 a long time by the mutual influence of soil 
 and season; I Avill therefore spare myself the 
 hardship of toil and labour, and wait with 
 patience till I see what he will be pleased to 
 send?' Would not this be madness? Would 
 it not be universally reputed so? And would 
 it not be equal madness to turn the grace 
 of God into licentiousness? Believe it, the 
 warning is equally reasonable and equally 
 necessary, in spiritual as in temporal things. 
 * Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for 
 whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also 
 
REMARKS OF MR. FINNEY. 197 
 
 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 ever- 
 lasting.' '' — Practical Treatise on Regenera- 
 tion, sect. 4. 
 
 But while the doctrine of human inability 
 and dependence upon God, as understood 
 and believed by the friends of the Old The- 
 ology, does not destroy accountableness, nor 
 impair obligation, nor discourage eff'ort; but 
 brings the sinner to his proper place, before 
 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, with 
 regard to the Spirit's influences, as to be a seri- 
 ous obstacle to genuine conversion. Among 
 the "false comforts for sinners," which Mr. 
 Finney enumerates, one is, " telling the sin- 
 ner to p7'ay for a new heart.^^ He asks, 
 " Does God say, Pray for a new heart ? 
 Never. He says, ' Make you a new heart.' 
 And the sinner is not to be told to pray to 
 God to do his duty for him, but to go and do 
 it himself." — Lectures on Revivals, p. 318. 
 Thus it appears, we must not direct sinners 
 to seek God for renewing grace, because they 
 have sufficient ability of their own to per- 
 form the work. To preach to them the ne- 
 cessity 9^.the Spirit's influences while exhort- 
 ing them to duty, would be according to him 
 " unphilosophical." We must tell them " to 
 go and do it themselves." What kind of con- 
 versions is such instruction as this calculated 
 
198 REVIVALS — MR. FINNEY. 
 
 to produce ?* It is no wonder that the revi- 
 vals of religion which have occurred within 
 the last ten years, under the ministry of such 
 
 * Let the reader judg-c of the probable effect upon the 
 sinner of preaching such doctrines as are developed in the 
 following 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 forthcom- 
 ing book ; suppressing the names for the present, but con- 
 sidering me as responsible for the statement, 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 licen- 
 
 tiate,] would state what were the peculiarities o{ Professor 
 
 Fitch's scheme of natural depravity. Mr. avov^^ed 
 
 himself a believer in that scheme, and stated among 
 other things, in substance" as follows : (" many of the 
 following views, he said, however, were his oion, 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 imputation of 
 original sin, or as having a disposition to evil. He was 
 in no sense a sinner, until of sufficient age and capacity to 
 choose for himself; and if there was a period in his exist- 
 ence previous to that, during that period he was an inno- 
 cent 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 Ijorn of the flesh is flesh, and 
 that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,'' as im|,'ying any 
 thing like a new moral nature, opposite to his first nature, 
 as given to him in regeneration. He believed that sub- 
 ject had been misunderstood. There was indeed a neces- 
 sity for regeneration, but it consisted not in the implanta- 
 tion of new principles, but the rational turning of the 
 
REVIVALS MR. FINNEY. 199 
 
 men, should furnish so many examples of 
 apostasy. In a discourse deUvered by Mr. 
 Finney in Chatham street chapel in 1836, 
 
 same principles to a new course. As to the way in which 
 it was produced^ God's help was indeed necessary, but no 
 more so than in every other action of man. He presented 
 motives, and when a man sincerely made up his resolution 
 to follow them, and did decide to do so, that was the be- 
 ginning of a new life.' Mr. asked him if any sin- 
 ner ever did come to Christ without feeling his helpless 
 
 and lost condition 7 JMr. said ' he thought, yes; 
 
 and mentioned his own case.' " 
 
 "The bearing of the snhiect on atonement and justijica- 
 
 Hon 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 seemed to consider it as consisting in what lay between 
 God and his intelligent universe exclusively, and that for 
 laying a ground of justifying his own proceedings; as 
 such, a man ought to trust in or believe the atonement : 
 but in [the] matter of personal experience we had nothing 
 to do with it : the righteousness of Christ is in no sense 
 imputed to us: we must be accepted on the ground of our 
 own obedience.' " 
 
 " Much was said also of the practical influence of such 
 
 a 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 indepen- 
 dency as even more favourable to themselves than he pro- 
 bably intended : and Mr. [one of the ministers] 
 
 remarked that as the gospel was represented ' to be a seek- 
 ing 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 opinion. He 
 
 seemed to think that the reason why many more were not 
 pious, was, that too many and unnecessary difficulties 
 were left in the way. They ought to be reasoned with 
 m,ore: show them that this work is not so hard and unrea- 
 sonable: they could be persuaded to make a choice if you 
 would only present the thing as rational; and many were 
 
200 REMARKS OE DR. REED. 
 
 are found snch sentences as the following:* 
 
 " 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 converts of 
 the last ten years] are a disgrace to religion.'^ 
 
 "Of what use is it to convert sinners 
 
 and make them such Christians as these ?'' 
 This is an acknowledgment that the fruits of 
 those revivals are not such as were antici- 
 pated — and so long as converts are made 
 under the 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 Ameri- 
 
 thus won, where this scheme was now adopted.' He said 
 much of the figurative language of Scripture, and seemed 
 to think that such passages as ' The carnal mind is enmity 
 against God,' did not apply to men at the present age of 
 the world, but peculiarly to the Jews, on account of their 
 prejudices. The opposition which we have often witnessed 
 against religion in natural men is not so much against 
 God or reUgion itself, as against the prejudiced represen- 
 tations of it by mistaken teachers.' " 
 
 This individual who is denominated by my correspond- 
 ent " a respectable young man," was at that time, as I 
 infer from his letter, seeking a settlement in a Presby- 
 terian congregation. 
 
 * We quote from the Literary and Theological Review. 
 The sermon it appears was reported in the New York 
 Evangelist, February 13, 1836. 
 
REMARKS OF DR. REED. 201 
 
 can churches, accord with the sentiments and 
 observation of very many in America, Avho 
 have been "witnesses of these things.'^ "The 
 New Divinity and the New Measures, have 
 greatly coalesced, and they have given for 
 the time, currency to each other. Many 
 pious and ardent persons and preachers, from 
 the causes to which I have adverted, were 
 disposed to think that the new opinions had 
 all the advantage in a revival, and this gave 
 them all the preference in their judgment. 
 Where they in connexion with the New 
 Measures have been vigorously applied, there 
 has, indeed, been no want of excitement. 
 The preacher who firmly believes that the 
 conversion of men rests on the force of moral 
 suasion, is not unlikely to be persuasive. 
 And the hearer who is told ' he can convert 
 himself,' that it is ^ 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 repentance?" 
 
 " By their fruits ye shall know them. 
 There has certainly been good done where 
 there has been much evil, for with this evil 
 there has been a large portion of divine 
 truth. But I fear not to say, that where 
 there has been the largest infusion of the 
 New Divinity into the New Measures, there 
 has been the greatest amount of unwarrant- 
 
202 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 able extravagance. There has been great 
 excitement, much animal emotion and sym- 
 pathy, high resolves, and multiplied conver- 
 sions, but time has tested them and they 
 have failed.''^ 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY, BY WAY 
 OF REVIEW, AND A NOTICE OF THE PERFECTIONISM OF MR. 
 FINNEY. 
 
 That the reader may see at a single view 
 the most prominent points of difference be- 
 tween the Old and New Theology, we shall 
 exhibit them in few words by way of con- 
 trast : — in doing which we shall take a kind 
 of retrospect of the volume, and exemplify 
 some of the principles which have been no- 
 ticed, by a few additional quotations. 
 
 1. The Old Theology places God upon the 
 throne of the universe, and makes him com- 
 petent to say concerning 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 disappoint- 
 ment and to have his happiness diminished, 
 by the uncontrollable agency of men: — and 
 this not only in the present world, but in the 
 
CONTRAST — THE FALL. 203 
 
 next. Prof. Fitch affirms that God's " pur- 
 pose was to confer on the beings composing 
 his moral kingdom, the power of voUtion and 
 choice, and to use the best influence God 
 could use on the whole to secure the holiness 
 and prevent the sin of such beings, ivho 
 themselves, and not lie, were to have imme- 
 diate power over their volitions.''^ Again: 
 " We affirm that the causes in kind which 
 originate sin, being inseparably inherent in a 
 moral universe, may so accumulate in de- 
 gree under every system of Providence and 
 government which can be pursued, as to 
 render sure the occurrence of sin. If in a 
 universe of such beings, no jjossible system 
 of Providence adopted and pursued throvgh 
 ETERNITY ca7i shut out all occasions of the 
 outbreakings of sin, it is easy to see, that as 
 to his preventing it, sin is unavoidably inci- 
 dental to the acts of the Creator in creating 
 and governing such a kingdom." .... " The 
 causes in kind which are known to originate 
 sin in the present universe, must necessarily 
 be present in any possible universe of moral 
 
 beings.'^ "If the causes of defecti- 
 
 bility are thus inseparable from the exist- 
 ence of a universe of moral beings, is there 
 not a ground of probability that they will 
 lead to actual defection in every possible 
 system as well as in this?^^ — Review of Dr. 
 Fisk's Discourse on Predestination and Elec- 
 tion, and a Defence of that Review in the 
 Christian Spectator. What low and unwor- 
 thy views does this statement convey con- 
 
204 CONTRAST — COVENANT WITH ADAM. 
 
 cerning the Deity! What dismal prospects 
 it presents to the expectant of future and 
 eternal bliss ! 
 
 2. The Old Theology regards the fall of 
 man as a catastrophe so direful in its effects, 
 that no power less than Omnipotence is ade- 
 quate 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?' Could Adam have justly answered. 
 Dost thou think that I can change my own 
 heart? Can I, who have a heart totally depra- 
 ved, can I change that heart? Might not the 
 Almighty have answered him in words of 
 fire, Rebel, you have just changed your heart 
 from holiness to sin, now change it back 
 from sin to holiness." — Sermons on Impor- 
 tant Subjects, p. 13. See also Mr. Barnes' 
 remarks on the text, " When we were with- 
 out strength, Christ died for the ungodly," in 
 chap. vii. We shall likewise give one or two 
 additional quotations in the present chapter, 
 under the head of Ability. 
 
 3. The Old Theology maintains that Adam 
 was the federal head of his posterity, and 
 that, by breaking the covenant under which 
 he was placed, he involved not only himself, 
 but all his posterity in sin and misery — the 
 guilt of his first sin being imputed to them, 
 
CONTRAST — IMPUTATION, ETC. 205 
 
 or set over in law to their account ; so that 
 they all come into the world with depraved 
 and sinful natures. Tlie 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 matter of fact, according to the common 
 laws of human society, and that all his pos- 
 terity become sinners when they arrive at 
 moral agency; before which time they are 
 neither sinful nor holy; and that they be- 
 come 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 uni- 
 versal sinfulness of a race, the consequence 
 of one man's act ? why not give to each a 
 fair trial for himself?" /' I answer, God 
 does give to each a fair trial for himself. 
 Not a human being does or can become thus 
 sinful or dej^raved but by his oivn choice. 
 God does not compel him to sin by the na- 
 ture he gives him. Nor is his sin, although 
 a consequence of Adam's sin, in such a sense 
 its consequence as not to be a free voluntary 
 act of his own. He sins freely, voluntarily. 
 There is no other way of sinning. God, 
 (there is no irreverence in saying it) can make 
 nothing else sin, but the sinner's act." Con- 
 cio 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 — 
 
206 TESTIMONY OF UNITARIANS. 
 
 Striking onward from age to age, and reach- 
 ing downward to ^ the last season of record- 
 ed time' — punished in the original offender; 
 re-punished in his children; and punished 
 again and again, by infinite multiples, ia 
 countless ages and individuals ; and all this 
 judicial infliction, for a single act, performed 
 cycles of ages before the individuals lived, 
 we see not how any evidence could shake 
 our intrinsic behef that this is unjust and im- 
 probable." "We never can adopt 
 
 that system which tramples on the analogies 
 which actually exist, and holds men to be 
 personally answerable, and ^diWdWy punish- 
 edhj a just God, for an act committed thou- 
 sands 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 ex- 
 tracts, is, that Unitarians consider them 
 ^^ sound and lucid.^^ In the Review of Mr. 
 Barnes' Notes on the Romans, in the Chris- 
 tian Examiner, already referred to, [a Unita- 
 rian 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 repeat- 
 edly that men sin only in their own joerson, 
 in themselves, as indeed how can they sin in 
 any other way ? The imputation of Adam's 
 transgression he treats as a scholastic absur- 
 
CONTRAST — THE ATONEMENT. 207 
 
 dity." . ..." Of the figment of Adam's 
 federal headship and the condemnation of 
 his posterity for partnership in his sin, Mr. 
 Barnes, says ' there is not one word of it in 
 the Bible.'"* 
 
 4. The Old Theology maintains that the 
 atonement consisted in rendering satisfaction 
 to Divine justice by the vicarious sufferings 
 of Christ, who endured in our stead the pen- 
 alty of the law, and offered up himself an 
 acceptable sacrifice to God : by which offer- 
 ing God's " favour was propitiated for us," 
 his law magnified and his government sus- 
 tained: so that without doing violence to his 
 
 * The views of Socinus are as follows: 
 
 Quest. 1. "Is it in our power fully to obey the com- 
 mandments 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. Accord- 
 ingly, 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 
 Scripture teaches no such doctrine ; and the will of man 
 could not be vitiated by a cause which had no existence. 
 The sin of Adam being a single act could not corrupt his 
 own nature, much less had it power to deprave the nature 
 of all his posterity. That this sin should be charged on 
 them, is, as has been said, a doctrine unknown to the 
 Scriptures ; and it is utterly incredible, that God, who is 
 the fountain of equity, should be willing to impute it to 
 them." — Racovian Catechism, compiled from the writings 
 of Socinus, and published A. D. 1606; translated for the 
 Biblical Repertory ; q. v. 
 
208 CONTRAST THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 holy nature, or relinquishing the claims of 
 his law, or dishonouring' his government, he 
 secured the salvation of those who were 
 given to Christ in the covenant of redemp- 
 tion ; [John xvii. 2; Isa. liii. 11, 12;] and 
 laid the foundation for a free ojfer of mercy 
 to all who hear the gospel. Mark xvi. 15. 
 John iii. 16. 
 
 The New Theology considers the atone- 
 ment as involving a suspension of the penal- 
 ty of the law, and as consisting in a " syin- 
 bolical display''^ to the universe, for the pur- 
 pose of producing such an impression of 
 God's haired to sin, as would render it safe 
 and proper for him as moral Governor, to 
 bestow pardon upon sinners: and as to sin- 
 ners themselves, it is an ^^ experiment/^ nidide 
 by God for their salvation; which, through 
 his impotency to control moral agents, may 
 fail of its intended result.* Among other 
 relations of the atonement discussed by Mr. 
 Jenkyn, he considers it in relation to the pur- 
 poses and providences of God. Under the 
 former he observes, " The various dispensa- 
 tions of probation are various experiments 
 in moral government, in which God submits 
 his own plans and ways to the acceptance 
 and for the use oi free agents. If any ob- 
 
 * I have not met with any writer who expressed him- 
 self in this revolting form, except Mr. Jenkyn, in his work 
 on the Atonement. But this is a correct statement, it 
 appears to me, of the doctrine, as held by tliose (if they 
 are consistent) who in connexion with the New School 
 view of atonement, adopt also the new theory concerning 
 the character and government of God. 
 
CONTRAST — THE ATONEMENT. 209 
 
 ject to the word ^experiments I beg to refer 
 them for the meaning of it, to the parable of 
 the barren fig tree, and to that of the hus- 
 bandman sending his servants, and afterwards 
 his son to the vineyard. These dispensations 
 or experiments are capable oi failure. The 
 Eden experiment failed — and the Sinai ex- 
 periment failed. Such susceptibility oi fail- 
 ure has been shown to be incidental to a 
 moral government and a state of trial." Un- 
 der Its relation to providence he says, "The 
 measures of providence are liable to failure. 
 A medicine may fail, notwithstanding the vir- 
 tue which providence has given it. The crop 
 of the husbandman may fail, notwithstanding 
 the provision that seed time and harvest time 
 shall continue. The rnorbid fear of acknow- 
 ledging such a liableness to failure in the 
 measures of providence is unaccountable, 
 when God declares his own government of 
 the Jews, under the theocracy, to have failed 
 of its end. *In vain have I smitten them, 
 they have refused to receive correction.' Jer. 
 ii. 30. The word of God distinctly and ex- 
 pressly recognizes the same liableness to fail- 
 ure 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 " experiments^ or " tnea- 
 sure of atonement, ^^ is liable \o 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 alto- 
 18 
 
210 CONTRAST — cueist's RIGHTEOUS^^ESS. 
 
 gether? What if it should happen, that when 
 " submitted to the acceptance of free agents,^^ 
 they should «// object to it, and refuse to com- 
 ply with its conditions! Has God power to 
 control the exercise of their free agency and 
 persuade them to change their minds? or 
 may they not, in despite of his mightiest in- 
 fluence, 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 
 righteousness of God by faith." Phil. iii. 9. 
 " And to her [the Lamb's wife, the church] 
 was granted, that she should be arrayed in 
 fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen 
 is the righteousness of saints." Rev. xix. 8. 
 " You have here," says Henry, " a descrip- 
 tion of the bride, how she appeared; in fine 
 linen, clean and white, which is, the right- 
 eousness of saints ; in the robes of Chrisfs 
 righteousness, both imputed for justification, 
 and imparted for sanctification." 
 
 The New Theology discards the doctrine 
 of imputed righteousness, and maintains that 
 the believer's faith, being an act which God 
 approves, and which leads to other holy acts, 
 is reckoned to him for righteousness ; and in 
 
CONTRAST. — JUSTIFICATION. 211 
 
 consequence of it God pardons his sin and 
 receives him into favour. ^' Faith," says Mr. 
 Finney, " is the appointed instrument of our 
 justification, because it is the natural instru- 
 ment of sanctification. It is the instrument of 
 bringing us back to obedience, and therefore is 
 designated asthe means of obtaining the bless- 
 ings 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 obedi- 
 ence to God. This is the reason why faith is 
 made the medium through which pardon 
 comes. It is simply set down to. us for what it 
 really is; because it first leads us to obey God 
 from a principle of love to him." — Lectures 
 to 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 jus- 
 tified by other works." — Dr. Alexander. 
 
 6. The Old Theology places the sinner at 
 the threshold of sovereign mercy, a depend- 
 ent 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 Wat- 
 son^s Institutes in the Christian Spectator, 
 are found the following : " He [Mr. Watson] 
 
212 CONTRAST — HUMAN ABILITY. 
 
 repeatedly speaks of the power of the will, 
 by which he intends, of course, its ^ gracious 
 ability' before the fall, as being lost by Adam, 
 *for himself and for his descendants.' " . . . . 
 " Admitting it to be true in Adam's case, that 
 by sinning he was shorn of his power to obey 
 God, what has this to do with his jjosterity? 
 The principle assumed in the argument, ren- 
 ders it impossible, that their moral agency 
 should be unhinged, until they exist and sin; 
 therefore Jldam's 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 admirers of Mr. 
 Watson believe it impossible for God to cre- 
 ate a being, 2)ossessi?ig in himself the ability 
 to choose good and be holy, without the gift 
 of the Spirit? and if so, where is his omni- 
 potence? 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 m,an is such a being? If he is 
 not, is God's government adapted to him? 
 What notion can be formed of a subject of 
 moral government, who is destitute of moral 
 liberty? or in other words, who, in every in- 
 stance of obedience or disobedience, does not 
 act with inherent power to the contrary 
 choice?"*— Ch. Spec. 1835, pp. 376, 377. 
 7. The Old Theology makes regeneration 
 
 * Concerning the power of contrary choice, see Dr* 
 Beecher's views and Dr. Harvey's remarks upon them in 
 chapter vii. 
 
CONTRAST THE HOLY SPIRIT. 213 
 
 a radical change — a change in the disposi- 
 tion and temper of the sinner, as well as in 
 his acts. The New regards it as merely giv- 
 ing a different direction to our constitutional 
 desires; but appears to make httle or no dif- 
 ference between the principles of action, in 
 converted and unconverted men. They differ 
 only as to the " end of pursuit." In refer- 
 ence to a sentiment advanced by Dr. Griffin, 
 that the sinner has no taste for holiness, and 
 therefore cannot be regenerated by molives, 
 Mr. Gilbert remarks, "The impenitent sinner 
 has no ^ taste' for conviction; his unholy tem- 
 per is as really opposed to truth as to holi- 
 ness; and this philosophy would make it as 
 impossible to convict as to convert him; to 
 sanctify, as to regenerate him. The uncon- 
 verted man has no ^ taste' for conviction, nor 
 the converted man for 'tnore sanctification." 
 Mark: " The unconverted man has no taste 
 for conviction, nor the converted man for 
 MORE sanctification I" What then is the dif- 
 ference between the taste or temper or dis- 
 position, 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 lat- 
 ter, into the shade. "You see (says Mr. Fin- 
 ney) how unphilosophical it is, while pressing 
 the sinner to submission, to divert his mind 
 and turn his attention to the subject of the 
 Spirit's influence. While his attention is di- 
 
214 CONTRAST — PREACHING CHRIST. 
 
 reeled to that subject, his submission is impos- 
 sible." Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 61. 
 Of course, those who would be instrumental 
 in converting sinners, must say little or no- 
 thing about the Spirit.* And it is true, as a 
 matter oi fact, that the class of preachers to 
 which we now refer, say almost as little about 
 Christ as about the Spirit. They preach much 
 about submittiiig to God; but they seldom 
 exhibit the second person of the Trinity, in 
 his Mediatorial character, and the duty of 
 embracing him as a Saviour. The Apostolic 
 
 * 1 have in my possession a written statement com- 
 municated to me by a very respectable minister, which 
 affords another illustration of this sentiment. Says he, 
 " In the summer of 1832, while travelling in the valley of 
 
 the Mississippi, 1 spent a few weeks in the city of , 
 
 and gave assistance, as I was able, by request of the 
 
 pastor in church of that place. Unusual attention 
 
 to religion existed when I arrived, and continued for 
 some time. A strong tendency was manifested both to 
 new doctrines and new measures. One evening when on 
 the way to the church with the pastor, where I had en- 
 gaged to preach, he requested I should say nothing in my 
 preaching, concerning the injluences 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. Taj'lor has informed me, ver- 
 bally, that he heard Dr. Taylor advance the sentiment in 
 two different sermons, '■'■that sinners must act in the work 
 of conversion just as if there was no Holy Ghost." To 
 prove the truth of his remark, he alluded to Acts xix. 2. 
 "We have not so much as heard whether there be any 
 Holy Ghost." He had heard, also, through others, of Dr. 
 Taylor's advancing the same sentiment at different times; 
 and he believed he was in the habit of doing it where he 
 preached a course of revival sermons. 
 
CONTRAST — THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 215 
 
 direction, " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,'' 
 is exchanged for a phraseology which is cal- 
 culated to convey the impression that conver- 
 sion consists in the mere choice of God as a 
 moral Governor. This indeed is Mr. Fin- 
 ney's" account of it. " It [a change of heart] 
 is a change in the choice of a Siipreme Ruler. ^^ 
 .... "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 person in the Godhead, and faith 
 in him as our Redeemer, appear to have lit- 
 tle to do in the process.* 
 
 9. The Old Theology honours the Holy 
 Scriptures, by drawing its doctrines and 
 proofs from this source alone, without calling 
 in the aid of philosophy. The New, resorts to 
 the latter, in order to obtain its first principles; 
 and then interprets the former so as to make 
 them accord with these philosophical opin- 
 ions. This remark, we are aware, may be 
 
 * In the summer of 1834, 1 heard a sermon from Pro- 
 fessor , 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 de- 
 sires and expects to find, in a sermon which professed to 
 teach us how we may approach God with acceptance, as 
 to afford too much reason for the observation of a pious 
 and intelligent lady soon after, viz : "that he kept Christ 
 and the Holy Spirit so much out of view, she could not 
 help thinking that he was a deist." This lady had not 
 yet heard the name or residence of the preacher; and of 
 course could not have been influenced by any considera- 
 tions of this kind. 
 
216 CONTRAST — PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 called in question. The leaders in the New 
 School party have had much to say concern- 
 ing the "/«c^5" of Scripture, and have charged 
 their brethren of the Old School with resort- 
 ing 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 philoso- 
 phy, philosophical, unphilosophical, &c., at 
 least fourteen times. He tells us about <' the 
 philosojjhy of conversion,'' "the philosophy 
 of self-examination," and " the philosophy of 
 special efforts to promote revivals of religion." 
 Every step in the change is brought to the 
 test oi philosophy : and the failure of the sin- 
 ner to submit to God is ascribed in one in- 
 stance to his not understanding the philoso- 
 phy of the process. " He, therefore, (says 
 he) who does not understand ihQ 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 sub- 
 mit." The Scriptures are also brought for- 
 ward and compared by this rule. " When he 
 [Joshua] assembled the people of Israel and 
 laid their duty before them, and said, 'choose 
 you this day whom ye will serve;' he did not 
 unphilosophically remind them at the same 
 time of their dependence upon the Spirit of 
 God." Thus Ave h3.Ye philosophical preach- 
 ing, philosophical protracted meetings, phi- 
 
CONTRAST OBSERVATIONS. 217 
 
 losophical self-examination, philosophical 
 submission, and philosophical conversion. 
 May not the result of the whole be a merely 
 philosophical christian? 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 speci- 
 men of their views. We admit he has ex- 
 pressed himself move /reel?/ than perhaps a7i^ 
 one else; but if we compare the quotations 
 made from various authors, we shall perceive 
 they all belong to the same family. It has 
 been our aim both in our statements and 
 quotations, to exhibit the doctrines of the 
 New Theology, just as they are, without the 
 least exaggeration. For this purpose our 
 extracts from New School authors have been 
 numerous, and sufficiently extended as to 
 length, to give a correct view of their senti- 
 ments. 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. 
 
 19 
 
218 
 
 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 however be- 
 stow upon it a little attention, that it may 
 serve as a beacon to admonish those who 
 have embarked on the voyage of rehgious 
 discovery. 
 
 In his Lectures to professing Christians, 
 he has two on Christian Perfection ; and he 
 adverts to the subject in several others. He 
 defines perfection in the following words : 
 <' It is to love the Lord our God with all our 
 heart and soul and mind and strength, and 
 to love our neighbour as om'selves.'^ This 
 he maintains is attainable in the present life. 
 " 1. God wills it. 2. All the promises and 
 prophecies of God that respect the sanctifica- 
 tion of believers in this world, are to be un- 
 derstood of course of their perfect sanctifica- 
 tion. 3. Perfect sanctification is the great 
 blessing promised throughout the Bible. 4. 
 The perfect sanctification of believers is the 
 very object for which the Holy Spirit is 
 promised. 5. If it is not a practicable duty to 
 be perfectly holy in this world, then it will 
 follow that the devil has so completely ac- 
 complished his design in corrupting mankind, 
 
PERFECTION IN KNOWLEDGE. 219 
 
 that Jesus Christ is at a fault, and has no 
 way to sanctify his people but to take them 
 out of the world. 6. If perfect sanctificatioii 
 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 per- 
 fection 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 posses- 
 sion of the ideas themselves, of which the 
 types, or figures, or words, of the human 
 teacher, are only the signs or imperfect repre- 
 sentatives."'. . . . "The needed influences of 
 the Spirit of God may he possessed by all 
 men freely under the gospel." . . . . " They 
 [ministers] should not attempt to explain 
 passages of which they are not confident they 
 have been taught the m,eaning by the Holy 
 Spi^^it. It is presumption. And they need 
 not do it, for they may always have the 
 teachings of the Spirit by asking." .... 
 " This is applicable both to preachers and to 
 teachers in Sabbath Schools and Bible class- 
 es." . . . . " Will you lay your hearts open 
 to God, and not give him rest, till he has 
 filled you ivith Divine knowledge V^ 
 
220 CHRIST BECOMES RESPONSIBLE. 
 
 In other lectures he goes further still, and 
 mahitains. if I understand his language, that 
 when the Christian has thus given himself up 
 entireljr to Christ, to be taught and governed 
 by him, he becomes so identified with Christ, 
 that his spirit and Christ's Spirit are, morally 
 considered, one — Christ becomes responsible 
 for his acts; and of course he not only ceases 
 from sin, but he cannot commit sin. What- 
 ever he docs, 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 Avholly united to 
 that of her husband, so that his reputation is 
 hers, and her reputation is his. What affects 
 her character affects his; and what affects his 
 character affects hers. Their reputation is 
 one, their interests are one. So with the 
 church, whatever concerns the church is just 
 as much the interest of Christ, as if it was 
 
ANTINOMIANISM — MR. FINNEY. 221 
 
 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 an- 
 swerable. It is his business to guide and 
 govern her, and her business to obey, and if 
 he does not restrain her from breaking the 
 laws, he is responsible." .... "In like 
 manner, Jesus Christ is Lord over his church, 
 and if he does not actually restrain his church 
 fiom 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 them- 
 selves wholly on Christ, and make him re- 
 sponsible, 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 senti- 
 ments. It is scarcely necessary to remark, 
 that the sentences last quoted are Antinomi- 
 an. 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 superfiu- 
 
222 MR. Finney's perfectionism. 
 
 ous.* " There is," says he, " no more moral 
 inability to be perfectly holy, than there is to 
 be holy at all." On the same principle, 
 therefore, that he could preach to the sinner 
 the practicability of changing his own heart, 
 he might argue that the Christian can arrive 
 at perfect holiness in this life. He actually 
 adopts the same mode of reasoning in both 
 cases. It is therefore very natural to con- 
 clude, that the frequent discussion of the sub- 
 ject of ability in reference to the sinner, had 
 much to do in forming his opinions with re- 
 gard to Christian perfection. Having arrived 
 at this point, he apphed his ideas of perfec- 
 tion, 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 re- 
 demption;" he considers each of the terms as 
 conveying an idea equally expressive. Since 
 then, according to the views which he had 
 
 * It is supposed by some that there is no logical con- 
 nexion between Mr. Finney's former and present views — 
 but that he has got upon a new track. Formerly, as one 
 observes, " he left Christ and the Holy Spirit almost out of 
 view^ ; he hardly preached the gospel at all ; but now 
 Christ and the Holy Spirit are every thing. He pushes 
 union with Christ, imputation, covenant relation, «St.c. into 
 Antinomianism." The only connexion, he says, between 
 the latter and his Pelagianism, is that "he is a fanatic 
 now as he was before." But as others think differently, 
 we shall state the probable process by which it is supposed 
 he was led into these errors. Yet whether they are the 
 " logical sequence" of his former views or not, they fur- 
 nish an instructive lesson to those who are disposed to 
 countenance error. 
 
MR. Finney's peefectionism. 223 
 
 previously adopted, sanctification was to be 
 taken as implying perfect holiness, the per- 
 fectibility of wisdom would seem to follow 
 as a consequence. Hence he says in regard 
 to this, " As he [Christ] is the infinite source 
 of Avisdom, how can it be said that he is 
 made unto lis wisdom, unless we are par- 
 takers 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 dcr 
 gree we need, to guide us as infallibly, as if 
 we had 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 him, to 
 be led and controlled by him, absolutely." 
 Then Christ assumes the responsibility; he 
 undertakes to do all for him thcit 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 responsibility comes upon 
 him, just as the person who undertakes to 
 conduct the blind man is responsilole for his 
 safe conduct. The believer by the act of 
 faith pledges Christ for his obedience and 
 
\ 
 224 PERFECTIONISM — THEOLOGICAL REVIEW. 
 
 sanctification. By giving himself up to Christ, 
 all the veracity of the Godhead is put at stake, 
 that he shall be led aright, or made holy." 
 Here we have the final result of the whole 
 process. By the proper exercise of our free 
 will, we can first change our own hearts, or 
 in other words, put forth the "act" of saving 
 faith upon Jesus Christ. By the proper ex- 
 ercise of the same free will, we can put forth 
 a stronger " act" of faith, and make him our 
 wisdom and sanctification: — our wisdom, in 
 such a sense, that he will "guide us infalh- 
 bly, as if we had it originally ourselves:" — 
 and our sanctification, so entire and absolute, 
 that Christ becomes responsible for our con- 
 duct, and " if he does not restrain us from sin, 
 he has it to answer for." 
 
 In the March number of the Literary and 
 Theological Review for the year 1S38, there 
 is an able article on this subject; from which 
 we will make the following extract. " In 
 the works before us [referring to Mr. Finney's 
 Sermons and Lectures,] we have an authen- 
 tic genealogy of a 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 contained in the preceding 
 extracts, is the venerable ancestor of them all. 
 From his infancy it was remarked that he 
 was an uncommon child. Unlike other chil- 
 dren, he was by nature neither " sinful nor 
 holy.^^ Unhappily, however, very soon after 
 his birth, he "/e// iiito a state of supreme 
 
EXTRACT FROM THE THEOLOGICAL REVIEW. 225 
 
 selfishness,^^ from which even the " pliysical 
 power of God" could not extricate him. But 
 he had rare abilities, and a "giant strength" 
 of will, which he could hardly refrain from 
 calling " the strength of Omnipotence.^^ And 
 therefore, he always believed 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 
 oion act.''^ He was willing, indeed, that the 
 Holy Spirit should operate on him, provided 
 it were only as an earthly advocate acts on a 
 jury. He was willing that " motives should 
 be gathered from all worlds and poured in 
 a focal blaze on his mindP He was anxious 
 to receive good counsel from his friends, and 
 reverently to hear divine truth; but the 
 change from ^^ supreme selfishness^^ he de- 
 clared to be his own ^'appropriate work;'*'' 
 and he was at length accustomed to say, that 
 he had effected it by " his own act.^^ It was 
 natural to suppose, that the theological chil- 
 dren of such a system would have some re- 
 markable characteristics. In Pelagius and 
 Coelestius it had produced Perfectionism, and 
 there was reason to fear that in the mind of 
 Mr. Finney, it would generate the same 
 progeny. In various parts of the land the 
 system had been earnestly inculcated. Its 
 most sagacious disciples were beginning to 
 declare themselves to " be j)erfectP to have 
 '^ rolled the responsibility of their future 
 
226 LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL REVIEW. 
 
 and eternal obedience on an everlasting 
 armf^ to receive '''• irtimediate communica- 
 tions from Godf^ to be '^ personally united 
 to Him,^^ and have " entered into rest.^^ 
 These heresies were early demonstrated to 
 have had their origin in the system itself. 
 As Mr. Finney had been the Apostle of this 
 system in these latter days, it was intimated 
 that his doctrines, as inculcated in his preach- 
 ing 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 doctrines had produced such results, they 
 could not for a moment entertain. Although 
 others had no doubt that Mr. Finney was 
 the true parent of Perfectionism, they had 
 more opinion of his caution, than to suppose 
 he could soon be induced openly to own 
 and adopt it. But, to the amazement of all, 
 he now comes forth, bringing with him for 
 induction into the church, the doctrine of the 
 perfection of the saints in this life, of the 
 responsibility of Christ for his people, of 
 immediate communications to them from 
 God, and of their entrance into rest even in 
 this ivorld. These last views were not deve- 
 loped till he had abandoned the Presbyterian 
 Church. Ever since their publication, it is 
 almost inconceivable by those who have heard 
 of him chiefly as a promoter of revivals, and 
 have been unwilling to listen to the notes of 
 warning, so long honestly and responsively 
 sounded by individuals — it is almost incon- 
 
CONCLUSION. 227 
 
 ceivable, that he has inculcated these fanati- 
 cal doctrines. Even the Christian Spectator, 
 though it fears " he may be liable to miscon- 
 struction 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 possibihty and 
 duty of obedience to God in all things com- 
 manded.'' But this view of his meaning it 
 is impossible to sustain either by individual 
 sentences, or the evident design of his Lec- 
 tures on these subjects. His errors are writ- 
 ten so legibly, that he who runs may read. 
 Mr. Finney now stands before the communi- 
 ty as a practical illustration of the effects of 
 rejecting the doctrine, that human nature is 
 depraved: and of believing, that in regenera- 
 tion and sanctification, the word of the Spirit 
 is confined chiefly to the understanding. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 If the statements contained in this volume 
 are to be relied upon; in other words, if New 
 School writers maintain those sentiments 
 which are clearly conveyed by their lan- 
 guage, they have widely departed from "the 
 faith once dehvered to the saints." But 
 should any be still disposed to repeat the re- 
 mark, " There is no difference; the contest is 
 
228 CASE OF BALCH AND DAVIS. 
 
 / a mere logomachy," &c.; we will refer them, 
 first, to the action of the General Assembly 
 in former years, condemning as heretical 
 those very doctrines substantially, which now 
 make a part of the New Theology. 
 
 In 1798, the case of Rev. H. Balch came 
 before the Assembly by way of reference from 
 the Synod of the Carol inas. The following 
 is a part of the minutes of the Assembly on 
 this subject. " With regard to his doctrine 
 of original sin, it is to be observed, that he is 
 erroneous in representing personal corrup- 
 tion as not derived from Adam; making 
 Adam's sin to be imputed to his posterity in 
 consequence of a corrupt nature already pos- 
 sessed, and derived from, we know not what; 
 thus in effect setting aside the idea of Adam's 
 being the federal head, or representative of 
 his descendants, and the whole doctrine of 
 the covenant of works." 
 
 " It is also manifest that Mr. B. is greatly 
 erroneous in asserting that the formal cause 
 of a believer's justification is the imputation 
 of the fruits and effects of Christ's righteous- 
 ness, and not that righteousness itself; be- 
 cause righteousness, and that alone, is the 
 formal demand of the law, and consequently 
 the sinner's violation of the Divine law, can 
 be pardoned only by virtue of the Redeem- 
 er's perfect righteousness being imputed to 
 him and reckoned as his. It is also not true 
 that the benefits of Christ's righteousness are, 
 with strict propriety, said to be imputed at 
 all, as these benefits ^oi^; to, dciidi diXe possess- 
 
TESTIMONY OF UNITARIANS. 229 
 
 edhy^ the believer, as a consequence of his 
 justification and having an interest in the 
 infinite merits of the Saviour." 
 
 In 1810, a work of tlie Rev. Wilham C. 
 Davis, entitled the " Gospel Plan," came be- 
 fore the Assemblyj by an overture from the 
 Synod of the Carohnas. Among the doc- 
 trines contained in the book of an exception- 
 able character, and which the Assembly con- 
 demned, are the following: " That the active 
 obedience 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 unholy;" and 
 that, " if God has to plant all the principal 
 parts of salvation in a sinner's heart, to en- 
 able 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 Church." — Assembly's Digest, 
 pp. 130, 145, 146, 147. 
 
 If the persons before alluded to, are not 
 yet satisfied that there is a palpable and im- 
 portant difference between the Old and New 
 Theology, we will refer them, secondly, to 
 the opinion of Unitarians^ as expressed in 
 the review of Mr. Barnes' Notes on the Ro- 
 mans, in the Christian Examiner; one or two 
 extracts from which have already been made. 
 
230 OBSERVATIONS AND REMARKS. 
 
 " In conclusion we would say, (observes the 
 reviewer,) that while our orthodox brethren 
 publish and circulate and receive with favour 
 such books as these " Notes/^ we most cordi- 
 ally extend to thern the right hand of fellow- 
 ship, even though they refuse to return it. 
 We regard them as fellow labourers with us, 
 for the overthrow of time-hallowed absurdi- 
 ties; for the cleansing of the Christian creed 
 from ' whatever defileth and maketh a lie.' 
 Calvinism is now a house divided against 
 itself. It embraces within its walls two, not 
 only distinct, but opposite sects;* the one 
 that of the friends, the other that of the ene- 
 mies of free inquiry; — the one that of the 
 votaries of reason, the other that of the blind- 
 fold recipients of a traditional faith. The 
 house is tottering, is on the point of falling; 
 and when it falls, we confidently expect to 
 receive into the citadel of liberal Christianity, 
 and shall greet with a most hearty welcome, 
 those, beneath whose well aimed blows, the 
 walls of the old mansion are shaken and its 
 foundation crumbling." 
 
 That ministers of I he gosjj el should enter- 
 tain the opinion, (as some do,) that there is 
 no material difference between the two sys- 
 tems, is truly astonishing. It results in part, 
 we believe, from inattention. But men who 
 have devoted their lives to the "cure of 
 souls,'' who have been placed by the Head of 
 the Church, as " watchmen to the house of 
 Israel/' are bound, it appears to me, to make 
 
 * This was written in 1836. 
 
ARIANIS3I, now TREATED. 231 
 
 themselves thoroughly acquainted with these 
 things. Civilians and men of business have 
 some apology for their want of information 
 — it not being in general compatible with 
 their pursuits, to attend very minutely to 
 theological discussions. Hence it is not so 
 wonderful that a considerable number of this 
 class, who are sound in the faith, should be 
 disposed, in the exercise of that charity which 
 " hopeth all things,'^ to indulge the belief 
 that the grounds of controversy are less im- 
 portant than some have supposed. But if 
 they will take sufficient time to examine the 
 subject, until they become fully acquainted 
 with the questions in debate, we believe their 
 minds will undergo a similar change to that 
 of the Emperor Constantine, with regard to 
 the Arian heresy. 
 
 After the discussion had commenced be- 
 tween Arius and Alexander bishop of Alex- 
 andria in Egypt, but prior to the council of 
 Nice, at which the Emperor presided and 
 gave his consent to the condemnation of the 
 Arian doctrine, he addressed a letter to Alex- 
 ander and Arius, with a view to bring about 
 a reconciliation ; in which he says, *' The 
 honour and character of the assembly of 
 Christians may be preserved entire, and the 
 same commnnion retained among you all, not- 
 withstanding you may greatly differ among 
 yourselves in ^natters of very little import- 
 ance,^^ (^'C " Your subtle disputes and 
 
 inquiries respecting these trifling matters, 
 if you cannot agree in sentiment, should re- 
 
232 NICENE COUNCIL CONSTANTINE. 
 
 main in yoar own thoughts, and be laid up in 
 the secret depths of the mind." But before 
 the close of the Nicene council, the points of 
 difference did not appear to him " trifling 
 matters." The Emperor wrote two letters 
 at the close of the council, in one of which, 
 directed to the churches in general,* he " in- 
 forms them that the faith has been examined, 
 and placed in so clear a light that no difficul- 
 ty remains." At the same time he published 
 "an edict directed to the bishops and people, 
 condemning Arius and his writings. He 
 says that Porphyry, having composed im- 
 pious books against Christianity, rendered 
 himself infamous in the eyes of posterity, 
 and that his writings were destroyed. It has 
 in like manner, he continues, been decreed, 
 that Arius and his followers be called Por- 
 phyrians, so that they may bear the name of 
 him whom they have imitated; and that if 
 any book written by Arius shall be found, it 
 shall be committed to the flames, that no 
 monument of his corrupt doctrine may de- 
 scend to future ages." — Historical View of 
 the Council of Nice, pp. 27, 40, 41. 
 
 It must not be understood from this illus- 
 tration that we mean to insinuate that our 
 New School brethren are Arians. All we 
 intend is, that their errors are real and not 
 imaginary; that they are not small, but im- 
 portant; and that the counter opinion of those 
 men is entitled to little influence, however in- 
 telligent and pious and orthodox they may 
 
 * The other was addressed to the church at Alexandria. 
 
OBSERVATIONS AND REMARKS. 233 
 
 be, who have not paid sufficient attention to 
 the subject, even to state with precision, the 
 points in controversy. Let them seriously 
 and carefully examine the New School doc- 
 trines, and we cannot doubt, they Avill be 
 obliged to acknowledge, that if our Con- 
 fession of Faith is agreeable to the Scrip- 
 tures, those doctrines must belong to "an- 
 other gospel." 
 
 To me it is not surprising that the Presby- 
 terian Church were alarmed. The wonder 
 is, that the alarm was not sooner and uni- 
 versally felt. If efficient measures had been 
 adopted ten years ago, when those errors 
 had just made their appearance, they might 
 have been rectified without a division. But 
 they were suffered to remain and spread, un- 
 til they became so prevalent, that discipline 
 was impracticable; and either some extraor- 
 dinary measures must be resorted to, or the 
 Church be ruined. 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?" Under these circum- 
 stances, the General Assembly of 1837 were 
 called to act: and though, from the mode of 
 procedure which they were obliged to adopt, 
 they separated from them, for the time being, 
 some whom they would have gladly retain- 
 ed; subsequent events have already proved, 
 that those measures will result in great good. 
 Those discordant materials which have for 
 years past rendered the floor of the General 
 20 
 
234 OBSERVATIONS AND RE3IARKS. 
 
 Assembly an arena of strife, are now remov- 
 ed. The Church purified from error and 
 harmonious in action, may now engage with 
 efficiency and success, in her appropriate 
 work of carrying the symbols of her faith to 
 a perishing world. We have now no pre- 
 text for inaction. While we rejoice in the 
 zeal and success of every branch of Christ's 
 Church, who are engaged in the work of 
 preaching the gospel, let us not be behind 
 them, either in the expansiveness or efficiency 
 of our benevolence. 
 
 THE END. 
 
A REVIEW 
 
 BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE 
 
 BIBLICAL REPERTORY, JANUARY 1845. 
 
REVIEW 
 
 BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 The doctrine of which this Httle book treats, 
 has always been regarded as the cardinal doc- 
 trine of the gospel. It was the burden of 
 apostolical preaching, the rock of offence to 
 Jews and Greeks, the corner stone of that 
 temple in which God dwells by his Spirit. 
 The cross is the symbol of Christianity; that 
 in which every believer glories, as the only 
 ground of his confidence toward God. The 
 rejection of this doctrine, therefore, has always 
 been regarded, and is in fact, a rejection of 
 the gospel. It is the repudiation of the way 
 of salvation revealed by God, and the adop- 
 tion of some method not only different but 
 irreconcilable. Whatever, therefore, affects 
 the integrity of this doctrine, affects the whole 
 system of religion. It lies in such immediate 
 contact with the source of all spiritual life, 
 
 * Christ, The only Sacrifice: or the Atonement in its Re- 
 lations to God and Man. By Nathan S. S, Beman, D. D., 
 Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Troy, New 
 York. With an Introductory chapter by Samuel Han- 
 son Cox, D.D., Pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Brook- 
 lyn, New York. Second edition, re-written, enlarged, and 
 improved. New York: Mark H. Newman. 1844, pp. 171. 
 
4 EEVIEW OF 
 
 that the very nature of religion depends on 
 the manner in which it is apprehended. 
 Though all moral and religious truths are in 
 their nature sources of power, and never fail 
 to influence more or less the character of those 
 "who embrace them, yet some truths are more 
 powerful, and hence more important than 
 others. We may speculate with comparative 
 impunity on the nature of angels, on the ori- 
 gin of evil, on the purposes of God, on his 
 relation to the world, and even on the grounds 
 and nature of human responsibility; but when 
 we come to the question, how am I to gain 
 access to God ? how can I secure the pardon 
 of mj?" sins and acceptance with Him ? what is 
 the true ground of hope and what must I do to 
 place myself on that ground so as to secure 
 the assurance of God's love, peace of con- 
 science, and joy in the Holy Ghost? then the 
 less we speculate the better. The nearer we 
 keep to the simple, authoritative statements 
 of God's word, the firmer will be our faith, 
 the more full and free our access to God, and 
 the more harmonious and healthful our whole 
 religious experience. Such is the informing 
 influence of such experience, when it is genu- 
 ine, that is, when really guided by the Spirit 
 and conformed to the revelation of God, that 
 it effects a far nearer coincidence of views in 
 all the children of God, than the multiplicity 
 of sects, and conflicting systems of theology 
 would lead us to imagine. The mass of true 
 Christians, in all denominations, get their re- 
 ligion directly from the Bible, and are but 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 5 
 
 little affected by the peculiarities of their 
 creeds. And even among those who make 
 theology a study, there is often one form of 
 doctrine for speculation, and another simpler 
 and truer, for the closet. Metaphysical dis- 
 tinctions are forgot in prayer, or under the 
 pressure of real conviction of sin, and need 
 of pardon and of divine assistance. Hence 
 it is that the devotional writings of Christians 
 agree far nearer than their creeds. It may 
 be taken for granted that that mode of 
 stating divine truth, Avhich is most in accord- 
 ance with the devotional language of true 
 Christians; which best expresses those views 
 which the soul takes when it appropriates the 
 doctrines of the gospel for its own spiritual 
 emergencies, is the truest and the best. 
 
 How then does the believer regard the per- 
 son and work of Christ, in his own exercises 
 of faith, gratitude, or love? What is the lan- 
 guage in which those exercises are expressed? 
 If we look to the devotional writings of the 
 church, in all ages and countries, and of all 
 sects and names, we shall get one clear, con- 
 sistent answer. What David wrote three 
 thousand years ago, expresses, with precision, 
 the emotions of God's people now. The 
 hymns of the early Christians, of the Luther- 
 ans, of the Reformed, of Moravians, of British 
 and American Christians, all express the com- 
 mon consciousness of God's people ; they all 
 echo the words and accents in which the truth 
 came clothed from the mouth of God, and in 
 which, in spite of the obstructions of theolo- 
 
6 REVIEW OP 
 
 gical theories, it finds its way to every be- 
 lieving heart. Now one thing is very plain, 
 Dr. Beman's theory of the atonement never 
 could be learnt from the devotional language 
 of the church, ours can. Every thing we 
 beheve on the subject is inwrought, not only 
 in the language of the Bible, but in the lan- 
 guage of God's people, whether they pray or 
 praise, whether they mourn or rejoice. We 
 have therefore the heart of the church on our 
 side at least. 
 
 It lies on the very surface of the Scriptures: 
 1. That all men are sinners. 2. That sin for its 
 own sake, and not merely to prevent others 
 from sinning, deserves punishment. 3. That 
 God is just, that is, disposed from the very 
 excellence of his nature, to treat his creatures 
 as they deserve, to manifest his favour to the 
 good, and his disapprobation towards the 
 wicked. 4. That to propitiate God, to satisfy 
 his righteous justice, the Son of God assumed 
 our nature, was made under the law, fulfilled 
 all righteousness, bore our sins, the chastise- 
 ment or punishment of which, was laid on 
 him. 5. That by his righteousness, those 
 that believe, are constituted righteous; that 
 his merit is so given, reckoned or imputed to 
 them, that they are regarded and treated as 
 righteous in the sight of God. These truths, 
 which lie on the surface of the Scripture, are 
 wrought into the very soul of the church, and 
 are in fact its life. Yet every one of them, 
 except the first. Dr. Beman either expressly 
 or virtually denies. 
 
BEMABf ON THE ATONEMENT. 7 
 
 He denies that sin for its own sake deserves 
 punishment. He every where represents the 
 prevention of crime as the great end to be 
 answered by punishment even in the govern- 
 ment of God. If that end can be otherwise 
 answered, then justice is satisfied; the neces- 
 sity and propriety of punishment ceases. This 
 is the fundamental principle of the whole sys- 
 tem, and is avowed or implied upon almost 
 every page. His argument in proof that re- 
 pentance is not a sufficient ground for pardon, 
 is that it has no tendency to prevent crime in 
 others. In human governments, he says, 
 punishment is designed to prevent a repetition 
 of crime by the criminal, and to prevent its 
 commission by others. The former of these 
 ends might be answered by repentance, but 
 not the latter. So in the case of the divine 
 government, repentance on the part of the 
 sinner, might, " so far as his moral feelings 
 are concerned," render it consistent in God 
 to forgive, but then, " Where is the honour of 
 the law ? Where is the good of the universe ?'^ 
 p. 57. The design of ^' penalty is to operate 
 as a powerful motive to obedience." p. 127. 
 There is, he says, the same necessity for 
 atonement, as for the penalty of the moral 
 law, and that necessity, he uniformly repre- 
 sents, as a necessity " to secure the order and 
 prosperity of the universe." p. 128. 
 
 It is of course admitted that the prevention 
 of crime is one of the effects, and conse- 
 quently one of the ends of punishment. But 
 
8 EEVIEW OP ^ 
 
 to say that it is the end, that it is so the 
 ground of its infliction, that all necessity for 
 punisliment ceases when that end is answer- 
 ed, is to deny the very nature of sin. The 
 ideas of right and wrong are simple ideas, 
 derived immediately from our moral nature. 
 And it is included in those ideas that what is 
 right deserves approbation, and what is wrong 
 deserves disapprobation, for their own sake, 
 and entirely irrespective of the consequences 
 which are to flow from the expression of this 
 moral judgment concerning them. When a 
 man sins, he feels that he deserves to suffer, or 
 as the apostle expresses it, that he is " worthy 
 of death. '^ But what is this feeling? Is it 
 that he ought to be punished to prevent others 
 from sinning? So far from this being the 
 whole of the feeling, it is no part of it. If 
 the sinner were alone in the universe, if 
 there was no possibility of others being aff"ect- 
 ed by his example, or by his impunity, the 
 sense of ill-desert would exist in all its force. 
 For sin is that which in itself, and for itself, 
 irrespective of all consequences, deserves ill. 
 This is the very nature of it, and to deny this 
 is to deny that there is really any such thing 
 as sin. There may be acts which tend to 
 promote happiness, and others which tend to 
 destroy it; but there is no morality in such 
 tendency merely, any more than there is 
 health and sickness. The nature of moral 
 acts may be evinced by their tendency, but 
 that tendency does not constitute their nature. 
 To love God, to reverence excellence, to for- 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 9 
 
 give injuries, all tend to promote happiness, 
 but no man, who has a moral sense in exer- 
 cise, can say that they are right only because 
 of such tendency. They are right, because 
 they are right, in virtue of their own inherent 
 nature. And the opposite dispositions*or acts 
 are in their nature evil, irrespective of their 
 tendency to produce misery. 
 
 The theory that the end of punishment, 
 even in the divine government, is to prevent 
 crime, is only one expression of the more 
 general theory, that happiness is the end of 
 creation, and that all holiness is resolvable 
 into benevolence. This theory is a product 
 of the mere understanding, and does violence 
 to the instinctive moral judgment of men. 
 We know that holiness is something more 
 than a means ; that to be happy is not the 
 end and reason for being holy ; that enjoy- 
 ment is not the highest end of being. Our 
 moral nature cannot be thus obliterated, and 
 right and wrong, made matters of profit and 
 loss. The command not to do evil that good 
 may come, would on this theory, be a con- 
 tradiction, since that ceases to be evil which 
 produces good. All virtue is thus resolved 
 into expediency, and the doctrine that the end 
 sanctifies the means, becomes the fundamen- 
 tal principle of virtue. It is strange that even 
 when the moral feelings are in abeyance, and 
 men are engaged in spinning from the intel- 
 lect, a theory that will reduce to unity, the 
 conflicting facts of the moral world, they 
 could adopt a view which reduces all intelli- 
 
10 REVIEW OP 
 
 gent beings to mere recipients of happiness, 
 and degrades the higher attributes of their 
 nature into mere instruments of enjoyment ; 
 a theory which meets its refutation in every 
 moral emotion, and which has proved itself 
 false by its practical effects. We may safely 
 appeal to the convictions of every man's 
 breast, against this whole theory, and against 
 the doctrine that sin is punished and deserves 
 punishment only as a warning to others. No 
 man when humbled under the sense of his 
 guilt in the sight of God, can resist the con- 
 viction of the inherent ill-desert of sin. He 
 feels that it would be right that he should be 
 made to suffer, nay, that rectitude, justice, or 
 moral excellence demands his suffering; and 
 the hardest thing for the sinner to believe, is, 
 often, that it can be consistent with the moral 
 excellence of God, to grant him forgiveness. 
 Into this feeling the idea of counteracting the 
 progress of sin, or promoting the good of the 
 universe, does not in any measure enter. 
 The feeling would be the same, though there 
 were no universe. It is ill-desert and not the 
 general good, which every man feels in his 
 own case, is the ground of his just Hability 
 to punishment. And without this feeling 
 there can be no conviction of sin. We may 
 also appeal against this metaphysical theory to 
 the universal consciousness of men. Though 
 it is admitted that governmental reasons pro- 
 perly enter into the considerations which de- 
 termine the nature and measure of punish- 
 ment, yet it is the universal and intuitive 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 11 
 
 judgment of men, that the criminal could not 
 be rightly punished merely for the public 
 good, if he did not deserve to be punished 
 irrespective of that good. His suffering bene- 
 fits the public because it is deserved ; it is not 
 deserved because it benefits the public. That 
 this is the universal judgment of men is proved 
 by every exhibition of their feelings on this 
 subject. When any atrocious crime is com- 
 mitted, the public indignation is aroused. 
 And when the nature of that indignation is 
 examined, it becomes manifest that it arises 
 from a sense of the inherent ill-desert of the 
 crime ; that it is a sense of justice, and not a 
 regard to the good of society which produces 
 the demand for punishment. To allow such 
 a criminal to escape Avith impunity, is felt to 
 be an outrage against justice, and not against 
 benevolence. If the public good was the 
 grand end of punishment, then if the punish- 
 ment of the innocent would promote that ob- 
 ject most effectually, the innocent should suf- 
 fer instead of the guilty; consequently if 
 murders would be most restrained by the ex- 
 ecution of the wives and children of the as- 
 sassins, it would be right and obligatory to 
 execute them, and not the perpetrators of the 
 crime. If this would shock every man, let 
 him ask himself, why? what is the reason 
 that the execution of an innocent woman for 
 the public good, would be an atrocity, when 
 the execution of the guilty husband is regard- 
 ed as a duty ? It is simply because the guilty 
 deserve punishment irrespective of the good 
 
12 EEVIEW OF 
 
 of society. And if so, then the pubHc good 
 is not the ground of punishment in the govern- 
 ment of God, but the inherent ill-desert of sin. 
 Men in all ages have evinced this deep seated 
 sense of justice. Every sacrifice ever offered 
 to God, to propitiate his favour, was an ex- 
 pression of the conviction that the sin for its 
 own sake deserved punishment. To tell a 
 man who brought his victim to the ahar, that 
 the real philosophy of his conduct, was to 
 express a desire for his own reformation, or 
 for the good of society, would be a mockery. 
 Such an idea never entered any human heart, 
 when in the presence of God and seeking his 
 forgiveness. 
 
 It is not pretended that this theory is 
 taught in the Bible. It purports to be a 
 philosophy. The Bible contradicts it on 
 every page, because every page contains 
 some expression of genuine human feeling, 
 of the conviction of the real difference be- 
 tween right and wrong, of a true sense of 
 sin, or of the great truth that our responsi- 
 bility is to God, and not to the universe. 
 The doctrine therefore that sin is punished 
 merely to preserve the order and prosperity 
 of the universe, is an utterly false and revolt- 
 ing theory, inconsistent with the intuitive 
 moral judgments of men, subversive of all 
 moral distinctions, irreconcilable with the 
 experience of every man when really con- 
 vinced of sin, and contradicted by every 
 thing the Bible teaches on the subject. 
 
 Dr. Beman again denies, and it is essential 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 13 
 
 to his system that he should deny, the justice 
 of God. He admits that God has a disposi- 
 tion to promote the welfare of his creatures, 
 and so to order his moral government as to 
 make it produce the greatest amount of hap- 
 piness. This, however, is benevolence, and 
 not justice. The two sentiments are per- 
 fectly distinct. This our own consciousness 
 teaches. We know that pity is not rever- 
 ence, that gratitude is not compassion, and 
 we know just as well that justice is not be- 
 nevolence. The two are perfectly harmoni- 
 ous, and are but different exhibitions of moral 
 excellence. The judge of all the earth must 
 do right. It is right to promote happiness, 
 and it is right to punish sin; but to refer the 
 punishment of sin to the desire to promote 
 happiness, is to attribute but one form of 
 moral excellence to God, and to make his 
 excellence less comprehensive than our own. 
 Dr. Beman speaks of commutative, distribu- 
 tive, and general justice. The former has 
 relation only to the regulation of property, 
 and has nothing to do with this subject. 
 Distributive justice consists in the distribu- 
 tion of rewards and punishments, according 
 to merit or demerit. General justice, he says, 
 embraces the general principles of virtue or 
 benevolence by which God governs the uni- 
 verse. The second kind, he correctly says, 
 is justice in the common and appropriate 
 sense of the word. p. 131. When we say 
 that he denies the justice of God, we mean 
 that he denies that justice in its common and 
 
14 REVIEW OF 
 
 £ippropriate sense, is an essential attribute of 
 the divine nature. Tliere is nothing in his 
 nature that leads to the punishment of sin, 
 but benevolence, or a regard to the happi- 
 ness of the universe. If that is secured, sin 
 and all sin may go unpunished for ever. This 
 we say is a denial of divine justice. 
 
 It is a principle of our nature, and a com- 
 mand of God, that we should regard him as 
 absolutely perfect; that every moral excel- 
 lence which we find in ourselves we should 
 refer to him in an infinite degree. Why do 
 we believe that God is merciful, but because 
 he has so made us that we approve of mer- 
 cy, and because he has in his word declared 
 himself to be full of compassion? Our moral 
 nature is as much a revelation of God's per- 
 fections, as the heavens are of his wisdom 
 and power. If, therefore, he has implanted 
 in us a sentiment of justice, distinct from that 
 of benevolence, we are constrained by the 
 very constitution of our nature to refer that 
 perfection to God. All men in fact do it. It 
 enters into the sense of responsibility, into the 
 nature of remorse, and into that fearful look- 
 ing for of judgment which manifest them- 
 selves in every human breast. Men know 
 that God is just, for they in their measure are 
 just; and they instinctively fear the punish- 
 ment of their sins. To be told that God is 
 only benevolent, and that he punishes only 
 when the happiness of his government re- 
 quires it, is to destroy our whole allegiance 
 to God, and to do violence to the constitution 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 15 
 
 of our nature. This is a doctrine that can 
 only be held as a theory. It is in conflict 
 with the most intimate moral convictions of 
 men. This, as already remarked, is evinced 
 by the sacrificial rites of all ages and nations, 
 which derive their whole character and im- 
 port from the assumption that God is just. 
 If justice is merged into benevolence, they 
 cease to have any significance as propitiatory 
 offerings. If then distributive justice, justice 
 " in its common and appropriate sense,^' is 
 by the common consciousness of men declared 
 to be a virtue, it is thereby revealed to belong 
 to God; and he can no more cease to be just, 
 than he can cease to be benevolent or holy. 
 This is only saying that if moral excellence 
 leads us to judge that sin in itself deserves 
 punishment, then the infinite moral excel- 
 lence of God cannot but lead him to treat it 
 as it deserves. 
 
 Again, it is included in our conception of 
 God as absolutely independent and self-suffi- 
 cient, that the reasons of his acts should be 
 in himself. He is absolutely perfect, he acts 
 with undeviating rectitude, and by so acting 
 he promotes the highest good of his creatures. 
 But the good of his creatures is not the end 
 of his actions, for " of him and through him 
 and to him are all things.'^ It is to subordi- 
 nate God to the creature, to make the crea- 
 ture the end of his actions. He rewards one 
 man and punishes another, not because he 
 will thus make others happy, but because it is 
 
16 REVIEW OP 
 
 right, and by doing right the greatest good to 
 others is the result. This is the view which 
 both reason and Scripture presents of God as 
 infinite and self-sufficient, who is the begin- 
 ning and the end of all things. It is hence 
 plain how the justice of God necessarily 
 flows from his holiness. He is so holy that 
 he delights in all that is good, and hates all 
 that is evil; and if he acts agreeable to his 
 nature, he constantly manifests this love of 
 excellence and hatred of sin. But what is 
 reward and punishment but the manifesta- 
 tion of the approbation or disapprobation of 
 God? If holiness is communion with him, 
 sin is alienation from him ; if his favour goes 
 out towards the one, his displeasure goes out 
 towards the other; if the one is attracted, the 
 other is repelled. The attributes of God are 
 not so many distinct qualities, but one perfec* 
 tion of excellence, diversified in our concep- 
 tions, by the diversity of the objects towards 
 which it is manifested. The justice of God 
 is therefore nothing but the holiness of God 
 in relation to sin. So long as he is holy, he 
 must be just; he must repel sin, which is the 
 highest idea we can form of punishment. 
 To say then that God punishes only for gov- 
 ernmental reasons, is to destroy our very 
 conception of his nature. 
 
 That distributive justice is an essential at- 
 tribute of God, is therefore revealed to us in 
 the very constitution of our nature, in which 
 we find a sense of justice, which is no more 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 17 
 
 a form of benevolence than it is of reverence. 
 It is revealed in all the operations of con- 
 science ; in the common consciousness of 
 men, as expressed in all their prayers, con- 
 fessions and sacrificial rites. It is revealed 
 in the Scriptures in every possible way; in 
 all they teach of the nature of God, of his 
 holiness, of his hatred of sin, of his determina- 
 tion to punish it; in the institution of sacri- 
 fices, and in the law. If the precepts of the 
 law are an expression of the divine perfec- 
 tion, so is the penalty. If the one declare 
 what it is right for God to require, the other 
 declares what it is right for him to inflict. If 
 God does not command us to love him, 
 merely to make his dominions happy, neither 
 does he punish merely for the public good. 
 The law is a revelation of what is right, and 
 God will require and do right for its own 
 sake, and not for another and a lower end. 
 God then is just, and Dr. Beman and his 
 theory, by denying that there is any such 
 attribute in God as justice distinct from be- 
 nevolence, do equal violence to conscience, 
 reason and the Bible. 
 
 Dr. Beman, again, denies that Christ made 
 a true and proper satisfaction to divine jus- 
 tice, and thus departs from the common faith 
 of Christendom, and seriously vitiates the 
 whole doctrine of redemption. It is well 
 known that at the time of the Reformation, 
 there was no controversy between Protest- 
 ants and Romanists either as to the necessity 
 or nature of the atonement. All classes of 
 
18 REVIEW OF 
 
 Protestants and the Church of Rome itself, 
 united in teaching, 1. That the Son of God 
 having assumed our nature obeyed and suf- 
 fered in our stead, thereby making a true, 
 proper and complete satisfaction for our sins. 
 And 2. That his righteousness was so given 
 or imputed unto us as to constitute us right- 
 eous in the sight of God. The Romanists 
 even reproached Protestants for not coming 
 up to their doctrine on this subject, insisting 
 that the satisfaction of Christ was not only full 
 and equivalent, but superabundant. "Pre- 
 tium, says the Cat. Rom. i. 5, 15, quod 
 Christus pro nobis persolvit, debitis nostris 
 non par solum et aequale fuit, verum ea 
 longe superavit." It is one of the standing 
 heads of theology in the Romish systems, 
 Satisfactio Christi fuit de rigore justitias, 
 which they prove ; and answer the common 
 Socinian objections, viz. that such a satisfac- 
 tion destroys the grace of salvation, that it is 
 impossible that the temporal sufferings of 
 Christ should have such efficacy, &c. As to 
 their views of the second point above men- 
 tioned it is enough to quote the following 
 passage from Turrettin, vol. 2, p. 709. " It 
 is not questioned," he says, " whether the 
 righteousness and merit of Christ are im- 
 puted to us ; for this the Papists dare not 
 deny. The Council of Trent, Sess. vi. c. 8, 
 says, ' Christ by his most holy passion on the 
 cross merited justification for us, and satis- 
 fied God the Father in our behalf, and no one 
 can be righteous to whom the merits of the 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 19 
 
 passion of onr Lord Jesus Christ are not com- 
 municated/ Hence Vasques in 1. 2. q. 114. 
 disp. 222. chap. 1. says, ^We concede that 
 not only what is within us, as sin, faith, right- 
 eousness, may be imputed to us, but also 
 what is without us, as the merits and obedi- 
 ence of Christ; because not only what is with- 
 in, but, also what is without, on account of 
 which something is given to us, is said to be- 
 long to us, (ad aliquem effectum,) as though 
 they were really our own.' Bellarmin Lib. 
 2. de Justif. cap. 7, acknowledges the same 
 thing, when he says, ^ If Protestants meant 
 only that the merits of Christ are imputed to 
 us, because God gives them to us, so that we 
 can present them to God for our sins, he 
 having assumed the burden of making satis- 
 faction for us, and of reconciling us to the 
 Father, the doctrine would be true.' This is 
 in fact precisely what we do mean. For 
 when he adds, « we hold that the righteous- 
 ness of Christ is so imputed to us, as by it 
 we become formally or inherently just,' he 
 asserts what is gratuitous and false, on ac- 
 count of his own perverse and preposterous 
 theory of moral justification."* 
 
 * It is characteristic of the Church of Rome that while 
 she holds the truth, she contrives to make it of no effect 
 by her traditions. Thus while she teaches that the merit 
 of Christ is the ground of our justification, she makes 
 those merits accessible only through her ministrations, 
 and confounds justification and sanctification. And while 
 she holds the truth as to the nature of Christ's satisfaction, 
 she chooses to confine it to original and mortal sins, that 
 she may make room for her own doctrine of satisfaction 
 
20 REVIEW OP 
 
 The Lutheran church held the strictest 
 form of doctrine as to the nature of Christ's 
 satisfaction, and as to justification. That 
 church teaches that the sufferings of Christ 
 were strictly penal, that his obedience and 
 death made a full and proper satisfaction to 
 the law and justice of God, and are imputed 
 to the believers as the sole ground of their 
 justification. We cannot swell our article 
 with numerous citations in proof of a well 
 known fact. In the Apology for the Augs- 
 burg Confession, p. 93, it is said, " Christus, 
 quia sine peccato subiit pcenam peccati, et 
 victima pro nobis factus est, sustulit illud jus 
 legis, ne accuset, ne damnet hos qui credunt 
 in ipsum, quia ipse est propitiatio pro eis, 
 propter quam justi reputantnr." In the Form 
 of Concord, it is said, " Justitia ilia, quae co- 
 ram Deo fidei aut credentibus ex mera gratia 
 imputatur, est obedientia, passio, et resurrec- 
 tio Christi, quibus ille legi nostra causa satis- 
 fecit et peccata nostra expiavit." p. 684. 
 Again, p. 696. "Humana natura sola, sine 
 divinitate, aeterno omnipotenti Deo neque 
 obedientia, neque passione pro totius mundi 
 peccatis satisfacere valuisset. Divinitas vero 
 sola sine humanitate inter Deum et nos me- 
 diatoris partes implere non potuisset. Cum 
 autem . . . obedientia ilia Christi non sit 
 unius duntaxat naturae, sed totius personae; 
 ideo ea est perfectissima pro humano genere 
 
 by g'ood works and penances. The infinite value of the 
 Saviour's merit, she perverts as a source, whence to derive 
 the power to grant indulgences, &c. 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 21 
 
 satisfactio et expiatio; qua aeternae et immii- 
 tabili justitiae divinae .... satis est fac- 
 tum.'' 
 
 It will not be necessary to prove that the 
 Reformed churches held precisely the same 
 doctrine. There was no controversy between 
 them and the Lutherans either as to the 
 nature of the satisfaction of Christ, or as to 
 justification. They differed only as to the de- 
 sign of Christ's death, whether it had respect 
 equally to all men, or had a special reference 
 to his own people, a point which we hope to 
 have room to discuss in the sequel of this 
 article. We are now concerned only about 
 the nature of the atonement. Bretschneider 
 states, in a few words, the common doctrine 
 on this subject of the two great divisions of 
 the Protestant world. After saying that God, 
 according to that doctrine is immutably just, 
 and therefore must punish sin, and yet being 
 immutably benevolent, he determined to pro- 
 vide redemption, he proceeds, " For this it 
 was necessary, l.that some one in the place of 
 men, should fulfil the law which they ought 
 to have kept, and 2. that some one should 
 endure the punishment (Strafen) which they 
 had incurred. This no mere man could do, 
 for no man, (since all are subject to original 
 sin,) could perfectly keep the law, and every 
 man must suffer for his own sin. Neither 
 could any divine person accomplish the task, 
 since he could not sustain suffering and 
 punishment. He alone who is at once God 
 and man, with a human nature free from sin, 
 
22 REVIEW OF 
 
 conld accomplish the work."* This right- 
 eousness, he adds, "God imputes to men as 
 though they had wrought it out themselves.'' 
 Against this doctrine of satisfaction to the 
 divine justice, the Socinians were the first to 
 object.t Under the pressure of their objec- 
 tions the Remonstrants in Holland gave way, 
 and Grotius in his work, De Satisfactione 
 Christi, though defending in the main the 
 Catholic or common doctrine, introduced the 
 principle, that the satisfaction of Christ was 
 rendered to the governmental justice of God. 
 Very far below the doctrine of Grotius, in 
 many important respects, is the theory of Dr. 
 Beman. In some cases he falls even below 
 Socinus. " God as the supreme governor," 
 he says, "must so conduct all his movements, 
 whether of justice or mercy, as to leave on 
 the minds of dependent creatures, a deep and 
 just impression, that the penalty of the law 
 will be executed, and that the sinner must 
 perish. To fix this impression indelibly in 
 the breast of the sinner, is the object of the 
 atonement,''^ P- 41.± This however is prob- 
 
 * Bretschneider's Handbuch der Dogmatik. vol. 2, 
 p. 266. 
 
 t In the Racovian Catechism, it is asked, " Did Christ 
 die, that he might, properly speaking, merit our salvation, 
 or, in like manner properly speaking, discharge the debt 
 due for our sins ? Ans. Although Christians generally 
 now hold that opinion, yet the sentiment is false, erro- 
 neous, and exceedingly pernicious." 
 
 \ Socinus taught that the atonement was designed 
 
 1. To confirm the new covenant and all its promises, es- 
 pecially those of the pardon of sin, and of eternal life. 
 
 2. To assure us of the love of God. 3. To induce us to 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 23 
 
 ably a lapsus, such an one however, as few 
 men could make. He generally includes 
 other intelligent creatures. Still, with him, 
 the atonement is a mere method of instruc- 
 tion; a means to exhibit a certain truth for 
 the moral restraint or improvement of those 
 to whom it is made known. The gratuitous 
 forgiveness of sin, it is said, would tend to 
 produce the impression that God was indif- 
 ferent to his law, and that sin might be com- 
 mitted with impunity. To counteract that 
 impression, to teach, or declare that sin was, 
 in the sight of God, an evil, and would be 
 punished, and thus to open a way to exercise 
 mercy, without weakening the motive to 
 obedience, is the design of the death of Christ 
 Justice in its "common appropriate sense 
 he says, "was not satisfied by the atonement 
 of Jesus Christ." p. 131. "The law, or jus- 
 tice, that is, distributive justice, as expressed 
 in the law, has received no satisfaction at all." 
 p. 133. So far as the atonement secured the 
 government of God from the evils of gratui- 
 tous forgiveness, it was a satisfaction to his 
 benevolence, but not to justice in any other 
 sense, p. 182. It was designed to teach a 
 certain truth; it is "a symbolical and sub- 
 stantive expression of God's regard to the 
 moral law." p. 35. " It furnishes an expres- 
 sion of his regard for the moral law," and 
 "evinces his determination to punish sin," 
 
 embrace the gospel. 4. To encourage us by his ex- 
 ample to trust in God. 5. To abrogate the old dispen- 
 sation, &/C. 
 
 J? 
 
24 REVIEW OF 
 
 p. 91. "To fix indelibly this impression on 
 the heart of the sinner is the object of the 
 atonement." p. 42. 
 
 Our first remark on this subject, after 
 showing, as we think we have done, that the 
 whole basis of this theory is false, is that it 
 is destitute of any semblance of support from 
 Scripture. It hardly purports to be any thing 
 more than a hypothesis on Avhich to reconcile 
 what the Bible teaches with our views of 
 moral government. It is a device to make 
 the atonement rational, to explain away the 
 mystery which hangs over it, and makes the 
 whole august transaction perfectly intelligi- 
 ble. Dr. Beman says that the doctrine of 
 the atonement enters " into the very texture 
 of revelation, warp and woof.'^ It is, he says, 
 " the vital principle, in the very heart of the 
 gospel." p. 62. Surely then we have a right 
 to have it treated as "a purely biblical ques- 
 tion," as he affirms it to be. Yet in his chap- 
 ter on the nature of the atonement, as far as 
 we can find, he refers but to one solitary text 
 in the whole Bible ! It is a theory woven 
 warp and woof out of the understanding, not 
 even out of the conscience. The solitary 
 passage which Dr. Beman cites as teaching 
 his doctrine is Rom. iii. 25, where it is said 
 that God set forth Christ as a propitiation for 
 our sins, to declare his righteousness. " The 
 object of the atonement," he says, " is here 
 stated in explicit terms. It was required and 
 made in order to open a consistent way for 
 the publication of pardon, or for the exercise 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 25 
 
 of grace to sinners. Its purpose was to de- 
 clare the righteousness or moral rectitude 
 and perfection of God in dispensing, in this 
 instance, with the Hteral execution of the 
 penalty of the law, and in bestowing eternal 
 life upon those who deserved to die.'^ p. 124. 
 He afterwards, p. 132, says, the words ^t^^^ 
 and righteousness as here used have "no 
 direct reference to law," but express " those 
 principles of virtue or benevolence by which 
 we are bound to regulate our conduct, and 
 by which God governs the universe." Then 
 of course the passage might be rendered, 
 " Christ was set forth as a propitiation to de- 
 clare the benevolence of God, that he might 
 be benevolent even in remitting the sins of 
 those that believe;" an interpretation which 
 needs no refutation. The first remark then 
 to be made on this passage is, that it teaches 
 the very reverse of what it is cited to prove. 
 Dr. Beman himself says that in their "com- 
 mon and appropriate sense," the woxdiS just 
 and justice have reference to law, and express 
 what he calls distributive justice. Then if 
 the language of the apostle is to be taken in 
 " common and appropriate sense," it teaches 
 that the propitiation of Christ was designed 
 as an exhibition of justice in its proper sense; 
 in order to make it apparent that God was 
 just even in remitting sin; that the demands 
 of justice had not been sacrificed, but on the 
 contrary fully satisfied. It is only by taking 
 the words in a sense that is inappropriate 
 and unusual; that any other doctrine can be 
 c 
 
26 REVIEW OF 
 
 got out of the passage. Besides, Dr. Bcman's 
 interpretation is not only in direct opposition 
 to the common meaning of the words, but to 
 the necessary sense of the context. Satisfac- 
 tion to justice is the formal idea of a propi- 
 tiation, and saying that Christ was a propi- 
 tiation, is only saying in other words, that 
 our sins were laid on him, that he bore the 
 chastisement or punishment of our sins, in 
 order that God might be just, in justifying 
 those that believe. Again, this interpretation 
 is agreeable to the sense in which the words 
 just, righteous, righteousness, &c. are fami- 
 liarly used by the apostle. Is God unright- 
 eous, he asks, who taketh vengeance ? Rom. 
 iii. 5. He denounces the divine judgment, 
 by saying, God will cut short the work in 
 righteousness. Rom. ix. 28. See also 2 Thess. 
 i. 5, 6. The obvious sense then of the pas- 
 sage in Romans iii. 25, is the opposite to that 
 which Dr. Beman gives it.* 
 
 * " We see ourselves obliged," says Tholuck, " to ad- 
 mit, in this place, the idea of distributive justice (vergel- 
 tende Gerechtigkeit)." He afterwards says that the loss 
 of that idea in theology has occasioned "unspeakable 
 evil," and that the doctrine of atonement " must remain 
 sealed up until it is acknowledged." See his ROmerbrief 
 ed. 1842, He refers with approbation to Usteri's exposi- 
 tion of this passage in his Paulinischer LehrbegrifF. On 
 turning to that author we find he says, his object is to 
 prove " that the representation contained in Rom. iii. 24, 
 25, viz. that God, to declare his righteousness, laid on 
 Christ the punishment of the sins of men, is the doctrine 
 of Paul." And he accordingly goes on to prove it, par- 
 ticularly from Rom. viii. 3. Usteri is one of those writers, 
 who do not feel called upon to believe what the Scriptures 
 teach, though they make it a point of honour to state its 
 meaning fairly. 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 27 
 
 But if we admit that the passage in ques- 
 tion does teach that the atonement was de- 
 signed to set forth God's regard for the good 
 of the universe, what then ? would it estab- 
 hsh Dr. Beman's theory? Far from it. It is 
 one of the most common fallacies of theologi- 
 cal writers, to seize upon some one passage, 
 and shutting their eyes on all others, assume 
 that it teaches the whole truth on a given 
 subject. The death of Christ was designed 
 to answer manifold ends, more perhaps than 
 it has yet entered into the heart of man to 
 imagine. It would be the extreme of folly 
 to take one of those ends, and infer that its 
 attainment was its whole design, or let us into 
 the full knowledge of its nature. Is it not 
 said a hundred times that the death of Christ 
 was designed to exhibit the love of God? 
 Does this prove that it does not display his 
 righteousness ? It is said to declare his wis- 
 dom; does that prove it does not display his 
 love ? It was designed to bring us unto God, 
 but does that prove it was not also an atone- 
 ment ? It is not by taking any one view, or 
 any one text, that we can arrive at the truth. 
 We must have a theory which will embrace 
 all the facts; a doctrine which includes all 
 the revelations God has made on this subject. 
 The objection to Dr. Beman's view of the 
 design of Christ's death, is not that it is false, 
 but that it is defective. It states only a part, 
 and a subordinate part of the truth. The 
 atonement is an exhibition of God's purpose 
 to maintain his law and to inflict its penalty, 
 
28 REVIEW OF 
 
 and thus to operate as a restraint and a mo- 
 tive on all intelligent beings, because it in- 
 volves the execution of that penalty. It is 
 this that gives it all its power. It would be 
 no exhibition of justice, if it were not an ex- 
 ercise of justice ; it would not teach that the 
 penalty of law must be inflicted, unless it 
 was inflicted. We hold all the little truth 
 there is in Dr. Beman's doctrine, but we hold 
 unspeakably more. 
 
 Our immediate object, however, is to call 
 attention to the entire absence of all scriptural 
 support for this theory. We have already 
 shown that the only passage directly referred 
 to does not teach what it is cited to prove, and 
 that if it did, it would give no support to the 
 theory built upon it. The surprising fact, 
 however, should be more distinctly noticed, 
 that while the Bible is said to be full of the 
 doctrine of atonement, scarcely an attempt is 
 made to prove its nature from the Bible. 
 Christ is said to be a sacrifice, to bear our 
 sins, to be a propitiation, a ransom, &c. &c., 
 but no attempt is made to tell us what all this 
 means. There is no examination of the 
 terms, no elucidation of the meaning they 
 bore in the age of the apostles. The writer 
 does not even pretend to found his theory 
 upon them. In the chapter in which he gives 
 his own view of the nature of the atone- 
 ment, they are scarcely even mentioned. The 
 whole aftair is a piece of pure rationalistic 
 speculation, formed on certain principles of 
 moral philosophy which have nothing to do 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 29 
 
 with the Bible. It is assumed that happiness 
 is the end of all things; that to promote hap- 
 piness is the essence of virtue ; that the pre- 
 vention of crime, which causes misery, is the 
 end of punishment; that the death of Christ, 
 as it tends to prevent crime, supersedes the 
 necessity of punishment. There is the the- 
 ory. And we can hardly avoid saying that 
 it has more affinity with Jeremy Bentham, 
 and " the greatest happiness" system, than it 
 has with the Bible, or with the sympathies 
 of Christians. 
 
 Our next remark on this theory is that it 
 is perfectly arbitrary. The Bible teaches that 
 Christ was a sacrifice, that he bore our sins, 
 that the chastisement of our peace was laid 
 upon him; that he propitiated God; was a 
 ransom ; was made sin, that he might be 
 made righteous. These and similar state- 
 ments set forth the nature of the atonement. 
 There are many others describing some of its 
 manifold effects. It declared the justice of 
 God, exhibited his wisdom, set us an exam- 
 ple, purifies his people, and in short, glorifies 
 God and promotes the best interest of his 
 kingdom. If you take in the former state- 
 ments, there is perfect unity in all these re- 
 presentations. The work of Christ is a dis- 
 play of the justice and love of God, it leads 
 men to repentance, and exerts this moral 
 influence on the universe, because it is a 
 satisfaction to divine justice, and answers the 
 demands of his law. But if the scriptural 
 account of its nature be rejected, then it is a 
 
30 REVIEW OF 
 
 matter to be arbitrarily decided, which of its 
 effects shall be selected as determining its 
 character. If Dr. Beman says it is an atone- 
 ment because it expresses God's regard to 
 the order and welfare of his government; 
 Socinus may say, it is an atonement because 
 it assures us of the love of God. The one is 
 just as much right as the other; for both are 
 right as far as they go ; but both are arbi- 
 trary in selecting what suits their taste, or 
 their philosophy, and rejecting all the rest. 
 Dr. Beman does not pretend that his doctrine 
 is taught in those passages of Scripture which 
 really describe the nature of the atonement, 
 neither does Socinus. Both say that all is 
 figurative. The one says its nature is to be 
 inferred from one of its effects, the other from 
 another; the one considers it as designed 
 mainly to teach God's rectoral justice, the 
 other his love. It is perfectly plain that on 
 this plan the citadel is surrendered. Dr. Be- 
 man can have nothing to say to the Socinian, 
 which the Socinian cannot retort on Dr. Be- 
 man. Both admit that we are saved by the 
 death of Christ; the one affirming that it is 
 because it brings us to repentance and thus 
 makes our forgiveness consistent with the 
 character of God and the interests of his 
 kingdom ; the other, that it is because it re- 
 conciles forgiveness with the good of the uni- 
 verse, in a different way. 
 
 It may also on this ground be made a fair 
 subject of debate, which view really assigns 
 most importance to the death of Christ. Is 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 31 
 
 it clear that fear is more conservative than, 
 love ? that the exhibition of God's regard to 
 law, would have a greater effect in promot- 
 ing holiness than the exhibition of his mercy? 
 We very much doubt it. And we confess 
 ourselves very much at a loss to see why the 
 Socinian view of the design of the Redeem- 
 er's death, should be regarded as a rejection 
 of the doctrine of atonement, if his death was 
 merely designed to exert a conservative in- 
 fluence on the moral government of God. 
 Certain it is that this is not the doctrine 
 against which the early Socinians contended. 
 
 It is further plain that the principles of 
 interpretation which Dr. Beman is obliged to 
 adopt to reconcile his theory with the Bible, 
 are all that is wanted to serve the purpose of 
 Socinians. They both deny that we are to 
 take the language of Scripture according to 
 its "common and appropriate sense," and 
 agreeable to the mode of thinking prevalent 
 in the age in which it was uttered. The 
 vastly different views entertained by Dr. Be- 
 man and Socinus as to the person of Christ, 
 make of course a corresponding difference in 
 their whole rehgious s^^stem. But as to the 
 nature of the atonement, we have always 
 considered the ground advocated by Dr. Be- 
 man, as utterly untenable against the argu- 
 ments of Socinians. It is a rejection of the 
 scriptural account, and after that is done, one 
 theory has as much authority as another. 
 
 Our third remark is, that this theory be- 
 sides being independent of Scripture, and 
 
32 REVIEW OP 
 
 perfectly arbitrary, is directly opposed to the 
 explicit teaching of the word of God. Be it 
 remembered that the Bible is admitted to be 
 full of the doctrine of the atonement ; that it 
 is the great central point in the religion of 
 redeemed man. It is also admitted that God 
 has revealed not only the fact that we are 
 saved by the obedience and death of Christ, 
 but also the way in which his work is effica- 
 cious to that end. The Socinian says, it is 
 by its moral effect upon men; Dr. Beman 
 says, it is from its tendency to prevent crime 
 and preserve the order of the universe; the 
 common faith of Christendom is, that Christ 
 saves us by satisfying the demands of law and 
 justice in our stead. As the Bible is full of 
 this doctrine it must enable us to decide 
 which of these views is right, for the Bible 
 was intended to teach us the way of salva- 
 tion. We are taught then first, that Christ 
 bore our sins. Heb. ix. 28, 1 Pet. ii. 24, Is. 
 liii. 12, &c. It cannot be disputed that the 
 usual scriptural meaning of the expression, 
 to bear sin, is to bear the punishment due to 
 sin. Lev. xxii. 9. If they keep not my ordi- 
 nance " they shall bear sin for it." Num. 
 xviii. 22, xiv. 33. Lev. v. 1, 17. "He is 
 guilty, and shall bear his iniquity." Ez. 
 xviii. 20. " The soul that sinneth it shall die. 
 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the 
 father, neither shall the father bear the iniqui- 
 ty of the son." No one doubts that this 
 means, the son shall not be punished for the 
 sins of the father, nor the father for the sins 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 33 
 
 of the son. When therefore the Scriptures 
 say that Christ bore onr sins, they say in ex- 
 press terms, that he bore the punishment of 
 our sins. This is rendered the more certain, 
 because he bore them by suffering, or by 
 dying; and because the Scriptures express 
 tliis same idea in so many other ways. This 
 account of the nature of the atonement is 
 found not only in poetical descriptions of 
 Christ's sufferings, but in the most didactic 
 portions of the Bible. The language used 
 had an established sense in the minds of those 
 to whom it was addressed, who could not 
 fail to understand it according to its obvious 
 meaning. That meaning, therefore, we are 
 bound, by all sound rules of interpretation, 
 to believe the sacred writers intended to con- 
 vey. How does Dr. Beman answer this? 
 Does he attempt to show that the phrase " to 
 bear sin" does not commonly mean to bear the 
 punishment of sin ? or that it has not that 
 meaning when used in reference to Christ ? 
 As far as we have been able to find, he con- 
 tents himself with some general remarks 
 against taking figurative language in its lite- 
 ral sense. He subjects the passages, in which 
 the phrase in question occurs, to no critical 
 examination. He makes no attempt to show 
 that figurative language may not convey a 
 definite meaning, or that that meaning is not 
 to be learnt from usage, and the known opin- 
 ions of those to whom it is addressed. It is 
 enough for him that he does not like the truth, 
 which the passages in question would then 
 
34 REVIEW OF 
 
 teach ; that he cannot see how the innocent 
 could so take the place of the guilty as to bear 
 their punishment; that he cannot reconcile this 
 doctrine with the justice of God, nor with his 
 views of other portions of Scripture. In the 
 mean time the plain meaning of the Scrip- 
 tures stands, and those who find all other 
 scriptural representations consistent with that 
 meaning, and to whom it is in fact the very 
 ground of their hope towards God, will re- 
 ceive it gladly, and in all its simplicity. The 
 theory of Dr. Beman, then, which denies 
 that Christ suffered the penalty due to our 
 sins, must be admitted to be in direct conflict 
 with these express declarations of the word 
 of God.* 
 
 Secondly, the Scriptures in order to teach 
 us the nature of atonement, say that Christ 
 ofl"ered himself as a sacrifice unto G od. What 
 then is, according to the Scriptures, a sacri- 
 fice for sins ? " The essence of a propitiatory 
 
 * Professor Stuart, in his commentary and Excursus 
 on Heb. ix. 28, says, " To hear the sins of others, is to 
 bear or endure the penalty due to them." Having proved 
 this, he adds, " The sentiment of the clause then clearly 
 is, that Jesus by his death, (which could take place but 
 once,) endured the penalty that our sins deserved or bore 
 the sorrows due to us." What he further says, that 
 the sufferings of Christ were not in all respects and con- 
 sidered in every point of view, an exact and specific quid 
 pro quo, as it regards the penalty threatened against sin, 
 that the Saviour did not suffer a guilty conscience, or des- 
 pair, would be pertinent, had he first proved that any 
 respectable body of Christians held any such doctrine, or 
 that a guilty conscience, or despair is an essential part of 
 the penalty of the law. 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 35 
 
 sacrifice," says Storr, " is the forgiveness of 
 sin, through the transfer of punishment from 
 the actual offender to another."* The mode- 
 rate Bishop Burnet says, " The notion of an 
 expiatory sacrifice which was then, when 
 the New Testament was writ, well under- 
 stood ail the world over, both by Jews and 
 Gentiles, was this, that the sin of one person 
 was transferred on a man or beast, who upon 
 that was devoted or oflTered to God, and 
 suffered in the room of the offending person; 
 and by this oblation, the punishment of the 
 sin being laid on the sacrifice, an expiation 
 was made for sin, and the sinner was believ- 
 ed to be reconciled to God."t That this is 
 the correct view of the scriptural doctrine con- 
 cerning sacrifices, may be inferred, 1. From 
 its being confessedly the light in which they 
 were generally regarded by the Jews and by 
 the whole ancient world, and from its being a 
 simple and natural explanation of the service. 
 On this hypothesis, every thing is signifi- 
 cant and intelligible. 2. From the express 
 didactic statements of the Bible. The life is 
 said to be in the blood, and " I have given 
 it to you as an atonement for your souls; 
 for it is the blood that maketh atonement 
 for the soul (life). Lev. xvii. 11. The very 
 nature of the service then was the substitu- 
 tion of life for life. The life forfeited was 
 redeemed by the life paid. 3. From all the 
 rites connected with the service and all the 
 
 * Zweck des Todes Jesu. § 8. 
 
 t Burnet on the Thirty -nine Articles. Article 2. 
 
36 REVIEW OF 
 
 expressions employed concerning it. There 
 was to be confession of sin, imposition of 
 hands (as expressing the idea of transfer and 
 substitution,) the sins were said to be laid 
 on the head of the victim, which was then 
 put to death, or, as in the case of the scape- 
 goat, dismissed into the wilderness and an- 
 other goat sacrificed in its place. All these 
 directions plainly teach that the nature of 
 expiatory offerings consisted in the substitu- 
 tion of the victim for the offender, and in the 
 infliction of the penalty of death incurred by 
 the one, upon the other. 4. That this is the 
 scriptural doctrine on this subject, is made 
 still plainer by the fact, that all that is taught 
 by saying, that the Messiah bore our sins, 
 that our iniquities were laid upon him, that 
 he bore our sorrows, that the chastisement of 
 our peace was laid on him, is expressed by 
 the prophet by saying, he made "his soul 
 an offering for sin." Then an offering for 
 sin, is one on whom sin is laid, who bears 
 sins, i. e., as has been shown, the penalty due 
 to sin. 5. This view of the subject is further 
 confirmed by a consideration of the effects 
 ascribed to these sacrifices. They made 
 atonement; they propitiated God; they secur- 
 ed the remission of the penalty incurred. 
 When an Israelite had committed any of- 
 fence by which he forfeited his standing in 
 the theocracy, (that is, the favour of God as 
 his theocratical ruler,) he brought to the 
 priest the appointed sacrifice, made confes- 
 sion of his sin, the victim was slain in his 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 37 
 
 place, and he was restored to his standing, 
 and saved from being cut oif from his peo- 
 ple. These sacrifices always produced these 
 effects; they always secured the remission of 
 the theocratical penalty for which they were 
 offered and accepted. Whether they secured 
 the forgiveness of the soul before God, de- 
 pended on the state of mind of the offerer. 
 Of themselves they had no such efficacy, 
 since it was impossible that the blood of bulls 
 and goats could take away sin. But nothing 
 is plainer from Scripture, than that the way 
 in which the Israehtes obtained the remission 
 of the civil or theocratical penalties which 
 they had incurred, was intended to teach us 
 how sin is pardoned in the sight of God 
 through Jesus Christ. 
 
 If then the Scriptures, according to the al- 
 most unanimous judgment of Christians, teach 
 that the idea of an expiatory sacrifice, is, that 
 by vicarious punishment justice is satisfied 
 and sin forgiven ; if this was the view taken 
 of them by Jews and Gentiles, then does the 
 Bible, in so constantly representing Christ as 
 a propitiation, as a lamb, as a sacrifice for 
 sin, expressly teach that he bore the penalty 
 due to our sins, that he satisfied divine jus- 
 tice, and secured for all in whose behalf that 
 sacrifice is accepted, the pardon of sin and 
 restoration to the divine favour. To talk of 
 figure here is out of the question. Admit 
 that the language is figurative, the question 
 is, what idea was it intended to convey ? be- 
 yond doubt that which the sacred writers 
 
38 REVIEW OP 
 
 knew with certainty would be attached to it, 
 by their immediate readers, and which in fact 
 has been attached to it in all ages of the 
 Church.* To tell a conscience-stricken Is- 
 raelite that a sacrifice was designed either to 
 impress his own mind, or the minds of others 
 with the truth that God is just or benevolent, 
 would have been a mockery. It was to him 
 an atonement, a propitiation, a vicarious 
 punishment, or it was nothing. And it is no 
 less a mockery to tell a convinced sinner, 
 that the death of Christ was designed to lead 
 him to repentance, or to preserve the good 
 order of the universe. Unless the Redeemer 
 was a sacrifice, on whom our sins were laid, 
 who bore the penalty we had incurred, it is, 
 to such a sinner, no atonement, and no ade- 
 quate ground of confidence toward God.t 
 
 * " It is not possible for us to preserve" says Bishop 
 Burnet, " any reverence for the New Testament, or the 
 writers of it, so far as to think them even honest men, not 
 to say inspired men, if we can imagine, that in so sacred 
 and important a matter they could exceed so much as to 
 represent that a sacrifice which is not truly so. This is a 
 subject which will not bear figures and amplifications; 
 it must be treated strictly, and with a just exactness of 
 expression." — Burnet on the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 
 same page quoted above. 
 
 t " The innate sense of divine justice, which all men 
 possess, demands that the sinner should receive his due, 
 that the stroke he has given to the law, should recoil upon 
 himself. The deeper his sense of guilt, the less can he be 
 satisfied with mere pardon, and the more does he demand 
 punishment, for by punishment he is justified. Whence 
 do we derive his intimate persuasion of God's justice? Not 
 from without; because men, as empirically guided, re- 
 gard freedom from suffering as the highest good; it must 
 therefore be implanted in our nature by God himself. The 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 39 
 
 Again, it is a part of the common faith 
 of the Church, that Jesus Christ, is a true 
 and proper priest; that what was symboUcal 
 and figurative, with regard to other priests, 
 is real as it regards him. He is called a 
 priest ; it is proved that he has all the quali- 
 fications for the office, that he was divinely 
 appointed, that he performed all its duties, 
 secures all its benefits, and that his priest- 
 hood supersedes all others. We are accord- 
 ingly commanded to come to him in the cha- 
 racter of a priest, to commit our souls into 
 his hands, that he may reconcile us to God, 
 and make intercession for us. This is the 
 scriptural method of representing the manner 
 in which Christ saves us, and the nature of 
 his work. Dr. Beman in his chapter on the 
 *^ Fact of the Atonement," which is directed 
 
 holiness of God, which reveals itself to the sinner by the 
 connexion between suffering and transgression, has there- 
 fore, a witness for itself in every human breast. Hence, 
 on the one hand, the proclamation of pardon and reconcilia- 
 tion, could not satisfy the conscience of the sinner, unless 
 his guilt had been atoned for by punishment ; and on the 
 other hand, divine love could not offer its blessings to the 
 sinner, unless holiness was revealed together with love. 
 It was therefore necessary that suffering commensurate 
 with the apostasy of man should be endured, which men 
 would impute to themselves as their own. Such was the 
 suffering, inward and outward, of the Redeemer. Two 
 things were necessary, 1. That those sufferings should 
 correspond to (entsprechen) the greatness of the sin of 
 mankind. 2. That the sinner could rightfully impute 
 them to himself" — Tholuck, Beilage II. zum Hebraer- 
 brief, p. 104. There is more real and precious truth, 
 according to our judgment, in that short paragraph, than 
 in all Dr. Beman's book. 
 
40 EEVIEW OF 
 
 against Socinians, avails himself of all the 
 usual sources of scriptural proof, and in the . 
 course of the chapter is forced to speak of 
 Christ as a sacrifice and a Priest. But when 
 he comes to the exposition of his views of 
 the nature of the atonement, he finds it expe- 
 dient and even necessary, to leave that mode 
 of representation entirely out of view. We 
 hear no more of propitiating God, of Christ 
 as a sacrifice, of his character as a Priest. It 
 is now all moral government, the order and 
 interest of the universe, symbolical teaching, 
 exhibition of truth and motives. Why is all 
 this? Why does not Dr. Beman's doctrine 
 admit of being thrown into the scriptural 
 form? Why must the terms sacrifice, priest, 
 propitiation, be discarded, when teaching the 
 nature of the atonement ? For the very ob- 
 vious reason that there is an entire incon- 
 gruity between his views and the word of 
 God. What has a sacrifice and priest to do 
 with governmental display? This fact alone 
 works the condemnation of Dr. Beman's 
 whole theory. His plan of salvation, his 
 method of access to God, is irreconcilable 
 with that presented in the Scriptures. There 
 we are taught that as the Israelite who had 
 offended, came to the priest, who made an 
 atonement for him in the appointed way, 
 and thus reconciled him to God; so the peni- 
 tent sinner, must come to Christ as his High 
 Priest, who satisfies the divine justice by pre- 
 senting his own merits before God, and who 
 ever lives to make intercession for him. 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 41 
 
 Would this representation ever lead a hu- 
 man being to imagine, that Christ merely 
 makes pardon possible, that his death was a 
 symboUcal lesson to the universe ? Accord- 
 ing to Dr. Beman's theory, Christ is not a 
 Priest. We are under no necessity of recog- 
 nizing him as such, nor of committing our- 
 selves into his hands, nor of relying on his 
 merits and intercession. A mere possibility 
 of salvation for all men is all that Christ has 
 accomplished. But does this make him a 
 High Priest, in the scriptural and universally 
 received sense of the term? 
 
 A third method by which the Scriptures 
 teach us the nature of the atonement, is by 
 express declarations concerning the nature of 
 his sufferings, or the immediate design of his 
 death. It is expressly taught that his suffer- 
 ings were penal, that he endured the penalty 
 of the law, and that he thus suffered not for 
 himself but for us. This is a point about 
 which there is so much strange misconcep- 
 tion, that it is necessary to explain the mean- 
 ing of the terms here used. The sufferings 
 of rational beings are either calamities, hav- 
 ing no reference to sin; or chastisement de- 
 signed for the improvement of the sufferer ; 
 or penal when designed for the satisfaction 
 of justice. Now what is meant by the lan- 
 guage above used is, that the sufferings of 
 Christ were not mere calamities; neither were 
 they chastisements, (in the sense just stated,) 
 nor were they simply exemplary, nor merely 
 symbolical, designed to teach this or that 
 
42 REVIEW OF 
 
 truth, but that they were penal, i. e. designed 
 to satisfy divine justice. This is the distinc- 
 tive character assigned to them in Scripture. 
 Again, by the penahy of the law is meant, 
 that suffering which the law demands as a 
 satisfaction to justice. It is not any specific 
 kind or degree of suffering, for it varies both 
 as to degree and kind, in every supposable 
 case of its infliction. The sufferings of no 
 two men that ever lived, are precisely alike, 
 in this world or the next, unless their consti- 
 tution, temperament, sins, feelings, and cir- 
 cumstances were precisely alike, which is 
 absolutely incredible. The objection there- 
 fore started by Socinians, that Christ did not 
 suffer the penalty of the law, because he did 
 not suffer remorse, despair, or eternal banish- 
 ment from God, was answered, by contem- 
 porary theologians, by denying that those 
 things entered essentially into the penalty of 
 the law. That penalty is in Scripture called 
 death, which includes every kind of evil 
 inflicted by divine justice in punishment of 
 sin; and inasmuch as Christ suffered such 
 evil, and to such a degree as fully satisfied 
 divine justice, he suffered what the Scriptures 
 call the penalty of the law. It is not the 
 nature, but the relation of sufferings to the 
 law, which gives them their distinctive cha- 
 racter. What degree of suffering the law 
 demands, as it varies in every specific case, 
 God only can determine. The sufferings of 
 Christ were unutterably great; still with one 
 voice, Papists, Lutherans, and Reformed, re- 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 43 
 
 butted the objection of Socinus, that the tran- 
 sient sufferings of one man could not be 
 equivalent to the sufferings due to the sins of 
 men, by referring, not to the degree of the 
 Saviour's anguish, as equal to the misery 
 due to all for whom he died, but to the infi- 
 nite dignity of his person. It was the Lord 
 of glory who was crucified. As the bodily 
 sufferings of a man are referred to his whole 
 person, so the Scriptures refer the sufferings 
 of Christ's human nature to his whole per- 
 son. And he was a divine, and not a human 
 person; but a divine person with a human 
 nature. This is an awful subject, on which 
 all irreverent speculation must be very offen- 
 sive to God. Let it be enough to say with 
 the Scriptures that Christ suffered the penalty 
 of the law in our stead, and that the penalty 
 of the law was that kind and amount of suf- 
 fering, which from such a person, was a full 
 satisfaction to the divine justice. All that 
 our standards say on this point, they say 
 wisely, viz. that the Saviour endured the 
 miseries of this hfe, the wrath of God, the 
 accursed death of the cross, and continued 
 under the power of death for a time. This 
 was the penalty of the law; for the wrath of 
 God, however expressed, constitutes that 
 penalty, in the strictest and highest sense. 
 
 That the Scriptures do teach that Christ's 
 sufterings were penal, has already been 
 proved from those passages in which he is 
 said to bear our sins, that our iniquities were 
 laid upon him, that he suffered the chastise- 
 
44 REVIEW OP 
 
 ment of our peace, and that as a sacrifice he 
 endured the death which we had incurred. 
 The same truth is expressed still more ex- 
 pHcitly in Gal. iii. 13. The apostle thus 
 argues. The law pronounces accursed all 
 who do not obey every command ; no man 
 has ever rendered this perfect obedience, 
 therefore all men are under the curse ; but 
 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the 
 law, having been made a curse for us. There 
 can be no doubt what the apostle means, 
 when he says, that all men are under the 
 curse; nor when he says, cursed is everyone 
 who continueth not in all things written in 
 the law to do them ; neither can it be doubted 
 what he means when he says, Christ was 
 made a curse. The three expressions, under 
 the curse, accursed, and made a curse, cannot 
 mean essentially different things. If the for- 
 mer mean that we were exposed to the pen- 
 alty, the latter must mean that Christ endured 
 the penalty. He hath redeemed us from the 
 curse by bearing it in our stead.* 
 
 To the same effect the apostle speaks in 
 Rom. viii. 3. What the law could not do 
 
 * In this interpretation every modern commentator of 
 whom we have any knowledge concurs, as for example 
 Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Rueckert, De Wette. 
 What the apostle adds in the next verse, " For it is writ- 
 ten, cursed is every one that is hung upon a tree," is evi- 
 dently intended to justify from Scripture the use of the 
 word curse. Those publicly exposed as suffering the 
 sentence of the law, are called cursed ; hence since Christ, 
 though perfectly holy, did bear the sentence of the law, 
 the word may be properly applied to him. 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 45 
 
 (i. e. effect the justification of men) in that it 
 was weak through the flesh, that God did, 
 having sent his Son in the Hkeness of sinful 
 flesh, and for sin, or as a sin-oflering, he con- 
 demned, i. e. punished sin, in the flesh, i. e. 
 in him, who was clothed in our nature. This 
 passage agrees, as to the principal point, with 
 the one cited from Galatians. The sentence 
 which we had incurred was carried into 
 efl'ect upon the Redeemer, in order that we 
 might be delivered from the law under which 
 we were justly condemned. In 2 Cor. v. 21, 
 the apostle in urging men to be reconciled to 
 God, presents the nature and mode of the 
 atonement, as the ground of his exhortation. 
 " For he hath made him to be sin for us, who 
 knew no sin, that we might become the right- 
 eousness of God in him." The only sense 
 in which Christ, who was free from all sin, 
 could be made sin, was by having our sins 
 laid upon him; and the only way in which our 
 sins could be laid upon him, was by his so as- 
 suming our place as to endure, in our stead,the 
 penalty we had incurred. " God made him to 
 be sin," says De Wette, " in that he laid on 
 him the punishment of sin." Here again we 
 have precisely the same doctrine, taught under 
 all the other forms of expression already con- 
 sidered. Christ was made sin, as we in him 
 are made righteousness; we are justified, he 
 was condemned; we are freed from the pen- 
 alty, he endured it; he was treated as justice 
 required the sinner to be treated; we are 
 treated according to his merits and not our 
 own deserts. 
 
46 REVIEW OF 
 
 Fourthly, there are various other forms 
 under which the Scriptures set forth the na- 
 ture of Christ's death which the limits of a 
 review forbid our considering. He has re- 
 deemed us; he has purchased us; he gave 
 himself as a ransom, &c. It is readily admit- 
 ted that all these terms are often used in a 
 wide sense, to express the general idea of 
 deliverance without reference to the mode by 
 which that deliverance is effected. It cannot 
 however be denied that they properly ex- 
 press deliverance by purchase, i. e. by the 
 payment of what is considered equivalent to 
 the person or thing redeemed. In the Bible 
 it is not simply said that Christ has delivered 
 us; nor is it said he delivered us by power, 
 nor by teaching, but by his death, by his own 
 precious blood, by giving himself, by being 
 made a curse for us. Such representations 
 cannot fail to convey the idea of a redemp- 
 tion in the proper sense of the term, and 
 therefore teach the true nature of the atone- 
 ment. We are redeemed; that which was 
 given for us was of infinite value. 
 
 If the Scriptures thus teach that Christ 
 saves us by bearing our sins, or being made 
 a sin-offering in our place, then the more 
 general expressions, such as he died for us, 
 he gave himself for us, we are saved by his 
 death, his blood, his cross, and others of a 
 similar kind, are all to be understood in ac- 
 cordance with those more explicit statements. 
 To the pious reader of the New Testament, 
 therefore, the precious truth that Christ died 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 47 
 
 as our substitute, enduring in his own per- 
 son, the death which we had incurred, re- 
 deeming us from the curse by being made a 
 curse for us, meets him upon almost every 
 page, and confirms his confidence in the truth 
 and exalts his estimate of its value, by this 
 frequency of repetition and variety of state- 
 ment. 
 
 Fifth, there is still another consideration in 
 proof of the unscriptural character of Dr. 
 Beman's theory, which is too important to 
 be overlooked. The apostle in unfolding the 
 plan of redemption proceeds on the assump- 
 tion that men are under a law or covenant 
 which demands perfect obedience, and which 
 threatens death in case of transgression. He 
 then shows that no man, whether Jew or 
 Gentile, can fulfil the conditions of that cove- 
 nant, or so obey the law as to claim justifica- 
 tion on the ground of his own righteousness. 
 Still as this law is perfectly righteous, it can- 
 not be arbitrarily set aside. What then was 
 to be done ? What hope can there be for the 
 salvatioQ of sinners ? The apostle answers 
 by saying, that what the law could not do, 
 (that is, save men,) God has accomplished 
 by the mission of his Son. But how does 
 the Son save us ? This is the very question 
 before us. It relates to the nature of the 
 work of Christ, which Dr. Beman has under- 
 taken to discuss. Paul's answer to that 
 question is, that Christ saves us by being 
 made under the law and fulfilling all its de- 
 mands. He fulfilled all righteousness, he 
 
48 REVIEW OP 
 
 knew no sin, he was holy, harmless, and sepa- 
 rate from sinners. He bore our sins in his 
 own body on the tree, and thus endured the 
 death which the law threatened against sin. 
 He has thus redeemed us from the law; that 
 is, we are no longer under obligation to satis- 
 fy, in our own person, its demands, in order 
 to our justification. The perfect righteous- 
 ness of Christ is offered as the ground of jus- 
 tification, and all who accept of that right- 
 eousness by faith, have it so imputed to them, 
 that they can plead it as their own, and God 
 has promised to accept it to their salvation. 
 We can hardly persuade ourselves that any 
 ordinary reader of the Bible, can deny that 
 this is a correct representation of the manner 
 in which Paul preached the gospel. It is the 
 burden of all his writings, it is the gospel 
 itself as it lay in his mind, and as he present- 
 ed it to others. It is the whole subject of the 
 first eight chapters of his Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, and of all the doctrinal part of his Epis- 
 tle to the Galatians. In the former of these 
 epistles, he shows that there are but two 
 methods of justification, the one by our own 
 righteousness and the other by the righteous- 
 ness of God. Having shown that no man 
 has or can have an adequate righteousness, 
 of his own, he shows that the gospel reveals 
 the righteousness of God, that is, the right- 
 eousness which is by faith in Jesus Christ, 
 and which is upon all them that believe. 
 This righteousness is so complete, that God 
 is just in justifying those who liave the faith 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 49 
 
 by which it is received and appropriated. 
 He afterwards illustrates this great doctrine 
 of imputed righteousness, by a reference to 
 the case of Adam, and shows that as on the 
 account of the offence of one man, a sentence 
 of condemnation passed on all men, so on 
 account of the righteousness of one man, the 
 free gift of justification has come upon all. 
 As by the disobedience of one the many were 
 made sinners, so by the obedience of one, the 
 many are made righteous. It is involved in 
 all this, that we are no longer under the law, 
 no longer subject to its demand of a per- 
 fect personal righteousness, but justified by 
 a righteousness which satisfies its widest 
 claims. Hence the apostle so frequently 
 asserts, ye are not under the law ; ye are free 
 from the law. But how? not by abrogating 
 the law, or by dispensing with its righteous 
 claims, but legally as a woman is free from 
 her husband, not by deserting him, not by 
 repudiating his authority, but by his ceasing 
 to have any claim to her, which continues 
 only so long as he lives. So we are freed 
 from the law by the body of Christ, i. e., by 
 his death. He was made under the law that he 
 might redeem them who were under the law ; 
 he hath redeemed us from its curse by being 
 made a curse for us; he has taken away the 
 handwriting which was against us, nailing it 
 to the cross. There is, therefore, now no con- 
 demnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,. 
 because we are by this gospel freed from the 
 
50 REVIEW OF 
 
 law and its condemnation. Hence Paul 
 teaches that if righteousness, (that is, what 
 satisfies the demands of the law) could have 
 come in any other way, Christ is dead in 
 vain. How exclusively this righteousness of 
 Christ was the ground of the apostle's per- 
 sonal confidence, is plain from his pregnant 
 declaration to the Philippians, that he count- 
 ed all things but dung, that he might win 
 Christ, and be found in him, not having his 
 own righteousness, but that which is through 
 the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is 
 of God by faith. 
 
 With this representation of the plan of sal- 
 vation. Dr. Beman's theory is utterly irrecon- 
 cilable. According to his theory, the demands 
 of the law have not been satisfied. " The 
 relation of the sinner to the curse which this 
 law pronounces against the transgressor, is 
 legally — not evangelically — just the same 
 that it was without an atonement." ^' The 
 law has the same demand upon him, and 
 utters the same denunciation of wrath against 
 him. The law, or justice, that is distributive 
 Histice, as expressed in the law, has received 
 no satisfaction at all.'^ p. 133. What then 
 has Christ's atonement done for us? He has 
 simply opened the way for pardon. "All 
 that the atonement has done for the sinner," 
 says Dr. Beman, "is to place him within the 
 reach of pardon." p. 137. "The way is now 
 open. Mercy can now operate. The door 
 is open." p. 106. The atonement "was re- 
 quired and made in order to open a consist- 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 51 
 
 ent way for the publication of pardon, or for 
 the exercise of grace to sinners." p. 124. 
 
 This theory directly contradicts the apos- 
 tle's doctrine, 1. Because he teaches that 
 Christ was made under the law for the pur- 
 pose of redeeming them that are under the 
 law, and that he was made a curse for us. 
 We are therefore delivered from the law, as 
 a covenant of works, and are not subject to 
 its demands and its curse when united to him. 
 2. Because it virtually denies that Christ 
 wrought out any righteousness which is the 
 ground of our justification. He merely makes 
 pardon possible, whereas Paul says that by 
 his obedience we are made righteous, that 
 we become the righteousness of God in him. 
 On this new theory, the language of the 
 apostle, when he speaks of not having his 
 own righteousness, but the righteousness 
 which is by faith of Jesus Christ, is unintelli- 
 gible. 3. It destroys the very nature of justi- 
 fication, which is "an act of God's free grace, 
 wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and ac- 
 cepteth us as righteous in his sight only for 
 the righteousness of Christ, imputed unto us, 
 and received by faith alone." But accord- 
 ing to this theory, there is no such thing as 
 justification: we are merely pardoned. In 
 Scripture, however, and in all languages, the 
 ideas of pardon and justification are distinct 
 and in a measure opposite.* If we are jus- 
 
 * "The word cT/xs^oDv," says De Wette, "means not 
 merely negatively to pardon; but also affirmatively to de- 
 dare righteous^ 
 
52 REVIEW OF 
 
 tified, we are declared righteous. That is, it 
 is declared that, as concerns us, on some 
 ground or for some reason, the law is satis- 
 fied; and that reason Paul says must either 
 be our own righteousness, or the righteous- 
 ness of Christ. Dr. Beman's theory admits 
 of no such idea of justification. The sinner 
 is merely forgiven, because the death of 
 Christ, prevents such forgiveness doing any 
 harm. This is not what the Bible teaches, 
 when it speaks of our being made the right- 
 eousness of God in Christ; or of his imputing 
 righteousness to us; or of our receiving the 
 gift of righteousness. This is not what the 
 convinced sinner needs, to whom, not mere 
 pardon, but justification, on the ground of a 
 righteousness, which though not his own, is 
 his, as wrought out for him and bestowed by 
 the free gift of God, is necessary to peace 
 with God. Rom. v. 1. 
 
 4. It destroys the nature of justifying faith 
 and deranges the whole plan of salvation. In 
 accordance with the Scriptures, faith in Jesus 
 Christ, is, in our standards, declared to be a 
 saving grace, whereby we receive and rest 
 upon him alone for salvation, as he is off'ered 
 to us in the gospel. This is perfectly natural 
 and intelligible, if Christ is our righteousness. 
 If his work of obedience and death is the sole 
 ground of justification before God, then we 
 imderstand what the Bible means by believ- 
 ing upon Christ, putting our trust in him, be- 
 ing found in him; then the phrase, faith of 
 Christ, which so often occurs as expressing 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 53 
 
 the idea of a faith of which he is the object, 
 has its appropriate meaning. Then too we 
 understand what is meant by coming to 
 Christ, receiving Christ, putting on Christ, 
 being in Christ. Upon Dr. Beman's theory, 
 however, all this is well nigh unintelligible. 
 We admit that a vague sense may be put on 
 these expressions on any theory of the atone- 
 ment, even that of the Socinians. If the 
 death of Christ is necessary to salvation, 
 either, as they say, by revealing the love of 
 God, or as Dr. Beman says, by revealing his 
 regard for law, then to believe in Christ, or 
 to receive Christ, might be said to mean, to 
 believe the truth that without the revelation 
 made by his death, God would not forgive 
 sin. But how far is this from being the full 
 and natural import of the terms ! Who would 
 ever express mere acquiescence in the fact 
 that Christ has made salvation possible, by 
 saying, " I would be found in him not having 
 mine own righteousness, but the righteous- 
 ness which is by faith of Jesus Christ.?" The 
 fact is the Socinian view is in some respects 
 much easier reconciled with Scripture than 
 that of Dr. Beman. The passage just quoted, 
 for example, might have this meaning, viz. 
 we must have, not the moral excellence 
 which the law can give, but that inward 
 righteousness of which faith in Christ is the 
 source. This would have some plausibility, 
 but what " the righteousness which is by 
 faith of Jesus Christ'^ can mean, as opposed 
 
54 REVIEW OP 
 
 to our own righteousness, on Dr. Beman's 
 ground, it is hard to conceive. 
 
 Again, according to the Bible and the 
 common doctrine of the Church, when a sin- 
 ner is convinced of his sin and misery, of his 
 entire unworthiness in the sight of God, he is 
 to be directed to renounce all dependence 
 upon himself and to believe in Christ, that is, 
 to place all his confidence in him. But if 
 Christ has only made salvation possible, if 
 he has merely brought the sinner within the 
 reach of mercy, this is a most unnatural 
 direction. What has the sinner to come to 
 Christ for? Why should he be directed to 
 receive or submit to the righteousness of 
 God? Christ has nothing to do for him. 
 He has made salvation possible, and his 
 work is done; what the sinner has to do is to 
 submit to God. The way is open, let him 
 lay aside his rebellion, and begin to love and 
 serve his Maker. Such are the directions, 
 which this theory would lead its advocates 
 to give to those who are convinced of their 
 sin and danger. This is not a mere imagi- 
 nation, such are the directions, commonly 
 and characteristically given by those who 
 adopt Dr. Beman's view of the atonement. 
 Christ disappears in a great measure from 
 his own gospel. You may take up volume 
 after volume of their sermons, and you will 
 find excellent discourses upon sin, obligation, 
 moral government, regeneration, divine sove- 
 reignty, &c., but the cross is comparatively 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 55 
 
 kept out of view. Christ has no immediate 
 work in the sinner's salvation ; and accord- 
 inglv the common directions to those who 
 ask, what they must do to be saved, is, sub- 
 mit to God, choose him and his service, or 
 something of similar import. To such an ex- 
 treme has this been carried, by some whose 
 logical consistency has overcome the influ- 
 ence of scriptural language and traditionary 
 instruction, that they have not hesitated to 
 say that the command. Believe in Christ, is 
 obsolete. It was the proper test of submis- 
 sion in the apostolic age, but in our day, 
 when all men recognize Christ as the Mes- 
 siah, it is altogether inappropriate. We 
 doubt not that thousands who agree sub- 
 stantially with Dr. Beman, would be shocked 
 at this language ; nevertheless it is the legiti- 
 mate consequence of his theory. If the 
 atonement is a mere governmental display, 
 a mere symbolical method of instruction, 
 then the command to believe in Christ, to 
 come to him, to trust in him and his right- 
 eousness, is not the language in which sin- 
 ners should be addressed. It does not inform 
 them of the specific thing which they must 
 do in order to be saved. Christ has opened 
 the door, their business is now immediately 
 with God. 
 
 Again, can any reader of the Bible, can 
 any Christian at least, doubt that union with 
 Christ, was to the apostles one of the most 
 important and dearest of all the doctrines of 
 the gospel ; a doctrine which lay at the root 
 
56 REVIEW OF 
 
 of all the other doctrines of redemption, the 
 foundation of their hopes, the source of their 
 spiritual life. But according to the theory 
 that Christ's death is a mere symbolical me- 
 thod of instruction, an expression of a great 
 truth, that it merely opens the way for mer- 
 cy, what can union with Christ mean? In 
 what sense are we in him? how are we his 
 members ? How is it that we die, that we 
 live, that we are to rise from the dead in vir- 
 tue of that union? What is meant by living 
 by faith, of which he is the object? The fact 
 is this theory changes the whole nature of 
 the gospel; every thing is altered; the nature 
 of faith, the nature of justification, the mode 
 of access to God, our relation to Christ, the 
 inward exercises of communion with him, so 
 that the Christian feels disposed to say with 
 Mary, They have taken away my Lord, and 
 I know not where they have laid him. 
 
 We do not believe there is truth enough 
 in this theory to sustain the life of religion in 
 any man's heart. We have no idea that Dr. 
 Beman, Dr. Cox, or any good man really 
 lives by it. The truth, as it is practically 
 embraced and appropriated by the soul under 
 the influence of the Holy Spirit, is the truth 
 in the form in which it is presented in the 
 Bible, and not as expressed in abstract pro- 
 positions. It is therefore very possible for a 
 man, to adopt theoretically such an abstract 
 statement of a scriptural doctrine, as really 
 denies its nature and destroys its power, and 
 yet that same man may receive the truth for 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 57 
 
 his own salvation as it is revealed in the 
 Bible. We see daily instances of this in the 
 case of Arminians, who professedly reject 
 doctrines, which are really included in every 
 prayer they utter. In like manner we believe 
 that many who profess to adopt the theory, 
 that the death of Christ merely opens the 
 way for mercy, that it is only the symbolical 
 expression of a moral truth, deny that theory 
 in every act of faith they exercise in Jesus 
 Christ. Still the theory is none the less false 
 and dangerous. It has its effect, and just so 
 far as it operates, it tends to destroy all true 
 religion. Its tendency, especially in private 
 Christians, is counteracted by reading the 
 Scriptures and by the teaching of the Spirit. 
 But the evil of the constant inculcation of 
 error and misrepresentation of truth, cannot 
 easily be exaggerated. The particular error 
 concerning the nature of the atonement incul- 
 cated in this book, has, we believe, done 
 more to corrupt religion, and to promote So- 
 cinianism, than any other of the vaunted 
 improvements of American theology, which, 
 after all, are but feeble re-productions of the 
 rejected errors of the sixteenth and seven- 
 teenth centnries. 
 
 The doctrine of atonement for which we 
 contend as the distinguishing and essential 
 doctrine of the gospel, is, I. That sin for its 
 own sake deserves the wrath and curse of 
 God. 2. That God is just, immutably deter- 
 mined, from the excellence of his nature, to 
 punish sin. 3. That out of his sovereign and 
 
58 REVIEW OF 
 
 infinite love, in order to redeem us from the 
 law, that is, from its demands and curse, he 
 sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh, who in his own person fulfilled those 
 demands, and endured that curse in our stead. 
 4. That his righteousness, or merit, thus 
 wrought out, is imputed to every one that 
 believes, to his justification before God. This 
 is the doctrine of the church catholic, over- 
 laid, corrupted, and made of none eff'ect, in 
 the church of Rome; disembarrassed, repro- 
 duced, and exhibited as the doctrine of the 
 Reformation; in manifold forms since op- 
 posed or rejected, but ever virtually embra- 
 ced and trusted in by every sincere child of 
 God. 
 
 What then are the objections to this great 
 doctrine? The first objection urged by Dr. 
 Beman is, that it involves "a transfer of mo- 
 ral character between Christ and those for 
 whom he died. Christ could not be punished 
 on legal principles, until he was guilty in the 
 eye of the law; and his people could not be 
 justified on legal principles, till its penalty 
 was literally inflicted. This transfer of cha- 
 racter so as to render Jesus Christ the sinner, 
 and the soul for whom he died, innocent, 
 appears to us without foundation in reason 
 and Scripture." The objection then is, that 
 the doctrine that Christ endured the punish- 
 ment of our sins, and that we are justified by 
 the imputation of his righteousness, involves 
 such a transfer of moral character as to ren- 
 der Jesus Christ a sinner, and those for whom 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 59 
 
 he died innocent! This objection is directed 
 not against this or that individual writer, but 
 against whole bodies and classes of men, for 
 Dr. Beman over and over asserts that there 
 are but two views of the atonement, the one 
 against which he brings this and other objec- 
 tions, and his own governmental theory. We 
 have ah'eady shown that the former is the 
 common doctrine of all the churches of the 
 Reformation. It is against them therefore, 
 this objection is brought. Our first remark 
 on it is, that it is the old, often repeated, and 
 often refuted slander of Socinians and Papists, 
 the latter corrupting and denying the doc- 
 trine of their own church. Our second re- 
 mark is, that it is a gross, shocking, and, we 
 are constrained in conscience to add, wicked 
 misrepresentation. Dr. Beman betrays his 
 want of faith in the truth of the accusation, 
 though he makes it against hundreds and 
 thousands of his brethren, by saying that a 
 doctrine which represents Jesus Christ as a 
 sinner, "appears to us without foundation 
 in reason and Scripture." ! Shocking blas- 
 phemy appears to us without foundation! 
 What man who believed what he said could 
 utter such language? Is this the way in 
 which a doctrine which represents the Son of 
 God a sinner, is to be spoken of? No, Dr. 
 Beman knew full well, that the doctrine he 
 writes against, includes no such blasphemy. 
 He cannot be so grossly ignorant as not to 
 know that the distinction between the impu- 
 tation and the infusion of sin and righteous- 
 
60 REVIEW OP 
 
 ness, is one for which the churches of the 
 Reformation contended as for their life; and 
 that the distinction is plain, intelligible, scrip- 
 tural, and unavoidable; — one which he and 
 all other men do make, and must make. 
 When the prophet says, " The son shall not 
 bear the iniquity of the father," does Dr. Be- 
 man pretend to believe, that he means that 
 the moral character of the father shall not be 
 transferred to the son? that the sin of the one 
 shall not be infused into the other? Why then 
 does he pretend to believe (for we hope it is 
 mere pretence) that when we say, our sins 
 were laid on Christ, we teach that our moral 
 character was so transferred to him as to 
 render him a sinner? Our third remark is, 
 that the objection is glaringly unjust. We 
 say in the very language of Scripture that 
 Christ bore our sins. We tell in what sense 
 we understand that language, viz. that it 
 means, not that Christ was rendered in moral 
 character a sinner, which is blasphemy, but 
 that he bore the punishment of our sins, 
 which is the universally admitted meaning of 
 the scriptural phrase. We say further, that 
 by punishment we mean sufferings judicially 
 inflicted as a satisfaction to justice. These 
 things are so plain, they have been so often 
 repeated, they so evidently do not involve 
 the shocking doctrine charged on those who 
 use this language, that we can have little 
 respect for the man, who can gravely, and 
 tamely repeat the charge, to the prejudice of 
 the truth, and to the wounding of his bre- 
 thren. 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 61 
 
 Dr. Beman's second objection is, that the 
 system he opposes destroys " all mercy in 
 God the Father, in the salvation of sinners, 
 because it represents God as totally disin- 
 clined to the exercise of compassion, till every 
 jot and tittle of the legal curse was inflicted. 
 On the same principle grace or pardon in the 
 release of the sinner from future punishment, 
 would be out of the question; for what grace 
 or pardon, or favour, can there be in the dis- 
 charge of a debtor whose demand (debt?) has 
 been cancelled to the uttermost farthing?" 
 p. 122. This objection is the staple of his 
 book. On p. 100 he represents us as teach- 
 ing that " the Son of God endured the exact 
 amount of suftering due on legal principles, 
 to sinners.'^ On p. 107 he says, "The amount 
 of Christ's sufferings must consequently be 
 the same as the aggregate suff'erings included 
 in the eternal condemnation of all those who 
 are saved by his merit. . . . The agonies 
 which he suffered were equal to the endless 
 misery of all those who will be saved by his 
 interposition in their behalf.'^ On p. 146, he 
 says, "If one soul were to be saved by the 
 atonement, Christ must sustain an amount of 
 suff"ering equal to that involved in the eternal 
 condemnation of that one soul; and if a thou- 
 sand were to be saved, a thousand times that 
 amount, and in the same proportion for any 
 greater number who are to be rescued from 
 perdition and exalted to glory. To this 
 scheme there are insurmountable objections.'^ 
 True enough, but who hold that scheme? 
 
62 REVIEW OF 
 
 Dr. Beman attributes it to all who believe in 
 the atonement, and do not adopt his scheme, 
 for he says there are but two. This doctrine 
 that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the 
 aggregate sufferings of those who are to be 
 saved, that he endured just so much for so 
 many, is not found in any confession of the 
 Protestant churches, nor in the writings of 
 any standard theologian, nor in the recog- 
 nized authorities of any church of which we 
 have any knowledge. The whole objection 
 is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation* 
 In a more moderate form it was brought for- 
 ward by the Socinians, and repelled by the 
 writers of that and subsequent ages. De 
 Moor is generally recognized as the theolo- 
 gian of most authority among the churches 
 of Holland, and Turrettin is admitted to be 
 one of the strictest of the Geneva school, and 
 they both answer this calumny, by denying 
 thai according to their doctrine, there is any 
 necessity for the assumption that Christ^s 
 sufferings were equal to the sufferings of all 
 his people. Thus Turrettin, after quoting at 
 length the objection from Socinus, answers 
 it, first, by showing that the Scriptures teach 
 that the one death of Christ was a satisfac- 
 tion for all; that as by the one sin of Adam, 
 many were made sinners, so by the righteous- 
 
 * There was a little anonymous work called Gethse- 
 mane, republished some years ago in this country, which 
 taught this quid pro quo system of the atonement. But 
 we do not know a single man, now of our church, who 
 adopted the sentiments of that work. 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 63 
 
 ness of Christ, many are made righteous. 
 2. By insisting on the distinction between 
 pecuniary and penal satisfaction. A piece 
 of money in the hand of a king is of no more 
 value, than in the hands of a peasant, but 
 the life of a king is of more value than that 
 of a peasant, and one commander is often 
 exchanged for many soldiers. 3. He says 
 the adversaries forget that Christ is God, and 
 therefore, though his sufferings coiild not be 
 infinite as they were endured by his finite 
 nature, they were of infinite value in virtue 
 of the infinite dignity of his person. Sin, he 
 says, is an infinite evil, because committed 
 against an infinite God, though the act of a 
 finite nature. So the suiferings of Christ, 
 though endured in his human nature, are of 
 infinite value from the dignity of his person.* 
 Dr. Beman, under this head, frequently 
 objects that we degrade the atonement into 
 a mere commercial transaction, a payment of 
 a debt, which, from the nature of the case 
 excludes the idea of free remission. Our 
 first remark on this objection is, that the 
 Scriptures use this same figure, and therefore 
 it is right it should be used. When it is said, 
 Christ purchased the church with his own 
 blood, that we are redeemed not with cor- 
 ruptible things as silver and gold, but with 
 the precious blood of Christ, such language 
 means something. In every metaphor there 
 
 * See in the fourth vol. of his works, the treatise De 
 Satisfactione Christi, p. 289. The same answer to the 
 same objection may be seen in De Moor, vol. iii. p. 1030. 
 
64 REVIEW OF 
 
 is a point of comparison ; the essential idea 
 involved in the figure, must be found in the 
 subject to be ilkistrated. To purchase is to 
 acquire, and to acquire, by giving or doing 
 something which secures a title to the thing 
 acquired. When it is said that Christ pur- 
 chased the church, it is certainly meant that 
 he acquired it, that it is his, and that by his 
 death he has secured a title to it, founded in 
 the justice and promise of God. This does 
 not make redemption a commercial transac- 
 tion, nor imply that there are not essential 
 points of divershy between acquiring by 
 money, and acquiring by blood. Hence our 
 second remark is, that if Dr. Beman will take 
 up any elementary work on theology, he 
 will find the distinction between pecuniary 
 and penal satisfaction clearly pointed out, 
 and the satisfaction of Christ shown to be of 
 the latter, and not of the former kind. 1. In 
 the one, the demand is upon the thing due, 
 in the other case it is upon the person of the 
 criminal. Hence, 2. The creditor is bound 
 to accept the payment of the debt no matter 
 when or by whom offered; whereas in the 
 case of a crime or sin, the sovereign is bound 
 neither to provide a substitute nor to accept 
 of one when offered. If he does either, it is a 
 matter of grace. 3. Hence penal satisfaction 
 does not ipso facto liberate, the acceptance 
 is a matter of arrangement or covenant, and 
 the terms of that covenant must depend on 
 the will of the parties. Dr. Beman lapsed 
 into an important truth, when he said "Christ 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 65 
 
 suffered by covenant," p. 98. What that 
 covenant is, we learn from Scripture, and 
 from the manner in which it is executed. 
 The Bible teaches that, agreeably to that 
 covenant, the merits of Christ do not avail 
 to the benefit of his people immediately; his 
 children remain under condemnation as well 
 as others until they believe; and when they 
 do believe, they receive but the first fruits of 
 their inheritance, they are but imperfectly 
 sanctified, and are still subject to many evils, 
 but being in a justified state, their sufferings 
 are chastisements and not punishments, that 
 is, they are designed for their own improve- 
 ment, and not to satisfy justice. 
 
 The satisfaction of Christ therefore being 
 for sin and by suffering, is expressly and for- 
 mally declared not to be of the nature of 
 pecuniary satisfaction. The grace of the 
 gospel is thereby not obscured but rendered 
 the more conspicuous. God is not rendered 
 merciful by the atonement, (as we be slan- 
 derously reported, as some affirm that we 
 say); on the contrary, the atonement flows 
 from his infinite love. Dr. Beman writes as 
 a Tritheist, or as against Tritheists, when he 
 speaks of the work of the Son rendering the 
 Father gracious, and attributes that represen- 
 tation to us. The Lord our God is one God. 
 It was his infinite love devised the plan of 
 redemption, and it was so devised, that the 
 exercise of love should be perfectly consistent 
 with holiness, in order that God might be 
 just in justifying sinners. Surely then our 
 r 
 
66 REVIEW OP 
 
 doctrine does not obscure the grace of the 
 gospel, at least as to the origin of the plan of 
 mercy. But it is farther objected that if 
 Christ rendered a complete satisfaction to 
 divine justice, then pardon becomes a matter 
 of justice and not of grace. Justice to whom? 
 certainly not to the ungodly, the unright- 
 eous, the utterly undeserving, and hell-de- 
 serving sinner. If Christ suffered by cove- 
 nant, and fulfilled all the conditions of that 
 covenant, then he acquired a right to its pro- 
 mises. If he purchased his church he has a 
 right to it. If it was promised that for his 
 obedience to death, he should see of the tra- 
 vail of his soul and be satisfied, then he, 
 having done all that was required of him, 
 has a right to the promised reward. But 
 what right have we? None in the world; 
 we are poor, and blind, and miserable, hav- 
 ing nothing, meriting nothing, our only hope 
 is that we shall be treated, not according to 
 our deserts, but according to the merits of 
 another. 
 
 The objection sounds strange to our ears, 
 coming from such a quarter, that we destroy 
 the grace of the gospel. What is salvation 
 by grace, if it is not that God of his mere 
 good pleasure provided redemption, that he 
 determines of his own will who shall be par- 
 takers of its benefits; that those who are 
 brought to repentance and faith, are not only 
 justified avowedly on the ground of a right- 
 eousness which is not their own, but are 
 made to feel and acknowledge, as the very 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 67 
 
 condition of their acceptance, their own 
 ill-desert and misery, and not only owe 
 every thing to Christ, but possess every thing 
 simply in virtue of their union with him, 
 which union is kept up only by a self-re- 
 nouncing, self-emptying faith? The feeblest 
 infant resting on its mother's bosom, a new 
 born lamb carried in the shepherd's arms, 
 might with as much plausibility be suspected 
 of doubting the love that sustains them, as 
 the believer in Christ's having purchased the 
 church with his own blood, of doubting the 
 entire gratuitousness of his own salvation. 
 
 It would be easy to retort, and show that 
 it is Dr. Beman's doctrine that destroys the 
 grace of salvation. If Christ only makes par- 
 don possible, if the possibility of forgiveness 
 is all we owe to him, to whom or what do 
 we owe heaven? Is it to ourselves as some 
 of the advocates of his doctrine teach? This 
 is the natural answer. Christ having made 
 pardon possible, then God deals with men 
 according to their works. Whatever answer 
 Dr. Beman himself would give to the above 
 question, it must from the nature of his sys- 
 tem, be tame compared with the answer, 
 which flows from the doctrine that we owe 
 the blessed Redeemer, not the possibility of 
 pardon merely, but justification, adoption, 
 sanctification, the resurrection of the body 
 and life everlasting. These things, and all 
 the blessedness they include or suppose, are 
 not merely rendered possible, but actually 
 secured and given for Christ's sake alone; 
 
68 REVIEW OF 
 
 and hence the spirits of the just made perfect, 
 whose robes have been washed and made 
 white in the blood of the lamb, would drown, 
 in their thanksgiving to him that has cleansed 
 them from all sin, the whispered acknow- 
 ledgments of those who have nothing for 
 which to give thanks but the possibility of 
 pardon. 
 
 These objections which Dr. Beman urges 
 in various forms throughout his book, are all 
 old, and have been answered a hundred 
 times. There is indeed one objection which 
 is certainly American. It seems there was 
 no economy in the atonement. It saved no- 
 thing and gained nothing. The atonement 
 it is said is " the grand device of heaven for 
 preventing misery and promoting happi- 
 ness." p. 108. And it is triumphantly urged, 
 (through some eight pages,) that if Christ 
 suffered as much as the redeemed would 
 have endured there is no gain of happiness. 
 It is "a mere quid-jwo-quo transaction." p. 
 111. We have already shown that no 
 church, or class of men hold that the blessed 
 Redeemer endured as much suffering as the 
 redeemed would have endured. It is a mere 
 misrepresentation. But dismissing that point, 
 the objection itself is unworthy of a being, 
 gifted with a moral sense. Would it be no- 
 thing that unnumbered millions are saved 
 from sin and made perfect in holiness? Sup- 
 posing there was no absolute gain as to the 
 amount of misery prevented, that Christ had 
 in a few years suffered all that finite beings 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 69 
 
 through eternity could endure, still would the 
 vast accession to the holy inhabitants of hea- 
 ven be nothing? Does not the Bible say that 
 he gave himself for his church, to purify and 
 cleanse it? that the promotion of holiness 
 was the design of his death? Has it come to 
 this, that the theory which makes happiness 
 the end of the creation, must represent holi- 
 ness as nothing, not worth giving thanks for, 
 if gained at the least expense of happiness ? 
 This gross, epicurean view of the sublime 
 and awful mystery of redemption, is a dis- 
 grace to the age and country that gave it 
 birth. 
 
 We have thus endeavored to show that the 
 theory of atonement advocated by Dr. Be- 
 man, is founded on the false assumption that 
 the punishment of sin is for the prevention of 
 crime, and not on account of its own intrinsic 
 ill-desert ; that it of necessity involves a de- 
 nial of the justice of God, and makes mere 
 happiness the end of creation ; that it is des- 
 titute of any semblance or pretence of sup- 
 port from the Scriptures; that it is just as 
 arbitrary, and as much a philosophical specu- 
 lation as the Socinian theory, the latter assert- 
 ing that the design of Christ's death was to 
 display the love of God, and thus lead men to 
 repentance ; and the former, that it was in- 
 tended to express his regard for his law, and 
 thus act as a motive to obedience. We further 
 endeavoured to prove that the theory is in 
 direct conflict with the Bible. The Scriptures 
 teach in every possible way, that as man was 
 
70 REVIEW OP 
 
 under a law or covenant which requires per- 
 fect obedience and threatens death in case of 
 trangression, the Son of God was born of a 
 woman and made under that law, fulfilhng 
 its conditions of perfect obedience and sustain- 
 ing its curse for man's redemption. And that 
 his righteousness is freely imputed to all those 
 who receive and rest upon it by faith. In 
 denying this doctrine, which is the common 
 faith of Christendom, Dr. Beman's theory in- 
 volves the denial of justification, reducing it 
 to mere pardon ; destroys the true doctrine of 
 justifying faith ; overlooks the union between 
 Christ and his people ; tends to banish Christ 
 from view, and to vitiate the very source of 
 all evangeUcal religion. 
 
 We showed that his objections to this doc- 
 trine, with one melancholy exception, were 
 the oft repeated and oft refuted calumnies of 
 Socinians ; that the common doctrine does not 
 involve the transfer of moral character or re- 
 present Christ as a sinner ; that so far from 
 obscuring the grace of the gospel, or teaching 
 that the atonement is the cause of the love of 
 God, it represents it as flowing from that love, 
 and presents in the clearest possible light the 
 gratuitous nature of salvation. It is of grace 
 that a Saviour was provided ; of grace that 
 the benefits of his death are conferred on one 
 rather than another. And though we rejoice 
 to know that he has acquired a right to his 
 church, having bought it with his own blood, 
 yet his people know, feel, and acknowledge 
 that to them every thing is of grace, their 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 71 
 
 vocation, justification, and final salvation. 
 This is Christianty, a religion, of whicli Christ 
 is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, 
 the author and the finisher, not the mere cause 
 of the possibility of pardon. 
 
 Our discussion of the all-important question 
 respecting the nature of the atonement, has 
 run out to so great a length, that we cannot 
 claim much room for the consideration of its 
 extent. Dr. Beman writes on this whole sub- 
 ject, very much as a man might be expected 
 to write against Calvinism, who got his views 
 of that system, from the furious harangues of 
 itinerant Methodist preachers. He quotes no 
 authorities, establishes no assertions, but cool- 
 ly goes on attributing just what opinions come 
 into his head to those against whom he writes. 
 Had he taken up any one author, or class of 
 authors, cited from their writings their own. 
 exhibitions of doctrine, and proceeded to ex- 
 amine them, his readers would know what 
 credit to give to his statements. He however 
 has preferred to state in general terms that 
 there are but two views of the atonement, his 
 own and another. That other he then most 
 grievously misrepresents. He attributes to 
 all who reject his doctrine, opinions which not 
 one in a million of them ever entertained. 
 As far as relates to the nature of the atone- 
 ment, these misrepresentations have already 
 been pointed out. He commences and con- 
 tinues his discussion concerning its extent on 
 the same plan. He assumes that the question 
 relates to the limitation in the very nature of 
 
7% REVIEW OP 
 
 the work of Christ. *' If,'' he says, " the 
 atonement is to be considered as a Uteral pay- 
 ment of a debt, or, in other words, if it con- 
 sisted in suffering the exact penalty of the law, 
 in the room of those Avho will be saved, it is 
 manifest, that it must be limited in its extent. 
 In this case it would be a provision which 
 must be regulated according to the principles 
 of commutative justice. If one soul were to 
 be saved " then Christ must suffer so much ; 
 if a thousand then a thousand times as much," 
 &c. p. 145. The opposite doctrine, which 
 he adopts, necessarily leads to the conclu- 
 sion " that an atonement sufficient for one, is 
 sufficient for all," of course those who reject 
 his view, are made to hold an insufficient 
 atonement, p. 147. So Dr. Cox, in his in- 
 troductory chapter, speaks of " the limitation 
 of the nature " of the atonement, and repre- 
 sents those whom he opposes as holding that 
 it is as " limited in its nature as in its appli- 
 cation." p. 16, 17. If these gentlemen would 
 take the trouble to read a little on this subject 
 they would find that this is all a mistake. 
 They are merely beating the air. Those who 
 deny that Christ died for Judas as much as 
 for Paul, for the non-elect as much as for the 
 elect, and who maintain that he died strictly 
 and properly only for his own people, do not 
 hold that there is any limitation in the nature 
 of the atonement. They teach as fully as any 
 men, that " an atonement sufficient for one is 
 sufficient for all." It is a simple question re- 
 lating to the design, and not to the nature of 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 73 
 
 Christ's work. That work as far as we know 
 or believe, would have been the same, had 
 God purposed to save but one soul, or the 
 souls of all mankind. We hold that the 
 atonement as to its. value is infinite, and as to 
 its nature as much adapted to one man as to 
 another, to all as to one. The whole question 
 is, for what purpose did he die ? What was 
 the design which God intended to accomplish 
 by his mission and death ? That this is the 
 true state of the question, is obvious from the 
 fact, that the Reformed and Lutherans do not 
 differ at all as to the nature of Christ's satisfac- 
 tion, though they do differ as to its design. 
 Lutherans, as they deny the doctrine of elec- 
 tion, deny that the satisfaction of Christ had 
 special reference to the elect, though they are 
 even more strict than the Reformed, in their 
 views of the vicarious nature of the atone- 
 ment, i. e. of the imputation of our sins to 
 Christ, and of his obedience to us. Accord- 
 ingly in all the early defences of Calvinists, 
 their arguments on the necessity, and on the 
 truth or nature of the atonement, are directed 
 against Socinians, and not against either Ro- 
 manists or Lutherans. But when the ques- 
 tion is discussed, "For whom did Christ die?" 
 they address their arguments against the lat- 
 ter. Turrettin, for example, in the statement 
 of this question, says, " It is not a question con- 
 cerning the value and sufficiency of Christ's 
 death, whether it is not, in itself,'sufficient for 
 the salvation of all men. That is, on both 
 sides, admitted. His death being of infinite 
 
 G 
 
74 REVIEW OF 
 
 value, would have been most amply sufficient 
 for the redemption of all men, if God had seen 
 fit to extend it to all. Hence the common 
 distinction made by the fathers, and retained 
 by many theologians, Christ died sufficient- 
 ly for all, efficaciously for the elect, is per- 
 fectly true if understood of the worth of 
 Christ's death, but not so accurate if under- 
 stood of his purpose and design in dying. 
 The question, therefore, properly relates to 
 the purpose of the Father in giving his Son, 
 and the intention of the Son in laying down 
 his life. Did the Father destine his Son for 
 all and every man, and did the Son deUver 
 himself to death with the intention of substi- 
 tuting himself in the place of all and every 
 one, in order to make satisfaction and procure 
 salvation for them ? Or, did Christ give him- 
 self for the elect alone, who were given to him 
 by the Father, and whose head he was to be ? 
 The heart of the question, therefore, comes to 
 this, not what is /Ae ;m/wre or efficacy of the 
 death of Christ, but what was the design of 
 the Father in giving him up, and the inten- 
 tion of Christ in dying.""^ 
 
 The simple statement of our doctrine, there- 
 fore, answers two-thirds of Dr. Beman's ob- 
 jections against it. This is not a statement 
 got up for the occasion, but made a century 
 and a half before he was born. There is 
 one view in which the question concerning 
 the extent of the atonement is indeed inti- 
 
 * Turrettin, vol. ii. p. 49a 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 75 
 
 mately connected with its nature. If any 
 man holds the doctrine that the atonement 
 was nothing more than a symbohcal expres- 
 sion of a truth, and "merely opened the door 
 of mercy," there is of course an end to all 
 question as to its design. If that be its na- 
 ture, it can have no more reference to the 
 saved than to the lost. And it is probably in 
 order to get rid of all difficulty as to the 
 extent of the atonement, that many have 
 been led to adopt the above mentioned most 
 unscriptural and dangerous view of its na- 
 ture. Bat if the true doctrine concerning the 
 nature of the satisfaction is retained, as it 
 was by the Lutherans, and even in a great 
 measure by the early Remonstrants, at least 
 by Grotius, the question as to its extent, 
 resolves itself into a question concerning the 
 purposes of God. It might seem as if this 
 were an entirely useless question. The pur- 
 poses of God are not the rule of our duty, 
 and whatever God may design to do, we are 
 to act in accordance with his preceptive will. 
 Still there is a right and a wrong in every 
 question, and what is wrong in relation to 
 one point, must tend to produce erroneous 
 views with regard to others. 
 
 Dr. Cox intimates with some truth that 
 the difference of opinion on this point, has its 
 origin, or at least implies a difference of view 
 as to the order of the divine purposes, p. 18. 
 As in fact, however, there is no order of suc- 
 cession in the purposes of God, but simply in 
 our mode of conceiving them, all his decrees 
 
76 REVIEW OF 
 
 being comprehended in one eternal purpose, 
 any question about the order of those decrees, 
 must be a question relating to our own 
 thoughts. Those thoughts, however, may be 
 confused, contradictory, or lead to conclusions 
 in conflict with revealed facts. Even this 
 question, therefore, is not without its import- 
 ance. If the purposes of God are all one, 
 any mode of conceiving them which prevents 
 their being reduced to unity; which supposes 
 either a change, or uncertainty in the divine 
 plan, must be erroneous. As it is involved 
 in our idea of God as the inteUigent ruler of 
 the universe, that he had a design in the 
 creation and redemption of man, all classes 
 of theologians form some theory (if that word 
 may be used) of the plan adopted for the 
 accomplishment of that design. According 
 to one system, God purposed to create man, 
 to permit the fall, to provide salvation for 
 all, to give all sufficient grace, to elect to life 
 those who improve this grace. This is the 
 scheme of the Remonstrants, and of those 
 generally who reject the doctrines of election 
 and efficacious grace. According to another 
 system, God purposed to create man, to per- 
 mit the fall, to provide for the salvation of 
 all, but foreseeing that none would accept of 
 that salvation, he chose some to everlasting 
 life, and determined by his eifectual grace, to 
 give them faith and repentance. This is the 
 scheme proposed by Amyraud, Testard, Ca- 
 mero, and other French theologians of the 
 seventeenth century. According to others, 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 77 
 
 God purposed to create man, to permit the 
 fall, to choose from the mass of fallen men 
 an innumerable multitude as vessels of mer- 
 cy, to send his Son for their redemption, and 
 with him to give them every thing necessary 
 for their salvation. This was the common 
 doctrine of all the Reformed churches, from 
 which the two former systems were depar- 
 tures. The common New School system, 
 adopted in this country, lies between the Ar- 
 minian and the French scheme, containing 
 more truth than the former, and less than the 
 latter. 
 
 The question, which of these views of the 
 whole plan of God's dealings with men, is 
 the most correct, must be determined, 1. By 
 ascertaining which is most consistent with 
 itself; which best admits of being reduced to 
 one simple purpose. It would not be difficult 
 to show that the two former include contra- 
 dictions, and involve the ascription of conflict- 
 ing purposes to God. 2. By ascertaining 
 which is most in harmony with the admitted 
 character of God, as infinite, independent, and 
 self-sufficient, of whom, and through whom, 
 and to whom are all things. 3. By ascertain- 
 ing which is most consistent with revealed 
 facts. The first, or Arminian scheme, breaks 
 down entirely by coming in conflict with the 
 clearly revealed truth of God's sovereignty in 
 election, and of conversion by his mighty 
 power, and not by an influence common to 
 all men. Our present business, however, is 
 with the two latter schemes, so far as they re- 
 
78 REVIEW OP 
 
 late to the design of Christ's death. Was the 
 Son of God sent into the world, as Dr. Beman 
 says, merely to make the salvation of all men 
 possible, or actually to save all whom God 
 had given him ? 
 
 Before attempting to answer this question, 
 it is proper to remark that Dr. Beman and 
 those who adopt his theory, seem constantly 
 disposed to forget that Salvation is by 
 Grace. If it is of grace, then it is a matter 
 of grace that God provided salvation at all 
 for guilty men. If this is not so, the gift of 
 Christ, the influences of the Holy Spirit, and 
 every other gift requisite for our salvation, 
 are mere matters of justice, which it would 
 have been unrighteous to withhold. No man 
 can believe that, however, without contra- 
 dicting every page of the Bible, and the testi- 
 mony of every true Christian. 2. But if God 
 was not bound to save any, he is at liberty to 
 save whom he pleases. If he need not pro- 
 vide salvation for any, there could be no in- 
 justice in providing it for some and not for 
 others. If salvation is of grace, it is of grace 
 that one and not another is saved. And to 
 complain that the mission of Christ was not 
 designed to save all, or even that it did not 
 open the door of mercy for all, if such were 
 actually the case, would be to complain of 
 the gratuitous nature of salvation. And, 3. 
 If salvation is by grace, then those who are 
 saved, are freely called, justified and glorified. 
 The ground of their acceptance, is not to be 
 found in them, but in the good pleasure of 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 79 
 
 God. This is the plain doctrine of the Bible, 
 to which we must submit ; and it is so clearly- 
 revealed, and so essential to the very nature 
 of the gospel, that those who are not wiUing 
 to be saved by grace, cannot be saved at all. 
 There is therefore no preliminary presump- 
 tion against the doctrine that the death of 
 Christ had not an equal reference to all men, 
 but had a special relation to his own people. 
 The presumption is all the other way. As 
 the whole plan of salvation is, according to 
 the apostle, arranged with a view ^' to show 
 the exceeding riches of the grace of God, by 
 his kindness towards us," that view of the 
 economy of redemption, which renders the 
 grace of God the most conspicuous, is the 
 most in harmony with its grand design. What 
 God's actual purpose was in the mission of 
 his Son, we can only learn from his own 
 declarations. He reveals his designs to us, 
 partly by their execution, and partly by the 
 annunciation of them in his word. What 
 God does, is the clearest revelation of what 
 he intended to do. Hence if the satisfaction 
 of Christ actually saves all men, it was cer- 
 tainly designed to save all men; but if it saves 
 only a part of the human race, it was certain- 
 ly designed only for a part. It cannot be 
 questioned that Christ came to save men from 
 their sins, and if we ask, whom he intended to 
 save ? we can get no better answer than by 
 learning whom he does in fact save. If the 
 end of Christ's mission was salvation, it is not 
 conceivable* that he died equally for all, un- 
 
80 REVIEW OF 
 
 less he purposed to save all. Dr. Beman, 
 however, denies that the design of his mission 
 was salvation ; it was merely to make salva- 
 tion possible. 
 
 In assuming this ground, he is guilty of 
 the same one-sided ness, the same contracted 
 view, which he exhibits in his doctrine con- 
 cerning the nature of the atonement. It is 
 conceded that the work of Christ does lay 
 the foundation for the offer of salvation to all 
 men. Dr. Beman hence concludes that this 
 was its only end; that it merely opens the 
 way for the general offer of pardon. His 
 theory is designed to account for one fact, 
 and leaves all the other revealed facts out of 
 view, and unexplained. The Bible teaches, 
 however, a great deal more, in relation to 
 this subject, than that one fact. It teaches, 
 1. That Christ came in execution of a pur- 
 pose ; that he suffered as Dr. Beman ex- 
 presses it, by covenant, and ratified that 
 covenant with his own blood. 2. That his 
 mission was the result and expression of the 
 highest conceivable love. 3. That it not 
 merely removes obstacles out of the way, 
 but actually secures the salvation of his peo- 
 ple. 4. That it lays the foundation for a 
 free, full, and unrestrained offer of salvation 
 to all men. 5. That it renders just the con- 
 demnation of those who reject him as their 
 Saviour; that rejection being righteously the 
 special ground of their condemnation. 
 
 Dr. Beman's theory accords only with the 
 last two facts just mentioned. It will account 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 81 
 
 for the general offer of the gospel, and for the 
 condemnation of those who reject it. but it is 
 inconsistent with all the other facts above 
 stated, which are not less clearly revealed, 
 and not less important. It overlooks in the 
 first place, the fact that Christ came into the 
 world and accompUshed the work of redemp- 
 tion, in execution of the covenant of grace. 
 The use of such words as covenant, is often 
 convenient, and sometimes unavoidable, as a 
 concise method of expressing several related 
 truths. Wherever there is a promise by one 
 person to another, suspended upon the per- 
 formance of a condition, there is a covenant. 
 As therefore, the Scriptures expressly speak 
 of a promise made to the Son, suspended 
 upon the condition of his incarnation, obedi- 
 ence, and death, they teach that there was a 
 covenant of grace. The promise made to the 
 Redeemer, was that he should see the travail 
 of his soul; that he should have the heathen 
 for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of 
 the earth for his possession; that those whom 
 the Father had given him should come unto 
 him; that they should all be taught of God, 
 receive the Spirit, and be raised up in the last 
 day; that he should be the first-born among 
 many brethren, and be highly exalted as the 
 head of his people, and far above all princi- 
 palities and powers. It is further expressly 
 taught that he secured all these inestimable 
 blessings, by his obedience unto death. Be- 
 cause he thus humbled himself, God has 
 highly exalted him ; on account of the suffer- 
 
82 REVIEW OF 
 
 ing of death, be was crowned with glory and 
 honour; because he made his soul an offer- 
 ing for sin, therefore God hath divided to him 
 his portion. If these things are so, if Christ 
 had the attainment of these blessings, which 
 involve the salvation of his people, in view, 
 in coming into the world; if the accomplish- 
 ment of this work was the object of his mis- 
 sion, then it is a contradiction in terms, to say 
 that, as far as the purpose of God and his 
 own intention are concerned, he had not a 
 special reference to his own people and to 
 their salvation in his death. Their salvation 
 was the reward promised, when it was said, 
 *' he shall see his seed," and it was for that 
 recompense he died. Dr. Beman's theory 
 denies all this. It assumes that his death, 
 his whole work, had no reference to one class 
 of men more than to another, to the saved 
 more than to the lost. It simply made the 
 pardon of all men possible. This is of course 
 a denial, of what Dr. Beman himself, in an 
 unguarded hour, admitted, viz. that Christ 
 suffered by covenant. What covenant ? The 
 Scriptures make mention of no other cove- 
 nant, in connexion with the Redeemer's 
 death, than that which included the promise 
 of his people to him as a reward, and which 
 was ratified in his blood. Here then is one 
 plain, important, revealed fact, which Dr. 
 Beman's t heory overlooks and contradicts. If 
 Christ in his death had regard to the recom- 
 pense of reward, and if that reward included 
 the holiness and salvation of his people, then 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 83 
 
 beyond contradiction, his satisfaction had a 
 special reference to them. 
 
 In the second place, his theory contradicts 
 the plainly revealed fact, that the mission 
 and death of Christ are the expression of 
 the highest conceivable love. According to 
 Dr. Beman, they are the expression of mere 
 general benevolence. It is admitted that love 
 was the motive which led to the gift of the 
 Son of God. If that love was general be- 
 nevolence to all men, then he died for all; if 
 it was special love to his own people, then 
 he died for them. That there is snch special 
 love in God, is involved in the doctrine of 
 election. According to that doctrine, God of 
 his mere good pleasure, before the foundation 
 of the world, chose some to everlasting life, 
 and for infinitely wise and holy reasons, left 
 others to perish in their sins. To say that 
 the infinite love which led to the mission of 
 Christ, was a benevolence which had equal 
 regard to these two classes, is to deny the 
 doctrine of election. That doctrine, in its very 
 nature supposes a difference in the regard 
 had for the vessels of mercy, and the vessels 
 of wrath; for those in whom God purposed 
 to display the riches of his grace, and those 
 on whom he designed to show his wrath, 
 and make his power known. In teaching 
 this doctrine, therefore, the Scriptuies teach, 
 that besides the benevolence with which God 
 regards all men, there is a higher, special, 
 mysterious, unspeakable love which he has 
 to his own children. And to this love they 
 
84 REVIEW OP 
 
 refer the incarnation and death of the Son of 
 God. The Scriptures are too expHcit and 
 too full on this latter point to allow of its 
 being questioned. Greater love, said Christ 
 himself, hath no man than this, that a man 
 lay down his life for his friends. Paul prays 
 that the Ephesians might be strengthened by 
 the Holy Spirit, to be able to comprehend 
 what is the breadth, and length, and depth, 
 and height, and to know the love of Christ 
 which passes knowledge. "Hereby perceive 
 we the love of God, because he laid down 
 his life for us. In this we perceive the love 
 of God towards us, because that God sent 
 his only begotten Son into the world that we 
 might live through him. He that spared not 
 his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, 
 how shall he not with him freely give us all 
 things." In these and in various similar 
 passages, it is distinctly asserted that the love 
 which led to the gift of Christ, was not gene- 
 ral benevolence, consistent with the eternal 
 reprobation of its objects, but the highest 
 conceivable love, that would spare nothing 
 to secure the salvation of those on whom it 
 rested. 
 
 Again, it is, with equal explicitness and fre- 
 quency, asserted, that love to his people was 
 the motive of the Son of God, in laying down 
 his life. ^"For their sakes," said the Re- 
 deemer, "I sanctify myself" "I am the 
 good shepherd, the good' shepherd giveth his 
 life for his sheep." " I lay down my life for 
 my sheep." *' Christ loved the Church, and 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 85 
 
 gave himself for it." Do not these passages 
 assert that love for his church, his friends, 
 his sheep, was the motive of Christ in dying? 
 When the Scriptures divide men into classes, 
 the sheep and the goats, the church and those 
 who are not the church, and say that love to 
 his sheep, love to his church, led the Saviour 
 to lay down his life, they expressly assert 
 that it was a peculiar love for them, and not 
 a general benevolence including them and all 
 others alike, that was the motive of Christ in 
 laying down his life. Let it be remembered 
 that this whole question relates, not to the 
 incidental effects of Christ's death, but to his 
 intention in dying. The passages above 
 quoted, and the Scriptures generally, do then 
 teach that besides his general benevolence 
 for men, God has a special love for his own 
 people, and that that special love, for his 
 own, for his friends, for his sheep, led the 
 Saviour to give himself up to death. If this 
 is so, it overturns Dr. Beman's theory, which 
 is in direct conflict with this plain and pre- 
 cious truth. It is not that benevolence which 
 consists with eternal reprobation, i. e. with 
 the eternal purpose to leave men to suffer 
 the just recompense of their sins, that led the 
 Father to give up the Son, and the Son to 
 assume our nature and die upon the cross. 
 Those who admit this, admit all the limita- 
 tion of the atonement for which we contend; 
 a limitation not as to its nature or value, but 
 as to the purpose of God and intention of 
 Christ. Besides, does it not involve a con- 
 
86 REVIEW OF 
 
 tradiction, to say that love to those whom 
 God purposed, for wise reasons, not to save, 
 was his motive in providing salvation ? Our 
 Saviour teaches that the knowledge of the 
 gospel aggravates the guilt and consequently 
 the misery of those who reject it ; then cer- 
 tainly, love to them was not the motive 
 which led either to the adoption or the pro- 
 clamation of the scheme of redemption. The 
 fact is, this doctrine that Christ died as much 
 for Judas as for Paul, is inconsistent with the 
 doctrine of election; and the two have never 
 for any length of time been held together. 
 Those theologians in the church of Rome, 
 who remained faithful to the doctrine of elec- 
 tion, also held that the death of Christ had 
 special reference to his own people. The 
 Lutherans, when they rejected the one doc- 
 trine, rejected also the other. So did the 
 Arminians. A few French divines endea- 
 voured, by reversing the natural order of the 
 decrees, for a time to unite the two ; but the 
 attempt failed. Both doctrines were soon 
 rejected. The sovereignty of God, election, 
 special love as the motive of redemption^ and 
 consequently a special reference to the elect, 
 in the death of Christ, are joined together in 
 the Scriptures, and they cannot long be sepa- 
 rated in the faith of God's people. 
 
 Another revealed fact which Dr. Beman's 
 theory overlooks and contradicts, is that 
 Christ's death, not only removes obstacles out 
 of the way of the exercise of mercy, but ac- 
 tually secures the salvation of his people. It 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 87 
 
 has been repeatedly shown that Dr. Beman 
 constantly asserts that the only effect of the 
 atonement is to bring the sinner within the 
 reach of mercy, it merely makes pardon pos- 
 sible. This is the only effect claimed for it, 
 and all that can be attributed to it on his 
 theory. This however is in direct conflict 
 with the Scriptures, because they teach that 
 the death of Christ renders the salvation of 
 his own people certain. This follows from 
 what has already been said. If Christ suffer- 
 ed by covenant; if that covenant promised to 
 him his people as his reward and inheritance, 
 on condition of his obedience and death, then 
 assuredly when he performed that condition, 
 the salvation of all whom the Father had 
 given to him, was rendered absolutely certain. 
 Hence, it is said, that he purchased his church, 
 that is, acquired a right to it. He gave him- 
 self for his church, that he might purify and 
 cleanse it. He came into the world to save 
 his people from their sins. Pie gave himself 
 for our sins that he might redeem us from 
 this present evil world ; or, as elsewhere said, 
 to purify a pecuhar people unto himself. 
 These and similar declarations teach that the 
 design of Christ's death, was actually to save 
 his people. They are, therefore, so many 
 direct contradictions of the doctrine, that he 
 merely opened the door of mercy. To make 
 salvation possible, is not to save ; to make 
 holiness possible, is not to purify; to open the 
 door, is not to bring us near to God. 
 
 The Scriptures also ascribe effects to the 
 
88 REVIEW OP 
 
 death of Christ, irreconcilable with the idea 
 that it is a mere governmental display. We 
 are justified by his blood, we thereby obtain 
 remission of sins, we have peace with God, 
 we are delivered from the wrath to come, and 
 obtain eternal redemption. It is contrary to 
 all scriptural usage, to bring down all these 
 and similar declarations, to mean nothing 
 more than that these blessings are rendered 
 attainable by the work of Christ. This is not 
 what the words mean. To say that we are 
 justified, or reconciled, or cleansed, is not to 
 say that the obstacles in the way of obtaining 
 the blessings mentioned, are merely removed. 
 It is to say that his blood secures those bless- 
 ings ; and secures them in the time and way 
 that God has appointed. No instance can be 
 produced in which a sacrifice, offered and ac- 
 cepted, is said to propitiate God, and be the 
 ground of pardon, when nothing more is 
 meant than that the sacrifice renders pardon 
 possible. The meaning uniformly is, that it 
 secures and renders it certain. The very ac- 
 ceptance of it, is the established way of pro- 
 mising forgiveness to those in whose behalf 
 the sacrifice was offered. Dr. Beman's theo- 
 ry, therefore, in attributing so little to the 
 death of Christ, contradicts the established 
 meaning of scriptural phrases; and is incon- 
 sistent with the clearly revealed fact that his 
 death makes salvation not only possible, but 
 certain. 
 
 It is further revealed that there is an inti- 
 mate connexion between the death of Christ 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 89 
 
 and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit 
 was promised to Christ, to be given to his 
 people. The apostle Peter says, He having 
 received the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath 
 shed forth this, which ye both see and hear. 
 Acts ii. 33. In Tit. iii. 5, 6, God is said to 
 shed on us abundantly the Holy Ghost, 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord. All spiritual 
 blessings are said to be given to us in Christ 
 Jesus, Ep. i. 3 ; that is, on account of our 
 union with him, a union eternal in the pur- 
 pose of God, and actual when we believe. 
 This union existing in the divine purpose, 
 this covenant union, is represented as the 
 ground of the gift of regeneration. In Ep. ii. 
 5, 6, we are said to be quickened with Christ, 
 to be raised up in him. This can only mean 
 that there is a union between Christ and his 
 people, which secures to them that influence 
 by which they are raised from spiritual death. 
 If so, then in the convenant to ratify which 
 Christ died, it was promised that the Holy 
 Spirit should be given to his people, and to 
 secure that promise was one design of his 
 death. And consequently all for whom he 
 died must receive that Spirit, whose influ- 
 ences were secured by his death. He is, 
 therefore, said to have redeemed us from the 
 curse of the law, that we might receive the 
 promise of the Spirit, Gal. iii. 13, 14. It ob- 
 viously contradicts this important truth, to 
 teach that Christ's death had as much refer- 
 ence to one man as another, or that it merely 
 renders mercy possible. If Christ suffered by 
 
90 REVIEW OF 
 
 covenant, and if that covenant included the 
 promise of the Holy Spirit, to teach, renew, 
 and sanctify his people, then it cannot be de- 
 nied that those thus taught, renewed and 
 sanctified are those for whom he died. 
 
 Dr. Beman's theory, therefore, which de- 
 nies that the death of Christ had a special re- 
 ference to his own people, is inconsistent with 
 the plainly revealed facts, 1. That he died 
 in execution of a covenant in which his peo- 
 ple were promised to him as his reward, to 
 secure which reward is declared to be his 
 specific and immediate design in laying down 
 his life. 2. That the motive which led to the 
 gift of the Son, and of the Son in dying, was 
 not general benevolence, but the highest con- 
 ceivable love, love for his sheep and for 
 his friends. 3. That the design of his death 
 was not simply to remove obstacles out of the 
 way of mercy, but actually to secure the sal- 
 vation of those given to him by the Father ; 
 and that it does in fact secure for them the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost, and consequently 
 justification and eternal life. In other words, 
 God having out of his mere good pleasure, 
 elected some to everlasting life, did enter mto 
 a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of 
 the estate of sin and misery, and to bring 
 them into an estate of salvation, by a Re- 
 deemer. The only Redeemer of God's elect 
 is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the eter- 
 nal Son of God, became man, was made un- 
 der the law, satisfied, by his obedience and 
 death, all its demands, and thus fulfilled the 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 91 
 
 conditions of that covenant on which the sal- 
 vation of his people was suspended, and 
 thereby acquired a right to them as his stipu- 
 lated reward. Such was the specific design 
 and certain effect of his death. This is the 
 plain doctrine of our standards, and as we 
 fully believe, of the word of God. 
 
 It will however, doubtless be asked, admit- 
 ting that our doctrine of the atonement does 
 accord with the facts above mentioned, can 
 it be reconciled with the no less certain facts 
 that the gospel is to be freely offered to all 
 men, and that those who reject it, are justly 
 condemned for their unbelief? If it cannot, 
 it must be defective. On this score, however, 
 we feel no difficulty. 
 
 Our doctrine is, that the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 in order to secure the salvation of his people, 
 and with a specific view to that end, fulfilled 
 the conduions of the law or covenant under 
 which they, and all mankind were placed. 
 Those conditions were, perfect obedience, 
 and satisfaction to divine justice, by bearing 
 the penalty threatened against sin. Christ's 
 righteousness, therefore, consists in his obe- 
 dience and death. That righteousness is 
 precisely what the law demands of every 
 sinner, in order to his justification before 
 God. It is, therefore, in its nature, adapted 
 to all sinners who are under that law. Its 
 nature is not altered by the fact that it was 
 wrought out for a portion only of such 
 sinners, or that it is secured to them by the 
 covenant between the Father and the Son. 
 
92 REVIEW OP 
 
 What is necessary for the salvation of one 
 man, is necessary for the salvation of another, 
 and of all. The righteousness of Christ, 
 therefore, consisting in the obedience and 
 death demanded by the law under which all 
 men are placed, is adapted to all men. It is 
 also of infinite value, being the righteousness 
 of the eternal Son of God, and therefore suf- 
 ficient for all. On these two grounds, its 
 adaptation to all and its sufficiency for all, 
 rests the offer made in the gospel to all. With 
 this its design has nothing to do ; who are to 
 be saved by it we do not know. It is of such 
 a nature and value, that w^hosoever accepts 
 of it, shall be saved. If one of the non-elect 
 should believe (though the hypothesis is on 
 various accounts unreasonable) to him that 
 righteousness would be imputed to his salva- 
 tion. And if one of the elect should not be- 
 lieve, or having believed, should apostatize, 
 he would certainly perish. These supposi- 
 tions, are made, simply to show that accord- 
 ing to our doctrine, the reason why any man 
 perishes, is not that there is no righteousness 
 provided suitable and adequate to his case, or 
 that it is not freely offered to all that hear the 
 gospel, but simply because he wilfully rejects 
 the proffered salvation. Our doctrine, there- 
 fore, provides for the universal offer of the 
 gospel and for the righteous condemnation of 
 mibelievers, as thoroughly as Dr. Beman's. 
 It opens the door for mercy, as far as legal 
 obstructions are concerned, as fully as his; 
 while it meets all the other revealed facts of 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 93 
 
 the case. It is not a theory for one fact. It 
 includes them all ; the fact that Christ died by 
 covenant for his own people ; that love for 
 his own sheep led him to lay down his life ; 
 that his death renders their salvation absolute- 
 ly certain ; that it opens the way for the offer 
 of salvation to all men, and shows the justice 
 of the condemnation of unbelief. No man 
 
 PERISHES FOR THE WANT OP AN ATONEMENT, 
 
 is the doctrine of the Synod of Dort ; it is also 
 our doctrine. 
 
 Dr. Cox is pleased to call us " restriction- 
 ists." A most inappropriate designation. 
 There is more saving truth in the parings of 
 our doctrine, than in his whole theory. Our 
 doctrine contains all the modicum of truth 
 there is in his, and it contains unspeakably 
 more. His own theory is the most restricted, 
 jejune, meagre, and lifeless, that has ever been 
 propounded. It provides for but one fact ; 
 it teaches a possible salvation, while it leaves 
 out the very soul of the doctrine. It vitiates 
 the essential nature of the atonement, makes 
 it a mere governmental display, a symbolical 
 method of instruction, in order to do what 
 was better done without any such corruption. 
 While we teach that Christ, by really obey- 
 ing the law, and really bearing its penalty, in 
 the place of his people, and according to the 
 stipulations of the covenant of grace, secured 
 the salvation of all w^hom the Father had 
 given him; and at the same time throws 
 open the door of mercy to all who choose to 
 enter it. We retain the life-giving doctrine 
 
94 REVIEW OF 
 
 of Christ's unioQ with his own people, his 
 obeying and dying in their stead, of his bear- 
 ing our sins, and of our becoming the right- 
 eousness of God in him ; of the necessity of 
 entire self-renunciation and of simple reUance 
 on his righteousness, on the indweUing of his 
 Spirit, and on his strength for our salvation ; 
 while we impose no restriction on the glori- 
 ous gospel of the grace of God. 
 
 Long as this discussion has become, we 
 have touched only what appeared to us, the 
 most important points of the controversy, 
 and must leave others unnoticed. We trust 
 we have said enough, to show that there is 
 no necessity for surrendering the common 
 faith of Christendom, as to the nature of the 
 atonement, for the miserable theory pro- 
 pounded by Dr. Beman. We cannot close 
 this article without a single remark concern- 
 ing his book itself. It is a small volume; 
 sold at a moderate price, and intended for 
 general circulation. It is written in a calm 
 and confident spirit, but without force, dis- 
 crimination, or learning. It is the very book 
 to do harm. It presents its readers the 
 choice between two doctrines, the one no 
 man can adopt, the other is hardly worth 
 accepting. So far as this book is concerned, 
 the atonement must be rejected either as in- 
 credible or as worthless. He represents the 
 one doctrine, as teaching that Christ became 
 personally and morally a sinner, that he suf- 
 fered just what in kind and degree, all his 
 people throughout eternity, would have en- 
 
BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. 95 
 
 dured, and that they by his righteousness be- 
 came morally innocent. This view of the 
 atonement, no man can beUeve and be a 
 Christian. His own doctrine makes the 
 atonement a mere symbolical method of in- 
 struction, and reduces the whole work of 
 Christ in this matter, to making pardon pos- 
 sible. This again is a doctrine, which we 
 see not how any man can practically believe, 
 and be a Christian. The book in itself is of 
 little consequence. But from its gross and 
 yet confident misrepresentation of the truth, 
 it has more of the power due to falsehood, 
 than any book of the kind we know. As to 
 the author of the book, we have no disposi- 
 tion to sit in judgment on his motives. He 
 has most grievously misrepresented the truth, 
 whether ignorantly or otherwise, it is not for 
 us to say. 
 
 THE END. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 ^mmmmmm 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 .^,5|^^*^»«*^ 
 
 ^^'SiS* 
 
 
 
 
 mmmttm^^dti^ 
 
 
 
 ^m^i>am«^m^ 
 
 ^^aiwa^sis^i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED1NU.S.A. 
 
 i