Stom t^e £i6rarg of 
 
 (ptofmox ^amuef (Qtiffer 
 
 in (gtemorj? of 
 
 3[ub3e ^amuef OttfPer QSrecftmrtbge 
 
 (J}re0enfeb fig 
 
 ^amuef (Qliffer QBrecftinribge feong 
 
 to f 9e fetfiratg of 
 
 (Dtinceton t6eofocctcaf Smiutv 
 
 BX 8955 .W66 1838 
 Wood, James, 1799-1867. 
 Old and new theology 
 


 
 
<^4^£4^S^ 
 
 OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY: 
 
 OR AN EXHIBITION OF 
 THOSE DIFFERENCES WITH REGARD TO 
 
 SCaiFTURE DOCTRIIVES, 
 
 WHICH HAVE RECENTLY AGITATED AND NOW DIVIDED 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 " No man having drank old wine, straightway desireth new 
 for he saith, the old is better." — Luke v. 39, 
 
 BY JAMES WOOD. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : WM. S. MARTIEN. NEW-YORK : ROBERT 
 CARTER. ALBANY : E. H. PEASE. 
 
 183§. 
 
-S^^^^l&p 
 
 Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1838, by 
 James V/ood, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the 
 Northern District of New- York. 
 
 Gr. M. Davison, Printer^ 
 
 Saratoga Springs. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 IXTRODUCTIOX. 
 
 Chap. I. The character and government of God. 
 
 Chap II. God's covenant with Adam and our relation to him 
 
 as our federal head— involving the doctrme of miputation 
 
 and original sin. 
 Chap. III. The subject of the preceding chapter continued- 
 exhibiting the New Theoloey concerning God's covenant 
 
 with Adam as the federal head of his posterity, imputation, 
 
 original sin, &c. 
 Chap IV. Remarks on imputation, original sin, &c. with refer- 
 
 ence to the views presented in the preceding chapter. 
 Chap. V. The sufferings of Christ and our justification through 
 
 him. 
 Chap. VI. Justification— a continuation of the preceding 
 
 chapter. 
 Chap. VII. Human ability, regeneration, and the influences of 
 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 Chap. VIII. Human ability, regeneration, &c. continued from 
 
 the preceding chapter. 
 Chap. IX. A contrast between the Old and New Theology, 
 
 by way of review, and a notice of the Perfectionism ot Mr. 
 
 Finney. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In numerous instances during the past year the question 
 has been proposed to me, ' What is the diffei-ence between 
 the doctrinal views of the Old and New School r' Though 
 several books and pamphlets have been written on a 
 number of these points, and though most if not all of them 
 have been discussed at various times in our periodicals, 
 there are many in our churches who are Bot sufficiently 
 informed on the subject, particularly in those sections 
 where the new doctrines have not become prevalent, and 
 where but few publications on the points at issue have 
 been circulated. Recent occurrences render it peculiarly 
 important that all in our connexion should fully understand 
 the merits of the question. It has now become a practical 
 one. A decision is now being made whether we will con-, 
 tinue with the church of our former choice, or unite with 
 those who, without changing their name, have organized 
 a new body. With a view of giving information to such 
 as desire to ascertain on which side the truth lies, we shall 
 present, in as concise a manner as the case will admit, the 
 distinguishing features of the JVew Theology — comparing 
 them, as we proceed, with those doctrines which have, by 
 
6 Introduction. 
 
 way of contrast, been denominated old. For the senti- 
 ments of the old school we shall refer to the Confes- 
 sion of Faith of the Presbyterian church and to stand- 
 ard Calvinistic writers. We think this cannot be rea- 
 sonably objected to, even by our new school brethren; 
 since they have never charged the former with departing 
 from the Confession of Faith. For the new school doc- 
 trines, we shall make quotations from the professors at 
 New-Haven, Mr. Finney, and various ministers in the Pres- 
 byterian church. We quote from those first named, 
 because Dr. Taylor and his associates, though belonging 
 to another denomination, are regarded as the modern 
 authors of these speculations ; and Mr. Finney, until 
 within a few years past, belonged to our body, and preach- 
 ed and published most of his sentiments on these subjects 
 before he left the church. 
 
 Some of the new doctrines began to be broached at 
 New-Haven in 1821-22, which created much dissatisfaction 
 in the minds of a number who were made acquainted with 
 the fact. In 1826 Professor Fitch published his discourses 
 on the Nature of Sin, and this was followed by a series of 
 communications in the Christian Spectator, on the Means 
 of Regeneration. The former were reviewed by Dr. 
 Green in the Christian Advocate, and the latter called 
 forth a controversy between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler. 
 In 1828 Dr. Taylor delivered his Conclo ad Clerum, which 
 was the cause of Dr.-Woods' writinjz his Letters addressed 
 
Introduction. 
 
 to Dr. Taylor ; and the whole series taken together drew 
 from Dr. Griffin his treatise on Divine Efficiency, and led 
 to the establishnient of the East Windsor Theological 
 Seminary. 
 
 Mr. Finney, who was hopefully converted and licensed 
 to preach a few years previous, became celebrated as an 
 evangelist in Western New- York, in 1825-26. Though 
 distinguished at first rather by " new measures" than by 
 new doctrines, he soon adopted the views of Dr. Taylor ; 
 and he has probably done more to give them currency in 
 certain sections of the church than any other individual. 
 On some points he has gone farther than his archetype ; 
 and on all perhaps has expressed himself with more frank- 
 ness and less caution — asserting in positive terms what the 
 former taught only by affirming, that the contrary could 
 not be 'proved. His lectures and sermons were the subject 
 of animadversion in several periodicals ; and as I happen 
 to know, a certain minister seriously urged one of his 
 (Mr. Finney's) co-presbyters to commence process against 
 him; but nothing of this kind, I believe, was ever at- 
 tempted. 
 
 In 1829 Mr. Barnes preached and published his sermon 
 on the Way of Salvation ; which disclosed the fact that on 
 a number of points he agreed substantially with the new 
 system ; and upon his being called, some months after- 
 wards, to a pastoral charge in Philadelphia, some of the 
 members of the Philadelphia Presbytery objected to re- 
 
8 Introduction. 
 
 ceiving and installing him, on the ground that his sermon, 
 which had been extensively circulated in that city, 
 contained important errors in doctrine. The action of 
 the Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly, in 1830-81, 
 the publication of his Notes on the Romans in 1835, and 
 the charges and trials for heresy during that and the fol- 
 lowing year, are too lamiliar to all connected with our 
 church, to need any particular notice. The preceding 
 statements have been made merely to show the coinci- 
 dence between the rise and progress of the new divinity 
 in New England and its commencement and extension in 
 the Presbyterian church. 
 
 It has been said that the controversy in the Presbyte- 
 rian church does not respect doctrines at all, except as 
 a secondary thing. Some have told us it is a strife for 
 power — others a contest for the purse — and others a 
 thrust at Congregationalism, and through that at New 
 England. With whatever view these allegations have 
 been made, the effect of them has been to produce distrust 
 and disunion in many cases where there would otherwise 
 have been a hearty concurrence in most if not ail of the 
 measures adopted for the reform of the church. This has 
 been particularly the case with some whose partialities are 
 strong in favor of New England. It would seem that 
 such had forgotten for the time, that in New England the 
 same controversy is going on which has agitated and rup- 
 tured the Presbyterian church. If it is a war against 
 
Introduction. 9 
 
 New England, how does it happen that many of their 
 ablest theologians have taken sides with the assailants? 
 nay, that they were the first in raising the note of alarm ? 
 The language of Dr. Green, in 1831, undoubtedlyexpresses 
 the feelings of a large majority if not of all the ministers 
 in the Presbyterian church. " What !" we have heard it 
 said, even by some who love us, " What ! are you array- 
 ing yourselves' against the whole theology of New En- 
 gland r" No — we have answered privately, and now 
 answer publicly. No — we are arraying ourselves against 
 Taylorism, and Fitchism, and Murdockism, and Emmon- 
 ism, and self-conversionism. But we thank God, this is 
 not " the whole theology of New-England," and v/e hope 
 and believe it never will be. We know that there is a 
 host of men, sound in the faith, who dislike and oppose 
 most decisively, this whole mass of error ; and we hail 
 these men, and love them as fellow laborers in the cause 
 of truth, and bid them God speed with all our hearts. 
 
 Though in the progress of the difficulties son:ie promi- 
 nence has been given of late to Congregationalism, it was 
 only from the circumstance that this was believed to have 
 an important connection with the main question at issue. 
 It is not the Congregationalism of New England, that was 
 the subject of discussion, but Congregationalism in the 
 Presbyterian church. Against Congregationalism, as such, 
 there exists no hostility; but when, through the plan of 
 union, it became the means, like the Trojan horse, of in- 
 
10 Introduction, 
 
 troducing into our body many who were unfriendly to our 
 doctrines and government, it became necessary, in self- 
 defence, to free the church from this improper, and to us 
 ruinous connection.* 
 
 The same remarks are applicable to the resolutions of 
 the General Assembly concernincr certain benevolent soci- 
 eties. Towards the American Home Missionary Society 
 and the American Education Society, in their incipient 
 stages, and considered merely as organizations for doing 
 good, there was for a number of years the greatest cordi- 
 ality. This is evident from the fact that they were repeat- 
 edly recommended by the General Assembly. But when 
 it was found that their operations within our bounds, be- 
 sides interfering with the free action of our own Boards, 
 were made the instruments in the hands of those who 
 managed the various Presbyterian auxiliaries, of increasing 
 and extending our difficulties, and rendering them more 
 unmanageable — the one by furnishing young men for our 
 
 * According to the statement published by me, as corrected 
 in the 2d edition, there are in the four disowned Synods 334 
 churches nominally Presbyterian, and 286 Congregational. A 
 short time ago, a minister who was then a member of the Ot- 
 sego Presbytery, observed to me, if you have reported as favor- 
 ably concerning all the Presbyteries as you have concerning 
 ours, they have no reason to complain. Instead of there being 
 8 Presbyterian and 3 Congregational churches, as reported by 
 me, there are, he said, but 6 Presbyterian churches and 10 Con- 
 gregational. 
 
Introduction. 1 1 
 
 pulpits whose sentiments did not accord with our stand- 
 ards, and the other by directing and sustaining them in 
 their fields of labor — the Assembly of 1837 withdrew their 
 former recommendations and requested them to cease op- 
 erating in our churches. As in their action concerning 
 the plan of union and the four Synods, so in regard to 
 these societies; the ground of their proceedings was, that 
 they believed them to be (to use their own language) 
 " exceedingly injurious to the peace and purity of the 
 Presbyterian church" — and^while they "hoped and believed 
 that the Assembly would not be behind the protesters, 
 [the patrons of those societies] in zeal for the spread of 
 divine truth, they desire that in carrying on those great 
 enterprises, the church may not be misled to adopt a 
 system of action which may be perverted to the spread of 
 error." 
 
 It is not true, therefore, that the controversy has little 
 or no respect to doctrines. On the contrary, the principal 
 and primary ground of it, has been a discrepancy in doc- 
 trinal sentiments. Its origin may be traced to the opinion 
 so prevalent of late, among certain classes of men, that we 
 ought to expect as great improvements in theology as 
 have been made in the arts and sciences — that those for- 
 mularies of Christian faith, which have been received for 
 centuries as containing a correct statement of Scripture 
 doctrine, are too antiquated for this enlightened age ; and 
 if re'ceived now, are to be explained agreeably to certain 
 
12 Introduction. 
 
 philosophical principles which were unknown in the days 
 of our ancestors — and that the Bible itself is to be so ex- 
 pounded as to accord with those theories of mind, of free 
 agency and of moral government, which have been intro- 
 duced by the new philosophy. It is this which gives to 
 their theology the denomination of new. Considered 
 chronologically, it is far from being new. Similar senti- 
 -ments were advanced on most of the points in dispute, as 
 long ago as the time of Pelagius, and they have sprung up 
 and flourished for a while at different periods since. Were 
 this the proper place, we could easily substantiate this re- 
 mark, by a reference to documents. 
 
 The principles upon which these modern improvements 
 in theology profess to be based, appear to me to be radi- 
 cally erroneous. If the doctrines of religion were as diffi- 
 cult to be discovered by a diligent reader of the sacred 
 Scriptures, as the laws and motions of the heavenly bodies 
 are to an observer of the planets, the march of mind might 
 be. expected to be as visible in the developement of new 
 theological truths, as in the discoveries of astronomy. But 
 the Bible, I have always supposed^ has recorded truth in 
 order to reveal it ; and not to place it so far beyond the 
 reach of common observation, as to require the aid of a 
 telescope to enable us to discern its character and propor- 
 tions. Truth is immutable. The Bible is, therefore, not 
 to be interpreted by a set of philosophical dogmas, which 
 vary, it may be, with every successive age : but by a 
 
Introduction, 13 
 
 careful examination and comparison of its several words 
 and phrases. These obvious way-marks were the same 
 in the time of Augustine and Calvin, and the Westminster 
 divines, as they are now ; and it is by a faithful adherence 
 to these, that so much uniformity has been preserved 
 among christians of every age, in regard to the doctrines 
 of our holy religbn. Abstruse metaphysical speculations 
 have now and then held out their false lights, and led por- 
 tions of the church into error; but whenever the pride of 
 intelject and learning has been humbled by 'the Spirit of 
 Godj and there has been a return to that simple hearted 
 piety, which is willing to receive the plain teachings of the 
 Bible, without stopping to inquire whether they are con- 
 sistent with certain new modes of philosophizing, it has 
 uniformly resulted in the revi.val of those old and venera- 
 ble doctrines, which have been the stability and glory of 
 the church in eyery period of her history. 
 
 We do not intend to convey the idea, that all who are 
 now denominated New School, or who have united in or- 
 ganizing the nevAi Assembly, embrace the new doctrines> 
 Various reasons have operated to produce in the minds of 
 some, so much sympathy for those who maintain these 
 sentiments, that they have taken sides with theifr, and 
 hence have received their name, though they disclaim all 
 afhinity for their peculiar views. Others receive the new 
 jivinity in a modified form ; and a third class adopt some 
 of its dogmas, while they reject otliers. These last re- 
 
14 Introduction. 
 
 marks apply to some of those from whose productions wc 
 design to make extracts in the following pages. 
 
 How large a proportion of the new Assembly embrace 
 the new theology, we will not undertake to say. We 
 might state a number of facts, which appear to shew that 
 it is adopted, at least "for substance of doctrine," by a 
 very considerable majority. On the contrary, there are 
 some who have expressed opposition to these doctrines, 
 but who have been influenced, it is probable, by their local 
 situation, or their connections and sympathies, to join the 
 new body. Our earnest wish is, that they may exert a 
 happy influence. We have no malignant feelings to grat- 
 ify — but shall rejoice to know that every error has been 
 corrected, every ground of complaint removed, and that 
 as a body, they may regain -that christian confidence, to 
 which a few of their number are now so justly entitled. 
 It is to be deeply regretted, that in one or two things, they 
 would not pursue a different course. Twelve months ago 
 a committee, appointed by that party, consented to take 
 another name, and to leave their bretliren-of the Old School 
 in the quiet possession of their records, board of trustees, 
 and certain invested funds. An amicable division would 
 doubtless have taken place at that time, had it not been 
 for the fact that the committee from the New School party, 
 though they consented to the aboVe reasonable terms, in- 
 sisted upon such other conditions as could not be acceded 
 to without jeoparding those very interests for the secur- 
 
Introduction. 15 
 
 ing of which a division had become necessary. Hence the 
 negotiation fiiiled. But now they claim to be the true 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and have 
 appealed to the civil courts lo wrest, if possible, from the 
 hands of their brethren, what, they virtually acknowledged 
 a year ago, does not belong in equity to themselves, but 
 to those whom they have thus assailed. Such a proce- 
 dure seems to us grossly improper, as well as inconsistent. 
 It is to be hoped, however, that on farther reflection, they 
 will be induced lo retrace their steps and pursue a course 
 more agreeable to their former professions and to the spirit 
 of the gospel. 
 
 But while we do not doubt that these suits, if prosecu- 
 ted, will be decided in favor of the defendants, provided 
 law and justice do not conflict with each other, we wish 
 to remind the reader that the question, wdiich body is the 
 true General Assembly, does not depend upon any deci- 
 sion which is to be made by the civil courts. They can 
 decide who shall have the funds ; but beyond this their 
 jurisdiction does not extend. The General Assembly was 
 organized ten years before they had a board of trustees ; 
 and their organization was as complete during that time 
 as it was afterwards. It had then its constitution — and 
 this constitution, be it remembered, makes the General 
 x\ssembly, and not a civil court, the body of final resort in 
 all cases of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This board of trus- 
 tees was incorporated for the purpose of managing certain 
 
16 Introduction. 
 
 funds in behalf of the Assembly, and for nothing else. If 
 their charter had been a limited one, its expiration would 
 not have affected the character of the General Assembly; 
 and if it shall be taken away, the only result which can fol- 
 low, will be to deprive them of their funds; but as an ec- 
 clesiastical body, they will remain unimpaired. If they 
 were the true General Assembly in 1789, and for the ten 
 following years before their charter was obtained, they are 
 the true General Assembly now, whatever becomes of their 
 property. 
 
 Though we shall be gratified to have them succeed in 
 this respect, we regard the result of these suits as of little 
 importance compared with other matters which have been 
 involved in the controversy; but which we trust are now 
 finally settled. In regard to the question of property, we 
 feel very much like a native christian of the South Sea Is- 
 lands, who had lost his house by fire, and who in the act 
 of rushing into the flames to secure a copy of the New 
 Testament, was severely scorched by the conflagration. 
 As the missionaries were condoling with him on the loss 
 of his house, he put his hand under his garment, and tak- 
 ing out the sacred treasure which he had saved, exclaimed 
 with extacy, " True, I have lost my property, but I have 
 saved my gospels!" We may lose our property before 
 the civil tribunals ; but if we have saved our " gospels," we 
 shall be infinite gainers, and ought therefore to " take joy- 
 fully the spoiling of our goods." These remarks are made 
 
Introduction. 17 
 
 in view of the prominence given in the New School prints 
 to a judicial decision : but we are far from believing that 
 any professional ingenuity or legal skill will be able to pro- 
 cure such a result as they anticipate ; even should they 
 venture to bring the question to trial. 
 
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. 
 
 CHAP, I. 
 
 The character and government of God. 
 
 In New-England, the controversy on the sub- 
 ject of the present chapter embraces some propo- 
 sitions which have never been much discussed in 
 the Presbyterian church ; and concerning which 
 the great majority of our ministers, we believe, 
 have not expressed a decided opinion. We refer 
 to the following, which we give in the language 
 of Dr. Tyler : " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary 
 to my belief, that the existence of sin is not, on 
 the whole, for the best ; and that a greater 
 amount of good would have been secured had all 
 God's creatures remained holy, than will result 
 from the present system.'* Again ; " Dr. Taylor 
 maintains, contrary to my belief, that God, all 
 things considered, prefers holiness to sin, in all in- 
 stances in which the latter takes place." It has 
 been a common sentiment among New-England 
 divines, since the time of Edwards, " that sin is 
 the necessary means of the greatest good, and as 
 such, so far as it exists, is preferable, on the whole, 
 
20 Theory of Leibnitz. 
 
 to holiness in its stead." The sentiment is found- 
 ed upon what has been denominated the Beltistian 
 Theory ; which, it is said, was first taught by 
 Leibnitz, about the commencement of the last 
 century. This theor}- maintains, that " of all pos- 
 sible systems, God, infinitely wise and good, must 
 adopt that which is best. The present system, 
 therefore, is preferable to every other ; and since 
 sin is a part of the system, " its existence is, on the 
 whole, for the best." Not that " sin must be good 
 in itself ^^^ as Dr. Taylor disingenuously affirms — 
 this is no part of their belief — ^but that God will 
 so overrule it, for the promotion of his glory and 
 tlie happiness of the universe, " that a greater 
 amount of good will result from the present sys- 
 tem, than would have been secured had all God's 
 creatures remained holy."* Concerning the prin- 
 ciple of Leibnitz, from which these conclusions 
 are drawn. Dr. Witherspoon remarks: "This 
 scheme seems to me to labor under two great 
 and obvious difficuhies — that the infinite God 
 should set limits to himself, by ^the production of 
 a created system — it brings creation a great deal 
 too near the Creator to say it is the alternative of 
 Omnipotence. The other difficulty is, that it 
 
 * New-England optimism, as it is sometimes denominated, 
 arises from the theory that virtue consists in bencA'olence — or 
 that the tendency of hohness to produce happiness, is that which 
 gives it its chief if not its only excellence. 
 
Remarks of Dr. Wither spoon. 21 
 
 seems to make something which I do not know 
 how to express otherwise than by the ancient sto- 
 ical fate, antecedent and superior even to God 
 himself. I would therefore think it best to say, 
 with the current of orthodox divines, that God 
 was perfectly free in his purpose and providence, 
 and that there is no reason to be sought for the 
 one or the other beyond himself." 
 
 Admitting then, that there was no necessity on the 
 part of the Creator to form one particular system 
 rather than another, it becomes merely a question 
 of fact, whether more good will result to the uni- 
 verse from the existence of sin, all thmgs consider- 
 ed, than would have been secured if sin had never 
 been permitted ? To this question, most of the 
 ministers in our church, we are disposed to think, 
 would reply by saying " We cannot tell." All 
 agree that " the existence of sin under the divine 
 government is a profound mystery ;" and also 
 that he will make use of it to display some of his 
 illustrious perfections ; and to communicate to his 
 creatures rich and eternal blessings. But wheth- 
 er he might not have formed a system, if it had 
 been his pleasure, by which his glory would have 
 been still more displayed, and a still greater 
 amount of happiness secured to his creatures, it 
 is not our province to decide. As he has no 
 where told us that he has made the best system 
 possible, and as we cannot perceive that his infi- 
 
22 Quotations from Dr. Taylor. 
 
 nite goodness required him to do it, we are dis- 
 posed to leave the question to be contemplated 
 and solved, (if a solution be desirable) when we 
 shall have the advantage of that expansion of 
 mind, that increase of knowledge, and that inter- 
 change of sentiment with other created beings, 
 W'hich we shall enjoy in the heavenly world. 
 
 But while in regard to these propositions we 
 express no opinion, we consider the reasoning of 
 Dr. Taylor in attempting to refute them as in- 
 volving pernicious errors. It is on this ac- 
 count that we have introduced the subject in 
 the present volume. Pressed wdth the diffi- 
 culty that if sin under the divine government 
 will not on the whole be for the best, why did 
 God permit it ? He has taken the bold, not 
 to say the impious ground, that God did all he 
 could to prevent the existence of sin, but could 
 not, without infringing on the moral agency of 
 man — and that he would make the world holier 
 and happier now if he could, without abridging 
 human liberty. 
 
 His language on this subject is as follows : " It 
 will not be denied that free moral agents can do 
 WTong under every possible influence to prevent 
 it. The possibility of a contradiction in supposing 
 them to be prevented from doing wTong, is there- 
 fore demonstrably certain. Free moral agents 
 
Quotations from Dr. Taylor. 28 
 
 can do wrong under all possible preventing intlu- 
 cnce." Ch. Spec, Sept. 1830, p. 563.* 
 
 "But in our view it is a question whether it is 
 not essential to the honor of God to suppose that 
 he has done all he could to secure the universal 
 holiness of his accountable creatures ; and that 
 nevertheless, some, in defiance of it, would rebel. 
 Such a proposition we think neither violates the 
 feelings of enlightened piety, nor the decision of 
 revelation." Ch. Spec. 1832, p. 567. 
 
 " God not only prefers on the whole that his 
 creatures should forever perform their duties 
 rather than neglect them, but purposes on his 
 part to do all in his powder to promote this object 
 in his kingdom." Ch. Spec. 1832, p. 660. 
 
 " It is a groundless assumption, that God could 
 have prevented all sin, or at least, the present de- 
 gree of sin in a moral system. If holiness in a 
 moral system be preferable to sin in its stead, 
 why did not a benevolent God, were it possible 
 to him, prevent all sin, and secure the prevalence 
 of universal holiness ? Would not a moral uni- 
 verse of perfect holiness, and of coarse perfect 
 happiness, be happier and better than one com- 
 prising ' sin and its miseries V And must not in- 
 
 + As I have not all the numbers of the Christian Spectator in 
 my possession, 1 shall, in my quotations from that work, make 
 free use of a pamphlet written by the Rev. Daniel Dow. 
 
^4 Quotation from Mr, Finney. 
 
 finite benevolence accomplish all the good he 
 can ? Would not a benevolent God, then, had it 
 been possible to him in the nature of things, have 
 secured the existence of universal holiness in his 
 moral kingdom ?" Concio ad Clerum. 
 
 It is not surprising that the publication of such 
 sentiments created alarm among the orthodox 
 clergy of New-England ; and that speedy efforts 
 were made to arrest their progress. 
 
 Unhappily, they soon found their way to New- 
 York, and through the agency of Mr. Finney and 
 others, obtained considerable currency. Mr Fin- 
 ney's views will appear from the following quota- 
 tion. In reply to an objection that as God " is 
 almighty, he could prevent sin if he pleased," &lq,. 
 he observes : " To say nothing of His word and 
 oath upon this subject, you have only to look into 
 His law to see that He has done all that the na- 
 ture of the case admitted to prevent the existence 
 of sin. The sanctions of His law are absolutely 
 infinite : in them He has embodied and held forth 
 the highest possible motives to obedience. His 
 law is moral and not physical ; a government of 
 motive and not of force. It is in vain to talk of 
 His omnipotence preventing sin. If infinite mo- 
 tives cannot prevent it, it cannot be prevented un- 
 der a moral government, and to maintain the con- 
 trary is absurd and a contradiction. To adminis- 
 ter moral laws is not the object of physical power. 
 
Quotations from Mr. Tyler. 25 
 
 To maintain, therefore, that the physical omnipo- 
 tence of God can prevent sin, is to talk nonsense." 
 Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 58. 
 
 Similar language is employed by him and oth- 
 er writers of the same school with reference to 
 the power of God to convert sinners, and to make 
 the world holier and happier than it now is. Mr. 
 Edward R. Tyler [not Dr. Tyler] preached a ser- 
 mon at New-Haven, Oct. 1829, (published by re- 
 quest,) in which occur the following sentences :* 
 " He [God] does not prefer the present system 
 to one which might have presented itself to His 
 choice, had it been possible to retain all moral be- 
 ings in obedience ; but prefers it to the non-exist- 
 ence of a moral system, notwithstanding sin is its 
 unavoidable attendant." " The nature of things, 
 as they now exist, forbids, as far as God himself is 
 concerned, the more frequent existence of holiness 
 in the place of sin. How do you know that the 
 influence ivhich He employs, even in respect to 
 those who perish, is not all which the nature of the 
 case ad7nits? How do you know that he can 
 maintain his moral government, or preserve mor- 
 al agents in being as such, and prevent sin ? Do 
 you not pass the boundaries of human knowledge 
 in saying that He is able to prevent all sin, while 
 He preserves, unimpaired, the freedom of account- 
 
 *Mr. Tyler was at that time Pastor of the South Church in 
 Middletown, Conn. 
 
 C 
 
26 Views of Prof. Fitch, 
 
 able beings ? Such may be the nature of free 
 agents that they cannot be governed in a manner 
 to exclude sin, or to restrict it to a smaller com- 
 pass than it actually possesses." " Such is the na- 
 ture of free agents, that God foresaw He could 
 not create them without liability to err and actu- 
 al transgression. He knew at the same time, that 
 the best possible system included such beings ; 
 that is, beings capable of knowing and loving Him. 
 He regretted, as He abundantly teaches us in His 
 word, that some of those whom he was about to 
 create would sin. Had it been possible to secure 
 them all in obedience, more happiness would have 
 been enjoyed by his creatures, and equal glory 
 would have surrounded His own throne. But al- 
 though the system which He saw to be best, could 
 not be realized in consequence of the anticipated 
 perversion of moral agency, He perceived that a 
 system such as he has adopted, notwithstanding 
 the evil attending it, to be preferable to any which 
 should exclude moral beings." "It is to Him a 
 subject of regret and grief, yet men transgress ; 
 they rebel in spite of His wishes ; thei/ persevere 
 in sin in spite of all ichich He can do to reclaim 
 them" 
 
 A writer in the Christian Spectator [believed to 
 be Prof Fitch,] advances the same ideas. " What- 
 ever degree or kind of influence" says he, " is used 
 with them, to fav^or their return to him, at any 
 given time, is as strongly fawrahle to their con- 
 
Remark of Mr, Beecher. 27 
 
 version as it can he made amid the obstacles ivhich 
 a world of guilty and rebellious moral agents op- 
 pose to God's icorks of grace.'' Review of Dr. 
 Fiske's Discourse on Predestination and Election. 
 
 In accordance with these sentiments, it was not 
 uncommon a few years ago in some parts of New- 
 York, to hear from the pulpit and in the lecture 
 room, that God is doing all He can to convert and 
 save sinners-^that if He could, He would convert 
 many more than He does — that He converts as 
 many as He can persuade to yield their hearts to 
 Him — and other expressions to the same effect. 
 Of very similar import is the remark attributed to 
 a son of Dr. Beecher, which, according to the 
 Hartford Christian Watcnman, was one C^J^C C? 
 Dr. Porter's anxiety in relation to the father — it 
 having been reported that he approved of the sen- 
 timent, viz. " that though God is physically om- 
 nipotent. He has not acquired moral power enough 
 to govern the universe according to his will." 
 
 How different these statements are from the old 
 theology, will appear by a reference to the Con- 
 fession of Faith ; which teaches that God " hath 
 most sovereign dominion over his creatures, to do 
 by them, for them, and upon them, whatsoever 
 Himself pleaseth" — that He is " Almighty, most 
 absolute, working all things according to the coun- 
 sel of His own immutable and most righteous will, 
 for his own glory." They are equally at variance 
 
28 God^s happiness diminisTiecL 
 
 with the word of God, which declares that « He 
 doeth according to his will in the army of Heaven^ 
 and among the inhabitants of the earth ; and none 
 can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest 
 Thou?" 
 
 The positions assumed by Dr. Taylor and oth- 
 ers, besides being unscriptural, are believed by 
 many to involve principles which are subversive 
 of some important Scripture doctrines. They 
 place such limits upon the power oi God, as to be 
 a virtual denial of his omnipotence. They make 
 Him so dependent upon His creatures as to ren- 
 der him liable to disappointment, and consequent- 
 ly to a dimunition of His happiness. Dr. Tay- 
 !cr, Cr one of his friends, admits that His blessed- 
 ness has been diminished by the existence of sin. 
 « It is admitted that what men have done to im- 
 pair the blessedness of God by sin, has not failed 
 of its results ia the actual diminution of His 
 blessedness, compared with what it had been, had 
 they obeyed his perfect lav//'— Spirit of the Pil- 
 grims, vol. 5, p. 693. Mr. Tyler, who has just 
 been referred to, makes the same admission. 
 " This doctrine," he remarks, " is said to be incon- 
 sistent with the happiness of God. And we ad-^ 
 mit, that as far as his happiness is affected by the 
 conduct of his creatures, he would have been bet- 
 ter pleased had angels and men always remained 
 steadfast in his fear and service." 
 
Decrees and Election denied. 29 
 
 They involve a denial of the Divine decrees — 
 for if God does not possess such absolute control 
 over his creatures that he can govern them ac- 
 cording to his pleasure, how could he have decreed 
 any thing unconditionally concerning them, since 
 it might happen, that in the exercise of their free 
 agency, they would act contrary to the Divine 
 purpose ? On the same principle they virtually 
 reject the Calvinistic doctrine of election, and 
 make election depend upon the foreknowledge 
 of God and the will of the creature. This is ac- 
 tually the way in which Mr. Finney explains the 
 doctrine. " The elect, then," says he, " must be 
 those whom God foresaw could be converted un- 
 der the wisest administration of His government. 
 That administering it in a way that would be 
 most beneficial to all worlds, exerting such an 
 amount of moral influence on eveiy individual as 
 would result, upon the whole, in the greatest good 
 to His divine kingdom, He foresaw that certain in- 
 dividuals could, with this wisest amount of moral 
 influence, be reclaimed and sanctified, and for this 
 reason, they were chosen to eternal Hfe." " The 
 elect were chosen to eternal hfe, because God 
 foresaw that in the perfect exercise of their free- 
 dom they could be induced to repent and embrace 
 the Gospel." " In choosing His elect, you must 
 understand that he has thrown the responsibility 
 of their being saved upon them ; that the whole 
 
30 Denial of Saints' perseverance, 
 
 is suspended upon their consent to the terms ; you 
 are perfectly able to give your consent, and this 
 moment to lay hold on eternal life. Irrespective 
 of your own choice, no election can save you, and 
 no reprobation can damn you." — Sermons on Im- 
 portant Subjects, p. 2^24, 25, 29, 33. Mr. Tyler, 
 from whose sermon we have already quoted, 
 gives the same explanation of this doctrine, or, m 
 other words,, virtually denies it. " God foresees," 
 he observes, '"' whom he can make willing in the 
 day of his power, and resolves that they shall be 
 saved," Prof. Fitch also advances the same idea 
 in his review of Dr. Fisk's discourse on Predesti- 
 nation and Election, in the Christian Spectator. 
 
 The same remarks may be made, substantially, 
 concerning the saints' perseverance, and even 
 their stabihty in Heaven, If the free will of sin- 
 ners may effectually resist all the influence w^hich 
 God can use for their conversion, why may not 
 the free will of christians, under the counter influ- 
 ence of temptation, break through all the moral 
 influences which God can bring to bear upon 
 them, and thus completely and eternally fall away? 
 And if so, why may not the same catastrophe be- 
 fall them after they arrive at Heaven 1 To bor- 
 row the language of Dr. Tyler : " If His creatures 
 are so independent of Him that He cannot con- 
 trol them at pleasure, what assurance can He give 
 us that every saint and every angel will not yet 
 
Possibility of falling in Heaven. 31 
 
 apostatize and spread desolation through the mor- 
 al universe." 
 
 As horrible as this thought is, it appears to be a 
 legitimate consequence from the reasoning of the 
 New-Haven divines. " But this possibility that 
 moral agents will sin, remains (suppose what else 
 you will) so long as moral agency remains ; and 
 how can it be proved that a thing will not be, 
 when, for aught that appears, it may be ? When 
 in view of all the facts and evidence in the case it 
 remains true that it may be, what evidence or 
 proof can exist that it will not be ?" — Ch. Spec. 
 1830, p. 563. Again : " We know that a moral 
 system necessarily implies the existence of free 
 agents, w ith the power to act in despite of all op- 
 posing power. This fact sets human reason at de- 
 fiance in every attempt to prove that some of these 
 agents will not use that power and actually sin." 
 Ch. Spec. 1831, p. 617. If, then, the saints and 
 angels in Heaven are ^^free agents ," they have, 
 according to the above reasoning, " the power to 
 act in despite of all opposing power," and it cannot 
 be proved " that some of these agents will not use 
 that power and actually sin." 
 
 On this subject we will quote some pertinent 
 remarks from " Views in Theology," a periodical 
 published in New-York. " It is as true of angels 
 and the spirits of just men made perfect, that they 
 are moral agents, and that their powers are the 
 
32 Remarks from a Periodical. 
 
 same in kind that are known to originate sin, as 
 it is of us ; as clear that if God " should begin and 
 pursue any method of providence and govern- 
 ment" over them, " the causes which originate sin 
 would still exist in kind, under his providence," as 
 it is, that they would among men ; and " since un- 
 der any system of Providence, the condition of 
 His creatures must be constantly changing ;" as 
 clear, therefore — if the powers of moral agency 
 alone be considered — " that among these fluctua- 
 tions, there may arise conjunctures under any 
 providence, in which temptations will rise and 
 prevail to the overthrow of some of those crea- 
 tures," as it is that they may, under any provi- 
 dence, over such beings as ourselves. 
 
 On the principles then, on w^hich his reasoning 
 proceeds, we not only have no certainty of the 
 continued obedience of holy, angelic, and redeem- 
 ed spirits, but have an absolute probability of their 
 universally yielding to rebellion at some period of 
 their existence, notwithstanding every species and 
 degree of preventing influence that God can ex- 
 ert over them !" 
 
 To these, we will add the following from Dr. 
 Griffin : " If God could not have prevented sin in 
 all worlds and ages, he cannot prevent sin in any 
 world or age, or in any creature at any time, ex- 
 cept by preventing the particular occasion and 
 temptation. If God could not have prevented sin 
 
Remarks of Dr. Griffin. 33 
 
 in the universe, he cannot prevent believers from 
 fatally falling ; He cannot prevent Gabriel and 
 Paul from sinking at once into devils, and Heaven 
 from turning into a Hell. And were he to create 
 new races to fill the vacant seats, they might turn 
 to devils as fast as He created them, in spite of 
 any thing that He could do short of destroying 
 their moral agency. He is liable to be defeated 
 in all His designs, and to be as miserable as He is 
 benevolent. This is infinitely the gloomiest idea 
 that was ever thrown upon the world. It is 
 gloomier than Hell itself. For this involves only 
 the destruction of a part, but that involves the 
 wretchedness of God and His whole creation. 
 And how awfully gloomy as it respects the prog- 
 pects of individual believers. You have no secu- 
 rity that you shall stand an hour. And even if 
 you get to Heaven, you have no certainty of re- 
 maining there a day. All is doubt and sepul- 
 chral gloom. And where is the glory of God ? 
 Where the transcendant glory of raising to spiritu- 
 al life a world dead in trespasses and sin ? Where 
 the glory of swaying an undivided sceptre, and 
 doing His whole pleasure " in the army of Heav- 
 en and among the inhabitants of the earth ?" — - 
 Grifl[in on Divine Efficiency, p. 180, 181. 
 
 The practical influence of these assumptions 
 is believed to be no less objectionable than their 
 tendencies to error. 
 
34 Practical effects of the New Views. 
 
 1. In relation to prayer. If we adopt the 
 principle that God has not supreme control over 
 the hearts of all men, how can we with confi- 
 dence plead the fulfilment of those promises 
 which are to be accomplished by the instrumen- 
 tality of his creatures ? However willing he may 
 be to answer our prayers, there may be found 
 among the various agents to be employed, some 
 Pharoah, so much more obstinate than the king 
 of Egypt, that no influence which God can em- 
 ploy, will incline him to let his people go — or 
 some Ahithophel, so much more sagacious and in- 
 fluential than the counsellor of Absalom, that the 
 Lord will not be able to "turn his counsel to 
 foolishness," and brin^ back his own anointed to 
 the throne of Israel. 
 
 2. If we believe ourselves so independent of 
 God, that we can successfully resist any moral 
 influence which he can bring to bear upon our 
 minds, how feeble will be the incentives to the 
 exercise of humility ! Tell a carnal, unregene- 
 rate man, that though God had physical power to 
 create him, he has not moral power to govern 
 him, and you could not furnish his mind with bet- 
 ter aliment for pride and rebellion. Should you, 
 after giving this lesson, press upon him the claims 
 of Jehovah, you might expect to be answered, as 
 Moses was by the proud oppressor of Israel : 
 " Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice ?" 
 
Practical effects of the New Vieivs. 85 
 
 3. The same may be said in regard to submis- 
 sion. Of this, the case just referred to affords 
 an ample illustration. What a miserable reflec- 
 tion it would have been to present to an enslaved 
 Israelite, that he ought to submit cheerfully to 
 his bondage, because it was not in the power of 
 the Lord to prevent it ! Men are free agents : 
 in the exercise of that agency, your ancestors 
 would settle themselves in Egypt — and in the ex- 
 ercise of the same agency, the Egyptians loould 
 enslave them ! God knew that such would be 
 the result, and he would have have hindered it if 
 he could, but could not, without destroying their 
 free agency ! " Free moral agents can do wrong 
 under every possible influence to prevent it." 
 
 4. Such reflections afford as little foundation 
 for gratitude as for submission. Why do we feel 
 grateful to God for those favors which are con- 
 ferred upon us by the agency of our fellow men, 
 except on the principle that they are only instru- 
 ments in His hand — who, without " offering the 
 least violence to their wills, or taking away the 
 liberty or contingency of second causes," " hath 
 most sovereign dominion over them, to do by 
 them, for them, and upon them, whatsoever Him- 
 self pleaseth." On any other ground, they would 
 be worthy of the principal, and He only of sec- 
 ondary praise. 
 
 In conclusion, we will observe, (adopting the 
 language of the "Views in Theology," already 
 
S6 Difference not imaginary hut real. 
 
 referred to,) " The great questions involved in 
 this controversy, it is sufficiently apparent from 
 the foregoing discussion, are not of mere ordina- 
 ry interest, but vitally important : and the decisions 
 that are formed respecting them by the teachers 
 of religion, must exert a momentous influence on 
 the churches and religion of our country. The 
 subjects to vi^hich they relate — the attributes of 
 God, the reality and nature of his government, 
 the doctrines of his word, the nature of the mind, 
 the laws of its agency, the causes that influence 
 it — if any are entitled to that rank, are fundamen- 
 tal : and the problems which it is the object of 
 the controversy to solve, whether God is almighty 
 as a moral and providential ruler as well as 
 creator, or weak and hable to perpetual frustra- 
 tion ; w^iether he is wholly able, or wholly una- 
 ble to prevent moral beings from sinning ; wheth- 
 er he can or cannot determine and foresee the 
 events of their agency, and thence whether his 
 predictions, threatenings and promises are true 
 or false — indisputably involve all that is essential . 
 in Christianity ; and the scheme which affirms 
 the one is as diverse from that which asserts the 
 other, as light is from darkness, and truth from 
 falsehood." " Thej question between them, is 
 nothing less than the question — of two wholly 
 dissimilar and contradictory systems, which is it 
 that is the gospel of the grace of God, and which 
 therefore is it that wholly contradicts and sub- 
 verts the gospel ?" 
 
CHAP. II. 
 
 God's covenant with Adam, and our relation to him as our 
 federal head — involving the doctrine of imputation and orig- 
 inal sin. 
 
 According to Witsius, " A covenant of God 
 with man is an agreement between God and 
 man, about the method of obtaining consummate 
 happiness, with the addition of a threatening of 
 eternal destruction, with which the despiser of 
 the happiness offered in that way is to be punish- 
 ed." Such a covenant God made with Adam 
 before the fall ; and through him with all his pos- 
 terity — he acting as their federal head and repre- 
 sentative. " The first covenant made with man, 
 " says our Confession of Faith," was a covenant 
 of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, 
 and in him to his posterity, upon condition of 
 perfect and personal obedience" — (as our cate- 
 chism adds,) " forbidding him to eat of the tree 
 of knowledge of good and evil upon pain of 
 death." This has been the common sentiment 
 among the reformed churches since the time of 
 Luther and Calvin. It also formed a part of the 
 creed of the early christian Fathers. 
 
 Some of the reasons for this doctrine, are the 
 following : 
 
38 Covenant with Adam, 
 
 1. The law given to Adam, in Gen. ii. 16, 17, 
 contained all the essential properties of a cove- 
 nant ; viz. parties, a condition, a penalty, and an 
 implied promise. It is not essential to a cove- 
 nant that the parties should be equal — nor was it 
 necessary in the present case, that Adam should 
 give a formal consent to the terms proposed ; be- 
 cause they were binding upon him as a creature 
 of God, independent of his consent. But inas- 
 much as he was created in the image of God, 
 and had his law written in his heart, there was 
 undoubtedly a cordial assent to the proposed 
 condition. 
 
 2. Thai transaction is referred to by the 
 prophet Hosea, under the name of a covenant. 
 "But they like men [Ileb. like Adam,] have 
 transgressed the covenant." Hosea vi. 7. Upon 
 this passage Henry remarks, " Herein they trod 
 in the steps of our first parents ; they, like Adam, 
 have transgressed the covenant ; (so it might very 
 well be read ;) as he transgressed the covenant 
 of innocency, so they transgressed the covenant 
 of grace ; so treacherously, so foolishly ; there in 
 paradise, he violated his engagements to God ; 
 and there in Canaan, another paradise, they vio- 
 lated their engagements. And by their treacher- 
 ous dealing they, like Adam, have ruined them- 
 selves and theirs." This text has no definite 
 sense, unless it refers to Adam. 
 
Adam our Federal Head. 39 
 
 3. Christ is said to have been given "for a 
 covenant of the people ;" (Isa. xlii, 6,) and since 
 a parallel is dravrn by the apostle between Christ 
 and Adam ; the latter being called the first, and 
 the former the second Adam ; the analogy re- 
 quires us to regard the first Adam, as a party to 
 a covenant. 
 
 The representative character of Adam may be 
 proved by the following considerations. All the 
 dispensations of Jehovah concerning Adam be- 
 fore the fall, respected his posterity as well as 
 himself; such as dominion over the creatures, 
 liberty to eat of the productions of the earth, the 
 law of marriage, &c. When God made this 
 covenant with Adam, it does not appear that Eve 
 was yet formed — and yet it is manifest from her 
 reply to the tempter, (Gen. iii. 2, 3,) that she 
 considered herself as included in the transaction. 
 The consequences of Adam's transgression affect- 
 ed his posterity as well as himself. Gen. iii. 16, 
 19; Rom. V. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 22. The apostle 
 draws a parallel between Christ and Adam ; in 
 which he describes Christ as the representative 
 of his spiritual seed, as Adam was of his natural 
 seed. Rom. v. 12, 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22. But how 
 did Christ represent his seed except in the cove- 
 nant of grace ? Adam, therefore, must have re- 
 presented his in the covenant of works. 
 
40 Imputation and Original Sin. 
 
 That covenant made with Adam and througb 
 him with his posterity, involves the doctrine of 
 imputation and original sin. Destroy that and 
 you destroy these — they must stand or fall togeth- 
 er. And as they are both based upon the same 
 covenant, so they are closely connected with 
 each other. " So far as I know," says President 
 Edwards, " most of those who hold one of these 
 have maintained the other ; and most of those 
 who have opposed one have opposed the other. 
 And it may perhaps appear in our future consid- 
 eration of the subject, that they are closely con- 
 nected, and that the arguments which prove the 
 one, estabhsh the other, and that there are no 
 more difficulties attending the allowing of one 
 tlian the other." 
 
 Upon these points the confession of faith teach- 
 es, that our first parents " being the root of all 
 mankind, the guilt of this sin [eating the forbidden 
 fruit] w as imputed, and the sajne death in sin and 
 corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, 
 descending from them by ordinary generation" — 
 and that " from this original corruption, whereby 
 we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made op- 
 posite to all good, and wholly inchned to all evil> 
 do proceed all actual transgressions." The phrase 
 " root of all m^ankind," it is evident from the proof 
 texts, refers not merely to natural relation, but al- 
 so to covenant headship ; the latter being the 
 
Original Sin — Edwards' definition. 41 
 
 principal foundation upon which the guilt of Ad- 
 am's first sin is imputed to us ; while the former 
 is the channel through which our corrupted na- 
 ture is conveyed. " Original sin is conveyed from 
 our first parents unto their posterity by natural 
 generation, so as all that proceed from them in 
 that way, are conceived and born in sin." Larger 
 Catechism. Imputation regards us as being re- 
 sponsible in law, for what Adam did as our rep- 
 resentative — and as a punishment for his sin, our 
 original righteousness was lost, and we are born 
 with a corrupt disposition. This is what is meant 
 by original sin. 
 
 As President Edwards is often referred to as a 
 standard author on these points we will quote a 
 few sentences from his work on original sin. " By 
 original sin, says he, as the phrase has been most 
 commonly used by divines, is meant the innate 
 sinful depravity of the heart. But yet, when the 
 doctrine of original sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly 
 understood in that latitude, as to include not 
 only the depravity of nature, but the imputation 
 of Adam's first sin ; or, in other words, the liahle- 
 ness or exposedness of Adam's posterity in the 
 divine judgment, to partake of ih^ punishment of 
 that sin." 
 
 By the imputation of Adam's sin then, accord- 
 ing to President Edwards, is meant liability to 
 punishment on account of his sin — and by origin- 
 
42 Imputation — Views of Prof. Hodge. 
 
 al sin, the inherent depravity of our nature. Thi& 
 we beheve is in exact accordance with our stand- 
 ards, as they are understood by our most approv- 
 ed commentators. 
 
 Professor Hodge, in his commentary on the 
 Romans, observes, " This doctrine [of imputation] 
 does not include the idea of a mysterious identity 
 of Adam and his race ; nor that of a transfer of 
 the moral tm-pitude of his sin to his descendants. It 
 does not teach that his offence was personally or 
 properly the sin of all men, or that his act was, 
 in any mysterious sense, the act of his posterity. 
 " The sin of Adam, therefore, is no ground to us of 
 remorse." " This doctrine merely teaches that in 
 virtue of the union representative and natural, be- 
 tween Adam and his posterity , his sin is the ground 
 of their condemnation, that is of their subjection 
 to penal evils.^ In reference to original sin, he 
 says, " it is not, however, the doctrine of the scrip- 
 tures, nor of the reformed churches, nor of our 
 standards, that the corruption of nature of which 
 they speak, is any deprivation of the soul, or an es- 
 sential attribute, or the infusion of any positive evil. 
 " These confessions [of the reformers] teach that 
 original righteousness was lost, and by that de- 
 fect the tendency to sin, or corrupt disposition, ov 
 corruption of nature, is occasioned. Though they 
 speak of original sin as being first negative, i. e. 
 Ihe loss of righteousness ; and secondly, positive, or 
 
New School Theory. 43 
 
 corruption of nature ; yet by the latter, they state, 
 is to be understood, not the infusion of any thing 
 in itself sinful, but an actual tendency or disposi- 
 tion to evil resulting from the loss of righteous- 
 ness." As some of the strongest objections to 
 these doctrines arise either from misunderstand- 
 ing or misrepresenting them, the only answer 
 which is necessary in many instances, is, to shew 
 that the doctrines as held by those who embrace 
 them, are not what the objector supposes. The 
 above quotations will serve to shew what are the 
 true doctrines on this subject. Some of the 
 proofs by which they are substantiated, together 
 with such remarks as may occur to us, will be 
 reserved for a subsequent chapter.* 
 
 We will now state with as much accuracy as 
 we are capable, what we understand to be the 
 New School doctrines in reference to this subject. 
 According to the New Theology, there was not in 
 the proper sense of the word any covenant made 
 with Adam, but he was merely placed under a 
 
 * To any one who desires particular information on these 
 points, we recommend the commentary of Prof. Hodge, from 
 which we have just quoted. There is no work within my 
 knowledge, which to me is so clear and satisfactory in its state- 
 ments and reasonings on this subject; and I believe it ex- 
 presses the views which are generally entertained by those 
 who are denominated the " old school,^^ or " orthodox" portioa 
 of the Presbyterian church. 
 
44 New School Theory. 
 
 law. He was not the federal head or represen- 
 tative of his posterity, but only their natural pa- 
 rent. Though as his descend ents, we feel the 
 effects of his sin, and become sinful ourselves in 
 consequence of it, the doctrine that his sin was 
 imputed to us is unjust and absurd. All sin and 
 holiness consist in acts. To speak of a sinful or 
 holy nature, (except in a figurative sense) is, 
 therefore, absurd. When Adam was created he 
 was neither sinful nor holy, but he acquired a ho- 
 ly character by the performance of holy acts, i. e. 
 by choosing God as his supreme good, and plac- 
 ing his affections upon him. Jesus Christ, though 
 called holy at his birth, was so merely in the 
 sense of dedicated, and not as possessing (morally 
 considered) a holy nature. When we are born 
 we possess no moral character any more than 
 brutes, but we acquire a moral character as soon 
 as we arrive at moral agency, and put forth moral 
 acts. In the sense in which it has been commonly 
 understood, there is no such thing as original sin, 
 there being no other original sin than the first 
 sin a child commits after arriving at moral agen- 
 cy. Children are born with the same nature as 
 Adam possessed at his creation — and the differ- 
 ence between us and him is, that we are born in 
 different circumstances ; and that the inferior 
 powers of our nature have obtained greater rela- 
 tive strength ; from which it universally results 
 
New School writers still use old terms. 45 
 
 as a matter of fact, that our first acts are sinful, 
 instead of being holy as his were ; i. e. we do not 
 choose God as the object of our supreme affec- 
 tion, but the world — and this choice of the world 
 as our chief good is what constitutes human de- 
 pravity. 
 
 Before referring to our authorities, we wish to 
 observe that those who hold either wholly or in 
 part to the above doctrines, have not entirely 
 laid aside the use of the terms, covenant, imputa- 
 tion, original sin, &c. — but they employ them in 
 a different sense from that which has been gener- 
 ally attached to them by Calvinistic writers. 
 
 Mr. Finney, for example, uses the term cove- 
 nant, in regard to the transaction between God 
 and Adam ; and yet he denies that Adam was 
 the federal head of his posterity. His doctrine 
 appears to be, that all mankind were placed pro- 
 spectively under the covenant of works, and 
 were to have a trial or probation, each one for 
 himself, similar to what Adam had ; and that 
 from their connection with him as their natural 
 parent, it so happens that they all break the cov- 
 enant as soon as they arrive at moral agency, and 
 thus become sinners. His language is, " I sup- 
 pose that mankind were originally all under a 
 covenant of works, and that Adam was not so 
 their head or representative, that his obedience 
 or disobedience involved them in'esistably in sin 
 
46 New School writers still use old terms. 
 
 and condemnation, irrespective of their own acts." 
 Lectures to Professing Christians, p. 286. Take 
 these words in connection with what precedes, 
 and their import will be more obvious. " It has 
 been supposed by many, says he, that there was a 
 covenant made with Adam such as this, that if he 
 continued to obey the law for a limited period, 
 all his posterity should be confirmed in holiness 
 and happiness forever. What the reason is for this 
 belief, I am unable to ascertain : I am not aware 
 that the doctrine is taught in the Bible." Here 
 he alludes in direct terms to the common doc- 
 trine, and expresses his dissent from it. But what 
 does he hold ? " Adam says he was the natural 
 head of the human race, and his sin has involved 
 them in its consequences ; but not on the princi- 
 ple that his sin Is literally accounted their sin." 
 [ Qucere : Who does maintain this opinion ?] " The 
 truth, he adds, is simply this: that from the relation 
 in which he stood as their natural head, as a matter 
 of fact, his sin has resulted in the sin and ruin of 
 his posterity." Then follows w^hat we first quo- 
 ted. Thus it appears that though he employs the 
 term covenant of works, he rejects the doctrine 
 which is generally entertained by those who use 
 them. He intends one thing by them, and they 
 another. 
 
 Mr. Barnes, in the seventh edition of his Notes 
 on the Romans, (p. 128,) uses the word impute, 
 
New School writers still use old terms. 47 
 
 in reference to the guilt of Adam's first siri ; 
 though by a, comparison between his remarks 
 here and some which are found in other parts of 
 the book, it is evident he attaches a different 
 meaning to the word, from what is common 
 among Calvinistic writers. He says, (p. 95,) " I 
 have examined all the passages" where the word 
 occurs in the Old Testament, " and as the result 
 of my examination, have come to the conclusion 
 that there is not one in which the word is used in 
 the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man that 
 which does not strictly belong to him ; or of 
 charging on him that w^hich ought not to be 
 charged on him as a matter of personal right. 
 The word is never used to denote imputing in the 
 sense of transferring, or of charging that on one 
 which does not properly belong to him. The 
 same is the case in the New Testament. The 
 word occurs about forty times, and in a similar 
 signification. No doctrine of transferring, or of 
 setting over to a man what does not properly be- 
 long to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, 
 therefore, from this word." 
 
 The transfer of the moral turpitude of Adam's 
 sin is no part of the doctrine, as held by its advo- 
 cates — but this is not what Mr. Barnes intends 
 to deny ; because he expressly informs us that 
 by transferring he means " setting over to a man 
 what does not properly belong to him." The 
 
48 Extract from Turretin and Owen. 
 
 word impute, then, according to him, is never used 
 in the sense of " setting over to a man what does 
 not properly belong to him"— i. e. what "ought 
 not to be charged on him as a matter o( personal 
 right" Nor is this doctrine taught in any of 
 these passages. How different is this from the 
 language of Turretin and Owen, as quoted by 
 Professor Hodge. " Imputation, says the former, 
 is either o{ something foreign to us, or of some- 
 thing properly our own. Sometimes that is im- 
 puted to us which is personally ours ; in which 
 sense God imputes to sinners their transgressions. 
 Sometimes that is imputed to us which is without 
 us and not performed by ourselves ; thus the 
 righteousness of Christ is said to be imputed to 
 us and our sins are imputed to him, although he 
 Us neither sin in himself nor we righteousness. 
 Here we speak of the latter kind of imputation, 
 not the former, because we are talking of a srn 
 
 committed by Adam, not by us The 
 
 foundation, therefore, of imputation, is not only 
 the natural connection wliich exists between us 
 and Adam, since, in that case, all his sms might 
 be imputed to us, but mainly the moral and fed- 
 eral in virtue of which God entered into cove- 
 nant with him as our head." Owen says, 
 " Things which are not our own originally, inhe- 
 rently, may yet be imputed to us, ex justitia, by 
 the rule of righteousness. And this may be done 
 
New School writers still use old terms. 49 
 
 upon a double relation unto those whose they 
 are. 1. Federal. 2. Natural. Things done hy 
 one may he imputed unto others, proper gelation- 
 em faderalem, because of a covenant relation be- 
 tween them. So the sin of Adam was imputed to 
 all his p)osterity. And the ground hereof is, that 
 we stood in the same covenant with him who 
 was our head and representative." .... " Noth- 
 ing is intended by the imputation of sin unto any, 
 but the rendering them justly obnoxious unto the 
 punishment due unto that sin." 
 
 Though, therefore, Mr. Barnes uses the word 
 impute, he does not mean with these authors, that 
 Adam's posterity were rendered legally liable to 
 punishment on account of his sin ; but only that 
 they are " subject to pain, and death, and deprav- 
 ity, as the consequence of his sin ;" " subject to de^ 
 pravity as the consequence ;" i. e. liable to become 
 depraved as soon as they arrive at moral agency, 
 on account of their being descended from Adam, 
 who was " the head of the race ;" and who hav- 
 ing sinned, " secured as a certain result that all 
 the race will be sinners also ;" such being " the 
 organization of the great society^ which he was 
 the head and father." ^The drunkard, says he, se- 
 cures as a result, commonly, that his family will 
 be reduced to beggary, want and wo. A pirate, 
 or a traitor, will whelm not himself only, but his 
 family in ruin. Such is the great law or consti- 
 
50 New School writers still use old terms. 
 
 tution, on which society is now organized; and 
 w^e are not to be surprized that the same princi- 
 ple occurred in the primary organization of hu- 
 man affairs." Is this the sense in which our Con- 
 fession of Faith uses the word impute ? I will 
 leave it for the reader to judge. 
 
 Professor Fitch of New-Haven has not laid 
 aside the phrase original sin, though the whole 
 drift of his discourses on the nature of sin is in- 
 consistent with the common doctrine, and was 
 doubtless intended to overthrow it. If it be true 
 according to him, " that sin, in every form and in- 
 stance, is reducible to the act of a moral agent, 
 in which he violates a known rule of duty," how 
 can it be possible that there is any such thing as 
 is called by President Edwards, " the innate sin- 
 ful depravity of the heart ?" Professor Fitch does 
 not pretend that there is — and yet he would 
 make his readers believe that he holds to original 
 sin, and he tells us in one of his inferences, that 
 " the subject may assist us in making a right ex- 
 planation of the doctrine." And v/hat is it ? 
 " Nothing can in truth be called original sin, but 
 his first moral choice, or preference being evil." 
 One can hardly exculpate him from disingenuous- 
 ness in retaining the terms, after having adopted 
 principles subversive of their clear import ; and 
 then employing them in a sense materially differ- 
 ent from common and long estabhshed usage. 
 He must certainly have known that his definition 
 
Remarks of Dr. Miller, 51 
 
 of original sin is strikingly at variance with that 
 of Calvin ; who describes it as " an hereditary 
 depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused 
 through every part of the soul, which first makes 
 us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then pro- 
 duces those works which the scriptures denomi- 
 nate the works of the flesh." 
 
 We have extended these remarks ,so much be- 
 yond what v/e anticipated, that the quotations we 
 intended to make in proof of our statement con- 
 cerning the new school doctrines, must be reserv- 
 ed for another chapter. We will therefore close 
 the present chapter with a few appropriate and 
 forcible observations of Dr. Miller, taken from his 
 Letters to Presbyterians. After enumerating 
 most of the new school doctrines which are 
 brought to view in this chapter and some others 
 which we shall notice hereafter, he says : " If 
 Pelagian and semi-Pelagian sentiments existed 
 in the fifth century, here they are in all their un- 
 questionable and revolting features. More par- 
 ticularly in regard to the denial of original sin 
 and the assertion of the doctrine of human ability, 
 Pelagius and his followers never went further 
 than some of the advocates of the doctrines above 
 recited. To attempt to persuade us to the contra- 
 ry, is to suppose that the record of the published 
 language and opinions of those ancient heretics is 
 lost or forgotten. And to assert that these opin- 
 ions are reconcilable with the Calvinistic system, 
 
52 Remarks of Dr. Miller. 
 
 is to offer a poor compliment to the memory of 
 the most acute, learned and pious divines, that 
 ever adorned the church of God, from the days 
 o^ Augustine to those of the venerable band of 
 Puritans, who, after bearing a noble testimony 
 against surrounding errors on the other side of 
 the Atlantic^ bore the lamp of truth and planted 
 the standard of Christ in this vsrestern hemisphere." 
 These observations are not introduced with a- 
 view of influencing the resKler to receive the 
 statement they contain, on the mere authority of 
 a venerable name ; nor of forestalling his judg- 
 ment with regard to the points under considera- 
 tion. All that we expect or desire is, that they 
 will influence him to consider the controversy not 
 as consisting (as some profess to believe) in a 
 mere " strife about words,'' but as involving im- 
 portant and dangerous errors ; and will induce 
 him to give that attention to the proofs we are 
 about to exhibit, and to other sources of evidence 
 to which he may have access, as will enable him 
 to ascertain to his entire satisfaction, " whether 
 these things are so." If wise and good men now, 
 concur with the " most acute, learned and pious 
 divines that ever adorned the church of God" in 
 former days, in judging these sentiment to be he- 
 retical and pernicious ; they claim the careful ex- 
 amination of those who attach any importance ta 
 religious truth, and desire to enjoy its invaluable 
 and permanent benefits. 
 
CHAP. III. 
 
 The subject of the preceding chapter continued, exhibiting the 
 New Theology concerning God's covenant with Adam, as 
 the federal head of his posterity, imputation, original sin, &c. 
 
 Our statement in the last chapter concerning 
 the New Theology, though embraced under three 
 or four general heads, involves as many other 
 points, vs^hich either grow out of the former, or 
 are so connected with them, that our views of the 
 one will materially affect our sentiments concern- 
 ing the other. Accordingly, in that statement, 
 these several particulars were presented ; but 
 they are so involved in each other it will not be 
 easy in our quotations to keep them entirely dis- 
 tinct. "We shall therefore make no formal divis- 
 ions, but introduce them in such order as we find 
 most convenient. 
 
 I will suppose myself in the company of several 
 prominent ministers, to whom a gentleman pres- 
 ent by the name of Querist, proposes the follow- 
 ing questions : 
 
 Querist. Mr. Barnes, I have recently perused 
 your sermon on the Way of Salvation, and your 
 Notes on the Romans. Am I correct in suppo- 
 sing that you deny that any covenant was made 
 
54 Covenant with Adam. 
 
 with Adam, as the federal head or representative 
 of his posterity 1 
 
 Mr. Barnes. " Nothing is said of a covenant 
 with him. No where in the Scriptures is the term 
 covenant apphed to any transaction with Adam, 
 All that is established here is the simple fact that 
 Adam sinned, and that this made it certain that 
 all his posterity would be singers. Beyond this, 
 the language of the Apostle does not go ; and all 
 else that has been said of this, is the result of mere 
 philosophical speculation." — Notes on the Ro- 
 mans, 1st edition, p. 128.. 
 
 Querist. Was not Christ the covensmt head of 
 his people, and does not the Apostle draw a par- 
 allel between Adam and Christ ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. " A comparison is also instituted 
 between Adam and Christ in 1 Cor. xv. 22 — 25. 
 The reason is, not that Adam was the representa- 
 tive or federal head of the human race, about 
 which the Apostle says nothing, and which is not 
 even implied, but that he was the first of the race y 
 lie was the fountain, the head, the father ; and 
 the consequences of that first act, introducing sin 
 into the world, could be seen every where. The 
 words reiyresenlative midi federal head are never 
 applied to Adam in the Bible. The treason is, 
 that the word representative implies an idea which 
 could not have existed in the case — the consent of 
 those who are represented. Besides, the Bible 
 
Views of Mr. Barnes. 55 
 
 does not teach that they acted in him, or by him ; 
 or that he acted /or them. No passage has ever 
 yet been found that stated this doctrine." — Notes 
 on the Romans, 1st edition, p. 120, 121. 
 
 Querist. I perceive that in the later editions of 
 your Notes the above phraseology is considerably 
 changed — have you altered your sentiments ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. " Some expressions in the form- 
 er editions have been misunderstood ; some are 
 now seen to have been ambiguous ; a fev\^ that 
 have given offence have been changed, because, 
 without abandoning any principle of doctrine or 
 interpretation, I could convey my ideas in lan- 
 guage more acceptable and less fitted to produce 
 offence.". — Advertisement to the 5th edition. "My 
 views have never changed on the subject that I 
 can now recollect."- — Mr. Barnes' Defence before 
 the 2n4 Presbitery of Philadelphia, in June and 
 July, 1835. 
 
 Querist. Do you then deny the doctrine of 
 imputation ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. " That doctrine is nothing but an 
 effort to explain the manner of an event which the 
 Apostle did not think it proper to attempt to ex- 
 plain. That doctrine is, in fact, no explanation. 
 It is introducing an additional difficulty. For, to 
 say that I am blameworthy, or iildeserving, for a 
 sin in which I had no agency, is no explanation, 
 but is involving me in an additional difficulty, still 
 
56 Imputation — Edwards^ Views, 
 
 more perplexing, to ascertain how such a doctrine 
 can possibly be just." — Notes on the Romans, 7th 
 edition, p. 121, 122. " Christianity does not 
 charge on men crimes of which they are not guil- 
 ty. It does not say, as I suppose, that the sinner 
 is held to be personally answerable for the trans- 
 gressions of Adam, or of any other man." — Ser- 
 mon on the way of Salvation. 
 
 Querist. You cannot be ignorant sir, that these 
 views are at variance with the sentiments of Cal- 
 vinistic writers. The 5th chapter of Romans has 
 been universally considered as teaching this doc- 
 trine. President Edwards says : " As this place, 
 in general, is very full and plain, so the doctrine 
 of the corruption of nature, derived from Adam, 
 and also the imputation of his first sin, are both 
 clearly taught in it. The imputation of Adam's 
 one transgression, is, indeed, most directly and 
 frequently asserted. We are here assured that 
 by ONE man's sin, death passed upon all ; all be- 
 ing adjudged to this punishment, as having sinned 
 (so it is implied) in tliat one man's sin. And it is 
 repeated over and over, that all are condemned, 
 many are dead, jnany made sinners, ^'C. by one 
 man^s offence, by the dAsobedience of one, and by 
 
 ONE offence.^^ " Though the word impute is 
 
 not used with respect to Adam's sin, yet it is said, 
 all have sinned ; which, respecting infants, c^n be 
 true only of their sinning by this sin. And it is 
 
Views of Mr, Barnes. 5T 
 
 said, by his disobedience many were made sinners ; 
 Siud judgment csLine upon all by that sin ; and that 
 by this means, death (the wages of sin) passed on 
 all men, &c. which phrases amount to full and 
 precise explanations of the word impute; and, 
 therefore, do more certainly determine the point 
 really insisted on." — Edwards on Original Sin, 
 vol. 2, p. 512, 517. 
 
 Mr. Barnes. " It is not denied that this [my] 
 language varies from the statements which are 
 often made on the subject, and from the opinion 
 which has been entertained by many men. And 
 it is admitted that it does not accord with that used 
 on the same subject in the Confession of Faith, and 
 in other standards of doctrine. The main differ- 
 ence is, that it is difficult to affix any clear and 
 definite meaning to the expression " we sinned m 
 him and fell with him.'* It is manifest, so far as 
 it is capable of interpretation, that it is intended 
 to convey the idea, not that the sin of Adam is 
 imputed to us, or set over to our account ; but 
 that there was a personal identity constituted be- 
 tween Adam and his posterity, so that it was real- 
 ly our act, and ours only, after all, that is charge- 
 able on us. This was the idea of Edwards. The 
 notion of imputing sin is an invention of modern 
 times ; and it is not, it is believed, the doctrine of 
 the Confession of Faith." "Christianity af- 
 firms the fact, that, in connection with the sin of 
 
58 Covenant with Adam, 
 
 Adam, or as a result, all moral agents in this world 
 will sin, and sinning, will die. — Rom. v. 12 — 19. 
 It does not affirm, however, any thing about the 
 mode in which this would be done. There are 
 many ways, conceivable, in which that sin might 
 secure the result, as there are many ways in which 
 all similar facts may be explained. The drunk- 
 ard commonly secures, as a result, the fact, that 
 his family will be beggared, illiterate, perhaps 
 profane or intemperate. Both facts are evidently 
 to be explained on the same principle as a part of 
 moral government." — Note to his sermon on the 
 Way of Salvation. 
 
 Querist. Are these the views of the other gen- 
 tlemen present ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield. " If by [the union of represen- 
 tation] is meant nothing more than that Adam 
 did not act exclusively for himself; but that his 
 conduct was to determine the character and con- 
 duct of those that should come after him, we will 
 not object. But if it is meant to designate any 
 2)ositive procedure of God, in which He made Ad- 
 am to stand, and required him to act, as the sub- 
 stitute of the persons of his offspring, numerically 
 considered, and by name, head for head, so that 
 they might be held, as in commercial transactions, 
 personally liable for this sin, as being guilty co- 
 partners with him in it, we certainly may require 
 
Views of Mr. Vuffieid. 59 
 
 other and better proof than what is commonly 
 submitted." — Duffield on Regeneration, p. 391. 
 
 Querist. I know of no one who holds the doc- 
 trine precisely as you have stated it — but let me 
 inquire whether you believe there existed any le- 
 gal union between Adam and his posterity on ac- 
 count of his being their covenant head ? and, that 
 the guilt of his first sin was imputed to them, or 
 set over in law to their account, so that they were 
 thereby subjected to penal evils ? 
 
 Mr. DufReld. "When it is said, in the second 
 commandment, that God visits the iniquities of the 
 fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth 
 generations," will it be contended that this is be- 
 cause the former stood as the representatives of 
 the latter, acting legally/, in their name, and for 
 them ? We presume not. And yet stronger lan- 
 guage cannot be employed to denote the results 
 which flow from Adam's sin, by virtue of our con- 
 nection with him. Why, then, must we suppose 
 that there is a principle in the one case different 
 from that in the other ? And that what seems to 
 flow out of the natural relation between parent 
 and children, and to be the natural consequence 
 of such relation, must be attributed to a legal un- 
 ion or 77i07rd idenity between Adam and his off"- 
 spring?" — Duffield on Regeneration, p. 392. 
 
 Querist. According to this view, what becomes 
 of the old doctrine of original sin, as consisting in 
 
^0 I-mputation cmd Original Sin, 
 
 the corruption or depravity of our nature ? The 
 doctrines of imputation and a corrupt nature have 
 been regarded as so closely connected, that the 
 denial of the former involved the rejection of the 
 latter — and the same proofs vv^hich have been re- 
 lied upon to establish the one, have generally been 
 aduced to defend the other. Thus, President Ed- 
 wards, in the passage already referred to, says : 
 " And the doctrine of original depravity is also 
 here taught, [i. e. in Rom. v. 12 — 21,] where the 
 Apostle says, by one man sin entered into the 
 world; having a plain respect (as hath been 
 shown) to that universal corruption and wicked- 
 ness, as well as guilt, which he had before largely 
 treated of." Is original sin to be given up ; or so 
 modified as to become an entirely different doc- 
 trine ? 
 
 Dr. Beecher — " The reformers with one ac- 
 cord, taught that the sin of Adam was imputed to 
 all his posterity, and that a corrupt nature descends 
 from him to every one of his posterity, in conse- 
 quence of which infants are unholy, unfit for 
 heaven, and justly exposed to future punishment. 
 Their opinion seems to have been, that the very 
 substance or essence of the soul was depraved, 
 and that the moral contamination extended alike 
 to all its powers and faculties, insomuch that sin 
 became a property of every man's nature, and 
 was propagated as really as flesh and blood." . . 
 
Views of Dr. Beecker. 61 
 
 " Our Puritan fathers adhered to the doctrine of 
 original sin, as consisting in the imputation of 
 Adam's sin, and in a hereditary depravity ; and 
 this continued to be the received doctrine of the 
 churches of New England until after the time of 
 Edwards. He adopted the views of the reform- 
 ers on the subject of original sin, as consisting in 
 the imputation of Adam's sin, and a depraved na- 
 ture, transmitted by descent. But after him this 
 mode of stating the subject was gradually chan- 
 ged, until long since, the prevailing doctrine in 
 New England has been, that men are not guilty 
 of AdairHs sin, and that depravity is not of the 
 substance of the soul, nor an inherent or physical 
 quality, but is wholly voluntary, and consists in a 
 transgression of the law, in such circumstances 
 as constitute accountability and desert of punish- 
 ment." Dr. Beecher's controversy with the edi- 
 tor of the Christian Examiner in the Spirit of the 
 Pilgrims, in 1828, as quoted in the Biblical Re- 
 pertory.* 
 
 * Since writing this chapter, I have seen the number of the 
 Spirit of the Pilgrims, in which the above is found, with Dr. 
 Beecher's own signature. In his " Views in Theology," he ap- 
 pears to speak a different language — language not easily recon- 
 ciled with the above quotation. But as he does not profess to 
 have changed his sentiments, the preceding must be regarded 
 as expressing his opinions, 
 
 P 
 
62 Depravity — Views of Dr. BeecJier. 
 
 Querist — Am I to understand by these re- 
 marks, that the doctrine of a sinful or corrupt 
 nature, has been abandoned ? 
 
 Dr. Beecher — " Neither a holy nor a depraved 
 nature are possible without understanding, con- 
 science and choice. To say of an accountable 
 creature, that he is depraved by nature, is only 
 to say that rendered capable by his Maker of 
 obedience, he disobeys from the commencement 
 of his accountability." .... "A depraved nature 
 can no more exist without voluntaiy agency and 
 accountability, than a material nature can exist 
 without solidity and extension." .... "If, there- 
 fore, man is depraved by nature, it is a voluntary 
 and accountable nature which is depraved, exer- 
 cised in disobedience to the law of God." . . " Na- 
 tive depravity, then, is a state of the affections, in 
 a voluntary accountable creature, at variance 
 with divine requirement, from the beginning of 
 accountability." Sermon on the Native Charac- 
 ter of Man. 
 
 Mr. Finney — " All depravity [is] voluntaiy — 
 consisting in voluntary transgression. [It is] the 
 sinner's own act. Something of his own crea- 
 tion. That over which he has a perfect control, 
 and for which he is entirely responsible. O ! the 
 darkness and confusion, and utter nonsense of 
 that view of depravity which exhibits it, as some- 
 thing lying back, and the cause of all actual 
 
Views of Mr. Finney vnd Duffield. 63 
 
 transgression." Sermons on Important Subjects, 
 p. 139. 
 
 Querist — Does all sin, then, consist in acts ? 
 
 Prof. Fitch — " Sin, in every form and instance, 
 is reducible to the act of a moral agent, in which 
 he violates a known rule of duty." Discourses 
 on the Nature of Sin. 
 
 Querist — By parity of reasoning, all holiness 
 must likewise consist in acts. 
 
 Mr. Finney — " All holiness in God, angels, or 
 man, must be voluntary or it is not holiness." . . . 
 " When Adam was first created, and awoke into 
 being, before he had obeyed or disobeyed his 
 Maker, he could have had no moral character at 
 all : he had exercised no affections, no desires, 
 nor put forth any actions. In this state he was 
 a complete moral agent ; and in this respect in 
 the image of his Maker: but as yet he could 
 have had no moral character ; for moral charac- 
 ter can not be a subject of creation, but attaches 
 to voluntary actions." Sermons on Important 
 Subjects, pp. 7, 10, 11. 
 
 Querist — If these views are correct, what must 
 be said concerning infants? Are they neither 
 sinful nor holy ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield — " It is a question alike pertinent 
 and important whether in the incipient period of 
 infancy and childhood there can be any moral 
 character whatever possessed. Moral character. 
 
64 Character of Infants, 
 
 is character acquired by acts of a moral nature^ 
 Moral acts are those acts which are contempla- 
 ted by the law, prescribing the rule of human 
 conduct." .... " It is obvious that in infancy and 
 incipient childhood, when none of the actions are 
 deliberate, or the result of motive, operating in 
 connection with the knowledge of law, and of the 
 great end of all human actions, no moral charac- 
 ter can appropriately be predicated." ..." Prop- 
 erly speaking, therefore, we can predicate of it 
 neither sin nor holiness, personally considered.'^ 
 Duffield on Regeneration, pp. 377, 378, 379. 
 
 Querist — Was not Jesus Christ holy from his 
 birth? 
 
 Mr. DuffieM — "Things inanimate have in 
 scriptural parlance, sometimes, been called holy. 
 as the inmost chamber of the temple was called 
 the holy of holies ; but then it was because of 
 some especial and pecuhar relationship which it 
 had to God. He dwelt in it. It was set apart 
 as pre-eminently and exclusively appropriate to 
 God. In this sense the yet unconscious human 
 nature of Christ may be denominated holy, for it 
 was the habitation of God, and singularly and 
 exclusively appropriate to him, differing in this 
 respect essentially and entu-ely from that of any 
 of the descendants of Adam." Duffield on Re- 
 generation, p. 353. 
 
Views of Duffield and Goodrich. 65 
 
 Querist — If infants are not sinful before they 
 arrive at moral agency, and have no legal or 
 covenant connection v^^ith Adam as their repre- 
 sentative, hovf can you account for their death ? 
 
 Mr. Duffield — " There is no manner of neces- 
 sity, in order to account for the death of infants, 
 to suppose that the sin of Adam became their 
 personal sin, either in respect of its act, or its ill 
 desert. Their death eventuates according to that 
 law of dependence, which marks the whole gov- 
 ernment of God in this world, by virtue of which 
 the consequences of the act of one man terminates 
 oft-times on the person of another, when there is 
 not the union of representation." Work on Re- 
 generation, p. 389. 
 
 Prof. Goodrich, of New-Haven — " Infants die. 
 The answer has been given a thousand times ; 
 brutes die also. But, . . . . " animals are not 
 subjects of the moral government of God." Neith- 
 er are infants previous to moral agenc}^ ; for what 
 has moral government to do with those who are 
 
 not moral agents ?" " Animals and infants, 
 
 previous to moral agency do, therefore, stand on 
 precisely the same ground in reference to this 
 subject. Suffering and death afford no more ev- 
 idence of sin in the one case than in the other." 
 Christian Spectator, 1829, p. 373-— attributed to 
 Prof. Goodrich. 
 
66 How Depravity eommencesr 
 
 Querist — If infants do not possess a corrupt 
 nature, please to inform me by what process they 
 become sinful — and how it happens that not one 
 of the human family born in the ordinary way 
 has ever escaped this catastrophe. 
 
 Prof. Goodrich — " A child enters the world 
 with a variety of appetites and desires, which are 
 generally acknowledged to be neither sinful nor 
 holy. Committed in a state of utter helplessness^ 
 to the assiduity of parental fondness, it com- 
 mences existence, the object of unceasing care^ 
 watchfulness and concession to those around him. 
 Under such circumstances it is that the natural 
 appetites are first developed, and each advancing 
 month brings them new objects of gratification. 
 The obvious consequence is, that self indulgence 
 becomes the master principle in the soul of every 
 child, long before it can understand that this self 
 indulgence will interfere with the rights or in- 
 trench on the happiness of others. Thus, by re- 
 petition, is the force of constitutional propensities 
 accumulating a bias towards self-gratification, 
 which becomes incredibly strong before a knowl- 
 edge of duty or a sense of right and WTong can 
 possibly have entered the mind. That moment — 
 the commencement of moral agency, at length 
 
 arrives." " Why then is it so necessary to 
 
 suppose some distinct evil propensity — some 
 fountain of iniquity in the breast of the child pre- 
 
Vieics of Goodrich and Duffield. 67 
 
 vious to moral action ?" " But let us look 
 
 at facts. Angels sinned. Was the cause which 
 led to their first act of rebellion, in itself sinful ? 
 Eve was tempted and fell. Was her natural ap- 
 petite for food, or her desire for knowiedge — to 
 which the temptation was addressed — a sinful 
 feelhig ? And why may not our constitutional 
 propensities now, lead to the same result at the 
 commencement of moral agency, as was actually 
 exhibited in fallen angels and our first parents, 
 even w^hen advanced in holiness ?"...." Did not 
 vehement desire produce sin in Adam's first act 
 of transgression ? Was there any previous prin- 
 ciple of depravity in him ? Why then may not 
 strong constitutional desires be followed now by 
 a choice of their objects as well as in the case of 
 Adam ?" Ch. Spec. 1829, p. 366, 367, 368. 
 
 Mr. Duffield — The infant " is placed in a rebel- 
 lious world, subject to the influence of ignorance, 
 with very limited and imperfect experience, and li- 
 able to the strong impulses of appetite and passion." 
 " Instinct, animal sensation, constitutional sus- 
 ceptibilities create an impulse, which not being 
 counteracted by moral considerations or gracious 
 influence, lead the will in a wrong direction and to 
 wrong objects. It was thus that sin was induced in 
 our holy progenitors. No one can plead in Eve 
 an efficient cause of sin resident in her nature (any 
 pi^ava vis) or operative power, sinful in itself, an- 
 
68 How Depravity commencesi 
 
 terior to and apart from her own voluntary acts. 
 And if she was led into sin though characteris- 
 tically holy, and destitute of any innate propensi- 
 ty to sin, where is the necessity for supposing that 
 the sins of her progeny are to be referred to such 
 a cause ?" " Temptation alone is suffi- 
 cient under present circumstances." Work on 
 Regeneration, p, 310, 379, 380. 
 
 Mr. Finney — "If it be asked how it happens 
 that children universally adopt the principle of sel- 
 fishness, unless their nature is sinful ? I answer, that 
 they adopt the principle of self-gratification or sel- 
 fishness, because they possess human nature, and 
 come into being under the peculiar circumstances 
 in which all the children of Adam are born since 
 the fall ; but not because human nature is itself 
 sinful. The cause of their becoming sinners is to 
 be found in their nature's being what it is, and 
 surrounded by the peculiar circumstances of temp- 
 tation to which they are exposed in a world of 
 sinners." " Adam was created in the per- 
 fection of manhood, certainly not with a sinful na- 
 ture, and yet an appeal to his innocent, constitu- 
 tional appetites led him into sin. If adult Adam, 
 without a sinful nature, and after a season of 
 obedience and perfect holiness, was led to 
 change his mind by an appeal to his innocent, 
 constitutional propensities, how can the fact that 
 infants possessing the same nature with Adam, 
 
Vieivs of Finney and Taylor. 69 
 
 and surrounded by circumstances of still greater 
 temptation, universally fall into sin, prove that 
 their nature is itself siniul 1 Is such an inference 
 called for ? Is it legitimate ? What, holy and 
 adult Adam is led, by an appeal to his innocent 
 constitution, to adopt the principle of selfishness, 
 and no suspicion is or can be entertained, that he 
 had a sinful nature ; but if little children under 
 circumstances of temptation, aggravated by the 
 fall, are led into sin, we are to believe that their 
 nature is sinful ! This is wonderful philosophy !" 
 Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 157. 
 
 Dr. Taylor — " If no being can sin without a 
 constitutional propensity to sin, how came Adam 
 to sin ? If one being, as Adam, can sin, and did 
 in fact sin, without such a propensity to sin, why 
 may not others ?" Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. 6, 
 p. 13, as quoted by Dow. 
 
 Querist — Do you accord, Dr. Taylor, with the 
 sentiment just expressed by Mr. Finney, that " in- 
 fants possess the same nature with AdaivH" at his 
 creation ? 
 
 Dr. Taylor — "Mankind come into the world 
 with the same nature in hind as that with which 
 Adam was created." Ibid. vol. 6, p. 5. 
 
 Querist — ^What influence then has the fall ex- 
 erted on the posterity of Adam ? 
 
 Dr. Taylor — " I answer, that it may have been 
 to change their nature, not in hind, but degree." 
 Ibid, vol 6, p. 12. 
 
70 AdarrCs Nature like ours. 
 
 Querist — On the supposition that the nature of 
 Adam and that of his posterity were alike in kind, 
 why did not he sin, as soon as he commenced his 
 moral existence ? 
 
 Dr. Taylor — " I answer, that the reason may 
 have been, that his nature differed, not in kind, 
 but in degree from that of his posterity." Ibid. 
 
 Querist — On this principle, in what respect did 
 the human nature of Christ differ from that of 
 other children ? — and if he possessed in his human 
 nature, what other children possess, why did he 
 not exhibit the same moral character ? 
 
 Dr. Taylor — " I might answer as before, that 
 his human nature may have differed from that of 
 other children not in kind, but degree.^' Ibid. 
 
 We have given the preceding quotations at 
 considerable length, that those readers who may 
 not have attended to the controversy, may per- 
 ceive from their own statements, its various bear- 
 ings and tendencies ; and how far those have 
 gone who have been bold enough to follow out 
 their principles to their legitimate and full results. 
 We do not attribute to all whose names we have 
 introduced, every sentiment which has been ad- 
 vanced by some of them — but it cannot fail, we 
 think, to strike the mind of the reader that there 
 is such an affinity between the several parts of 
 the series, that the man who adopts one of the 
 doctrines in this category, will be in great dan- 
 
Views of Dr. Taylor. 71 
 
 ger of ultimately embracing the whole. They all 
 belong to the same system ; and ought therefore 
 to be introduced in stating the distinguishing fea- 
 tures of the New Theology ; though many who 
 adhere to the system in part, do not go to the ne 
 plus ultra of the scheme, as it is here exhibited. 
 
CHAP, IV. 
 
 Remarks on imputation, original sin, &c. with reference to tiie 
 views presented in the preceding chapter. 
 
 The controversy respecting our connection with 
 Adam, and the influence produced upon us by 
 the fall, commenced early in the fifth century ; 
 when Pelagius, a British monk, published opinions 
 at variance with the common doctrines of the 
 church. He and his followers entertained sub- 
 stantially the same views which have been ex- 
 hibited in the preceding chapter ; though they 
 adopted a method somewhat different to account 
 for the commission of sin by little children, and 
 Went farther in their views concerning the influ- 
 ence of Adam's sin upon his descendants. They 
 maintained that " the sin of Adam injured himself 
 alone, and did not affect his posterity ;" and that 
 we sin only by " imitation." But their sentiments 
 concerning the nature of sin, original sin, and im- 
 putation, were the same with those which distin- 
 guish the New Theology. 
 
 Concerning the first, Pelagius says, " And here 
 in my qpinion the first inquiry ought to be, JVhat 
 is sin ? Is it a substance, or is it a mere name 
 devoid of substance ; not a thing, not an exist- 
 ence, not a body, nor any thing else (which has 
 
Views of Pelagius. 73 
 
 a separate existence) but an act ; and if this 
 is its nature, as I believe it is, how could that 
 which is devoid of substance debilitate or change 
 
 human nature ?" " Every thing, good or evil, 
 
 praiseworthy or censurable, which we possess, did 
 not originate with us, hut is done hy us ; for we 
 are born capable both of good and evil, but in 
 possession of these qualities ; for in our birth we 
 are equally destitute of virtue and vice ; and pre- 
 viously to moral agency, there is nothing m man 
 but that which God created in him.'' Biblical 
 Repertory. 
 
 This question concerning the nature of sin was 
 regarded as decisive concerning the other two ; 
 and it w^as introduced by Pelagius with that view. 
 Says he, " It is disputed concerning this, whether 
 our nature is debilitated and deteriorated hy sin. 
 And here, in my opinion, the first inquiry ought 
 to be icJiat is sin V &c. So it is regarded at the 
 present time. Says Mr. Finney, " In order to ad- 
 mit the sinfulness of nature^ we must believe sin 
 to consist in the substance of the constitution, in- 
 stead of voluntary action^ which is a thing impos- 
 sible." Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 158. 
 Mr. Duffield, after stating several things which 
 he supposes may be meant by the phrase original 
 sin, gives as the views of the Westminster divines, 
 that it denotes " something which has the pov/er 
 to originate sin, and which is necessarily in- 
 
 6 
 
74 Nature of Sin. 
 
 volved in our very being, from the first moment 
 of its origination." This he intimates was intend- 
 ed by the expression in our catechism, " the cor- 
 injption of our whole nature." He then says (af- 
 ter some preliminaries) " It is strange that ever it 
 should have been made a question, whether sin 
 may be predicated of being or simple existence, 
 since sin is undeniably an act of a moral character, 
 and therefore can only be committed by one who 
 is possessed of moral powers, i. e. one who is 
 capable of acting according as the law requires 
 or proliibits." ....." Holiness, or sin which is its 
 opposite, has a direct and immediate reference to 
 those voluntary acts and exercises, which the law 
 is designed to secure, or prevent." , . . . " How. 
 very absurd, therefore, is it to predicate sin of 
 that which does not fall under cognizance of law 
 at all r Though he uses the phrase "being or 
 simple existence," as that concerning which it is 
 absurd to predicate sin, he refers unquestionably 
 to the expression in the catechism which he had 
 just quoted, and upon which he w^as remarking, 
 viz. " the corruption of our whole nature." It is 
 absurd therefore,' according to him, to speak of 
 our having a corrupt nature, since, as he main- 
 tains, all sin consists in voluntary acts of a moral 
 agent, in violation of a known law. Hence the 
 imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, and 
 original sin, are rejected as unphilosophical and 
 absurd. 
 
Vietos of PelagiuSy S(^. 75 
 
 Says Pelagius, " When it is declared that all 
 have sinned in Adam, it should not be understood 
 of any original sin contracted hy their birth, but of 
 imitation." . . . . " How can a man be considered 
 guilty by God of that sin which he knows not to 
 be his own ? for if it is necessary, it is not his own ; 
 but if it is his own, it is voluntary ; and if voluntary, 
 it can be avoided." 
 
 Julian, one of the disciples of Pelagius, says, 
 " Whoever is accused of a crime, the charge is 
 made against his conduct, and not against his 
 birth.'' . . . . " Therefore we conclude that the 
 triune God should be adored as most just ; and it 
 has been made to appear most irrefragably, that 
 the sin of another never can be imputed by him to 
 little children.^^ . . . . " Hence that is evident which 
 we defend as most reasonable, that no one is 
 born in sin, and that God never judges men to be 
 
 guilty on account of their birth." " Children, 
 
 inasmuch as they are children, never can be 
 guilty, until they have dome something by their 
 own proper will." Biblical Repertory. 
 
 How striking is the resemblance between these 
 views and the following remarks of Mr. Barnes : 
 "When Paul," says he, " states a simple /acf, men 
 often advance a theory. ... A melancholy instance 
 of this we have m the account which the apostle 
 gives, (ch. 5,) about the effect of the sin of Adam. 
 .... They have sought for a theory to account 
 
76 Pelagianism condemned, 
 
 for it. And many suppose they have found it in 
 the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or 
 set over by an arbitrary arrangement to beings 
 otherwise innocent, and that they are held to be 
 responsible for a deed committed by a man thou- 
 sands of years before they were born. This i^ 
 the theory ; and men insensibly forget that it is 
 mere theory.^^ . ..." I understand it, therefore, 
 [Rom. 5, 12,] as referring to the fact that men sin 
 in their own persons, sin in themselves — as indeed 
 hov^ can they sin in any other way ?" Notes on 
 theRomans, p. 10, 117. 
 
 We admit that this coincidence between the 
 new school doctrines and Pelagianism, does not 
 afford certain proof of their being untrue. It is 
 however a strong presumptive evidence, since Pe- 
 lagianism has been rejected as heretical by every 
 evangehcal church in Christendom. 
 
 Coelestius, a disciple of Pelagius, is said to have 
 been more zesdous and successful in the propaga- 
 tion of these errors than his master. Hence, in 
 early times, they were perhaps associated with 
 his name, more than with that of Pelagius. 
 Among other councils who condemned his heresy, 
 was the council of Ephesus, A. D. 431 ; who " de- 
 nominated it the wicked doctrine of CcBlestius.'" 
 Biblical Repertory. 
 
 In a number of the Confessions of Faith adop- 
 ted by different churches after the Reformatk«>> 
 
Doctrine of our Standards. 77 
 
 Pelagianism is mentioned by name. Thus, in one 
 of the Articles of the Episcopal Church, it is said, 
 " Original sin standeth not in the following of ^^Z- 
 am (as the Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the 
 fault and corruption of the nature of every man, 
 that naturally is engendered of the offspring of J.(i- 
 am^ whereby man is very far gone from original 
 righteousness, and is of his own nature inclir^ed to 
 evil." 
 
 Though in the Westminister Confession, this 
 heresy is not expressly named, there can be no 
 doubt that the framers intended to reject and con- 
 demn it. Compare the preceding doctrines of Pe- 
 lagius and his followers with our quotations from 
 the Confession of Faith in chap. 3d ; also the fol- 
 lowing from the larger catechism : " The sinful- 
 ness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth 
 in the guilt o^ Adam's first sin, the want of that 
 righteousness wherein he w^as created, and the 
 corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly in- 
 disposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that 
 is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, 
 and that continually : w^hich is commonly called 
 
 Sis' 
 
 original sin, and from which do proceed all ac- 
 tual transgressions." 
 
 We have said that the denial of the doctrine of 
 imputation and origial sin, arises in part from the 
 adoption of the theory that all sin consists in acts. 
 
78 All sin does not consist in acts. 
 
 Upon this point, therefore, it will be pertinent to 
 make a few remarks. 
 
 1. Holiness and sin are predicated of the /^ear?. 
 Thus the Bible speaks of an honest and good 
 heart, a broken heart, a clean heart, an evil heart, 
 a hard heart, &c. which convey the idea that there 
 is something in man of a moral character, prior to 
 his acts — something which forms the basis from 
 which his good and evil actions proceed ; and 
 which determines the character of those actions. 
 Hence holiness and sin do not consist wholly in 
 acts, but belong to our nature. 
 
 2. We are said to be conceived and born in 
 sin — and if so, we must be sinful by nature ; for 
 we have not then put forth any moral acts. 
 
 3. We are declared to be by nature the chil- 
 dren of wrath — and if children of wrath by nature,, 
 then we must be hy nature, sinners, for sin alone 
 exposes to wrath. All sin therefore cannot con- 
 sist in acts. 
 
 4. Adam was created in the image of God — 
 which, according to our standards, consisted in 
 " knowledge, righteousness, and holiness." By the 
 fall this image was lost. In regard to spiritual 
 things we became ignorant. " The natural man 
 discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God," 
 &c. Our moral characters became corrupt and 
 wicked. In other words, we forfeited our original 
 righteousness and became prone to evil. By re- 
 
Image of God. 79 
 
 generation this image is restored. Col. iii. 10 : 
 " And have put on the new man which is renewed 
 in knowledge after the image of Him that created 
 him." Eph iv. 24 : " And that ye put on the new 
 man, which after God is created in righteousness 
 and true holiness^ These texts are decisive as 
 to what the image of God consisted in, viz. 
 "knowledge, righteousness and true hohness." 
 Yet in this image man was created ; and of course 
 possessed it before he put forth moral acts. Con- 
 sequently all holiness and sin do not consist in 
 acts, but may be predicated of our nature. 
 
 The manner in which this argument has been 
 disposed of, is truly singular. On the principle 
 that all holiness consists in acts, it cannot be cre- 
 ated. This the advocates of the New Theology 
 admit. Since then, Adam was created in the im- 
 age of God, a new theory must be devised as to 
 what that image was. In this, however, there is 
 not a perfect agreement. According to Mr. Fin- 
 ney, it consisted in moral agency. " In this state, 
 says he, [i. e. when Adam w^as first created,] he 
 was a complete moral agent, and in this respect in 
 the image of his Maker. ^' Sermons on Important 
 Subjects, p. 1 1. Mr. Duffield makes it consist prin- 
 cipally in some imaginary resemblance to the 
 Trinity. " There is, however," says he, " one im- 
 portant respect in which this resemblance in man 
 to God may be seen, which, indeed, is generally 
 
80 Image of God, 
 
 overlooked, but which we are disposed to think 
 is of principal consequence. It is not one person 
 of the Godhead only who is represented as speak- 
 ing at the formation of man, but the whole three. 
 Jehovah, the ever blessed Th7^ee in One, said, "Let 
 us make man in our image" — not in the image of 
 any one person, nor of each distinctly, but of all 
 conjointly. Plow admirably are the distinct per- 
 sonality and essential unity of the Godhead rep- 
 resented or imaged in man possessing three dis- 
 tinct kinds of hfe, and yet constituting but one 
 moral being. In him are united the vegetable, the 
 animal, and the moral or spiritual life, each hav- 
 ing and preserving its distinct character, but all 
 combined in one responsible individual." — Work 
 on Regeneration, p. 143. 
 
 What a pity it is that the Apostle Paul had not 
 become acquainted with this new theory concern- 
 ing the nature of sin and holiness ! He would not 
 then have committed such a mistake in describing 
 the image of God in which man was created, and 
 to which we are restored by divine grace ! 
 
 5. It will be perceived by the preceding re- 
 marks, that this doctrine involves also a new the- 
 ory of regeneration. This is not denied — and 
 hence the sentiments which have long prevailed 
 on this subject are rejected, and the notion of 
 gradual regeneration by moral suasion, is substi- 
 tuted in their place. But as we intend to exhibit 
 
Future state of Infants. 81 
 
 this feature of the New Theology more at length 
 in a subsequent chapter, we will not dwell upon it 
 here. 
 
 6. This doctrine places those who die in in- 
 fancy in a most unenviable position. If all sin 
 and holiness consist in the voluntary acts of a mor- 
 al agent, infants, before arriving at moral agency, 
 have no moral character ; but stand in respect to 
 moral government, on the same level with brute 
 animals. This is the new school doctrine. Since 
 therefore, thousands die in infancy, w^here do they 
 go ? If they have no moral character, the bless- 
 ings of the gospel are no more adapted to them, 
 than to the brutes. Hence if they die before they 
 become moral agents, they must either be anni- 
 hilated, or spend an eternity in some unknown and 
 inconceivable state of existence — neither in Hea- 
 ven nor hell, but possibly between the two — in 
 some limbus infantum, similar, perhaps, to that of 
 the papists ; yet with this advantage in favor of 
 the latter, that their infants, possessing moral char- 
 acter, may be renewed and saved. What a com- 
 fortless doctrine must this be to parents, v/hen 
 weeping by the cradle of expiring infancy !* 
 
 * The manner in which the advocates of the ^ew Theology 
 attempt to relieve themselves from this difficulty, is the follow, 
 ing, viz. that the atonement places those who die in infancy in 
 ^uch rArcumslances in the next world, as to result in their be- 
 
82 Salvation of Infants. 
 
 7. The death of infants affords strong proof of 
 the doctrine of imputation and original sin. If 
 there is no legal connection between us and 
 Adam, if his sin is 7iot imputed to us, and we are 
 not horn w^ith a corrupt nature ; where is the 
 justice of inflicting upon infants who have never 
 committed actual transgression, a part of the pen- 
 alty threatened upon Adam for his disobedience ? 
 
 8. The doctrine of imputation affords the only 
 evidence we can have that those dying in infancy 
 are saved. If Adam's sin was not imputed to 
 them to their condemnation, how can the right- 
 eousness of Christ be imputed to them for their 
 justification ? Christ came to " seek and save 
 that which was lost" — " to save sinners" — he 
 saves no others. If, therefore, they w^ere not 
 lost in Adam — if they were not made sinners by 
 his sin — Christ did not come to save them. But 
 he did come to save such. Says he, " Suffer little 
 children to come unto me and forbid them not, 
 for of such is the kingdom of Heaven." They 
 are therefore sinners — and as they lost their orig- 
 inal righteousness through the first Adam, the 
 foundation was laid for their restoration and sal- 
 
 coming holy at the commencement of moral agency. But this 
 supposition has no foundation in Scripture. Christ is never 
 represented as entering our world to prevent men from beoom. 
 ing sinners, but to save those who were sinners already. 
 
Gospel Plan of Salvation. 83 
 
 vation through the second. On any other prin- 
 ciple there would be no hope in their case. But 
 here is ground for consolation. In the language 
 of Dr. Watts, 
 
 " A thousand' new-born babes are dead, 
 
 " By fatal union to their head : 
 
 "Hut whilst our spirits, fiU'd with awe, 
 
 "Behold the terrors of thy law, 
 
 " We sing the honors of thy grace, 
 
 " That sent to save our ruin'd race : ' 
 
 " Adam the second, from the dust 
 
 " Raises the ruins of the first." • ' 
 
 9. The doctrine of imputation is essential to a 
 correct view of the plan of salvation. As Prof. 
 Hodgp has well expressed it : " The denial of 
 this doctrine involves also the denial of the scrip- 
 tural view of the atonement and justification. It 
 is essential to the scriptural form of these doc- 
 trines that the idea of legal substitution should be 
 retained. Christ bore our sins ; our iniquities were 
 laid upon him ; \vhich, according tothe true mean- 
 ing of scripture language, can only signify, that he 
 bore the punishment of those sins ; not the same 
 evils indeed either in kind or degree ; but still 
 penal, because judicially inflicted for the support 
 of law. . . . This idea of legal substitution enters 
 also into the scriptural view of justification. In 
 justification, according to Paul's language, God 
 imputes righteouness to the ungodly. This right- 
 eousness is not their own ; but they are regarded 
 
84 Gospel Plan of Salvation. 
 
 and treated as righteous on account of the obedi- 
 ence of Christ. That is, his righteousness is so 
 laid to their account or imputed to them that they 
 are regarded and treated as if it were their ov/n, 
 or as if they had kept the law." Commentary 
 on the Romans, p, 127^ 128. The connection of 
 imputation with the work of Christ, gives to this 
 doctrine its chief importance. The same princi- 
 ple is applied in the Bible both to Adam and 
 Christ. If, therefore, we deny our legal connex- 
 ion with Adam, and the imputation of his first sin 
 to his posterity, we must necessarily adopt views 
 concerning the method of salvation by Jesus 
 Christ, materially different from those above given. 
 On the supposition that the principle of repre- 
 sentation is inadmissible in the case of Adam, it 
 must be equally so in reference to Christ. If we 
 cannot be condemned in law by the disobedience 
 of the one, we cannot be justified by the obedi- 
 ence of the othero A blow is thus struck at the 
 foundation of our hope ;— a blow, which, if it. de- 
 stroys our connexion v/ith Adam, destroys also 
 our connexion with Christ, and our title to 
 heaven. 
 
 Says Owen, " By some the imputation of the 
 actual apostacy and transgression of Adam, the 
 head of cur nature, whereby our sin became the 
 sin of the world, is utterly denied. Hereby both 
 the ground the apostle proceedeth on, in evincing 
 the necessity of our justification or our being 
 
Remarks of Dr. Owen. 85 
 
 nlade righteous by the obedience of another, 
 and all the arguments brought in confirmation of 
 the doctrine of it, in the 5th chapter of his epistle 
 to the Romans, are evaded and overthrown. So- 
 cinus confesseth that place to give great counte- 
 nance unto the doctrine of justification by the im- 
 putation of the righteousness of Christ ; and 
 therefore he sets himself to oppose v^ith sundry 
 artifices, the imputation of the sin of Adam, unto 
 his natural posterity. For he perceived well 
 enough that upon the admission thereof, the im- 
 putation of the righteousness of Christ unto his 
 spiritual seed, would unavoidably follow according 
 unto the tenor of the apostle's discourse." .... 
 " Some deny the depravation and corruption of 
 our nature, which ensued on our apostacy from 
 God, and the loss of his image. Or if they do 
 not absolutely deny it, yet they so extenuate it 
 as to render it a matter of no great concern unto 
 us." .... " That deformity of soul which came 
 upon us in the loss of the image of God, wherein 
 the beauty and harmony of all our faculties, in all 
 their actings, in order unto their utmost end, did 
 consist ; that enmity unto God, even in the mind 
 which ensued thereon ; that darkness with which 
 our understandings were clouded, yea, blinded 
 withal ; the spiritual death which passed on the 
 whole soul, and total alienation from the life of 
 God ; that impotency unto good, that inclination 
 
 H 
 
86 Imputation and Original Sin. 
 
 unto evil, that deceitfulness of sin, that power and 
 efficacy of corrupt lusts, which the scriptures and 
 experience so fully charge on the state of lost 
 nature, are rejected as empty notions or fables= 
 No w^onder if such persons look upon imputed 
 righteousness as tlie shadow of a dream, who es- 
 teem those things w^hich evidence its necessity to 
 be but fond imaginations. And small hope is there 
 to bring such men to value the righteousness of 
 Christ, as imputed to them, who are so unac- 
 quainted with their own unrighteousness inherent 
 in them." 
 
 10. The scripture proofs relied upon to estab- 
 lish the doctrine of imputation and original sin, 
 are such as the following. John iii. 3, 6 ; " Ex- 
 cept a man be born again he cannot see the 
 kingdom of God. That which is bom of the 
 flesh is flesh, and that wdiich is born of the Spirit 
 is spirit." Here our first or natural birth is con- 
 trasted with our second or spiritual birth. If at 
 the first we are unfit for the kingdom of heaven, 
 and are qualified only by the second, then it is 
 clear we are horn sinners. 
 
 Rom. V. 12 — 21, " As by one man sin enter- 
 ed into the world and death by sin, so death pass- 
 ed upon all men, for that all have sinned," &c. 
 We have already quoted some remarks on this 
 passage from President Edwards, in the last 
 chapter, to which we refer the reader. The 
 quotation commences as follows : " The doc- 
 
Scripture Proofs, 87 
 
 trine of the corruption of natu7'e, derived from 
 Adam, and also the imjmtation of his first sin, are 
 both clearly taught in it," &c. The phrases " for 
 that, or in whom all have sinned,'^ " through the 
 offence of one many be dead" " the judgment w^as 
 by one to condemnation" " by one man's offence, 
 death reigned by one," " by one man's disobedi- 
 ence many were ijiade sinners," and other similar 
 ones, contain so exact a description of the doctrine, 
 that the proof which they furnish would not be 
 more conlcusive, if the very words impute and ori- 
 ginal sin had been introduced. 
 
 Rom. vii. 18 — 23. "For I know that in me 
 (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing ; for 
 to will is present with me ; but how to perform 
 that which is good, I find not," &c. This strug- 
 gle between the old and new man, between in- 
 dwelling sin and the principle of grace, affords 
 strong evidence of the natural propensity of man 
 to sin. 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 22. " For as in Adam all die, even 
 so in Christ shall all be made alive." By simply 
 reversing the order of the passage, its relevancy 
 to our present purpose will be manifest. As all 
 who shall be made alive will enjoy this blessing 
 by virtue of their connexion with Christ as their 
 covenant head ; so all who die, experience this 
 calamity in consequence of a similar connexion 
 with Adam ; who " being the root of all mankind, 
 
88 Imputation and Original Sin. 
 
 the guilt of [his first sin] was imputed, and the 
 same death in sin and corrupted nature, convey- 
 ed to all his posterity, descending from him by 
 ordinary generation." 
 
 Eph. ii. 3. " And were by nature the children 
 of wTath, even as others." This has been gene- 
 rally understood both by ancient and modern 
 commentators as teaching the doctrine that we 
 are born in a state of sin and condemnation. If 
 we are children of wrath by nature, we must 
 have been horn in that condition ; and if born 
 children of wrath, we must have been born in sin. 
 
 In the Old Testament, the following among 
 others may be referred to : Gen. vi. 5. " And 
 God saw that the wickedness of man was great 
 in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts 
 of his heart was only evil continually." This is 
 descriptive not of one man only, but of the race ; 
 and how can this universal corruption be ac- 
 counted for except on the principle of original 
 sin ? Job xiv. 4. " Who can bring a clean thing 
 out of an unclean ? not one." If, then, parents 
 are " unclean," if they are universally sinful, chil^ 
 dren inherit from them the same character. Ps. 
 Ii. 5. " Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in 
 sin did my mother conceive me." This is an ex- 
 press declaration that the Psalmist was conceived 
 in sin ; and if it was true of him, it is true of all 
 others. These three passages taken in connex- 
 
Proofs and Remarks. 89 
 
 ion form a complete syllogism in support of this 
 doctrine. If the first of them is applicable to all 
 mankind, as appears from the similarity of that 
 description, and those given by David and Paul ; 
 and if the two latter exhibit the fountain from 
 which the evil imaginations of the heart take their 
 rise, as they appear clearly to indicate ; then all 
 men possess a depraved and sinful nature, inher- 
 ited from their parents. 
 
 As the chief object of the present volume is to 
 exhibit the difference between the Old and New 
 Theology, we have not thought it expedient to 
 enter largely upon the proofs in favor of the form- 
 er. But what has been adduced is sufficient, we 
 think, to shew the truth of the Old system, in op- 
 position to the New, and to serve as a kind of in- 
 dex to a more minute and extensive examination 
 of the subject. 
 
 Before closing the chapter we will make a few 
 remarks on the charge of injustice which is 
 brought against the views entertained by the Old 
 School divines with regard to this subject. We 
 believe it to be wholly unfounded ; but against 
 the opposite theory, it might be made to lie with 
 great force. Does any one pronounce it unjust 
 for a man to be held liable for a debt contracted 
 by one of his ancestors, provided in becoming his 
 heir, that was made one of the legal conditions 
 by which he should inherit his estate ? But sup- 
 
90 Our connexion with Adam, 
 
 pose he had no legal connexion with him at all,, 
 but simply the relation of natural descent — 
 which, according to the New School doctrine, is 
 our only connexion with Adam — where would 
 be tlie justice in holding him responsible for the 
 payment of his ancestor's debts ? He sustains ta 
 him, remember, no legal connection, but is held 
 responsible, merely because he is his descendant. 
 Is this just ? — Since then all are obliged to admit 
 that we suffer evils in consequence of Adam's 
 sin, why not adopt the scripture doctrine, that be- 
 ing included with him in the covenant of worksy 
 we became legally involved in the ruin brought 
 upon the world by his sin ? This covenant or 
 legal connection, renders it just that we should 
 inherit these calamities — but on any other princi- 
 ple their infliction upon us can not be easily ex- 
 plained, without bearing painfully upon the justice 
 ©f God's dispensations. 
 
 Such is the organization of human govern- 
 ments, that we are usually connected in law with 
 those from whom, we have descended — and there- 
 is a fitness and propriety in this arrangements 
 Hence, unless special provision is made to the- 
 contrary, the natural descendant becomes the 
 legal heir. Such also is the Divine economy with 
 regard to man. The appointment of Adam as 
 our federal head was not altogether arbitrary, as 
 it would have been, had he been appointed the 
 federal head of angels-— but it was according to 
 
Observations and Remarks. 91 
 
 the fitness of things. Hence our natural relation 
 is made use of as the medium of bringing about 
 those results, which have their origin in our fede- 
 ral relation. Original sin flows to us through the 
 chahnel of natural descent — and various evils 
 which now flow from parent to child, descend in 
 the same way : — but their foundation must be 
 traced back to the covenant made with our first 
 father, as the representative of his posterity ; the 
 guilt of whose first sin being imputed to us, a 
 corrupt and depraved nature and other penal 
 evils follow as the consequence. Is any one dis- 
 posed to say, I never gave my consent to that 
 covenant, and therefore it is unjust to punish me 
 for its violation ? We ask in return, whether the 
 individual whose case has been supposed, gave 
 his consent that his ancestor should leave the es- 
 tate which he has inherited from him, encumber- 
 ed with debt ? And yet, no sane man would 
 ever think of calling in question the propriety of 
 his being held responsible. If, however, he had 
 no legal connexion with that ancestor, his natu- 
 ral relation would not be sufficient to bind him. 
 He is his heir, noi merely because he has descend- 
 ed from him, but because the law of the land has 
 made him such. The latter and not the former, 
 imposes upon him the Habilities which his ances- 
 tor incurred ; and thougli he never gave his 
 consent, he regards it as just and right. 
 
CHAP. V. 
 
 The sufferings of Christ and our justification through him. 
 
 The nature and design of Christ's sufferings are 
 generally described by theological writers of the 
 present day, under the name of atonement — a 
 term not found in our standards, and but once in 
 the English version of the New Testament. For 
 a considerable time after the Reformation, the 
 mediatorial work of Christ was commonly ex- 
 pressed by the words, reconciliation, redemption 
 and satisfaction : which are the terms employed 
 in our Confession of Faith. This accounts for 
 the fact that the word atonement does not occur 
 in that volume. The mere use of a term is of 
 little consequence, provided the true doctrine is 
 retained. But many have not only laid aside the 
 ancient phraseology, but with it, all that is valua- 
 ble in the atonement itself. Instead of allowing 
 it to be any proper satisfaction to Divine justice, 
 by which a righteous and holy God is propitiated ; 
 some affirm that it was designed merely to make 
 an impression on intelligent beings of the right- 
 eousness of God, and thus opening the way for 
 pardon — and others, that it was intended only to 
 produce a change in the sinner himself by the in- 
 fluence which the scenes of Calvary are calcula- 
 
Explanatory Remarks. 93 
 
 ted to exert on his mind. The latter is the So- 
 cinian view, and the second tliat of the New 
 School. 
 
 It is proper to remark that the view first allu- 
 ded to, includes the other two. While it regards 
 the atonement as primarily intended to satisfy 
 the justice of God, by answering the demands, and 
 suffering the penalty of his law, it was designed 
 and adapted to make a strong impression both 
 upon the universe and upon the sinner himself. 
 But though the first view includes the others as 
 the greater does the less, these do not include the 
 first, but reject it. By making the atonement 
 consist wholly in the second or third view, there 
 is involved a denial that Christ endured the pen- 
 alty of the law, or assumed any legal responsibil- 
 ity in our behalf, or made any satisfaction, strictly 
 speaking, to the justice of God — thus giving up 
 what has been regarded by most if not all evan- 
 gelical churches since the Reformation, as essen- 
 tial to the atonement. 
 
 We wish to observe farther, by way of expla- 
 nation, that by Christ's enduring the penalty of 
 the law, is not meant that he endured literally the 
 same suffering either in kind ov duration vfMioh 
 would have been inflicted upon the sinner, if a 
 Savior had not been provided. In a penalty, 
 some things are essential — others incidental. It 
 was essential to the penalty, that Christ should 
 
94 The Sufferings of Christ. 
 
 suffer a violent and ignominious death — but 
 whether he should die by decapitation or by cru- 
 cifixion, was incidental. It was essential that he 
 should suffer for our sins—bni how long his suf- 
 ferings should continue, was incidental. If inflict- 
 ed upon us, they must necessarily be eternal — be- 
 cause sin is an infinite evil, and finite beings can- 
 not endure the punishment which is due to it ex- 
 cept by an eternal duration. But from the infinite 
 dignity of Christ's character, the penal demands 
 of the law could be fully answered by his suffer- 
 ing ever so short a time. A similar remark may 
 be made concerning the remorse of conscience 
 which forms a part of the torments of the wicked. 
 The imputation of our sins to Christ does not in- 
 volve a transfer of moral character, but only of 
 legal responsibility. In being " made sin for us," 
 Christ did not become personally a sinner — but 
 " was holy and harmless and undefiled." Of course 
 he could have no remorse of conscience, such as a 
 convicted sinner suffers in view of his guilt. But 
 this is merely incidental, and depends upon cir- 
 cumstances. Some sinners never appear to feel 
 remorse at all — and no sinner, probably, feels it 
 at all times. What is intended then by Christ's 
 suffering the penalty of the law as our substitute 
 is, that in law he assumed our place, and endured 
 all that was essential in its penal demands — where- 
 by he fully satisfied Divine justice, that those who 
 
Views of Dr. Bemaiu 95 
 
 are united to him by faith, are, as an act oi justice 
 to Christ, but of free unbounded mercy to them^ 
 " redeemed from the curse of the law," he " being 
 made a curse for them." This doctrine, the Old 
 Theology maintains — the New denies. 
 
 The following quotations will exemplify the 
 New School views. Dr. Beman,* in his " Sermons 
 on the Doctrine of the Atonement," observes : 
 (p. 34,) " The law can have no penal demand ex- 
 cept against the offender. With a substitute it 
 has no concern ; and though a thousand substi- 
 tutes should die, the law, in itself considered and 
 left to its own natural operation, would have the 
 sam.e demand upon the transgressor which it always 
 had. This claim can never be invalidated. This 
 penal demand can never be extinguished." Speak- 
 ing of those W' ho entertain opposite views, he says, 
 (p. 45,) " They contend that the real penahy of 
 the law was inflicted on Christ ; and at the same 
 time acknowledge that the sufferings of Christ 
 were not the same, either in nature or degree, as 
 those sufferings which were threatened against 
 the transgressor. The words of our text [Gal. 
 iii. 13,] are considered by many as furnishing un- 
 equivocal testimony to the fact, that Christ endu- 
 
 *Dr. Beman has not, I believe, published his sentiments on 
 the other points embraced in the New Theology, and therefore 
 I cannot state with certainty what they are. 
 
.% The Sufferings of Christ. 
 
 red the penalty of the law in the room of his peo- 
 ple. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of 
 the law, being made a curse for us." But it is, in 
 no shape, asserted here, that Christ suffered the 
 penalty of the law. The apostle tells us in what 
 sense he was " made a curse for us." " Cursed is 
 €very one that hangeth on a tree." Believers are 
 saved from the curse or penalty of the law by the 
 consideration, that Christ was " made a curse" 
 for them in another and a very diiferent sense. 
 He was " made a curse" inasmuch as he suffered, 
 in order to open the door of hope to man, the 
 pains and ignominy of crucifixion. He hung upon 
 a tree. He died as a malefactor. He died as 
 one accursed." In a note on the next page, with 
 reference to some remarks in a sermon by Dr. 
 Dana, of Londonderry, he observes : " But why 
 is it necessary to support the position, that the 
 curse of the law was inflicted on Christ ? If it 
 should be said, that the Divine veracity was pledg- 
 ed to execute the law — we reply that the Divine 
 veracity can find no support in that kind of inflic- 
 tion of the curse which is here supposed. A sub- 
 stantial execution of the law — an endurance of the 
 penalty so far as the nature of the case admitted 
 or required — an infliction of suffering, not upon 
 the transgressor, hut upon a surety, when the law 
 had not made the most distant allusion to a surety, 
 certainly has much more the appearance o^ eva- 
 
Dr. Bemaris Views. 97 
 
 sion than execution of the law." He says, (p. 51,) 
 " As to imputation, we do deny that the sins of 
 men, or of any part of our race, were so transferr- 
 ed to Christ, that they became his sins, or were 
 so reckoned to him, that he sustained their legal re- 
 sponsibilities."* Again, (p. 68,) " There is noth- 
 ing in the character of Christ's sufferings which 
 can affect or modify the penalty of the law. 
 These sufferings were not legal. They constitu- 
 ted no part of that curse which was threatened 
 against the transgressor." 
 
 What then, according to him, was the iiature 
 of Christ's sufferings ? He says, (p. 35, 36,) 
 " He suffered and died the just for the unjust ;" 
 " and those sufferings which he endured as a holy 
 being, were intended, in the case of all those who 
 are finally saved, as a substitute for the infliction 
 of the penalty of the law. We say a substitute for 
 the infliction of the penalty ; for the penalty itself, 
 if it be executed at all, must fall upon the sinner, 
 and upon no one else." Again, (p. 50, 51,) "The 
 atonement was a substitute for the infliction of the 
 penalty of the law — or the sufferings of Christ 
 were a substitute for the punishment of sinners." 
 " This is vicarious suffering. It is the suf- 
 
 * The Old Theology does not maintain that our sins "be 
 came his sins"— but only that he sustained our legal responsi- 
 bilities. 
 
 I 
 
98 The Sufferings of Christ 
 
 fering of Christ in the place of the endless suffer- 
 ing of the sinner." Once more : (p. 64, 65 ;) 
 " The penalty of the law, strictly speaking, was 
 not inflicted at all ; for this penalty, in which was 
 [were] embodied the principles of distributive jus- 
 tice, required the death of the simier, and did not 
 require the death of Christ. As a substitute for 
 the infliction of this penalty, God did accept of 
 the sufferings of His Son." 
 
 Was there then no satisfaction made to Divine 
 justice ? Says Dr. Beman, (p. 65,) " The law, or 
 justice, that is, distributive justice, as expressed in 
 the law, has received no satisfaction at all. The 
 whole legal system has been suspended, at least, 
 for the present, in order to make way for the op- 
 eration of one of a different character. In intro- 
 ducing this system of mercy, which involves a 
 suspension of the penal curse, God has required 
 a satisfaction to the principles of general or pub- 
 lic justice — a satisfaction w^hich will effectually 
 secure all the good to the universe which is inten- 
 ded to be accomplished by the penalty of the law 
 when inflicted, and, at the same time, prevent all 
 that practical mischief which would result from ar- 
 resting the hand of punitive justice without the in- 
 tervention of an atonement." But what does he 
 mean by ^^ general or public justice ?" He says^ 
 (p. 63, 64,) " It has no direct reference to law, but 
 embraces those principles of virtue or benevo- 
 
Dr. Beman^s Views. 99 
 
 lence by which we are bound to govern our con- 
 duct ; and by which God Himself governs the 
 universe. It is in this sense that the terms "just" 
 and " righteousness" occur in our text. [Rom. 
 
 iii. 26.] " This atonement was required, 
 
 that God might be "just," or righteous, that is, that 
 He might do the thing which was fit and proper, 
 and best and most expedient to be done ; and at 
 the same time be at perfect liberty to justify " him 
 which believeth in Jesus." 
 
 Let me now inquire, is this what is meant in 
 the Confession of Faith, where it reads, " The 
 Lord Jesus Christ, by his perfect obedience and 
 sacrifice of himself, which he through the Eternal 
 Spirit once offered up unto God, hath/wZ/y satis- 
 jiecl the justice of his Father V We think not. 
 No intimation of this kind is given. The framers 
 of our Standards do not appear to have learned 
 that God governs the universe by one kind of jus- 
 tice, viz. by the " principles of virtue or benevo- 
 lence ;" and punishes sinners for rebelhng against 
 His government, by another and a different kind, 
 viz. the justice which is " expressed in the law." 
 Are these two kinds of justice in conflict with 
 each other ? or is not God's justice " as express- 
 ed in the law," the same kind of justice by which 
 He " governs the universe ?" Was not the law 
 founded on the " principles of virtue or benevo- 
 lence ?" Why then could not Jehovah exhibit 
 
100 The Sufferings of ChrisL 
 
 those principles, by the obedience and sacrifice of 
 Christ in our behalf, in conformity to the law T 
 " But when the fulness of the time was come, God 
 sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made un- 
 der the law, to redeem them that were under the 
 law, that we might receive the adoption of sons," 
 Gal. iv. 4, 5. Does this mean that those " under 
 the law," were exposed to the retribution of one 
 kind of justice ; and that Christ, who w^as "made 
 under the law, to redeem them," rendered satis- 
 faction to another and a different kind ? — to a spe- 
 cies of justice unknown to the law, and contrary 
 to it ? Does not the law embody those things 
 which " are fit and proper, and best and most ex- 
 pedient to be done?" If so, why was it necessa- 
 ry to " suspend" h, in order to introduce a code 
 of justice, which " has no direct reference to law," 
 but belongs to a system possessing " a different 
 character ?" 
 
 These positions, it appears to me, involve the 
 sentiment, that the Divine government and law, 
 as the former is now administered, are not in har- 
 mony with each other — that the government of 
 God could not be administered according to the 
 " principles of virtue or benevolence," in a man- 
 ner "fit and proper, and best and most expedient 
 to be done" — without a suspension of " the whole 
 legal system ;" or which is the same thing, a dis- 
 regard of His law. And if the atonement pro- 
 
Dr. Beman's Views. 101 
 
 ceeded on this principle, we can not perceive 
 why it might not have been dispensed with alto- 
 gether — for if" the penalty of the law was not in- 
 flicted at all," but a system was introduced 
 " which involves a suspension of the legal curse," 
 why might not God as moral Governor, in the ex- 
 ercise of that " virtue or benevolence, by which 
 He governs the universe," and in pursuance of 
 what " was fit and proper, and best and most ex- 
 pedient to be done," have suspended " the whole 
 legal system," and extended pardon to sinners 
 without an atonement ? 
 
 Dr. Beman assigns three reasons why the atone- 
 ment was necessary ; all of which lose their force 
 on the supposition that Christ did not suffer the 
 penalty of the law. He says, " the atonement 
 was necessary as an expression of God's regard 
 for the moral law." But how could it express 
 His regard for the law, provided the law has re- 
 ceived no satisfaction at all, " but the whole legal 
 system was suspended in order to make way for 
 the operation of one," which " has no direct ref- 
 erence to law?" Again he says, " the atonement 
 was necessary in order to evince the Divine de- 
 termination to punish sin, or to execute the pen- 
 alty of the law." On the principle that Christ 
 acted as our surety, and sustained in our stead 
 those penal evils which were essential to the ex- 
 ecution of the threatening contained in the law, 
 
102 The Sufferings of Christ, 
 
 we can perceive how " the Divine determination 
 to punish sin" was evinced. Not so however, if 
 we " deny that the sins of men were so reckoned 
 to Christ, that he sustained their legal responsi- 
 bilities ;" and view the atonement as " a system 
 of mercy," in which the " sufferings of Christ were 
 not legal, and constituted no part of that curse 
 which was threatened against the transgressor." 
 This makes the atonement an entire departure 
 from law, and could therefore never be adduced 
 to show that God has determined to execute its 
 penalty. 
 
 The other reason which he assigns for the ne- 
 cessity of the atonement, is Hable, on his princi- 
 ples, to the same objection. " The necessity of 
 the atonement, (says lie,) will fartherappear,if we 
 contemplate the relations of this doctrine with the 
 
 rational universe." " We may naturally 
 
 suppose, that it was the intention of God, in sav- 
 ing sinners, to make a grand impression upon the 
 universe." " What effect would the salva- 
 tion of sinners without an atonement, probably 
 have upon the angels of heaven ?"...." This 
 example has taught them to revere the law, and 
 to expect the infliction of the penalty upon every 
 transgressor." '* Eveiy angel feels the im- 
 pression which this public act is calculated to 
 make ; and while he dreads, with a new sensation^ 
 the penalty, he clings more closely to the precept 
 
Dr. BemarCs Views. 103 
 
 of the law. But suppose the provisions of this 
 law were entirely set aside, in our w^orld, as 
 would be the case if sinful men were to be saved 
 without an atonement, and, in the estimation of 
 fallen angels, you create war between God and 
 his own eternal law." 
 
 Let me now ask, are not " the provisions of the 
 law entirely set aside in our world," according to 
 his scheme ? Not, it is true, " by saving sinful men 
 without an atonement ;" but by saving them 
 through that ^mt? of atonement, which *'hasno di- 
 rect reference to law," and " involves a suspension 
 of its legal curse." If the law " has no con- 
 cern with a substitute ;" and if Christ's " sufferings 
 constituted no part of that curse, which was 
 threatened against the transgressor ;" how can a 
 view of his sufferings teach the angels " to revere 
 the law, and to expect the infliction of the penal- 
 ty upon every transgressor ?" Would it not, on 
 the contrary, produce the impression that the law 
 was given up ; and its " provisions entirely set 
 aside in our world ?" and if this would be the im- 
 pression upon holy angels, it would be the same 
 upon devils. To use his own language, " in the 
 estimation of fallen angels, you create war be- 
 tween God and his own eternal law." On the 
 principle that Christ suffered the penalty of the 
 law as our substitute, all is plain — but if not, nei- 
 ther man nor angel can tell satisfactorily, how 
 
1 04 The Sufferings of Christ. 
 
 " God can be just while he justifies him that be- 
 heveth ;" or why, if he can be just, in bestowing 
 pardon with an atonement, he might not be just in 
 bestowing it without any. 
 
 Another work on the atonement, said to have 
 been founded on Dr. Beman's Sermons, has been 
 pubhshed in England, by Mr. Jenkyn, and re-pub- 
 lished in this country w^ith an introductory recom- 
 mendation by Dr. Carroll. On these two ac- 
 counts it may be properly referred to as a speci- 
 men of the New Views.* Mr. Jenkyn introduces 
 seven arguments to prove that Christ did not suf- 
 fer the penalty of the law — but that his suflferings 
 were a substitute for the penalty. According to 
 him, the very idea of an atonement involves a 
 suspension of the penalty. " An atonement, (says 
 he,) is a measure or an expedient, that is a satis- 
 
 * Concerning Dr. Beman's Discourses, Mr, Jenkyn says : 
 " This little work is a rich nursery of what Lord Bacon calls 
 * The seeds of things.' It abounds in living theological princi- 
 pies, each of which, if duly cultivated and reared, would unfold 
 great and ample truths, illustrative of this great doctrine." Con- 
 cerning Jenkyn's work, Dr. Carroll uses similar language: 
 *' Asa treatise, (says he,) on the grand re/fji/ons of the atonement, 
 it is a book which may be emphatically said to contain ' the 
 seeds of things' — the elements of mightier and nobler combina- 
 tions of thought respecting the sacrifice of Christ, than any 
 
 modern production." " We believe that its influence 
 
 on the opinions of theological students and ministers will be 
 great and salutary, beyond computation." 
 
Views of Mr, Jenkyn. 105 
 
 faction for the suspension of the threatened pen- 
 alty. A suspension or a non-execution of the lit- 
 eral threatening is always implied in an atone- 
 ment." P. 25. " If a man transgress a law, he 
 must, in a just and firm government, be punished. 
 Why ? Lest others have a bad opinion of the law 
 and transgress it too. But suppose that this end 
 of the law be secured without punishing the trans- 
 gressor ; suppose that a measure shall be devis- 
 ed by the governor, which shall save the criminal, 
 and yet keep men from having a bad opinion of 
 the law. Why, in such a case, all would approve 
 of it, both on the score of justice and on the score 
 of benevolence. For public justice only requires 
 that men should be kept from haying such a bad 
 opinion of the law as to break it. If this can be done 
 without inflicting what, in distributive justice, is due 
 to the criminal, public justice is satisfied, because 
 its ends are fully answered. The death of Christ 
 secures this end." P. 140, 1. Again : " The truth of 
 any proposition or declaration, consists more in the 
 spirit than in the letter of it. Truth in a promise, 
 and truth in a threatening, are different, especial- 
 ly in measures of government. Truth in a prom- 
 ise obliges the promisor to perform his word, or 
 else to be regarded as unfaithful and false. But 
 truth in a threatening does not, in the administra- 
 tion of. discipline or government, actually oblige 
 to literal execution ; it only makes the punish- 
 
106 The Sufferings of Christ. 
 
 ment to be due and admissible. A threatened 
 penalty does not deprive the lawgiver of his sove- 
 reign and supra legal power to dispense with it, if 
 he can secure the ends of it by any other measure." 
 '. . . " This supra legal prerogative of sus- 
 pending punishment, God has exercised in many 
 instances, as in the sparing of Nineveh, and I be- 
 lieve in the sparing of our first parents. The 
 identical penalty of the Eden constitution was not 
 literally executed, either on man or on Christ. 
 It was not executed on man, for then there would 
 have been no human race. The first pair would have 
 been destroyed, and mankind would never have 
 come into being. It was not executed on Christ. 
 He did no sin ; he violated no constitution, and yet 
 he died. Surely no law or constitution under 
 which he was, could legally visit him with a pen- 
 alty. If it be said that he suffered it for others, 
 let it be remembered that immutable verity as 
 much requires that the penalty should be inflicted 
 on the literal sinner only, as that it should be in- 
 flicted at all." P. 64, 65. 
 
 In addition to the remarks already made on 
 Dr. Beman's views, which will answer equally 
 well for those of Mr. Jenkyn, we wish to notice 
 a sentiment not before alluded to. It is contain- 
 ed in the last paragraph quoted from Jenkyn, and 
 is as follows, viz. that though God is bound to 
 fulfil his promises, he is not bound to execute his 
 
Views of Mr. Jenkyn. 107 
 
 threatenings. This distinction is resorted to for 
 the purpose of avoiding the difficuhy, that if God 
 does not inflict the penalty of the law either on 
 the sinner or upon Christ as his substitute, his 
 veracity is thereby impeached. We admit that 
 the Divine veracity does not require the execution 
 of a conditional threatening, as in the case of 
 Nineveh ; but no one will pretend that God's 
 law threatened punishment for disobedience con- 
 ditionally. The moment the law was violated, 
 the transgressor fell under the curse. And he 
 must either endure it eternalty, or be released by 
 having satisfation paid to Divine justice in some 
 other way. " Cursed is every one that continu- 
 eth not in all things written in the book of the 
 law to do them." " In the day thou eatest there- 
 of, thou shalt surely die." Accordingly, as soon 
 as Adam transgressed he began to feel the curse. 
 He lost God's image and favor — he became spir- 
 itually dead — and he would have suffered tempo- 
 ral and eternal death, had they not been averted 
 by the interposition of a substitute.* The penal- 
 ty of the law must be substantially executed. 
 
 + It is sometimes said that God did not execute his threaten- 
 ing upon Adam, because he did not die a temporal death that very 
 day. But the threatening began to be inflicted that very day — 
 and this Was all which was intended by it. From the nature of 
 the case, eternal death cannot be inflicted in a rfaj/, because it re- 
 
108 The Sufferings of Christ. 
 
 " Die he or justice must, unless for him 
 " Some other able and as willing, pay 
 "The rigid satisfaction — death for death." 
 
 If God is not bound to fulfil his threatenings, 
 how can it be proved that the punishment of the 
 wicked will be eternal 1 Though it is distinctly 
 and frequently asserted in the Bible that such 
 will be the doom of the finally impenitent, yet if 
 God's veracity does not require the execution of 
 this threatening, there is no certainty that it will 
 be inflicted : nay, there is much reason to be- 
 lieve the contrary ; because if there is nothing in 
 God's character, or law, which requires him to 
 punish sin, we may be sure that his infinite good- 
 ness will lead him to release the sinner from con- 
 demnation ; and thus, atonement or no atone- 
 ment, all mankind will be saved. But if the na- 
 ture of God requires him to punish sin, and if 
 when he has threatened to punish it, his veracity 
 requires him to execute that threatening ; then 
 either Christ endured what v/as essential in the 
 penalty of the law as our substitute, or our union 
 to him by faith cannot shelter us from its penal 
 demands. Its threatenings still lie against us ; 
 and must ere long be inflicted. It is not true. 
 
 quires an endless duration. Even in the case of the wicked in 
 hell, it has only he^un to be inflicted — and yet who doubts that 
 they are suffering the penalty of the law ? 
 
Views of Mr, Barnes, 109 
 
 therefore, that there is no condemnation to them 
 that are in Christ Jesus." He is not " an hiding 
 place from the wind ; a covert from the tempest." 
 Mr. Barnes, in his sermon on the way of Sal- 
 vation and in his Notes on the Romans, gives sub- 
 stantially the same view of the atonement with 
 Dr. Beman and Mr, Jenkyn. But in another 
 production of his, viz. an Introductory Essay to 
 Butler's Analogy, which was first published in 
 the Christian Spectator, and afterwarxis prefixed 
 to a new edition of the Analogy, he presents the 
 subject in a manner still more exceptionable. If 
 r mistake not, it is such a view as any Unitarian 
 in the United States would subscribe to. His 
 language is as follows : " Now, in recurring to 
 the analogy of nature, we have only to ask, 
 whether calamities which are hastening to fall on 
 us, are ever put back by the intervention of 
 another 1 Are there any cases in which either 
 our own crimes or the manifest judgments of 
 •God, are bringing ruin upon us, where that ruin 
 is turned aside by the interposition of others? 
 Now we at once cast our eyes backward to all 
 the helpless and dangerous periods of our being. 
 Did God come forth directly, and protect us in 
 the defenceless period of infancy '? Who watch- 
 ed over the sleep of the cradle, and guarded us 
 in sickness and helplessness ? It was the tender- 
 ness of a mother bending over our slumbering 
 
 K 
 
110 Atonement — Neio School Views, 
 
 childhood, foregoing sleep, and rest, and ease, 
 and hailing toil and care that we might be defend- 
 ed. Why then is it strange, that when God thus 
 ushers us into existence through the pain and toil of 
 another, that he should convey the blessings of a 
 higher existence by the groans and pangs of a 
 higher Mediator? God gives us knowledge. 
 But does he come forth to teach us by inspira- 
 tion, or guide us by his own hand to the foun- 
 tains of wisdom ? It is by years of patient toil 
 in others, that we possess the elements of science, 
 the principles of morals, the endownents of reli- 
 gion. He gives us food and raiment. Is the 
 Great Parent of benevolence seen clothing us by 
 his own hand, or ministering directly to our 
 wants ? Who makes provisions for the sons and 
 daughters of feebleness, gaiety or idleness ? Who 
 but the care-worn and anxious father and mother, 
 who toil that their offspring may receive these 
 benefits from their hands. Why then may not 
 the garments of salvation and the manna of life, 
 come through a higher Mediator, and be the fruit 
 of severer toil and sufferings ? Heaven's highest, 
 richest benefits are thus conveyed to the race 
 through thousands of hands acting as mediums 
 between man and God. It is thus through the 
 instrumentahty of others, that the great Giver of 
 life breathes health into our bodies, and vigor in- 
 to our frames. And whv should he not reach 
 
Quotations from Mr. Barnes, 111 
 
 also the sick and weary mind — the soul languish- 
 ing under a long and wretched disease, by the 
 hand of a mediator ? Why should he not kindle 
 the glow of spiritual health on the wan cheek, 
 and infuse celestial hfe into our veins, by him 
 who is the great Physician of our souls ? The 
 very earth, air, waters, are all channels for con- 
 veying blessings to us from God. Why then 
 should the infidel stand back, and all sinners 
 frown, when w^e claim the same thing in redemp- 
 tion, and affirm that in this great concern, " there 
 is one Mediator between God and man, the man 
 Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." 
 " But still it may be said, that this is not an 
 atonement. We admit it. We maintain only 
 that it vindicates the main principle of atonement, 
 and shows that it is according to a general lawj 
 that God imparts spiritual blessings to us through 
 a Mediator. What, we ask, is the precise objec- 
 tionable point in the atonement, if it be not that 
 God aids us in our sins and woes, by the self-de- 
 nial and sufferings of another ? And we ask, 
 whether there is any thing so peculiar in such a 
 system, as to make it intrinsically absurd and in- 
 credible ? Now we think there is nothing more 
 universal and indisputable than a system of na- 
 ture like this. God has made the whole animal 
 world tributary to man. And it is by the toil 
 and pain of creation, that our wants are supplied, 
 
112 Atonement — New School Views. 
 
 our appetites gratified, our bodies sustained, our 
 sickness alleviated — that is, the impending evils 
 of labor, famine, or disease are put away by these 
 substituted toils and privations. By the blood of 
 patriots he gives us the blessings of liberty, — that 
 is, by theii' sufferings in our defence we are de- 
 livered from the miseries of rapine, murder, or 
 slavery, which might have encompassed our 
 dwellings. The toil of a father is the price by 
 which a son is saved from ignorance, depravity,, 
 want, or death. The tears of a mother, and her 
 long watchfulness, save from the perils of infancy, 
 and an early death. Friend aids friend by toil ; 
 a parent foregoes rest for a child ; and the patriot 
 pours out his blood on the altars of freedom, that 
 othej\s may enjoy the blessings of liberty — that is. 
 that others may not be doomed to slavery, want, 
 and death. 
 
 "Yet still it may be said, that we have not come, 
 in the analogy, to the precise point of the atone- 
 ment, in producing reconciliation with God by 
 the sufferings of another. We ask then, what is 
 the scripture account of the effect of the atone- 
 ment in producing reconciliation ? Man is justly 
 exposed to suffering. He is guilty, and it is the 
 righteous purpose of God that the guilty should 
 suffer. God is so opposed to him that he will inflict 
 suffering on him, unless by an atonement it is 
 prevented. By the intervention of an atoaement*. 
 
Quotations from Mr. Barnes. 113 
 
 therefore, the scriptures affirm that such sufter- 
 inffs shall be averted. The man shall be saved 
 from the impending calamity. Sufficient for all 
 the purposes of justice and of just government, has 
 fallen on the substitute, and the sinner may be 
 pardoned and reconciled to God. Novr, we affirm 
 that in every instance of the substituted suffer- 
 ings, or self-denial of the parent, the patriot, or 
 the benefactor, there occurs a state of things so 
 analogous to this, as to show that it is in strict ac- 
 cordance with the just government of God ; and 
 to remove all the objections to the peculiarity of 
 the atonement. Over a helpless babe, ushered 
 into the world, naked, feeble, speechless, there 
 impends hunger, cold, sickness, sudden death — a 
 mother's watchfulness averts these evils. Over 
 a nation impend revolutions, sword, famine and 
 the pestilence. The blood of the patriot averts 
 these, and the nation smiles in peace. Look at 
 a single instance : Xerxes poured his millions 
 on the shores of Greece. The vast host dark- 
 ened all the plains, and stretched towards the 
 capitol. In the train there followed weeping, 
 blood, conflagration, and the loss of liberty. 
 Leonidas, almost alone, stood in his path. He 
 fought. Who can calculate the effects of the 
 valor and blood of that single man and his com- 
 patriots in averting calamities from Greece, and 
 from other nations struggling in the cause of free- 
 
114 Atonement — New School Views. 
 
 dom ? Who can tell how much of rapine, of 
 cruelty, and of groans and tears it turned away 
 from that nation ?" 
 
 It is due to Mr. Barnes to state, that he ob- 
 serves in the words immediately following the a- 
 bove extract, " Now we by no means affirm that 
 this is all that is meant by an atonement, as 
 revealed by Christianity." Yet in his subsequent 
 remarks he does not advance a single idea which 
 gives a higher view of that great transaction, than 
 is presented above : and in the passage we have 
 quoted, he affirms that the view which he has giv- 
 en " vindicates the main principle of atonement.'' 
 If his illustrations vindicate the main principle of 
 atonement, they must convey a correct idea of 
 what the atonement is. But if the reader is left 
 to obtain his knowledge on this subject from these 
 statements, he would adopt a scheme unworthy 
 the name of atonement. Indeed, Mr. Barnes ad- 
 mits, with reference to the first part of his state- 
 ment, that it is not an atonement ; though at the 
 same time he asserts that the " main principle of 
 atonement" is vindicated by the view which he 
 had presented. But if the " main principle^* of a- 
 tonement is exhibited in any part of the above ex- 
 tract, or in the whole taken together, we can see 
 no reason for the necessity of a Divine Mediator ; 
 and should be disposed seriously to inquire wheth- 
 
Quotations from Dr. Murdoch. 115 
 
 er Socinianism is not all the Christianity that we 
 need ?* 
 
 We shall give but one more specimen of the 
 New Theology on this subject. It will be taken 
 from a sermon of Dr. Murdock, preached before 
 the students at Andover in 1823. He was at that 
 time a professor in the Andover Theological Sem- 
 inary. 
 
 " In this text [Rom. iii. 25, 26,] Paul declares 
 explicitly, what was the immediate object of 
 Christ's atoning sacrifice ; that is, what effect it 
 had in the economy of redemption, or how it laid 
 a proper foundation for the pardon and the salva- 
 
 * The Christian Examiner, a Unitarian periodical, published 
 at Boston, contains a review of Mr. Barnes' Notes on the Ro- 
 mans, in which the writer observes, " On the atonement, our 
 author's views are far in advance of those of the church to which 
 he belongs. Though he maintains that Christ was in some 
 sense a substitute in the place of sinner?, he denies a strictly and 
 fully vicarious atonement, and makes the Saviour's death im- 
 portant chiefly as an illustration of the inherent and essential 
 connexion between sin and suffering." With regard to the 
 book, the reviewer says, " While, for the most part, we would ad- 
 vise no additions, were the work re-edited under Unitarian su- 
 pervision, we should note exceedingly few omissions. Indeed, 
 on many of the standard and Trinitarian proof-texts, Mr. Barnes 
 has candidly indicated the inadequacy of the text to prove 
 
 the doctrine." " Sometimes Mr. Barnes does not so much 
 
 as suggest a Trinitarian idea in commenting on texts which 
 have been deemed decidedly and irresistibly Trinitarian in their 
 bearing." 
 
116 Atonement — New School Views. 
 
 tion of sinful men. It was the immediate object 
 of this sacrifice to declare the righteousness of 
 God : in other words, to display and vindicate the 
 perfect holiness and uprightness of His character 
 as a moral Governor. This display being made, 
 He can with propriety forgive all that believe in 
 
 Christ Jesus." "To enable God righteously to 
 
 pardon the repenting sinner, the atonement must 
 give the same support to law, or must display as 
 impressively the perfect holiness and justice of 
 God, as the execution of the law on transgressors 
 would. It must be something different from the 
 execution of the law itself ; because it is to be a 
 substitute for it, something which renders it safe 
 and proper to suspend the regular course of dis- 
 tributive justice." " Now such an expedi- 
 ent, the text represents the sacrifice of Christ to 
 be. It is a declaration of the righteousness of 
 God ; so that He might be just" — might secure 
 the objects of distributive justice, as it becomes a 
 righteous moral governor to do — " and yet might 
 justify," or acquit and exempt from punishment him 
 that believeth in Jesus. It was in the nature of 
 it, an exhibition or proof of the righteousness of 
 God. It did not consist in the execution of the 
 law on any being whatever ; for it was a substi- 
 tute for the execution of it." " Its immedi- 
 ate influence was not on the character and rela- 
 tions of man as transgressors, nor on the claims 
 
Quotations from Dr. Murdoch. 117 
 
 of the law upon them. Its direct operation was 
 on the feelings and apprehensions of the beings at 
 large, who are under the moral government of 
 God. In two respects it coincided precisely with 
 a public execution of the law itself: its immediate 
 influence was on the same persons ; and that in- 
 fluence was produced in the same way, — by 
 
 means of a public exhibition." " The only 
 
 difliculty is to understand how this exhibition was 
 a display of the righteousness of God. To solve 
 it, some have resorted to die supposition that the 
 Son of God became our sjxmsor, and satisfied the 
 demands of the law by suffering in our stead. 
 But to this hypothesis there are strong objections. 
 To suppose that Christ was really and truly our 
 sponsor, and that he suffered in this character^ 
 would involve such a transfer of legal obligations 
 and liabilities and merits, as is inadmissible ; and 
 to suppose any thing short of this, will not explain 
 the difliculty. For if, while we call him a spon- 
 sor, we deny that he was legally holden or re- 
 sponsible for us, and Hable in equity to suffer in 
 our stead, we assign no intelligible reason why 
 his suflferings should avail any thing for our bene- 
 fit, or display at all the righteousness of God.'' 
 " We must, therefore, resort to some oth- 
 er solution. And what is more simple, and at the 
 same time satisfactory, than that which is sug- 
 gested by the text ? The atonement was an er- 
 
118 Atonement — Old Theology. 
 
 hihition or clisjjkfi/ ; that is, it was a symbolical 
 transaction. It was a transaction in which God 
 and His Son were the actors ; and they acted in 
 perfect harmony, though performing different 
 
 parts in the august drama." " The object 
 
 of both, in this affecting tragedy, was to make an 
 impression on the minds of rational beings every 
 where and to the end of time. And the impres- 
 sion to be made was, that God is a holy and righ- 
 teous God ; that while inclined to mercy he can- 
 not forget the demands of justice and the danger 
 to his kingdom from the pardon of the guilty ; 
 that he must show his feelings on this subject : 
 and shew them so clearly and fully that all his ra- 
 tional creatures shall feel that He honors His law 
 while suspending its operation, as much as He 
 would by the execution of it. But how, it may 
 be asked, are these things expressed or represent- 
 ed by thi^ transaction ? The answer is — symbol- 
 ically. The Son of God came down to our world 
 to do and to suffer what he did ; not merely for 
 the sake of doing those acts and enduring those 
 sorrows, but for the sake of the impression to be 
 made on the minds of all beholders, by his labour- 
 ing and suffering in this manner." 
 
 The principal difference between these views 
 and those of Dr. Beman and others of the same 
 school, is that he has laid aside the usual ortho- 
 dox terms, and expressed his sentiments in other 
 
Quotations from Dr. Dana. 119 
 
 language. Perhaps this was one reason why such 
 a sensation was produced in the community by 
 the appearance of the sermon. Professor Stew- 
 art published two discourses (if I remember cor- 
 rectly) with a view to counteract its influence ; 
 and Dr. Dana, of Londonderry, preached a ser- 
 mon (probably for the same end) before the Con- 
 vention of Congregational and Presbyterian Min- 
 isters of New-Hampshire ; which was published by 
 their request. From this sermon we shall give 
 some extracts, as expressive of the Old Theolo- 
 gy on this subject. His text is in Isa. liii. 4, 5, 6 ; 
 concerning which, he observes : 
 
 " Jehovah, the just, the benevolent Jehovah, 
 is pleased to hruise him and to j^ut him to grief. 
 Unparalleled mystery ! How shall it be ex- 
 plained ? One fact, and that alone explains it. 
 He suffered as a substitute. He suffered not for 
 himself, but for those whom he came to save. 
 This the prophet unequivocally declares in the 
 text ; and declares in such variety and accumu- 
 lation of language, as is calculated to make the 
 very strongest impression on the mind." . ..." A 
 moment's reflection may convince us that if any 
 of our sinful race are to be pardoned and saved, 
 an atonement is absolutely 7iec'essary. God is ho- 
 ly and just ;, infinitely and immutably holy and 
 just. These attributes imply that he has a perfect 
 and irreconcilable aversion to all sin ; and must 
 
120 Atonement— Old Theologij, 
 
 manifest this aversion to his creatures. But how 
 can this be done if sin be pardoned without an 
 atonement ? Would not the great Jehovah in this 
 case, practically deny himself? Would not the 
 lustre of his glorious attributes be awfully eclipsed 
 and tarnished ? Farther ; as the Sovereign of the 
 universe, God has given his intelligent creatures a 
 law. This law, while it requires perfect obedi- 
 ence, must likewise be enforced by penalties. 
 Nor is it enough that these penalties be merely 
 denounced. They must be executed on those 
 who incur them by transgression ; or on a surety. 
 Otherwise, where is the truth of the Lawgiver ? 
 Where is the stability of the law ? Where is the 
 dignity of government ?"...." Still further ; it 
 is easy to see that satisfaction, if made by a surety, 
 must correspond with the debt due from those in 
 whose behalf it is rendered. Mankind universal- 
 ly owe to their heavenly Sovereign, a debt of per- 
 fect, undeviating obedience." . . . . " We have 
 likewise contracted a debt of punishment. This 
 results from the penal sanction of the law, and is 
 proportionate to the evil of sin. It corresponds 
 with the majesty and glory of the Lawgiver, and 
 with our own obligations to obedience. Now if a 
 surety undertake for us, he must pay our debt in 
 both these regards." . ..." As to his sufferings, 
 we contend not that the Redeemer endured pre- 
 cisely the same misery, in kind or degree, to 
 
Quotations from Dr. Dana. 121 
 
 which the sinner was exposed, and which he must 
 otherwise have endured. This was neither ne- 
 cessary nor possible. Infinite purity could not 
 know the tortures of remorse. Infinite excellence 
 could not feel the anguish of malignant passions. 
 Nor was it needful that the Saviour, in making 
 atonement for human guilt, should sustain suffer- 
 ings without end Such, it is admitted, must have 
 been the punishment of the sinner, had he borne 
 it in his own person. But this necessity results, 
 not directly from the penal sanction of the law, 
 but. from the impossibility that a finite transgressor 
 should, within any limited period, render satisfac- 
 tion for his sins. But the infinite dignity of the 
 Saviour imparted an infinite value and efficacy to 
 his temporary sufferings. Indeed it cannot be 
 doubted that he endured as much of that same 
 misery to which the sinner stands exposed, as 
 consisted with the perfect innocence, dignity and 
 glory of his character. He suffered not only the 
 united assaults of human cruelty and infernal rage, 
 but the far more torturing pains of Divine derelic- 
 tion. And inasmuch as the scripture expressly 
 declares that in redeeming us from the law he was 
 made a curse for us, we are constrained to con- 
 clude that his sufferings were a substantial execu- 
 tion of the threatening of the law ; a real endur- 
 ance of its penalty, so far as the nature of the 
 case admitted or required." 
 
 L 
 
122 Atonement — Old Theology. 
 
 With reference to Dr. Murdock's* views, Dr. 
 Dana observes : " In the first place, it tends ap- 
 parently, at least to subvert the law^. It declares 
 that " the atonement is something different from 
 the execution of the law, and a substitute iov it ;" 
 that " it did not fulfil the law, or satisfy its de- 
 mands on transgressors." In accordance with 
 these views, it declares that " the justification of 
 believers is not founded on the principles of law 
 and distributive justice ;" and further, that it is a 
 real departure from the regular course of justice ; 
 and such a departure from it, as leaves the claims 
 of the law on the persons justified forever unsatis- 
 fied. Without commenting at large on these sug- 
 gestions so peculiar, and so grating (as I appre- 
 hend) to the ears and hearts of most christians, I 
 will simply set before you the Saviour's own in- 
 tentions, in his advent and mediation ; and these 
 as declared in his own words : " Think not (says 
 he) that I am come to destroy the law or the 
 prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 
 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth 
 pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass 
 from the law till all be fulfilled." Surely then his 
 atonement was not " a substitute for the execution 
 of the law." On the contrary, his obedience and 
 sufferings were a substantial fulfilment of its pre- 
 
 * Dr. M. is not mentioned by name. 
 
Quotations fro?)i Dr. Dana. 123 
 
 cept and its penalty ; and were designed to pro- 
 cure the justification and salvation of men, not 
 through a " departure from the regular course of 
 justice ;" nOt by " leaving the claims of the law 
 forever unsatisfied ;" but in perfect accordance 
 with the immutable and everlasting principles 
 both of law and justice." .... 
 
 2. "This scheme gives us such views of the divine 
 character, as are equally inexplicable and distress- 
 ing." . ..." A Being of spotless innocence, and Di- 
 vine dignity ; a Being adored by angels and dear to 
 God ; a Being, in short, the most lovely and glorious 
 that the intelligent creation ever saw, is subjected to 
 sufferings more complicated and severe than were 
 ever before endured in our w^orld ; and all this 
 uot by way of substitution ; not by way of satis- 
 faction for the sins of others ; but of exhibition or 
 
 display /".... 
 
 3. " It is a serious question whether the theory 
 in view does not comprise a virtual denial of the 
 atonement itself. It leaves us the name ; but what 
 does it leave of the I'eality ? An exhibition is not 
 an atonement. A display is not an atonement. A 
 mere symbolical transaction is not an atonement.". . 
 
 "Where, then, let it be asked in the fourth place, 
 is the foundation of the believer's hope? It is a 
 notorious fact, that the great body of christians in 
 every age have embraced the doctrine of the vi- 
 carious sufferings and obedience of their Saviour. 
 
124 Atonement — Old Theology. 
 
 Pressed with a sense of guilt, they have taken ref- 
 uge in his atoning blood. Conscious" of the im- 
 perfection of their best obedience, they have trust- 
 ed in his righteousness alone. United to their 
 Redeemer by living faith, they have assured 
 themselves of a personal interest in his atonement 
 and righteousness. And they have exulted in the 
 thought that this method of salvation met all the 
 demands, and secured all the honors, of the divine 
 law and justice. Shall christians now^ be told 
 that this is mere dream and delusion ; that no 
 proper satisfaction for their sins has ever been 
 made ; that their justification is nothing but an ah- 
 solute pardon ; and that even this is a " depart- 
 ure from the regular course of justice ?" Doc- 
 trine like this is calculated to appal the believer's 
 heart, and plant thorns in his dying pillow. It is 
 even calculated to send a pang to the bosoms of 
 the blest ; to silence those anthems of praise 
 which the redeemed on high are offering ' to Him 
 that loved them and washed them from their sins 
 in his own blood.' " 
 
 There was the same necessity for Christ's suf- 
 fering the penalty of the law, as for his suffering 
 at all. "The penalty of a holy, violated law. 
 was the only thing which stood in the way. 
 Mere sufferings of any one are of no value, ex- 
 cept in relation to some end. The sufferings of 
 Christ could no otherwise open a way of pardort 
 
Remarks of Dr, Alexander. 125 
 
 but by removing the penalty of the law ; but 
 they could have no tendency to remove the pen- 
 alty but by his enduring it. Sufferings not requir- 
 ed by law and justice must have been unjust suf- 
 ferings, and never could effect aijy good, Such 
 exhibition could not have the effect of demonstra- 
 ting God's hatred of sin, for it was not the pun- 
 ishment of sin ; nor could it make the impression 
 on the world, that the Ruler of the Universe 
 would hereafter punish sin ; for, according to this 
 theory, sin goes unpunished, and dreadful suffer- 
 ings are inflicted on the innocent to whom no sin 
 is imputed. This scheme as really subverts the 
 true doctrine of atonement, as that of Socinus ; 
 and no reason appears why it was necessary that 
 the person making this exhibition should be a Di- 
 vine person." Dr. Alexander. 
 
 The v/hole controversy concerning the nature 
 of the atonement, may be resolved into two ques- 
 tions : 1. Is God bound to punish sin ? and 2. 
 Does this necessity arise from the nature of God, 
 or from circumstances which lie without him? 
 In other words, do his holiness and justice require 
 him to manifest his abhorence to sin by inflicting 
 upon it deserved punishment ? or does the neces- 
 sity for manifesting this abhorence lie only in 
 " reasons of state," as civilians say — i. e. in the 
 necessity of making a salutary impression upon 
 his moral government ? 
 
 L* 
 
126 Atonement — Old Theology. 
 
 That the veracity of God requires him to exe- 
 cute the threatenings of his law, we have already 
 shown. But why do we find such a law in ex- 
 istence ?— a Jaw^ binding him to punish sin ? " The 
 opposition of God's law to sin, is just the opposi- 
 tion of his nature to sin ; his nature, not his will, 
 is the ultimate standard of morality. His de- 
 termination to punish sin is not voluntary^ but ne- 
 cessary. He does not annex a punishment to sin 
 because he wills to do so, but because his nature 
 requires it. If the whole of such procedure 
 could be resolved into mere volition, then it is 
 not only supposable that God might not have de- 
 termined to punish sin, but, which is blasphemous, 
 that he might have determined to reward it. 
 This is not more clearly deducible from the na- 
 ture of a being of perfect moral excellence, than 
 plainly taught in' scripture. " He will by no means 
 clear the guilty. The Lord is a jealous God, he 
 will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. 
 Thou art not a God that hath jileasure in wicked- 
 ness, neither shall evil dwell with thee. God is 
 angry with the wicked eveiy day. The Lord will 
 take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserv- 
 eth wrath for his enemies. Who can stand before 
 his indignation ? B.nd who can abide in the fierce- 
 ness of his anger ? Is God unrighteous who tak- 
 eth vengeance ? Our God is a consuming fire.^^ 
 (Exod. xxxiv. 7; Josh. xxiv. 19; Psl. v. 4; vi. 
 
Remarks of Symington, 127 
 
 11 ; Neh. i. 2, 6 ; Rom. iii. 5; Heb. xii. 29.) We 
 may confidently appeal to every unprejudiced 
 mind whether such descriptions as these do not 
 fully bear us out in the view we have taken of 
 God's retributive justice. And if this view is 
 correct, sin cannot go unpunished ; it cannot be 
 pardoned without a satisfaction ; God cannot but 
 take vengeance on iniquity; to do otherwise 
 would be to violate the perfection of his nature. 
 Just he is, and just he ever must be ; and there 
 is only one way, that of an atoning sacrifice, 
 by w4iich he can be at once " a just God and a 
 Saviour." Symington on the Atonement. 
 
 If the only reason why God is bound to punish 
 sin arises from the eflfect to be produced upon the 
 universe, then if he had created no other intelli- 
 gent beings except man, no atonement would 
 have been necessary — because no moral beings 
 would exist upon whom to make this impression 
 — and of course he might have forgiven us irre- 
 spective of an atonement, without doing any in- 
 jury to his government. But if the necessity of 
 punishing sin lies primarily in his nature, an 
 atonement would be as necessary for the redemp- 
 tion of a single sinner, if he had been the only 
 being in the universe, as it was under the circum- 
 stances in which this scheme of mercy was de- 
 vised. And this we believe to be the fact. Oth- 
 erwise God does not possess essentially, that holi- 
 
128 Atonement— Old Theoh 
 
 SU' 
 
 ness, which the scriptures represent as constitu- 
 ting the glory of his character. 
 
 If then the question be asked, why is God 
 bound to punish sin ? the first answer is, because 
 it is right — sin being opposite to hisnature — and 
 his nature therefore requires him to manifest to- 
 wards it his abhorrence. Is the question repeat- 
 ed ? We reply, it is required from a regard to 
 his law and government. Though the former is 
 the primary reason, the latter is of great impor- 
 tance, and must never be forgotten. Taken to- 
 gether, they shew not only the necessity of an 
 atonement in order to the pardon of sin, but that 
 the atonement must consist in a substantial endur- 
 ance of the penalty of the law. On any other 
 principle, sin goes unpunished ; and we are driv- 
 en to the conclusion before adverted to, that God 
 is not "glorious in holiness^' — ^^3i just God," who 
 " will by no means clear the guilty." 
 
 The following extract from Dr. Bellamy will 
 shew how nearly the above views correspond 
 with the sentiments prevalent in New England 
 a hundred years ago : " It was fit, if any intelh- 
 gent creature should at any time swerve at all 
 from the perfect will of God, that he should for- 
 ever lose bis favor and fall under his everlasting 
 displeasure, for a thing so infinitely wrong : And 
 in such a case it w^as fit the Governor of the 
 world should be infinitely displeased and publicly 
 
Views of Dr Bdlaimj. 129 
 
 testify his infinite displeasure by a punishment 
 adequate thereto, inflicted on the sinning crea- 
 ture. This would satisfy justice ; for justice is 
 satisfied when the thing which is wrong is pun- 
 ished according to its desert. Hence, it was fit, 
 when by a constitution, holy, just and good, Adam 
 w^as made a public head, to represent his race, 
 and act not only for himself, but for all his pos- 
 terity ; it was fit, I say, that he and all his race, 
 for his first transgression, should lose the favor, 
 and fall under the everlasting displeasure of the 
 Almighty. It was fit that God should be infinite- 
 ly displeased at so abominable a thing — and that 
 as Governor of the world, he should publicly 
 bear testimony against it, as an infinite evil, by in- 
 flicting the infinite punishment the law threaten- 
 ed ; i. e. by damning the whole world. This 
 would have satisfied justice : for justice is satisfied 
 when justice takes place — when the guilty are 
 treated with that severity they ought to be — when 
 sin is punished as being what it is. Now Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God, has, by his Father's ap- 
 pointment and approbation, assumed our nature — 
 taken the place of a guilty world — and had not only 
 Adam's first transgression, but the iniquities of 
 us all laid upon him, and in our room and stead, 
 hath suffered the wrath of God, the curse of the 
 law, offering up himself a sacrifice to God for the 
 sins of men : and hereby the infinite evil of sin 
 
130 Atonement — Old Theology, 
 
 and the righteousness of the law are publicly 
 owned and acknowledged, and the deserved pun- 
 ishment voluntarily submitted unto by man, i. e. 
 by his representative : and thus justice is satis- 
 fied ; for justice is satisfied w hen justice takes 
 place ; and sin is now treated as being what it is, 
 as much as if God had damned the whole world ; 
 and God, as Governor, appears as severe against 
 it. And thus the righteousness of God is declar- 
 ed and manifested, by Christ's being set forth to 
 be a propitiation for sin ; and he may nov\^ be 
 just and yet justify him that believes in Jesus." 
 True Religion Delineated, pp. 332, 333. 
 
 Similar to the views here expressed, were those 
 of the early European divines. "There was no 
 defect in the payment he made. We owed a 
 debt of blood to the law, and his life was offered 
 up as a sacrifice ; otherwise the law had remain- 
 ed in its full vigor and justice had been unsatis- 
 fied. That a Divine person hath suflfered our 
 punishment, is properly the reason of our redemp- 
 tion." " Tlte blood of Christ shed, (Mat. xxvi. 
 
 28,) poured forth from his veins and offered up to 
 God, in that precise consideration, ratifies the New 
 Testament. The sum is, our Saviour by his death 
 suffered the malediction of the law, and his Divine 
 
 nature gave a full value to his sufferings." 
 
 "And God, who was infinitely provoked, is infi* 
 nitely pleased." Bates. 
 
Rc?}iarks of Bates, Owen, (^-c. 131 
 
 " A surety, sponsor, for us, the Lord Christ 
 was, by his voluntary undertaking out of his rich 
 grace and love, to do, answer, " and perform all 
 that is required on our parts, that we may enjoy 
 the benefits of the covenant, the grace and glory 
 prepared, proposed and promised in it, in the way 
 and manner determined on by Divine wisdom. 
 And this may be reduced unto two heads: 
 1. His answering for our transgressions against 
 the first covenant. 2. His purchase and procure- 
 ment of the grace of the new. " He was made a 
 curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might 
 
 come upon us." Gal. iii. 13 — 15 " That is, 
 
 he underwent the punishment due unto our sins, 
 to make atonement for us, by offering himself a 
 propitiatory sacrifice for the expiation of our sins^ 
 Owen. 
 
 " Christ hath redeemed us who believe in his 
 name from the terrible curse of the law, and 
 bought us oflf from that servitude and misery to 
 which it inexorably doomed us, by being himself 
 made a curse for us, and enduring the penalty 
 which our sms had deserved." Dodridge. 
 
 "I wonder that Jerome and Erasmus should labor 
 and seek for I know not what figure of speech, to 
 show that Christ was not called accursed. Truly 
 in this is placed all our hope : in this the infinite 
 love of God is manifested : in this is placed our 
 salvation, that God properly and without any fig- 
 
132 Atoneme7it — Old Theology. 
 
 ure, poured out all His wrath on His own Son ; 
 caused him to be accursed, that He might receive 
 us into His favor. Finally, without any figure, 
 Christ was made a curse for us, in such a man- 
 ner that imless he had been truly God, he must 
 have remained under the curse forever, from 
 which, for our sakes, he emerged. For indeed, if 
 the obedience be figurative and imaginary, so 
 must our hope of glory be." Beza, as quoted by 
 Scott. 
 
 These several quotations all proceed on the prin- 
 ciple that the necessity of the atonement lay pri- 
 marily in the nature of God : that \\\s justice must 
 be appeased by a true and proper satisfaction, 
 before it was possible for Him to regard sinners 
 with favor ; and that this satisfaction having been 
 made by the vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of 
 Jesus Christ, who " hath given himself for us an 
 offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smell- 
 ing savor," pardon and salvation are freely be- 
 stowed upon believing sinners, in perfect harmo- 
 ny with all the Divine attributes. With the work 
 which Christ performed, God the Father was in- 
 finitely well pleased ; and through him He looks 
 with complacency upon all who are united to him 
 by faith. He was well pleased, because Christ 
 performed all that law and justice required — for, 
 as Bellamy observes, " justice is satisfied when 
 
Scripture Proofs. 135 
 
 justice takes place." " I have finished the work," 
 said Christ, " which thou gavest me to do." And 
 again, just before he expired he said, " It is finish- 
 ed." His work of active obedience was finished 
 when he uttered the first ; and when he spake the 
 last, his work of suffering was also completed. 
 We behold him now as " the Lamh of God," sac- 
 rificed to propitiate the Divine favor ; John i. 29 : 
 as " the propitiation for our sins ;" 1 John, ii. 2 : 
 as a " sin-offering'^ presented to God for a sacri- 
 fice of expiation; 2 Cor. v. 21, Gr. : as "a 
 ransom," or redemption-price, to " redeem us 
 from the curse of the law ;" Mat. xx. 28 ; Gal. iii. 
 13 : as "the man, God's fellow;" "on whom 
 was laid the iniquity of us all ;" w^ho " bare our 
 sins in his own body on the tree ;" Zech. xiii. 7 ; 
 Isa. liii. 6 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24 : as, in fine, both the 
 offering and the priest, who having " appeared to 
 put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," "oflfered 
 himself without spot to God," and " by his own 
 blood, entered into the holy place, having obtain- 
 ed eternal redemption for us ;" Heb. ix. 12, 14, 
 26. How explicit are these passages with re- 
 gard to the nature of Christ's sufferings. In view 
 of them I am disposed almost involuntary to ex- 
 claim, " O Lord I will praise Thee : though Thou 
 wast angry with me, Thine anger is turned away, 
 and Thou comfortest me." " God is in Christ 
 
134 Scripture Proofs. 
 
 reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing 
 their trespasses unto them." " Whosoever believ- 
 eth on Him shall not be confounded." 
 
 " With joy, with grief, that healing hand I see ; 
 " Alas ! how low ! how far beneath the skies ! 
 " The skies it formed, and now it bleeds for me — 
 " But bleeds the balm I want — 
 " There hangs all human hope ; that nail supports 
 " The faUing universe : that gone, we drop j 
 " Horror receives us, and the dismal wish 
 " Creation had been smothered in her birth." 
 
CHAP, VI. 
 
 Justification — a continuation of the preceding chapter. 
 
 Intimately connected with the doctrine of 
 atonement, is that of justification. The different 
 views, therefore, with regard to the former, which 
 have been exhibited in the last chapter, will give 
 a corresponding complexion to our sentiments 
 concerning the latter. Those who maintain that 
 Christ obeyed the law and suffered its penalty in 
 our stead, and thereby made a true and proper 
 satisfaction to Divine justice, believe that his obe- 
 dience and sufferings, constituting what is usually 
 styled his righteousness, are imputed to the be- 
 liever for his justification ; Christ's righteousness 
 being received by faith as the instrument. Ac- 
 cordingly justification consists not only in the par- 
 don of sin, or in other words, in the release of the 
 believing sinner from punishment ; but also in the 
 acceptance of his person as righteous in the eye 
 of the law, through the obedience of Christ reck- 
 oned or imputed to him ; by which he has a title 
 to eternal life. 
 
 On the contrary, those who deny that Christ 
 obeyed the law and suffered its penalty as our 
 substitute, deny also the imputation of his right- 
 eousness for our justification ; and though they 
 
136 Justification hy FaitJi. 
 
 retain the word, justification, they make it consist 
 in mere pardon.* In the eye of the law, the be- 
 liever, according to their views, is not justified at 
 all, and never will be through eternity. Tiiough 
 on the ground of what Christ has done, God is 
 pleased io forgive the sinner upon his believing j 
 Christ's righteousness is not reckoned in any sense 
 as his, or set down to his account. He believes, 
 and his faith, or act of believing is accounted to 
 him for righteousness ; that is, faith is so reckon- 
 ed to his account, that God treats him as if he 
 were righteous. 
 
 That the views first given accord with the gen» 
 era] sentiments of the church since the Reforma- 
 tion is capable of abundant proof. Though in 
 the time of the reformers the opponents of the 
 true doctrine did not take the same ground, in ev- 
 ery respect, which has been taken since, and which 
 is described in the statement just made concern- 
 
 * "The pardon of sin alone can with no propriety be denom- 
 inated justification. Pardon and justification are not only dis- 
 tinct, but, in common cases, utterly incompatible. A culprit tried 
 and condemned may among men be pardoned, but it would be 
 a solecism to say, that such a man was justified.". . . .*' But by 
 the plan of salvation through Christ there is not only a ground 
 for pardon, but there is rendered to the law a righteousness, 
 which lays the foundation for an act of justification. By par^ 
 doi» the sinner is freed from condemnation, by justification he ii^. 
 entitled to the heavenly inheritance." Dr. Alexanders 
 
Views of Luther. 137 
 
 ing the views entertained by the advocates of the 
 New Theology; in one particular they are all 
 agreed, viz. in rejecting the imputation of Christ's 
 righteousness ; the adoption or denial of which is 
 the basis of all the other differences that exist on 
 this subject. To this doctrine, therefore, the re- 
 formers clung, as the sheet-anchor of the christian 
 faith. Justification by faith, through the imputed 
 righteousness of Christ ; this w^as their doctrine. 
 And so important did they regard it, that Luther 
 was accustomed to denominate it, (as is well 
 known,) articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesice ; 
 the very pillar on w hich the church rests ; a de- 
 nial of whicli must result in her ruin. The man- 
 ner in which his mind was brought to entertain 
 clear views on this subject is highly interesting. 
 " Three days and three nights together he lay 
 upon his bed w^ithout meat, drink, or any sleep, 
 like a dead man, (as some do write of him,) labor- 
 ing in soul and spirit upon a certain place of St. 
 Paul in the 3d chapter to the Romans, " to declare 
 his righteousness," [or justice,] thinking Christ to 
 be sent for no other end but to show forth God's 
 justice, as an executor of his law ; till at length 
 being assured and satisfied by the Lord, touching 
 the right meaning of these words, signifying the 
 justice of God to be executed upon his Son to 
 save us from the stroke thereof, he immediately 
 upon the same, started up from his bed, so con- 
 
138 Justification hy Faith. 
 
 firmed in faith, as nothing afterwards could appa! 
 him." Life of Luther, prefixed to his Commen- 
 tary on the Galatians. 
 
 The following extracts from Owen on Justifi- 
 cation will show the nature of the controversy 
 soon after the Reformation. " There are two 
 grand parties by whom the doctrine of justification 
 by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ 
 is opposed, namely, the Papists and the Socinians. 
 But they proceed on different principles, and unto 
 different ends. The design of the one is to exalt 
 their own merits, of the other, to destroy the merit 
 of Christ." . . . . " Those of the Roman church 
 plainly say, that upon the infusion of a habit of 
 grace, with the expulsion of sin and the renovation 
 of our natures thereby, which they call the first 
 justification, we are actually justified before God, 
 by our own works of righteousness." .... They 
 say " that this righteousness of works is not abso- 
 lutely perfect, nor in itself able to justify us in the 
 sight of God, but owes all its worth and dignity 
 unto this purpose unto the merit of Christ." .... 
 But " Christ hath only merited the first grace for 
 us, that we therewith, and thereby, may merit life 
 eternal." .... Hence " those other inofredients of 
 confession, absolution, penances or commutations^ 
 aids from saints and angels, especially the blessed 
 Virgin, all warmed by the fire of purgatory, and 
 confidently administered unto persons sick of ig- 
 
Extracts from Owen. 139 
 
 norance, darkness and sin." . . . . " The Socinians, 
 who expressly oppose the imputation of the right- 
 eousness of Christ, plead for a participation of its 
 effects or benefits only." . ..." He [Socinus] sup- 
 poseth, that if all he did in a way of obedience, 
 was due from himself on his own account, and was 
 only the duty which he owed unto God for him- 
 self in his station and circumstances, as a man iu 
 this world, it cannot be meritorious for us, nor any 
 way imputed unto us. And in like manner to 
 weaken the doctrine of his satisfaction, and the 
 imputation thereof unto us, he contends that 
 Christ offered as a priest for himself, in that kind 
 
 of offering which he made on the cross." 
 
 " Hereby he excludes the church from any benefit 
 by the mediation of Christ, but only what consists 
 in his doctrine, example, and the exercise of his 
 power in heaven for our good." 
 
 " We grant an inherent righteousness in all that 
 do believe." ...."' For the fruit of the Spirit is in 
 all goodness and righteousnes and truth.' Eph. v. 9. 
 * Being made free from sin, w^e become the ser- 
 vants of righteousness,' Rom. vi. 18. And our 
 duty it is to ' follow after righteousness, godliness, 
 faith, love, meekness.' 1 Tim. ii, 22." . ..." But 
 although this righteousness of believers be on 
 other accounts like the fruit of the vine, that glads 
 the hesirt of God and man, yet as unto our justifi- 
 cation before God, it is like the wood of the vine — 
 
140 Righteousness of Christ, 
 
 a pin is not to be taken from it to hang any weight 
 of this cause upon." . . . . " That righteousness 
 which neither answereth the law of God, nor the 
 end of God in our justification by the gospel, is not 
 that whereon we are justified. But such is this 
 inherent righteousness of behevers, even of the 
 best of them." . ..." It is imperfect with respect 
 unto every act and duty of it, w hether internal or 
 external. There is iniquity cleaving unto our 
 holy thing;, and all our * righteousnesses are as 
 filthy rags.' Isa. Ixiv. 6." 
 
 " That which is imputed is the righteousness of 
 Christ ; and briefly I understand hereby, his 
 whole obedience unto God in all that he did and 
 suffered for the church. This I say is imputed 
 unto believers, so as to become their only right- 
 eousness before God unto the justification of fife." 
 . . . . " The judgment of the reformed churches 
 herein is known unto all." . . . . " Especially the 
 church of England is in her doctrine express as 
 unto the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, 
 both active and passive, as it is usually distin- 
 guished. This hath been of late so fully mani- 
 fested out of her authentic writings, that is, the ar- 
 ticles of religion, and books of homilies, and other 
 writings publicly authorized, that it is altogether 
 needless to give any farther demonstration of it." 
 . . . . " The law hath two parts or powders ; 1. Its 
 preceptive part 2. The sanction on suppo- 
 
Extracts from Owen. 141 
 
 sition of disobedience, binding the sinner unto 
 punishment." . . . . " The Lord Jesus Christ ful- 
 filled the whole law for us ; he did not only un- 
 dergo the penalty of it due unto our sins, but also 
 yielded that perfect obedience wliich it did re- 
 quire." . . . . " Christ's fulfilling the law in obedi- 
 ence unto its commands, is no less imputed unto 
 us for our justification, than his undergoing the 
 penalty of it is." . . . . " For why was it necessary, 
 or w^hy would God have it so, that the Lord Christ, 
 as the surety of the covenant, should undergo the 
 curse and penalty of the law, which we had incur- 
 red the guilt of, by sin, that we may be justified 
 in his sight ? Was it not that the glory and honor 
 of his righteousness, as the author of the law, and 
 the Supreme Governor of all mankind thereby, 
 might not be violated in the absolute impunity of 
 the infringers of it ? And if it were requisite unto 
 the glory of God, that the penalty of the law 
 should be undergone for us, or suffered by our 
 surety in our stead, because we had sinned ; 
 wherefore is it not as requisite unto the glory of 
 God, that the preceptive part of the law be com- 
 plied withal for us, inasmuch as obedience there- 
 unto is required of us ? And as we are no more 
 able of ourselves to fulfil the law, in a way of 
 obedience, than to undergo the penalty of it, so as 
 that we may be justified thereby ; so no reason 
 can be given, why God is not as much concerned 
 
142 Righteousness of Christ. 
 
 in honor and glory, that the preceptive power 
 and part of the law be complied withal by per- 
 fect obedience, as that the sanction of it be estab- 
 lished by undergoing its penalty." . . . . " The con- 
 science of a convinced sinner, who presents him- 
 self in the presence of God, finds all practically 
 reduced unto this one point, viz. whether he will 
 trust unto his own personal inherent righteous- 
 ness, or in a full renunciation of it, betake himself 
 unto the grace of God, and the righteousness of 
 Christ alone." . . . . " The latter is the true and 
 only relief of distressed consciences, of sinners 
 
 who are weary and heavy laden that which 
 
 alone they may oppose unto the sentence of the 
 law, and interpose between God^s justice and their 
 souls, wherein they may take shelter from the 
 storms of that wrath which abideth on them that 
 believe not." 
 
 These views of Owen accord with the doctrine 
 of our Confession of Faith and with the senti- 
 ments of other standard writers. The language 
 of our Confession is as follows : " Those whom 
 God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth ; 
 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by 
 pardoning their sins, and by accounting and ac- 
 cepting their persons as righteous, not for any 
 thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for 
 Christ's sake alone : not by imputing faith itself, 
 the act of believing, or any other evangelical obe«. 
 
Vieios of Calvin. 143 
 
 diencc to them, as their righteousness ; but by im- 
 puting the obedience and satisfaction of Christ 
 unto them, they receiving and resting on him and 
 his righteousness by faith." Says Calvin, " He is 
 said to be justified in the sight of God, who in the 
 Divine judgment is reputed righteous, and accept- 
 ed on account of his righteousness." . . . . " He 
 must be said, therefore, to be justified hy works^ 
 whose hfe discovers such purity and hohness as 
 to deserve the character of righteousness before 
 the throne of God ; or who, by the integrity of his 
 works, can answer and satisfy the Divine judg- 
 ment. On the other hand, he will be justified hy 
 faiths who being excluded from the righteousness 
 of works, apprehends by faith t!ie righteousness 
 of Christ, invested in which he appears in the sight 
 of God, not as a sinner, but as a righteous man. 
 Thus we simply explain justification to be an ac- 
 ceptance by which God receives into his favor 
 and esteems us as righteous persons ; and we say 
 that it consists in the remission of sins and the 
 imputation of Christ's righteousness." Calvin's 
 Institutes, vol. 2, p. 203, 204. 
 
 These remarks, let it be remembered, refer to 
 our relation to God in point of law. "Imputation 
 is never represented as affecting the moral char- 
 acter, but merely the relation of men to God and 
 his law. To impute sin, is to regard and treat as 
 a sinner ; and to impute righteousness is to rer 
 
144 Righteousness of Christ 
 
 gard and treat as righteous." Hodge on the Ro- 
 mans, p. 225, 226. Though personally consider- 
 ed, we are sinners, and as such wholly undeserv- 
 ing ; yet when we are united to Christ by faith , 
 his righteousness is so imputed to us or reckoned 
 in law to our account, that God regards and 
 treats us as righteous—" the righteousness of the 
 law being" considered as " fulfilled in us," because 
 Christ has fulfilled it for us. It is therefore no 
 ground for self-complacency, but of humiliation 
 and gratitucle. 
 
 With reference to those to whom Christ's 
 righteousness is imputed for their justification our 
 standards say, " Yet inasmuch as he [Christ] was 
 given by the Father for them, and his obedience 
 and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both 
 freely, not for any thing in them, their justifica- 
 tion is only of free grace ; that both the exact 
 justice and rich grace of God might be glorified 
 in the justification of sinners." Thus, according 
 to this view of the doctrine, justice and mercy 
 are harmoniously and sweetly blended. While 
 the sinner is saved without conflicting with the 
 claims of God's law, it is " all to the praise of his 
 glorious grace." We have other quotations to make 
 on this subject, but shall reserve them until we 
 present a few specimens of the New Theology. 
 Says Mr. Finney, " Gospel justification is not 
 by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Under 
 
Specimens of New Views. 145 
 
 the gospel, sinners are not justified by having the 
 obedience of Jesus Christ set down to their ac- 
 count, as if he had obeyed the law for them or 
 in their stead. It is not an uncommon mistake 
 to suppose that wiien sinners are justified under 
 the gospel they are accounted righteous in the 
 eye of the law, by having the obedience or right- 
 eousness of Christ imputed to them. I have not 
 time to go into an examination of this subject now. 
 I can only say that this idea is absurd and im- 
 possible, for the reason that Jesus Christ was 
 bound to obey the law for himself, and could no 
 more perform works of supererogation, or obey on 
 our account, than any body else."* . . . . " Abra- 
 ham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness, 
 because it was itself an act of righteousness, and 
 because it worked by love, and therefore produ- 
 ced holiness. Justifying faith is holiness, so far 
 as it goes, and produces holiness of heart and 
 life, and is imputed to the believer as holiness, 
 not instead of holiness." Lectures to Professing 
 Christians, pp. 215, 216. 
 
 Mr. Barnes says, " The phrase righteousness of 
 God is equivalent to GocFs plan of justifying 
 men^^ — in regard to which, he observes, " It is not 
 that his righteousness becomes ours. This is not 
 
 * This is a Socinian objection ; and on Socinian principles it 
 is valid ; but if Christ be Divine, it has no force. 
 N 
 
146 Justification — New Theology. 
 
 true ; and there is no intelligible sense in which 
 that can be understood. But it is God's plan for 
 pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had 
 not committed it." Notes on the Romans, pp. 
 28, 29. Again, (p. 94,) in reference to the 
 phrase, "Abraham believed God, and it was 
 counted unto him for righteousness," he remarks, 
 " The word " it" here, evidently refers to the act 
 of believing. It does not refer to tlm righteous- 
 ness of another — of God or of the Messiah ; but 
 the discussion is solely of the strong act of Abra- 
 ham's faith, which, in some sense was counted to 
 him for righteousness. In what sense this w^as, is 
 explained directly after. All that is material to 
 remark here is, that the act of Abraham, the 
 strong confidence of his mind in the promises/of 
 God, his unwavering assurance that w^hat God 
 had promised he would perform, was reckoned 
 for righteousness. The same thing is more fully 
 expressed, verse 18, 22. When, therefore, it is 
 said that the righteousness of Christ is accounted 
 or imputed to us ; when it said that his merits 
 are transferred and reckoned as ours ; w^hatever 
 may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be de- 
 fended by this passage of scripture. Faith is al- 
 w^ays an act of the mind." .... " God promises ; 
 the man believes ; and this is the ivhole of it." It 
 is manifest that Mr. Barnes intended in these 
 passages to deny that we are justified by the im- 
 putation of Christ's righteousness ; and with re- 
 
Justification — New Theology. 147 
 
 gard to the manner in which we are justified, he 
 is directly at variance with the Confession of 
 Faith. He teaches that the act of believing is 
 imputed for righteousness ; and the Confession of 
 Faith declares expressly to the contrary — " not 
 by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or 
 any other evangelical obedience to them, as their 
 righteousness." The Confession teaches more- 
 over that we are justified on principles of law 
 and justice, as well as of grace and mercy — all of 
 them harmoniously meeting together in the cross 
 of Christ. He intimates that legal principles 
 have nothing to do in the matter. " It [Rom. i. 
 17,] does not touch the question, whether it is by 
 imputed righteousness or not ; it does not say that 
 it is on legal principles." Notes on the Romans, 
 p. 28. This sentence, though it does not amount 
 to a positive denial, was designed, we have no 
 doubt, to convey this idea. Similar forms of ex- 
 pression often occur in this volume, where it is 
 evident from the connexion, he means to be un- 
 derstood as denying the doctrine. 
 
 The New Haven divines appear to entertain 
 the same sentiments ; as the the following from 
 the Christian Spectator will serve to show: 
 " What then is the ground on which the penitent 
 sinner is pardoned ? It is not that the sufferings 
 of Christ were of the nature of punishment ; for 
 being innocent, he had no sins of his own to be 
 
148 Justification — New Theology. 
 
 punished for; and as he was a distinct being 
 from us, he could not be strictly punished for 
 ours." .... " It is not that by his death he satis- 
 fied the penal justice of God ; for if he did, pun- 
 ishment could not be equitably inflicted on sin- 
 ners, whether penitent or not. Nor indeed is it 
 that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to 
 those who are pardoned, either as a personal 
 quality, or in such a manner as to be accounted 
 to them as if it were theirs. Nothing can be 
 imputed but that which is their own personal at- 
 tribute or act. Hence, though Dr. B.* does in 
 one place speak of the imputation of Christ*s 
 righteousness to believers, he obviously refers not 
 to its transfer, but to the enjoyment of its conse- 
 quences; and he more commonly speaks * of faith,* 
 a personal quality of the saints, * as imputed for 
 righteousness.^ What then is the ground on which 
 forgiveness is bestowed ? It is simply this, that 
 the death of Christ removed the difl[iculties which 
 would otherwise have eternally barred the ex- 
 ercise of pardoning mercy." Christian Spectator, 
 September, 1830. 
 
 * The person referred to here is not Dr. Beman ; but if one 
 will turn to Beman on the Atonement, p. 51, he will perceive 
 that most of what is here said is more applicable to him thaa 
 to Dr. Bellamy, whom it is believed the reviewer has treated 
 unfairly. See quotations from Dr. Bellamy in subsequeni 
 pages. 
 
Observations — Views of Bates. 149 
 
 How radically different are these sentiments 
 from the doctrine of justification as held by most 
 evangelical churches ! If they are scriptural, then 
 multitudes of christians have mistaken the vt^ay of 
 salvation. But if they are erroneous, (as we be- 
 lieve them to be,) then those who embrace them 
 have reason to examine anew the foundation of 
 their hopes for eternity. The two systems can 
 never be made to harmonize with each other. If 
 the one is scriptural, the other must fall ; and they 
 involve points which affect so seriously the great 
 and everlasting interests of man, that no one 
 ought to be indifferent with regard to them. In- 
 difference here would be highly criminal 
 
 For the purpose of shewing how fully the Old 
 Theology on this subject accords with the gene- 
 ral voice of the church since the Reformation, we 
 shall introduce a few additional quotations. 
 
 Bates. " There are but two ways of appearing 
 before the righteous and Supreme Judge : 1. In sin- 
 less obedience Whoever presumes to ap- 
 pear before God's judgment-seat, in his own 
 righteousness, shall be covered with confusion. 
 2. By the righteousness of Christ. This alone 
 absolves from the guilt of sin, saves from hell, and 
 can endure the trial of God's tribunal. This the 
 Apostle prized as his invaluable treasure (Phil. iii. 
 ^,) in comparison of which " all other things are 
 tut dross and dung, that I may be found in him, 
 
150 Justification — Bellamy. 
 
 not having mine own righteousness, which is of 
 the law, but that which is through the faith of 
 Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
 faith." That which he ordained and rewarded in 
 the person of our Redeemer, he cannot but ac- 
 cept. Now this righteousness is meritoriously 
 imputed to believers,^'' Harmony of the Divine 
 Attributes, p. 298, 299. 
 
 Bellamy. "By the first covenant, the constitu- 
 tion with Adam, his perfect obedience through his 
 appointed time of trial, would, by virtue of that 
 constitution or covenant, have entitled us to ever- 
 lasting hfe. By the second covenant, the perfect 
 righteousness of Christ, the second Adam, entitles 
 all true beHevers to everlasting hfe, by and ac- 
 cording to this new and living way. A perfect 
 righteousness was necessary according to the law 
 of nature, and a perfect righteousness is insisted 
 upon in both covenants. According to the law 
 of nature, it was to be performed personally ; 
 but according to both covenants, it is appointed 
 to be performed by a public head. According to 
 the first covenant we were to have been interest- 
 ed in the righteousness of our public head, by vir- 
 tue of our union to him as his posterity, for whom 
 he was appointed to act. According to the se- 
 cond covenant, we are interested in the righte- 
 ousness of Christ, our public head, by virtue of 
 
Justification — Edwards, 151 
 
 our union to him by faith." True Religion De- 
 lineated, p. 421, 422. 
 
 Edwards. " It is absolutely necessary, that in 
 order to a sinner's being justified, the righteous- 
 ness of some other should be reckoned to his ac- 
 count ; for it is declared that the person justified 
 is looked upon as (in himself) ungodly ; but God 
 neither will nor can justify a person without a 
 righteousness^ ; for justification is manifestly a /b- 
 rensic term, as the word is^used in scripture, and 
 a judicial thing, or the act of a judge. So that if 
 a person should be justified without a righteous- 
 ness, the judgment would not be according to 
 truth. The sentence of justification would be a 
 false sentence, unless there be a righteousness 
 performed, that is by the judge properly looked 
 upon as his. To say that God does not justify 
 the sinner without sincere, though an imperfect 
 obedience, does not help the case ; for an imper- 
 fect righteousness before a judge is no righteous- 
 ness." . . . . " God doth in the sentence of justifi- 
 cation pronounce a sinner perfectly righteous, or 
 else he would need a further justification after 
 he is justified." . ..." By that [Christ's] righte- 
 ousness being imputed to us, is meant no other 
 than this, that the righteousness of Christ is ac- 
 cepted for us, and admitted instead of that perfect 
 inherent righteousness which ought to be in our- 
 selves. Christ's perfect obedience shall be reck- 
 
152 Justification — Edwards, 
 
 oned to our account, so that we shall have the 
 benefit of it, as though we had performed it our- 
 selves. And so we suppose that a title to eternal 
 life is given us as the reward of this righteouss- 
 ness." . . . . " There is the very same need of 
 Christ's obeying the law in our stead, in order to 
 the reward, as of his suffering the penalty of the 
 law in our stead, in order to our escaping the 
 penalty ; and the same reason why one should be 
 
 accepted on our account, as the other." 
 
 " Faith justifies, or gives an interest in Christ's 
 satisfaction and merits, and a right to the benefits 
 procured thereby, as it thus makes Christ and the 
 believer one in the acceptance of the Supreme 
 Judge." . . . . " What is real in the union between 
 Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is 
 legal ; that is, it is something really in them, and 
 betw^een them, uniting them, that is the ground of 
 the suitableness of their being accounted as one 
 by the judge." . . . . " God does not give those 
 that believe, an union with or an interest in thS 
 Saviour as a reward for faith, but only because 
 faith is the soul's active uniting with Christ, or is 
 itself the very act of union, on their 'part^ 
 
 Concerning the opinion of those who believe 
 justification to be nothing more than pardon, he 
 observes : " Some suppose that nothing more is 
 intended in scripture by justification than barely 
 the remission of sins. If so, it is very strange, if 
 
Justification — Edwards. 1 53 
 
 we consider the nature of the case ; for it is most 
 evident, and none will deny, that it is with re- 
 spect to the rule or law of God, we are under, 
 that w^e are said in scripture to be either justified 
 or condemned. Now what is it to justify a per- 
 son as the subject of a law or rule, but to judge 
 him as standing right with respect to that rule ? 
 To justify a person in a particular case, is to ap- 
 prove of him as standing right, as subject to the 
 law in that case ; and to justify in general, is to 
 pass him in judgment, as standing right in a state 
 correspondent to the law or rule in general ; but 
 certainly, in order to a person's being looked on 
 as standing right with respect to the rule in gene- 
 ral, or in a state corresponding with the law of 
 God, more is needful than not having the guilt of 
 sin ; for whatever that law is, whether a new or 
 an old one, doubtless something positive is need- 
 ed in order to its being answered. We are no 
 more justified by the voice of the law, or of him 
 that judges according to it, by a mere pardon of 
 sin, than Adam, our first surety, was justified by 
 the law at the first point of his existence, before 
 he had fulfilled the obedience of the law, or had 
 so much as any trial, whether he would fulfil it 
 or no. If Adam had finished his course of per- 
 fect obedience, he would have been justified ; and 
 certainly his justification would have implied 
 something more than what is merely negative ; he 
 
154 Justification — Edwards. 
 
 would have been approved of, as having fulfilled 
 the righteousness of the law, and accordingly 
 would have been adjudged to the reward of it. 
 So Christ, our second surety, was not justified till 
 he had done the work the Father had appointed 
 him ; and kept the Father's commandments 
 through all trials ; and then in his resurrection he 
 was justified. When he had been put to death 
 in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, 1 Pet. iii. 
 18, then he that was manifest in the flesh was jus- 
 tified in the Spirit, 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; but God, when 
 he justified him in raising him from the dead, did 
 not only release him from his humiliation for sin, 
 and acquit him from any further suflering or abase- 
 ment for it, but admitted him to that eternal and 
 immortal life, and to the beginning of that exalta" 
 tion that was the reward of what he had done. 
 And indeed the justification of a believer is no 
 other than his being admitted to communion in 
 the justification of this head and surety of all be- 
 lievers ; for as Christ suffered the punishment of 
 sin, not as a private person, but as our surety ; so 
 when, after this suffering, he was raised from the 
 dead, he was therein justified, not as a private 
 person, but as the surety and representative of all 
 that should believe in him." . ..." To suppose 
 that all Christ does is only to make atonement 
 for us by suffering, is to make him our Saviour but 
 in part. It is to rob him of half his glory as a 
 
Veiios of Di\ Alexander. 1 55 
 
 Saviour. For if so, all that he does is to deliver 
 us from hell ; he does not purchase heaven for 
 us." Discourse on Justification. 
 
 Alexander. " Some have attempted to evade 
 the doctrine [of the imputation of Christ's right- 
 eousness] by alleging, that not the righteousness 
 of Christ but its effects are imputed to us. They 
 who talk thus do not seem to understand what 
 they say. It must be by the imputation of the 
 righteousness that the good effects are derived to 
 us ; but the imputation of the effects themselves 
 cannot be. To talk of imputing pardon — of im- 
 puting justification — imputing peace, &c. is to use 
 words without meaning. What we are inquiring 
 after is the reason why these blessings become 
 ours. It cannot be on account of our own right- 
 eousness, which is of the law ; it must be on ac- 
 count of the righteousness of Christ. The next 
 question is, how does that righteousness avail to 
 obtain for us pardon and justification and peace 
 with (rod ? The answer is, by imputation ; that is, 
 it is set down to our credit. God accepts it on 
 our behalf ; yea, he bestows it upon us. If there 
 be any such thing as imputation, it must be of the 
 righteousness of Christ itself, and the benefits 
 connected with salvation flow from this imputa- 
 tion. We conclude, therefore, that the righteous- 
 ness of Christ can only justify us, by being im- 
 puted to us." 
 
1 56 Jxistificatiow — Alexander. 
 
 In reply to the objection that this doctrine 
 " makes the sinner's justification a matter of justice, 
 and not of grace/' he says, " All theories which 
 suppose that grace is exercised at the expense of 
 justice, or that in order to the manifestation of 
 grace, law and justice must be suspended, labor 
 under a radical mistake in theology, which cannot 
 but introduce darkness and perplexity into their 
 whole system. Indeed, if law and justice could 
 have been set aside or suspended, there had been 
 no occasion for the plan of redemption. The 
 only reason why sinners could not be saved was, 
 that the law and justice of God stood in the way ; 
 but if, by a sovereign act, these obstacles could 
 have been removed, salvation might have been 
 accomplished without an atonement. But though 
 the scriptures, every where, ascribe salvation to 
 GRACE, FiiEE GRACE ; yct they never teach that 
 this grace requires God to deny himself, as to his 
 attributes of justice ; or that law and justice are 
 at all interfered with ; or for a moment suspend- 
 ed. On the contrary, the idea is continually kept 
 in view, that grace reigns through righteousness ; 
 that the propitiation of Christ is necessary, that 
 God may be just and yet the justifier of the un- 
 godly. Redemption is the obtaining deliverance 
 by paying a price ; and yet redemption and grace, 
 so far from being inconsistent, are constantly 
 united, as parts of the same glorious plan, accord- 
 
Remarks of Dr. Alexander. 157 
 
 ing to the scriptures. " In whom we have re- 
 demption through his blood, the forgiveness of 
 sins, according to the riches of his grace." (Eph. 
 i. 7.) The only way in which it was possible for 
 grace to be exercised, was by a plan which made 
 provision for the complete satisfaction of law and 
 justice. This was the great problem, to the so- 
 lution of which no finite wisdom was competent ; 
 but which the infinite wisdom of Jehovah has ac- 
 complished by the mission and sacrifice of his own 
 dear Son. What is objected, therefore, is a thing 
 essential to the exercise of grace. And the whole 
 appearance of plausibility in the objection arises 
 from not distinguishing between God's dealings 
 with our substitute and with us. To him there 
 was no mercy shown ; the whole process was in 
 strict execution of law and justice. The last far- 
 thing due, so to speak, was exacted of our Sure- 
 ty, when he stood in our place, under the holy and 
 sin avenging law of God. But this exercise of 
 justice towards him was the very thing which 
 opened the way for superabounding mercy to- 
 wards us. And this cost at which the sluices of 
 grace were opened, so far from lessening, consti- 
 tutes its riches and glory."* 
 
 * This extract from Dr. Alexander, and those which have been 
 before given from his pen, are contained in a short and able 
 Treatise on Justification by Faith, written by him for the Pres- 
 O 
 
158 Justification hy Faith. 
 
 We will close our extracts by a few sentences 
 bearing upon the New School doctrine, that the 
 act of believing is imputed for righteousness. 
 They shall be from the pen of Dr. Doddridge, in 
 his note on the phrase, " Imputed to him [Abra- 
 ham] for righteousness ;" which is the principal 
 text relied upon to prove the new doctrine. Says 
 he, " I think nothing can be easiei" than to under- 
 stand how this may be said in full consistence 
 with our being justified by the imputation of. the 
 righteousness of Christ, that is, our being treated 
 by God as rigliteous, for the sake of what he has 
 done and suffered : for though this be the merito- 
 rious cause of our acceptance with God, yet faith 
 may be said to be imputed to us in order to our 
 being justified or becoming righteous: that is, ac- 
 cording to the view which J have elsewhere more 
 largely stated, as we are charged as debtors in 
 the book of God's account, what Christ has done 
 in fulfilling all righteousness for us is charged as 
 the grand balance of the account ; but that it may 
 appear that we are according to the tenor of the 
 gospel entitled to the benefit of this, it is also en- 
 tered in the book of God's remembrance " that 
 we are believers :" and this appearing, we are 
 
 byterian Tract Society. This tract and the other tracts pub- 
 hshed by that Society we recommend to the perusal of cur 
 readers. 
 
Remarks of Doddridge, 159 
 
 graciously discharged, yea, rewarded, as if we 
 ourselves had been perfectly innocent and obe- 
 dient." 
 
 In concluding the present chapter we wish a- 
 gain to call the attention of the reader to the inti- 
 mate connection which exists between the doc- 
 trine of justification and most of the other doc- 
 trines wiiich have been brought to view in the 
 preceding pages. Though this has been ah'eady 
 alluded to, when speaking of imputation and ori- 
 ginal sin, the truth of the remark was not, per- 
 haps, so obvious as it must be now. The feder- 
 al headship of Adam, the imputation of the guilt 
 of his first sin to his posterity, original sin, the a- 
 tonement and justification, are so closely connect- 
 ed, that if we have incorrect views with regard 
 to the one, w^e shall err respecting the others. 
 The views concerning these doctrines w^hich we 
 regard as scriptural, and which we have endeav- 
 ored to substantiate, so far as the design of the 
 work would permit, are all different parts of the 
 same system. If one of them be materially modi- 
 fied or denied, it involves a similar modification or 
 denial of the whole. " While men are disputing, 
 says Dr. Bellamy, against the original constitution 
 with Adam,* they unawares undermine the se- 
 
 * Dr. Bellamy's views concerning God's covenant with Ad- 
 am, original sin, &c. are the same with those of Pres. Edwards ; 
 from whom extracts on this subject have been given. See True 
 Religion Delineated, p. 269, 271. 
 
160 Remarks of Bellamy. 
 
 cond constitution, which is the foundation of all 
 our hopes. Eager to avoid Adam's first sin, 
 whereby comes condemnation, they render of 
 none effect Christ's righteousness, whereby comes 
 justification." . . . . " What remains, therefore, but 
 Deism and Infidelity ?" 
 
 Truth is harmonious. The several doctrines of 
 the Bible, like the stones in Solomon's temple, 
 unite together, without the use of an " ax or ham- 
 mer" to pare down their edges. But if one be 
 rejected, there is not only a vacancy left in the 
 building, which no art or ingenuity can supply, 
 but the edifice itself is in danger of falling. 
 
CHAP. VII. 
 
 Human ability, regeneration, and the influences of the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 That the fall of man has not released us from 
 obligation to love and obej^ God, is maintain- 
 ed by all. This, however, it is believed, is per- 
 fectly consistent with the doctrine, that from our 
 " original corruption, w^e are utterly indisposed, dis- 
 abled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly 
 inclined to all evil." As our inability is not only 
 our misfortune, but our sin, it can never destroy 
 moral obligation. Upon these points Calvinistic 
 writers are generally agreed. But as the subject 
 is attended with difficulties, which some have been 
 anxious to avoid, a distinction has been resorted 
 to between natural and moral inability ; the lat- 
 ter of which, it is supposed, is the inability under 
 which the sinner lies ; and that he still possesses 
 natural ability to do his duty. By this it is meant 
 that he merely has the physical powers, or the/«c- 
 ulties of mind, which are requisite to enable him 
 to do what God requires — but that his mind is, 
 nevertheless, wholly disinclined to that which is 
 good ; or in other words, that he is morally una- 
 ble to exercise holy affections. This distinction, 
 it might be easily shown, is not without found a- 
 
162 Human Ahility, 
 
 tion ; and yet when applied to the subject of re- 
 ligion, it is doubted by many, whether its use re- 
 ally solves any difficulties, or is productive of any 
 practical good ; chiefly from the ambiguity of the 
 terms, and their liability to be misunderstood. 
 
 It is no part of our present purpose to discuss 
 this question. We have introduced it in order to 
 prepare the way for the observation, that those 
 whose sentiments we are now considering, retain 
 the term natural in comiection with ability ; and 
 thus appear to accord with those who are in the 
 habit of making the distinction to which we have 
 referred ; though in reality they occupy very dif- 
 ferent ground. Though when they speak of abili- 
 ty, they frequently annex to it the word statural ; 
 they seldom speak of mability at all — ^but produce 
 the impression that the ability which they preach 
 is fully adequate to enable the sinner independ- 
 ently of Divine grace, to do all that God re- 
 quires. 
 
 This was the opinion of Dr. Porter concerning 
 Dr. Beechers preaching, prior to 1829. In a let- 
 ter addressed to him which has been published in 
 various papers, he says, "You exalt one part of 
 Calvinism, viz. human agency, so as vittually to 
 lose sight of its correlate human dependence, and 
 thus make regeneration so much a result of mf«/z* 
 and instrumentality, that the sinner is born rather 
 ' of blood or of the will of man than of God.' " 
 
Views of Dr, Beecher. 163 
 
 A similar opinion has been formed by some 
 concerning his " Views in Theology," published 
 in 1836. Dr. Harvey says concerning them, 
 " Dr. Beecher's Views, it is true, have many 
 shades and shadov^^s of orthodoxy. The super- 
 structure looks fair and imposing ; but the philos- 
 ophy is Pelagian, and all the orthodoxy in his 
 * Views' is undermined by a false theory of 
 moral agency, on which the whole is founded." 
 Harvey on Moral Agency, p. 6. The following 
 quotations will show what foundation Dr. Harvey 
 had for this opinion. 
 
 Dr. Beecher says, (p. 30, 31,) "That man pos- 
 sesses since the fall the powers of agency requi- 
 site to obligation, on the ground of the possibility/ 
 of obedience, is a matter of notoriety. Not one of 
 the powers of mind which constituted ability be- 
 fore the fall have been obliterated by that event. 
 All that has ever been conceived, or that can now 
 be conceived, as entering into the constitution of 
 a free agent, capable of choosing life or death, or 
 which did exist in Adam when he could and did 
 obey, yet mutable, survive the fall." He says, 
 (p. 31, 32,) "Choice, in its very nature, implies 
 the possibility of a different or contrary election 
 to that which is made. There is always an alter- 
 native to that which the mind decides on, with the 
 
 conscious power of choosing either.''' " The 
 
 question of free will is not whether man chooses — 
 
164 Human Ability. 
 
 this is notorious, none deny it ; but whether his 
 choice is free as opposed to a fatal necessity." 
 Again, (p. 35) " Choice, without the possibility of 
 other or contrary choice, is the immemorial doc- 
 trine of fatahsm : And further, (p. 47,) " This 
 doctrine of the natural ability of choice, commen- 
 surate ivith obligation, has been, and is, the re- 
 ceived doctrine of the universal orthodox church, 
 from the primitive age down to this day." 
 
 The first of these propositions speaks without 
 any qualification of the "possibility of obedience" 
 in reference to fallen man — and makes this essen- 
 tial to obligation. The second and third predi- 
 cate this possibility of obedience upon the posses- 
 sion of a self determining power of the will, by 
 w^hich we can not only choose, but alter our voli- 
 tions at pleasure. This, according to his view, is 
 essential to free agency. The third affirms that 
 " this statural ability of choice,'^ by which we un- 
 derstand him to mean, the power which we natu- 
 rally possess as free agents, over our volitions, 
 " is commensurate with obligations^ If these are 
 the ideas which he intends to convey, it follows, 
 that man since the fall possesses all the powers 
 which are requisite to enable him to change his 
 sinful volitions for those which are holy : or, to 
 use the language of Dr. Harvey, " that man pos- 
 sesses, since the fall, the powers of agency requi- 
 site to obligation, on the ground of possessing a 
 
Remarks of Dr. Harvey. 165 
 
 power of contrary choice, by which he can re- 
 cover himself from perfect sinfulness to perfect 
 holiness." Harvey on Moral Agency, p. 80, 81. 
 " Natural ability of choice, commensurate with 
 obligation, says Dr. Harvey, must mean some- 
 thing more than the mere powder of choice ; it 
 means natural ability not only to do right, if one 
 is disposed, but natural ability to overcome every 
 moral impediment. In other words, it means nat- 
 ural ability to overcome moral inability, or natural 
 ability which can produce ability enough to over- 
 come moral inability. Thus, as I have before had 
 occasion to remark, the great object is to render 
 man, in his fallen state, independent of the grace 
 of God. To accomplish this purpose. Dr. Beecher 
 introduces the extra powder of contrary choice as 
 an addition to the simple power of choice, and 
 which he deems sufficient to equal obligation, and 
 if so, to bring the sinner out of darkness into light, 
 to raise him from death to life. Thus Dr. Beecher, 
 in effect, coincides with Pelagius, who denied all 
 moral inability. Pelagius takes the city by un- 
 dermining and sinking the wall ; Dr, Beecher by 
 building an embankment which shall overtop the 
 wall. One sinks the wall to the surface, the other 
 raises the surface to the wall's top ; and in both 
 cases, the obstacle of moral inability is annihila- 
 ted." Harvey on Moral Agency, p. 115, 116, 
 
166 Human Ability. 
 
 We have exhibited Dr. Beecher's views in the 
 above form, because the language of his several 
 propositions is such, that the sentiments intended 
 to be conveyed are not perfectly obvious upon a 
 simple perusal. The deductions which we have 
 made, or which we have quoted from Dr. Harvey, 
 we do not, of course, ascribe to Dr. Beecher, as 
 expressing what he believes — but if we have not 
 mistaken his views, they appear to lead, by legit- 
 imate consequence, to these conclusions — and to 
 some of them it is probable he would not refuse 
 his assent; since it would be going no farther 
 than has been expressed by two or three who be- 
 long to the same school. 
 
 Says Mr. Duffield, " Not much less deluding 
 are the system and tactics of those who fearing 
 to invade the province of the Spirit, are careful to 
 remind the sinner, at every turn, that he is utterly 
 unable by his ow^n unassisted powers either to 
 believe or to repent to the saving of his soul. It 
 might as truly be said, that he cannot rise and walk, 
 by his own unassisted powers." Work on Re- 
 generation, p. 542. 
 
 Mr. Finney's language is that " as God requires 
 men to make to themselves a new heart, on pain 
 of eternal death, it is the strongest possible evi- 
 dence that they are able to do it — to say he has 
 commanded them to do it, without telhng them 
 they are ahle^ is consummate trifling." . ..." If 
 
Views of Duffield and Fin ney. 1 67 
 
 the sinner ever has a new heart, he must obey 
 the command of the text, and make it himself." 
 . . . . " Sinner I instead of waiting and praying for 
 God to change your heart, you should at once 
 summon up your powers, put forth the effort, and 
 change the governing preference of your mind. 
 But here, some one may ask, Can the carnal 
 mind, which is enmity against God, change itself? 
 I have already said that this text in the original 
 reads, ' The minding of the flesh is enmity against 
 God.' This minding of the flesh then is a choice 
 or preference to gratify the flesh. Now it is in- 
 deed absurd to say, that a choice can change it- 
 self; but it is not absurd to say, that the agent 
 who exercises this choice can change it. The 
 sinner that minds the flesh, can change his mind, 
 and mind God." Sermons on Important Subjects, 
 p. 18, 37, 38. 
 
 This exposition of the " carnal mind" is a fa- 
 vourite one with writers of this class. Says Mr. 
 Barnes, " The amount of his [Paul's] aflirmation 
 is simply, that the minding of the flesh, the su- 
 preme attention to its dictates and desires, is not 
 and cannot be subject to the law of God. They 
 
 are wholly contradictory and irreconcileable." 
 
 " But whether the man himself might not obey 
 the law, whether he has, or has not, abiHty to do 
 it, is a question which the Apostle does not touch, 
 and on which this passage should not be adduced." 
 
168 Human Ability > 
 
 Notes on the Romans, p. 164. In commenting 
 on the phrase " neither indeed can be," he repeats 
 the same sentiment concerning abiHty which is 
 expressed above. Also in his exposition of the 
 passage, " when we were without strength Christ 
 died for the ungodly." " The remark of the 
 Apostle here," says he, " has reference only to the 
 condition of the race before an atonement is made. 
 It does not pertain to the question whether man 
 has strength to repent and to believe, after an 
 atonement is made, which is a very different in- 
 quiry.'* Though Mr. Barnes expresses himself 
 with much more caution than Messrs. Finney and 
 Duffield, it is apparent that he favours their sen- 
 timents. 
 
 There is so striking a similarity between the 
 views of these men and those of Dr. John Taylor 
 of Norwich, that it will be appropriate to refer to 
 the latter ; with the remarks of President Ed- 
 wards upon them, shewing what he thought of 
 their tendency. They are contained in his work 
 on Original Sin. " It will follow," says he, " on 
 our author's principles [Dr. Taylor's principles] 
 not only with respect to infants, but even adult 
 persons, that redemption is needless, and Christ is 
 dead in vain. Not only is there no need of Christ's 
 redemption in order to deliverance from any con- 
 sequences of Adawis sin, but also in order to per- 
 fect freedom from personal sin, and all its evil 
 
Remarks of Edioards. 169 
 
 consequences. For God has made other sufficient 
 provision for that, viz. a sufficient power and ability, 
 in all mankind, to do all their duty and wliolly to 
 avoid sin. Yea he insists upon it, that " when 
 men have not sufficient powder to do their duty, 
 they have no duty to do. We may safely and as- 
 suredly conclude, (says he,) that mankind in all 
 parts of the world have sufficient power to do 
 the duty which God requires of them ; and that 
 he requires of them no 3iore than they have suf- 
 ficient powers to do." And in another place, 
 " God has given powers equal to the duty which 
 he expects." And he expresses a great dislike at 
 R. R.'s supposing that our propensities to evil, and 
 temptations are too strong to be effectually 
 and constantly resisted ; or that we are una- 
 voidably sinful IN a degree ; that our appetites 
 and passions will be breaking out, notwithstand- 
 ing our everlasting watchfulness." These things 
 fully imply that men have in their own natural 
 ability sufficient means to avoid sin, and to be per- 
 fectly free from it ; and so from all the bad con- 
 sequences of it. And if the means are sufficient, 
 then there is no need of more ; and therefore 
 there is no need of Christ's dying in order to it. 
 What Dr. T. says fully implies that it would be 
 unjust in God to give mankind being in such cir- 
 cumstances, as that they would be more hkely to 
 sin, so as to be exposed to final misery, than other- 
 p 
 
170 Human Ability, 
 
 wise. Hence then, without Christ and his re- 
 demption, and without any grace at all, mere 
 JUSTICE makes sufficient provision for our being 
 free from sin and misery by our own power." 
 
 " If all mankind, in all parts of the world, 
 have sufficient power to do their whole duty, 
 without being sinful in any degree, then they 
 have sufficient power to obtain righteousness by 
 the law : and then, according to the apostle Paul, 
 Christ is dead in vain," Gal. ii. 21. " If right- 
 eousness come by law, Christ is dead in vain ;" — 
 by law, or the rule of right action, as our author 
 explains the phrase. And according to the sense 
 in which he explains this very place, " it would 
 have frustrated, or rendered useless, the grace of 
 God, if Christ died to accomplish what was or 
 MIGHT have been effected by law itself without his 
 death. So that it most clearly follows from his own 
 doctrine, that Christ is dead in vain, and the 
 grace of God is useless. The same apostle says, 
 if there had been a law which could Itave given 
 life, verily righteousness should have been by the 
 law, Gal. iii. 21 ; i. e. (according to Dr. T's 
 own sense,) if there was a law, that man, in his 
 present state, had sufficient power to fulfil. For 
 Dr. T. supposes the reason why the law could 
 not give life, to be " not because it was weak in 
 itself, but through the weakness of our flesh, and 
 the infirmity of human nature in the present 
 
Remarks of Edwards. 171 
 
 state." But he says, " We are under a mild dis- 
 pensation of GRACE making allowance for our in- 
 firmities." By our infirmities, we may, on good 
 ground, suppose he means that infirmity of hu- 
 man nature, which he gives as the reason why 
 the law cannot give life. But what grace is 
 there for making that allowance for our infirmi- 
 ties, which justice itself (according to his doc- 
 trine,) most absolutely requires, as he supposes 
 Divine justice exactly proportions our duty to our 
 ability ? 
 
 " Agam, if it be said, that although Christ's re- 
 demption was not necessary to preserve men 
 from beginning to sin, and getting into a course 
 of sin, because they have sufficient power in 
 themselves to avoid it ; yet it may be necessary 
 to deliver men, after they have by their own fol- 
 ly brought themselves under the dominion of evil 
 appetites and passions. I answer, if it be so, that 
 men need deliverance from those habits and pas- 
 sions, which are become too strong for them, yet 
 that deliverance, on our author's principles, would 
 be no salvation from sin. For the exercise of pas- 
 sions which are too strong for us, and which we 
 cannot overcome, is necessary : and he strongly 
 urges, that a necessary evil can be no moral evil. 
 It is true it is the effect of evil, as it is the eflfect of 
 a bad practice, while the man had power to have 
 avoided it. But then, according to Dr. T. that 
 
172 Human Ability. 
 
 evil cause alone is sin ; for he says expressly, 
 ' The cause of every effect is alone chargeable 
 with the effect it produceth, or which proceedeth 
 from it.' And as to that sin which was the cause, 
 the man needed no Saviom- from that, having had 
 sufficient power in himself to have avoided it. So 
 that it follows by our author's scheme, that none 
 of mankind, neither infants nor adult persons, 
 neither the more or less vicious, neither Jews nor 
 Gentiles, neither heathens nor christians, ever did 
 or even could stand in any need of a Saviour ; and 
 that with respect to all, the truth is, Christ is 
 dead in vain. 
 
 " If any should say, although all mankind in all 
 ages have sufficient ability to do their whole du- 
 ty, and so may by their own power enjoy perfect 
 freedom from sin, yet God foresaw that they 
 would sin, and that after they had sinned they 
 would need Christ's death. I answer, it is plain, 
 by what the apostle says in those places which 
 were just now mentioned, (Gal. ii. 21, and iii. 21,) 
 that God would have esteemed it needless to 
 give his Son to die for men, unless there had 
 been a prior impossibility of their having righteous- 
 ness by any law ; and that if there had been a 
 law which could have given life, this other way 
 by the death of Christ would not have been pro- 
 vided. And this appears so agreable to our au- 
 thor's own sense of things, by his words which 
 
Regeneration — New Theology. 173 
 
 have been cited, wherein he says, ' It would have 
 FRUSTRATED OF rendered useless the grace of 
 God, if Christ died to accomphsh what was or 
 MIGHT HAVE BEEN effected by law itself, without 
 his death/ " 
 
 The new views concerning human ability have 
 an exact counterpart in the description which is 
 given by different writers of this school, of the 
 work of regeneration, and the agency of the Ho- 
 ly Spirit. According to them, regeneration con- 
 sists in the mere change of the governing purpose 
 or preference of the soul — by which the sinner 
 renounces the world as the supreme object of 
 pursuit, and makes choice of God and heavenly 
 things. Prompted by self-love, or in other words, 
 by a constitutional desire for happiness, which is 
 neither sinful nor holy, and the selfish principle 
 in his heart being suspended, he enters upon a 
 serious consideration and comparison of the vari- 
 ous objects of happiness : until he discovers the 
 infinite superiority of God and Divine things to 
 every other object. Then, by "desperate efforts," 
 he fixes his heart upon them ; and thus becomes 
 a christian. The part which the Holy Spirit 
 performs in the work, is, to present truth power- 
 fully before the mind in the form of motives, like 
 an advocate arguing a cause before a jury ; or 
 as one man influences and persuades another in 
 the common affairs of life ; though with infinite- 
 
11'4 Regeneration, 
 
 ly greater skill and force than can be employed 
 by any human agent. His attention is thus ar- 
 rested — he revolves in his mind the points at is- 
 sue — and at length being convinced where his 
 true interest lies, he is prevailed upon by the 
 moral suasion of the Spirit, to change the govern- 
 ing purpose or preference of his mind, and to 
 choose God as his supreme portion. 
 
 The language of Dr. Taylor is as follows: 
 " We proceed to say then, that before the act o 
 the will or heart in which the sinner first prefers 
 God to any other object, the object of the prefer- 
 ence must be viewed or estimated as the greatest 
 good. _ Before the object can be viewed as the 
 greatest good it must be compared with other 
 objects, as both are sources or means of good. 
 Before this act of comparing, there must be an 
 act dictated not by selfisiiness but self-love, in 
 which the mind determines to direct its thoughts 
 to the objects for the sake of considering their 
 relative value, of forming a judgment respecting 
 it ; and of choosing one or the other as the chief 
 good." Christian Spectator, 1829, pp. 19, 20. 
 
 " Divine truth does not become a means to this 
 end, until the selfish principle so long cherished in 
 the heart is suspended ; and the mind is left to 
 the control of that constitutional desire of happi- 
 ness which is an original principle of our nature^ 
 Then it is, we apprehend, that God and the world 
 
Views of D7\ Taylor, ^-c. 175 
 
 are contemplated by the mind as objects of choice, 
 substantially as they would be by a being who 
 had just entered on existence, and who was called 
 upon for the first time tO' select the one or the oth- 
 er as his supreme good." Ch. Spectator, 1829, 
 p. 210. 
 
 " Now we readily concede that sinners never 
 use the means of regeneration with a holy heart, 
 nor with an unholy or sinful heart. But does it 
 therefore follow^ that they never use them with 
 any heart at all ? What is that heart with which 
 God in his law requires sinners to love him ? 
 Surely not a heart which is holy before they love 
 him. Still less with a sinful heart ; and yet he 
 requires them to love Him with some heart, even 
 their heart. Is this no heart at all ? We think 
 on the contrary it is a real heart, a heart with 
 which sinners can love God, even loithout the grace 
 of the Spirit, and certainly with it." Ch. Spec. 
 1830, p. 149, 150. 
 
 Concerning the nature of the Spirit's agency, we 
 believe Dr. Taylor has not pubHshed his views. 
 But the author of " Letters on the New-Haven 
 Theology" informs us that his sentiments corres- 
 pond with those of Mr. Finney. 
 
 Mr. Finney says, " The Spirit pours the expos- 
 tulation home with such power, that the sinner 
 turns. Now, in speaking of this change, it is per- 
 fectly proper to say, that the Spirit turned him^ 
 just as you would say of a man who had persua- 
 
176 Regeneration, 
 
 o 
 
 (led another to change his mind on the subject of 
 politics, that he had converted him and brought 
 
 him over." "He does not act by direct 
 
 physical contact upon the mind, but He uses the 
 truth as His sword to pierce the sinner ; and the 
 motives presented in the gospel are the instru- 
 ments He uses to change the sinner's heart. Some 
 have doubted this, and supposed that it is equiv- 
 alent to denying the Spirit's agency altogether to 
 maintain that He converts sinners by motives. 
 Others have denied the possibility of changing the 
 heart by motives. But did not the serpent 
 change Adam's heart by motives ; and cannot the 
 Spirit of God with infinitely higher motives exert 
 as great power over mind as he can ?" . . . . " From 
 these remarks it is easy to answer the question 
 sometimes put by individuals who seem to be en- 
 tirely in the dark on this subject, whether in con- 
 verting the soul the Spirit acts directly on the 
 mind, or on the truth. This is the same nonsense 
 as if you should ask whether an earthly advocate 
 who had gained his cause, did it by acting directly 
 and physically on the juiy or on his argument." 
 
 " The power which God exerts in the 
 
 conversion of a soul is moral power ; it is that 
 kind of power by which a statesman sways the 
 mind of a senate ; or by which an advocate moves 
 and bows the heart of a jury." Sermons on Im- 
 portant Subjects, p. 21, 27, 23, 30. 
 
Views of Finney and Du field. Ill 
 
 As to what regeneration consists in, Mr. Fin- 
 ney observes, " A change of heart, then, consists 
 in changing the controlling preference of the mind 
 in regard to the end of pursuit. The selfish heart 
 is a preference of self-interest to the glory of God 
 and the interests of His kingdom. A new heart 
 consists in a preference of the glory of God and 
 the interests of His kingdom to one's own hap- 
 piness." " It is a change in the choice of 
 
 a Svpreme Rulers Ibid. p. 9, 10. In describ- 
 ing the process by which the sinner effects this 
 change, he occupies nearly a whole sermon, which 
 we cannot of course, with propriety, transfer to 
 these pages. It corresponds substantially with 
 the views already given from Dr. Taylor. 
 
 Mr. Duffield's account of regeneration is as fol- 
 lows : " It is going altogether beyond the analo- 
 gy in the case, to assert that there is in Regene- 
 ration the injection, infusion, or implantation, or 
 creation of a new principle of sjnritual life^ .... 
 " Whenever the Spirit of God excites and secures 
 in the mind and heart of man those acts and emo- 
 tions which are appropriate to his rational soul, 
 i. e. when they are directed to God, as his su- 
 preme good and chief end, he is renewed, regen- 
 erated, born again." Work on Regeneration, p. 
 202, 203, 2u4. But how does the Spirit produce 
 this result ? According to him it is done by mor« 
 al suasion. He has two whole chapters, occupy- 
 
178 Regeneration, 
 
 ing thirty-five pages, entitled " The Moral Suasion 
 of the Spirit." In one of these he illustrates his views 
 of the nature of the Spirit's agency by the power 
 of persuasion exerted by one man over another, 
 and the greater success which a man of " prac^ 
 tical knowledge and tact and particular acquaint- 
 ance with dispositions," &c. has above one who is 
 less skilful. " Shall we suppose, (says he.) that 
 God cannot do with sinners in reference to him- 
 self what one man has done with another ? That 
 a physical efficiency is necessary to make the sin- 
 ner willing to confide in Ilim and repent of his 
 rebellion ? To suppose this, is in fact to attrib- 
 ute a moral influence to man more potent than 
 that which, in such a case, it would be requisite 
 God should exert ! It would in effect be to say 
 that man can subdue his foe and by an appropri- 
 ate moral influence convert him into a friend ; but 
 that God cannot convert His enemy, and bring 
 him to believe, except He puts forth His physical 
 power and literally creates him over again." — 
 P. 492, 493.* 
 
 * This power of moral suasion is tlie kind of influence refer, 
 red to b)'a certain preacher who said, " If I were as eloquent as 
 the Holy Ghost I could convert sinners as well as He." In the 
 National Preacher for Feb. 1832, a sermon furnished by Dr. 
 Griffin commences by quoting the above remark. It being at- 
 tributed by some to a Presbyterian minister of my acquaintance, 
 I asked him whether he had ever used this expression. He re. 
 
Views of Mr. Gilhert 179 
 
 Daring the progress of the discussion concern- 
 ing the New Theology, it was alleged by some 
 by way of objection to the new theory, that it in- 
 volved the principle that regeneration is not an 
 instantaneous but a gradual work. This allega- 
 tion so far as I recollect, was for a time neither 
 admitted nor denied. But recently the doctrine 
 o^ gradual regeneration has been avowed. Mr, 
 Gilbert,! of Wilmington, Del. published in the 
 Pliiladelphian in 1833, a number of communica- 
 tions on this subject ; which were afterwards re- 
 vised and enlarged, and in 1836, at the " earnest 
 request" of the " members of the Ministers' Meet- 
 ing of New Castle County, Del." were published 
 in a pamphlet form, under the title of " Moral 
 Suasion ; or Regeneration not a Miracle," &c. 
 It is dedicated to the members of the Ministers' 
 Meeting, and to the Elders of the churches under 
 their pastoral charge. These facts appear to 
 show that Mr. Gilbert's views accord with the 
 sentiments of the other ministers with whom he 
 is associated in that state, and that they desire to 
 have them prevail throughout their churches. 
 
 plied that he had, and vindicated its correctness ; though he 
 said it did not appear in the connexion in which he used it, as 
 it does when standing by itself. 
 
 t In the organization of the New School General Assembly 
 in May last, Mr. Gilbert v/as chosen permanent clerk. 
 
180 Regeneratiorik 
 
 Mr. Gilbert affirms that " the bible knows no 
 instantaneous regeneration ; this is a refinement 
 of theological philosophers. Being born again, 
 and changing the heaft of stone to a heart of flesh, 
 is a gradual j^rocess ; although under some cir- 
 cumstances it may be a very sJioi^t one." The re- 
 mark of Dr. Griffin, that "motives can never 
 change an unholy te?nper" &lc. he calls " strange 
 philosophy ; flying not only in the face of scripture, 
 but of every day matters of fact." " Hov\^ often, 
 (says he,) do we see enmity to a neighbor, correct- 
 ed, moderated, subdued and turned to love, by 
 proper motives presented to the mind ? And en- 
 mity to God is restrained and subdued in the 
 same manner." These motives, he maintains, are 
 presented in the latter case by the Holy Spirit, 
 who convicts, converts, and sanctifies, " by the 
 influence of truth presented to the mind and in no 
 other way." In one place, he says : " Regenera- 
 tion cannot he wrought without the truth. It is in 
 view of the truth, through the truth, and by the 
 truth, the soul is convicted, converted and sanctifi- 
 ed from beginning to end." 
 
 To illustrate his views he has furnished a dia- 
 gram consisting of an arc of a circle, in the cen- 
 tre of which he has placed the Holy Spirit. From 
 this centre are drawn sti'aight lines to various 
 points in the arc, representing truth as employed 
 by the Spirit. A sinner pursuing his way to hell 
 
Mr. Gilherfs Views, 181- 
 
 is represented as being met by one of these lines, 
 through the influence of which he is persuaded to 
 diverge a Httle from the path he was pursuing, and 
 proceeding at an angle of about 45 degrees, he pass- 
 es gradually through the several steps of convic- 
 tion, regeneration and sanctification, describing in 
 his progress the arc of the circle ; until arriving at 
 a point directly opposite from where he started, he 
 becomes perfect and ascends to heaven. 
 
 That the reader may see for himself this new 
 and improved method of regeneration by at- 
 traction, we will give the diagram with the au- 
 thor's explanation.* We ought to remark, how- 
 ever, that he uses the terms conviction and sanc- 
 tification in accommodation to the views and lan- 
 guage of others. According to his own views the 
 whole process from beginning to end belongs to 
 the work of regeneration." " By regeneration, 
 says he, is understood the divine agency in the 
 whole process of a sinner's conviction and conver- 
 sion ; but in this discussion I use it as it is used 
 by Dr. Griffin, Mr. Smith and others, in the re- 
 stricted sense as distinguished from previous con- 
 viction and subsequent sanctification." " It [the 
 
 * As a matter of taste, we would exclude this diagram from 
 «ur pages — but other considerations which we regard as para- 
 mount, induce us to insert it. 
 
 Q 
 
182 Regeneration'— New Theology. 
 
 bible] knows of no regeneration as distinct from 
 conviction and the beginning of sanctification." 
 
 E ? 
 
 Hell. 
 
 The Author's Explanation. 
 " Let the semicircle, A. B. C. represent the 
 sinner's course from sin to holiness. Let D. E. 
 represent the road to hell, in which the impeni- 
 tent sinner is found by the Holy Spirit, and influ- 
 enced at the point A. by a new presentation of 
 truth, to stop and turn gradually from his down- 
 ward course, through the curve of conviction, 
 towards the point B. where his conviction becom- 
 ing perfect and irresistible, he yields and turns 
 from his downward course, through the process 
 of sanctification, until at C. (or at death,) becom- 
 ing perfect, he flies off, if you please, in a tangent, 
 
Views of Mr. Gilbert. 183 
 
 to heaven. Till he reaches the point B. though 
 turning gradually from the more direct road to 
 hell, he is still in the downward course, and 
 should the Spirit let go of him, at any point, he 
 liies off, by his own centrifugal force, in a moment 
 towards perdition. The point B. represents what 
 these writers call ' Regeneration.^ " 
 
 '' The Holy Spirit, hke the sun in the centre, is 
 the source of all right motion ; and the power by 
 which he attracts or influences the sinner, is the 
 power of truth, or moral motive ; by which the 
 moral agent is checked at A. and moved and con- 
 trolled through the whole course from A. to C. 
 It is understood, of course, that the whole process 
 may be longer or shorter, according to circum- 
 stances ; may begin and be perfected, as with the 
 thief on the cross, in a single day ; or as in the 
 case of Methuselah, may occupy 900 or 1000 
 years. Conviction, also, may be short, and sanc- 
 tification long, or the reverse. But conviction 
 must, from the nature of the case, precede regen- 
 eration, or regeneration cannot be a rational 
 change. A physical change may take place with- 
 out conviction ; but physical regeneration is a 
 thing which I cannot comprehend, any more than 
 physical conviction or physical sanctification. 
 The doctrine of tl>e moral suasionists is, that the 
 influence ivhich convicts, also regenerates and 
 sanctifies. That the same power which moves 
 
184 Regeneration — New Theology. 
 
 the sinner from A. to B. moves him through the 
 point B. and along the line to C. And that the 
 whole change is wrought through appropriate 
 means, without a miracle, by the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Agreeably to these ideas of gradual progress 
 from the first point to the last, he says : " There 
 is very little distinction between the last degree 
 of sin and the lowest degree of holiness ; between 
 the last exercise of an unconverted and the first 
 of a converted man ; between the last feeble 
 struggle of selfishness and the first feeble exercise 
 of love." . . . . " There is a great difference be- 
 tween supreme selfishness and supreme love in 
 their extremes ; but between the last feeble influ- 
 ence of selfishness and the first feeble exercise of 
 love to God, the diflference is as imperceptible, as 
 between the adjacent sides of the Equatorial line." 
 . . . . " The point B. on the diagram represents 
 the transition line. And it may be asked, is it 
 not an important one ? I answer, yes. Impor- 
 tant on many accounts, but not because of any 
 special influence used then, but like the Equator, 
 as a measure of relative progress, and as the era 
 of a great change in all our moral relations and 
 circumstances. Like the Equatorial line, howev- 
 er, it is in itself of no consequence at all." 
 
 If this were not a subject too serious for ridi- 
 cule, Mr. Gilbert might be successfully assailed 
 by this weapon. He has fairly exposed himself 
 
Vieivs of Mr, Gilbert 185 
 
 to this mode of attack. But if I possessed a talent 
 for the humorous, and were disposed to indulge 
 in it, I feel too much shocked at his method of 
 illustration to treat it with ridicule. He appears 
 to have felt himself, that he wpuld run " the risk 
 of being counted very presumptuous ;" and I 
 doubt not he was correct in his apprehensions. 
 A majority of his readers, it seems to me, (unless 
 they belong to a particular class) will feel that he 
 has " 'trodden on holy ground," without " taking 
 his shoes from off his feet ;" that he has " put 
 forth his hand and touched the ark of God," 
 without " sanctifying himself ;" or in other words, 
 that he has so presented the subject, as to make 
 him appear almost profane. 
 
 This very circumstance, however, serves to 
 show the fallacy of these new doctrines. Mr. 
 Gilbert uses no irreverent language— he does not 
 caricature the New Theology. The views ex- 
 .pressed by different writers as quoted in the pre- 
 sent chapter, if carried out to their full extent, 
 and illustrated by a diagram, could not perhaps 
 be exhibited more accurately than by that which 
 has been presented. But a description given in 
 words, which have often an equ'vocal or doubt- 
 ful import, produces not only a less vivid, but a 
 less accurate impression than that which is made 
 by a figure faithfully drawn and presented to the 
 eye. This remark is true not only in reference 
 
186 Mr, Gilberfs Views. 
 
 to landscapes, &c. but to a certain extent in re- 
 gard to moral and religious truth. Mr. Gilbert 
 h£is shewn by his diagram, that it is capable of 
 being employed in the present instance ; and pos- 
 sibly it may be of service to the cause of truth ; 
 by shewing in a more striking manner than can 
 be exhibited by quoting their language, the dan- 
 gerous extremes to which those men are tending. 
 Give not only words but visibility to their doc- 
 trines — let them be seen as well as heard — and 
 they will arouse the feelings of many who have 
 not before been seriously alarmed. 
 
CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Human ability, regeneration, &c. continued from the preceding 
 chapter. 
 
 We observed in chapter fifth that the New 
 Theology concerning the nature of sin and hoh- 
 ness, viz. that they consist in acts, involves a new 
 theory of regeneration. What this theory is may 
 be learned from the statements made in the pre- 
 ceding chapter. It is the following : that in re- 
 generation no principle of holiness is implanted 
 in the soul, prior to the exercise of holy acts, 
 from which principle, or " moral state of the soul," 
 those acts proceed ; but that the whole change 
 consists in the acts of the soul itself; which from 
 having been sinful now become holy. A previ- 
 ous holy rehsh or taste, which, according to the 
 old doctrine, is essential in order to give to these 
 acts a holy character, is regarded by these new 
 system-makers, as unphilosophical and absurd; 
 involving what they term physical regeneration, 
 passivity, &c. 
 
 If by physical regeneration is meant a mechan- 
 ical change in the substance of the soul, it forms 
 no part of the Old Theology — but if it mean a 
 direct agency of the Spirit upon the soul, by 
 which its faculties are so renewed, that it receives 
 
188 Regeneration — Old Theology. 
 
 the principles of a new and holy life, and there- 
 fore may be properly said to possess a new na- 
 ture, it is what I understand to be the true doc- 
 trine. '• The scriptural representations of con- 
 version, (says President Edwards,) strongly imply 
 and signify a change of nature ; such as being 
 horn again ; becoming new creatures ; rising 
 from the dead, ; being renewed in the spirit of the 
 mind ; dying to sin, and living to righteousness ; 
 jmtting off the old man and putting on the new 
 man; being ingrafted into a new stock ; having 
 a divine^ seed implanted in the heart ; being made 
 
 partakers of the Divine nature,'' <^c "He^ 
 
 [God] gives his Spirit to be united to the facul- 
 ties of the soul and to dwell there as a principle 
 of spiritual life and activity. He not only actu- 
 ates the soul, but he abides in it. The mind thus 
 endued with grace is possessed of a new nature." 
 Edwards on the Affections, vol. 5th. 
 
 That the soul is passive in regeneration, is the 
 doctrine of our standards — and it necessarily re^ 
 suits from the preceding view concerning the na- 
 ture of the change., In the chapter on effectual 
 calling, both are presented in connexion with 
 each other. The change itself is declared td con- 
 sist in "enlightening the minds [the minds of those 
 w^homHe effectually calls] spiritually and savingly, 
 to understand the things of God, taking away 
 their heart of stone, and giving Unto them- a heart 
 
Doctrine of our Standards. 18d 
 
 of flesh ; renewing their wills," &c. It is then 
 added, in the next section, " This effectual call is 
 of God's free and special grace alone, not from 
 any thing at all foreseen in man ; who is alto- 
 gether passive therein, until being quickened and 
 renewed by the Holy Spirit," &c. The former 
 part of this quotation exhibits the implantation of 
 a holy principle, or the change of our natures, by 
 conferring spiritual illumination, [removing the 
 heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh, and by 
 renewing the will. The latter affirms that this 
 new nature w^as not imparted to us by our own 
 agency, but by God who works upon us by his 
 Holy Spirit, to quicken and renew us ; and that 
 we must of course, as to this particular point in 
 the history of the change, be the passive recipients 
 of Divine grace — -not bringing it about by our own 
 acts, but being acted upon by the renovating 
 power of God. 
 
 This doctrine, however, does not imply that we 
 are not to be active beforehand in the diligent 
 us6 of the means of grace — nor that we are 
 inactive at the time, with respect to the effects of 
 the change. Simultaneously with this change 
 and as the immediate consequence of it, the sin- 
 ner is " persuaded and enabled to embrace Jesus 
 Christ, as he is freely offered to him in the gospel." 
 In this he is not passive, but active. When God 
 " by his almighty power determines the sinner to 
 
190 Regeimration — Dr. Cox. 
 
 that which is good," or in other words, gives him 
 an apprehension of the excellence of Divine things, 
 and of the all-sufficiency of Christ as his Saviour, 
 and thus " effectually draws" him to Christ ; he 
 comes, not reluctantly, but " most freely, being 
 made willing by his grace." Regeneration, or the 
 implanting of a holy principle, is the cause ; and 
 our conversion, or turning to God, is the effect. 
 In the former we are passive, in the latter active. 
 Though in the order of time they are simultaneous, 
 in the order of nature the former is the antece- 
 dent, the latter the consequent ; just as breathing, 
 though simultaneous with the existence of life, is 
 nevertheless the effect of it, and w^ould never oc- 
 cur, unless life had been previously communicated. 
 Dr. Cox, who does not appear to have adopted 
 all the principles of the New Theology, has ex- 
 pressed himself on the subject of regeneration in 
 a manner very different from what has been cus- 
 tomary among Calvinistic waiters. To the doc- 
 trine that " God creates or inserts some holy prin- 
 ciple in us, which constitutes regeneration, and in 
 which we are ei^tirely passive ; but that thereafter 
 we actively do our duty ; he strongly objects, and 
 says, "it can command the confidence of no well 
 disciplined mind." He adds, it is true, " till we 
 have both a definition of what is meant by holy 
 principle and a demonstration of its existence,** 
 <fec. ; and he wishes to have it understood that he 
 
Biblical Repertory. 191 
 
 does not object to its use, if explained in a partic- 
 ular way — -but the doctrine, as it has been com- 
 monly received, be does not embrace. In his 
 letter to the conductors of the Biblical Repertory, 
 in reply to their review of his sermon, he asks, 
 " Is not a christian active in all his moral rela- 
 tions ? In believing and obeying God ? Certainly 
 active in the total progress of religion, in the soul 
 and life : then why not also in its rise 1 If active 
 progressively, then why not initially too ? If ac- 
 tive in the work of sanctification, v/hy not in the 
 whole of i.t, in its commencement as well as its 
 continuance ; in regeneration as w^ell as sanctifi- 
 cation ? How is a man regenerated, hut as he 
 believes and obeys the gospel ? Is he regenerated 
 before he does this ? Is he more dependant in 
 regeneration one whit than in sanctification?" 
 What he terms the passivity doctrine, or the doc- 
 trine of passive regeneration, he explicitly and 
 frequently disavows. 
 
 The remarks of the editors of the Repertory, 
 in their review of his sermon, are so much in 
 point, that we shall transcribe a paragraph of 
 cohsiderable length, in the place of any farther 
 observations of ours upon this subject. 
 
 " As to the point w4iich Dr. Cox thinks so ' in- 
 trinsically absurd,' and about w^hich he says so 
 much, whether man is passive in regeneration, it 
 will be seen that, for its own .sake, it does not 
 
192 Regeneration — Biblical Repertory, 
 
 merit a moment's discussion. It depends entirely 
 on the previous question. If regeneration be that 
 act of the soul by which it chooses God for its 
 portion, there is an end of all debate on the sub- 
 ject. For no one will maintain that the soul is 
 passive in acting. But if there be any change in 
 the moral state of the soul, prior to its turning un- 
 to God, then it is proper to say, that the spul is 
 passive as to that particular point ; that is, that 
 the Holy Spirit is the author, and the soul the 
 subject of the change. For all that is meant by 
 the soul's being passive, is, that it is not the agent 
 of the change in question. Its immediate and de- 
 lightful turning unto God is its own act ; the state 
 of mind which leads to this act is produced direct- 
 ly by the Spirit of God. The whole question is, 
 whether any such anterior change is necessary. 
 Whether a soul polluted and degraded by sin, or 
 in Scripture language, carnal, needs any change 
 in its moral taste before it can behold the loveli- 
 ness of the Divine character. For that this view 
 must precede the exercise of affection, we pre- 
 sume will not be denied. If this point be decided, 
 the propriety of using the word passive to denote 
 that the soul is the subject and not the agent of 
 the change in question, need not give us much 
 trouble. Sure it is that this change is in Scrip- 
 ture always referred to the Holy Spirit. It is the 
 soul that repents, believes, hopes and fears ; but it 
 
Biblical Repertory. 193 
 
 is the Holy Spirit that regenerates. He is the 
 author of our faith and repentance by inducing us 
 to act, but no man regenerates himself. The soul, 
 although essentially active, is still capable of be- 
 ing acted upon. It receives impressions from 
 sensible objects, from other spirits and from the 
 Holy Ghost. In every sensation, there is an im- 
 pression made by some external object, and the 
 immediate knowledge which the mind takes of 
 the impression. As to the first point, it is passive, 
 or the subject ; as to the second, it is active, or 
 the agent. These two are indeed inseparably 
 connected, and so are regeneration and conver- 
 sion And if the Holy Spirit does make such 
 
 an impression on the mind, or exert such an influ- 
 ence as induces it immediately to turn to God, 
 then it is correct to say that it is passive in regen- 
 eration, though active in conversion. However, 
 this is a very subordinate point ; the main ques- 
 tion is, whether there is not a holy ' relish,' taste, 
 or principle produced in the soul prior, in the or- 
 der of nature, to any holy act of the soul itself. 
 If Dr. Cox can show this to be * intrinsically ab- 
 surd,' we shall give up the question of ' passivity' 
 without a moment's demur. To relinquish the 
 other point, however, will cost us a painful strug- 
 gle. It will be giving up the main point in de- 
 bate between the friends and opposers of the doc- 
 trines of grace from Augustine to the present day. 
 
 R 
 
194 Regeneration instantaneous. 
 
 It will be the renunciation of what Calvinists, old 
 and new, have believed to be the scriptural doc- 
 trine of original righteousness, original sin and 
 efficacious grace. It will be the rejection of that 
 whole system of mingled sovereignty and love 
 w^hich has been the foundation, for ages, of so 
 many hopes, and of so much blessedness to the 
 people of God." 
 
 We mentioned m the last chapter that the New 
 Theology involves the doctrine of gradual regen- 
 eration ; and we quoted from Mr. Gilbert's pamph- 
 let to shew that this sentiment is now avowed 
 by some of the advocates of the new^ system. On 
 this point Dr. Griffin remarks, " The evidence of 
 the change may be earlier or later in its appear- 
 ance, and more or less rapid in its developements, 
 but the change itself is always instantaneous. Is 
 not such an idea more than implied in the text ? 
 [Ezek. xi. 19.] What is the blessing promised ? 
 Not the gradual improvement of an old temper, 
 but " a new spirit ;" — " the stony heart" not soft- 
 ened by degrees into flesh, but by one decisive ef- 
 fort removed and a heart of flesh substituted in 
 its room." . . . . " This doctrine however does not 
 militate against the idea of an antecedent prepara- 
 tion in the conscience, wrought by the means of 
 grace and the enlightening influences of the 
 Spirit." Park Street Lectures, p. 91, 101. 
 
The Spirifs Agency direct 195 
 
 These means according to our standards are 
 " the word, sacraments and prayer." In answer 
 to the question, how is the word made effectual 
 to salvation ? the following answer is given : 
 " The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but es- 
 pecially the preaching of the word, an effectual 
 means of enlightening, convincing and humbling 
 sinners, of driving them out of themselves, and 
 drawing them unto Christ," &c. Thus the law is 
 said to be " our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ ;" 
 " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the 
 soul ;" " Of his own will begat he us, by the word 
 of truth." But the word, let it be remembered, 
 is only the means ; which the Holy Spirit can 
 employ or not as He pleases ; and which when He 
 does employ (as is usually the case) do not be- 
 come effectual to salvation, till He by a direct in- 
 fluence upon the heart, prepares it to receive and 
 embrace the truth. Lydia did not attend to the 
 things spoken by Paul, until " the Lord oj^ened her 
 hearty In order that David might behold won- 
 drous things out of God's law, he prayed that 
 God would " open his eyes^ The primitive chris- 
 tians had access by faith into God's grace, and 
 rejoiced in the hope of the glory of God, exercis- 
 ing the grace of patience in their tribulations, 
 " because the love of God was shed abroad in their 
 hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto them." 
 
196 The Spirifs Agency direct. 
 
 Though all these texts do not refer to regene- 
 ration in the restricted sense, they prove the doc- 
 trine of the direct influence of the Spirit upon the 
 heart — and it is for this purpose we have refer- 
 red to them. If the Spirit exerts an immediate 
 influence upon the hearts of believers, in order to 
 make the word eflfectual to their sanctification ; 
 much more on the hearts of sinners to make it ef- 
 fectual to their conversion. In the mind of the 
 believer there is something congenial with the 
 spirit of the gospel ; something, therefore, for Di- 
 vine truth to act upon in the form of motives : 
 but, to use the language of Dr. Griffin, " motives 
 can never change an unholy temper ; there is no 
 tendency in truth to change a depraved ' taste.'' 
 The change must take place before light can act." 
 
 This doctrine of the direct agency of the Spirit, 
 and the implantation of a principle of holiness in 
 the heart, is inseparably connected with the sen- 
 timent that the change is instantaneous. Motives 
 operate gradually upon the mind ; but the com- 
 munication to the soul of a new spiritual taste, is 
 the work of a moment. We either possess this 
 holy temper or we do not ; there is no point of 
 time when we have neither enmity nor love ; or 
 when our affections are suspended in equilibrio 
 between the two. Our souls are necessarily ei- 
 ther in one state or its opposite ; and our transi- 
 tion, therefore, from one to the other must be ia- 
 
Depravity — Doctrine of our Standards, 197 
 
 stantaneous ; as when God said " Let there be 
 light, and there was light." 
 
 It may, perhaps, be thought by some that the 
 difference between instantaneous and gradual re- 
 generation is not important, since both recognize 
 the necessity of becoming holy. But a httle re- 
 flection will shew the contrary. Gradual regen- 
 eration is founded on the principle that there is 
 something good in the unregenerate man, which 
 needs only to be fostered and cherished, in order 
 to make him holy. Of course it involves a deni- 
 al of total depravity ; and the necessity of an en- 
 tire radical change of character. It fosters pride 
 and self-righteousness ; and produces hostility to 
 those doctrines of grace which distinguish the gos- 
 pel from the religion of nature. It is, in short, 
 taking a step towards infidelity. 
 
 In regard to human ability, our Confession of 
 Faith uses the following language : " Man, by his 
 fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability 
 of will to any spiritual good accompanying salva- 
 tion ; so as a natural man being altogether averse 
 from that which is good, and dead in sin, is not 
 able, by his own strength to convert himself, or 
 prepare himself thereunto." Some have endeav- 
 ored to prove from this passage that, according 
 to the Confession of Faith, depravity belongs ex- 
 clusively to the will. But this it appears to me is 
 not a correct exposition. As the design of the 
 
198 Depravity — Doctrine of our Standards. 
 
 chapter was to treat " Of Free Will," it would of 
 course state explicitly what effect the fall had up- 
 on the will, without speaking, as a matter of 
 course, concerning the other powers of the souL 
 There is, however, a clause introduced, which 
 was evidently designed to refer to the whole mor- 
 al man : " Dead in sin" The preceding clause, 
 viz., " so as a natural man being altogether averse 
 from that which is good," refers to the will ; but 
 to this, the other is superadded — " and dead in 
 sin^^ — ^which was intended to convey an addition- 
 al idea, embracing, perhaps, the former, but am- 
 plifying and extending it, so as to include the de- 
 pravity of our whole nature. This will appear 
 by a reference to the chapter on the " Fall of 
 Man ;" where it reads a& follows : " By this sin 
 they [our first parents] fell from their original 
 righteousness, and communion with God, and so 
 became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the 
 faculties and parts of soul and body." It will al- 
 so appear by a reference to the chapter on " Ef- 
 fectual Calling ;" where, in describing the man- 
 ner in which we are brought " out of that state of 
 sin and death," it is not only said that our wills 
 are renewed, but our minds spiritually and sav- 
 ingly enlightened to understand the things of God ; 
 and our heart of stone taken away and a heart of 
 flesh given unto us. If depravity belongs to the 
 will only, that alone needs to be operated upon in. 
 
Scyipture Proofs. 19^ 
 
 effectual calling. It is evident, therefore, that our 
 standards teach the doctrine not only that the 
 will is depraved, but likewise all the faculties of 
 the soul. 
 
 This view also accords with Scripture. " There 
 is none that under standeth" Rom. iii. 1 1 . "Having 
 the understanding darkened, being alienated from 
 the life of God through the ignorance that is in 
 them, because of the blindness of their heart." 
 Eph. iv. 18. " But the natural man receiveth not 
 the things of the Spirit of God, for they are fool- 
 ishness unto him ; neither can he know thern, be- 
 cause they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14, 
 Here it is manifest that our depravity affects the 
 understanding. Hence in conversion it is neces- 
 sary that we be enlightened to discern spiritual 
 things. " The eyes of your understanding being 
 enlightened." Eph. i. 18. "For God who com- 
 manded the light to shine out of darkness, hath 
 shined in our hearts, to give the light of the know*- 
 ledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus 
 Christ." 2 Cor. iv. 6. " And have put on the 
 new man, which is renewed in knowledge after 
 the image of him that created him." Col. iii. 10. 
 
 Depravity is also predicated of the heart and 
 conscience. " The heart is deceitful above all 
 things, and desperately wicked." Jer. xvii. 9. 
 " But unto them that are dehled and unbelieving, 
 is i^othing pure ; but even their mind and con- 
 
200 Depravity — Scripture Proofs, 
 
 science is defiled." Tit. i. 15. Do these texts re- 
 fer exclusively to the will ; or do they not include 
 also the other moral powers? As the heart is the 
 seat of the affections, to say that the heart is wick- 
 ed, is equivalent to declaring the affections to be 
 depraved and alienated from God. Accordingly, 
 to change the heart is to give us a holy temper — 
 to renew our affections. " The Lord thy God 
 will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy 
 seed, to love the Lord thy God." Deut. xxx. 6. 
 " And I w^ill put a new spirit within you, and I 
 will take the stony heart out of their flesh and 
 will give them a heart of flesh." Ezek. xi. 19. 
 When this is done, our conscience will likewise be 
 rectified. " Having our hearts sprinkled from an 
 evil conscience." Heb. x. 22. Then too the will 
 which is controlled by the state of the heart, is 
 sweetly inclined by the same Spirit, to choose and 
 rest upon Christ, as the portion of the soul. " My 
 people shall be willing' in the day of thy power." 
 Psa. ex. 3. 
 
 From this view of the subject it appears that the 
 fall has affected the whole moral man. What 
 God says of Judah is applicable to all mankind. 
 " The whole head is sick, and the whole heart 
 faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the 
 head, there is no soundness in it." Isa. i. 5, 6. 
 This doctrine, we admit, is very humiliating, and 
 calculated to make the sinner feel his dependence 
 
Remarhs of Dr. Witherspoon. 201 
 
 upon God. But this, instead of being an objec- 
 tion, is a proof of its correctness. While it must 
 not be so interpreted as to annihilate or even im- 
 pair the sinner's obligation, or form any excuse 
 for his impenitence and unbelief, it is a doctrine 
 which is pre-eminently adapted to drive him from 
 those refuges of self-righteousness and self-suffi- 
 ciency, which prove the ruin of so many souls, 
 and lead him to seek salvation only through the 
 grace and righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is in- 
 deed the very point to which sinners always come 
 before they embrace the Saviour. 
 
 On this subject Dr. Witherspoon uses tlie fol- 
 lowing language : " On a conviction of our own 
 inability, one would think we should but the more 
 humbly and the more earnestly apply to Him, who 
 is all-sufficient in power and grace. The deplo- 
 rable and naturally helpless state of sinners, doth 
 not hinder exhortations to them in scripture ; and 
 therefore takes not away their obligation to duty. 
 See an address, where the strongest metaphors 
 are retained, the exhortation given in these very 
 terms, and the foundation of the duty plainly 
 pointed out : * Wherefore he saith, awake thou 
 that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ 
 shall give thee light.' From which it is very 
 plain, that the moral inability, under which sinners 
 now lie, as a consequence of the fall, is not of 
 guch a nature as to take away the guilt of sin, the 
 
202 Dependence — Views of Witlierspoon. 
 
 propriety of exhortation to duty, or the necessity 
 of endeavours after recovery." . ..." I make no 
 scruple to acknov^ledge, that it is impossible for 
 me ; nay, I find no difficulty in supposing that it 
 is impossible for any finite mind to point out the 
 bounds betw^een the ' dependence' and ' activity' 
 of the creature." . . . . " The new birth is a ' su- 
 pernatural change ;' it is the effect of the power 
 of God ; it is the w^ork of the Holy Ghost. I have 
 been at the more pains to establish this truth, be- 
 cause 1 am persuaded, that until it be truly re- 
 ceived, there may be a form, but there can be 
 
 nothing of the power of godliness." " But 
 
 what shall we say ? Alas ! the very subject we 
 are now^ speaking of, aflfords a new proof of the 
 blindness, prejudice and obstinacy of sinners. 
 They are self condemned ; for they do not act 
 the same part in similar cases. The affairs of the 
 present life are not managed in so preposterous a 
 manner. He that ploughs his ground, and throws 
 in his seed, cannot so much as unite one grain to 
 the clod ; nay he is not able to conceive how it 
 is done. He cannot carry on, nay, he cannot so 
 much as begin one single step of this wonderful 
 process toward the subsequent crop ; the mortifi- 
 cation of the seed, the resurrection of the blade, 
 and gradual increase, till it come to perfect ma- 
 turity. Is it, therefore, reasonable that he should 
 say, ' I for my part can do nothing ; it is, first and 
 
Remarks of Dr. Witkerspoon. :203 
 
 last, an effect of Divine power and energy : and 
 God can as easily raise a crop without sowing as 
 with it, in a single instant, and in any place, as in 
 a long time by the mutual influence of soil and 
 season ; I will therefore spare myself the hard- 
 ship of toil and labor, and wait with patience till 
 I see what he will be pleased to send V Would not 
 this be madness ? Would it not be universally re- 
 puted so ? And would it not be equal madness 
 to turn the grace of God into hcentiousness ? 
 Believe it, the warning is equally reasonable and 
 equally necessary, in spiritual as in temporal 
 things. * Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for 
 whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap : 
 for he that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh 
 reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the Spirit, 
 shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.' " Practi- 
 cal Treatise on Regeneration, sect. 4. 
 
 But while the doctrine of .human inability and 
 dependence upon God, as understood and believed 
 by the friends of the Old Theology, does not de- 
 stroy accountableness, nor impair obligation, nor 
 discourage effort ; but brings the sinner to his 
 proper place, before the throne of Divine mercy ; 
 we think the doctrine of abiliti/, as maintained by 
 the advocates of the New Theology, is calculated 
 to produce such independence of feeling, with re- 
 gard to the Spirit's influences, as to be a serious 
 obstacle to genuine conversion. Among the " false 
 
204 Dependence — New School Views, 
 
 comforts for sinners," which Mr. Finney enume- 
 rates, one is, "telling the sinner to pray for anew 
 heart" He asks, " Does God say Pray for a new 
 heart ?" Never. He says, " Make you a new 
 heart.'' And the sinner is not to be told to pray 
 to God to do his duty for him, but to go and do it 
 himself." Lectures on Revivals, p. 318. Thus 
 it appears, we must not direct sinners to seek God 
 for renewing grace, because they have sufficient 
 ability of their own to perform the work. To 
 preach to them the necessity of the Spirit's influ- 
 ences while exhorting them to duty, would be ac- 
 cording to him '• unphilosophicai." We must tell 
 them " to go and do it themselves." What kind 
 of conversions is such instruction as this calcula- 
 ted to produce ?* It is no wonder that the revivals 
 
 * Let the reader judge of the probable effect upon the sinner 
 of preaching such doctrines as are developed in the following 
 conversation, between a licentiate, a student from New Haven, 
 and two highly respectable ministers, in 1832. It was taken 
 down at the time by one of the ministers, as he has informed 
 me, " the paper sealed up and has been kept since a secret." 
 In communicating it to me a few weeks ago, he observes, " If 
 you judge it to be proper, you are now at liberty to use the docu- 
 ment in your forth couiing book ; suppressing the names for 
 the present, but considering me as responsible for the statement, 
 and ready to give the names hereafter if necessary." 
 
 " Mr. , [one of the ministers.] in the course of general 
 
 conversation, alluded to New Haven as a school of Theology, 
 
 and asked finally that Mr. , [the licentiate,] would state 
 
 what were the peculiarities of P/'o/essor Fitch's scheme of natural 
 
Revivals — Mr, Finney. 205 
 
 of religion which have occurred within the last ten 
 years, under the ministry of such men, should fur- 
 nish so many examples of apostacy." In a dis- 
 course delivered by Mr. Finney in Chatham-street 
 chapel in 1836, are found such sentences as the 
 following :f " You profess that you want to have 
 
 t We quote from the Literary and Theological Review. The 
 sermon it appears was reported in the New -York Evangelist, 
 Feb. 13, 1836. 
 
 depravity. M r. avowed himself a believer in that scheme, 
 
 and stated among other things, in substance" as follows : 
 (" many of the following views, he said however, were his otort, 
 and not chargeable upon any others, or any particular school :) 
 that * moral character was predicated entirely on choice beticeen 
 good and evil : that man was not regarded with displeasure in 
 the sight of God, either by imputation of original sin, or as having 
 a disposition to evil. He was in no sense a sinner, until of suf- 
 ficient age and capacity to choose for himself; and t/ there was 
 a period in his existence previous to that, during that period he 
 was an innocent being.' " 
 
 " The bearing of this on, the doctrine ox regeneration was then 
 
 . suggested ; whereupon Mr. stated in substance ' that he 
 
 did not regard the saying olF Christ to Kicodemus, ' that which 
 isboi'n of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is 
 spirit,'* as implying any thing like a new moral nature, opposite 
 to his first nature, as given to him in regeneration. He believed 
 that subject had been misunderstood. There was indeed a ne- 
 cessity for regeneration, but it consisted not in the implantation 
 ofliew principles, but the rational turning of the same princi- 
 pies to a new course, ^s to the xoay in xohich it was produced, 
 God's help was indeed necessary, but no more so than in every 
 
206 Revivals — 3Ir. Finney, 
 
 sinners converted. But what avails it if they sink 
 right back again into conformity to the world V 
 " Where are the proper results of the glo- 
 rious revivals we have had ?" " The great 
 
 body of them [the converts of the last ten years] 
 
 are a disgrace to religion." " Of what use 
 
 is it to convert sinners and make them such chris- 
 tians as these ?" This is an acknowledgment that 
 the fruits of those revivals are not such as were 
 anticipated — and so long as converts are made 
 
 other action of man. . He presented motives, and when a man 
 sincerely made up his resolution to follow them and did decide 
 
 to do so, that was the beginning of a new hfe.' Mr. 
 
 asked him if any sinner ever did come to Christ without /eeZmg 
 
 his helpless and lost condilion ? Mr. — ■ said ' he thought, 
 
 yes ; and mentioned his own case.' " 
 
 " The bearing of the subject on atonement and justification was 
 
 next alluded to ; and Mi-. [the licentiate] observed ' that it 
 
 was a scheme which did indeed run through the whole. As to 
 atonement he believed in it, but he seemed to consider it as 
 consisting in ivhat lay beiiceen God and his intelligent universe (x- 
 clusively, and that for laying a ground of justifying his oion pro- 
 ceedings ; as such, a man ought to trust in or believe the atone- 
 ment : but in [the] matter of personal experience we had noth- 
 ing to do with it: the righteousness of Christ is in no sense 
 imputed to us : we must be accepted on the ground of our own 
 obedience.' " 
 
 " Much was said also o? the practical influence of such a style 
 
 of preaching ; and it was objected to Mr. 's scheme, that 
 
 taking men as they are, they would be likely to interpret his 
 views of their own powers and independency as even more fa- 
 vorable to themselves than he probably intended : and Mr. 
 
 [one of the ministers] remarked that as the gospel was repre- 
 sented * to be a seeking and saving that lohich loas lostj^ ' to kill 
 
Remarks of Dr. Reed, 207 
 
 under the influence of such doctrines, and that 
 system of measures which corresponds with them, 
 we must expect similar results. Their " good- 
 ness will be as the morning cloud, and as the ear- 
 ly dew it will pass away." 
 
 The following remarks of Dr. Reed, one of the 
 delegates from England to the American church- 
 es, accord with the sentiments and observation of 
 very many in America, who have been " witness- 
 es of these things." " The New Divinity and the 
 New Measures, have greatly coalesced, and they 
 have given for the time, currency to each other. 
 
 and make aiive ;' he had always felt it to be more necessary to 
 show men their helplessness connected with their guilt, and a 
 way of hope, than to persuade them of their own powers. Mr. 
 
 [the licentiate] held the opposite opinion. He seemed to 
 
 think that the reason why many more were not pious, was, that 
 too many and unnecessary difficulties were left in the way. They 
 ought to be reasoned with more : show them that this work is not 
 so hard and unreasonable : they could be persuaded to make a 
 choice if you would only present the thing as rational; and many 
 were thus won, where this scheme was now adopted.' He said 
 much of the figurative language of scripture, and seemed to 
 think that such passages as ' The carnal mind is enmity against 
 God,' did not apply to men at the present age of the world, but 
 peculiarly to the Jews, on account of their prejudices. The op- 
 position which we have often witnessed against religion in nat- 
 ural men is not so much against God or religion itself, as against 
 the prejudiced representations of it by mistaken teachers.'" 
 
 This individual who is denominated by my correspondent " a 
 respectable young man," was at that time, as I infer from his 
 letter, seeking a settlement in a Presbyterian congregation. 
 
208 Remarks of Dr. Reed. 
 
 Many pious and ardent persons and preachers, 
 from the causes to which I have adverted, were 
 disposed to think that the new opinions had all 
 the advantage in a revival, and this gave them all 
 the preference in their judgment. Where they 
 in connexion with the New Measures have been 
 vigorously applied, there has indeed, been no 
 want of excitement. The preacher who firmly 
 believes that the conversion of men rests on the 
 force of moral suasion, is not unlikely to be per- 
 suasive. And the hearer who is told " he can 
 convert himself," that it is " as easy for him to do 
 so as to walk," that he has only " to resolve to do 
 it and it is done," is not unlikely to be moved into 
 self-complacent exertion. But it may be asked, 
 does either the preacher* or the hearer possess those 
 sentiments which are likely to lead to a true con- 
 version, and to bring forth fruits meet for re- 
 pentance ?" 
 
 " By their fruits ye shall know them. There 
 has certainly been good done where there has 
 been much evil, for with this evil there has been 
 a large portion of divine truth. But 1 fear not to 
 say, that where there has been the largest infu- 
 sion of the New Divinity into the New Measures, 
 there has been the greatest amount of unwarrant- 
 able extravagance. There has been great ex- 
 citement, much animal emotion and sympathy, 
 high resolves, and multiplied conversions, hut 
 time has tested them and they havefailed^^* 
 
CHAP. IX. 
 
 A contrast between the Old and New Theology, by way of 
 review, and a notiqe of the Perfectionism of Mr. Finney. 
 
 That the reader may see at a single view the 
 most prominent points of difference between the 
 Old and New Theology, we shall exhibit them in 
 few words by way of contrast : — in doing which 
 we shall take a kind of retrospect of the volume, 
 and exemplify some of the principles which have 
 been noticed, by a few additional quotations. 
 
 1. The Old Theology places God upon the 
 throne of the universe, and makes Him competent 
 to say concerning all creatures and events, " My 
 counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." 
 The New makes Him so dependent upon the voli- 
 tions of moral agents, that He is liable to suffer 
 disappointment and to have his happiness dimin- 
 ished, by the uncontrollable agency of men : — and 
 this not only in the present world, but in the next. 
 Prof. Fitch affirms that God's " purpose was to 
 confer on the beings composing His moral king- 
 dom, the power of volition and choice, and to use 
 the best influence God could use on the whole to 
 secure the holiness and i^revent the sin of such be- 
 ings, who themselves, and not He, were to have 
 immediate power over their volitions,''^ Again ; 
 
210 Contrast— The Fall 
 
 " We affirm that the causes in kind which origin- 
 ate sin, being inseparably inherent in a moral 
 universe, may so accumulate in degree under 
 every system of Providence and government which 
 CAN he pursued, as to render sure the occurrence 
 of sin. If in a universe of such beings, no possi- 
 ble system of Providence adopted and pursued 
 THROUGH ETERNITY Can shut out all occasions of 
 the ouibreakings of sin, it is easy to see, that as to 
 His preventing it, sin is unavoidably incidental to 
 the acts of the Creator in creating and governing 
 
 such a kingdom." " The causes in kind 
 
 which are known to originate sin in the present 
 universe, must necessarily be present in any pos- 
 sible universe of moral beings." . . . [&] ..." If 
 the causes of defectibility are thus inseparable 
 from the existence of a universe of moral beings, 
 is there not aground of probability that they will 
 lead to actual defection in every possible system 
 as well as in this V Review of Dr. Fisk's Dis- 
 course on Predestination and Election, and a De- 
 fence of that Review in the Christian Spectator, 
 What low and unworthy views does this statement 
 convey concerning the Deity ! What dismal 
 prospects it presents to the expectant of future 
 and eternal bliss ! 
 
 2. The Old Theology regards the fall of man 
 as a catastrophe so direful in its effects, that no 
 power less than Omnipotence is adequate to 
 
Contrast — Covenant with Adam. 211 
 
 " quicken sinners who are dead in trespasses and 
 sins." The New, treats it as a calamity, which 
 the sinner is able, since the introduction of a sys- 
 tem of mercy through Jesus Christ, to repair him- 
 self. Says Mr. Finney, " Now suppose God to 
 have come out upon Adam with the command of 
 the text ' Make you a new heart for why will ye 
 die V Could Adam have justly answered, dost 
 Thou think that I can change my own heart ? 
 Can I, who have a heart totally depraved, can I 
 change that heart ? Might not the Almighty have 
 answered him in words of fire, Rebel, you have 
 just changed your heart from holiness to sin, now 
 change it back from sin to holiness." Sermons on 
 Important Subjects, p. 13. See also Mr. Barnes' 
 remarks on the text, " When we were without 
 strength Christ died for the ungodly," in Chap. 7th. 
 We shall likewise give one or two additional quo- 
 tations in the present chapter, under the head of 
 ability. 
 
 3. The Old Theology maintains that Adam was 
 the federal head of his posterity, and that, by 
 breaking the covenant under which he was plac- 
 ed, he involved not only himself, but all his pos- 
 terity in sin and misery — the guilt of his first sin 
 being imputed to them, or set over in law to their 
 account ; so that they all come into the world 
 with depraved and sinful natures. The New de- 
 nies that we sustain a covenant relation to Adam ; 
 
212 Contrast — Imputation, ^. 
 
 and maintains that he was only our natural head 
 and father — from whose sin it results as a matter 
 of fact, according to the common laws of human 
 society, that all his posterity become sinners when 
 they arrive at moral, agency ; before which time 
 they are neither sinful nor holy ; and that they 
 become sinners by their own voluntary actj after 
 a trial, it would seem, similar to what Adam had. 
 Says Dr. Taylor, in reply to a supposed objection, 
 " Why render this universal sinfulness of a race, 
 the consequence of one man's act ? why not give 
 to each a fair trial for himself?" " I answer, God 
 does give to each a fair trial for himself Not a 
 human being does or can become thus sinful or de- 
 praved but by his own choice. God does not 
 compel him to sin by the nature he gives him. 
 Nor is his sin, although a consequence of Adam's 
 sin, in such a sense its consequence as not to be 
 a free voluntary act of his own. He sins freely, 
 voluntarily. There is no other way of sinning, 
 God (there is no irreverence in saying it) can 
 make nothing else sin, but the sinner's act." Con- 
 cio ad Clerum. 
 
 Mr. Barnes observes : " If it were a dogma of 
 a pretended revelation, that God might at pleas- 
 ure, and by an arbitrary decree, make crime pass 
 from one individual to another — striking onward 
 from age to age, and reaching downward to " the 
 last season of recorded time" — punished in the 
 
Testimony of Unitarians. 213 
 
 original offender ; re-punished in his children ; 
 and punished again and again, by infinite multi- 
 ples, in countless ages and individuals ; and all 
 this judicial infliction, for a single act, performed 
 cycles of ages before the individuals lived, we see 
 not how any evidence could shake our intrinsic 
 
 belief that this is unjust and improbable." 
 
 " We never can adopt that system which tram- 
 ples on the analogies which actually exist, and 
 holds men to be personally answerable^ and actu- 
 ally punished by a just God, for an act committed 
 thousands of years before they were born. Such 
 a doctrine is no where to be found in the scrip- 
 tures." Introductory Essay to Butler's Analogy, 
 p. 35, 39. 
 
 All which we deem it necessary to say con- 
 cerning the views contained in these extracts, is, 
 that Unitarians consider them " sound and lucid" 
 In the Review of Mr. Barnes' Notes on the Ro- 
 mans, in the Christian Examiner, already referred 
 to, [a Unitarian Quarterly] the reviewer says : 
 " On the subject of man's nature, capacities, and 
 duty, our author is sound and lucid. The idea of 
 hereditary depravity he spurns, as unworthy of 
 even a passing notice. He asserts repeatedly 
 that men sin only in their own person, in them- 
 selves, as indeed how can they sin in any other 
 way? The imputation of Adam's transgression 
 he treats as a scholastic absurdity," . ..." Of the 
 
214 Contrast — The Atonement 
 
 figment of Adam's federal headship and the con- 
 demnation of his posterity for partnership in his 
 sin, Mr. Barnes says * there is not one word of it 
 in the bible.' "* 
 
 4. The Old Theology maintains that the atone- 
 ment consisted in rendering satisfaction to Divine 
 justice by the vicarious sufferings of Christ ; who 
 endured in our stead the penalty of the law, and 
 offered up himself an acceptable sacrifice to God : 
 by which offering God's " favor was propitiated 
 
 * The views of Socinus are as follows : 
 
 Ctuest. 1. "Is it in our power fully to obey the command, 
 ments of God ?" 
 
 Answ. " Certainly ; for it is evident, that the first man was 
 so formed by God, that he was endued with free will ; and no 
 reason existed why he should be deprived of this power after 
 the fall ; nor was it consistent with the justice of God, that man 
 should be deprived of free will. Accordingly, in the punish, 
 raent inflicted on his sin, there is no mention made of any such 
 loss." 
 
 Cluest. 2. " But is not the will of man vitiated by original 
 Bin ?" 
 
 Answ. " There is no such thing as original ein ; the scrip- 
 ture teaches no such doctrine ; and the will of man could not 
 be vitiated by a cause which had no existence. The sin of Ad- 
 am being a single act could not corrupt his own nature, much 
 less had it power to deprave the nature of all his posterity. 
 That this sin should be charged on them, is, as has been said, 
 a doctrine unknown to the scriptures ; and it is utterly incredi. 
 ble, that God, who is the fountain of equity, should be willing to 
 impute it to them." Racovian Catechism, compiled from the 
 writings of Socinus, and published A. D. 1606; translated for 
 the Biblical Repertory ; q. v. 
 
Contrast^-The Atonement. 215 
 
 for us," his law magnified and his government 
 sustained : so that without doing violence to his 
 holy nature, or relinquishing the claims of his law, 
 or dishonoring his government, he secured the 
 salvation of those who were given to Christ in the 
 covenant of redemption ; [John xvii. 2 ; Isa. liii. 
 11, 12 ;] and laid the foundation for a free offer 
 of mercy to all who hear the gospel. Mark xvi. 
 15. John iii. 16. 
 
 The New Theology considers the atonement 
 as involving a suspension of the penalty of the law, 
 and as consisting in a " symbolical display^' to the 
 universe, for the purpose of producing such an 
 impression of God's hatred to sin, as would render 
 it safe and proper for him as moral Governor, to 
 bestow pardon upon sinners : and as to sinners 
 themselves, it is an " experiment" made by God 
 for their salvation ; which, through his impotency 
 to control moral agents, may fail of its intended 
 result.* Among other relations of the atonement 
 discussed by Mr. Jenkyn, he considers it in rela- 
 tion to the 2^u^yoses and providences of God. Un- 
 
 * 1 have not met with any writer who expressed himself in 
 this revolting form, except Mr. Jenkyn in his work on the 
 Atonement. But this is a correct statement, it appears to me, 
 of the doctrine, as held by those (if they are consistent) who in 
 connexion with the New School view of atonement, adopt also 
 the new theory concerning the character and government of God. 
 
216 Contrast — The Atonement, 
 
 der the former he observes, " The various dispen- 
 sations of probation are various experiments in 
 moral government, in which God submits his own 
 plans and ways to the acceptance and for the 
 use of free agents. If any object to the word 
 * experiment' I beg to refer them for the meaning 
 of it, to the parable of the barren fig tree, and to 
 that of the husbandman sending his servants, and 
 afterwards his son to the vineyard. These dis- 
 pensations or experiments are capable ^^ failure. 
 The Eden experi?nent failed — and the Sinai ex- 
 periment failed. Such susceptibility of failure 
 has been shewn to be incidental to a moral gov- 
 ernment and a state of trial." Under its relation 
 to providence he says, " The measures of provi- 
 dence are liable io failure, A medicine may fail, 
 notwithstanding the virtue which providence has 
 given it. The crop of the husbandman may fail, 
 notwithstanding the provision that seed time and 
 harvest time shall continue. The morbid fear of 
 acknowledging such a liableness to failure in the 
 measures of jwovidencc is unaccountable, when 
 God declares his own government of the Jews, un- 
 der the theocracy, to have failed of its end, ' In 
 vain have I smitten them, they have refused to 
 receive correction.' Jer. ii. 30. The w^ord of God 
 distinctly and expressly recognizes the same lia- 
 bleness to failure in the great measure of atone- 
 ment. Are you sure that it is not attachment to 
 
Contrast — Chris fs Righteousness. 217 
 
 system rather than attachment to the trutli that 
 makes you hesitate to avow it?" P. 97, 168. 
 Quere. If God's " plan" or " experiment,^^ or 
 " measure of atonement,^^ is hable to failure ; and 
 if it does fail in numerous instances, as Mr. Jen- 
 ^ kyn intimates, and elsewhere admits, what security 
 have we that it will not fail altogether ? What if 
 it should happen, that when " submitted to the ac- 
 ceptance of free agents,'^ they should all object to 
 it, and refuse to comply with its conditions ! Has 
 God power to control the exercise of their free 
 agency and persuade them to change their minds ? 
 or may they not, in despite of his mightiest influ- 
 ence, persist in rejecting Christ ? and so despoil 
 him of his Mediatorial reward ! 
 
 5. The Old Theology arrays the believer in the 
 robe of Christ's righteousness ; which being im- 
 puted to him and received by faith, is the ground 
 of his justification before God. " This is his name 
 whereby he shall be called. The Lord our 
 Righteousness." Jer. xxiii. 6. " And be found 
 in him, not having mine own righteousness, which 
 is of the law, but that which is through the faith of 
 Christ, the righteousness of God by faith." Phil, 
 iii. 9. " And to her [the Lamb's wife, the church] 
 was granted, that she should be arrayed in fine 
 Hnen, clean and white : for the fine linen is the 
 righteousness of saints." Rev. xix. 8, " You have 
 here," says Henry, " a description of the bride, 
 
 T 
 
218 Contrast — Justification. 
 
 how she appeared ; in fine linen, clean and white, 
 which is the righteousness of saints ; in the robes 
 of Chrisfs righteousness, both imjmted for justifi- 
 cation, and i7nparted for sanctification." 
 
 The New Theology discards the doctrine of 
 imputed righteousness, and maintains that the be- 
 liever's /«z7A, being an act which God approves, 
 and which leads to other holy acts, is reckoned 
 to him for righteousness ; and in consequence of 
 it God pardons his sins and receives him into fa- 
 vor. " Faith, says Mr. Finney, is the appointed 
 instrument of our justification, because it is the 
 natural instrument of sanctification. It is the in- 
 strument of bringing us back to obedience, and 
 therefore is designated as the means of obtaining 
 the blessings of that return. It is not imputed to 
 us, by an arbitrary act, for what it is not, but 
 for what it is, as the foundation of all real obedi- 
 ence to God. This is the reason why faith is 
 made the medium through which pardon comes. 
 It is simply set down to us for what it really is ; 
 because it first leads us to obey God from a prin- 
 ciple of love to him." Lectures to Professing 
 Christians, p. 221. 
 
 Which of these doctrines is more calculated to 
 humble the creature and to honor Christ ? " If 
 faith itself is our justifying righteousness, then it 
 justifies as a work, as truly as any other works 
 could ; and" " if a man is justified on account 
 
Contrast — Human Ability. 219 
 
 of the act of believing, and that act he can per- 
 form by the power of free will, he has as much 
 ground of boasting as he could possibly have, if 
 he had been justified by other works." Dr. Al- 
 exander. , 
 
 6. The Old Theology places the sinner at the 
 threshold of sovereign mercy, a dependant though 
 guilty suppliant for grace and salvation. The 
 New gives him sufficient ability to do all that 
 God requires of him, without Divine aid. In a 
 Review of Watson's Institutes in the Christian 
 Spectator, are found the following : " He [Mr. 
 Watson] repeatedly speaks of the power of the 
 will, by which he intends, of course, its ' gracious 
 ability' before the fall, as being lost by Adam, 
 ' for himself and for his descendants.' "...." Ad- 
 mitting it to be true in Adam's case, that by sin- 
 ning he was shorn of his power to obey God, 
 what has this to do with his posterity ? The 
 principle assumed in the argument, renders it im- 
 possible, that their moral agency should be un- 
 hinged, until they exist and sin ; therefore Adavn!s 
 sin could have no more tendency to destroy their 
 power to choose good, or to set their teeth on edge^ 
 than it had to produce the same effects upon Satan 
 
 and his apostate Jwst" " We should 
 
 like to know, whether the admirers of Mr. Wat- 
 son believe it impossible for God to create a be- 
 ing, possessing in himself the ability to choose 
 
220 Contrast — Regeneration, 
 
 good and he holy, without the gift of the Spirit ? 
 and if so, where is his omnipotence ? 'If it is ad- 
 mitted, that he can create such a being, we ask 
 whether the principles of Divine goverrtment do 
 not fully demonstrate, that-ma« is such a being ? 
 If he is not, is God's government adapted to him ? 
 What notion can be formed of a subject of moral 
 government, who is destitute of moral liberty? 
 or in other words, who, in every instance of 
 obedience or disobedience, does not act with 
 inherent power to the contrary choice ?"* Ch. 
 Spec. 1835, p. 376, 377. 
 
 7. The Old Theology makes regeneration a 
 radical change — a change in the disposition and 
 temper of the sinner, as well as in his acts. The 
 New regards it as merely giving a different di- 
 rection to our constitutional desires ; but appears 
 to make httle or no difference between the prin- 
 ciples of action, in converted and unconverted 
 men. They differ only as to the " end of pur- 
 suit." In reference to a sentiment advanced by 
 Dr. Griffin, that the sinner has no taste for holi- 
 ness, and therefore cannot be regenerated by mo- 
 tives, Mr. Gilbert remarks, " The impenitent sin- 
 ner has no * taste' for conviction ; his unholy 
 temper is as really opposed to truth as to holi- 
 
 * Concerning the power of contrary choice, see Dr. Beecher's. 
 views and Dr. Hervey's remarks upon them in ^lapter *th» 
 
Contrast—The Holy Spirit. 221 
 
 ness ; and this philosophy would make it as im- 
 possible to convict as to convert him ; to sanctify, 
 as to regenerate him.. The unconverted man has 
 no 'taste', for conviction, nor the converted man 
 for . more sanctification." Mark : " The uncon- 
 verted man has no taste for conviction, nor the 
 converted man for more sanctification !" What 
 then is the diiference betvt^een the taste or tem- 
 per or disposition, of an impenitent sinner, and a 
 child of God ? For aught we can perceive, they 
 are precisely the same. 
 
 8. The Old -Theology gives honor to Christ 
 and the Holy Spirit — the New has a tendency to 
 throw them, particularly the latter, into the 
 shade. *' You see (says Mr. Finney) how unphi- 
 losophical it is, while pressing the sinner to sub- 
 mission, to divert his mind and turn his attention 
 to the subject of the Spiri't's influence. While his 
 attention is directed to that subject, his submission 
 .is impossible." Sermons on Important Subjects, 
 p. 61. Of course, those who would be instru- 
 mental in converting sinners, must say little or 
 •nothing about the Spirit.* And it is true as a 
 
 * I have in my possession a written statement communic:\ted 
 to me by a very respectable minister, whicli affords another illus- 
 tration of this sentiment. Says he, "In the summer of 1832, 
 while travelling in the valley of the Mississippi, 1 s'pent a few 
 weeks in the city of , and gave assistance, as I was able, 
 
222 Contrast — Preaching Christ, 
 
 matter of fact, that the class of preachers to 
 which we now refer, say almost as little about 
 Christ as about the Spirit. They preach much 
 about submitting to God ; but they seldom exhibit 
 the second person of the Trinity, in his Mediato- 
 rial character, and the duty of embracing him as 
 a Saviour. The Apostolic direction, " Believe 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ," is exchanged for a 
 phraseology w^hich is calculated to convey the im- 
 pression that conversion consists in the mere 
 choice of God as a moral Governor. This indeed 
 is Mr, Finney's account of it. " It [a change of 
 
 by request of the Pastor in church of that place. Un- 
 usual attention to religion existed when I arrived, and contin- 
 ued for some time. A strong tendency was manifested both to 
 new doctrines and new measures. One evening when on the 
 way to the church with the pastor, where I had engaged to 
 preach, he requested I should say nothing in my preaching, concern- 
 ing the influences of the Spirit, as he had new views on repent- 
 ance. He did not deny the work of the Spirit, but thought it 
 should not be preached. He was then and still remains a lead, 
 ing member of his synod." To this we will add the following .- 
 A former student of Dr. Taylor has informed me, verbally, 
 that he heard Dr. Taylor advance the sentiment in two differ- 
 ent sermons, " that sinners must act in the work of conversion just 
 as if there was no Holy Ghost." To prove the truth of his re- 
 mark, he alluded to Acts xix. 2, " We have not so much as 
 heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." He had heard, also, 
 through others, of Dr. Taylor's advancing the same sentiment 
 at different times ; and he believed he was in the habit of doing" 
 it where he preached a course of revival sermons. 
 
Contrast — The Holy Scriptures. 223 
 
 heart] is a change in the choice of a Sujyreme Ru- 
 ler" " The world is divided into two great po- 
 litical parties ; the difference between them is, that 
 one party choose Satan as the god of this world ;" 
 . ..." the other party choose Jehovah for their 
 Governor." Jesus Christ, as a distinct person in 
 the Godhead, and faith in him as our Redeemer, 
 appear to have little to do in the process.* 
 
 9. The Old Theology honors the Holy Scrip- 
 tures ; by drawing its doctrines and proofs from 
 this source alone, without calling in the aid of 
 philosophy. The New, resorts to the latter, in 
 order to obtain its first principles ; and then in- 
 terprets the former so as to make them accord 
 with these philosophical opinions. This remark, 
 we are aware, may be called in question. The 
 leaders in the New School party have had much 
 to say concerning the "facts'" of Scripture, and 
 
 * In the summer of 1834, I heard a sermon from Professor 
 , of New Haven. I do not recollect that there was a 
 
 sentiment in it to which I took exceptions ; and yet there was 
 such an absence of what a christian desires and expects to find, 
 in a sermon which professed to teach us how we may approach 
 God with acceptance, as to afford too much reason for the ob- 
 servation of a pious and intelligent lady soon after, viz : " that 
 he kept Christ and the Holy Spirit so much out of view, she 
 could not help thinking he was a deist" This lady had not yet 
 heard the name or residence of the preacher ; and of course 
 could not have been influenced by any considerations of this 
 kind. 
 
224 Contrast — Philosophy. 
 
 have charged their brethren of the Old School 
 with resorting to philosophy. But a little investi- 
 gation of this subject, v^ill shew the statement first 
 made to be strictly true. In Mr. Finney's two 
 sermons on the duty of sinners to change their 
 own hearts, he uses the words philosophy, philo- 
 sophical, unphilosophical, &c. at least fourteen 
 times. He tells us about " the philosophy of con- 
 version," " the^^z7o5op7iy of self-examination,'* and 
 " the philosophy of special efforts to promote re- 
 vivals of religion." Every step in the change is 
 brought to the test o^ philosophy : and the failure 
 of the sinner to submit to God is ascribed in one 
 instance t-o his not understanding the philosophy 
 of the process. " He, therefore, (says he) who 
 does not understand the philosophy of this ; who 
 does not understand the use and power of atten- 
 tion, the use and power of conscience, and upon 
 what to fix his mind, to lead him to a right decis- 
 ion, will naturally complain that he does not know 
 how to submit." The Scriptures are also brought 
 forward and compared by this rule. " When he 
 [Joshua] assembled the people of Israel and laid 
 their duty before them, and said, ' choose you this 
 day whom ye will serve ;' he did not unphilo- 
 sophically remind them at the same time of their 
 dependence upon the Spirit of God." Thus we 
 have philosophical preaching, 'philosophical pro- 
 tracted meetings, philosojjhical seif-examination, 
 
Contrast — Observations. 22 5 
 
 philosophical submission, diudi philosophical conver- 
 sion. May not the result of the whole be a mere- 
 ly philosophical christian!. Other proofs which 
 might be adduced, from different writers, we 
 must leave to those who desire to examine this 
 subject. 
 
 It may possibly be said that we have given 
 tnore prominence to Mr. Finney than was prop- 
 er ; since he goes farther than most of his breth- 
 ren, and is not, therefore, a fair specimen of their 
 views. We admit he has expressed himself more 
 freely than perhaps any one else ; but if we com- 
 pare the quotations made from various authors, 
 we shall perceive they all belong to the same 
 family. It has been our aim both in our state- 
 ments and quotations, to exhibit the doctrines of 
 the New Theology just as they are, without the 
 least exaggeration. For this purpose our extracts 
 from New School authors have been numerous, 
 and sufficiently extended as to length, to give a 
 correct view of their sentiments. But if it can be 
 made to appear that we have misrepresented 
 their views in a single important point, we shaU 
 cheerfully rectify the mistake. 
 
PerfectioMisHi of Mr. Fiiuiey. 
 
 There is one extreme into which Mr. Finney 
 has fallen, that we by no means charge upon the 
 New School, as a body — and we have therefore as 
 yet entirely omitted it. "VVe mean his perfection- 
 ism. In this we presume he has few followers. 
 We will however bestow upon it a little attention, 
 that it may serve as a beacon to admonish those 
 who have embarked on the voyage of religious 
 discovery. 
 
 In his Lectures to professing Christians, he has 
 two on Christian Perfection ; and he adverts to 
 the subject in several others. He defines perfec- 
 tion in the following words ; " It is to love the 
 Lord our God with ail our heart and soul and 
 mind and strength, and to love our neighbor as 
 ourselves." This he maintains is attainable in the 
 present life. " L God wills it. 2. All the prom- 
 ises and prophecies of God that respect the sanc- 
 tification of believers in this world, are to be un- 
 derstood of course of their perfect sanctification. 
 3. Perfect sanctification is the great blessing 
 promised, throughout the Bible. 4. The perfect 
 sanctification of believers is the very object for 
 which the Holy Spirit is promised. 5. If it is not 
 a practicable duty to be perfectly holy in this 
 
Perfection in Knowledge. 227 
 
 world, then it will follow that the devil has so 
 completely accomplished his design in corrupting 
 mankind, that Jesus Christ is at a fault, and has 
 no way to sanctify his people but to take them out 
 of the world. 6. If perfect sanctification is not 
 attainable in this world, it must be, either from a 
 want of motives in the gospel, or a want of suffi- 
 cient power in the Spirit of God." 
 
 In another lecture he appears to teach perfec- 
 tion in knowledge as well as in holiness ; amount- 
 ing to an illumination little short of Divine inspi- 
 ration. " The manner m which the Spirit of God 
 does this," says he, i. e. communicates ideas to the 
 mind without the use of words, " is what we can 
 never know in this world. But the fact is unde- 
 niable, that he can reach the mind without the use 
 of words, and can put our minds in possession of 
 the ideas themselves, of which the types, or figures, 
 or words, of the human teacher, are only the 
 signs or imperfect representatives." .... " The 
 needed influences of the Spirit of God may be 
 possessed by all men freely under the gospel." .... 
 " They [ministers] should not attempt to explain 
 passages of which they are not confident they have 
 been taught the jneaning by the Holy Spirit. It is 
 presumption. And they need not do it, for they 
 may always have the teachings of the Spirit by 
 asking." . . . . " This is apphcable both to preach- 
 ers and to teachers in sabbath schools and bible 
 
228 Christ becomes responsible. 
 
 classes." . . . . " Will you lay your hearts open to 
 God, and not give him rest, till he has filled you 
 with Divine knowledge ?" 
 
 In other lectures he goes farther still, and main- 
 tains, if I understand his language, that when the 
 christian has thus given himself up entirely to 
 Christ, to be taught and governed by him, he be- 
 comes so identified with Christ, that his spirit, and 
 Christ's Spirit are, morally considered, one — Christ 
 becomes responsible for his acts ; and of course 
 he not only ceases from sin, but he cannot com- 
 mit sin. Whatever he does, Christ is responsible 
 for it. This he calls entering into rest. " When one 
 ceases from his ow n works, he so perfectly gives up 
 his own interest and his own will, and places him- 
 self so perfectly under the dominion and guidance 
 of the Holy Spirit, that whatever he does is done 
 by the impulse of the Spirit of God." ..." They 
 are in one sense our works, because we do them 
 by our voluntary agency. Yet in another sense 
 they are his works, because he is the moving 
 cause of all." . ..." He [Christ] is just as abso- 
 lutely your sanctification, as your justification. If 
 you depend upon him for sanctification, he will no 
 more let you sin than he will let you go to hell." 
 . , . . " The reputation of the wife is wholly united 
 to that of her husband, so that his reputation is 
 hers, and her reputation is his. What aflfects her 
 character affects his ; and what aftects his char- 
 
Antinomianism — Mr. Finney. 229 
 
 acter affects hers. Their reputation is one, their 
 interests are one. So with the church, whatever 
 concerns the church is just as much the interest 
 of Christ, as if it was personally his own matter." 
 ..." If any actions or civil liability come against 
 the wife, the husband is responsible. If the wife 
 has committed a trespass, the hasband is answer- 
 able. It is his business to guide and govern her, 
 and her business to obey, and if he does not re- 
 strain her from breaking the laws, he is respon- 
 sible." . ..." In like manner, Jesus Christ is Lord 
 over his church, and if he does not actually restrain 
 his church from sin, he has it to answer for." .... 
 " It is his business to take care of the church, and 
 control her, and keep her from sin ; and for every 
 sin of every member, Jesus Christ is responsible, 
 and must answer." . . . . " O ! if believers would 
 only throw themselves wholly on Christ, and 
 make him responsible, by placing themselves en- 
 tirely at his control, they woukl know his power 
 to save, and would live without sin." 
 
 We have given these extracts at some length, 
 that those who have not access to his Lectures, 
 may obtain a full view of his sentiments. It is 
 scarcely necessary to remurk, that the sentences 
 last quoted are Antinomian. The history of Anti- 
 nomianism does not furnish many expressions, 
 more licentious in their tendency than these. This 
 heresy is more frequently the result of an abuse 
 u 
 
230 Mr, Finnef/s Perfectionism. 
 
 of the doctrines of grace ; but in the present in- 
 stance, it appears to have originated in an oppo- 
 site cause, viz. in those views of human abihty, 
 which render grace in a measure superfluous.* 
 " There is," says he, " no more moral inability to 
 be perfectly holy, than there is to be holy at all." 
 On the same principle, therefore, that he could 
 preach to the sinner the practicability of changing 
 his own heart, he might argue that the christian 
 can arrive at perfect hohness in this life. He 
 actually adopts the same mode of reasoning in 
 both cases. It is therefore very natural to con- 
 clude, that the frequent discussion of the subject 
 of ability in reference to the sinner, had much to 
 do in forming his opinions with regard to christian 
 perfection. Having arrived at this point, he ap- 
 plied his ideas of perfection, not only to our sanc- 
 
 * If is supposed by some that there is no logical connexion 
 between Mr. Finney's former and present views — but that he 
 has got upon a new track. Formerly, as one observes, " he left 
 Christ and the Holy Spirit almost out of view; he hardly 
 preached the gospel at all ; but now Christ and the Holy Spirit 
 are every thing. He pushes union with Christ, imputation, 
 covenant relation, &c. into Antinomianism." The only con- 
 nexion, he says, between the latter and his Pelagianism, is that 
 "he is a fanatic now as he was before," But as -others think 
 differently, we shall state the probable process by which it is 
 supposed he was led into these errors. Yet whether they are 
 the "logical sequence" of his former views or not, they furnish 
 an instructive lesson to those who are disposed to countenance 
 error. 
 
Mr, Finney^s Perfectionism. 231 
 
 lification, but to all our relations to God. In 
 a lecture from the text, " Who of God is made 
 unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanc- 
 tification, and redemption ;" he considers each 
 of the terms as conveying an idea equally ex- 
 pressive. Since then, according to the views 
 which he had previously adopted, sanctifica- 
 tion was to be taken as implying perfect holi- 
 ness, the perfectibility of wisdom would seem to 
 follow as a consequence. Hence he says in re- 
 gard to this, " As he [Christ] is the infinite source 
 of wisdom, how can it be said that he is made 
 unto us wisdom, unless we are partakers of his 
 wisdom, and have it guaranteed to us ; so that, at 
 any time, if we trust in him, \\q may have it as 
 certainly, and in any degree we need, to guide us 
 as infallibly, as if we had it originally ourselves ?" 
 Thus we are brought into the field of fanaticism. 
 The only condition required in order to obtain 
 either wisdom or sanctification, is faith. " The 
 act of the mind, says he, that thus throws the soul 
 into the hand of Christ for sanctification, is faith. 
 Nothing is wanting, but for the mind to break off 
 from any confidence in itself, and to give itself up 
 to him, to be led and controlled by him, abso- 
 lutely." Then Christ assumes the responsibility ; 
 he undertakes to do all for him that he needs ; 
 he becomes accountable for his conduct. Says 
 he, " Until an individual receives Christ, he does 
 
^32 Mi\ Finnei/s Perfectionism. 
 
 not cease from his own works. The moment he 
 does that, by this very act he throws the entire 
 responsibility upon Christ. The moment the mind 
 does fairly yield itself up to Chritit, the responsi- 
 bility comes upon him, just as the person who un- 
 dertakes to conduct the blind man is responsible 
 for his safe conduct. The believer by the act of 
 faith pledges Christ for his obedience and sanctifi- 
 cation. By giving himself up to Christ, all the 
 veracity of the Godhead is put at stake, that he 
 shall be led aright, or made holy." Here we have 
 the final result of the whole process. By the prop- 
 er exercise of our free will, we can first change 
 our own hearts, or in other words, put forth the 
 " act" of saving faith upon Jesus Christ. By the 
 proper exercise of the same free will, we can 
 put forth a stronger "act" of faith, and make him 
 our wisdom and sanctification :■ — our wisdom, in 
 such a sense, that he will " guide us infallibly, as 
 if we had it originally ourselves :" — and our sanc- 
 tification, so entire and absolute, that Christ be- 
 comes responsible for our conduct, and "if he does 
 not restrain us from sin, he has it to answer 
 for." 
 
 In the March number of the Literary and The^ 
 ological Review, there is an able article on this 
 subject ; from which we will make the following 
 extract. " In the works before us [refering to 
 Mr. Finney's Sermons and Lectures,] we have an 
 
Extract from the Theo. Review. 233 
 
 authentic genealogy of sl family of errors. We 
 are not obliged, as in other instances, to trace 
 them through successive generations of men. 
 They are all found in the same mind, and Pelagi- 
 anism, as contsiined in the preceding extracts, is 
 the venerable ancestor of them all. From his in- 
 fancy it was remarked that he was an uncommon 
 child. Unlike other children, he was by nature 
 neither " sinful nor holy." Unhappily, however, 
 very soon after his birth, he ''fell into a state of 
 supreme selfishness" from which even the " phys- 
 ical power of God" could not extricate him. But 
 he had rare abilities, and a " giant strength" of 
 will, which he could hardly refrain from calling 
 " the strength of Omnipotence" And therefore, 
 he always believed himself to be one of those who 
 could be recovered " ivith the wisest amount of 
 moral influence." He had elevated notions of hu- 
 man virtue, and would suffer no change to be 
 made in his condition, which was not produced 
 by " his own act." He was willing, indeed, that 
 the Holy Spirit should operate on him, provided 
 it were only as an earthly advocate acts on a jury. 
 He was willing that " motives should he gathered 
 from all worlds and poured in a focal hlaze on his 
 mind." He was anxious to receive good counsel 
 from his friends, and reverently to hear divine 
 truth ; but the change from " supreme selfishness" 
 hQ declared to be his own '• appropriate work ;" 
 
234 Pcrfectionisni — Theo. Review. 
 
 and he was at length accustomed to say, .that he 
 had effected it by "/«'*' own actJ^ It was natural 
 to suppose, that the theological children of such a 
 system would have some remarkable characteris- 
 tics. In Pelagius and Ccelestius it had produced 
 Perfectionism, and there was reason to fear that 
 in the mind of Mr. Finney, it would generate the 
 same progeny. In various parts of the land the 
 system had been earnestly inculcated. Its most 
 sagacious disciples were beginning to declare 
 themselves to " be perfect,^' to have " rolled the re- 
 sponsihility of their future and eternal obedience 
 on an everlasting arm ,*" to receive " immediate 
 communications from God ;" to h^ ^'^ personally 
 united to Him!^ and have " entered into rest." 
 These heresies were early demonstrated to have 
 had their origin in the system itself As Mr. Fin- 
 ney had been the Apostle of this system in these 
 latter days, it was intimated that his doctrines, as 
 inculcated in his preaching and by the press, had 
 tended to produce these impieties. This view of 
 the subject was indignantly repelled even by the 
 candid ones among his followers. The thought 
 that his doctrines had produced such results, they 
 could not for a moment entertain. Although oth- 
 ers had no doubt that Mr. Finney was the true pa- 
 rent of Perfectionism, they had more opinion of 
 his caution, than to suppose he could soon be in- 
 duced openly to own and adopt it. But, to the 
 amazement of all, he now comes forth, bringing 
 
Literary ^ Theo. Review. 235 
 
 with him for induction into the church, the doc- 
 trine of the perfection of the saints in this life, of 
 the responsibility of Christ for. his people, of im- 
 mediate communications to them from God, and 
 of their entrance into rest even in this world. 
 These last views were not developed till he had 
 abandoned the Presbyterian church. Eve r since 
 their publication, it is almost inconceivable by 
 those who have heard of him chiefly as a promo- 
 ter of revivals, and have been unwilling to Hsten 
 to the notes of warning, so long honestly and re- 
 sponsively sounded by individuals — it is almost 
 inconceivable, that he has inculcated these fanati- 
 cal doctrines. Even the Christian Spectator, 
 though it fears "he may be liable to misconstruc- 
 tion and injure the consciences of many weak and 
 pious persons," declares, " we do not believe he 
 means any thing more than we should fully ad- 
 mit — the possibility and duty of obedience to God 
 in all things commanded.'' But this view of his 
 meaning it is impossible to sustain either by indi- 
 vidual sentences, or the evident design of his Lec- 
 tures on these subjects. His errors are written 
 so legibly, that he who runs may read. Mr. Fin- 
 ney now stands before the community as a prac- 
 tical illustration of the effects of rejecting the doc- 
 trine, that human nature is depraved : and of be- 
 lieving, that in regeneration and fanctiiication,^//e 
 work of the Spirit is confined chiefiy to the under^ 
 standing" 
 
COINCLUSION. 
 
 If the statements contained in this volume are 
 to be relied upon ; in other words, if New School 
 writers maintain those sentiments which are 
 clearly conveyed by their language, they have 
 widely departed from " the faith once delivered 
 to the saints." But should any be still disposed 
 to repeat the remark, ' There is no difference ; 
 the contest is a mere logomachy,' &c. ; we will 
 refer them, first, to the action of the General As- 
 sembly in former years, condemning as heretical 
 those very doctrines substantially, which now 
 make a part of the New Theology. 
 
 In 1798, the case of Rev. H. Balch. came be- 
 fore the Assembly by way of reference from the 
 Synod of the Carolinas. The following is a part 
 of the minutes of the Assembly on this subject. 
 " With regard to his doctrine of original sin, it is 
 to be observed, that he is erroneous in represent- 
 ing personal corruption as not derived from 
 Adam ; making Adam's sin to be imputed to his 
 posterity in consequence of a corrupt nature al- 
 ready possessed, and derived from, w^e know not 
 what ; thus in effect setting aside the idea of 
 Adam's being the federal head, or representative 
 of his descendants, and the whole doctrine of the 
 covenant of works." 
 
Case of Balch and Davis. 237 
 
 " It is also manifest that Mr. B. is greatly er- 
 roneous in asserting that the formal cause of a 
 believer's justification is the imputation of the 
 fruits and effects of Christ's righteousness, and 
 not that righteousness itself; because righteous- 
 ness, and that alone, is the formal demand of the 
 law, and consequently the sinner's violation of the 
 Divine law, can be pardoned only in virtue of the 
 Redeemer's perfect righteousness being imputed 
 to him and reckoned as his. It is also not true 
 that the benefits of Christ's righteousness are, 
 with strict propriety, said to be imputed at all, as 
 these benefits flow to, and are possessed, hy^ the 
 believer, as a consequence of his justification and 
 having an interest in the infinite merits of the 
 Saviour." 
 
 In 1810, a work of Rev. William C. Davis, en- 
 titled the " Gospel Plan," came before the As- 
 sembly, by an overture from the Synod of the 
 Carolinas. Among the doctrines contained in the 
 book of an exceptionable character, and which 
 the Assembly condemned, are the following: 
 " That the active obedience of Christ constitutes 
 no part of that righteousness by which a sinner 
 is justified ;" that " God could not make Adam, 
 or any other creature, either holy or unholy ;" 
 and that, " if God has to plant all the principal 
 parts of salvation in a sinner's heart, to enable 
 him to believe, the gospel plan is quite out of his 
 
238 Testimony of Unitarians. 
 
 reach, and consequently does not suit his case ; 
 and it must be impossible for God to condemn a 
 man for unbelief ; for no just law condemns or 
 criminates any person for not doing what he 
 cannot do." Concerning these doctrines the As- 
 sembly resolved that they are " contrary to the 
 Confession of Faith of our church." Assembly's 
 Digest, p. 130, 145, 146, 147. 
 
 If the persons before alluded to, are not yet 
 satisfied that there is a palpable and important 
 difference between the Old and New Theology, 
 we will refer them, secondly, to the opinion of 
 Unitarians, as expressed in the review of Mr. 
 Barnes' Notes on the Romans, in the Christian 
 Examiner ; one or two extracts from which have 
 already been made. " In conclusion we w^ould 
 say, (observes the reviewer,) that while our or- 
 thodox brethren publish and circulate and re- 
 ceive with favor such books as these "Notes," 
 ws most cordially extend to them the right hand 
 of fellowship, even though they refuse to return 
 it. We regard them as fellow laborers with us, 
 for the overthow of time-hallowed absurdities ; 
 for the cleansing of the christian creed from 
 * whatever defileth and maketh a lie.' Calvinism 
 is' now a house divided against itself. It embra- 
 ces within its walls two, not only distinct, but 
 opposite sects ;* the one that of the friends, the 
 
 * This was written in 1836. 
 
Ohservations and Remarks. 239 
 
 other that of the enemieg of free enquiry ; — the 
 one that of the votaries of reason, the other that 
 of the bhnd-fold recipients of a traditional faith. 
 The house is tottering, is on the point of falling j 
 and when it falls, we confidently expect to re- 
 ceive into the citadel of liberal Christianity, and 
 shall greet with a most hearty welcome, those, be- 
 neath whose w^ell-aimed blows, the walls of the 
 old mansion are shaking, and its foundation 
 crumbling." 
 
 That ministers of the gospel should entertain 
 the opinion, (as some do,) that there is no mate- 
 rial difference between the two systems, is truly 
 astonishing. It results in part, we believe, from 
 inattention. But men who have devoted their 
 lives to the "cure of souls," who have been pla- 
 ced by the Head of the church, as " watchmen 
 to the house of Israel," are bound, it appears to 
 me, to make themselves thoroughly acquainted 
 with these things. Civilians and men of busi- 
 ness have some apology for their want of infor- 
 mation — it not being in general compatible with 
 their pursuits, to attend very minutely to theolog- 
 ical discussion. Hence it is not so wonderful 
 that a considerable number of this class, vi^ho are 
 sound in the faith, should be disposed, in the ex- 
 ercise of that charity which " hopeth all things," 
 to indulge the belief that the grounds of contro- 
 versy are less important than some have suppo- 
 
240 Arianism, how treated, 
 
 sed. But if they will take sufficient time to ex- 
 amine the subject, until they become fully ac- 
 quainted with the questions in debate, we believe 
 their minds will undergo a similar change to that 
 of the Emperor Constantino, with regard to the 
 Arian heresy. 
 
 After the discussion had commenced between 
 Arius and Alexander, bishop of Alexandria in 
 Egypt, but prior to the council of Nice, at which 
 the Emperor presided and gave his consent to 
 the condemnation of the Arian doctrine, he ad- 
 dressed a letter to Alexander and Arius, with a 
 view to bring about a reconciliation ; in which he 
 says, " The honor and character of the assembly 
 of christians may be preserved entire, and the 
 same communion retained among you all, not- 
 withstanding you may greatly differ among your- 
 selves in matters of very little if?iporfanceJ^ ^. 
 . . . . " Your subtle disputes and inquiries respect- 
 ing these trifling matters, if you cannot agree iii 
 sentiment, should remain in your own thoughts, 
 and be laid up in the secret depths of the mind." 
 But before the close of the Nicene council, the 
 points of difference did not appear to him " trifling 
 matters." The Emperor wrote two letters at the 
 close of the council, in one of which, directed to 
 the churches in general,* he " informs them that 
 
 + The ether was addressed to the church at Alexandria. 
 
Nicene Council — Constantine. 141 
 
 the faith has been examined, and placed in so 
 clear a light that no difficulty remains." At the 
 same time he published " an edict directed to the 
 bishops and people, condemning Arius and his writ- 
 ings. He says that Porphyry, having composed 
 impious books against Christianity, rendered him- 
 self infamous in the eyes of posterity, and that 
 his writings were destroyed. It has in like man- 
 ner, he continues, been decreed, that Arius and 
 his followers be called Porphyrians, so that they 
 may bear the name of him whom they have imi- 
 tated ; and that if any book written by Arius 
 shall be found, it shall be committed to the flames, 
 that no monument of his corrupt doctrine may 
 descend to future ages." Historical View of the 
 Council of Nice, p. 27, 40, 41. 
 
 It must not be understood from this illustration 
 that we mean to insinuate that our New School 
 brethren are Arians. All we intend is, that their 
 errors are real and not imaginary ; that they are 
 not small, but important ; and that the counter 
 opinion of those men is entitled to little influence, 
 however intelligent and pious and orthodox they 
 may be, who have not paid sufficient attention to 
 the subject, even to state with precision, the 
 points in controversy. Let them seriously and 
 carefully examine the New School doctrines, and 
 we cannot doubt, they will be obliged to ac- 
 knowledge, that if our Confession of Faith is 
 
142 Observatiotis and Remarks. 
 
 agreeable to the Scriptures, those doctrines must 
 belong to *' another gospel." 
 
 To me it is not surprising that the Presbyte- 
 rian church were alarmed. The wonder is, that 
 the alarm was not sooner and universally felt. 
 If efficient measures had been adopted ten years 
 ago, when those errors had just made their ap- 
 pearance, they might have been rectified without 
 a division. But they were suffered to remain 
 and spread, until they became so prevalent, that 
 discipline was impracticable ; and either some 
 extraordinary measures must be resorted to, or 
 the church be ruined. To use the language of 
 an excellent and distinguished brother in the 
 ministry, " We were reduced to this simple ques- 
 tion. Is the Presbyterian church worth an effort 
 to save ?" Under these circumstances, the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of 1837 were called to act : and 
 though, from the mode of procedure which they 
 were obliged to adopt, they separated from them, 
 for the time being, some whom they would have 
 gladly retained ; subsequent events have already 
 proved, that those measures will result in great 
 good. Those discordant materials which have 
 for years past rendered the floor of the General 
 Assembly an arena of strife, are now removed. 
 The church purified from error and harmonious 
 in action, may now engage with efficiency and 
 success, in her appropriate work of carrying the 
 
Observations and ReinavTis. 143 
 
 symbols of her faith to a perishing world. We 
 have now no pretext for inaction. While we re- 
 joice in the zeal and success of every branch of 
 Christ's church, who are engaged in the work of 
 preaching the gospel, let us not be behind them, 
 either in the expansiveness or efficiency of our 
 benevolence. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 13, 7th line from top, for religon, read "religion." 
 
 *' 42, 22d do. for deprivation, read " depravation." 
 
 " 46, 24th do. for term, read "terms." 
 
 " 49, 3d do. for proper, read "propter." 
 
 " 52, 5th line from bottom, for sentiment, read "senti- 
 ments." 
 
 " 59, 4th do. for idenily, read " identity.^^ 
 
 " 63, 1 1th line from top, for man, read " men." 
 
 " 73, 7th do. for the words but in possession, read "but 
 not in possession." 
 
 " 94, bottom line, for that, read " and." 
 
 " 107, 13th hne from top, for satisfation, read "satisfac 
 tion." 
 
 " 110, 12th do. for endownents, read " endowments," 
 
 " 165, 21st do. for effect, read " effect." 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 4^^^2^^ 
 
 '»■ 
 
 
 
 mmmmm^ 
 
 
 
 
 -- ' n n^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 a^. 
 
 
 
 «mmmm^- 
 
 
 
 
 ^mmm^ 
 
 
 
 .iWTTJiW- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A.