T IT E
TIlE
ALLEDGED
i:srctr al   iffer nce
OF THE
OLD AND NEW SCIOOL
EXAMINED,
BY AN OLD DISCIPLE.
AUBURN:
WM. J. MOSES, PRINTER.
1855.




ADVERTiSEMENT.
THE following is an emended and abridged edition of a tract, entitled, The alledged reasons for the act of excision and consequent
division of the Presbyteriana Church, examined by An Old Disciple.
One reason for issuing this edition is, that the former one has so
many typographical errors. Another is, that since the former edition went to press, Dr. Judd's History of the Division of the Presbyterian Church has come to hand. Finding that he has gone over
much of the ground which I had traversed in relation to that Division, I have concluded to omit it in this edition. And another
reason is, that new editions of " Old and New Theology," by Dr.
Jas. Wood, and " Old and New School," by Dr. N. L. Rice, have been
recently published; and that some additional remarks in relation
to them seem to be needed.




INTfRODUCTION0
MANY a religiot:s controversy is prosecuted needlessly. On this
subject much wisdom minght be learned from the history of the altar'E D," as given in the 22cl chapter of Joshua. After the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh had aided the other tribes
of Israel in subduing the Canaanites, they returned with the bles"
sing of Joshua to the possessions allotted to them on the other side
of Jordan,  And on their way " they built there an altar by Jordan, a great altar to see to."  But when the other tribes heard of
it, they were filled with suspicion, that this was but a signal of revolt, and of rebellion against God and his people. And " the whole
congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together
at Shiloh, to go up to war against them," But previous to the
commencement of hostilities, they concluded to send a deputation
to the supposed offenders, to inquire why they had been acting
thus. And the explanation given by the two and a half tribes
showed, that it was not for the purpose of revolt, that they had
reared this altar; but rather for the purpose of preventing it in
after time. —Verse 24-29. This explanation satisfied their suspec,
ting brethren; and thus a bloody war was prevented. And if in
the commencement of the difficulties between the Old School and
New, the like explanations had been candidly asked and given,
how much evil might have been avoided. The present essay is an
humble attempt to furnish the explanations that should have been
long since asked and given.
Religious controversies are sometimes needful. But they are
always to be deplored; and the love of them is an unlovely and unsafe propensity, Said Dr. Scott, "We must have controversies,
but we must take care of our tempers."  Few  controversialists
heed this caution as they ought. Often the contending parties
" know not what spirits they are of." While they think they are' very jealous for the Lord God of hosts," their spirit is sectarian,




and their object mastery. The Lord keep the writer fromi such
self-delusion.
When Dr. E. S, Ely was an Old School man, he wrote his " Contrast," to show that Old and New Divinity are very wide apart,
And since that, I have heard him speak of his mother's saying to
him, " My son, you have written a Contrast, and now I wish you
would write a Harmony,"  Such a work was much needed thet,
But, as we have had several other Contrasts since, the Harmony is
now needed more than ever. And in the absence of better hands
for the work, I volunteer my own.  I am anxious that this little
work shall have at least one excellency, that of candor, I shall
aim also to be simple and plain enough to be understood by common minds, even though it should be at the expense of my reputation as a writer.
I am aware that the enemies of the truth are now attacking
it in a new and most adroit manner-not by directly denying and
opposing it, but by admitting and corrupting it. The friends of
truth should therefore be the more watchful, "lest Satan spoil
them and others, through philosophy and vain deceit." And, if
such be the policy and practice of the New School, let the Old be
keen-sighted to discover, and loud in warning the community away
from  them. But if, on the contrary, the New School are the
staunch advocates of the cardinal doctrines of revelation, then it is
not only very unjust, but very unwise to denounce them as semiinfidels, and semi-Pelagians.  To confound them with such errorists, pouring upon them the like maledictions, is not only doing great
injustice to the former, but giving great advantage to the latter.
If the Old School and New are standing on the same side of the
grand line between truth and error, (as I hope to show that they
are,) then, they ought not to turn their weapons upon each other,
but bear down with united force upon the common enemy.
I am far from thinking that the New School have monopolized
all the correctness of opinion, conduct and spirit in the Presbyterian
Church. I am free to admit that some of us have been so loose
and indefinite, so extravagant, (and wild, shall I say.) in the statenent of our doctrines, that taking them for a sample, it is not so
strange that our Old School brethren misunderstand us.*  And I
doubt not that many of us (myself particularly) have been much




wanting in candor, respecting their views and conduct.  I know
there are faults on both sides, and they are more equally balanced,
perhaps, than either side suppose.  I would keep it ever in mind,
that if I occupied the stand point of my Old School brethren, I
should see fewer faults in them, and more in ourselves.  And as it
is, I see in some on my own side, a want of candor in weighing the
statements of the other party, for which I feel no fellowship   Still
I believe the New School (yes, and the Old School too) have in
the main the right spirit, aml ho.d the essential doctrines of the
Gospel.
Such is the state of the controversy between us, that it should
have more attention just now. Grievous charges have been brought
against us, both of hypocrisy and heresy.  And if they are true,
they ought to be more fully known, and more pointedly condemned.
But, if they are false, this should be more fully known, that our
characters may be vindicated, and the obstruction to our usefulness may be removed.
Dr. William D. Smith, in his Dialogues of a Minister and Convert, holds the following language:
Minister.  " That which is called' New Divinity' is not the system of doctrine taught in our standards, with points of difference
only.  It is entirely a different system, one principal feature of
which is, that it dishonors God, and exalts man; which you know
is the reverse of the Calvinistic system, taught in our standards."' Dr. J. Wood, in his late and enlarged edition of " Old and New Theology," gives us, pp 224-8, an account of certain observations made in
the Auburn Convention of 1837, and to himself individuaily, as proof of
the " Prevalence of Error" in the New School. This proof I consider
very lame in several respects. In the first place, it is doubtful whether
he infallibly understood the meaning of these New School brethren; for
nothing is more common than for disputants to misunderstand each other.
In the next place, it is doubtful whether he could recollect their language
for sixteen years so as to report it exactly. And though his report were
exact, it is more than doubtful whether the observations reported express
the views of the New School correctly. According to the Doctor's own
showing, those who made the remiarks mistook the meaning of the Confession of Faith, thinking it taught the identity of Adam with his posterity, or transfer of his sin to them; while he and I believe it teaches no
such thing.  And as to the statements of others respecting the prevalence of errors as given pp. 229-31. it is doubtful whether they are
infallibly correct; and whether some of those who made them were
not then at heart, and are now by connection, Old School men.




6
Convert. "But do they not receive and adopt the Confession of
Faith 1"
Minister. " As a body, they receive and adopt it, in a certain
way; that is, they adopt it so far as they believe it, which is little
better than mockery.. In that way we may receive the Turkish
Koran. It says there is a God, and it inculcates some moral duties;
and so far, any one could adopt it. Indeed, I do not know of any
system that might not be adopted in this way. Others pretend to
adopt it as a whole, but reserve the privilege of explaining it so as
to accord with their own views.-They either make it mean nothing
at all, or something the very reverse of its obvious sense.-As a
body, they have most pernicious errors fostered among them."pp. 193-4.
These are grave charges, and ought to be examined. Is it indeed
true, that we are holding a system entirely different from the one
taught in our standards-one that dishonors God and exalts man!
Is it indeed true, that we adopt the Confession of Faith in a way
that is little better than mockery! a way in which we might adopt
the Koran 1  Do we explain it in a way which makes it mean nothing at all, or something the very reverse of its obvious meaning?
Do we as a body have most pernicious errors fostered among us!
If so, it ought to be more widely known, that all men may abhor
and avoid us.
But other and perhaps severer charges are brought against us
by Dr. J. C. Lord. In his Introduction to Mr. Cheeseman's Doctrinal Differences between Old and New School Presbyterians, he
says: " With strange, yet characteristic inconsistency, they (the
New School) caricature the doctrines of grace, and of the Confession
of Faith, as though they embodied all that is inconsistent and perverse and monstrous."  Yet if their conduct is so shockingly profane, why have they not encountered the universal remonstrance of
the evangelical world! But Dr. Lord continues:
"Could it be made to appear to that large and respectable body
of members of the Presbyterian Church, who, though sound in the
faith, yet remain in the New School connection, that the principles
for which the General Assembly (Old School) contended, and in defence of which they intended to bear testimony in the excision act
of 1837, are the same maintained by Paul the apostle against the




7
gainsayers of his cay, the same afterwards defended in the fifth
century by Augustine against Pelagius, and the samle which were
revived by Luther, and with which as with a battle-axe he smote
the gates of the great apostacy, they would npt and could not give
support and countenance and comfort to the enemies of the truth,
by remaining one hour within the ecclesiastical walls of the New
School General Assembly."-pp. 7, 8.
And just so I think.  Only makle it evident that the New School
are holding those same grand errors which Paul and Augustine
and Luther opposed, and the New School would forsa7ke itself.
But the marvel is, that Dr. Lord and his associates do not furnish
the adequate evidence. And the mystery is the greater as he adds,
" If there be anything clear, which may be determined beyond a
doubt, it is that the theological contest between the Reformers, and
the Romanists in the sixteenth century, is the same now waged between the Old and New School Presbyterians. No intelligent reader
can peruse the controversy between Luther and Dr. Eck, the chanpion of the papist, without perceiving this. No degree of prejudice or blindness can conceal the fact. It is written as with sunbeams-it is graven as with the point of a diamond in the face of a
rock.  The doctrines maintained by all the reformed Churches
have been rejected by them (the New School) for the theological
tenets of the papacy. Nothing can be demonstrated by history, if
D'Aubigne's account of the Reformation does not establish this."p. 8.
But how happens it that what is " so clear" as to be " beyond all
doubt," is disbelieved by so many, viz: that the contest between
the Reformers and the Romanists is precisely the present contest
between the iNewv and Old School Presbyterians'  lfcasy " intelligent readers"  cave " perused the controversy without perceiving
this."   How is it, then, that they have failed to do. what the
Doctor tells us they ctannot fail to do l Is it tlhrouagh prejudice l
Oh, no; for he tells us, " No degree of prejudice or blindness can
conceal the fact."  And yet I doubt whether anzy have perceived
it, except himself. Nor is it the less strange, that it took him  so
many years to find it out.  So groundless and preposterous are
these allegations, that it would seem at first thought, they would
need no refutation. And yet we know that many honest, yet sr —




perficial minds, are apt to believe what is so confidently asserted,
though ever so unsupported.
Allegations in other forms are brought against us by Mr. Cheeseman.  He says, " The new divinity being a most glaring and wide
departure from the ancient faith, is undoubtedly an apostacy, not a
progress."-p. 167. "The new divinity, then, is another gospel,
an apostacy from the faith."-p. 172. "Take for example these
differences which separate Old from  New School Presbyterians.
One believes, that Christ endured the penalty of the law; another,
that he did not.  One, that he obeyed for his people; the other,
that he obeyed for himself. One, that his righteousness is imputed
to believers; the other, that it is not, but the act of faith is imputed.
One that his faith receives the righteousness of Christ; the other
that Christ needs it for himself. One, that regeneration is the act of
God; the other, that it is the act of man. One, that it is a change of
nature; the other, that it is a change of purpose.  One, that man
can do nothing of himself; the other, that he can do all that is required of him."-pp. 206-7. Charges so severe as these ought at
least to be examined.
Can the charges now quoted from these three authors be true I
Are New School men such barefaced and impious hypocrites as to
subscribe solemnly to the Presbyterian standards, while they believe not the fundamental doctrines which they contain 1  And do
they hold the foul doctrines thus alledged?  If so, let it be proved
and proclaimed to all evangelical Churches in our land, till there
shall come back from them  one united remonstrance, solemn and
loud, " as the sound of many waters."
But what if these allegations are not true 3 Should New School
men pass them by in silence 1  Yes, perhaps they should, if they
themselves are the only ones concerned. But what if their characters, activity and influence are important to the world at large?
If they are not what the Old School declare them  to be, but are
what they profess to be, then they constitute an important part of
that "light of the world" by which is to be dissipated " the
darkness" which " covers the earth"-thab light, by which the
saving influences of the Gospel are to shine into the hearts of sinners. It is therefore important that their light should not be obscured by the mists and clouds of foul aspersion. If they are




what they profess to be, they constitute no small part of that " salt
of the earth" through the means of which the world is to be saved
from moral putrefaction and final perdition.  It is important, therefore, that " its savor" should not be impaired by false imputations,
Yes, if they are what they profess to be, they form  one grand division of that army of" the Lord of Hosts" by which the kingdoms
of this world are to be subdued to the dominion of " the Prince of
Peace."  It is important, therefore, that no groundless charges
should be left to impede their march, or to paralyze their power.
That the influence and efforts of the New School have been very
much crippled by such as the foregoing allegations, I verily believe.
And believing as verily that they are false, I must think it their
right not only, but their duty to prove them false.
Of the first of the authors now noticed I would say the less, as
he has gone to his account. But as his book still lives, I must say
at least that he must have been very ignorant of New School
views, or as an honest man he could not have published what he
did. Of the second I would say, that after all I have known of
his propensity to random  and extravagant utterances, I was not
prepared to find him  a mlan of such " strange," not to say such
" characteristic inconsistency" as to "caricature" the views of the
New School (so lately his own) " as if they embodied all that is inconsistent, perverse, and monstrous."  And of the last author
quoted I must say, I have seldom found in the same compass so
much slander and sophistry.
What these authors have said against us would not have done us
much injury, if they had not been endorsed by certain organs and
individuals of high standing among our Old School brethren. It is
these recommendations that has given, and is still giving them consequence and currency.
When the first edition of my tract appeared, an Old School editor remarked, " It is but little credit to any man to be found digigng up the bones of this effete controversy, and trying to galvanize them into life, and clothing them  with flesh and bones.'
But though the controversy were dead, it was not buried. For
the Old School have been all the while plying their batteries upon
it, by circulating the books above quoted, and by other means.
Especially has the Board of Publication been doing so, by the




10
publication of books and tracts upon this controversy. Of late,
too, has it issued an enlarged edition of Dr. Wood's " Old and New
Theology."  And since then, Dr. Rice has published a second edition of his " Old and New School."  As, then, there are continued
and increasing efforts made on the part of our accusers, is there
not occasion on our part to speak again and more loudly in our
own vindication.
The " History of the Division of the Presbyterian Church" is very
brief and general in its remarks respecting the doctrinal differences
between Old School and New. And the subject demands a more mil
nute and extended investigation. For it is these alledged differences on which our exscinding brethren are now pretending to lay the
greatest stress.  Will not the reader be the more patient and attentive, then, while I attempt to examine them I




CHAPTEIR  1.
GE NERAL R E   -. R K S.
Our Old School brethren bring against us two general
and grave charges.  One is that of hypocrisy, in subscribing to the Presbyterian standards, while we do not believe
the fundamental doctrines which they contain.  The other
is in holding gross and pernicious errors.  Let us see,
then, whether these charges are well founded.
On the first of these charges it may help us in settling
the question, to inquire as to the general character of those
against whom it is made.  As described by their accusers,
they would seem to be a set of sly and crafty, deceitful and designing men, that could not be trusted in the ordinary affairs
of life.  And do the New School stand out before the eyes of
a discerning public in such a light?   Let a candid community judge, whether they are not as open and honest, as
transparent and straight-forward, as any corresponding
portion of the Old School? And if they are, it is passing
strange, that just so soon as they pass from secular to sacred concerns, they as a body should become signally evasive and double-dealing, lying, not only to man, but unto
God.  Can it be, that they are so base and impious,
as to labor so much to impose themselves upon others as
orthodox, while conscious of being heterodox!  Can our
accusers themselves believe it?  If they do, why are they
so anxious to " absorb" such heretics?  I might ask, why
they have been so ready to receive those who could not
bring clean papers from us?  Does not the principle prevail practically among them, that all a New School man
needs to niake him orthodox, is to change his connection?
If examination is had at all on receiving them, is it not,
with few exceptions, merely for the sake of form?  But a.1rl ll ~e  ~~  f brz




more serious question is, how they can allow their memn)'l  rs
to  come  over to us uwncensured,  if we are so hypocritical and  heretical!   I hope, however, the  honesty  of
New School men will be yet more  evident on  inquiring,
whether te       cally           the ctua  err ors which the Old School
impuzte to themz 
It is often and boldly asserted, that many of our views
are at war with our standiards.  But I am mluclh ni t.ken
if we do not find, on full examination, that th ose moderate
men who make  e n the most important portion, both of th;1e
Old School and New, are substanztial/l           a  reed on ail ti 
esserntial doctrines of the Gospel.  Wheir   Uwly  Co.isa. -
gree, it will be found, I think71, that it is not in regard to
any fact or faith- that is vital to  th l        Calvinisic system;
but in regard only to some theory or mode of expression
which  philosophy  has associated  with  such  doctrines.
And such in both School s  cn  onscientiously subsacibe to
the Presbyterian standal.ds.
The doctrines of our Church  are all contained  in tie
Confession of Faith and thie CatechislnS.   The Confession
contains 171 sections,  the Larger Catec(hisml 195, and t1eI
Shorter Catechism  107 questions and atnswers   makin   in
all 474 pararagiphs.  And l  there are only 13, or 14 al most,
of all these, on which Old and New  School mien, as such,
are not confessedly agreed.  Nor are tlere so many points
of doctrine on which they disagree.   Hetherington, in his
history of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, says. (p.
258.) " They aimed to  have no propositions in the Catechisms, that were not in  tie  Confessiona'  And though
the sections of t'e Conession in whiclh we seeun to come
in collision are seven or eiht, tie doctj;rines to wi'ich they
relate are only four or five.
I do not mean that these are all the poi0nts  on wlici
Presbyterians disagree.  I mean they are 1a.l1 the  oi",t1s (o,1
which they are dlivided into  Old School and icNew.  Thiere
are many other things in our standards  in whicih   e l di:er.
But on these the two Schools arie not m ore divided  a oainst
each other, than they are among  tlhemlselves.  Some. o   feiar,
are found in both Schools who deny Total Depraviti. Plegeneration by the Holy   Spirit, Divine Sovereig'lnty,.lection. Saints' Pe(rseverance. and 1nf1fnt Bap tislm.    o' t e s in 




I:t
kbothi Sehools disbelieve what is said in the Confession, eLapl
23, see 2, on w      ac; and chap. 24, sec. 3, 4 and 6 on:ear-,riagGe and divorce: and more disbelieve what it says, chap,
18,              on.F1  ssc     hope.  Some'e ay be foncld in
both  Schools who think the Confession -teaches, clap. 10,
see. 3, that somle  of those who  die in in -tftiey  are lost;
twhile others think it teacels no such'  thing   both of whom
believe, at a l      events,'thaLt non;e who die in infancy are lost.
Probab] y some   i  bott Schools believe in  " -the eternal.g..e.    of te Son of Geod'   whilehe he 0ost in both.,:,sbeiie' e  it. S om     e believe   t - t  lte divize na ture of
Crist suflfereid, when hIe  made,  atonem en  for sin;  while
ithe  great  mass of  bo    Schools  believe  lthe con  -ary 
jCSome, perha.ps, rmay  believe, v;it-h  myself, that Efectualt
cailing and A.optoion shoulcd not be considered    a            separate'
anrd distinct aects of   gaee~that the former is.included int
Leg eneratiori, markiLn   moz  e particuilarly  the miod~e and
~imiea.s of it, while the latter is  icuded  in  eTu.stii cation
and   ancti'-ecatioln; as tie lforer Cdcr  mbisihe aiinner to trle
p.rivi'egs of the sons of God, while t he othier Jys himn to
enjoy them?.  We disagvreo about t'hese -thinhgs, (and probai)y many others tnl   t are ta.ught in  tle CO)Lfession,) and
seeml to do it bhy commoln consent; none expecting t hat wem
shall be perfectly  agreed as to everything taug'h  in  our
tanlidard.       Iy,  tbhenl, should some of our brethren  talk
so sneeringlay about or subseribing these standards as;a
sR yst em of deoetrines," w rithout be-ng  understood to beli.eve
every  jot  and  tLittle  o' whla t  they  contain             T  hey
th;emiselv es doi the very   iing  whic h  they   ]bame ini us'._e,  t th  tiitns mabo0e    entioned are not essential to our
Calvinistic sstem.  But in  re ga.rd  to  the flimda.metal
dtoct'rines tihellselves, tlere  are  mlanly  forms a.nid phases
mieh nothiis  but a speceulativej  phil osophy  Iias adventit-iously atta-ciheid to thm.    At         re are many accidents;d el atiols, which    though  intimntely conneted wit i t heso
i-octrines m,-ake  nevertheless le  10s no   orion  of their essence.
T-lse t1-he;01,  (1shou.d be distinluisheid'from  what is essentl].
Ak:n-.d so have sa. dl some of olr Old Sch'mool brethilenl.  See
i   1                             (114 nt~71,,1 hr eth ite     See
3:l,,tc l lcpcr,,ty, \;1..2, Ns4ew Sc!res,., 52    And ]Jr.
Xree, ha.s told': i i:                 e t V, t'y r- ceived  ol 1itop!Ei;sians COrdtiallr,  )beiase  teiC'-!;ttte'  ri,'''el /;"('m2 fom   el, n 0)'    in?  10/Ne,.osr,,_z'i,/s. S/.l' )i'.:,!  i,,. t. BuI,  1 it old




14
aHopklnsianism used to be "the height and front" of New
School offending.  We should, therefore, rejoice that our
Old School brethren have lately become so candid and liberal, as to acknowledge those to be essentially sound, whom
they once regarded as grievous heretics. But if they can
fellowship " old Hopkinsians," I see not why they cannot
fellowship the great mass of New School men.  For I hope
to show, that if the errors of the former are non-essential,
so are those of the latter.
Those who adopted our standards for the use of the
American Church were far from being unanimous in their
views.  And we are accordingly informed that,  "When
adopted by the Presbyterian Church in this country, it
was with the distinct understanding, that the mode of subscription did not imply strict uniformity of views.  And
from that time to this, there has been an open and avowed
diversity of opinion on many points among those who
adopt the Confession of Faith, without leading to suspicion of insincerity or dishonesty. It is clearly impossible,
that any considerable number of men can be brought to
conform so exactly in their views, as to be able to adopt
such an extended formula of doctrine precisely in the same
sense."1-Biblical Repertory, Vol. 3, pp. 521-3.
In accordance with this was the Adoption Act of 1729.
It is as follows: " And we do also agree that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care not to
admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise of
the sacred functions, but what declares his agreement in
opinion of all the essential and necessary articles of said
Confession; and in case any minister of this Synod, or
any candidate of the ministry, shall have any scruples with
respect to any article or articles of said Confession or
Catechism, he shall, at the time of his making his declaration, declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod,
who shall notwithstanding, admit him  to the exercise of
the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial coiiimunion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scrnpies or mistakes to be only about articles not essentizl or
necessary in doctrine, worship or government.  And tle
Synod do solemnly agree that none of us will tradcuce or
use any opprobrious terms of those who differ from us in
these extra essential and not necessary points of doctrine;




15
but treat them  with the same friendship, kindness and
brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such
sentiments."-Records of the Presbyterian Church, p. 92.
Collision in doctrine and practice occasioned a division
of the Synod in 1741, which was healed in 1759: both
parties agreeing to adopt the Confession and Catechisms
according to the proviso and pledge of 1729.  And as
this agreement has never been annulled, it is still in force.
But we shall see in the course of our investigations, how
little it has been regarded by those who have exscinded us,
and by those who charge us with dishonesty in subscribing
to the Presbyterian standards. We shall see, too, whether
in our interpretations of these standards we exceed the indulgence which, according to the above agreement, should
be allowed to all: or rather, whether we have not kept
within the probable meaning of these standards, and
whether we have not, therefore, taken less liberty of interpretation than it allows us.
Yet one of the prominent charges of the Old School
against us is, that we presume to interpret these standards in our own way.  Are they aware how bold is their
assumption in denying us this right. " What," say they,
" you interpret? That privilege belongs to usalone."  They
must not be surprised, then, if we answer them somewhat
as a king of the forest answered the king of England who
offered to let the Indian monarch kiss his hand.' Ugh,"
said he, " I king too."  They may reply, perhaps, " These
standards speak for themselves, and they speak only as we
believe."  But that is a thing to be proved-not assumed.
If it appear on investigation that yours is the only tenable
interpretation, we yield-not otherwise.  All other language (even that of Scripture) is capable of different constructions.  And are not our standards subject to the
same?  If they are, why may not all be allowed to judge
what is their most probable meaning, and to give their
reasons for so judging?
Dr. N. S. Rice tells us (Old and New  Schools, p. 13)
that the " New School were the first to declare the existence of important doctrinal differences in the Presbyterian Church."  He ascribes this declaration to Dr. Beman,
as made in 1823.  But as early as 1821, there came up to
General Assembly from Tennessee (I think) a complaint,




1.6
numerously subscribed, against certain New School mei
in that region.  And even as early as 18t6, the Synod of
Philadelphia made a similar complaint.  See Judd's History of the Division, pp.' 0; 91.
At one time, the Old School drew up sixteen charges of
error against us.  See Minutes, pp. 468, 9.  But of these
sixteen charges, the Princeton Review of Oct., 1834. said:
"iWe have not the least idea that one-tenth of the ministers
of the Presbyterian Church would deliberately countenance and sustain the errors specified above."  And I think
that fi w would now charge us with more than four errors
of doctrine.  These are in respect to Imputation, Original
Sin, The Nature and Extent of the Atonement and JHuman Ability.  It is true that Drs. Rice and Wood still
insist that we deny the Need of Regeneration, or hold
that a change of heart is a gradtual work.  But I deem it
enough to meet such a charge with a direct denial.  The
authors whom they quote on this charge are but little read,
less understood, and still less adopted by the New School
at large.  While the authors most extensively read and
approved by us, directly assert the doctrine of insttantaneous regeneration by the Spirit of God.
It is true, that sonme in both Schools take ultra views of
the four doctrines now  to be examined-views not only
wide apart from each other, but (as I think) wide apart
froi  the truth.  But there are also msedium  views, in
which I am confident by far the greater and more intelligent part of both Schools can cordially unite.  For I verily believe that a large share of men on both sides misapprehend the views of the party opposed to them.  WVhat
I mean is, that the Old School generally believe the ultra
New School views to be held by all the New School, while
they are held only by a few  of them: and on the other
hand. the New  School generally believe the ultra Old
School views to be held by all the Old School, while they
are held only by a few  of them,  In entertaining these.misapprehensions, both  parties may be alike culpable.
And I for one am  willing that my own party should
assume a full moiety of the blame.  For I believe their error
is in misunderstanding the views of the Old School, rather
than in holding doctrines essentially different from  themI
WT will Il,)  e..xaine these mooted doctrines separately,




CHAPTER IL
I MP UTATION.
Tirs doctrine includes both the Imputation of Adam's
sin to his posterity, and the Imputation of Christ's righteousness to the redeemed.  The former of these will have
our chief attention; for I believe it is the only portion of
this doctrine which the New  School are suspected of rejecting.  And the other portion will be sufficiently noticed
incidentally.
According to the ultra views of our Old School brethren, the sin of Adam  in partaking of the forbidden fruit
is either by personal identity, or otherwise so transferred
to his posterity, as to become literally theirs;  that is,
that God literally blamnes themi-for his sin, as much as if
they had been actually present, and had shared in the will
and the work of plucking the forbidden fruit; and that
he actually threatens to literally punish them for it, irrespective of their own personal sins; in other words, that
Adam's sin is theirs in such a sense    that they should feel
remorse, and exercise repentance in regard to it.
But in my opinion this view is held by few of our Old
School  brethren.   Dr. Wood  denies transfer.-' Old
and  New  Theology," p. 50.   And  Dr. Rlice  rejects
personal identity.-" The Old and New  Schools," p. 21,
So did the Princeton professors. —Theological Essays, p.
136. And some accuse us of willfully misrepresenting tlhen
in ascribing this ultra view to them.  Dr. Willis Lord, in
his treatise called " The Federal Charaeter of Adam, and the
Imputation of his Sin," a tract published and endorsed by
the Old School Board of Publication, says,' The personal
identity of Adam and his race is a theory exploded.  Indeed, it is questionable, if ever it existed, except in the
prolific fancy  of theological caricaturists.'-pp. 10, 11,
And I suppose Rev. Dr, J. C. Lord intended to bring the




18
same charge against us, in saying in language already quoted, " They caricature the doctrines of the Confession of
Faith, as though they embodied all that is inconsistent and
monstrous."   But if their lordships would read what
Prof. Park has quoted (in Bibliothleca Sacra for 1851, pp.
611-614) from their Old School authors, they could not
think it strange, that their brethren are supposed to hold
this inconsistent and monstrous notion.  Yet I for one
rejoice that our Old School brethren are now repudiating
these ultra views of imputation.  And I am the more willing to bear the charge of misrepresenting them, as this
charge shows them the more firmly united with us in abhorring and opposing this literal, ultra view  of imputation.
And among our New School brethren also there are
ultra views on this subject.  Some of them  deny that
Adam is in any sense the head and representative of his
race; or insist at least that the race are in no sense sinful
in consequence of his original transgression. But I think
the number of such is small.  And some of my brethren
are unwilling  to believe there are any such among us.
Yet to say the least of it, there are those among us who
believe the doctrine of imputation, as held by the Old
School, consists in charging personal demerit on the posterity of Adam on account of his sin; and who, in opposing such a view of imputation-, have used such language
as has led many of the Old School honestly to believe that
they deny the headship of Adaml altogether.  And yet, if
this denial were charged upon them, they would probably
say the charge is false.
But between these ultra and opposite views there is, I
believe, a nediumn one, in which nearly all in both Schools
could in the main most cordially unite.  The view is this:
God constituted Adam the Federal Head and Raepresentative of his posterity, with the purpose that, if /he continued
obedient, they should all be born with such a holy disposition as would secure their obedience on earth, and thus
their -blessedness in heaven: but, that if he hfell. ihey
should be born with such propensity to sin, that, thteir first
mioral exercises and actions would cer'tainily though not




necessarily* be unholy.  And as he did fall, imputation
consists in accounting and declaring his posterity to have
sinned and fallen with him, (not literally but metaphorically, and representatively,) because they  all eventually
sin in consequence of the native depravity which they receive through him.  In this view the race is said " to sin
and to be doomed in him," because his sin decided the
question as to their sin and ruin.
Concerning this view of imputation, three questions demand attention:
I.  Is IT IN ACCORDANCE  VITH THE SYSTEMI OF DIVINE
TRUTH?
II.  Is IT ONE IN WHICH THE  MAIN PORTION OF BOTH
SCHOOLS CAN CONCUR?
lII.  Is IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LANGUAGE OF our,
STANDARDS?
I. Is it in accordance with the system of Divine truth?
The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is the opposite of justificatio~n through Christ's righteousness.
This we see in the use which Paul makes of the language
of David in Ps. 32: 2.  " Blessed is the man unto whom
the Lord imputeth not iniquity."  In allusion to this the
apostle says, " But to him that worketh not, but believeth
on him that justifieth, the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness.  Even as David describeth the blessedness
of that man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness
without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered   Blessed is the
man to whom  the Lord will not impute sin." —Rom. 4:
5-8.  According to this passage, not to impute sin, is the
same as to justify through the righteousness of Christ.
The imputation of sin, then, is the opposite of justification.
And, as we distinguish justification. that is literal and legal from that which is mnetcaphor-ical and evangelical: so
we must distinguish respecting its opposite, imzputation.
Now as the imputation of Adam's sin is the opposite of
evaangelical justification, it cannot be a literal, legal inmputation, but must be a figurative, Gospel one.  And so says
* This distinction between certain and necessary was taught by Luther.
-Milnor, Vol. 5, chap. 12, sec. 2. And also by Dr. Alexander.-Moral
Science. And by the editors of Bib. Repertory, Vol. 17, p 638.




Tuckey, one of the framers of the Confession of Faith.
"We are righteous through Christ in the same zmanner
as we are counted guilty through Adam."  Prmlectiones pi
234.  Turretin also says, " We are constituted sinners in
Adam the same way that we are constituted righteous in
Christ." —See Hodge on Rom. Princeton Essays, pp. 136,
142, 144.
Now, to justify sinners is not literally to make them
just.  That were impossible.  Neither is it to declare
them just. That would be asserting a falsehood. But it is
purposing to treat them (for Christ's sake) as if they were
just. In other words,it is releasing them from their liability
to punishment.  It was in this meaning of the term  that
Shimei said to David, (2 Sam. 19: 19,) " Let not my lord
imzpute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that
which thy servant did perversely."  In asking David not
to impute his iniquity, he simply asked him not to punish
it.  And if not to impute is to release from  punishment,
then, to impute is to make liable to punishment.  So says
Dr. Rice, "' To impute sin is to punish it; not to impute,
is to pardon."' —Old and New Schools, p. 21.  And so says
Owen, p. 460.
Here, then, we have the figurative sense in which God
is said in the Bible to impute the sin of Adam to his posterity.  It is making them  liable to the same sufJering
with himt.  And we think it evident that the way in
which he makes them thus liable is in bringing them  into
the world with that corrupt propensity, through which
they will certainly, yet voluntarily, and without necessity, commit sin; and thereby will become deserving of the
death denounced upon Adam.  And this accords with Calb
vin.  He says: " Paul ascribes our ruin to him (Adam)
because his sin is the cause of our sin."
Imputation, like many other things in the Bible is expressed eliptically, and by way of anticipjation.  By anticipation men are said to have fallen. and to have been
condemned in Adam.  Thus the entire result of man's
ruin is spoken of as having taken place already; while a
great share of those to whom  this result is eventually to
reach, are not yet born.  " Death," says the apostle,
passed upon all mnen, for that all have sinnedl."-Rom. 5:




12.   If one (Christ.) died for all, then were all dead.Kl —
2 Cor. 5: 14.  And thus the race is said, by way of an~
ticipation, both to sin and die in Adam, not only before
they have really sinned, but before they were born.
The Scriptures nowhere directly assert the imputation
of Adam's sin to his posterity. The passage most relied
upon as teaching it, has just been quoted.  " So death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," translating
the last clause, in whom  (Adam) all have sinned.  But
this translation is at most doubtful.  Calvin, Hill, H-odge,
and many others give it up.  Yet it is not a point worth
contending.  The more important question is, How, or in
what sense did we sin and fall in Adam?  Several passages of Scripture will give us light on this question.
Said Paul, (Heb. 7: 9, 10) " Levi also who receiveth
tithes, paid tithes in Abraham, for he was in the loins of
his father, when Melchisedec met him."  By Levi, Paul
meant the Levitical priesthood; and declared them  to be
in the loins of their great progenitor, when returning from
the rescue of Lot, he met this king of Salem, and paid
tithes to him.  But neither philosophy nor common sense
allow us to interpret this language literally.  It is, therefore, metaphorical, and means only that this act of Abraham in paying tithes to Melchisedec, affected the standing
of the tribe of Levi, showing it inferior to him, and
therefore inferior to Christ, who is" a priest forever after
the order or standing of Melchisedec."-Ps. 110: 4. Now
as it is the same apostle using the same metaphor here
and in Rom. 5: 12, he must have used them in the same
sense.  If, then, he did mean to say that all men sinned
in Adam, he must have only meant to be understood, that
Adam's sin grievously affected the condition of his posterity.
The charge of Christ against the Scribes and Pharisees,
as found in Mat. 23: 35, will afford us further illustration.  He says,' That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from  the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias,
whom ye slew  between the temple and the altar."  In
these words Christ declares plainly, that the blood of all
the martyrs, from Abel to Zacharias, would be imputed




to t;le Jews then living.  Not only so, but lie imputes to
them most positively the murder of the latter, although
he was slain long before their birth, so that they could in
no sense have been the abettors of his death.  There may
be imputation, then, without covenanted headship.  For
none will say, that those who slew  Zacharias and other
prophets before him were the appointed representatives of
those to whom Christ spoke.  In this case it rests on the
ground of likeness or imitation,  Christ charges the murder of the prophets upon the Jews to whom he spoke, because they breathed the like spirit, and pursued the like
course with those who did actually shed the:r blood.  This
will be evident to all who will read the context from the
29th to the 36th verse.  And may not the imputation of
Adam's sin to his posterity rest upon the same groundon the ground not only of representation, but also of imib
tation?  Are not Adam's posterity anticipately charged
with his sin, because they will feel and act as he did, and
will deserve therefore the same doom?
A still further illustration of this doctrine may be derived from Paul's words to Philemon, (verse 18,) "If he
hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine
account."  In Greek, " impute that to me."  Surely, Paul
did not mean that Philemon should hold him to blame for
the wrong which Onesimus had done him, or as bound in
justice to pay what Onesiomus owed him.  But more of
this passage hereafter.
Oar Old School brethren are fond of supporting the
imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, by its analogy
to that of Christ's righteousness. And their argument is
conclusive.  But suppose we carry the analogy a little farther than they do.  Suppose we say, As the imputation of
Christ's righteousness to the believer does not make him
deserving of life, so the imputation of Adam's sin to his
posterity does not make them deserving of death.  Again:
As the imputation of Christ's righteousness is no benefit to
the elect, till they put forth some voluntary exercise, the exercise of faith; so the imputation of Adam's sin is no injury
to the sinner, till he puts forth some voluntary evil exercise.
For, if imputation in the former case is conditioned on
voluntary exercise, why not in the latter?  Paul's words,




lomn. 5: 15, 20, favors this position, as in both cases of
imputation he speaks as if it had taken place. while it is
yet to come.  HIe says,'-For, if through the offence of one
many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift
by  grace, which  is  by  one  man, Jesus  Christ, hath
abounded  unto  many.  Moreover the law  entered, that
grace miight abound:  but where sin aboundel, grace did
much more abound."   Thus it appears, I hope, that the
present view of this doctrine is in accordance with the syse
tern of Divine truth.  Our next inquiry is,
II. Whether this view of imputation is one in which the
main portion of the Old and New School can substantially
concur? It would seem as if the great body of the Old
School must adopt it; for they  repudiate  the ultra views
of personal identity, transfer, and all such participation
of the demerit of Adam's sin as would  call for repentance and resmorse.  A  few  quotations will now  be given
from  standard  publications to  show  the  doubting  ones
among my New School brethren that the  Old  School do
really adopt this medium  view."
In an article ascribed to the Professors of Princeton,
(already alluded to,) we read as follows: " What we deny,
therefore, is that this doctrine (of imputation) involves
any mnysterious union with  Adam, and any confusion of
identity with his, so that his act was properly and personally our act; and secondly, that the  noral turpitude of
that sin was so transferred from  him  to  us.  We deny
* In the position that I have taken I suppose I am between two fires.
I expect opposition from both Schools. Numbers in the New School
will insist, I fear, that the Old, as a body, are more ultra than I represent
them. They are too slow, I think, in believing.the Old School really
hold the medium views which they often avow. But although they err
in this respect, I think there is some apology for them. Many of them
are doubtless as ignorant of the real views of the Old, as the Old are of
those of the New. And I think they are the more excusable on account
of the contradictory statements of Old School authors. I think our Old
School brethren would not condemn us so severely for insisting that they
hold to ultra imputation, if they duly considered the strong expressions
of some of their approved authors. They speak of the imputation of
Adam's sin very frequently as "just"-" most just" — by the just judgment of God"-that not only the' punishment," but " the guilt and fault
of it" (Adam's sin) is passed over to us-that it is "imputed most deservedly"-" that it is the meritorious cause of our condemnation"-that
" the fault and guilt, together with the resulting pmtishment, are transferred unto his posterity" —that all our race were literally in Adam, and




24
the possibility of such a tranIfer." — Pri uceton Theological
Essays, p. 136.
Dr. Hodge says, that in the writings of the old divines
the sin of Adain " is never said to be in us truly sin, (vere
peccatum)' that the phrases, we sinned in Adam," "were
sinners in him,' " were ill cdeserving, have " demerit', etc.,
do  not denote "nmoral pollution," or "' moral turpitude."
He says,      e were e in Adam  as Levi was in Abraham.
Was this literally?'" Biblical Repository, Vol. 7, p. 436.
In his Commentary on Rom. 5: 12-21, he says, " The
doctrine of imputation is clearly  taught in  this passageThe doctrine does not include  the idea of a mysterious
identity of Adam  and his sin, nor that of a tr'ansfer of
the  moral turpitude of his sin to his descendants.  It
does  not  teach  that his  offence  was personally  and
properly  the  sin  of  all men, or  that it was in  any
mysterious sense  the  act of his posterity.  The sin of
Adam, therefore, is no ground to us of remorse."-p. 135.
And in t       ibli     Reper        e  e       s he pertory he tells   s the only sense
in which we should repent of Adalm's sin is " on the prinr
oiple that a child is humbled at the misconduct of a father."-Vol. 7, pp.  460, 461.
Of this doctrine, Dr. Rice says, "The meaning  is not,
that there  was between  them  and him  such a personal
identity as that they really committed the same act, which
is grossly absurd."-Old and New  School, p. 21.  And
literally sinned in him-that "original sin includes these three deadly
evils, the actual fault, the legal guilt or penalty of death, and the depravation or deformity of nature  that in the mass they (the posterity of Adam)
committed the same sin, and therefore it is imputed to all.'-Bibliotheca
Sacra of 1851, pp. 611-614.
Twisse says, " Original sin which the children of Adam contract is a
punishment of the actual sin committed by the same man."  Augustine
says, "Original sin is inflicted upon us for avenging and punishing the
first sin."  Boston says, " The want of original righteousness is sin-and
it is a punishment for sin, and so justly inflicted of God. —pp. 629, 630.
Dr. Rice says that in the eye of the law Adam's sin is ours.-Old and New
School, p. 41. And the editors of the Biblical Repertory say, " For ourselves we are free to confess, that we instinctively shrink from the idea,
that God in mere sovereignty inflicts the most tremendous evils upon his
creatures, while we bow submissively at the thought of their being penal
inflictions for a sin committed by our natural head and representative."Vol. 6, p. 465. And in the same connection they complain of others for
regarding " that as a matter of sovereignty which wse regard as a matter
of justice."




25
Dr. James Wood says, " Who does maintain this opinion?"
viz: " that Adam's sin involved his posterity in its consequences, on the principle that his sin is literally accounted
their sin."-Old and New Theology, p. 49.  Again he
says, " The transfer of the moral turpitude of Adam's sin
is no part of the doctrine [of atonement] as held by its
advocates."-p. 50.
Says Dr. Boardman, (who is now a Professor in Princeton Seminary,) in his treatise on Original Sin and Imputation,' When our standards say that the posterity
of Adam sinned in him, and fell with him  in his transgression, they donot mean, that all mankind constituted
one moral person in Adam, so that his sin was actually
and personally the sin of each of his descendants."-p. 44.
" Again, as this doctrine implies no personal oneness between Adam and his race, neither does it involve any
transfer of his moral character or acts to them.  The
criminality of my act can never become another man's.
So the criminality of Adam's could not pass over to his
posterity."-p. 43.
Here is enough to convince us, it would seem, that the
01d School do not believe in an Imputation that makes
the sin of Adam ours by way of personal identity with
him, by transfer or in any other way implying that its
crinzinality is ours, or in such a sense that we should feel
either godly sorrow or remorse for it.  Then cannot the
Old and New School fully concur in the medium view of
this doctrine? Perhaps they cannot. Perhaps there is a
narrow neck of " debateable ground" across which we
cannot reach to shake hands.  Of this, however, I am
willingly doubtful.  For I know not that I fully understand the position of my Old School brethren on this
point.  Having denied that Adam's sin is the sin of his
posterity, either by identity or transfer or in any way
that would require repentance or remorse, yet do they attempt to foist it upon them by a form of judicial trial
and punishment?  Do they mean to say, God judicially
and deservedly condemns and punishes mankind  for
Adatm's sin? and that, too, irrespective and independent of
their own conduct?  If they do, I see not how we can




26
harmonize on this point. Neither how they can harmonize
with themselves.
Dr. Hlodge has just told us,'" The sin of Adam is no
ground to us of remorse;" and that the only way in which
we can repent of it is " on the principle that a child is
humbled  and grieved at the misconduct of a father" —
grieved at it, as his calamity, not as his crimge.  And how
can I deserve literal punisimenzt for that for which I need
not feel compunction of conscience or godly sorrow?  Dr.
Wood has told us, the morc'al turpitude of Adam's sin is
not transferred to us. And how can I be punished while
free from  the turpitude  of sin?  Dr.  iice has told us
such a transfer would be grossly absurd.  And Dr. Boardman has told us, that the criminality  of Adam's act,
could not pass over to his posterity.  And how can I be
justly punished while free from crime? For, as Lightfoot,
one of the framers of the Confession says, " Punishment
argues a fault or crimge preceding."-Lightfoot's Works,
p. 22.
Dr. Hodge seems to deny positively that men are punished for Adam's sin.  HIe says, " It is no part of the apostle's doctrine, that eternal misery is inflicted on any man
for the sin of Adam, irrespective of his inherent depravity,
or actual transgression."-Noteson Rom. 5: 12-21, p. 135.
And yet the editors of the Biblical Repertory (of which
Dr. H. is one) appear to have avowed this very doctrine.
They say, " For ourselves, we are free to confess, that we
instinctively shrink from  the idea, that God in mere sovereignty inflicts the most tremendous evils upon his creatures, while we bow sub6missively at the thought of their
being penal inflictions for a sin committed by our natural
head and representative."-Vol. 6, p. 465.  The two opinions last stated appear to me to be in perfect conflict.
And I meet the sume incompatible opinions in the Old
School authors; while it seems that those who hold the
one, lmust renounce the other.  Which of them, then, is
held by the mass of our Old School brethren?  I prefer
to believe it is the formzer.  I do so, because so many of
their standard writers so often and so positively avow it;
and because I am unwilling to believe they would maintain an opinion so preposterous as the contrary one.  I




think their moral sense must revolt at the thought that
God judicially condemns and punishes as a c'rimne, that
which calls neither for remorse nor repentance.
Itere I may be asked, " Why then have our Old School
brethren positively asserted that we are judicially condemned for Adam's sin, if they do not believe it?"  To
this I reply, they may have made the assertion incautious/y, undcer the pressure of circumstances, as a means of relief from a certain difficulty.  But I hope they use the
terms just, judgment, condemnaction, punishment and
guilt, (as they must, to be consistent with themselves,)
in a modified, metaphorical sense-that by just, they
meanJit, neet, or suita6le: as Cranmer did, when burning
at the stake, he held his right hand first in the flame, because, as he said, it was just, that the hand which had
signed his recantation should be the first to suffer: and
as Paul said, (Rorn. 15: 27,) that the Gentiles were debtors
to the Jews.  Then the terms jucdgment and condemcnation must be used in a sense corresponding with the punishmenet resulting from  them; which "punishment," the
Biblical Repertory tells us, (Vol. 6, p. 441,] " as connected with imputation is not used in its most strict and rigid
meaning, and does not imply any mzoral demerit in us."
And then, the term   guiltmust mean a liability to that
kind of punishment, which does not imply any " moral demerit," or criminality.  Such an interpretation removes
the apparent self-contradictions of our Old School brethren.  And I am the more willing it should do so, as it removes the chief, if not the only hindrance to our agreement
with them, on the doctrine of imputation.
All that is meant by our Old School brethren in saying
we suffer on account of Adam's sin, is on the ground of
what is aptly called "Social Liabilities."  These have
been treated on at considerable length by Dr. Bishop, late
President of Miami University.  He says, " These liabilities may be classed under two general heads, viz: Natural
and Positive.  The son inherits a diseased or a healthy
body, and in many cases also an intellectual or a moral
character; and generation after generation sustains the
character of their ancestors by what may be called a natural influence.  Like produces and constitutes like.  But




in commercial and political transactions, lasting and important liabilities are created and continued by positive
arrangements.
In all cases of social liabilities, the individual and the
representative are always distinct.  Nor is it in most
cases a very difficult thing to have a clear and distinct conception of the two distinct responsibilities. Every citizen of these United States who thinks at all, must feel
that himself and children are deeply interested in the conduct and character of the President of the United States
for the time being.  But yet no man ever thought of attributing to himself or to his children the personal wisdom
or intellect, ability or inflexible integrity which has marked
the character of any distinguished executive officer; nor
on the other hand, has he ever thought of being charged
individually, or of having his children charged individually with the weakness or wickedness of a bad executive
officer.  His children and his neighbors and their children
feel and acknowledge, that they are personally and deeply
involved in the consequences of the official acts of these
men, whether those consequences are of beneficial or of
hurtful tendency; but at the same time, the individual,
and the personal merit and demerit, and individual and
personal responsibility are clearly understood; and never
for a moment merged in social and representative transactions."-Quoted by Dr. L. Beecher, Views of Theology.
In  the  light of these  remarks  it is  most  evident, that while by the imputation of Adam's sin we suffer
most sadly, still we are not chargeable with the criminality of that sin; and therefore cannot literally be condemned
and punished judicially for it.
Our Old School brethren condemn Albert Barnes for
trying to illustrate imputation by " social liabilities," or
by " representative relations," as Dr. Boardman calls them.
But their own writers do the same.  Says Dr. W. Lord,
" But this principle [of imputation] pervades the whole
constitution of domestic and civil society. The father is
the legal representative of his children, during their minority, and this not by previous or subsequent election,
but always without and often against it, by the laws of
nature, of society, and of God. In certain cases he can




29
bind them, not only temporarily, but forever.  All civil
government is, to a greater or less extent, representative;
the many are responsible for the act of one.  What multitudes have no part, and cannot have, in the election of
that government, who yet are subject to its authority, and
in their proportion responsible for its acts."-Federal
Character of Adam, p. 11.  All this is true.  But what
does it prove?  Not that the son is blanne-worthy for the
sin of his father, or the subject for the crime of his ruler.
What would be thought of arraigning and trying, condemning and punishing a man for the iniquity of his father or
ruler?  Would there be any bounds to the indignation
which such a case would excite?
In his tract already mentioned, Dr. Boardman has cited
several facts from the Bible for the purpose of illustrating
this doctrine.  He quotes Deut. 32: 25, and Ezek. 9: 6,
in which children are said to be slain on account of the
wickedness of their parents. Likewise Joshua 7: 24, 25,
in which for the sin of Achan, his sons and daughters were
said to be put to death. He also quotes Numbers 16: 27,
32, in which their wives, sons and little children were said
to be destroyed on account of the sin of Korah, Dathan
and Abiram.  Likewise 1 Sam. 15: 2, 3, in which God
is said to command Saul to slay the Amalekites, old and
young, because their forefathers distressed the Israelites.
And what do all these cases prove? Not that the persons
who suffered thus were personally to blame for the sins
which occasioned their sufferings; much less that they suf-.fered by a judicial condemnation.  Nothing like it.  Nor
do they prove that these persons did not deserve all that
they suffered on account of their own sins.  If they prove
anything to the point, it is that God may inflict sufferings
on us for some other reason than our connection with the
sin of Adam-that he may do it on the principle of " social liabilities."
The difficulty of reconciling the justice of God with the
sufferings of the innocent, is not at all obviated by giving
them  a judicial aspect.  To suppose that we are judicially condemned and punished for Adam's sin, is loading
rather than relieving the difficulty.  I am, therefore, the
more surprised at the declaration before quoted from the




30
Biblical Repertory, Vol. 6, p. 465: " For ourselves we are
free to confess, that we instinctively shrink from the idea
that God in mere sovereignty inflicts the most tremendous
evils upon his creatures, while we bow submissively at the
thought of their being penal inflictions for a sin committed by our natural head and representative."  Nor am i
less surprised to find in the same connection a complaint,
that we " call that a matter of sovereignty" which they,
the editors, "call a matter of justice."  Do they mean
that what it would be twrong for God to do as a Sovereign,
it would be right for him to do as a Judge?  In other
words, that the injustice of punishing mankind for a sin
which they never committed, is trcansustantiated into
r'ighteousness by the formality of a judicial trial?
Though imputation do consist in the infliction of suffering upo     n us on account of Adam's sin, what is the use of
giving them a judicial aspect or form?  Why not refer
them at once to the sovereignty of God? for at any rate
they must be ultimately referred to it.  If, as some Old
School authors contend, Adam was appointed of God to
be our representative, and to stand trial for us as well as
himself, and that on account of this cappointment we become responsible for his sin, it is purely a Sovereign arrangement.  So said Calvin.  Asking why it was made,
he answers, 4 Because it seemed good to Jehovah."-Cal.
Inst., b. 3, chap. 23, sec. 7.  Yet, if God did thus stake
our destiny upon the conduct of Adam, what effect has
that divine act upon the principles of eternal justice?
Why not rest the act of imputation upon the inscrutable
sovereignty, and the inherent righteousness of God, assuredly believing it must be right because he has done it,
although we cannot see distinctly how  it can be right?
Why not say in regard to this as Christ said in regard to
another instance of mysterious sovereignty, "Even so
Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight?"
It is certainly difficult to discover the justice of God in
literally punishing men (whether as a sovereign or a
judge) unless it be for their own moral turpitude. And
those who maintain the doctrine must be more orthodox
than the father of Presbyterianism.  Said Calvin, " Some
contend our ruin to be connected in such a manner with




the sin of Adam, that we perish not from any fault of our
own, but merely because our first father had as it were
sinned for us.  Paul, however, expressly affirms that sin
is propagated to all who suffer punishment on its account."
-Comment on Rom. 5: 12.  Aoain he says, L; est any
should arrogate to himself innocence, he (the apostle) adds,
that each one is condemned because lhe is a sinner."'
omn. 5  15.
The Professors of Princeton, Dr. Boardman and others,
admit that in its theological use, " guilt" signifies exposu e
or "'liability to punishment;'; and by consequence that
God imputes the sin of Adam to his posterity, by making
them liable to the punishment which his sin deserved.  The
main question is then, Howv, or by what mneans does he
mnake them  thus liable  And we think he does it by
briingng them into the world with that " corrupted nature"
which makes it certain (though not necessary) that their
first exercises and actions will be sinful.  So Calvin seems
to have thought, for he says,' Paul ascribes our ruin to
him, (Adam,) because his sin is the cause of our sin.'"
This punishment may therefore be viewed in two aspects'
Considered in anticipation, it is metaphorical and unmeritec.  But, considered as a recompense for eventual sin, it
is literal and deserved; because the evil exercise or action
resulting from depravity is voluntary.
These views of imputation, as expressed by Dr. Leonard
Wood, late theological professor of Andover, would  be
adopted, I believe, by a great share of the Old School and
New.  I give them at length.
" If I am asked whether I hold the doctrine of imputation, my reply will depend upon the meaning you give to
the word.  Just make the question definite by substituting
the definition for the word, and the answer will be easy.
Do you mean what Stapfer and Edwards and many others
mean, viz: that for God to give Adam  a posterity like
himself, is one and the same thing as to impute sin to
them?  Then my answer is, that God did in this sense
impute Adam's sin to his posterity.  This is the very
thing implied in the doctrine of native depravity.  By the
doctrine of imputation, do you mean that Adam's sin was
the occasion of our ruin? and that it was the distant, but




real cause of our condemnation and death?  I consider
the doctrine thus understood to be according to Scripture.
Do you mean that we are guilty, (that is, according to the
true original import of the word) exposed to suffering on
account of Adam's sin?  In this view, too, I think the
doctrine scriptural.  Do you mean that God visits the iniquity of our common father upon his children through all
generations? This, too, accords with truth. But if the
doctrine of imputation means that Adam's posterity are
literally and personally chargeable with his sin, and that
God inflicts the penalty of the law upon them for his offence alone, they themselves being in all respects sinless,
then the doctrine in my view wants proof.  There appears
to me to be no place for such a doctrine, seeing all of
Adam's posterity are in fact morally depraved.  And if
they are so, I know not why any one should think God
has no reference to their depravity in the sufferings which
he brings upon them.  The apostle does not use the word
impute in relation to the subject; but he teaches in the
plainest manner, that the fall spread depravity and destruction through the whole human race.  The particular
word which shall be used to express this doctrine is not
essential; and as the sacred writers do not express it by
nmputatiozn, we should not be overstrenuous for that particular word.  Nevertheless, as it is the name which is
generally given to the doctrine in orthodox creeds and
systems of divinity, and as the word is used in an analogous sense in Roim. 4: 6, I can see no reason for rejecting it. Properly explained, it is well adapted to the subject.  Were it not, we can hardly account for it, that Calvin and Edwards and all the most distinguished orthodox
divines have used it." —Wood's Works, Vol. 2, pp. 351-2.
Perhaps many of our Old School brethren will be more
ready to concur in the views of imputation now maintained, than to believe that the New School will coxcur in
them.  But I shall be able to show by quotations from
their own authors, that they hold these views cordially.
Dr. James P. Wilson, of Philadelphia, was regarded in
his day as decidedly a New School man; and yet he is
quoted by Dr. Boardman, in his work on Imputation, (already noticed,) as holding this doctrine.  The quotation is




as follows: " He constituted the first man a representative
of his race.' Let us make man'-the race is one.  To be
fruitful and multiply, and fill and subdue the earth, were
directed to the race.'In the day thou eatest thereof,
thou shalt surely die.' He did die, spiritually; he lost
his innocence; he became a subject of guilt, shame and
fear; and all his posterity inherit the fallen nature.  Being
already cursed, when afterwards arraigned and sentenced
it was only necessary to curse his enjoyments in the world.
His posterity was included, for they are subject to the
same afflictions and death."-pp. 76, 77.
Dr. Bishop is also a New  School man.  And what we
have quoted from him on the subject of " Social Liabilities," shows him to have adopted the present view of imputation.
Dr. Lyman Beecher adopts it, for he quotes with approbation the following from Dr. Hodge: "R eason, Scripture and
experience therefore all concur in support of this common
doctrine of the Christianworld, that the race fell in Adam,
lost their original rectitude, and became prone to evil, as
the sparks fly upward."-Views of Theology, p. 168.  In
his own language, he said, "Social, representative liability,
and a just desert of punishment in that sense, is a possibility and a reality; but social and personal demerit are
quite different things."-p. 171.  The judgment was by
one man to condemnation; i. e., the sin of one man and
one single act of sin subjected his posterity to a depraved
nature as the consequence."-p. 175.  Next he quotes with
approbation the foregoing extract from Dr. Bishop on "Son
cial Liabilities."  And then the following from Turretin 
" Here we speak of the latter kind of imputation, not the
former, for we are treating of a sin committed by Adam.
The ground of this imputation is the union between Adam
and his posterity."-p. 185.
Rev. Albert Barnes, the successor, of Dr. J. P. Wilson,
is also a full believer in this view of imputation.  I know
that Drs. Wood, Rice and others have quoted largely from
him to prove that he rejects the doctrine. But all that
their quotations prove is, that he rejects the ultra views of
it.  Dr. Wood, in his Old and New  Theology, (p. 196,)
has quoted from  Mr. Barnes' Introduction to Butler's




Analogy, where he opposes the notion that God might at
pleasure and by an arbitrary decree make crime pass from
one individual to another; that he holds men to be persona
ally answerable and actually punished for a sin committed
by another."'  What Mr. Barnes here opposes is, simply the
notion, that Adam's sin is literally accounted the sin of his
posterity.  And does Dr. W. believe this doctrine himself 
If he does, why does he ask (p. 49) " Who does maintain
this" opinion?"  If he does not believe it, why does he
censure Mr. B. for not believing it?
In his "Old and New Schools" Dr. Rice quotes (pp. 22-5)
several passages from Mr. Barnes to prove that he denies
the doctrine of imputation.  But the truth is that Mr.
Barnes mistakes the nature of this doctrine as held by the
main portion of the Old School.  He supposes them  to
hold the ultra view of identity, transfer, and personal demnerit.  And it is this view  alone, which he opposes in
the passages quoted.  The fact is that Dr. Rice and his
brother Barnes are substantially agreed on this point without knowing it.t  Dr. R. lays his chief stress upon Mr. B's
declarations (quoted p. 25) that " The Bible does not
teach that they [Adam's posterity] acted in him, or by
him, or that he  acted for them."   But Mr. B. denies
here only that they acted literally in or for each other.And Calvin does the same.  See his comments on Rom. 5 
12, before quoted. And does Dr. R. hold that Adam'sposterity acted literally in him, or by him, or that he acted
for them? If he does, he holds, (contrary to his own assertion) to identity, transfer', and our personal demerit, on
account of the sin of Adam.
The following quotations from  Mr. Barnes' Notes on
Rom. 5, will show, that while he rejects ultra imputation,
he fully believes in that medium  view of it, which is main* Dr. W  thinks all that is needed to prove the heterodoxy of the above
quotation is to say, that Unitarians consider it sound and lucid. And it
is perfectly sufficient, if it has been fully ascertained that everything is
heterodox which they pronouce " sound and lucid," not otherwise. Did
Dr. W. think it would be? Or did he only aim at the " odium theologicum?" The like is often practised upon us. But is it either logical
or generous?
t They disagree only as to whether Adam acted as our representative
by covenant or law.



35
tained in this tract.  "' The sin of Adam was of such a nature in the relation which he stood, as to affect all his
race"-pp 125,6.  "Adam was the head of the race, hewas
the fountain of being, and human nature was so far
tried in hiz, that it may be said, he was on trial, not
for himsef alone, but for his posterity, inasmuch as his
fall would involve them in ruin.  Many have chosen to call
this a covenant, and to speak of him as a federal head, and
if the above account is the idea involved in the terms, the
explanation is not exceptionable. As the word covenant,
however, is not applied to the transaction in the Bible, and
as it is liable to be misunderstood, others prefer to speak
of it as a law given to Adam, and as a divine constitution
under which he was placed.  His posterity are, in consequence of this, subject to the same train of ills, as if they
had been personally the transgressors.  Not that they are
personally ill deserving or criminal for his sin.  God reckons things as they are, and not falsely, as his imputations
are all according to truth.  He regards Adam as standing
at the head of the race; and regards and treats his posterity, as coming into the world, subject to pain and death,
and depravity, as a consequence of sin.  This is the Scripture view of imputation"-p. 128.
That Dr. Skinner holds to the headship of Adam, and
thus to imputation, will be doubted by none who will read
his sermon, entitled, "Man a Fallen Being," pp. 9, 14, et al.
Dr. Rice tells us, p. 24, that the New School party in
the Gen. Assembly of 1836 declared, " iMr. Barnes nowhere
denies, much less' sneers' at the idea that Adam was the
covenant and the federal head of his posterity.  On the
contrary, though he employs not these terms, he does, in
other language, teach the same truths which are taught in
this phraseology."  Thus in asserting the orthodoxy of
Mir. Barnes on this doctrine, theyprove their own. And in
1837 this party of the Gen. Assembly drew up a formula
cf their view of the doctrines taught in our standards, and
the same was afterwards unanimously adopted by the Auburn Convention. And on this point they said: "By divine
constitution Adam was the head and representative of the
race, and that as a consequence of his transgression all mankind became morally corrupt, and liable to death, temporal




36
and eternal."  And again " The sin of Adam is not imputed to his posterity in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities, acts and demerit; but by reason of the sin
of Adam, in his peculiar relation, the race are treated, as if
they had sinned."
Here I would hope is ample evidence that the New
School are holding to the present view of imputation, and
thus that the Old School and New are, on this point, nearly, if not entirely, harmonious.  The only remaining question respecting it is,
3. Whether the view now taken is in accordance with
our Confession and Catechisms? Does it agree with the
language of these standards, fairly interpreted?  If so, I
trust it will be acknowledged, that thus far at least we are
" honest" in avowing them as the symbols of our faith.
Chap. 6, and sec. 3, of the Confession, and answer 16th of
the Shorter Catechism, contain the only language, I believe,
which  can be suspected of conflicting with our present
views of imputation.  The former reads thus:  "' They"
Four first parents] " being the root of all mankind, the guilt
of this sin" [partaking of 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."
What is here said to be imputed?  The guilt of Adam's
sin.  And what is this guilt?  Several authors, Old School
as well as New, have told us it is " liability to punishment. "
And Dr. Boardman says in respect to this very article,
" But does not the Confession say, that the guilt of his sin
is imputed to his posterity?  It does.  But the word
" guilt" means, in its constant theological usage, not moral turpitude, or criminality, but liability to 2puztishzent.
In this sense the old writers frequently speak of the Savior as "guilty of our sins," meaning merely, that he was
liable to the penalty of the lawt on account of our sins; not
by any means, that the pollution or ill desert of our sin
was transferred to him." p. 43.
What is it then to im7pute this "guilt," or liability to
punishment?  We saw in the former part of this chapter,
that imputation is the opposite of justification.  And as
the latter r'emoves the liability to punishment, the former




87
must impztose it.  To impute the guilt of Adam's sin to
his posterity is, then, to make them liable to suffer its penalty.  And how is this done?  It is, as we have heretofore said, by giving them a " corrupted nature" by which
they are certain to sin, though they sin freely,and thus
deserve the same punishment that Adaim  did.  Thus we
see, that even according to the teachings of the Old School
itself, our view of imputation accords with the language of
this article of our Confession.
The other article on this doctrine is as follows:' The
covenant being made with Adam not only for himself, but
for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him and fell with him, in his
first transgression."
Our view of imputation includes the headship, and representative character of Adarn, as expressed in this article.
That sovereign act by which he was thus appointed is here
called a covenant.  But some of us think this word was
not well chosen, as it seems to imply the consent of the
race to this arrangement.  And this use of the word is
not an essential point. The only thing in this article that
will be thought to conflict with our view, is the expression,' sinned in him, and fell wuith him, in the first transgression."  And this does not really conflict with it.  We
have seen that even according to Old School teachings this
phraseology does not involve the idea of identity, transfer,
or personal dcezemeit, calling for remnorse or'repentance.See the foregoing quotations from the Princeton Professors, Hodge on Rorn. and Boardman  on  imputation.These bring the schools so near together, that the one can
as well adopt this language as the other.  We suppose
it means as Hodge, Rice and others say, that we sinned
in Adam, as Levi paid tithes in Abraham: that is, that
Adam's sin affected his posterity in the same sense that
Abraham's act of paying tithes to Melchisedeck, affected
the tribe of Levi, (though far more grievously.)  We suppcse, that mankind sinned in Adam  somewhat as Christ
told the Jews they had slain Zacharias, whom  their forefathers had slain long before: that is, by partaking of
the same spirit, and pursuing the like course.  And  so
far as the phrase, "fell with him,"' relates to the infliction




88
of the penalty of Adam's sin, we suppose it to be either on
the principle of " Social Liability," or as a just desert for
the actual sins resulting from native depravity.
And now let the candid reader judge, whether the construction which we of the New School give to these articles of our standards is unnatural, and constrained?whether it is not nearly, if not exactly such, as the Old
School are compelled to give? and whether therefore
as regards the doctrine of imputation, we do not " make
an honest subscription to our standards?" Let him judge,
too, whether the moderate men of both schools do not substantially agree in their understanding of this doctrine?
If they disagree at all, is it not on the unimportant questions whether Adam, as our representative, acted under
covenant? or under a sovereign constitution? or on the
question whether we are punished directly for Adam's sin?
or indirectly for it? punished, that is, for sins that were
occasioned by depravity derived from Adam?
I have dwelt the longer on the doctrine of imputation,
not only because of its intrinsic importance, and of its bearing on other doctrines; but because, from its nature, it
needed this extended examination.  None of the remaining
doctrines will need to detain us long.




CHAPTER  lit.
ORIGINAL S([N
The term, Original Sin, is no where found in the word of
God.  And from the structure of the expression it would
seem to signify the first sin, or that of eating the forbidden fruit: or that sin from which all other sins originate.
But it is used in theology to signify that native depravity
which we inherit from Adam.  Original Sin is distinguished from Imputation, as the effect from the cause.  Imputation is the act of God in giving the posterity of Adam a
corrupt nature: or more properly perhaps, it is theground
of it: while Original Sin is the result of it.
On this subject also there are both ultra and medium
views.  I fear on the one hand there are too many in the
Presbyterian Church who deny the native depravity of
man.  Nor are all such, in the New School connexion.On the other hand our Old School brethren are supposed
by many to hold certain very ultra views on this subject,
One is, that the depravity of man is such, that he sins not
only of certainty, but of necessity-that such is his depravity, that he cannot avoid sinning-that, as Dr. Junkin
said on the second trial of Barnes, " man has no ability of
any kind to obey God-a sentiment expressed also by Dr.
Green. See "Debates on the [first] trial of Albert Barnes.p. 66.
But this point will be more fully considered under the
head of Human Ability.  The question as to thedemnerit
or criminality of man's depravity will have our first attention.
Our Old School brethren are supposed to hold that man
deserves God's displeasure and wrath, not only for the voluntary exercise of depravity, but for the mere possession
of it.  But this ultra view of the doctrine is held, I hope,




40
by few of them.  The medium view is, that depravity as
sinful only in a qualified sense-sinful. as the Sabbath and
the Sanctuary are holy, that is in their relations; or rather,
sinful as to their tendency and effects; just as inanimate
objects are said to be fearful, not because they feel fear,
but because they produzce it.  So held Augustine.  Of
concupiscence he says: Though called sin, it is not so called
because it is itself sin, but because sin'is produced by it,
just as writing is called the hand of some one, because the
hand produced it."  Bibliotheca Sacra for 1851-p. 643.
Concerning this view also let us inquire,
1. Whether it accords with the system of gospel truth?
2. Whether the Old and New School can unite in it?
and
3. Whether it accords with the language of our standards?
1. Is it in accordance with the gospel system?  To believe depravity to be inherently sinful, is to make God
ultimately the author of iniquity.  Man did not voluntarily
acquire this depravity.  God put it, so to speak, within
him.  And as he came in possession of it passively, involuntarily, and of necessity, how can he be blameworthy for
having it?  If this depravity is itself sinful, God and not
man is the author of that sinfulness.  And Pictet, who is
good Old School authority, says, " If the nature of man is
sinful, the author of our nature is the author of sin." Bibliotheca Sacra, 1851-p. 32.  If then we would avoid this
blasphemous conclusion, we must regard sin as the result of
depravity and not as consisting in depravity itself. All
that is truly criqminal then, is the free outgoing of depravity, in exercise and action.
It is reasonable to suppose there is in the production of
sin a process like that which is figuratively described by
James (1: 15.)  "Then, when lust is conceived, it bringeth
forth sin."  This lust cannot be anything which lies back
of depravity. It must bedepravity itself. According to
this apostle, then, it cannot be sin itself, but that which
brings it forth.  The cause must be distinct from its effect.
Probably man's first sin consists in choosing to gratify his
native propensity to evil: or rather, perhaps, in not resolving to resist that propensity.




41
The view of Prof. Park on this point will probably satisfy many, both of the Old School and New.  Itis expressed as follows: "  When it is said,'sin is a transgression of
the law,' the objector replies that sin lies deeper than the
outward  overt act.   Very true, it involves the covert
deep preference for a wrong outward act.  But the objector adds, it lies deeper still: not.in the executive volition,
but in the inclination, disposition or propensity to choose
wrong.  Very true, it does not lie in the executive volition,
but in the inclination, disposition or propensity to do wrong,
provided that these words be used as they often are to denote the generic choice or preference, lying deeper than
the specific choices."  Bib. Sacra, 1851, pp. 626-7,
Some argue the sinfulness of depravity from  the sufferings of infants.  They assume that all pain is penal, and
that infants suffer before they can have committed any external or internal transgression: and thence they infer that
they suffer for the sin of possessing a corrupt nature.'
But both assumptions may be doubted.  It is neither selfevident nor demonstrable, that all pain is penal.  Cannot
God impose sufferings on the innocent without injustice,
when it is needful to secure the greater public good; just
as an affectionate, upright parent may impose, at times,
more labor or self-denial on one of his sons, than would
otherwise be his share, doing it because the good of the
whole family requires it? Is not such extra burden often
put upon the most worthy of the sons, simply because he
can do the work thus assigned him  better than any other?
And should not that son submit most cheerfully to such
extra services?  And if this regal right is denied to God,
how can he act, in full, as Governor of the universe, in consulting for its highest' welfare?  True, it cannot be right
to blcaze the innocent.  But may he not afflict them  for
the sake of the greater good' to others?  Can justice forbid what benevolence requires?
Why may not God lay suffering upon the innocent child
as well as upon the innocent beast?  The reply to this is,
* Some teach, (if we understand them,) that the infant is first punished
for Adam's sin, by having a corrupt nature inflicted on him; and then he
is again punished for possessing it. See Boardman, pp. 59-62. Do they,
indeed, mean that he is thus doubly punished?




42
that such a comparison is revolting.  But this seems to
me to be a very weak reply.  For wherein is the child brutified by suffering like a beast, any more than he is by having, like the lower animals, a susceptibility to pain?  The
last verse of the Book of Jonah shows that God regards
the good of beasts as well as of babes. And is it not a
censurable cruelty to inflict needless pain upon brutes as
well as upon men?
Again, though undeserved pain be inflicted upon infants,
may it not be compensated by a counterbalance of good
dispensations?  This principle of compensation seems to
be recognized by Job, 12-10, where he says: " Shall we
receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive
evil?"  This compensation would be most emphatic to
those who die in infancy; for they undoubtedly are taken
at once to perfect bliss.
But again, death is the only suffering, I think, that can
be called the punishment of imputed sin.  And it may
be doubted whether it is ever suffered, before depravity begins to be exercised. A child cannot be a subject of moral
government till he is a complete moral being; that is, till
he has all the faculties necessary to moral action.  And
when he has them, will not moral action immediately commence?  Who can conceive of a complete mind, without
though't, or of a complete heart without moral feeling?
And just so soon as the soul acts at all, it will act wrong;
in other words it will sin.  How  soon this moral action
will begin, I pretend not to tell. Dr. Spring, now in the
Old School connection, thinks it begins at birth.  He
says: " There is no sin in the empire of Jehovah, except
this," that is, actual transgression; and that which " constitutes the human soul a sinner at the age of three score
years and ten, essentially constitutes it a sinner from its
birth. — Dissertation on the Nature of Depravity.  So
said Dr. Witherspoon: "' The guilt of all impenitent corruption must be personal, because it is voluntary and consented to.  And so said Dr. Chalmers: "Now it is very
true, that we are only responsible for what is voluntary."
Correspondence.  See New York Observer, for September 15th., 1853.
I think the following, from  the pen of the late Dr.




43
Woods of Andover, will satisfy the moderate men of both
Schools on this doctrine.
" The moral nature or disposition of men, though it may
be contemplated as distinct from action, mental as well as
bodily; and though it is evidently pre-supposed, does not
exist as such, in a manner that it can be really regarded
and treated, as in fact exclusive of action.  What I mean
is, that there is no such thing as a moral being who is
treated as a subject of retribution, while the moral nature
is not in some way developed in holy, or unholy action.
The very idea of a moral agent receiving retribution, implies the exercise of his moral faculties; the acting out of
his disposition.  That any one can, as a rational being enjoy good, or suffer evil, without moral action, is inconceivable.  I say, then, there can be no such thing as reward or
punishment actually dispensed to a moral being, whose
moral nature is not developed in" some kind of exercise.
The disposition, the intelligent nature does indeed exist,
and is a reality, and God is perfectly acquainted with it
before it is made known in action.  But it cannot be
known to created beings, not even to him  who is the
subject of it, except as manifested by internal, or external
action.  It cannot in any other way, become a matter
of direct consciousness; and as it cannot be known, it cannot be visibly recompensed, aside from its outgoing in action.
" But here a question arises which it is more easy to propose than to answer, to wit:  What is to become of human beings who die before their nature is any way developed in action  The most proper reply to this inquiry,
is to say frankly, that it is a subject which lies beyond the
reach of our intelligence.  Neither our own reason, nor
the word of God furnishes any adequate information.  All
that we learn from  scripture concerning a future retribution, relates to those who have acted right or wrong in a
state of probation, and who are to be rewarded according
to the deeds done in the body.  Respecting any other retribution than this, we are left in ignorance. It cannot be
doubted that those who die before they have any moral
action, either holy or sinful, will exist in a future world.
But they cannot, in any conceivable sense, be regarded as




44
moral agents who have passed through a state of trial.
They cannot' receive according to what they have done,'
as by the supposition they have done nothing. None of
our ordinary conceptions concerning a just retribution, can
apply to them.  There is a veil over the particulars of the
future state except, that the word of God contains some
cheering intimations, that divine grace will sanctify them,
and that they will belong to the Redeemer's kingdom. I
am not aware that any intelligent Christian can be found
who maintains the unauthorized, appalling position, that
infant children, who are not guilty of any actual sin, either
outwardly or inwardly, will be doomed to misery in the
world to come.-Woods' Works, Vol. 2, pp. 340-1.
I am not confident that the remarks which I have made,
are exactly conformed to truth.  I would only recommend
them to a careful consideration. I have said, that the native disposition is not to be regarded as actually standing
alone.  While any one exists and continues to exist with
a disposition or propensity which has not in any way been
manifested in action, how can he be treated as a subject
of retribution? Though his disposition be wrong, (wrong
as a disposition) he must ultimately be treated according
to his actions, they being the t rue expr'essions of his clisposition.  His being treated according to his actions,
seems to amount to the same thing as being treated according to his disposition. The former is made the express
rule of the divine conduct toward man, for the obvious
reason, that actions are directly visible to the conscience,
and can be compared with law, and so are the proper ground
of recompense. In the divine government, then, disposition is treated as morally wrong, only as developed in action, and as thus made visible to those who are the subjects
of that government.  Government which is addressed to
conscience, must be administered in this manner.  If any
one speaks of our natural depravity as deserving of divine
displeasure, he must intend to speak of it as developed in
moral action. The two views that have been taken of this
subject, need not, then, be considered as opposite and clashing views.  They are only different views of the same subject, contemplated under different aspects.  Man, at the
commencement of his existence, is, according to one view,




45
characterlmzed from his disposition; and is regarded as srnful so soon as he is born, on account of his invariable propensity to sin. According to the other view, this propensity to sin is really connected with sinful emotion, and is
certainly followed by it.  Man, considered in one point of
view, is judged according to his actions, in another point
of view, according to his disposition as developed in action.
If a disposition is pronounced to be sinful, it is pronounced
to be so relatively to the action to which it leads.  And if
the action is pronounced sinful, it is relatively to the mind,
and to the disposition of the mind from which it proceeds.
Each is invariably related to the other.  If any one regards moral qualities, as belonging to either, as though it
were entirely separate from the other, he is mistaken.  He
does not conform to the nature of things. If any one confines his attention to either, exclusively of the other, does
he not betray the want of enlargement in his habits of
thinking?'" pp. 342-3.
I cannot but persuade myself, that the foregoing arguments and observations are sufficient.  They show, I trust,
that Original Sin or depravity is not of itself blame-worthy; that it can be sinful only, as it leads to sin.
2. We are next to inquire whether this view of Original Sin is one in which the Old School and New can unite?
I cannot believe that the main portion of the Old School
hold the ultra view of this doctrine, and must therefore
believe they hold as their only alternate, the mediuml view
now maintained.  Can they believe that all men are deserving of eternal wrath, simply because they possess a nature which they did not voluntarily acquire, and which
they could not avoid possessing? I appeal to.all the intelligent and candid of that School to say, whether they
verily believe such a dogma? It could not have been the
belief of Zuingle.  For he says: " Original sin I call a disease, not sin, because sin is conjoined with fault. But fault
arises from the transgression of one who has chosen wickedness.  Our original fault is not called fault truly, but
metaphorically, on account of our first parents."-Huldrici
Zuingli Opera, Vol. 3, pp. 628-9.
Nor could it have been the belief of Augustine.  He
said: "All moral character consists in preferences; all




46
iniquity has, and must have its origin in the will  as far
as respects us, we should always be without sin, if we were
never to consent to evil."  And of " concupiscence," or depravity, he has told us, "though called sin, it is not so
called because it is of itself sin, but because sin is produced by it, just as writing is called the hand of some
one, because the hand produced it."  Nor can it be the
belief of Dr. Hodge, if he is consistent with himself.  For
he says: " Though they [the standards] speak of original
sin, as being first negative i. e., the loss of righteousness 
and secondly, positive, or corruption of nature, yet by the
latter state is to be understood, not the infusion of any
thing of itself evil; but an actual tendency  or disposition to evil, resulting from  loss of righteousness.  Notes
on Romans, p. 136.  According to him, then, "' sin itself"
is something distinct from  " a disposition to evil," that is
from depravity.  And to the same amount, he quotes Bretschneider (Vol. 2, p. 30,) as follows: "e It is not, however,
the doctrine of the Scriptures, nor of the reformed Churches, nor of our standards, that the moral corruption of our
nature, of which they speak, is any depravation of the soul,
or an essential attribute or infusion of any positive evil."
If any reader doubts whether the leading writers of the
New School hold to original sin, as now explained, he is
referred to the quotations in the last chapter from Drs. Wilson, Beecher and Skinner; from Mr. Barnes and froum the
formula of the New School portion of the General Assembly of 1837, on the doctrine of Imputation.  For, as our
Old School brethren often assert, these two doctrines are
so intimately connected, that they who hold to the one,
must hold to the other.
But, as it is said so often and so roundly, that Mr.
Barnes denies the doctrine of depravity, it may not be amiss
to add a few more quotations from him.  " There is something antecedent to the moral action of his posterity, and
growing out of the relation which they sustain to him,
which makes it certain, that they will sin as soon as they
begin to act as moral agents."  [What now becomes of
Dr. Rice's assertion that Mr. B's position on this subject
excludes the idea of a depraved  nature or original sin?
p. 29.]  "' What this something is, we may not be able to




47
say.  But we may be certain, that it is not phtysical.de
pravity, or any created essence of the soul; or anything
which prevents the act of the sinner from being voluntary."  [And so virtually says Bretschneider.  Vol. 2, p. 30M
Hodge's Notes on Rome, p. 136.  Boardman, p. 7, and
many others.]    This hereditary tendency to sin, has been
usually  called'original sin,' and this, the apostle evidently teaches.  As the infant comes into the world with
a certainty that he will sin as soon as he becomes a moral
agent, there is the same certainty that, if he were removed
to eternity, he would sin there also, unless he were changed.
There is need, therefore, of the blood of the atonemzent,
and the agency of the Holy Ghost, that an infant may be
saved."   Notes on Romans, p. 128.  [What now  becomes of Dr. R's insinuation, that New School men teach
that infants are saved independently of atonement and regeneration?-  p. 38.]  "The simple fact inregard to Adam,
is that he sinned; and that such is the organization of the
great society of which he was the head and father, that his
sin has secured as a certain result, that all the race will be
sinners also."-  p. 129.  [ This "organizatien of the great
society " which Dr. R. misunderstands, (p. 29,) is evidently
what he, Dr.:., means by'the covenant made with Adam.'  And what if, as Dr. H  again says:  "Here he says
nothring of a corrupt nature," (p. 29,) since he says enough
elsewhere'?] i  Though men are indubitably affected by
the sin of Adam, e. g., by being born with a corrupt dispositionz; with loss of righteousness, with subjection to
pain and woe, and with exposure to eternal death, yet there
is reason to believe that all those who die in infancy are,
through the merits of the Lord Jesus, and by an influence
which we cannot explain, changed and prepared for heaven." —p. 122.  Surely, here is evidence enough that Mr.
Barnes believes the doctrine of original sin, and if, as Dr.
R. says, he is our acknowledged representative, here is
ample evidence that the New School believe it.
I know that Mr. Barnes is accused of making contrary
statements on this subject; that elsewhere he denies the
doctrine of imputation, and consequently of original sin,
which he here affirms.  But this is a misapprehension.  He
denies not the medium, but the ultra view of these two




48
doctrines.  But what if he did actually make contradictory statements respecting original sin, at one time den ying
and at another time affirming it?  Which statement does
charity, which "6hopeth all things,' require us to judge
he truly believes?  What right have we to think he must
of course hold the wro2ng view?  The Old School have
also their contradictions; mainainining sometimes ultra and
sometimes imedium  views.  And I, for one, believe that
the fault of us, New School men is, that when they avow
right views, we do not believe in charity that they are sincere. And I wish they would not imitate this fault of ours.
I believe if the two schools were rightly disposed towards
each other, a great share of their apparent divergences
would vanish.  But to put this point beyond dispute, I
quote another passage from the formula of the New School
portion of the General Assembly of 1837, which was incorporated into their protest, and subsequently adopted
unanimously, by the Auburn Convention.  " Original sin
is a natural bias to evil, resulting from the first apostacy,
leading invariably and certainly to transgression."
We have yet to inquire3,. Whether our view of original sin accords with the
language of our standards? I find only three paragraphs
with which it can be suspected of conflicting. They are Confession of faith; Chap. 6, See. 5 and 6, and the t1th answer
of the Shorter Catechism.  Those of the confession read
thus:  See. 5.' This corruption of nature during this
life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet
both itself, and all the motives thereof are truly and properly sin."  And Sec. 6.  "Every sin both original and
actual being a transgression of the righteous law of God,
and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature bring guilt
upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of
God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death
with  all miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal.  The
corruption of nature' in the former paragrah, is evidently
the same as'the original sin' in the latter.  In the former
paragraph it is said to be'truly and properly sin:  and in
the latter, to be'a transgression of God's righteous law, and
contrary thereunto,' and if these paragraphs are intended




49
to teach that the possession of this corruption, distinct
from its exercise, is sin in the same sense as actual transgression is sin, I see not how  the New or the Old School
can " honestly" adopt themr.    odge  and  Bretschneider tell us that this corruption  is not the  infusion
of any thing in itself sinful: Augustine, that " though
it is called sin, it is not so called because it is of itself sin,
but because sin is produced by it:" and Zuingle, that
" Original sin is a disease, not sin."  How, then, can those
who adhere to these authors, subscribe to these paragraphs,
if they teach  that the mere possession of depravity is
blameworthy?  But that such is not their meaning is evident for the following reasons:
If it were wrong to possess this corruption, it would be
equally wrong in God to put us in possession of it, and
thus make himself the author of sin.  Surely, then, they
were not intended to assert what would involve such blasphemy.  Again: the persons spoken of in the 5th section
are evidently old enough to have had sinful exercises; for
they are supposed to be regenerated.  It must, therefore,
be corruption in exercise of which it speaks.  And the
distinction between " the corruption itself " and the " niotions" of it must be that between internal and exter'nal
action; or (according to Park.) between the propensity to
choose evil and the executive choice of it; or at most, between the generic and specific choices.  And this I think
is confirmed by the 6th section.  Here' orig'al," as well
as "actual" sin, is said to be a "t1ransgression of the
righteous law  of God, and contrary thereunto."  But
transgression  is an act, and supposes exercise at least.
The law cannot be' transgressed," but by some action or
exercise, which violates its demands or prohibitions.  And
nothing can be contrary to the law but what it forbids.
But it forbids nothing except wrong exercises and actions.
As Pictet says,' it does not forbid corruption, it forbids
only actual sin.' -La Theologie, Lib. 6, Chap. 7.  And
how could God consistently forbid our having what he
nakes us possess?  Must we not understand these articles, then, as asserting simply, that this corruption of our
nature is properly and truly sin, " and is a transgression
of the righteous law of God," and " contrary thereunto,"
3




anty as it is in exerlcise, at least by generic or specific preferences; or as in the words of Woods, " it is developed
in moral action."  This I think is the only understanding
in which either the Old or New School can receive these
articles: and in this understanding I see not why both
cannot receive them, and with equal sincerity.
The 18th answer of the Shorter Catechism reads thus:
C The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists
in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, vwhich
is conimmonly called original sin; together with all actual
transgressions which proceed from  it."  Here again the
native corruption  of man is virtually declared to be
sinful, as it is said to make a part of that sinful estate whereinto he fell.  And here we say of this, as of
the articles just examined; that if it is to be understood
literally, our brethren of the Old School can no more receive it than we of the New.  For like us, as noticed
above, they believe with Zuingle, Augustine, Bretschneider and Hodge, that this corruption is not of itself literally sinful. If then we are to receive this article intelligently and cordially, we must understand, as in the articles
above, that this sinfulness refers, according to Park, to
man's generic as well as specific preferences for evil, or
according to Woods, to corruption as developed in action 
or else according to Augustine, we must suppose that
" sinfulness" is here used in a modified metaphorical sense
- sinful in the sense of producing sin.  We all believe
that original sin, or the corruption of man's whole nature
is sinful, in that it leads to sin.  And in this understanding of it we can cordially receive this article.
Enough has now  been said, I trust, to show that this
view of original sin does not conflict with the standards of
our Church; and that as regards this doctrine as well as
imputation, we can subscribe them  as honestly as our Old
School brethren.




CHAPTER IV.
THE ATONEMENT.
All Presbyterians believe that the Atonement, as mnade
by Christ, was absolutely necessary, and altogether adequate. It was needed, in order to render the salvation of
sinners compatible with the justice and authority of God.
For without such an atonement he could not have released
them from the punishment threatened in his law without
paralizing the restraining power of that law; and thus
without encouraging transgression.  All Presbyterians
believe, too, that what needed to be done, was done; that
Christ performed and suffered all that was requisite in
order to a sufficient and ample atonement. Thus far Old
and New School men are perfectly agreed. There is no controversy between us, except as to the matter and extent of
the atonement.  And in the examination of these, I shall
not need to be very methodical. Respecting the matter
of it, there are two questions.  One is whether it consists
alone in the sufferings of Christ, or whether it includes
both obedience and sufferings? The other question is,
whether Christ suffered the penalty of the law?
I do not suppose the former question has ever contributed to the division of the Old School from the New.
Yet, it may not be improper to give it a passing notice
here.  Dr. Alexander contends, that justification consists
both of pardon, which releases the sinner from condemnation to hell, and of restoration to righteousness, which
entitles him to heaven.-" Justification by Faith."-p. 23
He insists also, that the atonement of Christ, consists of
his suffering to secure the former, and of his obedience to secure the latter.  But after all that Dr. Chalmers
has said so eloquently, and so interestingly on them, I do
not see much necessity for these distinctions, neither much




objection to them.  These two portions of justification and
of atonement I have been accustomed to group togetherprincipally because I have found them  so grouped in the
Bible.  In the Bible, justification is often called pardon,
forgiveness, remnission, redempltion, and non-imputation of
sin and the like. And the grace thus expressed is represented as securing all the blessings of salvation. When I call
justification pardon, I regard myself as using the latter
word in its larger sense, as covering the whole ground of
Dr. Alexander's justification, viz: the forgiveness of our
sins; and the acceptance of our persons as righteous, on
accountof Christ's righteousness. And Mr. Barnes gives to
justification the same extent, in his notes on Romans. 4:
25. " The word justification seems here to be used in a
large sense, to denote acceptance with God, including not
only the formal act by which God pardons sins, and by
which we become reconciled to him, but also the cornpletion of the work."-p. 103.  Also Notes on Galations, p. 319.  I have been accustomed to regard "the
curse of the law " as including both exclusion from
heaven, and consignment to hell: and to suppose that
Christ redeemed the race from the whole of this curse of
the law, by "hanging on a tree."  Gal. 3: 13.  In the
same way I have been accustomed to group together the
obedience and sufferings of Christ: supposing, as Owen
says, "In suffering he obeyed. and in obeying he suffered;"
or as Paul expresses it, "He became obedient even unto
death."-'Phil. 2: 8.  And I suppose my brethren of the
New School generally have the same views on this point
as myself. But all the evidence I have of it is the declaration in the New School portion of the General Assembly of 1837.  They said, " All believers are justified, not
on the ground of personal merit, but solely on the ground
of the ohedience and death of Christ."  And this I believe is almost precisely in the language since used by Dr.
Alexander.  Dr. Dick, who is good authority for the Old
School, says, " The righteousness of Christ is strictly one;
and is divided into action and passion, for the sake of explanation only."-p. 376.
The question whether Christ s?.,fered the penalty of the
law, would seem to be a modern one.  I can find no pas



sage in the Bible, nor even in our standards. which asserts
that he did suffer it. I am therefore surprised that any
and especially that Dr. Alexander, should regard the denial of it, as bringing in " another gospel."-" Justification
by Faith."-p. 28.  Our Old School brethren regard this
denial, I think, as involving much more than it really does
-much more than the Westminster Assembly did, or they
would have spoken out upon it in the Confession and Catechisms.
As Christhas confessedly made an adequate atonement, we
need not inquire what, or how much he suffered.  All we
need know, and all we can know, is told us by the holy
evangelists. No reasoning a-priori, a-posteriori, or hypothetical, can help us in the least to be "' wise above what
is written."  What he suffered, he suffered; and no conjectures or arguments of ours will effect any change in
his sufferings, or increase our knowledge of them. And it
is enough to know,that (be their nature or degree what they
may,) they were enough to sustain the government of God
in saving all who repent and believe.
We may inquire and speculate as much as we please, as
to the aspects in which these sufferings are to be viewedwhether they are to be regarded as the exact endurance
of the penalty of the law denounced upon transgression,
or whether they are sufferings of another kind, which God
accepts as equivalent to that penalty, or sufferings rather,
which he appointed for Christ to endure, in order to make
an adequate atonement.  But before we can come to any
safe conclusion, a previous question must be settled. It
is, whether God can consistently accept any substitute for
such a penalty.  For, if nothing can constitute an appropriate atonement, but the endurance of this identical penalty. then Christ did certainly suffer it. But neither
scripture nor reason prove that he could not, or did accept
of such substitute.  But if it could be demonstrated that
Christ did suffer the exact penalty of the law, still it regards the aspect, and not the essence of the atonement.
It is a point, therefore, of minor importance.  Surely, then,
as the question is so difficult and doubtful, it cannot be a
very grievous heresy to believe that Christ suffered what




od accepted as an adequate substitute for the penalty of
Cod accepted as all adequate substitute for the penalty of
the law.
Why not take the sufferings of Christ just as they
stand recorded on the Sacred pages? believing them to be
just what they needed to be-just what the majesty and
justice of God required for making an adequate and
proper atonement, though we cannot be agreed how far
these sufferings are wearing the features and character of
the legal penalty.  As these sufferings are just what God
has accepted as sufficient for the purposes of mercy and of
moral government, why should not we be satisfied?
I have often wondered at the zeal manifested on both
sides of this question, and as I think the undue importance ascribed to it.  Some oppose the opinion that Christ
suffered the penalty of the law the more strenuously, because they suppose it to involve the fact of his suffering
remorse, and all the other pains consequent on criminality.
But I will venture to say that few, if any of our Old
School brethren believe he felt such anguish, or even that
in any proper sense he endured the penalty of the law.
Probably the most intelligent of them would argue with
Lightfoot, one of the Westminster Assembly.  He says:
"' Was Christ so much as punished of God?  Much less
was he overwhelmed by the wrath of God.  Was the
lamb punished, that was sacrificed?  He was afflicted, but
not punished; for punishment argues crime, or a fault
preceding.  Were the sad sufferings of Christ laid on him
as a punishment? certainly not for his own sins; no, nor
for ours."-Lightfoot's Works, Vol. -         pp. 23-4.
Hill, who is good Old School authority, denies that
Christ suffered the literal penalty.  He says: "Although
the sufferings of Jesus Christ, in consequence of this
translation of guilt, became the punishment of sin, it is
plain that they were not that very punishment which sin deserved; and hence it is called by those who hold the
Catholic (orthodox) opinion, a satisfaction for the sin of
the world.  The word satisfaction is known in the Roman
law, from which it is borrowed, to denote that method of
fulfilling an obligation, which may either be admitted or
refused.  When a person by non-performance of a contract, has incurred a penalty, he is entitled to a discharge




of the contract, if he pays the penalty; but if instead of
paying the penalty, he offers something else in the place
of it. the person who has the right to demand the penalty
may grant a discharge, or not, as he sees meet.  If he is
satisfied with that which is offered, he will grant the discharge; if he is not satisfied, he cannot be called unjust
he may act wisely in refusing it.  According to this known
meaning of the word, the sufferings of Christ for sin have
received the name of satisfaction to the justice of God,
because they were not the penalty which had been incurred, but something accepted by the Lawgiver instead of
it."-pp. 435, 6.
Symington, who also is Old School authority, follows
Hill.  He says: " Satisfaction properly denotes. that the
sufferings borne by Christ were not the identical punishment required by the law, but a proper equivalent with
which the great moral Governor was pleased to be satisfied in its place.  What Christ endured was not the precise
penalty of the law, but something equally satisfactory,
serving the same purpose, as far as the rectoral honor of
God is concerned."-p. 16.
Dick, in his Theology; (said to be a text book in Princeton,) teaches the same.  He says:   Perhaps our ideas
are not always distinct, when we speak of the death of
Christ, as a satisfaction for sin. That word, indeed. is used
to signify any thing with which the person having a claim
is contented, whether he receive the whole of what he
claims, or only a part of it, or something instead of it.
In law it strictly signifies a payment, which may, or may
not be admitted, according to the pleasure.of him to whom
it is due; and it takes place when not the very thing which
he had a right to demand, but something which he is pleased to accept as an equivalent. In the present case, what
the law  demlanded was the death of the transgressors
themselves: it was therefore a relaxation of the law to
admit another to die for them; and on this account the
death of Christ was properly a satisfaction to justice,
something with which it is content, although not the very
thing which was originally required. —Vol. 2, p. 74.
Dr. Rice will find in each of these three quotations of
his Old School authors, a full refutation of his assertion.




56
p. 44, that "to mzake satisfaction to divine justice, and to
szeffer the penalty of the law, are phrases of precisely the
same imposrt; and thus a complete refutation of all he
has quoted and said, (pp. 44, 54, and 64-5,) to prove that
Beman and Pearson deny the atonement in denying that
Christ suffered literally the penalty of the law.  And Dr.
J. Wood will also find in them a full refutation of all he,
too, has quoted and said (pp. 92, 104) to prove that Beman,
Jenkyn, and Barnes, deny the atonement, by denying
that Christ suffered this legal penalty. In each of these
three extracts may be found, too, a full refutation of all
that Smith and Cheeseman have said to prove that the
New School, by denying that Christ suffered the penalty
of the law, deny that he made any atonement at all.
Will Rice, Wood, and Cheeseman insist, that such staunch
Old School men as Hill, Symington, and Dick, by denying
the sufferings of Christ to be legal and penal,have brought
in the " damnable heresy" of " even denying the Lord that
bought them?"
To the foregoing quotations on this point, I will add
one from Dr. L. Woods of Andover: one to which I think
the most of Old and New School men will cordially
subscribe.  If the length of it needs an apology, it will
be found in the appositeness and excellency of the extract
itself.
"It is the common opinion, that Christ by his death
satisfied the laIw, and that he endured its penalty.  Are
these representations scriptural?  And how are they to
be understood?  Reply.  Christ suffered and diedfor our
sins; that is, on their account. IHe suffered for us; that
is, in our stead; in order that we who otherwise must have
suffered the penalty of the law, might be exempt from it.
The Bible does indeed declare, that Christ saved us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.  But it
does not say, that he endured literally, the very curse denounced by the law  against sinners, the very curse from
which sinners are saved; but it says, he was " zalde a
curose.   As it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth
on a tree."  The particular curse spoken of was crucifixion, which was a very painful and ignominious death.
But crucifixion does not constitute the exact curse de



57
nounced by the law against transgressors; and very few
who have fallen under that curse, have suffered crucifixion.
The language of the Bible on this subject, and the corresponding language of Christians is just and proper. But
they must have a reasonable construction, and must be
explained and limited by other expressions, relating to the
same subject. The law was indeed satisfied by the death
of Christ, in this sense, that all the good ends which it
sought, and which would have been accomplished by our
perfect obedience, or by merited punishment, were accomplished by the obedience and death of Christ.  In his
vicarious sufferings, the law  fully compassed the ends
which would otherwise have been accomplished by the
punishment of sinners; that is, it completely answered
in another way, the ends that would have been answered
by a direct and full execution of the penalty of the law;
which penalty is a very different thing from crucifixion.
Or to express the same thing differently, the law was satisfied by the substitution of Christ's death, for the punishment of transgressors.  But if we would speak with
strict propriety, we must say, the Supreme Lawgiver is satisfied, for satisfaction really pertains to a person. If what
the Lawgiver aims at is done by the vicarious death of
Christ, as fully as it would have been done by the punishment of sinners, why should he not be satisfied?  And if
his great object as Lawgiver could not have been accomplished by the death of Christ, then why did he appoint
that death as a substitute for the punishment of sinners?
It would really seem that God had a preference for the
former: and we should naturally think, that the reason for
that preference was, that on the whole, more good would
result from the sufferings of Christ, than from  the execution of the penalty of the law.
As to the demands of the law, Christ undertook to do
all that was necessary in order that those who believe
might be forgiven.  Whatever demands the law, or the
Lawgiver made upon Christ, as our Redeemer, or our substitute or surety, these demands he fully answered.  And
thus he virtuzally answered the demands which the law
made against us.  The same in regard to the penalty.
Christ suffered it virtually. He suffered that which had




58
the like effect, or had the like value in God's moral government.  As to the ends of government, it was as though
the curse of the law had been endured literally. So that
it is sufficiently correct for common purposes, especially
for the purposes of impression, to say as Storr and Flatt,
and a thousand others have said, that Christ endured the
penalty of the law, that he suffered the penalty due to us.
And this mode of representation is perfectly justified
by Scripture example.  For, when the prophet says:
" he bore the sins of many-the Lord laid on him the
iniquity of us all;" and when the apostle says: "he bare
our sns in his own body on the tree;" the obvious meaning is, that the punishment of our iniquities was laid on
him, or that he endured the sufferings which our sins deserved.  And wherever phraseology like this is used, it is
only necessary to keep in mind, that it is used for the
purposes of brevity and impression, and is to be construed
with a reasonable latitude, not with an over rigid exactness,
just as we construe other expressions used in Scripture
and free conversation. If we were to lay aside all language that will not bear to be construed literally and
strictly, we should lay aside what is most impassioned and
moving in Scripture and in common discourse.  That language is good which is suited to the nature of the subject,
and which. with reasonable and candid construction, is
adapted to impress the truth upon the understanding and
the heart."-Wood's Works, Vol. 2, pp. 471-4.
I see not why the Old School as well as the New, cannot adopt the views contained in the foregoing extracts
from  Hill and Symington, Dick and Woods.  But be
that as it may, I shall not need to inquire whether this
view of ours conflicts with our standards.  For as to the
question whether Christ suffered the literal penalty of the
law, they say nothing.
Rice, Wood, Cheeseman, and others, complain of Beman and others, for maintaining that God made a grand
" exhibition" by the death of Christ, for the purpose of
making a mighty impression on the moral universe. But
are not Old School writers doing the same?  Hill says:
(p. 436,) "It appears even to us inconsistent with the
character of the Lawgiver of the universe, and many rea



sons in his universal government, which we are not qualifled to perceive, may render it in the highest degree unfit
that an act of indemnity, by which the sins of all that repent and believe are forgiven, should be published to the
human race, without some awful exampnle of punishment
of transgression.  It pleased God to exhibit this example
in the sufferings of his own Son."
The New School have been charged with holding that
this exhibition and impression are the only aim and effect
of Christ's death. But this charge is effectually repelled
by the following assertion of the New School in the Assembly of 1837, and in the Auburn Convention.  They
say:' The sufferings of Christ were not symbolical, governmental, and instructive, only, but were truly vicarious,
i. e., a substitute for the punishment due to transgressors.
And while Christ did not suffer the literal penalty of the
law, involving remorse of conscience, and the pains of hell,
he did offer a sacrifice, which Infinite Wisdom saw to be
a full equivalent. And by virtue of this atonement overtures of mercy are sincerely made to the race, and salvation
secured to all who believe."
The main, if not the only point of dispute between the
two Schools on the doctrine of atonement, is in regard to
the extent of it. In all the warfare between the parties,
none perhaps has elicited more feeling and effort than this.
But I am  now convinced it is pretty much " Point-nopoint "-that there is little between us worth contending
for-that our Old School brethren virtually concede all
we are insisting on.  We have generally regarded our
Old School brethren as holding that the atonement was
made, in all respects for the elect alone: so that the nonelect could not be saved, even though they should be ever
so willing to comply with the conditions of salvation.
And it may be that some do hold this view.  But I believe the great mass repudiate it.  On full inquiry we shall
find them holding, I think, that in an important sense, the
atonement was made for all mankind-that such provision
is made that none need perish, and none will perish, but
by their own voluntary rejection of the offers of life-that
in their view  of the atonement, the non-elect are left
where we leave them, and where Arminians leave allmen:




60
that is, they leave them standing at the open door of mercy,
with an invitation to enter in; but with no special and
effectual influence to press them in; yet needing nothing
-to secure their salvation, but their own consent to the conditions of life. But for the proof of it.
The New School have full confidence in Fuller.  And
he says: " If we say the way was opened by the death of
Christ, for the free and consistent exercise of mercy in all
the methods which Sovereign Wisdom saw fit to adopt, perhaps we shall include every material idea which the Scriptures give of the important event."-Gospel its own
Witness, p.. 194.  And we shall find, I think, that the
writers about to be quoted, will give the atonement the
wide scope here spoken of.  Symington, on the atonement,
is approved in the Princeton Essays, (Vol. 2, p. 49.) and
published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication and
he is very strenuous on Limitation.  And yet he is much
more liberal toward General Atonement men, than many
on this side of the water.  He says: " If suficiency were
the point on which the controversy turned, it might be
soon ended. And we are strongly inclined to believe, that
nothing more than this is meant by many of those who
contend for Christ's having died for all men. It is with
such persons a mistake of words, more than of opinion.
In the fullest sense of the terms, then, we regard the
atonement of Christ as sufficient for all.  This all-sufficiency is what lays the foundation for the unrestrained
universality of the Gospel call; and from every such view
of the atonement as could imply that it was not sufficient
for all, or that there was not ample warrant in the invitations of the Gospel for all to look to it for salvation, we
utterly dissent. Against every such limitation and restriction we enter our solemn and deliberate protest, as
alike dishonorable to Christ,-and unwarranted by the testimony of Scripture."
Here is virtually conceded all, on this point, that the
New School have asked.  Not only is the sufficiency of
the atonement granted, but that this all-sufficiency " lays
the foundation for the unrestricted universality of the
gospel call."  Here it is averred, too, that any restriction
to this provision and offer of salvation is alike dishonora



v61
ble to Christ, and unwarranted by the word of God.  And
for nothing have the New  School contended, more than
for such a view of atonement as would authorize and rend
der consistent the offers of salvation to all.
Symington  says, again: " The present controversy
hinges wholly on the divine intention regarding the subjects of the atonement."-p. 187. And then, if I understand him, he has no controversy with the New  School;
for they do not believe it was the intention of God that
all should be saved by the death of Christ.  That were
Universalism  on the one hand, or Arminianism  on the
other.  We believe that Christ died for all, yet especially
for the elect, and on this wise: All men, if left to themselves, would reject salvation by the atonement; and of
these rejectors, God intended to bring some (the elect) to
accept this salvation.  Christ died therefore, not only to
make atonement for all men, that all night be saved, if
they wzvoul; but also to procure that influence of the Spirit
by which " all that the Father hath given him shall come
to him n' for salvation, being made " willing in the day of
his power."
Dr. A. G. Fairchild has published a valuable little work
called " The Great Supper."  It is published and thus endorsed by the Old School Board of Publication.  It therefore speaks ex cathedra for the whole connection.  And in
it we find the following declarations:
"The first subject for consideration suggested in the
parable (Luke 14: 16-24) is the infinite sufficiency of the
provisions of the go.spel."  "A certain man made a great
supper and bade many, and sent his servant at supper time
to say to them  that were bidden, come, for all things are
now ready."  This language clearly implies, that the provision in readiness was abundant in proportion to the
number invited; and it may teach us the infinite value of
the Redeemer's sacrifice, and its ample sufficiencyfor the
vwhole world.  And this is in perfect accordance with the
doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, which always, in the
most explicit manner, inculcated the sentiment, that no
sinner can perish through any deficiency in the atonement.
Accordingly, the Confession of Faith, speaking of the nonelect, says: " They never truly come to Christ, and there



fore cannot be s ved."~-Chap. 10, See. 4.  The reason
why they cannot be saved is, that they will not come to
Christ.  Nor is it true, that the doctrine of the infinite
sufficiency of the Redeemer's sufferings is of recent origin
in the Presbyterian Church. This is often insinuated by
the opposers of our views.  The slightest examination
might satisfy them, that the doctrine has been maintained
by those called Calvinists from  the earliest period.  Calvin, himself, in his comment on 1 John 2: 2, plainly asserts that the sufferings of Christ were sufficient for the
whole world.  And he repeats the same sentiment distinctly, in many parts of his writings. In the Synod of
Dort, more than 200 years ago, the whole Calvinistic world
united in the declaration, " that the death of the Son of
God is a single and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction
for sin; of infinite value and price, abundantly sufficient
to expiate the sins of the whole world: and that because
many who are called by the Gospel, do not repent and believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this doth not arise
from defect or insufficiency of the sacrifice offered by
Christ, but from  their own fault."-Syn. Dort, Chap. 2,
pp. 23-5.
" We invite all to the feast of the gospel, because our
Divine Master has commanded us to do so.  We invite
them to come because the provision in readiness is sufficient
for all; and if they will come, they shall in no wise be
cast out."-p. 41.
"It was remarked in a former discourse, that the first
great truth presented to view in the parable before us, is
the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ; a truth which
has ever been believed and taught in the Presbyterian
Church.  Nay, in some instances, the whole Calvinistic
world has united in the declaration, that the death of
Christ is a most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for our
sins; of infinite value and price; abundantly sufficient to
expiate the sins of the whole world. I will go further
and say: " There is,' as Dr. John Owen observes," a sense
in which Christ may be said to die for all, and the whole
world.  His death was of sufficient dignity to have made
a ransom for all the sins of every one in the world; and
on this internal sufficiency is grounded the universality of




63
the gospel offers."-Dis. Armin  Chap. 9.  We also
admit most cheerfully that Christ died intentionally, to
save all believers.  Hence he declares: " Him that cometh
unto me, I will in nowise cast out."  We wish you distinctly to understand, that when Calvinists deny that' Christ died for all," they only mean to deny, that he
died "' for all," in the same sense in which that expression
is explained by their opponents. That is, they mean to
deny that he died for all men, in the same sense, and with
the same intention.  Accordingly, our Confession of
Faith, Chap. 8, Sec. 8, affirms that " to all those for whom
Christ purchased redemption, he hath certainly and effectually applied the same." The passage serves as a guard
against the idea, that the Savior may be defeated in his
great designs which were to be accomplished by his death.
And here I believe, after all, lies the main point of dispute
with regard to the atonement.  Among those who agree
as to its nature, the chief question in debate is its design.
What was it intended to effect? This assertion is not
made on my own individual authority.  All who have
been qualified by learning and experience, have stated the
question in this form.  Among others, the celebrated
Francis Turretin, the successor of Calvin, in the theological chair in Geneva, in his Institutes, Qu. 14, on the
atonement, says: " The question is not concerning the
value and sufficiency of the death of Christ, but the hinge
of the controversy is the design of God in sending his
Son into the world, and the intention of Christ in expiring
on the cross." So also the distinguished Ridgely, in Vol.
2, p. 209, says: "It is allowed on both sides, especially
by all who own the divinity and satisfaction of Christ,
that his death was sufficient to redeem the whole world.
The main question before us is, whether God designed the
salvation of all men by the death of Christ."-pp. 85-7.
The Calvinist presents an offer grounded upon the infinite
sufficiency and alpplicability of the Savior's blood, accompanied with the assurance to him who accepts it. that " he
shall in nowise be cast out."-p. 87. The sufferings of
Christ were not only sufficient for all, but actually secured
the salvation of all who are truly willing to come to him.
And therefore, if any do not experience their saving effica



64
e.y, it is, to use the words of our Confession, " because they
never truly come to Christ."  That they do not come to
him is ascribed wholly to their voluntary blindness, and
cherished depravity of their own hearts."-pp. 96, 99.
In the foregoing extracts are not our New School views
of the extent of the atonement sufficiently asserted? I
am aware that many in the other School use some phraseologies different from what we do to explain this doctrire.  But as to " the infinite sufficiency and applicability
of the Savior's blood," are we not substantially agreed 
Is there a single expression in the above extracts from
which any moderate New School man would seriously dissent.  Must we not recognize in them a description of our
own belief? and rejoice that our Old School brethren,
through  their Board of Publication, have adopted the
same?  We believe only, as Calvin expresses it, that the
atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the
elect.  And do not the Old School believe exactly the
game?
It may seem inconsistent in some of them, that after
making the above concessions, they should try to invalidate those passages of Scripture which declare that Christ
died for all men.*  True, they may seem  to us on this
point as on some others, to contradict themselves.  But I
say again, what is that to us?  What they have conceded,
they have conceded.  And we have no right to pronounce
them  mistaken or insincere in these concessions.  Nor
need we fear that they will recede from them. For if any
thing is needed to keep them to their position, we can find
it in Calvin, whom both Schools regard as " the father of
us all."  I quote from his comments:
Mat. 26: 28. " This is my blood of the New Testament
which is shed for many for the remission of sins." "' Under
the name of many, he (Christ) denotes not a part of the
world only, but the whole human race."
Rom. 5: 18. "' The free gift came upon all men to justification  of life."  " He (the apostle) makes the grace
common to all.  For although Christ szferedfor the whole
"The following are the passages principally relied upon, as teaching
that Christ died for all. Jolhn 1: 29 3: 17;4: 42- Rom. 5: 18; 2 Cor.
5: 14, 15  1Tim. 2: 6; 4: 10 Heb. 2: 9; 1 John 2: 2.




65
world, and is offered to all, without distinction, yet all do
not embrace it."
1 Cor. 8:   1. " Through thy knowledge shall the weak
brother perish for whom Christ died."  "If the soul of
every weak person was the purchase of the blood of Christ,
he that for the sake of a little meat plunges his brother
again into death who was redeemed by Christ, shows at
how mean a rate he esteems the blood of Christ."
2 Pet. 2: 1. " There shall be false teachers among you,
who shall privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying
the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves
swift destruction."    Though Christ is denied in various
ways, yet in  ny opinion Peter means the same thing here,
as Jude expresses, viz: that the grace of God is turned
into lasciviousness. For Christ has redeemed us, that he
might have a people free from the defilements of the world,
and devoted to holiness and innocence.  Whosoever, therefore, shake off the yoke, and throw themselves into all
licentiousness, are justly said to deny Christ, by whom
they are redeemed."
I John, 2: 2. "' He is the propitiation for our sins, and
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole
world."  "Here a question is raised: how the sins of the
whole world are atoned for:  Some have said, Christ suffered for the whole world sufficierttly, but for the elect
efficaciously.  This is the common solution of the schools;
and tho'ugh I confess this is a truth, yet I do not think
it agrees to this place."  To deny, then, that Christ died
for some tv/o will be lost, nay, for all men, is to be more
Calvinistic than Calvin himself.
I hope I have now shown that the New School views of
a general atonement are conformable both to the word of 
God, and to the avowed understanding of Old School
standard authors.  And need I show that we as a body
believe in any atonement at all?  Yes: for it is sometimes
insinuated that we deny it altogether. r. r. Smith says of
Mr. Barnes, (whom he donsiders our organ,) that, " In his
whole book he has not a single passage expressive of salvation through the merits of Christ alone."-Dialogues,
p. 199.  In reply to this let Mr. B. speak for himself.
In his Notes on Rom. he says: (3: 24,) " It does not mean




66
that it (the free gift) has lieen obtained., however, without
any price or merit from  any one, for the Lord Jesus
Christ has purchased it with his own blood; and to him
it became a matter of justice, that those who were given
him  should be justified." —pp. 85, 6.  " In the plan of
salvation, therefore, he (God) has shown a regard to his
law by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place
of sinners." —p. 89.  " He (God) showed that he had so
great a regard for it, (the law,) that he would not pardon
one sinner without an atonement.  A full compensationan equivalent has been provided by the sufferings of the
Savior in the sinner's stead."-p. 90. "' The intervention
of the atonement by the Messiah, prevented the immediate execution of the penalty of the law, and produced cll
the benefits to all the race, resulting from the sparing mercy of God."-p. 123.  "The sin of one man involved
men inruin; the obedience unto death of the other restored them to the favor of God."-p. 125. " There was
an  original applicability in the work of Christ to all
men, a richness and fullness of the atonement, fitted to
meet the sins of the entire world, and restore the race to
favor."-p. 126.  Who, after reading these extracts, can
say that Albert Barnes denies salvation by the substituted
sufferings of Jesus Christ?
But what would it avail to prove that Mr. B. denies
this doctrine, so long as the New  School have so fully
affirmed it by their representatives in the Assembly and
Convention of 1837?  In a paragraph  already quoted,
they say: " The sufferings and death of Christ were
truly vicarious,. e. a substitute for the punishment
due to transgressors.  By virtue of this atonement overtures of mercy are sincerely made to the race, and salvation secured to all who believe."
It is probably for the sake of form  only, that we need
to inquire, whether our views of atonement are in conformity to the Confession and the Catechisms.  They are so
much at one with the views of most of the Old School, that
if there is any difficulty here, both Schools must share in
it.  I can find but three paragraphs in which there is any
seeming difficulty.  They are found in the Confession of




67
Faith, Chap. 8, Sec. 5; Chap. 11, Sec. 3; and in the Larger Catechism, Ans. 59.
The first p'ragraph reads thus: " The Lord Jesus, by
his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he,
through the Eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath
fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased
not only reconciliation, but everlasting inheritance in the
kingdom of heaven, for all those whom  the Father hath
given unto him." This article speaks of the obedience of
Christ as making a part of the atonement.  And we have
seen that both schools believe this truth.  It declares also
that Christ satisfied the justice of God; but does not say
whether he did it by suffering the literal penalty of the
law, or whether he did it by other sufferings, with which
his Father was equally well pleased.  And we have seen
that such  Old School authors as Hill, Symington, and
Dick deny as fully as we do, that Christ suffered the litercil
penalty. This article teaches also that Christ purchased
salvation for the elect; but says nothing about the rest of
mankind; nothing therefore that conflicts with the doctrine of a general atonement.  And the New  School believe as fully as any other Calvinists, that Christ " purchased this reconciliation and everlasting inheritance," for
the elect; and thus that he died for them in a higher,
more emphatic sense, than for the rest of mankind, in
that he died for all, that they might be saved, and for the
elect, to insure their salvation.  Consequently they believe
as it is expressed in sec. 8, of this chapter, that " To all
those for whom  Christ hath purchased redemption, he
doth certainly and effectually apply the same."
The next paragraph reads thus: " Christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the debt of all those
that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real,
and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf.
Yet inasmuch as he 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."
ATuch of this article is alike in a meaning to the forego



68
ing; and hlas thereforebeen in a measure considered already.
It speaks of Christ's discharging the debt, that is, the
sins of the justified; which is the same as satisfying the
justice of God, (as mentioned in both articles,) but tells
us not whether he paid this debt of sin in the same kind
of coin (so to speak) as was due from the sinner? that is,
whether he bore the same sufferings which were due from
the sinner to the justice of God? or whether he bore other
sufferings equally acceptable to God? The words of Paul
to Philemon respecting Onesimus may illustrate this point.
" If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that
on mine account; I, Paul have written it with mine own
hand; I will repay it." —Philem. 18: 19. " Put that to
mine account."  In the Greek, " Impute that to mze."
Here, then, we have an instance'of imputation similar to
that of the believer's sins to Christ.  " I will repay it."
Here, as we may say, is Paul's "note of hand," to pay for
the injury which Onesimus had done his master in leaving
or defrauding him. But we cannot suppose he intended to
render Philemon either servile labor or money. Evidently he intended to repay him in gospel labors. Or rather,
he intended that Philemon should regard himself as paid
in such labors already. This he evidently intended to intimate in the adroit allusion: " Albeit, I do not say to
thee, how thou owest unto me even thine own self beside."
And it seems to me, that " the exact justice" of God
would be fully " satisfied," and thereby fully " glorified "
(illustrated and honored) by such sufferings of Christ as
God might accept in the stead of those to which the sinner
is doomed.
The 59th answer in the Larger Catechism reads thus:
I" Redemption is certainly applied and effectually communicated to all those for whom  Christ hath purchased it,
who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in
Christ according to the gospel."  It may be thought this
article denies that Christ died for any but such as will be
saved; consequently that none holding to general atonement, can subscribe it without involving the doctrine of
Universalism.  And if so, it would conflict with many of
the Old School, as well as of the New. To see this, the
reader will need only to look back on what has been quoted




69
from  Symington, and Calvin, and especially from  DrI
Fairchild, who  is commissioned  by  the Old School
Assembly, through  their  Board  of  Publication, to
declare that Calvinists offer salvation to all, " upon the infinite sufficiency and applicability of the Savior's blood."
But it is redemption and not atonement which is here
said to be " effectually  communicated to all for whom
Christ purchased it" And redemption and atonement are
not the same. The former is the application of the latter.
In other words, redemption is an atonement made in a
higher sense, for the elect, than for the rest of mankind.
Christ died for all, to make their salvation possible, and
that is the atonement.  But he died also for the elect, to
make their salvation certain.  The elect were the ones
given to him by the Father as a sure reward for his sufferings.  By his death he thus purchased the elect; or, in
the language of this article, he purchased redenmption for
them.
The Scriptures observe this distinction very emphatically. They never confound redemption with atonement,
except when the cause is put for the effect.  They speak
of atonement as for sin; (Ex. 32: 30; Lev. 4: 20, 26,
31, 35; 1 Pet. 3: 18;) but of redemption fromz sin, and
its consequences.  (Ps. 25: 22, 49: 15; Gal. 3: 13, and
1 Pet. 1: 18 ) They speak of redemption only in connection with Saints, and as having already taken full effect.
(Isa. 35: 9; 51: 1; 62: 12; 63: 9; 1 Cor. 1: 30; Eph.
1: 7; Col. 1: 14; Tit. 2: 14,and Rev. 5: 9.)  Not so
of the atonement.  Christ is said to have died for many
who are not, and never will be redeemed.  (John I: 29,
3: 17; 4: 42  2 Cor. 14: 15; I Tim. 2: 6; 4: 10. Heb.
2:9; lJohn2: 2; ITim. 4: 10; 1Cor.8: 11.) Enough
has now been said, I trust, to show that atonement and
redemption are not the same, and thus to relieve both Old
School and New from the fear of conflict with the foregoing article.
And now I would bespeak again the candid decision of
the reader. I ask hin to decide, in view of what has been
said on the doctrine, whether the New School cannot make
an " honest " subscription to what our standards say respecting the atonement?




CHAPTER V.
HUMAN  ABILIT Y
On this doctrine also, has there been a vast amount of
theological conflict. But many, in my opinion, have been
fighting in a fog; or rather, perhaps, in the  smoke which
they have been making by their own ammunition.  Such
combatants would do well to heed the following remark of
Dr. Woods to Dr. Beecher:  "The  principal, if not the
chief difference which exists among thinking  and candid
minds, is verbal.  If this should be kept in view, as it
ought to be, and if men who are going to dispute would
just stop and inquire what they are going to dispute about,
it would very much narrow  the ground of debate, and
diminis, if not remove the occasion of strife."*
There are supposed to be two ultra and opposite views
of ability, held in the Presbyterian Church. One is, that
unregenerate man has no ability of any kind, to obey God
and to secure salvation; as expressed by Drs. Green and
Junkin in the trials of Barnes, and by Dr. Wilson in the
trial of Beecher.  But I believe that few in the Old School
would avow such an opinion. So on the other hand it is
supposed the New School are maintaining that the unregenerate have all needful ability of every kind to obey the
law and to comply with the. conditions of salvation. But
*" Dr. Stuart was rather fond of controversy. A favorite topic with him
was the true nature of saving faith, on which subject he regarded Dr.
Chalmers as in error. They met in the streets of Edinburg, and entered
at once into a warm controversy; street after street, and square after
square were passed, and at length the disputants parted: Dr Chalmers
taking Dr. Stuart by the hand and saying:' If you wish to see my views
clearly and distinctly, read a tract called " Hindrances to Believers of the
Gospel." " Why," said Dr. Stuart, " that is the very tract I published
myself." Dr. Chalmers used often to describe this scene as a proof that
many may think they differ when they really agree."-Family Christian
Almanac, 185.5.




I am  confident -that few, if any, among us would avow
such a belief.  Thus while one School is declared to be
Antinomian, and the other Arminian, both are misapprehended.
Besides these opposing views, there is a medium one, in
which, as I think, the great mass of both schools can fully
concur.  It is that, notwithstanding the native corruption
of man, his constitutional powers, including his intellect
and conscience, affections and will, are not so impaired that
he needs a physical regeneration; that his depravity consists in the perversion (not the destruction) of his affections and will; that these need to be renovated; (not restored;) that man has all the capacity which he needs, in
order to love and obey God, and could do so without difficulty, if he were rightly disposed; or, as the Scriptures
express it, if he had' a heart to it." (Prov. 17: 16;) or,
"a willing mind."  [2 Cor. 8: 12.]  And that this depravity renders it certain, that he will sin, and sin only,
till renewed by the Spirit of God; yet, that it does not
coerce or compel him  of necessity, to sin; since, as our
Confession of Faith [Chap. 9, Sec 1,] expresses it, " God
hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty,
that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of
nature, determined to good or evil."
According to this view, ability with inability is distinguished  into Natural and Moral. Nlatural inability is
whatever prevents our doing a thing, when we are willing
and suficiently inclined to do it.  Moral inability is the
want of a heart, disposition, or will to do a thing.  In
other words, when a man would do a thing, and cannot, he
is a subject of natural inability.  And when he could do
a thing, if he chose, yet chooses not to do it, he is a subject of moral inability.  This latter inability is literal
only in that he cannot act against his will.
Let us now inquire,
1. Whether this medium  view of inability is according
to truth?
2. Whether it is one in which both schools can unite?
and
3. Whether it accords with te Confession and the Catechism?




72
Some Old School men seem inclined of late to discard
the distinction of ability into natural and mnoral, as if
it were a distinction without a difference. [See Princeton
Essays, p. 271, and Winchester's Inability no Excuse.]
But this distinction is both evident and important. It is
evidently recognized in the word of God.  Out of many
passages I adduce only the following: " Thou hast appointed his bounds, that he cannot pass."-Job 14: 5.
And, " None can redeem his brother." —Ps. 49: 7.  Here
is naturalinability.  " They " [Joseph's brethren] " hated
him, and could not speak peacefully unto him." -Gen. 37:
4.  And, "Why do ye not understand my speech? even
because ye cannot hear my words."-John 8: 43.  Here
evidently is zoral inability: for there was nothing to hinder Joseph's brethren from  speaking kindly to him, but
their own disposition; and nothing else to hinder the
Jews from hearing Christ's words.
We are always making this distinction in the moralities
of common life. The parent must make it, when he commands his two sons to engage in the same business, and
both fail, the one because he has not strength enough to
do it, and the other because he dislikes the service.  And
the creditor must feel it, when two of his debtors fail to
meet his demands, one because he has no money, and the
other because though he has the necessary sum in hand,
he prefers to put it to another use.
This is a distinction, too, which learned and orthodox
divines have long regarded as of great importance. Dr.
Twisse, prolocutor to the Westminster Assembly, said:
" The inability to do what is pleasing and acceptable to
God is not natural, but mnoral inability; for no faculty of
our nature is taken away from us by original sin; as saith
Augustine, "It hath taken away from no man the ficulty
of discovering the truth."  The power still remains by
which we can do whatever we choose.  We say, that the
natural power of doing any thing according to our will
is preserved to'all, but no moral power."-Beecher's Views,
p. 61.
Said Dr. Witherspoon, [who was one of those Iwho adopted the Confesssion and Catechisms for the Americ-Il
Presbyterian Church,] " Oh that you would but consider




what sort of inability you were under to keep the commands of God.  Is it natural, or is it mor'al?  Is it really want of ability or want of will?  Is it any thing
more than the depravity and corruption of your hearts
which is itself criminal, and the source of all transgressions?,"-p. 61. " The moral inability under which sinners
lie, as a consequence from the fall, is not of such a nature
as to take away the guilt of sin."-Quoted by Dr. Green,
in his Christian Advocate for March, 1830.
And says Dr. Watts, " I own his faculties have been
greatly corrupted by vicious inclinations, or sinful propensities, which has been happily called by our divines a moral
inability to fulfill the law, and not a natural inability."Views, p. 62.
A late writer in the Old School connection, while he
admits the distinction, as in itself correct, objects to the
phraseology in which it is always expressed.  His main
objection seems to be, that the phrase moral inability
conveys the impression, that man's indisposition and unwillingness to obey God is not native. But it never conveyed that impression to mze: nor should I think it would
to others, any more than the phrase, " moral faculties'
conveys the idea that man is not indued by nature with
reason and conscience.  It is perfectly understood by all,
that we apply the term  moral to these faculties, simply
because they are employed in all moral action-not because nature never confers them.  And so when we apply
the same term to the affections and will, it is because they
are more immediately and emphatically employed in moral
action, and moreover because they characterize such action,
as good or bad.  And when we apply the self-same term
to ina6ility, it is always understood, I should think, as in
relation to the morality of man's conduct, and not to its
own origin.  Since, then, this phrase,   moral inability,"
has been so generally employed, is so generally understood,
and is so needful to distinguish this blameable from  all
blameless inability, I should regret to have it discontinued.
Drs. Wood and Rice admit this distinction, but insist
that the New School exalt man's natural powers too highly, ascribing to them  a self-restoring agency, so that he
needs not the regenerating influence of the Spirit. But
4a




this is a mlis-arepprelihenslo,11   which   hope to correct in another place
Some have attempted to disprove this distinction, by
urging against it the fact, that so long as a man refuses to
act, his natural powers are of no use to him.  But this
objection lies against neither the fact, nor the philosophy
of this distinction.  If a man has power to lift his hand,
he has it, whether he is willing or unwilling to use that
power.  And so it is as to man's natural ability to obey
God.  If he has such ability, he has it, however unwilling
he may be to render such obedience.
Others have objected that there is a great inconsistency
in saying a man has natural power to do a moral act.
But in answer to this I need only to ask such objectors,
how they could contrive to perform  a moral act without
natural powers.  Are idiots and maniacs accountable moral
agents?
This distinction is important in itself, as a general
truth; for if we lose sight of it, we shall make wrong estimates of human conduct.  And it is particularly important to keep sight of it in this investigation; for thereby
the Old School can more clearly perceive that the New
School admit in substance (if not in the form they prefer)
all they should insist upon respecting human impotency:
and the New School can see that all they insist upon, the
Old School virtually admit.
The position which we now maintain, is, that man, by the
fall, lost not his natural, but his moral ability; or, as
our Confession expresses it, his "'ability of will to any
spiritual good accompanying salvation."-Chap. 9, sec. 3,
-Not, however, that he lost his freedom  of will; for, as
the first section of the same chapter expresses it, such is
its " natural liberty that it is neither forced, nor by any
absolute necessity of nature, determined to good or evil."
We believe that though the sinner rejects the good, and
chooses the evil of a certainty, he does it not of necessity,
but with perfect freedom; that if he were to choose the
right way, there would be no irregularity or deficiency in
his natural powers that would hinder his pursuing it: and
that the only reason why he cannot choose the right way
is, that he freely chooses the wrong, and cannot choose




75
both at the same time. And this freedom  of choice. we
say, is what makes his conduct criminal.  This view of
human inability is sustained by the following passages of
the word of God:
1. Such as declare that sinners have " eyes to see, and
see not," and have "ears to hear, and hear not."-Isa. 42:
19, 20; Jer. 5: 21; Ezek. 12: 2; Mat. 13: 13, 15;
Mark 8: 18, and John 9: 41. If these are not intended
to teach that men have all-sufficient capacity to know and
do their duty, they can have no meaning at all.
2. Such gospel invitations as are addressed to all, to
those who refuse, as well as to those who obey these calls.
-Isa. 45: 22; 55: 1, 2,3,6,7; Mat. 11: 28, 29; Luke
14: 17-20,24; John 7: 37; Rev. 3: 20; 22: 17. If
it is literally and positively impossible for all the impenitent to comply with offers of salvation, why are they made
to all?  How can the universal offer be sincere?
3. Such passages as express God's desire that all would
come to him for salvation, his regrets that any refuse salvation, and his reproof of them  for doing so.-Deut. 5:
29; 32: 29; Ps.81: 13; Isa. 1: 18; 48: 18; Ezek.
18: 32; 2Pet. 3: 9; Ezek. 33: 11; Mat. 23:37;Prov.
1: 22; 17: 16; Isa. 55: 2; Luke 14: 21.  For, if God
had made men incapable of laying hold of eternal life,
how could he consistently desire their salvation, or regret
their failure of it? and how, especially, could he reprove
them for " despising his goodness," and for " treasuring up
wrath against the day of wrath," if he had made them incapable of doing otherwise?
Let us now inquire,
2. Whether the present view of human ability is one
in which the Old and New School can substantially unite?
That our Old School brethren hold this view, is evident
from the fact that they admit all obedience and disobedience to be voluntary, consequently that men fail to obey
God only because they are unwilling to obey him.  That
is, their unwillingness is their only inability. That this
is their view will be proved by quotations from authors,
ancient and modern, whom they approve.
Augustine says: " Which free will if God had not given, there could be no just sentence of punishment, or re



76
ward of right conduct, nor of divine precept to repent of
sins, nor of pardon of sins, which God has given us through
our Lord Jesus Christ; because he who does not sin with
his will, does not sin at all; which sins, as I have said,
unless we have free will, would not be sins." —Beecher's
Views, p. 57-8.
Luther says:' There is no restraint either on the divine
or human will.  In both cases the will does what it does,
whether good or bad simply, and as at perfect liberty, in
the exercise of its own faculty. And so long as the operative grace of God is absent from us, everything we do
has in it a mixture of evil; and therefore of necessity our
works avail not to salvation.  Here I do not mean a necessity of compulsion, but of necessity as to the certainty
of the event. A man who has not the Spirit of God, does
evil, willingly, and spontaneously. He is not violently
impelled against his will, as the thief to the gallows."Milnor, Vol. 5, Chap. 12, sec. 2.
Calvin says: "' God is voluntary in his goodness, Satan
in his wickedness, and man in his sin. We must therefore
observe, that man, having been corrupted by the fall, sins
voluntarily, not with reluctance or constraint; with the
strongest propensity of disposition."-Institutes, B. 2,
Chap. 3, sec. 5.  "I always exclude coercion, for we
sin voluntarily, for it would not be sin, unless it were voluntary."-Com. on Rom. 7.
The Biblical Repertory says: (Vol. 17, p. 638:) "According to the proper usage of language, liberty and necessity are diametrically opposite; and to say a thing is necessary, and, at the same time free, is a contradiction in
terms.  Certainty and necessity are not the same.  A
necessary volition is an absurdity, a thing inconceiv-:able."
The passages quoted,pp. 72-3, from Twisse, Watts, Witherspoon, and others, in behalf of the distinction between
natural and moral inability, show also, that they consider
the latter to be the only inability to which man is
subject.
Dr. Green says: "The parties in this controversy are
agreed, that all actual sin is voluntary, and therefore criminal and incxcusable."-Christian Advocate, 1831, p. 348.




77
Dr. Spring says: " Seriously considered, it is impossible to sin without acting voluntarily. The divine law requires nothing but voluntary obedience, and forbids nothing but voluntary disobedience.  As men cannot sin without acting, nor act without choosing to act, they must be
voluntary in sinning."-Spring's Essay, p. 120.
Dr. Mathews, formerly Professor in the Theological
Seminary of New Albany, says: " We possess, indeed, all
the natural faculties which God demands in his service;
but we are without moralpower." —Quoted in Beecher's
Views, p. 79.
In a tract entitled, "' Inability no Excuse," Rev. Mr.
Winchester evidently intends to teach that the sinner's inability is in part if not wholly distinct from his unwillingness to obey God. And yet, in order to prove his point,
that " Inability is no Excuse," he is compelled all through
his treatise to insist that nothing but unwillingness does,
in fact, prevent the sinner's obedience.  And if this is the
whole hindering cause, why insist on another, a nameless
nondescript, as the cause of such hindrance?
But more frequently and fully is our view of this doctrine asserted by Dr. A. G. Fairchild, in his Great Supper.  He says: " Sinners are urged to come to Christ,
inasmuch as their inability is an inability of will, which
can furnish no just grounds of excuse for disobedience.
The reason that they cannot truly come to the Savior is,
that they are not cordially willing.  It is not their choice
to come.  We do not, therefore, teach that "sinners are
bound hand and foot," and thus prevented from coming to
Christ though desirous to do so.  They would be able, if
they were truly willing."-pp. 35, 36.  "What hinders
them from coming?  Nothing in the universe, but their
own voluntary, and cherished sinfulness.  Since they
choose to stay away, they cannot throw the blame of their
perdition on God, and say, let them do what they will,
they must be lost.  Of what can they complain?  That
they were not invited to the feast?  No.  That the provision was not sufficient?  No.  Did they come. and were
refused admittance?  No.  Did they earnestly desire to
cone, but were prevented?  No. Of what, then, can they




78
complain, unless of this-that they were not constrained to
do what they were unwilling to do."-p. 45.
I am happy here to say, that I concur in nearly all that
Dr. Wood has said in his " Old and New Theology," and
that Dr. Rice has said in his " Old and New Schools," on
the subject of Human Ability-except their misapprehensions, perhaps their excusable misapprehensions of our
views of this doctrine.  I say excusable; for I do think
that some of us, in our eagerness to show the absurdity
and unrighteousness of what we thought to be the views of
our Old School brethren, have used such strong and unguarded expressions as have given them wrong impressions
of our own views. I regard this as one of the most difficult points in theology: one, therefore, on which controversialists are very apt to mistake each other's meaning.
While Drs. Rice, Wood, and others, admit that the
New School believe in the total depravity of the will, they
complain that we exalt natural ability so much as to make
it overtop this depravity. Or, in the language of Dr. R.,
that we " exalt human ability, so as almost to make the
operations of the Holy Spirit unnecessary." But these
brethren would not charge us thus, if they kept it in mind,
that we believe as firmly as they do, that this depravity
of the will makes it certain (though not necessary) that
men will continue in sin, till renewed by the Spirit of God.
Consequently, they have not an adequate recuperative, or
self-renovating power. We believe that natural ability,
and moral inability are perfectly distinct, and have little
or no influence on each other. And when we say a man
has power to change his course, we only mean he could
change it, if he chose; and that his will is free; in other
words, he is not constrained to continue his present choice
of a sinful course. We assert the freedom of his will; but
not the self-determining power of his will: much less the
power of self-regeneration.  Regeneration is God's act
upon the sinner's heart, while repentance and faith, are a
man's own acts, acts that he can, but never will put forth
without renewing grace.  The distinction may be imperfectly illustrated thus:  A father commands his son to go
to his work in the field.  And though he is perfectly able
to do the duty commanded, yet he refuses.  The father




therefore chastises him, till he is effectually persuaded to
obey.  But who would suppose, that to say the son had
power at first to obey, was the same as to say he had the
power to lash himself into obedience?  Self-regeneration
is not only an impossibility: it is utter nonsense.
Dr. Wood (pp. 167-182) has quoted largely from  Dr.
Gilbert, to show  that he held to gradual regeneration.
I have never seen the tract from which he quotes. But it
seems to me from the extracts themselves, that Dr. G. was
more incorrect in his use of terms, than in his statement of
facts.  Conviction and sanctification, which are indeed
gradual, he seems to confound with regeneration: while,
in truth, conviction makes no part of it; and regeneration
(taking place at the point B. in his diagram) is the commencement of sanctification, and must therefore be instantaneous.  But be Dr. G.'s views on this point what they
may, I know of none in the New  School connection who
hold to either grcadual or self-regeneration.  Indeed, the
charge of holding them was strenuously repelled by the
New School, in the General Assembly, and the Auburn
Convention of 1837.  They said: " Regeneration is a
radical change of heart, produced by the special operation
of the Holy Spirit," determining the sinner to that which
is good, " and is in all cases instantaneous."
I suppose it will not be doubted by any reader, that the
New School hold the view of human ability which has
here been maintained, viz: that man has all the natural
ability which is needful for doing the will of God: so
that he is perfectly inexcusable for not doing it; and yet,
is perfectly destitute of moral power: that is, he is so
fixed in his aversion to God's will, that he never will obey
it, till renewed by the Spirit of God.  But if any doubt
it, their doubts will be removed on reading the following
avermients, made in the Assembly and Convention mentioned above: " All mankind become morally corrupt, and liable to death, temporal and eternal.  Infants come into
the world with a nature inclined to evil and only evil.
While sinners have all the faculties necessary to a perfect moral agency, and a just accountability, such is their
love of sin, and opposition to God and his law, that, independently of the renzcwing influences, or almighty energy




80
of the Holy Spirit, they never will comply with the commands of God.  While all such as reject the gospel of
Christ, do it not of coercion, but freely, and all who embrace it, do it, not by coercion, but freely.  The reason
why some differ from others is, that God has made them
to differ."
It only remains for us to inquire,
3. Whether this view of Ability is in accordance with
the language of our standards?  And it hardly seems
needful to quote more than one paragraph from them; for
this will bring out the only point on which it can be
thought to conflict with the Confession, or the Catechisms.
It is found in  Confession of Faith, Chap. 9, Sec. 3.
" 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 to prepare himself
thereunto."
The loss of ability here spoken of, is that which pertains not to the body or intellect, but of the will.  It
teaches, then, not a naturcal, but a moral inability  the
very inability insisted on, in the foregoing pages; an inability concerning which we have seen that the Old and
New Schools agree.  With the first clause of this paragraph, then, this view  has no conflict.  And the latter
clause must be in keeping with the former.  " Strength,"
in this clause, then, does not mean natural, but moral
strength or power, that is, moral ability.  And hence the
paragraph itself teaches that the loss of this " strength,"
or ability, is owing to the fact that man is' altogether
averse from that which is good."  That is, his inability is
his zunwillirngness.  The meaning of the clause, then, is
that man has not moral ability to " convert himself," in
other words, to turn to God.  And this we have seen is
precisely the belief, both of Old School and New. Man
can neither turn  to God, nor prepare himself to do so
without mnoral power; that is, a "w illing mind;" and of
that he has znone.  So, when our standards speak of the
need of divine aid, to enable man to do his duty, (as in
Confession of Faith, Chap. 10, Sec. 2; Chap. 16, Sec. 3.




81
Larger Catechism, Ans. 149, and Shorter Catechism, Ans.
82,) they mean not that any natural strength of body or
mind is needed. Neither is any such strength ever given
in regeneration.
And now I call again for the candid decision of the
reader.  I ask whether as regards the doctrine of Human
Ability, the New School are dishonest and hypocritical in
subscribling to our Confession and Catechisms?  Finally,
I ask whether as regards any of the doctrines examined
in this tract, the subscription of the New  School to our
standards, is what Dr. Smith declared it to be,that is, "little better than mockery?"  Whether, as he said, we might
" with as much propriety subscribe the Koran?"  Whether, in explaining the Confession, we " either make it mean
nothing at all, or something the very reverse of its obvious
meaning?"  Let the reader judge, too, whether, as Dr. J. C.
Lord has said, we caricature the doctrines of grace, and of
the Confession of Faith, as if they embodied all that is
inconsistent, perverse and monstrous?" Whether, while
we profess to be Presbyterians, we are, as he intimates,
only Judaizers, Pelagians, and Papists?  And  whether
the like epithets bestowed upon us by others of the Old
School, are merited?
I know I have here investigated but a small portion of
our standards.  But those that I have examined are the
only ones, I think, which any intelligent Calvinist would
regard as conflicting with the New School opinions that
have now been considered.  And I challenge a more thorough investigation.  Let the reader, let all Presbyterians
search our Book through, and see if there is any thing in
it, rightly understood, to scorch a hair of our heads. Ah,
if all would examine our opinions, and our standards,
candidly, I think we should no longer be taunted as pseudo-Calvinists, and no longer held out before the world as
a set of designing and false-hearted men.




CHAPTER VI.
CONC L USIO N.
If the foregoing investigations have been properly conducted, they lead us to the safe conclusion that the doctrinal differences between the two schools are few, at most,
and comparatively unimportant.  They show  that if the
Old School differ at all from the New, on Imputation, it
is in believing that mankind are born with a corrupt nature, as a literal and deserved punishment upon them  for
Adam's sin: or, at least, that they suffer pain and death
as a literal penalty for his sin: (both of which views their
accredited authors appear to deny.)   While the New
School believe, on the other hand, that in consequence of
Adam's sin, his posterity became corrupt,neither deservedly nor unjustly, but by the sovereign and holy purpose of
God.  The pain and death endured, they believe to be
inflicted on the principle of' social liabilities," just as we
suffer through the misconduct of our parents; in which
case no criminality is charged upon us: or that they are
inflicted as a literal punishment for those free and therefore sinJful exercises and actions, which are the voluntary
outgoing of native corruption.  And these very views
many of the Old School seem to adopt.
Again, if the Old School differ at all from the New, on
the doctrine of Original Sin, it must be in that they believe there is a blameworthiness, a positive criminality
in the bare possession of native depravity-something literally and positively sinful, lying back of moral exercise:
(an opinion which they oftentimes appear to repudiate.)
While we of the New School believe, that all the blame,
and literal punishment inflicted, are due. only to man's




83
free sinful exercise, (specific or generic,) and to his voluntary action.
Again, if the Old School differ from us at all, on the
Atonement, it must be in that they believe Christ suffered
the exact penalty of the law; (though many of their
ablest writers disavow it.)  While the most of us believe
(what these able writers avow,) that Christ suffered what
his Father accepted as an ample substitute for that penalty: both schools believing that his sufferings, whether we
call them the penalty itself, or its substitute, are sufficient
to satisfy the justice of God in the pardon of the penitent.
Or, it must be in that the Old School believe the atonement to have been made for the elect, alone; so that no
others could be saved, even though they should repent
and believe: (a view which many of their own authors repudiate.)  While we believe that ample provision was
made by the death of Christ for the salvation of all men,
so that all might be saved if they would but repent and
believe. And many, if not all, of the Old School teach
the very same.  Both schools believe, also, that those who
are actually saved, are brought to saving repentance and
faith, by that influence of the Spirit which Christ purchased for the elect alone, by his obedience and death.
And lastly, if the Old School differ from us at all on
Human Ability, it must be in that they believe man is in
such a sense depraved, that he could not obey the gospel,
though ever so much disposed to do so-that he is so ruined in his mental powers as to be under absolute necessity
to sin: (a view disowned, I believe, by the most intelligent
among them.)  While we believe that man is depraved in
such a sense, that he is not literally unable, but hopelessly
uniwilling to obey the gospel-that he will sin of certainty, but not of necessity, till renewed by the Ifoly Spirit.
(And such I suppose to be the view of the great body of
our Old School brethren.)
Where, then, are the alarming "Differences of Doctrine," that have divided the Presbyterian Church into
moral antipodes2?  Where is that supposed occasion of
contention and strife, of alienation and hate, by which our
family have been so long and grievously convulsed?  This
question can be answered only by its own echo. And as




84.
to those who have labored so much to prove that there are
wide differences between us, are  they not solemnly rebuked in the  charge of the  apostle, " that they strive not
about words to no profit, but to the subverting  of the
hearers?" —2 Tim. 2: 14.*   If the differences were the
widest above supposed, they must be unimportant compared "with the injury which the division has occasioned.
What if Godc  does bring  mankind  into  being with a
corrupt nature? and does inflict many and sore evils upon
them?  And what if he does all this by way  of literal
punis7hment upon them  for Adamn s sin?  Where, still, is
the grievousness of our error in supposing he deals out
these inflictions in a holy sovereignty, (as he has a right to
do,) and not in vindictive justice?  Both hypotheses declare God to be righteous in such inflictions.
And what if God does blame and punish men for merely having in possession that corrupt propensity which he
has placed within  them?  Where, still, is the atrocity of
believing that he inflicts this censure and  suffering, not
for their having this propensity, but for yielding to, and
indzlging it?  Is not the total depravity of the race in
consequence of the sin of Adam, the all-important point
as to the doctrines of Imputation and Original Sin?  And
this point is maintained as firmly by the New  School as
by the Old.
Again, what if Christ did suffer the exact penalty  of
the law? and did suffer in no sense for all men?  Where,
still, is the grievous heresy of believing, that what he suffered was not the identical' penalty, (including  remorse
and sorrow;) but was something else of equal value, and
Ilt is not in theology alone that groundless disputes occur. Said the
editor of the Scientific American," We do not know how many pens
have been worn out by philosophers writing against the undulalory
theory on the one hand, and the theory of emanation on the other; but
there is no difference between the two in essence. The only difference
consists in the words employed by the reviewers of both theories in
darkening their own ideas, and the ideas of their respective champions.
It is well known to philosophers how Leipnitz and Maclaurin and their
followers, disputed for thirty years about the true method of estimating
the force of moving bodies, and to the no small disgrace of great mathematicians, the controversy was dropped, not ended. It was at last discovered by D'Alembert that both were right, and that they had been
hammering at each other with mere terms."  How much these resemble
our Old and New School controversy.




85
which was therefore as acceptable to God, as the penalty
itself.  Wherein is the great difference when, in either
case, Christ's sufferings are the same in fact, have precisely the same efficacy, and accomplish the same end?  Is
not the su{fciency of Christ's sufferings to sustain the
justice and authority of God, in saving sinners, the only
essentialpoint in the doctrine of atonement?  And since
both Schools believe the sufferings of Christ to be the
same, that is, just such as the Evangelists say he suffered,
wherein is it a question of such mighty importance, whether these sufferings are considered to be the identical penalty of the law, or something else of equal value? What is
the difference between paying a debt in gold or paper, when
they are to the creditor of equal value? And what great
matter is it, whether we believe, that Christ died for the
elect only? or whether we believe. he died for all men, in
such a sense, that they could be saved, if they would but
repent and believe; yet, that he died moreover to secure
the salvation of the elect alone? since, on either supposition, the intention and event would be exactly the same.
And again, what if sinners are depraved in such a sense,
that they could not obey the gospel, though ever so willing
to do it?  Where, still, is the great sin or danger of believing their inability consists ini the perversion of their
wills, and not in the derangement of their natzural powers? Does not the essntial element of inability lie in the
fact, that of a certainty, sinners will never obey the gospel, till renewed by the Spirit of God?  Wherein, then,
is the wickedness or danger in believing the whole difficulty lies in the affections and will? especially, as it is admitted on all hands, that these are the first and only things
which keep men from obeying the gospel; and since they
are the only things rectified in regeneration.
Still, I believe that very few in the Old School connection, would avow the ultra views which have just been
alluded to.  How many can be found who insist that God
izJiicts depravity upon man as the literalpgenalty of Adam's
sin? and then threatens to punish the depravity that
is thus inflicted, with pain, and death, and woe?  Is
not the punishment of a penalty too preposterous for
any to believe?  How many can believe that he blames




86
and fireatens men for having a nature which he gave, and
they were passive and involuntary in receiving, and to
which they have as yet never yielded?  How many can
be found who believe that no provision has been made for
the salvation of the non-elect, who nevertheless are invited to come and be saved, and are threatened with the
greater damnation, because they reject a salvation that
never was provided for them.  And how many can be
found, who believe the unregenerate could not obey the
gospel, though ever so much disposed to obey; and have
to suffer the greater wrath for not doing what they have'no ability of any kind " to do    For one, I think the
number of our Old School brethren who hold these dogmas, is very small.  I would confidently appeal to the
mass in that connection, and ask: " Do you hold these
views?"  And if they did hold them, I should ardently
desire them to make a plain and positive avowal of them:
as it would show more evidently the relative positions of
the parties in the Presbyterian Church. But I am confident that the great mass of the Old School reject them,
and hold the same views with ourselves.  And if they tolerate them  in their own connection, why should they
severely condemn them in ours?  Is not " consistency a
jewel?"
But I do not insist that there is no difference at all between the belief of the Old School and the New; nor that
the difference is of no importance: but that it is comparatively unimportant; because it is not essential in the
Calvinistic system.  And much of the apparent difference
pertains to the modes of explaiinng and illustrating the
doctrines in dispute, rather than to the essence of them.
Two persons may be looking at the same time, but from
different stand-points, at the same object. And although
the object seen is the same, the views are different; though
both views be correct, one may be better than the other.
If it be asked, then, why the New School are not willing
to give up their favorite modes of explanation and illustration, I answer, Because we think them better suited
than those of the Old School to set the doctrines of grace
in a favorable light before the moral sense of mankind, in
that they show these doctrines more evidently to accord with




natural justice; thus showing the divine government in a
more amiable aspect; and more fully "commending " these
doctrines "to every man's conscience, in the sight of God."
To specify: we think the government of God in connecting the depravity of man with the first sin of Adam, and
in subjecting them thereby to pain and wo, is more evidently in accordance with natural rectitude, when spoken
of as acts of sovereignty, than as acts of punitive justice. And we think the pain and wo inflicted upon us,
as a consequence of this depravity, is more evidently in
accordance with such rectitude, when spoken of as a punishment for the indulgence of that depravity, than when
spoken of as if it were for the mere possession of such depravity.  We think, too, that the death of Christ for
sinners is more evidently according to reason and righteousness, when spoken of as a substitute for the punishment of sin, than when spoken of as if it were the identical punishment to which sinners are condemned; which
seems to indicate that Christ suffered sorrow and remorse
for us.  And we think the atonement provided by his
death is more evidently in accordance with the invitations,
and threatenings of the gospel, when spoken of as made
for all men, than as made only for the elect; for the latter mode of expressing it is apt to awaken the inquiry, how
the universal offers of salvation can be sincere?  And especially is it difficult in such a case to see what foundation
there is for the following divine lamentations over lost
sinners: " Oh that my people had hearkened unto my
commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and
thy righteousness as the waves of the sea."-Isa. 48: 18.
" Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets,
and stonest them  which are sent unto thee, how often
would I have gathered thy children together, even as a
hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would
not."-Mat. 23: 37.  For, how could the Lord have made
the peace of these sinners perpetual, and gathered them
under his saving protection, if no atonement had been
made for them?  And finally, we think the inability of
man to obey the gospel is more evidently in accordance
with the sincere, universal offers of life, when spoken of
as a moral inability, or the inability of unwillingness,




88
than when spolen of in a way which gives the impression,
that sinners are in every respect unable to comply with
the offers of salvation. For it is difficult, under such an
impression, to see how God can be sincere in his offers;
and how  he can be righteous in condemning them to a
deeper damnation, for not accepting them, while utterly
unable to do so.  On these accounts, we would discourage, in technical theology, those favorite phraseologies of
our Old School brethren, by which we have so often been
misled ourselves. as to their real views on the doctrines
of grace, and which we think would be likely to mislead
others.
Our brethren of the other school say, their views and
modes of expression are more simple and plain than ours.
But we think them more complex and bewildering.  They
say, we perplex by our metaphysics.  And this is just
what we say they are doing.  Some of their interpretations of scripture are more literal than ours.  And in
these they may think they are more simple.  But we think
that by understanding literally what is meant to be taken
metaphorically, they are led into the more metaphysical
inconsistencies.
The foregoing thoughts have not been presented for the
purpose of effecting an ecclesiastic reunion. No: I am
in more danger of disdaining, than of seeking such a
union.  But I would do neither.  I would not seek for a
reunion, till there is less crimination and more love between
us. I have presented the foregoing for the purpose of
promoting that right understanding, harmony and love,
that ought to exist in all the family of Christ, and especially among brethren so nearly allied, and so nearly
alike as to doctrine and order.  I have done it, also, because truth is better than error; and because a correct
understanding of each other's position is better than misapprehension. I have done it because I believe that while
the two portions of the Presbyterian family remain apart,
they would feel better, and be better, and would do much
more for the welfare of wretched, ruined humanity, if they
would see each other just as they are-would mutually
and candidly confess their past misapprehensions of each
other-and would resolve that hereafter they will " love




89
each other with a pure heart, fervently."  How much better, if both schools had more of that "charity which
thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in
the truth."
I hope these pages will not often encounter a spirit
that I have lately seen manifested; a spirit of determination to insist at all events, that there is a wide difference
between " Old and New Theology," and that says, " The
decision has been made.  Disinterested observers have
been generally forced to admit that there are material variationsin faith between the two bodies."-Wood, p. 12. In
reply to this remark, I would say, that this author's observations of the public mind are widely different from mine.
According to mine, many are inquiring what is the difference between the two schools, while few are able to answer
them, and fewer still are giving the right answer.  And
many others are heardto say, the differences must be trivial.  If, however, any " disinterested observers " are " forced to admit "' them to be " material," it is no wonder,
since so much is said through misapprehension, or otherwise, to give them an unreal magnitude. It is the more
important, therefore, that such mistakes be corrected.
Great evils have arisen from  the division of our brotherhood.  Many congregations and even families have been
filled with heart-burning and strife. Many churches have
been rendered too weak to support the gospel; and others
entirely broken up.  Other denominations have rooted
them out and absorbed them.  The latter event were not
to be so much lamented, if our doctrine and order were
not of unrivaled excellence.  When either party causes the
division of a Church, the other is loud in condemning it.
And I know not but the two schools may be nearly equal
in this fault. I only know, that in some instances the
New School have lost much, numerically, by their moderation. If they had driven the plough share of division as
rapidly and as far as they might, they would have secured
many ministers and churches that are now  in the Old
School connection.  But the worst thing of the division
is the bitterness with which the parties have been "biting
and devouring one another " consuming their piety in the
fire of party zeal. How important, then, to cultivate that




90
peace and love, by which they might move on separately,
yet harmoniously together, as distinct tribes of Israel.
It is true that some good has resulted from the division
of our body.  And I desire to rejoice in it, though most
of it has taken place in the Old School connection. This
division has done them much good, in calling out their zeal
and efforts in revivals, and their liberality and enterprise.
They have been the more stiniulated to these things, I
think, as aware that they had been thought to be deficient
in them before.  And "I therein rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."  I recollect the time when the terms, "aggression,"
and " aggressive movements," as used by Albert Barnes,
gave great offence to many of our Old School brethren.
But now these terms are watchwords among them.  Their
efforts in Missions and Church extension are truly commendable.  Their system  of parish schools, and their
Board of Publication, I have long and much admired.
And I wish I could provoke my New School brethren to
imitate and excel them.  Yet I cannot approve of the
boast of some respecting their prosperity. They seem to
regard it as Heaven's seal of approbation on the Exscinding Act.  (See " Old and New  Schools."-p. 6.)  They
ought to know that prosperity is not always a proof of an
upright course. And if they need to learn this truth, I
would refer them to the error of the friends of Job, in
supposing that wickedness of life is the only cause of affliction; and to the foolishness of the psalmist, when he
" saw the prosperity of the wicked," Ps. 73: and to the
many instances of scripture in which oppressors have prospered.  They ought to consider, too, that much of their
increase and success is to be traced to the decision of the
United States Court, in Bank, rather than to the distinguishing influences of the Spirit of God; as it gave
them  the chartered funds, and many accompanying advantages.  I know of some who determined to side with
that Assembly, with which this tribunal of our country
should side.  And it is reasonable to believe that very
many have given preference to the Old School, on the
same ground.  They have followed " the loaves and fishes."
But I regret to believe, on the other hand; that our New
School brethren have in a measure fallen asleep over their




91
reputation for activity and zeal in revivals, and for their
enterprise and liberality in spreading the gospel. Instead
of making the needed extra efforts to repair the loss sustained by the decision of the Court, they have seemed to
be satisfied with their former degree of faithfulness. And
as they have looked upon the aggressive movements of the
Old School, they have attributed them to sectarian zeal:
and having, as their motto, " Charity and liberality to all
evangelical denominations," they have been slow to emulate. such movements.  How much better, however, had
they done the right thing, taking care at the same time,
to have the right motive.  I do not mean by these remarks that my brethren have been very signally deficient
in their efforts for' church extension;" yet I do mean to
say, they have fallen far short of what their duty and their
prosperity have required of them. I bless God, however,
that of late they seem to " remember their first love."
Oh that the time might come, and come speedily, when
"Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex
Ephraim "-when they shall fly upon the shoulders of the
"enemies of God, toward the West, and spoil them of the
East together."