/ gitfttattj oi ®on$xt$$. X3 \ 7 T ^pAjf... lS 5 <@ at first, to suspect that the representa- tions I had of your doctrines were not true; but my neighbor glave me a book, which professes to give extracts from your standard writers, and the Confession of Faith of your Church, in which I find many things to confirm his statements. It was this that staggered me. I could not think that any one would deliberately publish falsehoods; and yet I could hardly believe* that such dreadful doctrines as I find there stated, were in reality the doctrines of your Church; and* as I had not access to the writings from which these extracts are said to be taken, and as I wish to make up my mind deliber- ately on the subject, and act intelligently, I wished to make known to you my difficulties, having confi- dence that they would be met and treated in a spir- it of candor and truth. Min.—- 1 thank you for your confidence? and hope 12 INTRODUCTION, you will find it has not been misplaced. What is the book that your neighbor gave you, in which you have found those doctrines that you say have been charged upon us? Can. — It is a volume of "Doctrinal Tracts, pub- lished by order of the General Conference" of the Methodist Church. Min. — Are you at liberty to let me examine it? Con. — I presume so. I will hand it to you, and will call again to-morrow evening. Min. — I will examine it; and, if I find our doc- trines truly stated, I hope I shall be able to show very clearly, that they are the doctrines of the Bi- ble, and of common sense. I wish you to under- stand, however, that we are not responsible for every expression that may be found in the writings of any individual, though we may approve of his works in the main; and he may be classed among our stan- dard writers. It is only our Confession of Faith that we adopt as a ivhoie, as containing the system of doctrines taught in the Bible. Con. — Some of the extracts are from the Confes- sion of Faith of your Church. Min. — Very well; all such I am bound to defend, and hope to be able to show you, that the Bible, the Confession of Faith, and Common Sense, are in per- fect accordance with each other, MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 13 DIALOGUE II. MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. Convert. — Since I saw you, I have been examin- ing, to some extent, the Confession of Faith of your Church, and find it corresponds with my own views of doctrine in the main, though I find some things to which I cannot fully subscribe. But, when I look at the Scriptural references, I am forced to believe they are taught in the Bible, and am constrained to leave them, as things I cannot understand. I do not, however, find in it, except in one or two places, any thing like the representations I have had of it from others, or the dreadful doctrines quoted in the book I gave you. Have you examined it ? Minister. — I have given it a cursory examination, tand have been very much surprised that such misrep- resentations, and dishonest and even false quotations, should be put forth and palmed upon the commu- nity, under the sanction and by the authority of a Church, that has the name of being evangelical. Had it been done by Universalists, or Infidels, it would hardly have been thought worthy of notice : but, when I see it is "published by order of the Gen- eral Conference" of the Methodist Church, I cannot but regret, that that body would sanction, by their authority and influence, the publication and wide circulation of a work, characterized by such an en- tire want of candor and honesty, and containing so .many palpable misstatements. Con. — Are any of its quotations incorrect? Min> — There is scarcely a single quotation cor- 14 MISREPRESENTATIONS OP CALVINISM. rect, so far as I have been able to examine it. The first is a quotation from our Confession of Faith, chapter 3, which I find on page 8. It pretends to quote the language of the Confession, but it gives nothing more than a small part of the language, so garbled as to give it an entirely different meaning. The quotation is as follows; "God from all eternity did unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." Now, let me read the language of the Confession : "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and ho- ly counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet sa> as thereby neither is God the author of sin ; nor is violence of- fered to tlie will of the creatures ; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rath- er established" I will,, at another time, endeavor to show you, that this is the doctrine of the Bible, and of common sense. At present, it will be suffi- cient to say, that, as you perceive, whilst it asserts God's wise and holy purpose respecting "all things," yet it says, also, that he has "so" ordained respect- ing them, that "he is not the author of sin;" that it does not offer any "violeAce" or constraint "to the will of the creatures," and m a way that "establish- es" rather than takes away, "the liberty, or contin- gency, of second causes*" So, you perceive, that when all these saving clauses are taken away from the language of the Confession, it has a meaning en- tirely different from that which is intended. Con. — I perceive the quotation is exceedingly un- fair and dishonest, Min. — On the same page is another, equally un- fair, respecting: the finally impenitent. It reads thus: "The rest of mankind God was pleased, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures „ MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 15 to pass by and ordain them to dishonor and wrath,-' Now, hear the language of the Confession : "The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he ex- tendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by and ordain them to dishonor and wrath fox their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." Yoa perceive that here, also, the language of the Confes- sion is so garbled, as to give it a different meaning altogether. Whilst it asserts that God "passes by v? the finally impenitent part of mankind, (that is, he did not determine to save them,) and "ordains them to dishonor and wrath," yet it is "for their sin" and in a manner that will redound "to the praise of his glorious justice " But, all this is purposely left out of the quotation, with the design of making it teach the dreadful doctrine of eternal reprobation — thai God damns man from all eternity, without any ref- erence to his sin, or any reason except his arbitrary decree. Con. — It is surprising that such things should be published as true, and circulated with so much con- fidence. The neighbor who gave me the book, said, that I might depend on it as giving, truly, the views of Presbyterians, and that he had the best opportu- nity of knowing what their views were, as he was brought up under Presbyterian instruction, and had been taught the Catechism in f his youth. Min. — As an evidence that he was either unac- quainted with the Catechism, or with the contents of the book, I will refer you to another quotation, which I find on page 195. It professes to be from the "Assembly's Catechism, chapter 5." Now, as you say you have been looking a little at the Con- MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. us to one 01 their,. >n of Faith, you have perceived that the Cate- I divided into chapters: and, where to find thejift/i chapter of the Assembly's Catechism, s ill have to ask "thi Gi i ." b} s e order the book has been published, who should known, at least, that there were chapters in .. before But you will, pei ] = not only nt : language a )ilows: ''The Aim : :seif to the first fall, a Xow. there _ like it, any whei :s there any thing fiord the leas: groi - memous as this is vhmh it standi rd. "A Dialog. : \ F ' rl'J : : . Z'-i .notation is give:;, n: I es, that Gcd'- a lling mm ; ; .e m "Assembly's Cam ■ of the C; Con. — B mm;:, in some other -ion. to give a semblance of truth to the quotation ? Min. — Chapter 5, section 4. of the Confession, ks of God's providence : "The Almighty visdorn, and infinite goc >ted. T\ in either oi our Catech: ny where in the Confes d for a sentiment so gr aade to be, in the cor It is in Tract number S reen a Predestinarian :he Predestinarian is repre- langimme of Calvinists, to men to sin; and, then, this prove mat our Catem. ;igh:v rower is exerted : On ; ; ge 194, is another .inn momming to : cl qrter 3." But the echism will be as difficult to rl MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 17 of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men ; and that, not by a bare permission, but such [a permission] as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends, yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author, or approver of sin" Now, if this was the passage that was intended by the quotation, it is equally as dishonest as if they had made the Confession speak the language of Ar- istotle. The passage, as you perceive, speaks of the "Almighty power" of God, as exercised in his uni- versal providence, restraining and governing the sinful actions "of men and angels," and overruling them for good, by a "wise and powerful bounding." And who but an Atheist will deny this? It is so plain a doctrine of common sense, that I need hard- ly stay to reason about it; and it is found on almost every page of the Bible. The wickedness of Satan in seducing our first parents, as w r ell as their sin, have been, by his "Almighty power, unsearchable wisdom and goodness," overruled for good, and "gov- erned to his own holy ends." So, also, the wicked- ness of Satan in the case of Job, as well as the sins of the betrayer and crucifiers of the Savior. Con. — It is certainly a plain dictate of common sense, as well as of the Bible, that God overrules all things, and governs the wicked, as well as the righteous. The Psalmist says, in one place, that he makes the wrath of man to praise him, and the re- mainder of their wrath he restrains. And I was IS MISREPRESENT ATSON3 OP CALVINISM. struck with the conciseness and beauty of the lan- guage of the Confession, in stating this important doctrine. But, that any one would so garble the passage, as to make it teach the doctrine that God's ■"Almighty power" is exerted in compelling men to sin, is very strange. But, I observed^ that the book gives quotations from Calvin, Twisse, Zuinglius, Toplady, and others. Are these quotations equally incorrect? Min. — I have not examined any of the writers quoted, but Calvin and Toplady. But, I find the quotations from these, are of the same character with those from the Confession of Faith. On page 8, I rind a reference to Calvin's Institutes, chapter 21, section 1. Calvin's Institutes consist of four books, and these books are divided into chaffers and sections. As the particular book is not referred to in the quo- tation, I suppose it must be the third that is intend- ed, as none of the others contain twenty-one chap- ters. I have examined chapter 21, section 1, of book 3, and can find no such language as is quoted, nor any thing like it. And, lest there might be a typographical error in the reference, I examined sections 2 and 3, of the same chapter, and section 1 of every other chapter in the whole work, and can find nothing of the kind. On page 97, there is ano- ther reference to Calvin's Institutes, chap. 18, sec. I. As the particular book is not referred to, I have ex- amined chap. 18, and sec. 1, of books 1, 3, and 4, the only ones containing 18 chapters, and can find no language of the kind; and am led to believe, that there is no such language in the whole work. The quotation is as follows : "I say, that by the ordina- tion and will of God, Adam fell. God would have him to fall, Man is blinded by the will and com- MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 19 miandment of God. We refer the causes of hard- ening us, to God. The highest, or remote causos of hardening, is the will of God." Book 1st, chap. 18, treats of the manner in which "God uses the agen- cy of the impious, and inclines their minds to exe- cute his judgments, yet without the least stain to his perfect purity" — and, though Calvin uses some expressions that I would prefer to have expressed dif- ferently, yet no such language as the quotation, or any thing bearing its import, is to be found. Con. — Could you find none of the quotations re^ ferred to? Min. — On page 194, I find a reference to "Cal- vin's Institutes, Book 1, chap. 16, sec. 3," in the following language: "No thing is more absurd than to think any thing at all is done but by the ordina- tion of God." In the place cited, there is no such language or any thing like it; but, in sec. 8, I find Calvin speaking of Augustine, who, he says, "shows that men are subject to the Providence of God, and governed by it, assuming as a principle, that nothing could be more absurd than for any thing to happen independently of the ordination of God, because it would happen at random." I presume this was the passage intended, but you perceive the exceeding unfairness of the quotation. Calvin is speaking of God's Providence, which overrules and directs eve- ry thing, and quotes approvingly the sentiments of Augustine, that nothing happens at random, as if God had no purpose respecting it. But the quota- tion makes Calvin teach, that God has so ordained all things, that he is the author of sin. Another quotation, equally unfair, I find on the same page; and here, for the first time, I find the reference correct, though the language is garbled 20 MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. and misrepresented. It is in Book 1, chap. 16, sec. 3. The quotation is as follows: "Every action and motion of every creature, is so governed by the hid- den counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass but what was ordained by him." This is made to apply to the actions of men, which would be unfair, even if the language were quoted correctly; for Calvin is speaking of God's Providence over his ir- rational creatures, and arguing against "infidels who transfer the government of the world from God to the stars;" and adds, as encouragement to Chris- tians under God's government, "that in the crea- tures there is no erratic power, action or motion, but that they are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing can happen but what is subject to his knowledge and decreed by his will." So you perceive, that the language is not only widely dif- ferent from the quotation, but it is on another sub- ject altogether. On page 176, I find a reference to Toplady's work on Predestination, and the follow- ing sentiment given as his : "The sum of all is this: One in twenty, suppose of mankind, are elected: nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will. The reprobate shall be damned, do what they can." Then follow 7 some garbled extracts from Mr. Toplady's work; and an at- tempt is made, by distorting their meaning, to prove, by inference, that such is his meaning. I need scarcely tell you, that neither 3Ir. Toplady, nor any other Calvinistic writer, ever penned such a senti- ment. It is a gratuitous forgery. The history of it is this : 3Ir. Toplady published a work on Predes- tination, which, though it contained unguarded ex- pressions, proved the doctrine so clearly, that Ar- rninians felt it was dangerous to their system. To MISREPRESENTATIONS OP CALVINISM'. 21 bring it into disrepute, Mr. John Wesley published a pretended abridgment of it, which was, in fact, only a gross caricature of the work; and yet he put Mr. Toplady's name to it, as if it was the genuine work. To his garbled extracts, he added interpola- tions of his own, to give them a different meaning, and then closed the whole with the following senti- ment: "The sum of all is this : One in twenty, sup- pose of mankind, are elected: nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will: the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can. Reader, believe this, or be damned. AVitness my hand. A. — T." — Every word of this was a forgery of his own. And yet, he affixes the initials of Mr. Toplady's name, with a " Witness my hand" to make his readers believe that it was, in reality, Mr. T's. language. You will find this, with other facts in the case, stated at large, in Mr. Top- lady's letter to Mr. Wesley on the subject, appended to a later edition of his work. Such facts need no comment. The tract in which I find the sentiment again ascribed to Mr. Toplady, was evidently writ- ten with a design to screen Mr. Wesley. But, such things cannot be excused, in any w r ay, to hide their dishonesty, when the facts are known. Con. — Is this the character of the quotations gen- erally? Min. — So far as I have examined, they are gen- erally of this character. I have marked ten or twelve more, which you can examine for yourself, so far as Calvin's Institutes are concerned. I have not, at present, an opportunity of examining the oth- er works quoted; but, from the character of their authors, I must believe they are as grossly misrepre- sented as Calvin, Toplady, and the Confession of 22 MIS&EFBLESENTATiONS OF CALVINISM. Faith.* But, be that as it may, we are not respon- sible for the opinions of either of them, and are therefore not bound to defend them. But, as it res- pects the Confession of Faith, the case is different. For all its doctrines we are responsible. Con. — I would be glad if my mind could be re- lieved of the difficulty under which it labors, res- pecting some of those doctrines. I am at a loss to reconcile the expressions, that "God has foreordain- ed whatsoever comes to pass/' and "yet so that he is not the author of sin," &c. Min. — I think them perfectly reconcileable on * What I have said of the u Doctrinal Tracts," has occasion- ed some surprise. Some have even doubted its truth. They think it hardly possible, that the Methodist Church would be guilty of publishing such misrepresentations. If the reader will take the trouble to examine the "Doctrinal Tracts/' (the edition published in New-York in 1&36,) he will find the quo- tations true to the letter. And he will find, also, that the one half of their enormities have not been exposed. Witness the following, on page 169 : "This doctrine (Predestination) repre- sents our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God the Father, full of grace and truth, as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people , a man void of common sincerity." And page 170 : k -It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as loth more false, more cruel, and more unjust.'''' And again, page 172 : •"One might say to our adversary, the devil, 'thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer ? Thy lying in wait for souls, is ae needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not that God hath taken the work out of thy hands ? And that he doth it- more effectually? * * Thou temptest ; Heforceth us to be damn- ed. * *'* Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the dtstroyer of souls, the murderer of men?' 1 " &c. And page 173 :• 4i how would the enemy of God and man, rejoice to hear that these things are so ! * * * How would he lift up his voice and say* * * * 'Flee from the face of this God, or ye shall utterly perish. *'* * Ye cannot flee from an omnipresent Almighty tyrant. * * * Sing O hell. * * * Let all the sons of hell liout for joy,' " &e. Perhaps I owe an apology to the reader fox quoting such language. DECREES OF GOD. 23 the plain principles of common sense. But we had perhaps better defer this subject until to-morrow evening. Can. — I will be glad to embrace the opportunity, at any time you may have leisure. DIALOGUE IIL DECREES OF GOD. Minister. — I think you mentioned, in our last conversation, that on>e difficulty under which your mind labored respecting the doctrine of Divine de- crees, was, that it necessarily made God the author of sin. Convert.— Yes, Sir. It seems to me, that if God has, "from all eternity, foreordained whatsoever comes to pass," without any exception, how can it be that he is not the author of all evil as well as good? Min. — The doctrine is not without its difficulties ; and, though some of these may be removed by a proper understanding of it, yet when we attempt to- follow it out in all its consequences, as with every thing else revealed respecting Jehovah, we come to a point at which we are compelled to stop ; and, we must, with the docility of children, receive what is told us, though w r e cannot comprehend it. The doc- trine, however, to a certain extent, is very simple and plain. All admit that God is the author and dis- poser of all things. Nothing takes place except by his agency or permission ; or, in other words, n«*h- 24 DECREES OF GOD. ing can take place, except what he does, or permits to be done. The Bible represents his overruling Providence as extending to all events, however small; the fall of a sparrow, or the loss of a hair. He rules the wicked, as well as the righteous ; and his restraining hand is over all in such a way, that it does not infringe upon human liberty. If this were not the case, you perceive, it w in taking all its features, and viewing them together, they present a very grand scheme, and show the glorious work of re- demption in a light that I think must surely recom- mend it to any burdened and heart-broken sinner* seeking to escape the wrath of God. And, though I feel that it is the only doctrine upon which I can safely depend, yet is it not liable to objection, on the ground that it leaves good works and holy liv- ing entirely out of view? Minister. — It only leaves them out of view, as the meritcrrious ground of our salvation; but, in every other respect, it secures and establishes them. This 76 GOOD WORKS, is the very objection which Paul meets, in the last verse of the third chapter of his Epistle to the Ro- mans. He lays down, in language that cannot well be misunderstood, the truth, that we are "justified by faith, without the deeds of the law ;" and, then, knowing that the objection you speak of, would be urged against it, he anticipates it in the last verse : "Do we then make void the law, through faith '?" That is, if we by faith, place all our dependence for salvation upon the righteousness of Christ, and none upon our own obedience to the law, will it not make us careless about that obedience, and lead us to think that the law r has no farther claims upon us, and thus "make void the law," as requiring of us a holy life ? But, how does he answer it ? "God forbid : yea. we establish the law\" This might be sufficient; but, it will not be amiss, to look a little farther, and see how faith establishes the law. We have already seen how it establishes the law, in answering all its claims, through the righteousness of Christ; and, that it establishes it also, as the believer's rule of life, is equally plain. To show this, I need not go farther than your own experience. When you first obtained a hope of salvation, through Christ, what seemed to be the most prominent feeling of your heart ? Con. — I was overwhelmed with a sense of the love of God, as manifested through the Savior. And, when I thought of the Son of God, suffering and dying to redeem me from hell, I felt as if it would be the joy of my life, to serve him with my whole heart. Min. — Do you think it possible for any one to exercise faith in Christ for salvation, without expe- riencing, in some degree, the same feelings of love and devotion ? GOOD WORKS. 77 Con. — I do not see how it is possible for any one to look to the Son of God as his Savior, without loving and desiring to serve him; and, at the same time, desiring to be made holy, and conformed to his image and example. Min. — You have now answered the objection in your own experience, which is, in a greater or les^ degree, the experience of every true Christian. True faith will never be found in the heart of any one, without producing its legitimate effects, love to Christ, hatred of sin, and a desire after holiness, and conformity to the law of God, in all its parts. So Paul describes it. Gal 5, 6 — "Faith which icorketh by love" And Peter, in Acts 15: 9, as- cribes to it the effect of "purifying the heart." And. in Acts 26: 18, we are said to be "sanctified by faith." So, it is plain, both from Christian experi- ence, and from Scripture, that the effect of faith is, to produce love and holiness in the heart of the be- liever; and thus, his sanctification is carried on. Faith is the first act of a regenerated soul; and, then, immediately, the work of sanctification com- mences, which is carried on through the instrumen- tality of faith. It sanctifies, as well as justifies. Just as surely as any one has the faith that justifies, he has also the faith that sanctifies. It is impossible to separate them. It is true, faith is not meritori- ous, in either case, but only instrumental ; but, it is always just as surely instrumental of the one, as of the other. It is absurd to suppose, that any one can have faith in Christ : that is, depend upon him for salvation, without loving him ; and, it is equally ab- surd to suppose, that any one could love him, with- out at the same time desiring to obey all his com- mands. And, I know not how any true Christian, 78 GOOD WORKS. who really loves his Savior, and understands his own heart, can plead the objection, that an entire de- pendence upon Christ for salvation, weakens his sense of obligation, and "makes void the law." It is a reflection cast upon true religion, unworthy of a Christian. All this is plainly taught in our Confession of Faith, as well as the Bible. Chap. 11, sec. 2 — "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justifica- tion : yet, it is not alone, in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces ; and, is no dead faith, but worketh by love." Again , chap. 16, sec. 2 — "These good works, done in obedi- ence to God's commandments \ are the fruits and ev- idences of a true and lively faith," &c. And, that faith should, and does produce these effects, is surely a dictate of common sense. Let any one have true faith, and then holiness of heart and life is a certain consequence. Con. — But, is faith not sometimes to be under- stood in a more extended sense, than simply depend- ing on, and trusting in, Christ for salvation? Min. — Though this is its principal act, it ex- tends to, and acts upon, every thing that God has revealed. As it is expressed in our Confession, chap. 14, sec. 2 — "By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself, speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth ; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God, for this life, and that which is to come," &c. The Apostle also says, By faith we know the worlds w r ere made, &c, ^OOD WORKS. 79 And, again, "He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." But, faith in all these acts, is subordinate, and dependent for its right exercise up- on the principal act. It is only when we are brought to look to God through Christ, that we have right views of his character as he is revealed in his word, and admit with the heart all his claims. Then we see, in a true light, what he says of the evil of sin, the justness of our condemnation, and the freeness •of his mercy and grace in our justification. Then, when we look into his word, all its blessed truths come home to our hearts, with a point and clearness before unknown. Its threatenings and promises, precepts and exhortations, have a peculiar force and pungency, which tell upon our conduct and pursuits, and produce earnest desires for sincere and constant obedience. "With the heart, man believeth unto righteousness." Thus faith secures holiness ; and, view it as we may, either in its principal act of de- pendence on Christ for salvation, or in its cordial ac- ceptance and approval of all the other truths of God's word, it "establishes the law" as the great rule of obedience, in conformity to which the be- liever strives to live. '"Working by love," which is "the fulfilling of the law," it secures this glorious re- sult, wherever it is found in sincerity and truth. Thus, the plan of salvation, exhibits the wisdom of God in all its features. It saves lost sinners, transforms them from sin, and secures the practice of holiness, yet, in a way that excludes boasting, or self-glorification, in the smallest degree, and gives all the praise to God. Con. — But, is there not some sense, in which faith and holiness commend us to God? so GOOD WORKS. Min. — They commend us to God as obedient children, striving after conformity to his law, ana reflecting his image. Eph. 5 : 1, 2 — "Be ye follow- ers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and given himself for us." Of such Paul says, Rom. 2 : 29 — "Whose praise is not of men, but of God." Indeed, the Scriptures every where teach, that good works* by which I mean all the graces of piety brought out into active operation, are pleasing to God; and, only in their performance, can we expect his blessing, and the approving smiles of his countenance. And this is said to be one grand object of salvation. Tit. 2: 14 — "That he might purify to himself a peculiar peo- ple zealous of good works." Besides, they are evi- dences of the sincerity of our faith, both to God and man. It is only in their performance, that we can "let our light shine," and exhibit to the world the excellency of that religion we profess. They are the true tests of Christian love ; and, even in the sight of God, prove our faith to be of the right kind, As he said to Abraham, "Now I know that thou fearest God." And, the Apostle James tells us, that "by his works his faith was made perfect." — James 2 : 22. That is, it was proved to be of the right kind. Con. — But, does not James say, in the same con- nection, that Abraham was justified by works? And how is this to be reconciled with the language of Paul? Min. — The most common interpretation given to the language of James is, that he was speaking of our justification in the sight of men. And, it is true, that it is only by good works, that we can sustain a christian character. But, the Apostle evidently GOOD WORKS. 81 speaks of justification in the sight of God; for, he says, in the 14th verse, "can faith save him?" The doctrines called Antinomianism, were prevalent in the days of the Apostle, which taught that the gospel released believers from obedience to the law, and it is very evident, that it was against this that James was writing, and also, no doubt, to refute the doc- trine that justifying faith was a mere speculative belief, which produced no sanctifying influence upon the heart. In verse 14, he says, "what doth it profit my brethren, though a man say he have faith and have not works, can faith save him V 9 That is, can that kind of faith save him ? In the original it is "he pistis," the faith, or the kind of faith mentioned. In the 19th verse he says, "Thou believest there is one God; thou dost well; the devils also believe and tremble." From this it is very plain, that the faith of which he is speaking, and which he says cannot save a man, is the same that the devils have; and, he adds, in the following verses, "Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and, by woiks was faith made perfect? And the Scripture w r as fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." The Scrip- ture, which the Apostle says was fulfilled by Abra- ham offering his son, is Gen. 15 : 6. "And he be- lieved in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness." The faith that Abraham exercised in this instance, was belief and confidence in tin- promise that he should have a son, and including the 82 GOOD WORKS. promise of a Savior. It was by this act of faith, that Abraham was justified, as Paul tells us in Rom. 4: 3, 10, 11 — " Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." "How was it then reckoned ? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in un- circumcision. And he received the sign of circum- cision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised" Here, both Apostles are plainly together, in teach- ing that Abraham was justified by that act of faith. But, this was more than twenty years before the offering of his son, in which James says this scrip- ture was fulfilled. Now, will any one pretend, that the Apostle intended to teach, that Abraham was not justified until he offered his son? This would be inconsistent both with scripture and common sense, and the language of the Apostle himself. In what sense, then, was this scripture fulfilled, in the offering of his son ? Plainly in this, that he thereby proved his faith to be of the right kind, a genuine faith of the gospel, working by love, and producing obedience to the commands of God. There is no other conceivable sense in which it could be fulfilled. Neither can we suppose, that the Apostle intended to teach, that true evangelical faith is ever found without good works ; and, unless we deny a plain passage of scripture, written by Moses, and quoted by both James and Paul, we must conclude that he only intended to teach, that we cannot be justified by a "dead faith," which is "without works ;'-' and, that a believing, active faith, which "works by love and purifies the heart," is necessary to our justifica- tion. For, he expressly says, that "Abraham's faith was perfected by his works," that is, he showed GOOD WORKS. 83 thereby that it was not a dead faith. Therefore, we are "justified by works, and not by faith only," inasmuch as they are the evidence and certain fruits of a justifying faith. A faith that does not produce them, is not only useless, but is worse than useless. It is a cheat, an injury to ourselves and others. When we, in the exercise of faith, confide ourselves to Christ for salvation, we do it upon his own terms, one of which is, to do whatsoever he com- mands. To do this, is not only the obligation, but the desire, of every one who is truly united to him by faith. He who has the good works which spring from true faith is justified, but he who has them not, is not justified, for they are inseparable. "With- out holiness no man shall see the Lord." Con. — But, is there not some sense, in which our good works merit reward? Min. — They will be rewarded; but, it will still be of grace. Christ tells us, Luke 17: 10 — "When ye shall have done all these things which are com- manded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do." Still they will all be graciously rewarded. Matt. 10 : 42 — "A cup of cold water given to a disciple in the name of a disciple, shall not lose its reward." Mo- ses, we are told, Heb. 11 : 26, "had respect unto the recompense of reward." We need not fear that God will overlook any thing, done with love to him, through faith in his son. It is revealed as one great mgredient in our happiness in Heaven, that "our works shall follow us." — Rev. 14: 13. We need not fear to expect too much at the hand of God. Only let us expect it in the right way, "not of debt, but of grace." Our works follow us in Heaven. They do not go before, to open the heavenly gates, 84 INABILITY. or gain us access there. That is done by our Sa- vior. But they follow us, and shall be taken ac- int of by our Savior. "I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat, 1 ' &c. And, whilst we shall re- joice in the gracious and glorious reward, which he condescends to bestow upon our poor service, the burden of our song shall be, "to the praise of the glo- ry of his grace" — Eph. 1:6. Con. — There is a passage of Scripture that I have met with some where, which says, "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin :" which I found difficult to un- derstand; but, I think, I now begin to see its mean- ing. As faith is the foundation of the other graces, nothing is acceptable to God, which does not flow from right feelings. But, still, is there nothing good in the outward morality, and upright conduct of those, who are out of Christ? Min. — This involves the doctrine of ability, or, what a man can do, and what he cannot do, in his natural state, which we will consider at our next in- terview. DIALOGUE X. INABILITY. Convert. — In examining the Confession of Faith, since our last interview, I find, in chapter 9, sec. 3, the following language, respecting man's inability: "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly ■a ability of will to any spiritual good, accom- INABILITY. S3 panying salvation; so, as a natural man, being alto- gether averse from that which is good, and dead in -:in, is not able, by his own strength, to convert him- self, or prepare himself thereunto." But the Bible commands men to repent and be- lieve, and to make to themselves new hearts, &c. Now, is there not a seeming inconsistency, in com- manding what there is no ability to perform? Minuter. — There can be no inconsistency in com- manding any one to the extent of his obligation. Whatever is the duty of any one, God has a right to command, regardless of inability, when that ina- bility is brought on by the sinner himself, and is in itself wrong. It is surely the duty of all to love God. It is a plain dictate of common sense, that when any one has done wrong, he ought to repent of it. But, how can he repent of it, if he loves the wrong? We know that all men naturally love sin, and hate God. How can they repent of sin, while they love it? or, how can they love God, while they hate him? This is the "inability of will," of which the Confession speaks. The will is influenced in choosing and refusing, by the state of the heart. It is this that always gives weight to the motives presented. Whilst the heart is filled with enmity to God, all motives to love him are presented in vain. Now, the simple question is, can a man change his own heart? What resources has he within himself, that he can bring to bear upon the deep rooted enmity of his heart, that will produce such a change in the inner man, as to fill him with love for that which he hates? The only faculty that could possibly have any such effect, is the under- standing, or judgment; but, it is so darkened, that it can have no proper conception of holy and spir- M INABILITY, itual things. "The natural man." says Paul, 1 Cor,. w 2: 14, "receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, far they arc foolishness unto him ; neither can he- know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'* The Apostle is contrasting the "spiritual" and "na- tural man,*' that is, the regenerate and unregener- , and this is what he tells us of the unregenerate. And, the language he uses, is much stronger than that used in our Confession. "The natural man re- ceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." He rejects them. All the motives by which their ac- ceptance may be urged, are entirely without avail. And why ? Because "they are foolishness unto him" — he has no proper conception of them. "Neither can he know them." He can have no proper un- derstanding of their value, excellence, or necessity, "because they are spiritually discerned." In order to see them aright, and appreciate them, he must be made a "spiritual man." His understanding must be enlightened, and his affections changed. How any one can take a plain common sense view of this passage of Scripture alone, in its obvious sense, and yet contend for the doctrine of full ability, I am at a loss to see. Yet, it is equally plain, that those very things to which the "natural man," is thus wholly disinclined, he is under the strongest obliga- tion to perform. It is his duty to love God with all his heart, and to "receive the things of the Spirit of God," and practice upon them — to repent of his sins, and turn to God. Hence, it is perfectly consistent for God to command the sinner thus to do. It would be giving up the claims of his law, if he did not. Con. — But, is not the inability in the case, incon- sistent with the obligation? INABILITY, 87 Mill. — The idea that ability is the measure of obligation, is not uncommon; and, of late, has been widely propagated, as an axiom in morals and theol- ogy, and is hailed by many as a new discovery,, that is to clear up the knotty points of perfect free- dom of will, and absolute dependence on God. It is boldly asserted, that man is under no obligation to do any thing, for which he has not full and per- fect ability in himself. But this position, is one of the most glaring absurdities to be found in the whole catalogue of errors, now afloat. If inability can- cels obligation, Satan is under no obligation to love God, and his fiendish enmity to God and immortal souls, is no sin. If I murder the head of a helpless family, I am only accountable for the murder, and not for the wretchedness and misery that I thus bring upon the family, Avhich I have no power to alleviate. My inability to soothe the sorrows, and alleviate the wants of the widow and orphans, can- cels my obligation. There is no escape from such dreadful consequences of the doctrine, except its abettors will go one step farther back, and say, that God is the author of man's inability to obey his commands. This, I presume, none will dare do. Man's inability is his own fault; and, to pretend that it frees him from obligation, subverts all moral gov- ernment. Sin, then, is its own apology. The sin- ner can stand up boldly, and say, I am not able, in myself, to love God I hate him so, that I cannot love him ; therefore, I am not under obligation to love him. It lifts the sinner above the law of God. He requires obedience: the sinner disables him- self; and, therefore, he is not bound to obey. Re- bellion against God is, then, the only sure road to independence. But, I need not follow such absur- 88 INABILITY. dities farther. You can see clearly, that man's ina- bility to obey the law of God, can, in no sense, free him from obligation. Con. — But, has not man some kind of ability ? I have some where, in the course of my reading, met with the doctrine, that man is naturally able to love and serve God, but morally unable — that is, he could, if he would. Min. — That the sinner's inability is moral, is ad- mitted on all hands; and, that it is of such a nature, that he could obey, if he would, is not, I believe, de- nied by any. But, this is the same as saying, he could love God, if he loved him. The unwilling- ness to obey — the aversion to God, and holiness — is the inability in the case. This is the moral state of the soul; it is wickedly unwilling, and therefore un- able, without a gracious change. Until such a change is effected, the sinner never will love God; and, in this sense, using the language of the Bible, we say he cannot, that is, there is no cause to pro- duce the effect. Christ says, "no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him." And, again, he shows the nature of this ina- bility: "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." If those who contend that the sinner has a natu- ral ability, would tell us plainly what they mean by it, and what it amounts to, w r e w r ould know better how to answer them. If they mean by it, that he has all his natural faculties, we admit it. But, if these are not a sufficient cause to produce the effect, why contend that they constitute an ability to do that which they cannot do? Man has ability to love, and therefore has ability to love God, is about the amount of their reasoning. But, this is about INABILITY, 89 as wise as to say, that because it is the nature of water to flow, it, therefore, has a natural ability to flow up hill. This strikes you as an amusing absur- dity; but, it is not a whit more absurd, than to con- tend, that because man has all his natural faculties, that, therefore, he has a natural ability to love God. The nature of water, is a cause just as adequate to the production of the effect in the one case, as the nature of man in the other. All his affections and inclinations are turned away from God, and flow in an opposite direction. Con. — But, we daily see men of the world living in some degree according to the commands of God. We see honesty, sobriety, and in short, morality in all its moral beauty, exhibited in the lives of unre- generate men. Does not this contradict the idea of a total inability to do good? Min. — Man has an ability to do many things that are good in themselves, and, indeed, to do any thing, predicable of his nature as man, which he chooses to do, or, in other words, that he is willing to do. As it respects outward morality, many motives may be brought to bear, which will induce men to live in accordance with its rules, viz. a respect for public opinion, a desire of reputation, &c, — and, not unfre- quently, a hope, that thereby they may recommend themselves to God, and finally escape hell. Some- times, indeed, it is their enmity to God and religion, that induces them to live lives of strict morality, that thereby they may compare with the Christian, w r hom they watch with an eagle eye, and endeavor to magnify his failures, in order to bring reproach upon religion. In all these instances, however, it is easy to see, that "God is not in all their thoughts." Their hearts are still alienated from him, and they 7 50 INABILITY refuse to acknowledge his authority. They morally, not because God has required it, but from some other selfish motive. They refuse to pray, neglect and violate the Sabbath, refuse to repent and confess the Son of God, neglect, or oppose religion, and, in short, exhibit very plainly, the enemity of their hearts to God. It is true, they will not admit that they hate God, and perhaps think they do not j but, if they hate religion and holiness, they hate God, for this is his character. They cannot hate the one without hating the other, or love the one without loving the other. If any one love God, he will love religion, and yield himself in obedience te its dictates ; and, if he hate religion, he hates God, They are inseparable. Hence, Paul says, Rom. 8: 7 — "The carnal mind is enmity against God : for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The Apostle, you perceive, couples the hating of God and his law together, as characteristic of every unregenerate man. Then,- while the heart is thus at enmity w r ith God, the strictest outward mo- rality is nothing in his sight, for he tells us himself ; . "The Lord looketh on the heart." Thus you per- ceive, that the doctrine of man's inability to change his own heart, and perform acceptable obedience, is not inconsistent with the fact, that unregenerate men are often moral in their lives, Con. — But, does it not destroy the distinction be- tween right and wrong, to maintain, that the moral man does no more to recommend him to God, than the grossly wicked ? Min. — It is not meant that they are both viewed precisely in the same light. Christ commends the Pharisees for their morality, but reproves them for neglecting "-the weightier matters of the law, judg- INABILITY. 91 merit, mercy, and faith;" and tells them, also, that they could not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, or be accepted of God, because, in all their boasted morality, their hearts were not right. "All these things ye do, that ye may be seen of men. Verily, I say unto you, ye have your reward." God has so arranged, in his providence and government, that morality and amiability are rewarded. Or, perhaps, it would be better to say, that the reward which we most earnestly seek, shall be obtained. The supreme desire of the Pharisees, was to obtain a high reli- gious reputation, and they obtained it. "They had their reward" If a man wishes to obtain the char- acter of honesty, and gain the confidence of his neighbors, let him pursue the proper course, and he will obtain it — "he has his reward." If a child love his parents, and wishes to retain their affection and confidence, he has but to pursue the proper course, and he obtains it — "he has his reward." But, still it is true, in all such cases, that, "to be seen of men," is the ruling motive, and "God is not in all their thoughts." They would pursue the same course, if God had given no law; and, as it respects his re- quirements, their hearts are still in a state of rebel- lion. They reject Christ, and the authority of God, altogether. And^ as there are different degrees of punishment in the future world, they may not, per- haps, be "beaten with as many stripes" as the gross- ly wicked; yet, they are equally far from salvation, until the enmity of their hearts be changed, and they are led to the practice of morality and reli- gion, from love to God. This may be illustrated, on the simple principles of common justice, and common sense. In a gang of pirates, we may find many things that are good in 92 INABILITY. themselves. Though they are in wicked rebellion* against the laws of the Government, they have their own laws and regulations, which they obey strictly. We may find among them courage and fidelity, with many other things that will recom- mend them, as pirates. They may do many things, too, which the laws of the Government require, but they are not done because the Government has so required, but in obedience to their own regulations. For instance, the Government requires honesty, and they may be strictly honest, one with another, in their transactions, and the division of all their spoil. Yet, as it respects the government, and the general principle, their whole life is one of the most wicked dishonesty. Now, it is plain, that whilst they con- tinue in their rebellion, they can do nothing to rec- ommend them to the government, as citizens. Their first step must be, to give up their rebellion, acknowl- edge their allegiance to the government, and sue for mercy. So, all men, in their natural state, are rebels against God ; and, though they may do many things which the law of God requires, and which will recommend them as men, yet nothing is done with reference to God and his law. But, the regu- lations of society, respect for public opinion, self-in- terest, their own character in the sight of the w r orld, or some other worldly, or wicked motive, reigns supremely ; and God, to whom they owe their heart and lives, is forgotten ; or, if thought of at all, his claims are wickedly rejected, his counsels spurn ed, and the heart, in obstinate rebellion, refuses obedi- ence. Now, it is plain, that while the heart con- tinues in this state, the man is a rebel against God, and can do nothing to recommend himself to his fa- vor. The first step, is to give up his rebellion, re- INABILITY. 93 pent of his sins, turn to God, and sue for pardon and reconciliation, through the Savior. This he is un- willing to do, until he is made willing. He loves his sins, and will continue to love them, until his heart is changed. You can now see, clearly, the force of the pas^ sage of Scripture, which you spoke of in our last conversation — "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" — Rom. 14: 23. The same truth is stated, in Rom. 8: 8 — "They that are in the flesh, cannot please God." And, Heb. 11 : 6— "Without faith, it is im- possible to please him." Con. — Are we, then, to conclude, that all the good actions of unregenerate men, are sins? Min. — They are not positively sinful, in them- selves, but sinful from defect. They lack the princi- ple which alone can make them righteous in the sight of God. In the case of the pirates, it is easy to see, that all their actions are sin against the gov- ernment. While they continue pirates, their sail- ing, mending, or rigging their vessel, and even their eating and drinking, are all sins in the eyes of the government, as they are only so many expedients to enable them to continue their piratical career, and are parts of their life of rebellion. So with sin- ners. While the heart is wrong, it vitiates every thing in the sight of God, even their most ordinary occupations ; for, the plain, unequivocal language of God, is, "The ploughing of the wicked, is sin." Prov. 21 : 4. Con. — This places all men, by nature, in a very dreadful condition — their whole life being nothing but sin — a "treasuring up of wrath against the day of wrath" — and no ability to help themselves. Min. — It places them entirely dependent upon the 94 INABILITY. sovereign grace and mercy of their offended God, And this, according to the Bible, is their true condi- tion. Such exhibitions of the true state of man- kind, are, I know, offensive to unregenerate men generally; and, many have tried to find out a sys- tem of doctrines, more palatable to the popular mind. But, all such attempts are unfaithful to God, and the souls of men. That teacher of reli- gion has but a poor errand to the sacred desk, who attempts thus to "sew pillows under the arms" of his hearers, as Ezekiel describes the effeminate teachers in his day. It is an attempt to "heal the hurt of the sinner slightly* and crying peace, where there is no peace." His lost, ruined, and helpless state, needs to be constantly set before him; and, until he is brought to feel it, he will never seek help where alone it is to be found. Con. — But, as the sinner's inability consists in his wicked love of sin, and unwillingness to love God, has he not some power over his will, that might be exercised in determining his choice of God and ho- liness 1 Mm. — I have already remarked, that the will in choosing, is influenced by motives, and the motives preponderate, according to the state of the hearty or moral taste. But, perhaps, it would be useful for us to look at this a little farther, before proceeding to the arguments drawn from the Bible respecting man's inability. Both of which, we will consider* at any time you may have leisure. CTREE WILL. DIALOGUE XL FREE WILL. 9b Minister. — The doctrine which we proposed to consider this evening, namely, the powers of the will, is one that involves a great many abstruse questions, which it would not, perhaps, be expedient to enter upon largely at present But, I will endeav- or to give you a plain, common sense view of it, if I can, without any metaphysical subtleties. Convert. — You spoke, at our last interview, of an inability of will ; but, is this consistent with freedom of will? Is not the will capable of acting freely, and of choosing what it pleases ? Min. — Certainly.; but, this is not the question at issue. It is admitted, on all hands, that the will is free, and does choose what it pleases. But, the question is, whether the will has power to choose contrary to what it pleases, or any thing that is in direct opposition to what it does choose. It is ad- mitted on all hands, that choice is made according to the highest pleasure, or strongest inclination ; and, the point to be considered is, whether it has power to choose, in direct hostility to its strongest inclinations, an$ whether these strongest inclina- tions do not always operate in determining choice. Con. — But, do not men often choose that which is contrary to their desires and inclinations ? Min. — They often choose what is in some re- spects disagreeable ; but, there is always some other motive, which, at the time, influences the choice, which, in other circumstances, would not be made. For instance, a man may, and can eat wormwood, 06 FREE WILL. but, he will not do it, unless there be some induce^ ment presented, which influences his choice in so doing, and makes it, for the time, his strongest in- clination. But, then, the question still remains, that? while his ruling inclination, or pleasure, continues to choose as it does, that which, upon the whole, seems most desirable, is there any faculty, or power in the will, to act contrary ? — that is, is there any cause adequate to the production of such an effect? There can be no effect without an adequate cause ; and, when there is a cause adequate to the produc- tion of an effect, there must be some greater cause to prevent that effect, or to produce its opposite. Now, it is admitted on all hands, that motives and inclinations are the causes which operate in produ- cing the acts of the will, in choosing and refusing; and, that the will always does act in the way in which the strongest inclinations lead — but, it is still contended, by the advocates of the human ability scheme, that there is in the will a power to choose, in opposition to its strongest inclination. But, where is their proof? They admit, that though there is such a power, it never acts. Then it is ad- mitted, that it is not a cause adequate to the pro- duction of the effect. Why, then, contend for it ? Of what use is it ? It produces no effects in morals or religion. It only serves the purpose of some phi- losophizing theologians, to bolster up their system, which they find cannot stand without it. But, let us look at it. A man in certain circumstances, with motives operating without, and inclinations within, is induced to act in a certain way. He chooses that to which his strongest inclinations lead him. Here are cause and effect. Now, if, under the same cir- cumstances, and with the same inclinations, his will Free will. S7 has a power to choose the contrary of what it does, he either makes the choice, or he does not. If he makes the contrary choice, then his will chooses contrary to what it does choose, which is a self-con- tradiction. If he does not make the contrary choice, then there is no cause adequate to the pro- duction of the effect, and the power of the will to choose contrary to its choice, amounts to just noth- ing at all. Con. — But, might he not choose otherwise, if the will were so inclined? Min. — Certainly ; but, that is not the point. I am endeavoring to show you, that it always does act as it is inclined; but, the point is, has it power to choose contrary to its choice, whether it be inclined or not, and in spite of all opposing inclinations? Scales will turn in an opposite direction, if there be a preponderating weight — a cause adequate to the effect — but, without it, they Avill not. No more will the will act in opposition to its strongest incli- nations and motives. The cause in the one case, is just as adequate to the production of the effect, as in the other. Thus, the faculty of will, in good and bad men, exerts their volitions ; but, the character of these volitions, is determined under given motives, not by the natural faculty itself, abstractly considered, but by the moral state of the heart ; and, if it be in a certain moral state, it cannot be a property of the will to put forth choices of an opposite moral char- acter, for it is admitted that the heart always rules the choices of the will; and, consequently, you per- ceive, we are brought back to our former conclu- sion, that man, in his natural state, is unable to love God, and put forth holy exercises, because his strong- 98 FREE WILL. est inclinations and desires lead in an opposite direc- tion. He is wickedly unwilling, and, therefore, un- able. He chooses sin deliberately and freely, and always will, until a gracious change is wrought by the Spirit of God. "Yerily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the king- dom of God/' — John 3: 3. Con. — But, when motives are presented, and the will chooses or refuses according to the moral state of the inner man, without any power in itself to put forth choices contrary to that moral state, is the doctrine not liable to objection, on the ground thai the motives are often presented under circumstances over which the man has no control ] Mm, — It is true, that the motives are furnished in the providence of God. The murderer is kept in life, in God's providence, and is indebted to God for strength to kill his victim, and also for the opportu- nity. Joseph's brethren could not have cast him into the pit, or sold him, if it had not been so ar- ranged in the providence of God, that he was sent to them. In this way they were furnished with the external motive. And, I know the objection is urged, that if God furnish the motives, he is in this sense the author of sin. But, of all the objections of errorists, this is among the most siliy, that because God places man in circumstances, and gives him op- portunities to do good, because he chooses to pervert them to evil purposes, God is, therefore, blameable with his sin. A man makes a musical instrument, with the de- sign that it may delight him with its sweet, harmo- nious sounds; and, when it is made, he finds it •'good." It answers the purposes for which it was designed, perfectly : but, from some cause, it be- FREE WILL. 99 comes damaged, and then, under the same process which formerly produced harmony, there is now nothing but discord. Now, it is plain, that though he is the author of the sound, he is not the author of the discord. That arises from the defect of the instrument. And, for certain reasons that may op- erate, he may keep it in order externally, and touch its strings, knowing that it will produce discord, and still not be the author of it. So God keeps in order the system of the world, in all its various operations of life and action ; and, his providence with men, is all so arranged, that if they were holy, the external motives he presents, would at all times produce good results. Had not Joseph's brethren indulged a wick- ed hatred toward him, his coming to them would have afforded an opportunity of doing good to him and their aged father. But, their wicked hearts perverted it into an occasion of evil. Con. — But, does not this doctrine of inability tend to make sinners more careless ? Will they not say, that as they cannot change their own hearts, ail efforts to seek God, and all striving after holiness, are useless? Min. — I believe it has just the opposite tendency. It is because the sinner does not feel his lost and helpless condition, that he remains careless. There is not a careless sinner in the world, who is not a full believer in the doctrine of perfect ability. It is his resolution to repent and turn to God at some fu- ture time, that keeps him easy; and, he feels per- fectly competent to the task. He has no sense whatever of his absolute dependence upon God. He believes that it is something that he can attend to at any time, and at some convenient time he will do it. And, just in proportion as you strengthen that 100 FREE WILL. belief, you increase his carelessness, and lull him to sleep on the awful brink of eternal ruin. It is only when he is brought to feel his entire helplessness and dependence upon sovereign grace, that he will seek help where it is to be found. Then, and not till then, will he rejoice in the truth, that his "help is laid upon one who is mighty to save." It is the hiding of this wholesome truth, that has tended to make so many fitful professors of religion, and made religion, with many, to consist in a kind of spasmod- ic, or occasional action. They are taught, that if they purpose to serve God, that is all the change they need; and, that this is as easily done, as to raise the hand. They may, and often do change the outward purpose ; but, if the heart be not changed by divine grace, they will be sure to change back again. "He that striveth for the mastery, is not crowned, unless he strive lawfully." And, the on- ly lawful way for a sinner to strive, is with a feel- ing of dependence on God, and with the earnest prayer, "Create in me a clean heart, O God ; and re- new a right spirit within me." Con. — I believe it is always best for us all, to know the worst of our spiritual condition. Min. — Let us now look at what the Bible says, on the doctrine of inability. And, I would remark, in the first place, that the doctrine is plainly taught in all those passages which speak of the necessity of regeneration. John 3 : 3 — "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God — and, 7 — "Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again" — with many other passages, which I need not enumerate. Again, it is taught in all those passages which as- cribe this work directly to the Spirit of God. John FREE WILL. 101 3 : 5 — "Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Acts 16 : 14 — "The Lord opened her heart, that she at- tended [to the things which were spoken of Paul." 1. Thes. 1: 5 — "Our Gospel came not unto you in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost." l.Cor. 3, 6, and 7 — "I have planted, Apollos wa- tered, but God gave the increase. So, then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that water- eth, but God thatgiveth the increase." Phil. 2 : 13 — "It is God that worketh in you, both to will, and to do." Ezek. 36 : 26, and 27— "A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you; and, I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes." John 1 : 13— "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." But, I need not enumerate farther. The Bible every where as- cribes the work of producing holiness in the heart of a sinner, to the direct agency of God. And, there is not a single word, or passage, which ascribes it to the sinner himself. Con. — I do not recollect ever to have seen, or heard it asserted, that any passage of Scripture di- rectly asserts, that the sinner is the agent in his own change of heart : but, it is inferred from the fact, that he is commanded to do it. Min. — That argument is based upon the false as- sumption, that there is nothing duty, which there is not full ability to perform ; the absurdity of which, I think, I clearly showed you, in our last conversa- tion. But, let us look at those passages of the Bi- ble, which assert the doctrine of inability, in plain 102 EFFECTUAL CALLING. and unequivocal language. John 6 : 44 — "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him." Eph. 2 : 1 — "You hath he quick- ened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." 1. Cor. 2: 14 — "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Rom. 8: 7 — "The car- nal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." These. with other passages, quoted in our former conversa- tion, "They that are in the flesh, cannot please God," &c, present the doctrine in language that cannot be softened down, without destroying their sense altogether. DIALOGUE XII. EFFECTUAL CALLING. Convert.— Since our last conversation, I have been reflecting on the views you presented respect- ing human ability, and feel constrained to believe, that man in his natural state is not able, of himself. to change his own heart. Indeed, it is so plain a truth, that I now rather wonder that it should be controverted by any one who has thoroughly consid- ered the subject. I find even the "doctrinal tracts" of the Methodist church, teach it in plain language. On page 134, it is said, that "no sinner can believe r but by the almighty power of God." But, I find it EFFECTUAL CALLING. 10«> also stated in the same connection, that God gives to all men "sufficient grace" to enable them to be- lieve, and consequently "their death lies at their own door." And, my Methodist neighbor con- tends, that if this were not done, God could not be sincere in offering salvation to all men. Minister. — That is the most common doctrine of those who reject the doctrines of grace, respecting regeneration, effectual calling, &c; and, you might have observed, that the "doctrinal tracts," in the same connection, teach that this is necessary, not only "to maintain the sincerity of God," but also "to vindicate his equity at the great day, in con- demning the impenitent." I am at a loss to know f how any amount of grace short of regeneration, can be called "sufficient." If it does not change the sinner's moral tastes and inclinations, it is not suffi- cient to enable him to believe and repent. How can he repent of sin, when he still loves it ? There never was, and never w r ill be, a single instance of a true penitent, w r hose heart is unchanged. I need not stay to prove, that God does not give "sufficient grace to all men," in this sense. The outward calls of the gospel are gracious, but no one except those who deny the operations of the Spirit altogeth- er, w r ill contend that this is "sufficient." The move- ments of the Spirit, w r hich many experience in con- viction, are gracious, but all admit that these are not "sufficient." What could we think of a teacher of religion, who would tell a sinner under conviction, that he had grace enough, and need not look for more ! And, the fact of telling him to pray for more f and of praying for such an one that he might have more given him, is sufficient proof that it is not deemed ^sufficient." If this be what is meant by 104 EFFECTUAL CALLING. "sufficient grace," it is calling that sufficient which is not sufficient ; and, if they mean any other kind of grace, I know not. what kind it is. Con. — It seems to me contrary to all christian ex- perience, to maintain that any kind or degree of grace, is sufficient to lead a sinner to Christ, short of that which changes his heart, and gives him new views and feelings. Min. — But, you have not yet seen the worst fea- ture of this doctrine of "sufficient grace to all men." It is based upon the assumption, that without be- stowing this grace, God could not be sincere in of- fering salvation, or just in condemning unbelievers. Then he was bound to save all the human family without an atonement. For, if it would be unjust in him to condemn them, it would be just to save them, and whatever is strict justice, he is bound by every perfection of his nature to do. Then, with- out the atonement, and this "sufficient grace," all men would be saved. But God has provided a Sa- vior, and gives this "sufficient grace," to make it consistent with his justice to condemn some, who do not believe. This not only makes God the au- thor of sin, but it makes him the author of the eter- nal death of every impenitent sinner. I do not sup- pose, that the abettors of the doctrine intend to teach a sentiment so grossly blasphemous, but the conclusion is legitimate and necessary. If what they teach be true, this must be true likewise. The same doctrine is taught in different language on page 154 ; of the "doctrinal tracts." "The mo- ment Adam fell, he had no freedom of will left ; but God, when of his own free grace he gave the prom- ise of a Savior, to him and his posterity, graciously restored to mankind a liberty and power to accept EFFECTUAL CALLING. 105 *>f proffered salvation." Now, if there were no free- dom of will, there could be no accountability. It is a plain dictate of common sense, that a man is not accountable for any thing he does not do willingly and freely. Then, where there is no freedom of will, there can be no sin. But, God gave them a freedom of will to capacitate them to sin. Hence, all mankind are sinners by the grace of God. But, I need not follow farther the absurdities of such doc- trines. They are all only miserable shifts to get clear of the doctrines of grace, and to fix up some scheme that will lead the helpless sinner aAvay from his entire dependence on the free, unmerited, sover- eign grace of God. Con. — But, is this clearly reconcilable with the commands and exhortations of the Bible to come to Christ, which I have heard Presbyterian ministers urge as strenuously upon sinners, as any other class of preachers ? Min. — It is the duty of the sinner to strive ; and, to those who do so, God has given gracious promises. But, they should always be taught to strive with a feeling of dependence, and earnest looking to God for grace. This is the course marked out in the word of God. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." You perceive, that the Apostle, instead of making the dependence of the sinner an excuse for doing noth- ing, makes it the ground of his encouragement to work. There is no language in our Confession of Faith more forcible or comprehensive than this. God works in us "both to will and to do;" and, thereupon, the Apostle bases his exhortation to twork out our salvation." And, "what God hath 8 106 EFFECTUAL CALLING, joined together, let no man put asunder." Let these things always be kept in mind, and followed out, and there is no danger of mistake in going too far on either hand. No one can err in striving too earnestly for salvation, if it be done in the right way. No more can any one err, at the same time, in casting himself upon God, with too much depend- ence and earnest prayer for grace. Hence, boast- ing is excluded by the law of faith ; and, every true christian is prepared to say, "By the grace of God 1 am w r hat I am." This, however, could not be the case, if any part of the work of regeneration were his own. "Who maketh thee to differ ?" is the em- phatic inquiry of the Apostle on this subject ; and, let any one who thinks he has had any part in his own regeneration, answer the question if he can, in accordance with the language of the Bible. You can now see the truth of the language of our catechism, when it says, "We are made partak- ers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit." And farther, "The Spirit applieth to us the redemp- tion purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ, in our effectual calling." And, again, "Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, w-hereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel." Shorter Cate- chism — answer to questions 29, 30, 31. This lan- guage any one may compare with Scripture. Rom, 8: 30 — "Whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified." 2 Thes.2: 13— "God hath from the beginning chu-- EFFECTUAL CALLING. 107 sen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Cor. 3: 3— "The epistle of Christ ministered by us, written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in ta- bles of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." 2 Tim. 1: 9 — "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace." Ezek. 36 : 26 — "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," &c. Ezek. 11 : 19 — "I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you." Ps. 110: 3 — "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." Eph. 2 : 1 — "You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." Verse 5 — "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved.)" Verse 8 — "By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of your- selves, it is the gift of God." But, I need not enu- merate farther, though it would be easy to find hun- dreds of texts which teach the same truth. The Bible, you perceive, teaches abundantly the doctrine of "sufficient grace," but it is in a sense very differ- ent from that taught in the "doctrinal tracts." The sufficient grace of the Bible, is that which finds man "dead in trespasses and sins, calls him with a holy calling, gives him a new heart, makes him willing, quickens him unto life, and leads him to Christ" — or, as our Catechism expresses it, "persuades and enables him to embrace Jesus Christ." It is in this sense that "faith is the gift of God ;" and, indeed, this is the only conceivable sense in which it can be. Con. — But, does not the doctrine of "sufficient £race to all men," meet, in the most satisfactory manner, the objection, that God is partial in giving more grace to some than to others ? 10S EFFECTUAL CALLING* Mln. — Even if it did, we are not bound to adopt it, when it is so plainly contradicted by the Bible, I believe, however, that this is the ground upon which it is based. Men are unwilling to allow God his sovereignty, either in Providence or mercy. And, when the Bible tells us he distinguishes in his deal- ings with man, they reject the doctrine, and call it partiality in God to give any thing more to one than to another; and, leaving the plain doctrine of revela- tion, endeavor to patch up a scheme of their own, which they boast of as vindicating the character of God, when, in fact, it robs him of his sovereignty. But, still their scheme, instead of relieving, increases the difficulty. Con. — How does it increase the difficulty? It God gives to all men .the same amount of grace, there surely can be no charge of partiality. Mini — There would still be the same ground for the charge, unless he would go farther, and place all men precisely in the same circumstances, and give them precisely the same dispositions, that, accord- ing to this scheme, all might have precisely the same opportunities of improving their equal amount of grace. Similar causes operating in similar cir- cumstances, must invariably produce similar effects. The amount of grace that is "sufficient" to lead one man to the Savior, will invariably lead another of the same disposition, placed in similar circumstances. And, if all men possessed the same dispositions, and were in the same circumstances, what is sufficient for one would be for another, and all would be saved. But, all are not in the same circumstances, and have not the same opportunities. Some are born of christian parents, whose instructions and prayers are blessed to their conversion. Others are EFFECTUAL CALLING, 10 ( J taught from their infancy to disobey God and con- temn religion. Some never hear of a Savior, or of the true God. Now, over these circumstances, they themselves have no control ; and, those who accuse God of partiality because he discriminates in grace, and contend that it would be injustice to bestow more upon one man than anothei% are bound to ex- plain, upon the same principles, the facts of his prov- idence, by which he orders the lots of men in the world; But, here they will find an insuperable diffi- culty, because they cannot deny the fact, that some are placed in circumstances better calculated to re- sult in their salvation, than others. How much more consistent with common sense, and with the disposition we ought to exercise toward God and his word, to take the simple language of the Bible, that "he has mercy on whom he will have mercy," and will have trophies of his grace out of all nations and classes of men. And, whenever any- one turns aside from the truth of the Bible, to recon- cile what, in the pride of opinion, he conceives to be difficulties, he will only find himself surrounded with difficulties still more perplexing and insuperable. Con. — It seems to me a fact that cannot be dis- puted, that God distinguishes both in his providence and grace, and the objection of partiality, I per- ceive, amounts to a denial of his sovereign right to do as he pleases, which the Bible every where as- cribes to him, and which it must be impious to con- trovert, either directly or indirectly. But, there is another point upon which I wish to have your views, about which I have felt some diffi- culty ; I mean the doctrine of perfect sanctification in this life. I feel that I am very far from what I should be, and my desire is to get clear of all sin. 110 SINLESS PERFECTION. We are commanded in the Bible to "be perfect :" and yet, I know your Church holds that absolute perfection is not attainable in this life. I feel that it is a question of great practical importance, and would like to have all the information I can derive from every source. Min. — Call at any time you find convenient, and I will endeavor to give you a plain, scriptural view of it, both as it respects our duty and privilege. DIALOGUE XIII. SINLESS PERFECTION. Minister. — The doctrine we proposed to examine this evening, viz: Whether any one in this life ever attains to absolute sinless perfection, is thus plainly expressed in our Confession of Faith: "No mere man, since the fall, is able in this life perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them, in thought, word, and deed." — Shorter Catechism, ans. to qu. 82- I need not stay to prove. that "the commandments of God" are our standard of holiness, and any thing that comes short of a per- fect fulfillment of all their requirements, in all res- pects, is not perfect obedience. And we not only sin in every positive violation of the law, but also in every w felt himself wanting. And, I can only say, that I think a person who sets up this claim, has yet room to make considerable advancement in the grace of humility. Con. — It has always struck me unfavorably, to hear any one claiming to be perfect ; but, knowing that the grace of God is all powerful, and that free- dom from all sin must be the desire of every chris- tian, I found difficulty in deciding that no one ob- tained the blessing. But, in looking at the high standard of holiness which the Bible has set up, I think every one, who has a proper view of himself, will decide with the Apostle, that it is a "prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus>" which is yet far before him. Min. — Let us now look more particularly, at some arguments from the Bible. James speaks the language of christian experience, when he says> James 3: 2— "In many things we offend all." Af- ter thus stating the general truth, that "all" are sin- ners "in many things," he goes on to speak of par- ticular offences, which cast a stain upon the chris- tian character, and I think plainly teaches the doc- trine of christian perfection, in the sense in which I spoke of it at our last interview, that is, a perfectly consistent Gospel character, exhibiting to the world the piety and integrity of the inner man, and the sincerity of his profession. "If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able to bridle the whole body" &c. He teaches the same doc- trine in chapter 1, verse 27 — "Pure religion and un- defiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to 1*20 SINLESS PERFECTION, keep himself unspotted from the world" Paul says, Phil. 3 : 12 — "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect." In whatever sense he uses the word here, it is plain that he did not consider himself perfect. Con. — But, are we to suppose that Paul did not maintain a perfect Gospel character? Min. — So far as we know, he did ; but, if he here uses the word in that sense, it only shows, what is always the fact, that the true christian, who is stri- ving after holiness, and endeavoring to "let his light shine," feeling his own failures, always puts a worse estimate on his own character, than others who can- not see him as he sees himself. A man who advan- ces in any degree near perfection in this sense, in the eyes of others, will always be found the last man to claim it for himself. In what a striking con- trast, then, the language of the Apostle appears, to that of our modern boasting Perfectionists ! But, farther, Solomon in his prayer at the dedication of the temple, recorded in 1 Kings, 8 : 46, beseeches God to be merciful to the sins of his people, and ex- pressly says, "For there is no man that sinneth not." Again, Job 9 : 30, 31 — "If I wash myself with snow- water, and make my hands never so clean; yet shalt thou plunge me into the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me. For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment." Here it is plainly taught, that how- ever pure we may be in the eyes of the world, yet with God we are vile and polluted. The same is taught in stronger language still, in chapter 15 : 14 — " What is man that he should be clean ? And, he that is born of a woman, that he should be right- eous?" But, he speaks more explicitly still, in 9 : 20 SINLESS PERFECTION. 121 *If I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me per- verse. " What a commentary on the language of a Perfectionist! Again, Eccl. 7: 20— "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doethgood, and sin- net h not." Isa. 64: 6 — "We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." These passages in themselves are sufficient to prove, that the Bible does not consider any one perfect in the sense in which Perfectionists claim it. But, farther still. Christ teaches us to pray, "Forgive us our trespasses," &c. This direction is given for secret prayer., and, therefore, these "trespasses," for the pardon of which we are to pray, are our own individual sins. And, it is also plain., that it was in- tended for our daily use. The fourth petition in this summary of prayer given for our direction, is, "Give us this day our daily bread," or "give us day by day our daily bread," and the next petition in immediate connection is 9 "forgive us our trespass- es/' &c. It will n&t, I presume, be denied, that this direc- tion was also intended for christians. But, if any one be perfect, he cannot pray according to the di- rection of Christ, for he has no sins to be forgiven. Indeed, the prayers of a man who esteems himself perfect, must be short and few, if he may be said to pray at all. He needs no grace to overcome any sinful propensity, "The body of sin and death," which troubled the apostle so much, is with him perfectly sanctified and holy. He, then, needs nei- ther mercy nor grace, But these are by the Apostle made the main errand of a believer at a throne of grace. Heb. 4 : 16 — "Let us therefore come bold- ly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mev- *U and find grace to help* in time of need." But a a/ 122 SINLESS PERFECTION Perfectionist has no time of need," he needs no more "grace" or "mercy," he has all the grace he needs, and no sins to be forgiven, and consequently has no errand to a "throne of grace." As to the christian experience recorded in the Bible, it is any thing but perfectionism. The most extensive records- are those of David and Paul. And ? if perfection were to be found any where, we might surely expect to find it in the experience of these eminent servants of God. But, what is the fact ? We find them lamenting their sins and short-com- ings, recording their earnest longings after more en- tire conformity to the law of God, and praying for more grace to enable them, to advance in divine life, We find no intimation any where that they thought themselves perfect,, but every where the reverse. Time will not permit us to examine the numerous passages in which they record their sinfulness as their constant experience. But we will look at ijome of them. Ps. 25: 11 — "For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity ; for it is great." 31: 10 — "My strength faileth because of mine ini- quity, and my bones are consumed." 38 : 3, 4, 5 — - " Neither is there any rest in my bones, because of my sin. For mine iniquities are gone over my head ;. as an heavy burden, they are too heavy for me. My wounds stink* and are corrupt, because of my fool- ishness." 40: 12 — "For innumerable evils have compassed me about; mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to* look up ; they are more than the hairs of mine head, therefore my heart faileth me." This does not look much like perfection ; and much more of the same kind might be given. The 119th Psalm is almost one continued confession of failure in duty, and prayer SINLESS PERFECTION. l23 for quickening grace. Verse 5th — "O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes." 25 — "My soul cleaveth unto the dust : quicken thou me according to thy word." 29 — "Remove from me the way of lying, and grant me thy law graciously." 32 — "I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart." 81 — "My soul fainteth for thy salvation ; but I hope in thy word." 96 — "1 have seen an end of all perfection ; but thy com- mandment is exceeding broad" 123 — "Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy right- eousness." 131 — "I opened my mouth and panted : for I longed for thy commandments." 176 — "I have gone astray like a lost sheep : seek thy ser- vant ; for I do not forget thy commandments." All these express the exercises of the pious soul, that feels its short-comings, and longs after greater con- formity to the law of God, but they would sound very strange in the mouth of a Perfectionist. Paul gives his experience in language equally plain, and, if possible, more strong and explicit Rom. 7: 14 — 25 — "For we know that the law is spiritual ; but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do I not ; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law, that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it> but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me v (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would, I do not : but the evil which I would not, that I do, Now if I do that I w r ould not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that w r hen I would do good, evil is present with me, 124 SINLESS PERFECTION. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. But I see another law in my members, war- ring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my mem- bers. wretched man that I am ! who shall deliv- er me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the tlesh the law of sin." This, in itself, if there were not another passage in the Bible, is sufficient to prove that the Apostle was a stranger to any thing like sinless perfection. Con. — But, does not this, taking it all together, prove too much, and, therefore, prove nothing \ Does not the Apostle use language which cannot be true of the christian? — "I am carnal, sold under sin." Can this be true of any one who is a true be- liever ? He says in another place of christians, "ye are not under the law, but under grace." How r then, can they be "sold under sin ?" Min. — It is a very strong expression, I admit : and those who advocate the doctrine of perfection, have laid hold of it to prove that the Apostle is not giv- ing his own experience, but the feelings of a sinner. But, the falsity of such a view, is clearly shown in the 22d verse — "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." And he gives the language of a true believer in the 25th verse— "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." It is as impossible to apply this to an unconverted sinner, as the whole passage to a perfectionist. But, the expression, "carnal, sold under sin," is of very easy solution, if we allow r the Apostle to explain himself, which he does in the verse immediately following — "For that which I do, I allow not," &c. The word "/or," con- SINLESS PERFECTION. 125 is the two verses, and shows that the one is ex- planatory of the other. The simple meaning, there- fore, is, that he was an unwilling "servant" of his inward propensities, against which he was strug- gling, and from which he desired to be free, but which he still felt maintaining their power over him, and still "bringing him into captivity." It express- es, in very strong terms, the inward conflict which every christian experiences and understands. The passage taken together, contains an unanswerable proof that perfection in holiness is not attainable in this life, or at least that the Apostle had not attained it w r hen he wrote this account of his experience. And to my mind it is clear, that a perfectionist, in- stead of having completed the christian warfare, has it yet to begin. Con. — But, have we no account of any one in the Bible, who claimed to have attained perfection in holiness? Mifiu — Not unless the Pharisee may be so called, who, Christ tells us, "went up to the temple to pray." He claimed to be perfect, even before God. He had no sins to be pardoned, and no grace to ask, in his own estimation; but thanked God that he was so good. "Lord I thank thee that I am not as other men," &c. Whether he knew in his heart that he was a sinner or not, we are not told, but we know he claimed to be perfect, and wished to be so es- teemed. He had no errand to a throne of grace but to enumerate his virtues, and thank God that he had no sin. But, it is only another proof of the truth of the saying of John, 1 John, 1 : 8- — "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and die truth is not in us." Con, — But, if so much of our nature still remains 126 PERSEVERANCE. unsanctified, does it not afford a ground of fear, that it will entirely overcome all our holy purposes and resolutions, and prove the cause of our final aposta- cy from God and holiness ? Min. — Every christian no doubt feels, that if the warfare were to be carried on in his own strength, there would be little doubt as to the result. But, the fact that they feel their own weakness, teaches them where their strength lies, and it is thus made in- strumental in their perseverance in holiness, through divine grace. But, as this involves the general doctrine of per- severance, we will consider it at our next interview, DIALOGUE XV, PERSEVERANCE. Convert. — The sentiment you advanced at our last interview, that the remaining corruptions pi our nature are instrumental in our perseverance in holiness, seems to me a paradox, which I cannot fully understand, or reconcile with the doctrines ot grace. Does it not make sin one of the means of grace 1 Minister. — A person who feels that he is sick, and uses means for his recovery, does not make his sick- ness instrumental in his restoration. It is his know- edge of his disease, that leads him to the use of proper means. So, if a christian's sense of his re- maining imperfection, lead him to the fountain ot PERSEVERANCE. 127 grace, in the use of proper means, it does not make his sin a mean of grace. I mentioned it, however, as a fact in christian experience, to show that our imperfection, in this life, was no argument against our final perseverance, but rather in favor of it. ^Such was Paul's experience, when he says, 2 Cor., 12 : 9, 10— "Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. # # * For, when I am weak, then am I strong." It was not his weakness, in itself, that was his strength ; but, feeling his weakness, he was led to look for grace, that he might enjoy its almighty power. Such, I need hardly tell you, is the experience of every christian, unless we may except the Perfectionist, whose experience in this, as in every thing else, differs from that of Paul. When you look at yourself, and realize your short- comings and failures, and how far your heart is, in many respects, from what it should be, does it not lead you, not only to pray for, but to admire and love that grace, which can, and does elevate, refine, and quicken, a heart so cold and insensible ? Con. — I can truly say, that such is my experi- ence ; and I have often admired the language of one of our hymns : "Almighty grace ! thy healing power, How glorious — -how divine ! That can to life and bliss restore So cold a heart as mine." Min. — This is simply what the Apostle means by ^glorying in infirmity." And it is easy to see how such experience has a tendency to keep the chris- tian constantly at a throne of grace, where he finds his only hope of perseverance in holiness. This is 126 PERSEVERATION the ground upon which the doctrine of perseverance is based. It is not of man, but of God. I need not stay to prove, that we are entirely dependent 01. God for persevering grace. The work of sanctifi- eation is his, and his entirely. Co)i. — But, is not the christian actively engaged in his own sanctification ? Mill* — He "works out his own salvation" — but still "it is God that workethin him, both to will and to do" — Phil. 2: 12, 13. The christian grows in grace, but it is God that enables him. His mind concurs in the work; so that he is not only actively,, but zealously engaged in it ; but it is in striving te obtain that grace, upon which he feels he is entire- ly dependent. All his exertions and prayers are to this end. But this, instead of proving that his final perseverance depends upon himself, proves the con- trary. If, then, the perseverance of christians in a life of faith and holiness, depends upon God, and any finally and totally apostatize, it must be because God is either unable or unwilling to carry them forward in their christian course to complete salvation- That he is unable, I presume none will contend — that he is unwilling, will not, I think, be contended by any one who has any thing like a proper esti- mate of his character, as revealed in his word, ana exhibited in his providence and grace. He has re- generated, justified, and, in part, sanctified them: he has given them to his Son as trophies of his cross, pardoned all their sins, adopted them as sons and daughters into his family, and the Savior has prepared mansions for them in heaven. Then, to say that God is unwilling to preserve them, would.. it seems to me, be as absurd and blasphemous as to say that he is unable. 1 Thes. 4 : 3— "This is tlfe PERSEVERANCE. 129 will of God, even your sanctification." If, then, the work be his, and he be both able and willing to per- form it, we may conclude it will be done. Con. — But, though God is willing and able to save them, may he not be provoked to withdraw his Spirit, and leave them to final apostacy, as a pun- ishment for their sins ? Min. — God might, it is true, if he saw fit, with- draw his gifts, and the abandoned sinner would have no just cause of complaint. But, the question is, will he do it, after all that he has done for him? His gifts were free, and entirely unmerited. There w r as no compulsion. Neither was there any w r ant of consideration. Men may bestow gifts inconsid- erately and rashly, and afterwards find occasion to withdraw them ; but God's gifts are bestowed with a full knowledge of all or any difficulties that might arise in the way of their continuance. He knew when he gave them, whether any thing would ever require him to withdraw them. If he gave them with a knowledge that he would withdraw them, (which all must admit, if they should ever be with- drawn,) then he acts a part more capricious than men ; for, no man would bestow a gift, when he knew that it would be so abused that he would be compelled to withdraw it. Yet, the advocates of the doctrine of "falling from grace," as it is termed, would have us believe, that God regenerates, justi- fies, pardons, and in part sanctifies, or as some say sanctifies perfectly, those whom he knows must bear his wrath in hell forever. Surely, the advo- cates of such a doctrine, do not consider what they teach. Con. — But, may we not suppose that his grace is bestowed conditionally : that is, if the christian 130 PERSEVERANCE. improve the gift, it will be continued and increased; but if not, it will be withdrawn? Min. — That supposition will not relieve the diffi- culty. Let us suppose that the grace of justification, or pardon, is bestowed conditionally. But a condi- tional pardon is no pardon at all. If it be suspended on any thing to be done, it is not granted — it is only promised. But, if a man is not actually pardoned and justified, he is not a christian. It is not an unregenerated, unjustified sinner, that we say will be enabled by God to persevere, but the true chris- tian, who is really a child of God, who has actually been justified through faith, one whose heart has been changed by divine grace, who has exercised faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, who truly loves God, feels thankful for the mercy and grace he has received, rejoices to believe that he is pardoned and accepted of God; and yet he is not pardoned, if it only be promised conditionally, and he is not yet at liberty even to hope for heaven. How could we exhort such an one? We could not exhort him to continue in a state of justification; for he is not yet justified. We could not exhort him to continue a christian ; for he is not yet a christian — the wrath of God is still abiding on him, and he is still in a state of condemnation — the curse is not yet removed. But, there are other difficulties arising from such a supposition If pardon and justification be suspended upon the condition of perseverance in holiness, they cannot be bestowed on account of the merits of Christ ; and thus it is subversive of the main prin- ciple of the Gospel. How much more consistent with the plain dictates of common sense, to believe, as the Bible tells us, that when a sinner believes and repents, all his sins are actually pardoned, and that, PERSEVERANCE. 131 on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, he is justified and accepted as righteous in the sight of God, and is fully reconciled, and adopted as a child of God, and an heir of heaven, and the mansions of glory, to which he will certainly be received. Con. — Are we, then, to suppose that the perse- verance of the christian is altogether unconditional ? That is, are we to suppose that he will certainly obtain complete salvation, whether he live a holy life or not ? Min. — That is supposing a contradiction. It is perseverance in holiness that is secured ; and it is secured in the same way with his regeneration ana justification. You recollect that when we were considering the doctrine of election, it was made plain from the fact, that God is the author of regen- eration and conversion from sin to holiness; because, when God converts a sinner, he does it from design, and, as he can have no new designs, it must have been eternal. Now, his design is not to save any one in sin, but "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."— 2 Thes. 2: 13. His pur- pose to save embraces both regeneration and sanc- tification. When you look at God's mercy ana grace, in your conversion, and trace it back to its source, you find the doctrine of election ; and you have only to trace it forward to its completion, to find the doctrine of perseverance. You have saio that God, in your conversion, was fulfilling his gra- cious design which he must have had toward you. That design was, of course, to save you through the operations of his Spirit, transforming you anew, and making you meet for heaven. Thus, holiness is not a condition of perseverance, but a part of it; and to suppose that it is irrespective of holiness, is a 132 PERSEVERANCE. contradiction. Here, too, we see an argument for the truth of the doctrine, which, to my mind, is con- clusive. If God's design, in your conversion, were not to save you finally, it could not be a gracious design. When he sent his Spirit to change your heart, and enable you to believe on his Son; raised your affections to himself, and fixed your hopes in heaven, if he only designed to lead you forward for a time, and then leave you to go to hell at last, his design was any thing but gracious. But, let us suppose such a case. A man, through the grace of God, is converted at thirty years of age. All his sins are pardoned. He is justified, and, in part, sanctified, admitted to communion and fellowship with God, rejoices to believe that he is forgiven and accepted of God through the merits of Christ, and is cheered with the prospect of complete salvation. He lives a christian life for one or two years, "falls from grace," loses entirely ail his interest in religion, dies a child of satan, and goes to hell. How will such an one give his account? The sins of his first thirty years have all been pardoned through Christ. But, if he be punished only for the sins of the last few months, he does not receive according to his deeds. His punishment is not in proportion to his guilt, which is contrary to the principles of justice, and the plain declarations of the Bible. But, the supposition that any one, who has been truly regen- erated and sanctified, washed in the blood of Christ, and adopted as a child of God, will at last be left of God and sent to hell, is so inconsistent with the character and dealings of God, that it only needs to be mentioned to see its absurdity. Yet, all this absurdity is involved in the doctrine of "falling i grace." PERSEVERANCE, 133 Con. — -But, will it not have a tendency to make the christian feel secure, and relax his efforts to advance in holiness, to know that his salvation is certain and unalterably fixed in the purpose and good pleasure of God. Mi?i. — It is often urged by the enemies of the doctrine of perseverance, that it is dangerous. It is not uncommon to hear them say, that if the doc- trine be true, any one may live as he pleases. I once heard a preacher say: "If I believed such a doctrine, I would care nothing about growth in grace, or living a holy life.-' But, such objectors forget, that if they speak according to their feelings, they give strong evidence that they are strangers to the love of God, and cast a severe reflection upon true religion. Suppose a father, when about to settle a patrimony upon his son, is told that it will be dangerous to do so, lest, when the son should know that all w r as securely his, he would treat him unkindly. What severer reflection could he cast upon the son? And what mournful evidence it- would be of the son's entire selfishness, and want of love to his father, to hear him say, that if his father would once fix the patrimony securely in his hands, he would not care how he treated him! Just such is the evidence that the professed christian gives of his love to God, who says that if he once felt sure of heaven, he would not care how he lived. I admit that it would be dangerous to make heaven sure to such. Whether it would be dangerous or not, for a father thus to settle the patrimony upon his son, would depend altogether on the nature of the son's feelings toward him. If they were alto- gether selfish, it would be dangerous. But, if the son truly loved his father, it would increase his 1 34 PERSEVERANCE. filial attachment to know that his father had done se much for him. The more he would give the son, die more the son would love him. So, if a ehris- :ian have true love to God, we need not fear to tell him how much God has done for him. The more he sees of the love of God, the more his own heart will be warmed with the heavenly flame, and he will desire the more to be conformed to his image. I think it will be admitted, that it is the expe- rience of every christian, that the brighter and firmer his hopes are of heaven, the more he desires to be made meet for it; and just in proportion as faith is to him the certain "evidence (or confidence) of things not seen," he presses with eagerness "to the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." The doctrine of perseverance, then, to a true christian, is one of his greatest incentives to growth in grace; and every one upon whom it has a contrary effect, has much reason to doubt the reality of his religion. His love to God cannot be sincere, But, as our conversation has been suffi- ciently protracted at present, we will defer the Bible argument on the subject to another time. PERSEVERANCE, 135 DIALOGUE XVL PERSEVERANCE. Convert, — There is one argument against the doctrine of perseverance, drawn from facts, that I have found difficult to meet, or answer, There are many cases of persons who give all the eviden- ces of a change of heart, and seem, for a time, to enjoy all the comforts and blessings of true religion, who return to the world and sin, and become worse than they were before. Minister. — They thereby prove, in the clearest manner, that their religion was vain. They have not had that sealing of the Holy Spirit, w r ith which he indelibly marks the heirs of grace. I know it is counted uncharitable to say, that all such had only a false hope, and that their house was only built on the sand; and, though by saying so, we come under the anathema of the zealous advocates of the doctrine of "falling from grace," we know we are not the first who have been thus denounced, and will likely not be the last. The doctrine of perseverance was one of the distinguishing doc- trines of the Reformation, and met with the bitter- est opposition from the Pope and his adherents. The Council of Trent decreed, that "if any person shall say that a man who has been justified cannot lose grace, and that, therefore, he who falls and sins w r as never truly justified, he shall be accursed." But, the denunciations of Papists, and other error- ists, cannot effect the truth of a doctrine plainly 136 PERSEVERANCE. taught by the Savior himself. He tells us that ma- ny, who had such false hopes, will appear at the day of judgment, to whom he will say, "I never knew i/ou, depart from me, ye that w r ork iniquity." — Matt. 7 : 23. Now, if the doctrine of "falling from grace" be true, some at that day could contradict the Judge, and tell him* "You did know me; I was re- generated by your Spirit; I was justified through your righteousness; pardoned through your blood; sanctified by }^our grace ; enjoyed seasons of com- munion with you ; you heard my prayers; called me brother; and I rejoiced that you were 'not ashamed to call me brother,' (Heb. 2 : 11,) for I was a true child of God." Now, it is very plain, that all this would be true, if any fall away, totally and finally, who once had true religion ; and the saying of the Judge, that he "never knew them," would not be true. But, the language of the Savior plainly teaches, that all professors of religion, who are final- ly lost, were only false professors, and were entire strangers to true religion. We are thus placed un- der the necessity of contradicting this plain state- ment of Christ himself, or of disbelieving that an) r who are true christians, will finally be lost. Con. — But, are there not other passages of Scrip- ture, which seem to favor the doctrine, that a chris- tian may totally and finally apostatize, and be eter- nally lost? Min. — There are several passages that make such a supposition, from which the advocates of the doc- trine think it clearly proved. It is, however, only supposed ; it is no where directly asserted : where- as, it is again and again directly asserted, that they shall not fall away. And, it is a plain dictate of common sense, that we should never make a suppo- PERSEVERANCE. 137 skion contradict a positive assertion, or give the supposition a preference, to establish a doctrine which contradicts the assertion. There are such suppositions made respecting God himself. The Psalmist, in the eleventh Psalm, speaks of God be- ing the great foundation of his trust and hope, and adds, in the third verse, "If the foundations be de- stroyed, what can the righteous do ?" This is a sup- position that God would prove unworthy of our con- fidence, or should fail in his promises, &c. And the supposition is made to excite our gratitude, in contrasting our privilege of trusting in God, with the wretchedness of our condition, if that founda- tion were taken away, and we could no longer put our trust in him. Now, who would ever think of taking this supposition to prove the possibility of God failing us, as a rock upon which we may at all times trust with unwavering confidence? And yet, it is just as legitimate a course of reasoning, as to argue from the supposition of the christian being lost, that he may be. Such suppositions are fre- quent in the Bible, and they are not intended to teach, that the cases supposed will actually occur ; but, as in the case above, to show us the excellence of the opposite truth. Con. — But, are there no positive assertions in the Bible, that christians do, or may, finally and totally apostatize, and perish ? Min. — I have not been able to find a single pas- sage in which it is asserted ; and all the passages that I have seen quoted by the abettors of the doc- trine, amount to nothing more than suppositions. such as I have mentioned. One passage upon which they rely very much, is Ezek. 33 : 13 — "When I shall sav to the righteous, that he shall surely live ; 10 13S PERSEVERANCE* if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit ini- quity, all his righteousness shall not be remembered ; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it." It is supposed, by the most eminent commentators, that the "righteous" here spoken of r are to be understood as those false professors of whom Christ will testify, he never knew them. This understanding of the passage, is rendered more forcible from the fact, that they are warned against "trusting to their own righteousness," which is al- ways a characteristic of the false professor. If that be the import of the term, as here used, it affords no> proof, or even a supposition, of the true christian falling away. But, even if we understand by the term "righteous," true christians, it only amounts to a supposition, or, what is termed, a hypothetical statement. It contains a two-fold hypothesis : "If he trust to his own righteousness/' and if he "com- mit iniquity." Now, it will be admitted,. I thinks that there is no danger of a true christian "trusting to his own righteousness." Yet, the case is sup- posed; and, because it is supposed, is no proof that he will. Neither is the supposition of his- "commit- ting iniquity," so as finally and totally to aposta- tize, any proof that he will; But, another passage which is always quoted, and relied on, to prove the doctrine, is Heb. 6 : 4, 5, 6 — "For it is impossible for those who were once en- lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance." This passage, you per- ceive, contains a supposition, and a positive assertion based upon it> The supposition is of the christian PERSEVERANCE. 139 "'falling away," and the positive assertion is, the im- possibility of their being "renewed again unto re- pentance." But, those who plead it as proof that the supposed case may occur, overlook entirely the positive assertion, which directly disproves their whole system. They contend, that a true christian may fall away entirely, and be renewed again — that a person may be a child of God to-day, and a child of Satan to-morrow, and, again, a child of God the next day. They seem to forget entirely, that al- most all these hypothetical statements respecting falling from a state of grace, have coupled with the hypothesis, this positive assertion ; so, if these state- ments prove any thing at all respecting their system, it is, that it is false. But, they are hypothetical statements, which were not intended to prove, that the cases supposed would actually occur, but to show us the necessity of continuing in holiness to the at- tainment of final salvation. They are incentives to watchfulness, diligence, and prayer; and thus, are the means of our perseverance in grace. God deals with us in this, as in all things else, as ration- al creatures, and works upon us by means and mo- tives, addressed to our hopes and fears. This, I think, is plain from the content. The Apostle, after having given this solemn warning, adds, in the ninth verse, "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak" And then he goes on to speak of the "oath" and "promise" of God, that "we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold up- on the hope set before us." Thus, upon the suppo- sition that the Apostle, in this passage, is speaking of the true christian, it proves nothing for the Ar- minian. But, I am inclined to believe, that he is 140 PERSEVERANCE, speaking of those who, in common language, "have sinned away their day of grace.*' We know that when a sinner has been visited with a great manv warnings, and made the subject of the operations oY the Holy Spirit, warning and convincing of sin, if he wickedly resist all, there is a point at which the forbearance and mercy of God will cease, and he- will be left to himself, to take the course he has de- liberately chosen. And when God says of any one, "let him alone," he is ''given up to his own heart's lusts:" for him there is no hope. And, though bv the word enlightening him, and the Spirit's striving, he has been brought almost into the kingdom, yet, he "'falls back into perdition." Xow, it seems to me, that the Apostle exactly describes the case of -uch an one ; and all he says, may characterize one who has never been truly converted. They were i, once enlightened." So are those who hear the Gospel, and understand its doctrines : they are not savingly enlightened, but enjoy the light of the Gos- pel in a very important sense. They have "tasted oi the heavenly gift." This is true of all God's creatures, and more especially of those who enjoy the blessings of the Gospel, and have, to any ex- Tent, felt the operations of the Spirit. They were "made partakers of the Holy Ghost." So is every sinner, who has been seriously impressed, in view of his sins and danger. They have "tasted the good word of God." So had the thorny ground and sto- ny ground hearers, in the parable of the sower. They have tasted, also, of the "powers of the world to come." It is difficult to determine what is the •precise meaning of this expression. If we are to mderstand by it, hopes of heaven, thousands have them Avho are not true christians. But, we can PERSEVERANCE. 141 found no argument upon a conjectural interpreta- tion. Then, as any and all these blessings may be enjoyed by those who are not true christians, it seems to me the most likely the Apostle is speaking of such. But, be that as it may; the passage, as we have seen, plainly contradicts the Arminian doc- trine of falling from grace, and being again renew- ed. There are other similar passages, but this, I be- lieve, is considered by them as the most conclusive in their favor, and consequently, the doctrine has very little support in the Bible. Con. — But, are there not commands and exhorta- tions, in different parts of the Scriptures, addressed to true christians, which seem to imply that they are in danger of being lost, if they indulge in sin ? Min. — The fact that God will preserve them, does not supersede the use of all legitimate means to secure the end. His purpose to save them, embra- ces all the means of its accomplishment. He save? by his word and ordinances, and a diligent improve- ment of opportunities and privileges. This being his instituted plan of effecting his purpose, exhorta- tions and admonitions do not necessarily imply any uncertainty as to the issue. They only point out the manner and order, in which the design will be accom- plished. Paul, in a storm at sea, exhorts the soldiers to remain in the ship, and work for their lives, and tells them if they went away they would all be lost : but, will any one say, that there was in reality any uncertainty as to the issue ? God had promised that they should be saved, and his character was at stake. But still, the exhortation of Paul, was one principal mean of their safety. So the exhortations and warnings addressed to christians, are made the means of their perseverance. 142 PERSEVERANCE. But, let us now look at some of the plain declara- tions of the Bible on this subject. And here I would observe, that we are not compelled to resort to sup- positions and inferences, but have plain and positive statements, proving as clearly as language can prove, that true christians will be preserved to complete salvation. Ps. 89 : 30— 37— "If his children for- sake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my command- ments ; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for- ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven." In this psalm, as in many oth- ers, David is made to personify Christ. This is plain from verse 27, and other parts — "I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth." In the 19th verse, God says — "I have laid help upon one that is mighty," &c. Indeed, the whole scope of the psalm shows that it is so to be understood. Then, the "children" that are spoken of, are the spiritual children of the Savior, true fol- lowers of the lamb. And, we can scarcely conceive how their security could be expressed in stronger language. Though they shall be chastised for their sins, yet his "loving kindness" will never be with- drawn, nor shall his "faithfulness fail." I might here properly refer to a melancholy in- stance of the lengths to which errorists will go, to support a favorite theory. In the "Doctrinal Tracts" PERSE VERANOE. 143 of the Methodist Church, page 212, the writer, in endeavoring to evade the force of so plain a state- ment of the doctrine of perseverance, says, that the covenant spoken of in this 89th psalm, "relates wholly to David and his seed." He then misquotes the 35th verse. Instead of saying, "I will not lie unto David," he quotes it, "I will not fail David," And, to crown all, he says, "God did also fail Da- vid." "He did alter the thing that had gone out of his lips, and yet, without any impeachment of his truth. He abhorred and forsook his anointed. He did break the covenant of his servant," &c. The only reason he gives for saying that God broke his covenant is, that it was conditional. That it was not conditional, in the sense which he affirms, I will not now stay to prove; for, even if it were, it is still both false and impious to say, that "God broke his covenant, and altered the thing that had gone out of his lips," When a writer thus speaks of God, and misquotes his word, we need not be surprised at all his misrepresentations of Calvinism. But, let us see what Christ himself says on the doc- trine of perseverance. Matt. 24 : 24 — "There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." John 10: 27 — 29 — "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them," (will he ever say he "never knew" them?) "and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all ; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Does not this look as if the Savior meant to teach that be- lievers are secure in the hands of God ? But, let us 144 PERSEVERANCE. hear Paul. Rom. S: 35 — 39 — "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ! Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? * * Xay, in all these things, we more than conquerors, through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor pth, nor any other creature, shall be able to sepa- rate us from the love of God. which is in Christ Je- sus our Lord." I cannot conceive how the doctrine could be stated in language more plain and forcible. I shall only add one passage more, though I might add scores. 1 Pet. 1 : 5— "Kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation." Here the whole doctrine of perseverance, through grace, faith, and holiness, is stated in a manner both concise and beautiful. If we needed arguments from inference and sup- position, we have them, too, in abundance. One, that seems to me incontrovertible, is drawn from the intercession of Christ. His prayer is — "Holy Fa- ther, keep through thine own name, those whom thou hast given me," Will the Father keep them, or deliver them over to Satan? We may leave the Arminian to answer. Other inferential proofs, equally conclusive, might be given, but I think I have said enough to show yon, that our Confession of Faith speaks the language of the Bible, and of common sense, when it says, chap. 17, sec. 1 — ;, They whom God hath accepted in his beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally, nor finally, fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end. and be eternallv saved." ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 145 DIALOGUE XVII. ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. Convert, — During the progress of our several conversations, on the different points of religious truth which we have considered, my mind has not only been relieved, but edified, and my desire to unite with some evangelical church has been in- creased. My preferences for the Presbyterian Church have also become stronger; but, still, with my limited knowledge, I do not know that I am prepared to say: "I sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith, as containing the system of doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures." My hesitancy does not arise from any opposition I have to any of its doctrines, but from my limited acquaintance with it. I have not, until recently, made it a study, and have not been able to com- pare it, in all its parts, with the Bible, so as to adopt it intelligently. And, I suppose, to adopt it "sincerely" means both a cordial and intelligent reception of all it teaches, as being in accordance with the Bible. And this, I have understood, you require of all your members. Minister. — While you have had a misrepresent- ation of our doctrines, you have also had a false representation of our practice. I know it is com- mon with those who wish to frighten young converts from joining our church, to tell them that they must have the Confession of Faith "crammed down their throats." But, our form of Government 146 ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. does not require it, onr have I ever known a single mstance in which it has been required by any one of our church officers, that the members of the church should all adopt the Confession of Faith. It is required of all our church officers, but not of its members. It is not supposable, that all whom w r e might, in other respects, consistently receive to the church, are so well acquainted with all our doc- trines, as to adopt them intelligently. Some who do not oppose them, are sometimes at a loss to understand them. It is common, in some sections of our church, to require those who unite with us, to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith, "as far as they are acquainted with it, and understand it;" but I have never known any one go farther. Con. — I could willingly and cheerfully do that, and cannot see any reasonable objection to such a course. But, does the Confession of Faith contain no general requirement on the subject? Min. — The "Directory for Worship, chap. 9, sec. 3, requires, that " those who are to be admitted to sealing ordinances shall be examined as to their knowledge and piety." And sec. 4 requires, that those who, when uniting with the church, receive the ordinance of baptism, shall, " in ordinary cases, make a public profession of their faith in the presence of the congregation." Thus, " knowledge and piety" are required of all, and a " public pro- fession of their faith," of those who, at the time, receive the ordinance of paptism. How far the examination, as to knowledge and piety, shall be extended, and what may be comprised in the public profession of faith, required of others, is left to each church session, to decide according to circum- stances. Thus, while piety, and knowledge to some ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 147 extent, are made indispensable requisites to mem- bership in the Presbyterian Church, other things, though desirable, are not absolutely required. If a church session have satisfactory evidence that any one is a true child of God, and has knowledge of God and divine things, to such an extent, that he can profitably participate in the sealing ordinan- ces of the church, it is all they require. Con. — What is the common practice of church sessions in such cases? Min. — The candidate for admission is examined on some of the leading points of christian experi- ence, upon which, any one who has the exercise of a true christian, can easily give satisfaction. In connection with this, he is also examined on some of the leading doctrines of Christianity, especially, as conneccted with his experience. Thus, the ground of his hope is ascertained, and his faith in Christ is exhibited, which will qualify him for a member of the visible church; as, by regeneration and faith, he has been made a member of the body of Christ. This course must commend itself to every reflect- ing mind, as the safest, both for the church and those who wish to become its members. A person cannot profitably participate in the sealing ordinan- ces of the church, unless he have knowledge to discern the spiritual blessings which they represent. No one can rightly commemorate the Savior, in the ordinance of the Supper, if he have not faith and love. Neither would he make a suitable member of the church. All such members are an injury to the church, and their profession is an injury to themselves. To keep the church from being filled with such members, the framers of our excellent 14S admission to the church. formularies made piety and a certain degree of knowledge, prerequisites to membership. But this was going as far as they felt warranted by the word of God. The General Assembly of our church speak particularly of this, in their pastoral letter of 1839 : "The terms of christian communion, adopted by our church, have been in accordance with the divine command, that we should receive one another as Christ has received us. We have ever admitted to our communion all those who, in the judgment of charity, were the sincere disciples of Jesus Christ. If, in some instances, stricter terms have been insisted upon — if candidates for sealing ordinances have been required to sign pledges, to make profession of any thing more than faith, love, and obedience to Jesus Christ, these instances have been few and unauthorized, and, therefore, do not affect the general character of our church. We fully recognize the authority of the command, * Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.' The application of this command, however, is entirely confined to private members of the church. It has no reference to the admission of men to offices in the church," &c. (Minutes of the General Assembly for 1839, p. 183.) When such has always been the liberal policy of our church, you can perceive how much truth and honesty belong to those, who represent us as requi- ring all our members, to "swallow the Confession of Faith. 9 ' Con. — But, what is the reason of the distinction made between the officers, and members, of the church ? Min. — The officers are entrusted with the man- ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 149 agement of all the concerns of the church ; and, it is a plain dictate of common sense, as well as of the Bible, that they should be men, who are not only well instructed in the doctrines of the church, but also cordially receive them. While the Bible com- mands us to stretch the broad wing of christian char- ity over all who give evidence of being true disci- ples of Christ, and to receive them to our christian fellowship, it is very pointed in its directions re- specting the qualifications of all who bear rule in the house of God. They must not be "novices." They must "hold fast the form of sound words." — 2 Tim., 1 : 13. "Holding fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gain- savers." — Tit. 1: 9. "Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience." — 1 Tim., 3 : 9. This is in exact accordance with the requirement of our Confession, that all our officers should "sincerely receive and adopt" our form of sound words., I might mention many other passages bearing upon the same point, but it is not necessary, as the impor- tance of having all our officers, cordially and intelli- gently, to embrace the same system of faith, will be obvious, when you look at their stations and duties. Our church, in some sections, for a time, pursued a different policy, but it had nearly proved her ruin. Con. — But, is true piety made an indispensable requisite, in all who wish to unite with the church ? Min. — So far as the true state of any one can be ascertained, it is. No one can search the heart, but there are some points in christian experience, from which, in general, a correct judgment may be form- ed. And if, upon examination, any one gives satis- 150 ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. factory evidence, that he has not experienced a change of heart, he is uniformly rejected. Con. — But, would it not be better to receive every one who applies ? Is not the prospect of conver- sion greater in the church, than out of it ? Min. — If the means of grace were accessible only to church members, there would be some reason for sinners to seek admission. But, that is not the case. All the array of means of God's appointment, for the conversion of sinners, is intended for, and brought to bear upon those who are out of the church. In- deed, when an unconverted sinner joins the church, he rather puts himself out of the way of many of those means of grace, which are intended for his benefit. Of what use, then, is a mere nominal con- nection with the church? A voluntary connection with the church, was by Christ and the Apostles considered a profession of religion, and has been so ever since. Indeed, if it were not so, there would be no distinction between the church and the world. I need not stay to show you the great utility and importance, of having the people of God united in a society, distinct, and separate from the world. Any thing that tends to break down this distinction, is ruinous in all its tendencies. And there is no bet- ter way to do it, than to have crowds of unconverted sinners gathered into the church. It is not only thus ruinous to the church, but it is injurious to the world, as it creates the impression, that a mere pro- fession of religion is all that is necessary. The Pres- byterian Church, for these reasons, has always made true piety an indispensable requisite, in all her members. I do not mean to say, that all her mem- bers are true disciples. We cannot, with all our care, judge the heart. We find that ministers and ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH, 151 elders, even in the days of the Apostles, were some- times deceived in this matter; but, it is always our aim to guard it as well as we can. We know that the higher we can raise the church above the world, the more clear and manifest we can make the dis- tinction, the better it will be, both for the church and the world. Con. — Your practice in this seems to me both wise and scriptural. It is certainly a happy reflec- tion to any church member, that all his fellow-mem- bers have given satisfactory evidence to its officers, that they are true disciples of Christ. But, there are some other denominations who pursue a differ- ent course. I have heard ministers proclaim from the pulpit, that the proper course was, "first to join the church, and then seek religion," that "the church was the best place to get religion," &c. And I myself, was often urged to join their church, when they knew, as well as myself, that I had no change of heart, but was fighting against God, in all his love. Min. — I know that has become mournfully com- mon. Many have been thus persuaded, that they will gain God's favor by insulting him. If the church be not a religious society, what is it? It is- called the "household of the faithful, the body of Christ," &c. And, for any one to unite with it,, who does not belong to Christ, is making a false profession, and "lying both to God and man." It would be strange, indeed, if this were the way to secure the favor of the great Head of the Church. The Apostles pursued a very different course. They received to the church vast numbers, but we are told it was "of such as should be saved" — Acts 2: 47. And we know, that the character of the church for piety, stood so high, that it was a living 152 ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. reproof to the world. So much so, that we are told, Acts 5 : 13, that "of the rest durst no man join him- self to them, but the people magnified them." What a commentary is this upon the practice of those who spend their zeal in gathering crowds of sinners, of all classes, into the church, seemingly more anxious that they should give their names to the church roll, than their hearts to God. Con. — But, would it not be better that, in the ex- amination of candidates, for admission to the church, it should be conducted by the w r hole church, instead of its officers merely ? The whole church, would then not only have the benefit of the candidate's ex- perience, if he be a true child of God, but it might be more satisfactory, also, that each member should hear and decide for himself. Min. — In some particular and remarkable cases of conversion, it would, no doubt, be edifying and useful, for all the members of the church to hear the candidate tell what God has done for him. But, particular cases should never be made the ground of a general rule ; and, I think, the experience of all churches who receive their members by a profession of their faith, as we do, will testify, that, as a gener- al rule, it is more proper and expedient, to have it done by the officers of the church. But, this in- volves one of the principal features of our form of church government, for which, we believe, we have scriptural authority and precedent. And a full and satisfactory consideration of this subject, would re- quire more time than we can now devote to it. But, if it would be gratifying to you, we will consider it at some future time. Con. — I have never had any difficulty on the score of church government. The Presbyterian form has CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 15^ Til ways struck me as wise and orderly, though my preferences for it are not the result of any exam- ination of its principles. I would, therefore, be glad to embrace any opportunity of examining it more particularly. Min, — Call when you have leisure, and I will en- deavor to explain it to you, in the light of the Bible and of common sense. DIALOGUE XVIIL CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ConverL — As I mentioned to you at our last in- terview, I have never thought much on the subject of Church Government, and have looked upon it as •a matter of expediency merely; supposing there was no particular form authorized in the Bible, and consequently, it was left for the church to adopt any form of government that, according to circum- stances, might be deemed the most expedient. Minister. — It is inconsistent with the Savior's love to the church, and his care over her, to sup- pose, that in a matter affecting her interests so deep- ly, he would leave it entirely to the management of human wisdom. There are certain grand principles which the Bible gives for our direction, in all our duties toward our fellow-men, and especially as members of the church, in our duties to the church itself, and to each other individually. And, in devi- sing means for her peace, prosperity, and order, and 11 134 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. laboring for her and our spiritual welfare,, we sure- ly cannot suppose that we are left without direction by our great and glorious Head. For this very pur- pose, we are told, that he instituted certain orders of men in the church, with peculiar offices and du- ties. Eph, 4: 11, 12 — "He gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pas- tors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." 1 Cor. 12: 28— "God hath set some in the church, first Apostles, secondarily proph- ets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing,, helps, governments. " Con. — But some of these orders and gifts do not now exist, and may we not conclude that they were all only designed to continue for a time ? Min. — The extraordinary offices and gifts of those times are not now necessary, as the canon of revela- tion is complete ; but, as "pastors, " or "teachers, helps, and governments," are still necessary for the church in every age, they are continued. But, I mentioned those texts to show, that the officers of the church are of God's appointment. And, I be- lieve all evangelical denominations of christians ad- mit that some officers of the church, with peculiar duties, are divinely appointed, but all do not agree as to their number,, rank, and duties, and the man- ner in which they should be appointed by the church,, acting under the authority of her Head; and the difference of practice in these several particulars, constitutes the different forms of church govern- ment that now exist. Con. — How many different forms of church gov- ernment are there now found ? Min. — They may all be classed under four gener - CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 155 al heads, viz. Popery, Episcopacy, Independency, and Presbyterianism. There are, it is true, several varieties under each of these general kinds, but they all partake of the essential features of one or other, to such a degree, that they clearly belong to that class. For instance, the Episcopal and Methodist churches, though differing in some respects, both have all the essential features of Episcopacy, and are in fact Episcopal in their government. And, on the other hand, Presbyterians, Reformed Presbyteri- ans, Associate Presbyterians, and Associate-Reform- ed Presbyterians, with the Dutch and German-Re- formed Churches, though they differ in some things as to church polity, all partake of the essential fea- tures of Presbyterianism, and are in fact Presbyte- rian in their government. There are also different shades of Independency or Congregationalism, some more and some less purely independent. Con. — What are the grand, distinguishing features of each of these several classes, in which they of each general kind agree? Min. — You will understand their different fea- tures better, by comparing them with civil govern- ments, for it is somewhat remarkable, that all the different kinds of civil government in existence, may be likewise classed under four general heads, partak- ing precisely of the same principles in civil matters, which church governments do in spiritual matters. Popery is a spiritual Monarchy of the despotic kind, and is in fact a complete Despotism — all power and authority being lodged with one man, who is su- preme head over all. Episcopacy is a spiritual Ar- istocracy — -all power and authority being lodged with a few, and those few not appointed by the people, but entirely independent of those whom they 156 cnincii government. govern. The people have nothing more to do in the appointment of their rulers under Episcopacy, than under Popery. Independency is a spiritual Democracy — all power and authority being lodged With the mass of the people, and not transferable from them. I do not know of any existing form of civil government, which will compare with Indepen- dency, but we may suppose one. If, in case of trial for crime, or misdemeanor, the criminal were ar- raigned before the populace, instead of a court, and the whole mass of the people would hear the evi- dence and pleadings in the case, and a majority de- cide guilty, or not guilty, and that decision to be final, without any appeal to any other, or higher au- thority, this, in civil government, would correspond with Independency or Congregationalism in church government, which is a pure Democracy. Presby terianism is a spiritual Republicanism — the grand distinctive feature of which is, power and authority invested in those who are chosen by the people, as their representatives or agents, to rule in their name. Thus, it secures all the advantages of an aristocracy without any of its accompanying evils, and forms a union of all the different branches «'md sections of the government, more complete and binding than can be found in a. monarchy, because it is a union by consent of the people, and ratified by them, in their capacity of members of the communi- ty. In Independency, there is no union which binds the different parts together, with any thing like a common feeling of interest. Each congregation is entirely independent of all others, and acting arid living in its separate individual capacity, does not feel that it is an integral part of a common whole* bound by the same system of laws and regulations, CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 15? Aristocracy and Monarchy preserve a union of the different parts, but they deprive the people of their inalienable rights, of choosing their own rulers, &c. Republicanism, whilst it secures union, leaves the people in full possession of all their rights and liber- ties. It leaves all free, yet brings all under law. It places none above law, and leaves none below it. Con. — But, if the Presbyterian form of church government be thus based upon republican princi- ples, how can it be said to be taken from the Bible. 'Republicanism is of recent date, as I believe our own government is the only one that has ever existed upon pure republican principles. Min. — The close resemblance of our republican form of government to Presbvterianism, shows verv clearly that they have the same origin, but it proves that true republicanism has its origin in Presbvteri- anism. Any one who traces their points of similar- ity, must be convinced that they have the same or- igin. Presbvterianism has its several official de- partments, legislative, judicial, and executive, with this difference from our civil government, that all these duties in our church government, belong to the same set of men. Every church court sits and acts in these several capacities, as circumstances re- quire. And, when any church court is about to sit in a judicial capacity, it is the duty of the Modera- tor, who is the presiding officer, to remind the body of " their high character as judges of a court of Jesus Christ, and the solemn duty in which they are about to act. 5 ' — General Rules for Judicatories, 39. These duties, in our civil government, are vested in different bodies, but they all exactly correspond with our several church courts. Our church Session, as a judicial body, corresponds with our magistrate's 158 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. court, the Presbytery with our county court, the Synod with our State court, and the General Assem- bly with our United States court. As a legislative body, the church Session corresponds with our town- ship officers, called in Ohio trustees, and in other States by different names. They meet, consult, de- vise measures, and make regulations for the general welfare of those who have chosen them to their office. The Presbytery corresponds with our board of county commissioners, the Synod with our State Legislature, and the General Assembly with the Congress of the United States. With each body, also, from the lowest to the highest, are the several executive officers, with whom the similarity is equal- ly striking. Add to this, the grand principle of delegated pow- er in a representative system, which forms the basis of both our civil and church governments, and the similarity is still more striking, Other points of sim- ilarity might be noticed, bat this is sufficient to show any one, that one is modeled after the other, preserving all the grand features and outlines entire. Con, — They must have had the same origin, but how r do we know that Presbyterianism is the origi- nal, and republicanism the model ? Mint. — From simple historical facts. We know- that Presbyterianism existed, in all its purity, long before our government was thought of, and even be- fore America was discovered. We know that it w r as persecution for Presbyterian principles, that drove our forefathers to this continent. For assert- ing their inalienable rights, and, in some instances, endeavoring to infuse republican principles into the governments of Europe, they were persecuted, and Hed to this country, bringing their principles with ciruncn government. £59 >ihem. They had learned them from the Bible, and prized them dearer than life. These principles formed the basis of all their colonial governments, and when they were infringed upon by the mother country, they maintained them with their blood. The same grand principles of civil and religious lib- erty, for which they were persecuted, and fled to this country, were those which appeared conspicu- ous in the contest, and for which they contended in the arduous struggle. When their liberties were achieved, and the several colonial governments formed one grand confederacy, the same principles were embodied in the federal constitution. And there they stand, giving us more consistent liberty, both civil and religious, than has ever been enjoyed by any nation under heaven, except, perhaps, that found in the Theocracy of the Jews. The secret of our success as a republic is, that we have a gov- ernment, whose principles are the Republicanism of the Bible, which is only another name for Presbyfe- rianism. To Presbyterianism, then, as derived from the Bible, we are indebted for our excellent form of government. The sound of liberty — civil and reli- gious liberty — is delightful ; but it is an exotic in this dark world, and we should never forget, that those principles, in the successful operation of which we rejoice, are drawn from the treasure of God's word, which gives to us, under all circumstances, perfect rules of life. Con. — But, where do we find in the Bible, any set of laws or regulations, designed for civil govern- ments? The accounts we have of civil governments, are mostly of monarchies ; and, in the New Testa- ment times, christians were subjects of the despotic then in existence. I was not aware iSi> BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. that republicanism, in any shape, was taught in the Bible. Min. — I know it is too generally thought, that the Bible is adverse to human liberty. But, I think I shall be able to show you, that the governments established by God, whether of Church, or State,, were all founded upon the same grand principles of Republicanism and Presbyterianism, which charac- terize ours. But, as this investigation would require more time than we can devote to it at present* wu will defer it until another time. DIALOGUE XIX. BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. Convert. — Did I understand you as saying, at our last interview, that, according to Presbyterianism , all the authority and power of the officers of the church, were derived from the people? You did not, I believe, say so in words,, but I understood it as one of the principles of the system, that the power to rule must come from the people: and r yet, I cannot reconcile that with the Bible and the Confession of Faith, both of which acknowledge Christ as the fountain of all authority. Minister. — The power and authority which be- long to the office, are derived from Christ. AH church officers hold their commission from him. But,, the authority to exercise that power, inJiereii* BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. I6l in their respective offices, over any congregation, depends on the will of the people. If I am ordained a minister of the gospel, I have all the rights and privileges attached to that office, by the great Head of the church; but, I have no authority over any congregation that does not choose me as their pas- tor, or that does not voluntarily subject itself to the Presbytery of which I am a member. The same is true of elders; and thus, ministers and elders, are the elected representatives of the people, the rulers whom they have voluntarily chosen. The people choose the persons whom they wish to bear rule over them, and then look to the Head of the church to clothe them with the authority requisite to. con- stitute them their rulers. Thus, the authority of Christ, as Head of the church, and the grand prin- ciple of representation, are both acknowledged, and preserved in perfect harmony. And, in this too,, you can see another point in which republicanism shows its Bible origin. The people, m a republican government, elect their officers, but they do not commission them, or induct them into office. That must be done by the proper authorities. Election is not considered as, in itself, vesting men with the peculiar rights and privileges belonging to the office to which they are elected. But, when elected, they are, by the constituted authorities of the govern- ment, clothed with the proper authority, to act as the representatives of those by whom they are elected, and are invested with the rights and privi- leges belonging to their respective offices. Con. — I perceive the resemblance is striking ; but, that our form of civil government is derived from the Bible, is a fact, I think, very little regarded, it known, or thought of at all, by the generality of men. 162 BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. Min. — 1 know it is very little regarded, but still the facts are conclusive proof, that such is the case, The Bible gives us the first pattern of civil liberty and equality, that ever existed on republican princi- ples. The pride and selfishnes of man, naturally tend to the extremes of power and wealth on the one hand, and oppression and poverty on the other. But, that happy medium, where all are free and independent, yet all under law, none but God knew how to secure. And, in the examples he has given us in his word, we have a light to guide us, which stands out as a beacon amid the dark conflicting elements of all other systems. I wish to direct your attention, in the first place, very briefly, to the civil economy of the Jews, as established by God, when he brought them from Egyptian bond- age, and gave them civil and religious freedom. The different tribes formed one grand confederacy, similar to ours, each one being sovereign in itself, for all the purposes of self-government. The doc- trine of appeals, from the lower courts to the higher, is distinctly laid down; their highest court of appeal being the Sanhedrim, or seventy, corresponding to our federal court. The election of their rulers, was upon republican principles. Moses issues to them a proclamation: "Take ye ivise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you," &c. That is, you elect, and I will commission, to their respective offices. Moses was their civil ruler, or president, first chosen by God himself, and afterwards by the common consent of the people. We do not read that there was a formal ratification of his appoint- ment, as there was in the case of Joshua, his suc- cessor. We find them saying to Joshua, "All that BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 163 thou commandest us, we will do. * * * Ac- cording as we hearkened unto Moses, so will we hearken unto thee," &c. — Josh. 1: 16, 17. The power of their civil rulers, was very limited; and they were distinctly told, that even if they should choose a king, he must not consider himself in the light of a monarch. He must be chosen from among the people. He must not "multiply horses to himself " He must not "multiply to himself sil- ver and gold." &c. He must be under the law equally with the rest. His heart must not be "lifted up above his brethren" &c. — Deut. 17: 16 — 20. Indeed, it is doubtful whether their constitution and government could have been so perfectly free, and yet efficient, had it not been that God himself was, for four hundred years, the supreme execu- tive. When they desired a king, they were dis- tinctly reproved for their folly, and warned of the encroachment on personal and public liberty, which would be the consequence. But, even then, though, at their request, the executive authority was placed in the hands of a king, the republican form of gov- ernment was not changed. Con. — But, how could a republican form of gov- ernment exist under a king? Min. — The person who was nominated for their king by God, was accepted by the people, by accla- mation; and, though called a king, and invested with executive authority, was, in fact, nothing more at first, than "commander-in-chief" of a Republic. His power and authority were limited, and regula- ted by a covenant or constitution, called "the man- ner of the kingdom," which was distinctly declared to the people; and, being ratified by them, was recorded in a statute book, and preserved as the 164 BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. palladium of their rights. "Samuel wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord." — 1 Sam. 10: 25. We find the popular side of the government was so completely predominant, that even David did not dare openly to take the life of the lowest of his subjects, or even to punish offenders. When Uriah stood in his way, he had to resort to strata- gem ; and, when Joab deserved death, he dare not execute it himself. "These sons of Zeruiah," he says, "are too hard forme." Their influence w r as so great, that he found it impossible to have them condemned by the proper authorities, without w r hich he dare not proceed against them. These princi- ples, however, w r ere afterwards lost sight of, the people became corrupt, and their kings became des- pots; but, for four hundred years, they enjoyed a* much freedom in their government, as is consistent with efficiency, in any age that the world has yet seen, or probably will see. Another excellent feature of this republican sys- tem, was the equal distribution of their land, by which every adult male was a landholder — the veri- table owner of the soil on which he lived. There were no entailed estates, no hereditary nobility. Every family possessed its own land. This simple principle of ownership, in fee-simple, of the soil, is one of vast importance to a republican government. Indeed, it would seem to be one of its essential fea- tures. It encourages industry, inculcates patriot- ism, and is one of the main springs of civil liberty. Provision was made, in the laws given by God to Moses, for the perpetual preservation of this princi- ple, so long as their constitution w r as held sacred. If, through misfortune, or other contingencies, any family was compelled to sell their land, it could BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 1 85 not be alienated from the family longer than the year of jubilee. So that every fifty years, the land reverted back to its original owners, in the regular line of descent. The law respecting the ownership of land, is very minutely laid down in the 25th chap- ter of Leviticus. w r hich, if you have never examined particularly, will amply repay you for an attentive perusal. It shows divine wisdom, in its excellent provisions. A man, by carelessness, or wickedness, might deprive himself of all the benefits arising from ownership in land ; but, no vice, or slothfulness, or misfortune, could deprive his family of their portion of the soil. In the setting apart of the tribe of Levi as public instructors, there was provision made for a general system of education, which resulted most happily, in raising the whole mass of the people, to a degree of refinement and intelligence, then not equalled in the world. Con. — But, where do w^e find, in the laws given by God to Moses, any thing like a civil constitution, or a system of laws expressly designed for their civ- il economy ? Min. — In those law r s we find three classes. First, those which are called moral, which are obligatory on all men, under all circumstances, universally and perpetually. Second, those which are called cere- monial, w r hich prescribe the rites and forms of the Jewish worship. Third, those which are called jzi- dicial, which relate entirely to their civil economy, and in which we find all the principles which I have mentioned as the prominent features of republican- ism, standing out qonspicuously. They preserve, in the hands of the people, as much personal liberty as ever was, or perhaps can be, combined with a per- 166 BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. manent and efficient national government. These laws, moreover, were formally adopted by the peo- ple. When Moses rehearsed to them the w^ords of God, they answered with one unanimous voice — "All the words which the Lord hath said, we will do." Thus their laws, their civil constitution, was accepted and adopted. This adoption of their con- stitution, was repeated at the death of Moses; and, by a statute, ever after, from generation to genera- tion, once in seven years, the tribes were required to meet in a great national convention, solemnly to ratify their constitution. From this very brief view of the Jewish govern- ment, you may see the origin of those principles of civil and religious liberty, which prove so rich a blessing wherever adopted, and fairly carried out. Con. — But, is there any proof that their ecclesias- tical affairs were conducted upon the same princi- ples ? Min. — I have before remarked, that for four hun- dred years, in the Theocracy of the Jews, God him- self was the supreme executive. Consequently, their civil and ecclesiastical polities were blended, to a considerable extent, in one system. Their sever- al courts seem to have had the adjudication of all matters, both civil and religious. This was neces- sary, considering the circumstances under which the Jewish government was instituted and existed. It seems to have been the object of God, in establish- ing the Mosaic economy, to fortify his people against idolatry, and preserve a pure religion, as well as to stop the march of despotism, lust and blood, which darkened and cursed the w T hole world besides. The nations of the earth had cast off his allegiance, and turned their back upon him, and his commandments. BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. 167 He chose for himself a nation to whom he commit- ted his word and his worship, and who, as a pattern of excellence in all respects, might exhibit to an apostate world the "blessedness of that nation whose God is the Lord." It was, therefore, neces- sary, that God should appear conspicuous as their immediate lawgiver and executive, in all that pertain- ed to their welfare, both civil and religious. The blessed effects of true religion upon a national gov- ernment, was also to be exhibited, and, consequently, we find their civil and ecclesiastical polities blended in one system. Even their great national conven- tion, at which they deliberated upon, and, if neces- sary, modified their constitution and laws, was called "an holy convocation." Their church government, therefore, partook of the same features which char- acterized their civil government, and here we find Presbyteriamsm in all its essential features. But, as on this point I wish to be a little more specific, we will take some other opportunity to consider it more at length, than our time at present will permit. DIALOGUE XX.. BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. Conve? % t. — Since our last conversation, I have been examining, to some extent, the account we have in the Bible respecting the government of the Jews, as established by Moses, according to the di- rection of God, and find very frequent mention mad$ IN BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. of "Eiders" who seem to have been orhcers or ru- DQong them. - : :le and < that the oriice and title of •• s - m is den Minister. — The term Eider, lit rd in the original ._ _ of the Bil r. .. :: rienee were usually selected bo ill sfeb i and trust, because- trf the and wisdom : consequently, the I ffice. The title- ■:•: Aide \ and others, are of the same origin term P rest :- \ is simply the Greek word for Elder. transferred into our language with : slight change >graj iy, without being transit The which the title signified with the ^Elders of Israel,' 9 that is, the Eiders of tl pterian Church bold a similar stati .. with similai duties and obli Tl = ~ -; ■'." seem ::■■ have been the acknowi- represeu ig for them, i their name. Even during their bondage h E gyptg they s have hs termed Eiders oil; behalf of the people. God sai: 3x. 3: — and gather the El together, and say unto them." t lessage : whole mass of th le a and no do igoed for them^ command: but to re:enta*' it would consequently be, to mm him "the E . he should fro with the m . 3 : iS,) that BIBLE PRESBYTERIAN1SM, 169 •he might see that it was the voice of the whole con- gregation of Israel speaking through their Elders. Moses himself was not counted sufficient, which shows they had no ariMocracy ; the people were not required to attend, which is contrary to independen- cy ; but the Elders of" the people were called, to w r hom it was committed*. Con. — But, we read frequently, that God told Moses to "speak unto the children of Israel ;" from which it would seem., that the people themselves were most generally appealed to. Min. — In such cases, we are to understand the direction of God to Moses, to be in accordance with their established usage. He had, in the first in- stance, named the Elders particularly, as those through whom Moses should communicate to the people his messages ; and, consequently, it is to be understood, that when God tells him to "speak unto the children of Israel," he meant that he should com- municate with them through the same channel. This is plain from the fact, that it would be impos- sible for Moses to deliver his messages to the whole congregation of the people. It was impossible, in their circumstances, to assemble the whole multi- tude ; and, if assembled, he could not speak to them all. It is, therefore, most natural to suppose, that it was always done through the Elders, especially, seeing that they are so frequently mentioned as those through whom God and Moses communicated with the people. In Ex. 17: 5, 6, the Elders were se- lected to witness the miracle of striking the rock in Horeb. We find them, also, on other occasions, se- lected for similar purposes. — Ex. 24: 1, 9. The principle of representation is very strik- ingly exhibited in Lev. 4: 13 — 15 — "If the whole 12 nO BIBLE PKESBYTERIANISM. congregation sin," &c., "The Elders of the congre- gation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bul- lock," brought for a sin offering. Here it is plain y . that the Elders were viewgd as representing the whole congregation: and, wfat they did in the name of the congregation, was accepted by God as the act of the whole. / In many instances during the journey ings of the Israelites through the wilderness, the Elders are spoken of as being called together by Moses, to de- liberate on important matters, or to receive commu- nications for the people. The following passages vou may note down and consult at vour leisure — Ex, 18: 12; Numb. 11: 16,25; Deut'25: 7; 29: 10;. 31: 28; 33: 7; Josh. 24-. 3L In these and many other passages, you will find Elders spoken of m their official capacity,, as acting authoritatively for,, and in behalf of the people. Their eare over the morality and religion of the people, and the benefi- cial effects of their supervision, is spoken of in Josh,. 24: 31 — "Israel served the Lord ail the days of Joshua,, and of the Elders that overlived Joshua,, and which had known all the works of the Lord that he had done for Israel." The frequent men- tion made of them through the whole period of the Jewish history, shows very clearly, that even in. their lowest condition, they did not lose sight en- tirely of the principles upon which their govern- ment was first established. Con. — But, when their civil government was changed under their kings, would it not also have the effect of changing, or modifying, their system of church government, seeing that they were so in- timately connected in their first establishment? Min. — To what extent their civil government be- JtfBLE PRESBYTfcRlANlSM. l?l •came changed, it is difficult to ascertain. It was more or less despotic under their different kings, in proportion as each one was disposed to regard his duty to God and man. Still, however, we find some traces of republicanism^ in the darkest periods of their history. But, as the civil government be- came changed^ the church seems to have separated from it. We find m the synagogue service and or- der, a system of church government entirely distinct and separate, comprising in itself a complete system of church polity. It is, indeed, contended by some very able biblical scholars, that this distinction be- tween the civil and ecclesiastical polities of the Jew r s, existed from the first setting up of the taber- nacle in the wilderness. There can be [no doubt, however, that it existed afterwards in the order and service of their synagogues. Con. — When was the synagogue service first es- tablished ? Min* — It perhaps cannot be clearly ascertained, Philo, in his life of Moses-, gives some good reasons •for the opinion that it was instituted by him. Di\ Prideaux contends-, that it could not have existed previous to the return of the Jews from their cap- tivity in Babylon. His reasoning, however, is not conclusive, He founds his opinion mainly upon the fact, that the reading and expounding of the Scrip- tures then extant, was the most prominent of the synagogue services, and as copies of the Scriptures were not generally distributed previous to the cap- tivity, the synagogue service, he thinks, could not have existed. The other services of the synagogue, however, praise, prayer, and exhortation, might have existed previously ; and, after the captivity, reading and expounding the law may have been 172 BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. added. It does not appear that the Jews were at any time restricted to any particular place for the performance of their devotional exercises, though their sacrifices could only be offered at the taberna- cle, or temple. We know that praise and prayer were offered, and instruction given, at the "schools of the prophets," of which we find mention made as early as the days of Samuel. How long before Samuel they were instituted, cannot be clearly as- certained. The devout Israelites were in the habit of assembling at these schools, for the purposes of devotion and instruction, on their new moons and Sabbaths. 1 Sam. 10: 5—11 ; 19 : 18—24. 2 Kings, 4: 23. The natural course would be, that these places for meeting w T ould be multiplied, as the wants of the people seemed to demand, and a regu- lar order of conducting divine worship would be in- troduced. In Ezek. 14: 1, and 20: 1, compared with Neh. 8 : 17, 18, we have intimations that such was the case. In Ps. 84, there seems to be a direct allusion to such places of worship ; and, in Ps. 74 : 8, the Psalmist, speaking of the desolations wrought by their enemies, says expressly, "They have burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land/' The most natural conclusion, therefore, is, as it seems to me, that the prophets and holy men — "the Elders of Israel" — under the direction of God, insti- tuted the synagogue service at a very early period, lirst by devout assemblies at the schools of the proph- ets, and the houses of holy men ; and, these domes- tic congregations being multiplied, as the wants of the people seemed to demand, and becoming fixed in certain places, a distinct system of church polity, and a regular order of conducting divine service, was in- troduced. This point, however, is not of much im- BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. 173 portance to our present inquiry. We know that there was such a system in existence when our Sa- vior came upon earth; and, that when the Christian church was set up as a regular organization by the Apostles, they adopted the order of the synagogue. Con. — But, was that Presbyterian ? Min. — In every synagogue, there was a bench of Elders, consisting of three or more persons, who were entrusted with its whole government and dis- cipline. The synagogues were the parish or dis- trict churches of the Jews, in which the Elders, as a court, or bench of rulers, received members, judged, censured, and excluded, or excommunicated. Their sentence of excommunication, was termed "putting him out of the synagogue" — John 9 : 22, and 12 : 42 — and the Elders were called "the rulers of the synagogue," of whom we have frequent mention in the New Testament. We find, therefore, that in the synagogues, all the essential principles of Pres- byterianism were universally established. The sim- ilarity in every important point, was exact. We find, also, that in addition to this bench of Elders in each synagogue, there was one principal overseer, who was called the "Bishop," or "Angel of the church," who was the presiding officer, or Modera- tor. From these lower courts, also, there was an appeal to the "great synagogue" at Jerusalem ; thus blending the whole community together as one visi- ble professing body. In this, I believe, all commentators and biblical scholars agree, be their prepossessions as to church government what they may. Did time permit, I could quote to you Stillingfleet, Vitringa, Selden, Grotius, Lightfoot, Thorndike, Burnet, Godwin, Ne- ander, Spencer, and others, who all agree, in every 174 BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. important point, respecting the order and polity &i the synagogue. The testimony of these eminent men, is rendered more conclusive from the fact, that they were not Presbyterians, with, perhaps, one or two exceptions. I might also quote Dr. Gill, and Dr. Adam Clarke, as teaching the same truth. The extensive learning and deep research of these emi- nent men, no competent judge will call in question ; and, as one was a Baptist and the other a Metho- dist, they cannot be accused of favoring Presbyte- rianism, farther than in giving what they conceived to be the plain sense of the Scriptures. The first converts to Christianity were mostly na- tive Jews, and as they had been accustomed to the exercise of church government in the manner spe- cified, entirely distinct from the temple worship, which was ceremonial and typical, it is not surpri- sing that it should be adopted by the Apostles in the organization of the primitive, church. That this was the case, we have abundant evidence, which is so conclusive that it seems to me a matter of wonder that it should be controverted, At a future time, I will give you a brief summary of the evidence that the primitive church was truly Presbyterian, and continued so until it was corrupted by Popery „ which will, I think, convince you of the Scriptural warrant for Presbyterianismu PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANISM. 175 DIALOGUE XXI. PRIMITIVE PRESBYTER1ANISM. Convert — A difficulty has occurred to my mind since our last conversation, respecting the officers of the synagogue. You spoke of Elders, but I do not recollect that you said any thing about Minis- ter&t as belonging to the established order of the synagogue, unless the presiding officer, " the Angel of the church," acted in that capacity. Minister, — It was one of the duties of the chief rulers of the synagogue, to teach the people from the scriptures. This they did sometimes by way of conference, or questions and answers, and some- times by continued discourses, like sermons. These different ways of teaching they called by the gen- eral name of searching, and the discourse was called a search, or inquiry. The chief ruler or president, also invited others, whom he thought capable, to speak in the synagogue; and that honor was gener- ally offered to strangers, if any were present who were thought to have the gift of speaking. — Luke 4: 16—22; Acts 13: 14, 15. These presidents, or chief rulers, together with the bench of Elders, were called rulers. Hence, in the primitive church, •the preacher or pastor, together with the bench ol Elders, were called by the general name of Elders. Paul, in giving instruction to Timothy, tells him, ■" Let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." — 1 Tim- 5: 17. From which it 176 PRIMITIVE PRESFYTERIANIS35. is plain, that there was a class of Elders, who did not labor in word and doctrine. Peter called himself an Elder y and we know he was a preacher. We know . also, that there were Elders who ruled, yet did not preach, because there was a plurality of them ordained in every church, however small, and we cannot suppose that in every church they had a plurality of pastors. Con. — But how do we know that these Pastors and Elders sustained the same office, and were clothed with the same authority, which we now find invested in the officers of the Presbyterian Church ? Min. — We find the Elders represented as " over- seers" of the church. " Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." — Acts 20 : 28. They are also called rulers. "Let the Elders that rule well" — 1 Tim. 5: 17; " Obey them that have the rule over you," &c. — Heb. 13: 17. The people, too, are exhorted to obey them, to submit to them, &c, as to persons charged with an oversight of their spiritual interests. * And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you ? and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you ; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake.— 1 Thes. 5: 12, 13. "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves," &c. — Heb. 13: 17. Now, when we find a plurality of Elders ordained in every church, and one of these Elders "laboring in word and doctrine," and others not; and when we find that the people were exhorted to obey them, and submit to them in the Lord; and, also, that these Elders were chosen by the people,, and ordained to their office by the lay- PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANISM*. 177 ing on of hands; we have all the essential prin- ciples of Presbyterianism. This will appear to you the more plain, when you recur to the fact I before- noticed, that the term Presbyter is the same with Elder. In the one case it is translated, and in the other it is simply transferred, with a slight change in orthography. Con. — But we find the word Bishop often used to denote an office then existing in the church, and does not this fact afford some ground for Episcopacy? Min. — -The term "Bishop," like that of Presbyter, is transferred into our language without being trans- lated. It means an overseer, and we have it so translated in several instances. "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers" (or Bish- ops.) — Acts 20: 28. The Elders are styled Bishops, as they have the oversight of the flock, and the terms Bishop, and Elder, are titles given inter- changably to the same persons, which plainly shows that the term Bishop was no more than the title which designated the pastor, or overseer of a single church. We do not find in the New Testament a single trace of Episcopacy, in its mod- ern form. Indeed, the placing of one minister above another is expressly forbidden. There is but one commission given by the Lord Jesus Christ to his ministers: "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." And any thing like one minister being placed higher in authority than the rest, and having rule over them, and possessing alone the power of ordination, is directly in the face of the commands of Christ, and all the institu- ted order of the primitive church. There is not a 178 PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANISM. solitary instance in all the New Testament, of an ordination being performed by a single individual, but the power is uniformly represented as being possessed, and exercised, by the ordinary pastors, and performed by the "laying on of the hands of the Presbytery."—! Tim. 4: 14; Acts 13: 3; which corresponds with Presbyterianism, and with Presbyterianism alone. That this was the form of church government adopted by the Apostles, and left in universal use when these inspired men left the church to their successors, it really seems almost impossible that any impartial and candid reader of the New Testament can entertain a doubt. Con. — But, have we also authority, or precedent, for the several church courts which we find in use in the Presbyterian Church? Min. — It is very plain, that the whole church, as it then existed, however scattered, was regarded as one body, all goverened by the same laws, and sub- ject to the same authority. When a subject of importance arose, about which there was diver- sity of opinion, we find the matter considered and decided by a synod composed of the " Apostles and Elders." — Acts 15. We have in this chapter an account of the doings of the Synod, which met at Jerusalem, and have it particularly stated, that their decision respecting the overture which was brought before them, was sent down to " all the churches," carrying with it the authority of the synod for their regulation. We find, also, that this decree with others, was recorded and delivered to the churches, to be registered, preserved and obeyed. As Paul and Timothy " went through the cities, they deliv- ered them the decrees for to keep, which were ordained by the Apostles and Elders which were at PRIMITIVE PRESBYTEttlANISM. 179 Jerusalem." — Acts 16: 4. Here then, we find an assembly of Ministers and Elders acting as the rep- resentatives of the whole church, and pronouncing authoritative decisions, which were intended to bind the whole body. If this be not Presbyterian- ism, we will search for it in vain, either in Scotland or America. Con. — How long did the church continue under Presbyterian government, and what was the cause of the change? Min. — It is difficult to ascertain precisely the time of the first departure from Presbyterianism. The change was, no doubt, small at firt, and thought to be trivial. Clemens Romanus, an eminent Father, who lived near the close of the first century, in a letter directed to the Christians at Corinth, chides them for having, at the instigation of a few leading men, departed, in one respect, from the wise and wholesome system of church government estab- lished by the Apostles. "It is a shame," he writes, "yea, a very great shame, to hear that the most firm and ancient church of the Corinthians, should be led, by one or two persons, to rise up against their Elders. * * * Let the flock of Christ enjoy peace, with the Elders that are set over them. * ,# > % Do ye, therefore, who first laid the foun- dation for this sedition, submit yourselves to your Elders." Two things are plain from these expres- sions. First, that the Corinthian Church had been organized upon Presbyterian principles, and had so continued for a time, probably during one genera- tion. Second, that a departure from it, was viewed by this eminent Father as deserving of censure, This, however, was only a solitary case, and the defection did not become general for a length uf ISO PRIMITIVE fRESBYTERIANISM. time afterwards. But, it shows how prone men are to depart from the simplicity of the order of the primitive times. The testimony of the Fathers is abundant and clear, that the church, in general, continued to enjoy the primitive Presbyterian form of government for at least two centuries. Did time permit, I might quote to you, Ignatius Polyearp, Ireneus, Cyprian, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Jus- tin Martyr, and others* as stating the same truths, that in the early ages of the church, the different, distinct churches, were under the care of a Bishop, or Pastor, and a bench of Elders, and that there was no priority, or pre-eminence of rank among the ministers. Indeed, for the first two hundred years after Christ, we find no trace of either Pre- lacy or Independency, except they may be traced in the few departures from Presbyterianism, which we find condemned and censured by the Fathers. Ambrose, who lived in the fourth century, in his commentary on 1 Tim. 5:1, says, that " the syna- gogues, and afterwards the church, had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the church, which grew into disuse, by what negligence^ I know not, unless, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather the pride, of the Teachers, while they alone, wished to appear something." That there were Elders and Teachers, as distinct classes of officers in the primitive church, Ambrose asserts positively, and expresses his opinion, that they "grew into disuse, from the sloth or pride of the teachers." We find from the history of those times, that both the Min- istry and Eldership of the church, declined in zeal and faithfulness. The pictures given of the cupid- ity, mutual encroachments and strife of the clergy, even in the third century, by Cyprian, Origen, and PRIMITIVE PRESBYTEUIANISM. 1^1 Kusebius, are truly mournful. In such a state of things it is not surprising, that the simplicity of the primitive church gave place to a system which flattered ambition, and fed voluptuousness. Among such ministers, a grasping after preferment, titles, &c, might be confidently expected. The pastors in the large cities, and more opulent towns, began to claim a pre-eminence and peculiar powers, which by little and little were admitted, and at length established, as a part of the order of Christ's house. And, finally, the bishops became "lords over God's heritage," rather than "ensamples to the flock;" and to crown all, one was proclaimed "universal Bishop," under the title of Pope, — declared to be the "Vicar of God," — with universal, unlimited authority over the souls and bodies of all men in the world. Con. — And was the primitive order of the church so entirely lost in this universal corruption, that none remained to bear witness to the truth ? Min. — The Paulicians we find, in the seventh century, testifying against the encroachments of Prelacy, and afterwards the Waldenses and Albi- genses, still more distinctly and zealously, protested against the errors of the times, and especially, the encroachments on Presbyterian simplicity. It was, indeed, supposed that the Waldenses were prior to the Paulicians. The noted Reinerius, who lived near three hundred years before Luther, and had once resided with the Waldenses, though he after- wards became one of their bitterest persecutors, in a treatise he wrote against them, ascribes to them a very early origin. He said they were "the most pernicious to the Church of Rome of all other heretics, for three reasons. First, because they 183 PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANISM. were older than any other sect, for some say they have been ever since Pope Sylvester, (A. D. 314.) and others say from the time of the Apostles/' Their origin is too remote to be traced with dis- tinctness and certainty. That they were Presbyte- rian, both in doctrine and order, mast be admitted by all. John Paul Perrin, their historian, who was one of their ministers, speaks particularly of their Elders and Pastors, as distinct classes of officers in the church, and represents their Synods as composed oi Ministers and Elders. Gillis, another historian of the Waldenses, quotes their Confession of Faith, as containing the following declaration: "It is necessary for the church to have Pastors, to preach God's word, to administer the sacraments, and to watch over the sheep of JesusChrist; and also Elders and Deacons, according to the rules of good and holy church discipline, and the practice of the primitire church" This not only shows beyond doubt, that the Waldenses were Presbyterians, but it also shows what they believed respecting the Presbyterianism of the primitive church. Other his- torians of undisputed authority, assert the same res- pecting the Waldenses, and the Bohemians, and the Albi^enses, who were different branches of the same people, and called by different names, as they lived at different times, and in different places. More-land, Ranken, Comenius, Bucer, and others, all give decisive testimony to the fact, that these witnesses for the truth, during the long period oi darkness and corruption which overspread the church, were decidedly Presbyterian, both in doc- trine and order. Thus I have endeavored to give you a very brief and hasty view of Presbyterianism, from the days PRESBYTERIANI9M OF THE REFORMERS. 183 of the Apostles to the Reformation by Luther. To> the facts that I have stated, volumes of testimony might be given, but circumstances would only per- mit us to glance at a small part of it. But, from what has been said, you can perceive the puerile ignorance manifested by those who alledge that Presbyterianism was invented by Calvin. Con. — Were the Reformers Presbyterian in their sentiments and practice? Min. — All the Reformers, of any note, agreed upon all the essential principles of Presbyterian- ism. But, as our conversation has been sufficiently protracted at this time r we will, on some future occasion, examine w r hat history says on that point* DIALOGUE XXII. PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. Convert. — In our former conversations I have not iioticed, that among the officers of the Presbyterian Church, you said any thing respecting Deacons, yet they are frequently mentioned in the New Testa- ment; and I find, also y mention made of them in the Confession of the Waldenses. They are also,. I believe, in most Presbyterian Churches that I am acquainted with. Minister. — The office of Deacon is a very impor- tant one, and should be found in every church, where circumstances require and admit of it; still- 1S4 PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. however, it is not an essential part of Presbyterian- ism, that is, a church may exist, and act upon Presbyterian principles, in which they are not found. The want of this office does not destroy its Presbyterianism; whereas, a Presbyterian Church cannot exist without Elders. Deacons existed in the synagogues, and were afterwards introduced by the Apostles into the primitive church, as soon as cir- cumstances seemed to require it. We find that the church had existed for some time, and when " the number of disciples was multipled," circumstances seemed to call for the appointment of some, whose special business it should be to attend to the tempo- ral concerns of the church, especially to superin- tend her benevolent operations. — Acts 6. So in every church in which this part of its business requires much of the attention of the minister and elders, if the circumstances at all admit of it, they should have ''Deacons set over the work." who should be solemnly ordained by prayer and the laying on of hands, in the same way that the other officers are ordained. The importance of the office to the church you can easily perceive, and it shows in a very clear light the wisdom of the Great Head of the church, in arranging all things necessary to her peace, comfort and prosperity. Hence, we find, that though the office of Deacon has not been uni- formly found in all Presbyterian Churches, yet it has been generally contended for by those, w r ho seek entire conformity to the order of the primitive church. Con. — Was Calvin the first of the Reformers who sought to establish Presbyterianism according to the order of the primitive church? I have thought, that perhaps this gave rise to the idea, PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 185 that he originated it. If he was the first of the Reformers who adopted it, the more ignorant might conclude that it originated with him. Min. — The allegation that Presbyterianism ori- ginated with Calvin, has not .even that foundation. Ulric Zuingle, the leader of the Reformation in Switzerland, who lived long before Calvin, and died before ever Calvin saw Geneva, or had appeared among the prominent Reformers, thus speaks on the subject of Ruling Elders: "The title of Presbyter, or Elder, as used in scripture, is not rightly understood by tho&e, who consider it as applicable only to those who preside in preaching: For it is evident, that the term is also sometimes used to designate Elders of another kind, that is, Senators, Leaders, or, Counselors" (Ecolampadius, whom D'Aubigne in his history mentions as one of the bright stars of the Reforma- ation, and who was contemporary with Luther, but died before Calvin came on the stage of action, thus speaks of Ruling Elders; "But it is evident, that those which are here intended, are certain Sen- iors or Elders, such as were in the Apostles' days, and who of old time were called Presbuteroi, whose judgment, being that of the most prudent part of the church, was considered as the decision of the whole church." The testimony of Bucer, Lasco, Peter Martyr, and others, is equally clear as to the fact, that Presbyterianism was one of the grand principles of the Reformation.. Luther, himself, in speaking of the Bohemian Church, says: "There hath not arisen any people since the times of the Apostles, whose church hath come nearer to the Apostolic doctrine and order, than the brethren of Bohemia, # * * In the ordinary discipline of the 13 1S6 PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. church they use, and thereby they happily govern the churches, they go far beyond us, and are in this respect far more praiseworthy." Now, in view of the fact before stated, that the Bohemian Church was strictly Presbyterian, the sentiments of Luther are plain. Melancthon, Farel, Yiret and others might be added to the list of eminent Reformers, who all agree on the great principles of Presbyte- rianism, viz: equality of rank among ministers, and the government of the church by Ministers and Elders. Calvin, when he first settled at Geneva, found the church there in great need of discipline, and for attempting to. establish a system that would exclude gross offenders from the sealing ordinances of the church, he was banished from the city, and retired to Strasburg. While there, feeling the great want of some regular system of church discipline, he opened a correspondence with some of the prin- cipal men of the Bohemian Church. Comenius, in his history of the Bohemians, gives some extracts from some of his letters, in which he speaks in high terms of their form of church government, as being not only wise and wholesome, but also in accordance with the Apostolic order. Near four years after- wards he was recalled to Geneva, and made it one of the conditions of his accepting the pastoral charge of the church, that he should be permitted to have a bench of Elders, to conduct the discip- line of the church, according to the plan in use among the Bohemians, Thus, Presbyterianism was established in Geneva, and became general in the Reformed Churches in Switzerland, Germany, Hol- land. France, Hungary, Scotland, and throughout Europe generally, with the exception ci England. PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 187 (Jon. — Why was it not received and adopted in England ? Min. — In the reformation from Popery in Eng- land, the Kings and Bishops mostly took the lead. To them, as a matter of course, the simple repub- licanism of the Presbyterian system would not be agreeable. Ecclesiastical pre-eminence had lngo been established, and it is not surprising that they should wish to retain it. Accordingly, while they adopted the system of doctrine taught by the Reform- ers generally, they retained many of the features of Popery in their system of church government. This, however, was contrary to the expressed opinion of many of their most learned and pious divines. Not a few of the brightest stars of the Church of Eng- land, have given their decided opinion in favor of Presbyterianism. The truly venerable and pious Dr. Owen, gives his opinion on 1 Tim. 5: 17, in the following unequivocal language: "This is a text of uncontrollable evidence, if it had any thing to con- flict withal, but prejudice and interest. A rational man, who is unprejudiced, who never heard of the controversy about Riding Elders, can hardly avoid an apprehension, that there were two sorts of Elders, some who labor in the word and doctrine, and some who do not so do. The truth is, it was interest and prejudice which first caused some learned men to strain their wits to find out evasions from the evidence of this testimony. Being found out, some others of meaner abilities have been entangled by them. * * * There are, then, Elders in the church. There are, or ought to be so, in every church. With these Elders the whole rule of the church is entrusted. All these, and only they, do rule in it." This, from an Independent divine of so 18S PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. much eminence and piety as Dr. Owen, is as strong human testimony in favor of Presbyterianism, as any one can wish. Dr. Whitely bears the same testimony, in language equally plain. Thorndike, Whitaker, and others, clearly express the same opinion ; and even Archbishop Cranmer, once pro- posed the introduction of Ruling Elders into the Church of England. From all this testimony it is plain, that though Prelacy was established in the national church, many of her most eminent men were in favor of Presbyterianism, as being in accord- ance with apostolic order. I have purposely avoided quoting the opinions of Presbyterians, because they might be considered partial to their own system. But when we find the system supported by the arguments of Episcopalians and Independents, par- tiality to Presbyterianism cannot be alleged. I might add testimony, equally plain, from many others, both Episcopalians and Independents, but I think I have said enough to convince you, that the order of the Presbyterian Church, as well as her doctrine, is in accordance with the Bible and com- mon sense, and has received the suffrages of the wise and good in every age. Did time permit, it would be a pleasant task to trace with you, the history of the Presbyterian Church more at large. Millions of her martyrs have sealed the truth of her doctrines with their blood; and though perse- cuted in every age, she still lives, and witnesses for the truth. But for this I must refer you to history. Con. — The history of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, is a subject upon which I have felt considerable interest; especially, as respects her recent difficulties. I find two parts, or rather parties, each claiming to be the true Presbyterian PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 189 Church in the United States, and being unac- quainted with the nature and causes of the diffi- culties, which resulted in a division of the church, I am at a loss to decide on the justice of the claims of each party. Min. — At some future time I will give you my views on this subject, and will endeavor to lay before you the simple facts in the case, and leave you to decide for yourself. THE GROUNDS AND CAUSES OF THE DIVISION IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, IN 1837 AND 1838, DIALOGUE I. DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. Convert. — I have frequently heard the inquiry made, " What is the difference between New School and Old School Presbyterians?" and I have heard it answered in different ways. Some say, there is no difference, or, at least, very little; and that the separation was without any sufficient cause; that the two parties should be together, and no doubt will be, so soon as asperity of feeling has had time to subside. Others say, there is such a difference, as to render re-union impracticable ; that the divis- ion was called for, under the circumstances, and, in fact, could not well be avoided, I have always thought it a very desirable object, that all christians should be united; but> as there are different denom- inations, it is nescessary that any one, in making a profession of religion, must choose between them; and, as I have a decided preference for the Presby- terian Church, I would be glad to know the differ- 192 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. ence between the two branches of it, each of which claims to be the true Presbyterian Church. Minister. — I will endeavor to give you a candid view of the subject; and, lest I might be considered prejudiced, I will confine myself, mainly, to a state- ment of facts, from which you may draw your own conclusions. It wall be necessary for us to go back some years, in the history of the church, and trace difficulties from the beginning; and, in doing so, I may class them under two general heads, viz: difference in doctrine, and difference in measures, or practice. Con. — In conversation, a few days ago, w r ith a New School minister, I understood him to say, that there was, in reality* no difference in doctrine ; that they all held and taught, the same fundamental truths; and that the only difference, was a differ- ent method of stating the same doctrines. He seemed to censure Old School men, for magnifying things that were, in reality, of no moment. Min. — If that were true, it would exhibit in them a bigoted attachment to non-essentials; which, to say the least, is far from being praiseworthy. They knew their brethren of the Old School, esteemed them as truths, which were, in their view, sacredly important, and which they could not conscientiously give up. They viewed them as links in the glorious chain of the doctrine of grace, which, if taken away, the whole was broken. Now, our New School brethren knew, that we viewed them as very important matters ; yet they censure us for not yielding them, for the sake of peace, when they persisted in adhering to them, though they thought them of no importance* They asked us to give up what we thought of vital importance to the systen* DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 198 of Gospel truth, yet they would not give up what they thought mere trivial matters, though they saw they were distracting the church, and about to prove the cause of its unhappy division. It would surely place our New School brethren in a more consistent light, to admit the importance of those points of doctrine, which caused difficulty, and finally division, in our church. That they were such, I think I shall be able to show you. That which has been called "neio divinity" is not the system of doctrine taught in our standards, with some points of difference merely. It is an entirely different system, one principal feature of which is, that it dishonors God and exalts man, which, you know, is the very reverse of the Calvinistic system taught in our standards. Con. — But, do they not receive and adopt the Confession of Faith? Min. — As a body, they receive and adopt it, in a certain way; that is, they adopt it, so far as they believe it, which is little better than mockery. In that way we may adopt the Turkish Koran. It says, "there is one God," and inculcates some moral duties ; and, so far, any one could adopt it. Indeed, I do not know of any system, that might not be adopted in this way. Others pretend to adopt it as a whole, but reserve the privilege of explaining it, so as to accord with their views. This mode of receiving the Confession, is, I believe, the most pop- ular with them, but it is very little better than the other. In this way much of the Turkish Koran might be explained, so as to accommodate itself to a Christian's faith. " There is one God, and Mo- hammed is his prophet." Now, give me the privi- lege of explanation, and I can receive this sentiment 194 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. in fulL Mohammed was a prophet of God; that is, he was a false prophet, and he was a creature of God. But, the explanation is in direct contradic- tion to the plain meaning of the sentiment. So it is, with many explanations put upon the Confession of Faith. They either make it mean nothing at all, or something the very reverse of its obvious sense. I would not, however, be understood as saying, that all the New School body are thus erroneous in their sentiments. Many of their ministers, and, perhaps, a great proportion of their private members, are correct in their theological views, receive and love the doctrines of grace. But, as a body, they have the most pernicious errors fostered and cherished among them; and the holders and propagators of them, are carefully shielded from censure, so that they all are charge- able with countenancing and encouraging the propagation of doctrines, which, in all their ten- dencies, are hostile to the system of truth which they profess to adopt. I need not take time to notice all the points, in which the new divinity contravenes the doctrines of grace, as the Calvinistic system is very appro- priately termed. One or two of the main points will be sufficient to give you an idea of its danger- ous tendency, as well as its entire difference from that which has always been the received doctrine of our church. In the first place, I shall quote Dr. Taylor, of New Haven, who, perhaps, has done more to poison the church, both Congregational and Presbyterian, than any other man living. He places man above God, or rather independant of him; and asserts, positively, that God cannot prevent sin , or produce DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 195 holiness, in any one, without destroying his nature, as a free moral agent, and, consequently, can- not convert a sinner. His language is as follows : "Free moral agents can do wrong, under every possible influence to prevent it. The possibility of a contradiction, in supposing them to be prevented from doing wrong, is therefore demonstrably cer- tain. Free moral agents can do wrong, under every possible preventing influence" This is taken from an article written by Dr. Taylor, and pub- lished in the Christian Spectator, in September, 1830: page 563. But, again: "In our view, it is a question whether it is not essential to the honor of God, to suppose 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." — Christian Spectator, 1832: page 567. Again: "It is a groundless assumption, that God could have prevented all sin, or at least the present degree of sin, in a moral system," — Concio ad clerum. Con. — These are strange sentiments, indeed ; not to say impious. But, is Dr. Taylor a New School Presbyterian ? Mi?i. — He is, I believe, a Congregationalist. But, as he is the Professor of Theology in the principal school in New England, from which many minis- ters came into the Presbyterian Church, he, per- haps, exerted a more extensive influence than any other man, in sowing the seeds of error and discord, in our once pure and peaceful Zion. Many of the New School ministers adopt his sentiments. I once heard a very popular preacher of that body, tell his hearers, two or three times in the same ser- mon, that "God had done all for them that he could 196 DIFFERENCE IX DCCTRIXE, do" I have also seen the same sentiment inculca- ted in one of their most respectable religious periodicals; which is sufficient to show, that this dangerous error, so derogatory to God, is counte- nanced and encouraged to a considerable extent, and is permitted to work its ruinous consequences,, without rebuke or censure. A necessary conse- of this error is, to discourage prayer: for, if it be true, that God is doing every thing that he can do, prayer is mockery. Its dreadful consequences are thus strikingly shown, bv the eminent and pious Dr. Griffin: "If God could not have prevented sin in ah w r orlds and ages, he cannot prevent sin in any world or age, or in any creature at any time, except by preventing the particular occasion and tempta- tion. If God could not have prevented sin in the universe, he cannot prevent believers from fatally falling, he cannot prevent Gabriel and Paul from sinking at once into devils, and heaven from turn- ing 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 thac 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 infi- nitely 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 prospects of individual believers. You have no security that you shall stand an hour. And even if you get to heaven, you have no certainty of remain- ing there a day. All is doubt and sepulchral gloom. DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 197 And where is the glory of God? Where the transcendant glory of raising to spiritual 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 heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth ?" — Griffin on Divine Efficiency, pp. 180, 181. Con. — Such sentiments are, as you say, truly derogatory to God; and, I confess, I am not a little surprised to learn, that they are held and taught by any who bear the name of evangelical christians. Min. — I would notice, in the next place, that the doctrine of imputation is denied by some leading New School men, who exert an extensive influ- ence in the body. The imputation of Adam's sin, is repeatedly denied by Mr. Barnes; and, also, that he was a representative at all, or acted for his pos- terity in any way. He says, in his Notes on Romans, chap. 5: "The simple fact is stated, that that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of all his posterity, * # # yet men have not been satis- lied with that. They have sought for a theory to account for it. And many suppose, they have found it in the doctrine, that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over, by an arbitrary arrangement, to beings otherwise innocent; and, that they are held to be responsible, for a deed committed thou- sands of years before they were born. This is the theory — and, men insensibly forget, that it is mere theory." You will perceive, that he shows his enmity to the doctrine of imputation, by calling it an "arbitrary arrangement," thus misrepresenting it, and then says, it is "mere theory." Again, he says, in the same connection: "The expression, 'in whom all have sinned,' conveys no intelligible idea. * * * 19$ DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. What idea is conveyed to men of common under- standing, by the expression, 'sinned in himV" Here, he quotes both the language of the Bible, and the Confession of Faith, and intimates that they are both nonsense. Again, he says: "The most common (explanation) has been, that Adam was the representative of the race; that he was a covenant head, and his sin was imputed to his posterity — and, that they were held liable to punishment for it, as they had committed it themselves. But, to this, there are great and insuperable objections.' 91 In one of our former conversations, I endeavored to prove, that this doctrine of our church, is a doc- trine of the Bible, as well as of common sense; and, therefore, need not now stay to prove it. I only now wish to show you, that some of the most prominent of the New School Presbyterians deny it. Con. — Is it denied by others, besides Mr. Barnes? Min. — Dr. Beecher, Dr. Cox, Dr. Beeman, and others, all agree with Mr. Barnes. Dr. Beecher says, that the "prevailing doctrine in New England has been, that men are not guilty of Adam's sin." This he gives as his own belief, in an article pub- lished in the "Spirit of the Pilgrims," in 1828. But, I need not multiply quotations. Con. — I think you stated, in one of our former conversations, that the doctrine of imputation, both as it respects Adam's sin, and Christ's right- eousness, was so united, that the one feature of it must stand or fall with the other. Do these same men, then, deny the doctrine, as it respects the righteousness of Christ, also? Min. — On this point, Mr. Barnes is equally plain. DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 199 He says, in the first place, that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law. — Notes on Romans, p. 89. And, in his whole book, he has not one single pas- sage expressive of justification through the merits of Christ alone. But, on page 28, commenting on the phrase, "the righteousness of God," which Paul tells us, is "unto all, and upon all them that believe," Mr. Barnes says, expressly, that it does not mean, "that his righteousness becomes ours.. This is not true ; and there is no intelligible sense in which it can be understood" This is strong lan- guage. Imputation could not be denied, in plainer terms. Dr. Beeman is equally explicit, in denying that Christ suffered the penalty of the law. He says : " The law can have no penal demand except against the offender. With a substitute, it has no concern. # # # There is nothing in the char- acter of Christ's sufferings, which can effect, or modify, "the penalty of the law. These sufferings were not legal. They constituted no part of that curse, which was threatened against the transgres- sor." Again: "As to imputation, we do deny that the sins of men, or of any part of our race, were so transferred to Christ, that they became his sins, or were so reckoned to him, that he sustained their legal responsibilities." — Sermons on the Atone- ment, pp. 34, 51, and 68. Again, p. 65: "The law of justice, (of God,) that is, distributive justice, as expressed in the law, has received no satisfaction at all" This is virtually, and in fact, a denial of the atonement atogether. Con. — But, are such errors chargeable upon the body of New School ministers generally ? or, are they only the wild errors of some individuals? Min.— The body are responsible for them, in ^00 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. several ways; but this point, as well as the fact that these, and other kindred errors, form an entire- ly different system from that contained in the Con- fession of Faith, we will defer lor consideration at some future time. DIALOGUE IL DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. Convert. — Since our last conversation, 1 have been examining Mr. Barnes's Notes on Romans, but cannot find, in all instances, the precise language you quoted, though, so far as I could see, the mean- ing is the same. Minister, — I quoted the precise language of his first edition. In the subsequent editions, the phraseology is in some places changed, but it is only expressing his obnoxious sentiments in more cautious terms. I quoted purposely from his first edition, because it was on that he w T as arraigned before his Presbytery and the General Assembly. And, he distinctly stated, that, in his emended edition, he had not altered a single sentiment. It was the language and sentiment of his first edition, that the New iSchool men, in the General Assembly of 1836, refused to condemn. Since I saw you, however, I have seen the New-York Evangelist, of Nov. 9th, which affords decided and melancholy evidence of the extent to which the most pernicious errors are taught and encouraged by them, and the doctrines DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. '20 1 of grace decidedly condemned. In noticing the V Christian Youth's Book," a work recently pub- lished by the pious and venerable Dr. Brownlee, the Editor of the Evangelist says; "We have not the space, nor is this the place, fully to expose or controvert the objectionable doctrines it contains. But, to specify no more than these, will be suffi- cient to show its theology. It teaches the existence of a covenant of works, and the federal headship of Adam — rendering, among other scriptural perver- sions, the phrase, 'as in Adam all die,' to mean, 'as by Adam all died' — and the passage, 'so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,' to mean, 'so death passed upon all men through him, in whom all have sinned.' Of course it teaches the imputation of Adam's sin, and our consequent lia^ bility, on that account, even if not one actual sin were ever superadded, to eternal death. * * * Of course, the sinner's justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, and other kindred doctrines* follow." Con. — We are, then, to understand the editor* as condemning the doctrine of imputation, both as it respects Adam's sin, and Christ's righteousness? Min. — Certainly. He condemns the book, be- cause it teaches these doctrines. But, hear him farther. In immediate connection with the fore- going, he says: "We have no design to decry against the heresy and evil tendencies of doctrines of this nature. The New England churches, and those whose theological sentiments sympathize with those of Edwards, Hopkins, Bellamy, and Dwight, need no warning on this point. Our design is only to inform our readers of what they may be doing, if attracted by the excellent design, the pious spirit, 14 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. laptedness of the work, they should think of reading it themselves, or of placing it in of the young." Now, you will be sur- prised to learn, that Edwards, Bellamy and Dwight, ::ine of imputation, as plainly as it can be by Dr. Brownlee, or any other; and e editor of the New-York Evangelist wishes to make his readers believe that they deny it. Con. — But, is it a paper of any respectability? Min. — It is one of the principal organs of the School Presbyterian Church, and has, I believe,, a more extensive circulation, than any other peri- odical belonging to the body. I shall only refer i to the published sentiments of one more lead- New School man, though I might mention a number. The Rev. E. W, Gilbert, late of Wilmington. Delaware, now President of the College at New- ark, in that State, teaches that regeneration is not an instantaneous, but progressive work; or, rather.. denies that there is any such thiug, distinct from conviction and sanctification. "The Bible," he - kn oics no instantaneous regeneration.' 9 Ta illustrate his views, he published a diagram c<: f an arc of a circle, in the centre of which, he has placed the Holy Spirit, as the centre of attraction. Truth is represented by straight lines,. ;is centre, which meet the sinner in id to hell, and influence him to diyeige little. But, that you may be able to judge more ily of this new and improved method :ation, 1 ::on, I will show you, the diagram, with Mr. Gilbert's explanation, as given by Dr. J. Wood, now of New Albany.. Indiana, in his interesting work on ''Old and DIFFERENCE IX DOCTRINE. 203 Theology, " a book, by the way, worthy of genera! circulation. Here is the figure, with the author's explanation; Heaven. D G E Hell. Truth -k. j:T^: c & F THE AUTHOR T S EXPLANATION. "Let the semicircle, A, B, C, represent the -sinner's course from sin to holiness. Let D, E represent the road to hell, in which the impenitent is found by the Holy Spirit, and influenced at the point A, by a new presentation of truth, to stop and turn gradually from his downward course, through the curve of conviction, towards the point B., where his conviction becoming perfect and irre- sistible, he yields, and turns from his downward course, through the process of salification, at G 304 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. (or at death,) becoming perfect, he flies off, if j please, in a tangent, 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 flies off, by his own centrifugal force, in a moment, towards perdition. The point B repre- sents what these writers call 'Regeneration.'" "The Holy Spirit, like the sun in the centre, is the source of all right motion: and the power by which he attracts or influences the sinner, is the power of truth, or moral motive; by which the moral agent is checked at A, and moved and 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 circumstan- ces; may begin and be perfected, as with the thiei on the cross, in a single day, or as in the case of Methuselah, may occupy 900 or 1000 years. Con- viction, also, may be short, and sanctification long, or the reverse. But, conviction must, from the nature of the case, precede regeneration, or regen- eration cannot be a rational change. A physical change may take place without conviction: but physical regeneration is a thing which I cannot comprehend, any more than physical conviction or physical sanctification. The doctrine of the moral suasionist is, that the influence which convicts; also regenerates and sanctifies. That the same power ^vhich moves the sinner from A to B, moves him through the point B, and along the line to C. And that the whole change is wrought through appropri- ate 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 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 205 little distinction between the last degree of sin and the lowest degree of holiness; between the last exer- cise of an unconverted man and the first of a con- verted man: between the last feeble struggle of sel- fishness and the first feeble exercise of love.' * * 4 There is a great difference between supreme sel- fishness and supreme love in their extremes; but, between the last feeble influence of selfishness and the first feeble exerciseof love to God, the difference 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. Important on many accounts, but not because of any special influence used then* but like the Equator, as a measure of relative progress, and as the era of a great change in all our moral relations and circum- stances. Like the Equatorial line, however, it is in itself of no consequence at ally Apart from the error and nonsense of this exhibition of Mr, Gilbert, it is little short of down- right profanity, and affords painful and melancholy evidence of the lengths to which men will go, who .step aside from the plain dictates of the Bible, and have recourse to " philosophy, falsely so called. " Con.— What evidence have we, that such views pre- vail among New School Presbyterians, to any extent. Min. — That there is a general sympathy among them for such doctrines, is plain, from the standing of those who propagate them. Mr. Gilbert is per- manent Clerk of their General Assembly, and President of a College, which the Synod of Penn- sylvania, (N. S.,) at its last meeting, recommended, as worthy of the patronage and confidence of their .churches. If any of the religious periodicals belong- 206 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. ing to the Old School Presbyterians, would publish such views as I have quoted from the New-York Evangelist, how long do you think it would be tolerated? The paper could not exist one year. It is plain, therefore, that the fundamental truth of the representative character of both Christ and Adam, is generally rejected. Dr. Beeman, who denies that Christ gave any legal satisfaction to the law of God, and thus virtually denies the atone- ment, was the first Moderator of the New School Assembly, and has always been a man of standing and influence among them. But, the most decisive evidence of the wide extent to which error prevails among them, is fur- nished in the case of Mr. Barnes. He was tried before his Presbytery, for teaching doctrines con- trary to the Confession of Faith; and, strange as it may appear, the Presbytery, who almost entirely sympathized with his doctrinal views, refused to find him guilty. There was an appeal taken to the Synod, which body condemned him. He appealed to the General Assembly, and his case came up in 1836, when the New School men had the majority, and he was cleared of any thing worthy of cen- sure. It was very evident, at that meeting of the Assembly, that all the New School men sympathized with Mr. Barnes' views of doctrine. Almost all the speakers in his favor, so testified. One man said, " If you condemn Mr. Barnes, you condemn one-half of the Presbyterian Church." Another said, " I agree with Mr. Barnes, both in sentiment and language." A third said, that the only point in which Mr. Barnes was blameable, was that he was "too orthodox;" that is, he adhered too closely to the Confession of Faith. Dr. Skinner said: " This DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 207 •^s not a trial of Mr. Barnes as an individual. It is virtually the trial of a thousand ministers of the gospel, and of a large number of the members of this body. #■>•#*'./ am virtually identified with Mr. Barnes, and so are, perhaps, a majwity of this House." [I quote from his speech, as published in the New-York Observer.'] Dr. Peters said in sub- stance, that the question should not be, whether Mr. Barnes should be tolerated in the Presbyte- rian Church ; but, whether the prosecutor in the case, (Dr. Junkin,) who had accused Mr. Barnes of heresy, should be tolerated. I might quote many other facts and sentiments* but this is sufficient, to show the wide extent to which the most dangerous errors were held and sustained in our church. And, from this view, you will not be surprised that the friends of truth were alarmed, and felt there was need of some decisive measures to purify the church. Con. — But^ was it a fair construction to put upon the action of those who refused to condemn Mr. Barnes, that they held his errors? Min. — No farther than they skd -expressed them- selves. Even among Old School men, different opinions obtained of what should be done in the case. Some wished to have him deposed from the ministry entirely,, so far as it respected our church. Others thought he should be suspended for a time; and, others again, that he should be censured for his errors, and admonished to review his book, and purge it of its erroneous sentiments. The Old School part of the church, would have been satis- fied with either course. But, the Assembly refused So do either. And, after they had restored him to ■:be full exercise of all the functions of the ministry 2Q6 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. in our church, a resolution was offered by Dr. Mil- ler, declaring, that as Mr. Barnes' book contained " opinions materially at variance with the Confes- sion of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, the Assembly would solemnly admonish him to review and modify his work," &c; which resolution the Assembly refused to adopt, by a majority of thir- teen, every New School man voting against it, thus virtually giving their sanction to sentiments, which not only directly contravened the Confession of Faith, but held it up to ridicule; and, saying as plainly as they could say it, that it was no error for a man to say, and publish, in a book designed for youth, that there was " no conceivable sense" in w T hich the righteousness of Christ can become ours, It is vain, therefore, for New School men to plead that they are not responsible for these, and other kindred errors. They are chargeable upon the whole body, so long as there is no effort to- check them. Mr. Barnes still continues to publish to the w r orld his dangerous errors, and his works are recommended by all the Now School publica- tions. Mr. Gilbert can teach that there is no such thing as regeneration y distinct from conviction and sanctification, and, that "in itself it is of no import- ance at all;" and yet he is oae of the permanent officers of their General Assembly, and President of a College recommended to the confidence of all, by a New School Synod. Dr. Beeman, in undermining the atonement, jneets with not one word of oppo- sition or reproof. And, Dr. Beech er, who teaches that man in his natural state possesses full and per- fect ability to keep all the commandments of God,, with other kindred doctrines, is their teacher of theology for all the West; and strenuous efforts are* DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 209 made by ail to sustain him, and the Institution over which he presides. It is not surprising, then, that these, with other kindred doctrines, were publicly taught, and authoritatively sustained, they should cause great difficulty in the church. The friends of truth became fearful that there was a deep laid scheme to infuse the leaven of semi-Pelagian- ism through our whole church. Our New School brethren were entreated to refrain from their inno- vations, but they treated all our fears and com- plaints as the result of bigotry and prejudice. And, while thus attempting to overturn our system of doctrines, which we love dearer than our life, they were very loud in their cries of "peace, peace" And, when they saw the difficulty in which the whole church was involved by their course, they endeavored to cast all the odium of strife and con- tention upon us, simply because we would not submit quietly to have the system of gospel truth overturned, which we had vowed to support. Con. — I see some of the errors you mention, are very dangerous, especially, a denial of the doctrine of imputation; but, how is it, that these doctrines you mention, overturn, as you say, the whole system of the doctrines of grace? Min. — It is plain, for instance, if man has perfect ability to obey all the commandments of God, he needs nothing more; and the idea of asking God for a new heart, is preposterous: for man either does not need it, or has power to make it himself. The idea of regeneration by grace, is altogether irreconcilable with such a sentiment. Consequently, the new doctrine will produce differ- ent practice, so far as it is believed, and will lead sinners away from God to themselves. If I believed 210 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. the doctrine of perfect ability, I would, instead of instructing my hearers to pray for regeneration, or sanctifying grace, exhort them just to do what they could in themselves, and tell them no more would be required. Prayer for the Spirit of God, to con- vert and sanctify, would be presumption; but, more especially, if to the doctrine of man's perfect abil- ity to convert himself, w r e add that of the inability of God, which so many teach. Man is, then, made independent, and the mouth of prayer is closed. You can easily see, how entirely these sentiments differ from that system, which teaches the sinner that he is entirely dependent on the grace of God: that, in himself, he is a ruined, depraved, graceless, and helpless rebel; that his only hope is in free, sovereign, unmerited grace; and, that for this, he must look in humble prayer, to an offended God. But, again: If there be "no conceivable sense" in which the righteousness of Christ can become ours, we must be saved in some other way than through that righteousness. Here, too, the sinner is thrown back upon himself. His own works and exercises, must be the ground of his dependence, and where, then, is salvation by grace? It is a mere empty sound. All our gratitude to God, and joy in dependence upon the glorious righteousness of Christ, are mere fanatical delusions. Faith, then, is not "receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation," as our Catechism defines it. It is a belief that we shall be saved in some other way. Thus, you perceive, that the New Divinity, as it is termed, is not the Calvinistic system, with some points of difference merely. It is, in fact, " another gospel." And, just so far as it is established, the doctrines of grace, as taught in our excellent standards, are DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 211 overthrown. I have mentioned but a few points in which the New Divinity contravenes the Confession of Faith, and, as we believe, the Bible; but, what 1 have said will be sufficient to show you, that we were not scared at trifles, in supposing that the fun- damental principles of our system were assailed. Con. — I am not surprised that such things should occasion difficulty; but, you intimated, that there were other grounds of difficulty besides a differ- ence in doctrine, and, I would be glad to have a view of the whole. Min. — The other points of difference, we will examine at some future time, as our conversation has been sufficiently protracted, for the present. DIALOGUE III. DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. Convert. — In one of our former conversations^ you mentioned that the difficulties which agitated the Presbyterian Church previous to 1837, related to measures as well as doctrine. Did you mean what are commonly termed "New Measures;" or the manner in which many endeavored to produce and promote what were called revivals of religion, by the use of "revival preachers, anxious seats, public confession?" &c. Minister. — Those measures did not belong exclu- sively to the New School part of the church. Many united in them who were Old School in every thing 212 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. else, and on the other hand, some New School men opposed them. And though they were more gen- erally favored by those who either held, or connived at errors in doctrine; and though in the use of them, many ran into wild extravagances; yet, they did not constitute the main, or most prominent point of difficulty. That which caused the greatest difficul- ty, was a difference of opinion, and practice, as to the manner in which the church should carry on her benevolent operations. You are aware that our church has now her several departments in her work of benevolence, under the management and supervision of men of her own appointing, who are responsible to her for the manner in which her work is conducted. Our Boards of Foreign Missions, Domestic Missions, ^Education, &c, are organs of the church for carrying forward the great work of evangelizing the world. They are under her immediate control and supervision, and are bound to report every year to the General Assem- bly what they have done, the manner in which they have discharged their important trusts, and how they have disbursed the benevolent contribu- tions of the church, entrusted to their care. This mode of operation was violently opposed by the New School part of the church, and so long as they remained in our connection, they labored strenuously to prevent the church from entering upon the great work of evangelizing the world in her distinctive capacity; but wished her to unite with other evangelical denominations, under Boards of benevolence that had no distinctive character;, and were responsible to no church, or organization* but themselves, and were hence called " voluntary associations," or societies. DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 113 Con. — But, would it not be better for all evan- gelical denominations to unite in the great work of benevolence? The command of the Savior is to the whole church militant, to carry the gospel to all the world, and if they could unite their efforts, it would add greatly to the strength of the cause, and recommend it in the eyes of the world. Min. — So far as christians are united in senti- ment, they can unite in effort. There are depart- ments in the great work of benevolence which occupy common ground, in which Presbyterians are not only willing, but anxious to unite with all other denominations. Such is the work of giving; the Bible to the world, without any human addi- tions, in either note or comment. The American Bible Society is a voluntary association, organized for this special purpose, and Presbyterians have always been among its warmest friends, and most liberal and active supporters. To a certain extent also, the American Tract Society occupies common ground, upon which all evangelical christians can unite, and in the great and good work which it has done, and is still doing, Presbyterians have been among its foremost and most active friends. And though it cannot do all that we wish to be done in the circulation of evangelical truth, by means of tracts and books, as it cannot disseminate any of our distinctive doctrines; yet, had other denomina- tions remained contented with it, as an organ through which to operate in this department of oenevolence, Presbyterians would have remained satisfied without any distinctive organization. But, as ^Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, &c, organ- ized their own Tract Societies, for the dissemination of their own peculiar views, by some of which k Jl4 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. Presbyterianism was assailed, and grossly misrep- resented, we were compelled to have an organiza- tion of our own, in self-defence. Bat, though we have our Board of Publication, it is not intended that it should take the place of the American Tract Society, as an organ through which we should ope- rate exclusively in disseminating evangelical truth, by means of the press. It is only intended to fill a place in this department of benevolence, which the other cannot, and which w r e, as Presbyterians, felt bound to occupy. As it respects other departments of benevolence, however, the case is different. No voluntary association, that is general in its charac- ter, can do the work which the church is bound to do. For instance, the training of our young men for the gospel ministry is a work in which we can- not unite with other denominations, without giving up some of its most important parts. Our church is in great need of ministers, and she has entered upon the work of aiding forward her poor and pious young men, and of training them for their important work. It is not only consistent with charity for all others who differ from us, to expend all our efforts in educating and training Presbyte- rian ministers, but it is our duty to do all we can to have them such, because we believe, that as Presby- terians, they can be instrumental in accomplishing a greater amount of good. It is our duty to have them thoroughly instructed in all the doctrines of grace, in order that they may be able not only to preach them fully, but also to defend them it assailed. Without this, we cannot lift a standard against the flood of error which threatens to deluge the church, and the world. It is preposterous to ask us to unite with other denominations in this DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 21& work, or to throw our contributions into a voluntary association, whose very constitution forbids them to give any young man a Presbyterian education. The same is true respecting Domestic Missions. We have hundreds of feeble churches, who are unable to support a pastor, and without the stated means of grace they cannot be expected to grow 9 . but must decline and become extinct. The whole church. has entered upon the work of assisting those feeble churches to sustain a pastor until they become able to do it themselves. We throw our contributions into a general fund, the judicious disbursement of which, and the oversight of the whole work, are entrusted to our Board of Domes- tic Missions. Now. it seems to me, that the utmost stretch of charity cannot ask us to unite with other denominations in this work, which is of vital import- ance to the growth, and even to the existence of our church. When a man is sent to build up our waste places, w£ wish him to be a Presbyterian, and one who will administer Presbyterianism in all its parts. I have, in former conversations, endeav- ored to show you, that Presbyterianism, as a spirit- ual republicanism, is> of all other systems of church government, the most congenial to the principles of our civil government. Consequently we may hope,. that in proportion as Presbyterianism is widely inculcated, and established throughout our country,, our Republican institutions will be permanent. Hence, we are bound, not only as Presbyterians, but as Patriots, to do all we can for the wide dis- semination of our system of truth and order. And those who attempted to hinder us in this good work, we viewed as oppsing our best interests, both as Presbyterians and Republicans. ^16 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. Co?i. — It not only seems reasonable, that the ehurch should be actively and zealously engaged in such a work, but also, that she could not neglect it without a gross dereliction of duty. But, did the New School part of the church oppose it? Min. — There was, perhaps, no one of our church organizations that met with more bitter opposition from them, than our Board of Domestic Missions. Almost from its first organization they set them- selves against it, and so long as they continued in our connection, labored strenuously to break it down. They wished us to carry on our Domes- tic Missionary work through the American Home Missionary Society, a voluntary and irresponsible institution, which has no distinctive character, and whose influence and operations, so far as they extended in our church, were, in the main, rather detrimental to the interests of true Presbyterian- ism. They wished us also, to carry on the work of training our young men for the ministry, through the American Education Society, a kindred institu- tion, and based upon the same general principles. With this institution to furnish the men, and the Home Missionary Society to send them as mission- aries to our vacant churches, they succeeded in diffusing the leaven of error in doctrine, and lax- ness in order, through a considerable portion of our church, and thus made the New School defection much more extensive than it would otherwise have oeen. Men were sent out to occupy vacant Pres- byterian churches, who had not only never adopted the Confession of Faith, but had never seen it, and did not know even how to moderate a church Ses- sion. Under the influence of such men, it is not surprising that the true principles of Presbyterian- DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 217 . sni were lost sight of, our catechism neglected, and our excellent Standards brought into disrepute. And, had they succeeded in their efforts to break down our Boards of Education, and Missions, and consequently, to compel the church to operate through their irresponsible institutions, the Presby- terian Church would also, soon have been broken down, and truth would then indeed have "fallen in the streets." I would not, however, be understood as saying, that such was the kind of men educated and sent out by these voluntary societies, in all instances. A few were good Presbyterians, and more became such, when they were brought to study our system of doctrine and order. But, Agnorance of our doctrines, or hostility to them, was too generally characteristic of the men thus nshered into the Presbyterian Church. Con, — What were the means and efforts used by the New School men to break down the Boards of the church? Min. — Their opposition to the Board of Educa- tion was not so open and direct, as against the Board of Missions. They, however, uniformly set themselves against it; and, so far as their influence •extended, prevented churches from contributing to its funds, and young men from coming under its -care. Our Board of Missions was in successful operation before the Home Missionary Society was organized, which was in May, 1826. That it was .organized in opposition to our Board, did not at first appear, and some of our prominent Old School men expressed themselves in favor of it, thinking that it would do good, without conflicting with our Board. It soon became evident, however, that they wished to have the whole field to themselves. In 15 218 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES 152S, an overture was presented to the General Assembly, for some important modifications in our Board, to give it more efficiency, and to enable it to prosecute its work with more vigor. This was violently opposed by the J\ T ew School men; and r strange as it may appear,, a committee was sent by the Home Missionary Society itself, who were admitted to speak on the floor of the General As- sembly, in opposition to the proposed modifications of our Board, though they were not members of the Assembly. Through their influence the over- ture was rejected; and it is said, that when the vote was announced, by which it was lost, Dr. Beecher^ who was present, said exultingly, that it was "the last kick of Presbyterianism" From this, and many other subsequent developements, it became very evident, that this Society, with its kindred insti- tutions,, were used as powerful engines, to change the character of our whole church; and as they still continued their hostility to the Boards of the church, it is not surprising that great difficulty was the result. Their opposition,, however, aroused the friends of our Board, and afterwards the General Assembly modified it in the manner desired: and the new Board, thus modified, went into vigorous* action. One of their first acts, was to send a cour- teous letter to Dr. Peters, Secretary of the Home Missionary Society, expressive of their wish for peace and harmony between the tv\o Boards, and their hope, that each could pursue their work with- out interference with the other. Dr. Peters replied in a manner that, to say the least, was not very courteous or modest, assuming that the two Boardsr could not exist without conflict, and that the proper course was for our Board to become auxiliary to* DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 219 theirs! This Avill no doubt surprise you, but it is veritable history. Efforts to have our Board merged in theirs were still continued. The subject was brought before the Assembly in 1829 or 1830, but they did not succeed. Finally it was agreed upon, that as the Domestic Missionary work lay principally in the West, the matter should be left to the western Presbyteries, and each party pledged themselves to abide the decision of a convention, called to meet in Cincinnati. This body met in November, 1831, and decided, by a vote of 76 to 15, to adhere to the General Assembly's Board, preferring to have their missionary work performed through it. But, the Home Missionary Society paid no attention to this decision, and went on as before, sending its agents and missionaries, into the same region from which they had been excluded by the vote of the convention. They had this advantage, that while they themselves were irre- sponsible, and perfectly independent of the General Assembly, and every other church court, they always had a voice in the Assembly, to which our Board was responsible. And, after managing their business in their own way, they came into the As- sembly, and endeavored to throw obstructions in the way of our Board. Finally, in the ever mem- orable Assembly of 1836, they made a bold stroke to put it down, by attempting to elect members of the Board who were hostile to it, and friends of the Home Missionary Society. Strange as this may appear to you, it was actually done. Men were actually nominated to fill vacancies in the Board of Missions, who were its deadliest enemies; and, as they had a majority in the Assembly of that year, they expected to succeed in electing them. •220 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. But, a few of their own men, it was supposed, refused to go with them, in a measure so palpably unjust, and friends of the Board were elected by a small majority. Such measures, coming in imme- diate connection with the case of Mr. Barnes, excited alarm for the welfare and purity of the church; and it is not surprising that they should. Con. — Such things were calculated to create difficulty. But, while it seems to me reasonable and proper, that the church should have been left to carry on her own Domestic Mission w r ork, in her distinctive capacity, untrammelled by any foreign influence, I do not see the same reason for acting alone in the work of Foreign Missions. Might she not consistently unite w r ith other denominations, in the work of sending the gospel to the heathen 1 Mi?i. — There is no department of benevolence over w r hich the church should exercise so strict and w r atchful an oversight, as that of Foreign Missions. The men whom we send, should be not only thor- oughly educated, but should be men of the most ardent and devoted piety. They should also be fully instructed in all the doctrines of grace. What success could w r e expect from the preaching and instruction of a missionary, who would tell the poor, ignorant, and besotted heathen, that they had in themselves all the ability necessary to fulfil the requirements of God? or, that they must not expect salvation through the imputed righteousness of Christ? The heathen might justly reply, that such a system of religion was only a little refine- ment of their own. Yet, such was the kind of instruction that we, as Presbyterians, too often sent to the heathen, while we carried on our missionary work through the American Board of DIFFERENCE IV MEASURES. 221 Commissioners for Foreign Missions. This is an institution similar in character to the American Education, and Home Misssionary Societies. It is in no way responsible to us as a church, nor can we exercise any control over it, or direct the Board in any way, as to the kind of men they should send out. It is an institution that has sent out many excellent men, who have been the means of accom- plishing a vast amount of good in heathen lands. And of the three voluntary Boards of benevolence, through which our New School brethren wished us to act exclusively, this was the least exception- able. But still, as we knew they were not partic- ular as to the doctrinal views of their missionaries, and as we felt it to be a matter of vast importance, that those whom we sent to preach the gospel to the heathen, should be men in whom the whole church could have confidence, as preachers of the same blessed doctrines of the cross, in which we were united, we desired to take the oversight of our own missionary work. But, above all, we felt that the command of our blessed Master to "preach the gospel to every creature," was binding upon us, as a church. As a church, Ave were not engaged in it, and feeling the responsibility under which we acted, we were anxious that the banner of the cross should be unfurled in heathen lands by the Presbyterian Church, as such, believing that in this way we Pcould accomplish a greater amount of good. The first step toward a distinct organiza- tion, was in the formation of the Western Foreign Missionary Society, by the Synod of Pittsburgh, which met with the approval and co-operation of the Old School part of the church generally. But, as it was a synodical organization, it was felt that wl 222 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. needed one that would more properly belong to the whole church. In the General Assembly of 1S35, the subject was taken up, and a proposition made to the Synod of Pittsburgh, for the transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary Society to the Gen- eral Assembly, in order that it might become the General Assembly's Board of Foreign Missions. The Synod, at its next meeting, agreed to the transfer, and a contract was entered into, with the Assembly's committee, accordingly. But, the As- sembly of 1S36, to cap the climax of its high- nanded proceedings, refused to ratify the contract, and denied the church the privilege of serving her Master in the manner in which she felt bound, in conscience, to do. Con. — It was certainly cause of regret, that the New School men, when they had the privilege of operating through a Board of their own choice, had not charity enough to allow the same to their Old School brethren, if they asked no more. And I suppose the establishment of a Board of the Gen- eral Assembly, was not intended to render it oblig- atory on any part of the church to operate through it, unless they so desired. Min. — It was only intended to be the organ of that part of the church which preferred it. Those who preferred the American Board, were left free to act as they pleased. And w r hen they denied us the same privilege, we felt deeply grieved. Some were indignant at such intolerance, manifested in those who were the loudest in their cries of charity and liberality ; but the most part were bowed in sorrow, and bitterness of spirit. There were other things, which increased the difficulty; but we felt particularly grieved with the action of the Assembly DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 22o n the case of Mr. Barnes, and of our Board of Foreign Missions. Had the Assembly condemned the doctrines of Mr. Barnes' Book, and ratified the contract with the Synod of Pittsburgh, for the transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary Soci- ety to the General Assembly, we would have been satisfied, and the action of the Assembly of 1837, for the purification of the church, would not have been thought necessary. But, in view of the action of the Assembly of 1836, it is not surpris- ing, that every lover of truth, and order, in the church, was alarmed, and felt that something decisive must be done. I have now given you a hasty view of some of the most prominent sources of difficulty, which led to a separation between the two parties in our church. I have purposely confined myself to facts, and from these facts you must draw your own conclusions. I freely admit, that the Old School men were, in some things, to blame. Many things were said, and written, on both sides, that were cal- culated to increase the difficulty. When men become excited, it is difficult to preserve, in all things, a christian forbearance. The occurrences of 1837, will next claim our notice, which we will consider at some future time. 224 doings of 1S37. DIALOGUE IV, DOINGS OF 1837. Minister. — We are now to take a view of the occurrences that followed the action of the General Assembly of 1836, and the subsequent action of that of 1837, of which you have no doubt heard much said, as it has been a very fruitful theme of declamation for those who wished to cast odium upon us, and upon all measures which were taken for the purification of the church. Convert. — I suppose you allude to what are called the "excinding acts" of the Assembly of 1837. I have heard them very bitterly denounced, as tyran- nical and uncalled for, and from what I have learned* I was led to believe that they were, at least, very severe measures. Min. — It is perhaps not saying too much, to say that they were severe. Many things are severe, which are not only wise and judicious, but necessary. The amputation of a diseased limb, is a severe measure, but may be necessary and proper, It is a very easy matter for any one to find fault, and say that such a measure was unnecessary, that life might have been preserved without it, that there were other ways of curing the diseased mem- ber, &c, and raise a cry of cruelty, &c, against the operation ; but to prescribe how the cure might have been effected, is not so easy. The cry of in- tolerance, tyranny, persecution worse than popish. &e. s I know has been raised against the General DOINGS OF 1837. 225 Assembly. But, such things, to say the least, speak not well for those who have originated and united in such denunciation. Even the name by which they designate the acts of the Assembly, is a mis- representation. They were not "excinding acts,'* either in fact, or intention. They simply declared a fact, which the General Assembly believed to be true, and which they felt called upon to declare at the time. Con. — But, were not hundreds of ministers, and thousands of church members, thrown out of the church, and condemned without a trial? Min. — There was not a single minister, or church member condemned, or thrown out of the church, in the sense in which that expression is designed to be understood. It was judged by the Assembly, that some Synods had been connected with us m name, which were not so constitutionally, either in form, or in fact, and they passed an act declarative of the simple fact, that they were not legally in our connection, — and at the same time requiring them to take the necessary steps to become legally attached to us, if they desired our connection. But, the organization of the Synods and Presby- teries wm not disturbed, nor the standing of a single minister, or church member. Con. — How did they become connected with the church in name, and not in fact? Min. — They became connected with us through the operation of "Plans of Union," as they were termed, between the General Assembly and Con- gregational bodies. In the early settlement of Western New- York, and the Western Reserve in Ohio, Presbyterians and Congregationalists having settled promiscuously in the same neighborhoods, 226 doings of 1S37, it was thought best to have some plan upon which they could unite in the support of pastors, Accordingly, in 1801, a plan was devised by the General Assembly, and proposed to the General Association of Connecticut, which body approved of it, and the churches in the new settlements con- sequently acted upon it. By this plan, a Congrega- tional minister might be a pastor of a Presbyterian church, and a Presbyterian minister pastor of a Congregational church, and churches of a mixed character might be ruled by a Committee, instead of a Session, You perceive that this was giving up several important points of Presbyterianism. You will see the plan given at length on page 297 of the Assembly's Digest, if you wish to examine it for yourself. It allows of the organization oi' churches without elders, which is contrary to our Constitution. It also allowed a Congregational minister to moderate a Presbyterian church Ses- sion, and administer Presbyterian discipline, which he himself did not acknowledge, or believe to be right. It admitted Congregationalists to sit as members in Presbytery, and have an equal voice with Presbyterians, though they had never been ordained to any office in the church, had never adopted our Confession of Faith, and in fact did not believe it. And, though the plan did not allow them to sit in any court higher than the Presby- tery, yet, a strange license was taken from that permission, and they were found both in the Synod and General Assembly, administering and making iaws for Presbyterians, which they themselves did not acknowledge. But, I need not particularize farther. The plan violated our Constitution in almost every one of its provisions, and was so con- doings of 1837. 227 strued as to allow of other violations* which it did not contemplate. As to the question whether the General Assembly had the power of making such regulations, I need not speak. If it had the power to make them, it had also the power to repeal them ; and if it had not the power to make them, they were, of course, null from the beginning. Vast numbers of churches became connected with us through the operation of this plan, who were not Presbyterian. They were called Pres- byterians, it is true, and were enrolled as in our connection, but were Congregationalists in church government, and every thing else. And though they appeared in our church courts, and had a voice in governing us, they themselves did not acknowl- edge our authority in any thing, and did not feel bound by a single law of the Presbyterian Church. Con, — It seems very strange that such things would be permitted on the one hand, or practised on the other. They were certainly calculated to lead to difficulty. Min. — Such things could never have obtained a place except in the most liberal of all churches. It is not wonderful, that when difficulty arose, as the consequence of such things, that the church endeav- ored to remedy the evil by abrogating the "Plan of Union." It is only surprising that it was not done long before. Con, — But, was it not a kind of contract between Presbyterians and Congregationalists, that required the consent of both parties, before it could be justly annulled? Min. — It could not be, under the circumstances, because there was no party with whom the General Assembly could make a contract in the case. The Ml DOINGS OF 1837. General Association of Connecticut, to whom the plan was proposed for their approval, could not make a contract for the churches in New York and Ohio, because they had no authority over these churches whatever. They have no authority even over the churches of Connecticut, for it is one feature of Congregationalism, that everv church is independent, and acknowledges no higher author- ity than its own. All the Association could do in the case, w r as simply to express their opinion, that, under the circumstances, the plan was a good one. They could have nothing to do with it authoritatively. It was, then, simply a plan of the Assembly, respecting those new churches, which, though entered into w r ith the best inten- tions, yet, when it w r as found to operate injuriously on the peace and purity of the church, the Assem- bly felt it to be their duty to annul it in self-defence. Con. — In what way particularly, did it operate injuriously? Min. — It was found that those churches which had come into our connection through this plan, almost universally, favored the errors in doctrine and order, which had crept into the church, and against w^hich the friends of truth and order, felt called upon to contend. The men who came from those churches to the General Assembly, during the time of our difficulties, almost to a man voted against us, thus endeavoring to govern Presbvte- rians in their own way, through the General As- sembly, the authority of which they themselves did not acknowledge. They wished to govern us, w^hile they were independent of any authority. It seemed indeed, in some instances, that those Congregational churches, that acknowledged no doings of 1837. 229 authority, were more largely represented in the General Assembly than Presbyterian churches, and consequently, had more power in the management of our concerns. The Synod of the Western Re- serve, for instance, in which, out of one hundred and fifty churches, only twenty-Jive or thirty are Presbyterian, sent, in 1837, twenty men to the General Assembly. If we deduct one-fifth of this number for the Presbyterian churches, we have left, sixteen men to represent one hundred and twenty Congregational churches, while the Synod of Ohio, which had near one hundred and fifty churches, all Presbyterian, only sent twelve; and the Synod of Pittsburgh, w^hich had near two hundred and fifty churches, all Presbyterian, sent only eighteen. Thus, we found, that questions involving, deeply, ;he welfare of the church, were decided by those who were not under her authority, and whose de- cisions, we thought, were uniformly in opposition to her best interests. It is not then surprising, that in the important crisis into which the church was brought, the General Assembly of 1837, decided that this state of things should not continue. Con. — But how could churches be represented in the General Assembly, when the delegates to that oody are sent by the Presbyteries! Mini — The churches all had their representatives in Presbytery, to choose the men who should repre- sent them. The delegates to the General Assembly represent the churches in the Presbytery, as well as the ministers. Con. — Were the other three Synods, that the Assembly decided were not constitutionally con- nected with the church, as largely Congrega- tional as that of the Western Reserve? And did % J30 DOINGS OF 1S37. they come in under the operation of the same plan? Mia. — Most of them. I believe, came in under the operation of the same plan, though some did not. The Synod of Geneva, came in under another plan, adopted in 1S0S. This, however, was rather a provision of the Assembly, for a certain case. And from the action in the case, you can judge of the Presbyterianism of the Synod of Geneva, which. I believe, is allowed to be a fair specimen of the others. There was a body of Congregationalists in New York, called the "Northern Associate Presbytery," and another called the "Middle Association of the Western District," in which proposals were made for uniting with the Presbyterian Church. But, not liking the "Plan of Union" of 1S01, they proposed one of their own, which should leave them in pos- session of their own Congregational government as it was. The Synod of Albany, with whom they were to unite, sent the proposal to the General Assembly of 1S9S. The Assembly agreed to the plan, but did not record it on their minutes, and it is to be found only on the minutes of the Synod of Albany. I have, however, seen the minutes of the Synod of Albany quoted by a very distinguished jurist of Pennsylvania, in giving his opinion in this case. The plan, as quoted by him, provided that these bodies should "become a constituent branch of our body, by assuming the characteristic and scriptural name of Presbytery, and adopting our Standards and government." But. they refused to adopt our Standards, and the Synod received them notwithstanding. These bodies, with another, were afterwards organized into the Synod of Geneva. How much Presbvterianism there is, in bodies who DOINGS OF 1837. 2:1: are Congregational in government, and refuse to adopt our Standards, you can judge. And seeing that they had come in, in direct violation of the provision of the Assembly, in the case, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that they were not legally in our connection, and the act of the Assembly of 1 837, simply declared that fact. Con, — But, as there were Presbyterians in those bodies, would it not have been better for the General Assembly to have adopted some plan to separate the Congregationalists, and retain the others? Min .-Such an arrangement would have been desirable, if it could have been accomplished. The course the Assembly took, was supposed to be the last resort. They were led to believe that it was the only course they could take, that would remedy the evil complained of, and save the church. In our last conversation, I gave you a view of the deeply aggrieved state of feeling that prevailed throughout the church, after the doings of the Assembly of 1836. Alarm for the safety of the church, was felt bv every lover of truth and order. A committee was appointed, consisting of men m different parts of the church, to correspond with each other, and with whomsoever they might think desirable and expedient, and to devise and recom- mend what they thought best to be done, from all the information they could collect. This committee recommended that a convention should meet in Philadelphia, previous to the meeting of the Assem- bly of 1837, composed of delegates from all the Presbyteries, and minorities of Presbyteries, who felt aggrieved by the action of the Assembly o1 1836. This convention met accordingly, but still, were at a loss what to do, from the fact, that they S32 DOINGS OF 1837. could not tell what would be the character of the Assembly. I have been told by those who attended that convention, that it was the most deeply solemn of any meeting of the kind they had ever witnessed. Every one seemed to feel the solemn importance of the duties they were called upon to perform, and the bearing they would have upon the interests of the church, and the cause of Christ. Much prayer was mingled with their deliberations, and they seemed to cast themselves entirely upon the great Head of the church for direction. They drafted a memorial to the Assembly on several important points ; among which, was a strong and decided testimony against the errors which prevailed in different portions of the church. When the Assem- bly met, it was found that the friends of truth and order had the majority, and, consequently, they felt called upon, not only by the crisis to which the church had arrived, but also by the Providence of God, to enter into decisive measures for remedying the evils against w r hich we had struggled so many years. The first step was to abrogate the "Plan of Union" which had introduced such a strong foreign influence into the General Assembly. This point was carried by a majority of thirty. This, however, was a measure that, in itself, could only prevent the evil from increasing, but did nothing to remedy that which was already pressing us so heavily. A measure was then proposed and carried, to cite to the bar of the next Assembly, those inferior judica- tories in which error and disorder prevailed. This measure was carried by a majority of only six; from which it was apprehended that it would be attended with great difficulty, especially as the New DOINGS OF 1837. 233 School men distinctly intimated, that the manner in which the Assembly proposed to proceed, was not constitutional, and that the requirement, that the cited Synods should not vote in the Assembly until their case was decided, would be treated as a nullity. Con, — I have understood that the New School men desired this course, and anxiously pleaded for it, contending that they were accused wrongfully of error and disorder, and wished an opportunity of clearing themselves before the Assembly; but, that the Old School part of the Assembly would not hear their anxious requests for a trial, but cast them out of the church without a hearing, Min* — I know such things have been said, but ihey are altogether foreign from the fact. Every New School man voted against the measure; their leading men argued strenuously against it, and when the point was carried by the small majority of six, they protested against it, and plainly intima- ted that it would not be regarded. It was found, therefore, that this plan would cause another year, or more, of strife and contest; and it was plain, that something else must be done, or increased dif- ficulty would be the consequence. A proposal w r as then made, for an amicable separation between the parties, leaving it to every person in the church to choose which side he pleased; and a committee of five on each side was appointed to adjust the terms upon which they should separate. The com- mittee, however, could not agree, especially, on two points. The Old School wished to have it done immediately, that strife might be ended, but the New School wished to wait another year. The New School wished the General Assembly to be 16 234 doisgs of 1S37, entirely dissolved,, and two new Assemblies to be organised out of the elements, but to this the Old School would not agree, as thereby the Assembly would endanger, and, perhaps, loose all their funded property, which had been entrusted to their care for pious uses. This having failed, the Assembly were under the necessity of devising something, else, or of leaving the church still in the midst of difficulty. Then followed the measure of declar- ing, that as a consequence of the abrogation of the ''Plan of Union," the Synods of the Western Reserve., Geneva, Utica, and Genessee, having come into the church under the operation of that plan, were not an integral portion of our church, This declaration, you will perceive, did not dissolve those Synods. They were left to the enjoyment of all their rights and privileges that they ever- possessed, except that of ruling in the General As- sembly. Churches, and church courts, were left as thev were, only they were no longer churches, and church courts, in connection icith us, Con, — The measure was perhaps necessary, though it seems severe. It seems to me, that it would have been better for the Assembly to have carried out its first resolution, to cite those Synods to answer for irregularity. Mm. — If that could have been accomplished, 1 believe it would have been better, And, perhaps,. under all the circumstances, it would have been better for the Assembly to have carried it out. But, from the violent opposition that it met with, and the very small majority by which the resolu- tions were passed, they apprehended great difficulty as the result, and abandoned it. The other meas- ure, as you say, was severe. To declare a separate doings of 1837. 235 lion from brethren and churches, with whom thev had been associated for years, seemed harsh. But. it was plain that those brethren asked too much. We had no more authority over them, than over the churches of England ; yet, they wished to have a voice in the Assembly, in prescribing what we should do. Had they left us to manage our con- cerns in our own way, we would still have been glad to have extended to them the right hand of fellowship. But, when we fou-nd them arrayed against what we thought our dearest rights, and the best interests of our church, and seemingly desirous of casting under their feet every thing that was excellent and dear in Presbyterianism, w 7 e had to say to them, u Brethren, this must not be: w r e prefer to manage our business in our own way; and though we love you, we love our church better, and rather than part with our principles, which are her glory, we must part with you." Such was the action of the Assembly of 1837. of which you have heard so much. It was this act, which the Assembly deemed necessary for self-preservation, that has been stigmatized as worse than the worst doings of the Popish Inquisi- tion. Nay, the Assembly has been denounced as worse than Cain, and even worse than the crucifiers of the Son of God. Con. — The abrogation of the " Plan of Union," and the consequent dissolution of the connection of Congregationalists with the Presbyterian Church, 1 should think could not have been censured; but, I suppose, the fact that there were many Presbyte- rians in those Synods, made the action of the Assembly appear in a worse light. Miiu — That was a difficulty which the Assembly 236 DOINGS OF 1837. felt, and consequently, in immediate connection with the resolutions, by which the Assembly declared our connection with the Synods dissolved, they passed the following: Resolved, •'3. That the General Assembly has no intention, by these resolutions, to affect in any way, the min- isterial standing of any member of either of said Synods ; nor to disturb the pastoral relation in any church; nor to interfere with the duties or relations of private christians in their respective congrega- tions; but only to declare and determine according to the truth and necessity of the case, and by virtue of the full authority existing in it for that purpose, the relation of all said Synods, and all their con- stituent parts, to this body, and to the Presbyterian Church in the United States. "4. That inasmuch as there are reported to be several churches and ministers, if not one or two Presbyteries, now in connection with one or more of said Synods, which are strictly Presbyterian in doc- trine and order; be it, therefore, further resolved, that all such churches and ministers as wish to unite w r ith us, are hereby directed to apply for admission into those Presbyteries belonging to our connection, which are most convenient to their res- pective locations; and that any such Presbytery as aforesaid, being strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, and now in connection with either of said Synods, as may desire to unite with us, are hereby directed to make application, with a full statement of their cases, to the next General As- sembly, which will take proper order thereon." This was surely enough for any one who wished to be united with us in preference to Congregation- alists. And had all Presbyterians followed the THE DIVISION. 237 direction of the Assembly, the difficulty would have been healed, and the church left entire, without distraction or division. But, as this was not done, except in a few instances, the brethren in those Synods, who, called themselves Presbyterians, seem- ing to prefer their connection with Congregational- ists, and many in different parts of the church sympathizing with them, and uniting with them in denouncing and opposing the acts of the Assembly, the foundation was thus laid, for the division of the church which now exists. The division, it is true, had existed in fact, for years, but now it seemed as if it must be made in form, It was .consummated in 183S, the occurrences of which will occupy our attention at some future time. DIALOGUE V THE DIVISION. Convert. — I have heard it supposed, and indeed asserted, that one ground of the action of the Gen- eral Assembly of 1837, in dissolving connection with the four Synods, was opposition to Congre- gationalism; but, I did not understand you as intimating that such was the case. Minister. — It was not in opposition to Congre- gationalism in itself, but as it took the name of Presbyterianism, while it was so in nothing else- 23S THE DIVISION. It was Congregationalism coming into our church courts under another name, and endeavoring to rule Presbyterians, itself being independent of any authority. Had the "Plan of Union" never been entered into and acted upon, Congregationalists and Presbyterians would now have been much nearer together than they are. Con. — The imputation of harshness and tyranny, to which the doings of the Assembly would at first view afford some ground, arise, I am led to believe, more from the circumstances of the case, than the nature of the acts, There is a prejudice in the community generally, against any thing that seems to be in opposition to union among christians of different denominations. And in this case, a union having existed so long, the dissolution of it wears a harsh and exclusive aspect, to those who do not consider the circumstances under which it was done. Min. — Though much has been said and done to render the doings of the Assembly odious in the eyes of the community, which, I believe, has been effected to some extent, yet, when any one considers the subject calmly, he will see the rea- sonableness of the Assembly wishing to manage her own concerns. The controversy has been denounced as a "contest for power;" but those who speak of it in this manner, do not consider in what light they are placing themselves. Foi\ if it be true, it was a contest for power in the Presbyterian Church by those who were not under her authority, yet wished to rule her church courts. If an adopted child should attempt to interfere in the government of the family, telling the father that his family discipline was too strict, while he } THE DIVISION. 230 himself, claimed to be independent of it, he might occasion difficulty, and gain some members of the family over to his views. Bat, who could blame the father for telling him, that he wished to govern his family in his own way? and, that if he could remain and submit to his authority, he would be willing still to allow him the station of a child; but if he continued thus to interfere with his rightful authority, and thus cause difficulty and alienation in his family, he must leave 1 If, under such cir- cumstances, he should denounce the father as con- tending with him for power and authority in the family, in what light would it place himself/ Yet, this is a case precisely analagous to that in which the General Assembly stood. The contest for power was altogether on the side of those who had no right to claim it. Con. — But, as there were Presbyterians among those who wished the General Assembly, and the church, to conform to their views, they had a right to be heard ; and their rights in the church were not forfeited by the fact, that they thought and acted with Congregationalists. It is this fact, I think, that gives the harshest aspect to the acts of the Assembly. Min. — That those Presbyterians thought and acted with Congregationalists did not, it is true, in- validate their rights in the church, but, it was judged by the Assembly, that though they were Presbyte- rians, they were not legally in connection with us, and consequently, that until they took the neces- sary steps to become legally connected with us, they had no rights in the church. And though in aimes of peace the Assembly might, and would aave overlooked those informalities still, as they 240 THE DIVISION. had done for many years ; yet, when difficulties arose, the church had to look to its own safety, and act accordingly. Suppose Congress, when it made arrangements for annexing Louisiana to the United States, should have found the citizens almost entirely in favor of the government of France, and refusing absolutely to come under ours; yet, as it was of great import- ance that we should have that territory, Congress should permit them to remain citizens of the French government though called Americans, and in name connected with us. They would be entirely inde- pendent of our government, and in fact foreigners. Now, if under these circumstances Congress should permit them to elect and send men to sit and vote with them, and have an equal voice in transacting the concerns of the nation, it would seem a strange procedure. And though such a measure might be tolerated in the beginning, as not of sufficient magnitude to produce any serious consequences* yet, if it were permitted to grow, it might become intolerable. If the principle which at first regarded only Louisiana, was made to embrace Texas, St. Domingo, &c, we would have a num- ber of foreigners in Congress, that would create a difficulty. They might begin to tell us that our system of government was too purely republican, &c, and having gained some of our own citizens over to their views, they would occasion great difficulty, and create alarm for the safety of the government. Being permitted too, to have a voice in our courts of justice, if they should impede them in the administration of law, and screen offenders, it w r ould not be surprising if measures should be taken to dissolve this connection. Who, in the THE DIVISION. 241 name of common sense, would blame our Congress for telling them, we can submit to this misrule no longer? If you will come under our laws and abide by them, we will receive you as constituent parts of our government; but if not, we cannot have you any longer as foreigners in our courts and leg- islatures, making and administering laws for us, which you do not acknowledge. You never have been constitutionally connected with us, and are not, in fact, integral parts of our government. Now, suppose Congress, in the exercise of its authority in making this declaration, should be met with the plea, that there were many true citizens scattered throughout those territories, who wished to be under our government, and submit to its laws, what would they do in the case? Surely the most just and equitable course would be, to pass an act giving direction how all such persons might become constitutionally connected with us. And what man, or community of men, of common sense, would count it oppressive, to be required to take the necessary steps to secure their citizenship 7 How absurd it would be for those who called themselves good citizens to become offended, and uniting with the others, raise the cry of tyranny and oppression against Congress, declaring that. they were all condemned as criminals and beheaded 7 This strikes you, I perceive, as ludicrous, but such a course would be just as reasonable as the cry that is raised against the General Assembly, for "cut- ting off, excinding, condemning without trial," &c, when there was no excision or condemnation oi* any one, but simply a declaration of the fact, that those Synods were not legally in our connection. But, the illustration will serve us farther. Sup- 242 THE DIVISION. pose those who were declared to be no part of our government should refuse to submit to the decision of Congress, and should elect men as usual, who should come up to Congress the next year, demand- ing their seats; and when refused, should, with tumult and confusion, elect a Speaker of their own, and go to some other house, pretending to transact the business of our government — claiming to be the true Congress of the United States ! Such a proceeding would be precisely analagous to the action and character of the New School Assembly of 1838. Con. — Upon what did they especially base the legality of their claim to be the true Assembly of the Presbyterian Church? Min. — They declared the act of the Assembly of 1837 unconstitutional, and therefore null and void; and alleged that the General Assembly could not be legally organized, if any of the delegates lawfully entitled to seats should be refused. Indeed, they went so far as to say, that the Assembly, after passing the acts dissolving connection with the four Synods, w r as no longer a body possessing any authority, and none of its acts were binding. But, this they afterwards contradicted by their own actions, and found it best to acknowledge the legal- ity of the Assembly up until the time their own w r as organized. For, if, as they contended, the Assem- bly had destroyed itself by its acts, it had no power to call another; but they appeared before the next Assembly, acknowledging its legality, and claiming their seats; and when refused, they proceeded to make what they called a legal organization, in the midst of the proceedings of the Assembly. Con. — It must have been a scene of confusion THE DIVISION. 243 indeed. It would certainly have appeared better for them to have quietly organized in some separate place. Min. — That did not suit their views. They were desirous to organize in such a way that they could claim to be the true Assembly, in the eyes of the civil law. The General Assembly has a Board of Trustees, who are a corporate body, to whose care all its funded property is entrusted. Their charter requires that they must be elected by the General Assembly, organized according to the pro- visions of our Constitution. An organization made in a different place from that in which the Assem- bly was directed to meet, could have no claims to be the true Assembly. They committed themselves to the direction of legal counsel, and acted accord- ingly. It may seem strange to you, that they fol- lowed the advice and direction of civil jurists, as to what would be Presbyterianism ; but such was the fact. They had no thought of a separate organi- zation; at least such a measure was repudiated by their public journals, until a young lawyer of New York, published a pamphlet, giving his views of what would be necessary to secure a constitu- tional organization of the Assembly. This changed the whole aspect of their intentions, and deter- mined them to organize separately. But, as the author of the pamphlet had based his views upon mistaken notions of some of the most common principles of Presbyterianism, with which it could hardly be expected he could be thoroughly acquainted, in following his directions they were led astray from the very point they wished to gain. Con. — In what particular points did they fail 244 THE DIVISION. in making a constitutional organization of their Assembly/ Min. — In the first place, they took it as an indis- putable point, that as their lawyer had told them, the Assembly could not be constitutionally organ- ized if delegates from the four Synods were denied a seat. This w^as their starting point. For, if the organization of the Old School Assembly without those delegates w r as constitutional, then, no other could be. They were mistaken then, as to the first point; but even had they been correct in this, they mistook the second. If it were true that the As- sembly vitiated its organization by refusing those delegates a seat, that refusal must first take place. But they did not w T ait for this. Those delegates had handed their commissions to the Clerks, and asked to be enrolled. The Clerks had refused to do so, telling them they might present them to the Assem- bly. They presented them to the Assembly before it was fully organized, and a motion was made that they be enrolled, before the house was prepared to vote on any motion. The Moderator decided that the motion was out of order, at that time, as the house was not prepared to entertain it, the roll not being fully made out, or the house organized. The mover appealed from the decision of the Modera- tor to the house. But, he decided the appeal to be out of order, for there w r as yet no house to appeal to. This they took as the refusal upon which they were to build their new organization, and com- menced accordingly. But, I need not follow par- ticularly the several steps of this strange procedure, almost every one of which was an outrage upon order. You are, no doubt, familiar with it; and if not, you will find it at large in the report of the THE DIVISION, 245 law suit into which our New School brethren dragged us, to their own detriment. Con. — I have heard much of the law suit, but know little of its merits on either side, and thought it much to be regretted, that matters of controversy between the two parties, could not have been am- icably settled without an appeal to the civil law. Min. — It might have been done, had they taken that course. We have always been ready to give them every thing they can justly claim. In 1837, when the committee met to devise measures for an amicable separation, they agreed on what would be an equitable division of the funded prop- erty. Had the same terms been proposed in 1838 9 the Old School Assembly would have acceded to them. Even in 1839, after the law suit was decided in our favor, the Assembly passed resolutions expres- sive of their willingness to divide the funded property upon the same terms. Had our New School breth- ren made any proposition for an amicable adjustment of difficulties, it would have been done, and each par- ty would have had their own, and nothing more. But, when the young lawyer of New York told them, that by taking a certain course, they could not only get their own, but the whole, they determined to make the attempt. Thus, the New School part of the church, a large portion of whom were Congre- gationalists, and had never acknowledged her authority, and most of the rest having departed to a greater or less extent from her doctrine and order, now set themselves up as being the only true Presbyterian Church, claiming her name, charter, rights, theological seminaries, and all her funded property, as of right belonging to them, and to none others. They, too, being in the 246 THE DIVISION. minority, entered upon a course, in which, if the}" had proved successful, they would have deprived the majority, nine-tenths of whom were Presbyterians by birth and education, of all right and standing in their own church. Con.— In what way was this exclusive claim set up, and prosecuted with any prospect of success:' Min. — -They declared themselves to he the only true General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, and elected six Trustees, who claimed their seats in the Board. This was of course ad. They then entered suit against our Trus- tees. This suit, of course, involved the question of who had a right to elect according to our Constitu- tion. Had they been successful in being declarer by the court the true General Assembly, the nexi year they would have elected six more, and so on until they would have had the whole Board, and then every thing would have been in their hands. And though it was exceedingly painful for our Church, through her officers, thus to be dragge before the civil courts, it turned out greatly to our advantage, and their detriment. For, though in the lower court, through a strange perversion of law by the Judge, they obtained a verdict of the jury in their favor, it was carried to the Supreme Court, who decided the whole case, clearly and satisfacto- rily in our favor. It operated thus greatly to our advantage, as it gave us a decision of the bighesl court of Pennsylvania, procured through theirinsti i - mentality. It operated in the same way to disadvantage, so far as the influence of sv decision went. They would have succeeded better in laying their claims before the community at large. had no such decision been procured. They v THE DIVISION. 247 also have escaped the odium of dragging their brethren before a civil court. But, this was not the worst feature of the case. There were other suits entered, the prosecution of which, depended upon the success of tins one, which was intended to lead the way. Rev. Miles P. Squier, Henry Brown, and Rev. Philip C. Hay- severally sued Dr. Elliott, Dr. J. McDowell, Dr, Krebs, Dr. Plumer, and Dr. Breckinridge, for trespass, in voting to deprive them of their seats in the Assembly, and in other particulars. In these suits, the offence charged, was votes given in a church court. The only penalty a court could in- flict in the case, would be fine and imprisonment. These brethren, then, made application to the civil court, to have Dr. Elliott and others, fined and imprisoned, for acting and voting according to their conscience, in an ecclesiastical judicatory! This, to say the least, was an abandonment of some of the most important principles of religious liberty; for if the principle upon which these suits were founded, be correct, and a minister of the Gospel may be imprisoned, or fined, or both, for voting according to his conscience in a church court, then, all our church discipline is subject to the review of civil courts, and it would be for them to decide what should be the standard of morality, and orthodoxy in the christian church. Yet, this was done by those w r ho, at the same time, were denouncing the acts of the General Assembly, as worse than Popish persecution. How near they approached to perse- cution, in asking the civil authority to imprison their brethren, you can judge. Con. — But were these suits actually prosecuted? Mm. — They were actually entered for prosecution, *i4S THE DIVISION. and summons were actually served on these vener- able men, to appear and answer the charges. But 9 when the Supreme Court decided the case so fully on the first trial, these suits were not prosecuted any tarther. What would have been done if they had been successful in the first suit, we do not know* Charity, however, would lead us to hope, that they would have seen their error, and withdrawn the suits. Con. — It is to be regretted that such things should occur. It would have been much better on all hands, had they separated quietly, since separation was necessary, and endeavored to settle difficulties amicably. But, there is another point about which I am at some loss. When the General Assembly was divi- ded, why was it necessary that the whole church should divide ? Could not Synods, Presbyteries, and Congregations, have remained united still? Min. — The General Assembly is the bond of union to the whole church. Congregations act inde- pendently of each other, except as they meet by their delegates in Presbytery, w r hose acts bind all. Presbyteries act independently of each other, except as they meet in Synods; Synods, again, act inde- pendently of each other, except as they meet through the delegates from their Prebyteries in the General Assembly. This body being the depository and expounder of the Constitution, and highest in authority, is thus the bond of union. Like the keystone of a vast pyramidal arch, it binds and influences the whole. Then, if the General Assem- bly be divided, it necessarily runs to the bottom. Synods must acknowledge some General Assembly, or become independent. If there be two Assemblies, THE DIVISION. % 2i P J each claiming to be the true one, the question will come up, which shall we acknowledge? And if there be difference of opinion on the point, they must divide. So of Presbyteries and churches. The result is inevitable. And, our New School brethren should have looked well to the result, before they organized their New Assembly, know- ing as they did, the effect it must have on the church. There are many churches, it is true, on both sides, in which there are minorities, who would prefer a different connection; but who, for other reasons, do not wish to separate from their brethren. This is well, so far as it can be done without compromising any important principle. In most churches, however, the Old School members felt so aggrieved with the course of the other party, that they could not conscientiously acknowledge their jurisdiction in any way, or remain in their connection. And there were also many, who were, no doubt, as conscientious on the other side. Where this was the case, division was a necessary result. This necessity, however, arose from the division of the Assembly. Though difference of opinion prevailed, there were but few places where it was so great as to prevent union in churches, while they were all under the same church courts. But, when the General Assembly, and consequently the lower courts divided, to prevent division in churches was impossible. Con. — So far as your observation has extended, how does the division seem to affect the church, and the cause of religion in general? Min. — For a time, during the process of division, it was painful in the extreme, and the cause of reli- gion suffered, as well as Presbyterianism. Some 17 250 THE DIVISION. to avoid strife, sought the communion of other churches. Those cases, however, were few. More were prevented by the existing state of things, from entering our church, who otherwise would have united with us. But, since the churches have become settled, our ministers and members seem to have turned their efforts, more than ever, to build- ing up the kingdom of Christ. Our churches and church courts are united and harmonious, and a heavenly peace sheds its influence upon all our meetings. Within the last three years, our church has increased more in proportion to her numbers, than in any former period of her history, and is doing more for the cause of Christ in the world, than she has ever done. The same is true, no doubt, to some extent at least, of the Xew School body, though their increase has not been so great in proportion, as ours. From their published sta- tistics we find, that their increase for three years does not much exceed that of ours for the last year, And we can say with gratitude to our blessed Mas- ter, that he has u increased our greatness, and comforted us on every side/' And, I can say for myself, that the more I study the pure doctrines and excellent scriptural order of our church, and look at her history, and see what God has done for her, the more I love her. I cannot but view her as the brightest and most lovely part of the great sacramental host of God upon earth. Under her banner, while spending and being spent in the service of her Great Head, I can still cheerfully say; "For her my tra-s shall fall, For her my prayers ascend, To her my cares and toils be given. Till toils and cares shall end/ r THE DIVISION. 251 Con. — My first decided preference for your church, commenced with my change of views on the subject of religion, and I can cheerfully say, that the study of her doctrines and her govern- ment, has not lessened that feeling of ardent attach- ment, which I hope will not only remain and increase during life, but will be a source of enjoy- ment and delightful recollection forever in the church above, where all will be one. Min. — I have now given you, as well as I can, a hasty sketch of the doctrines of our church which are the most controverted, and also of the leading principles of her government, with a few facts of her recent history. The circumstances w^ould only permit a brief outline of the most important points of each. If I have relieved your mind of any difficulties under which you have labored, as to the reasonableness and scriptural warrant of her doctrines and government, and the constitutionality of her present standing, in com- parison w r ith others, my object is gained, and I am fully repaid for the occasional hours we have spent, amid the press of my numerous avocations. And if, upon examination, you find what I have said is in accordance with facts, reason, and Scripture, you can appreciate it accordingly. Con. — I have been very much interested, and I hope edified and instructed, and shall ever feel gratified for your kind attentions, by which I hope I shall be profited in after life. RECOMMEN D ATIONS. I can candidly recommend the work, entitled, " The Bible, Confession of Faith, and Common Sense," to the members of the Presbyterian Church, and those who love truth in doctrine and order, as worthy of careful perusal. This work is written in a plain and familiar manner; and while it gives correct views of truth and the arguments by which it is maintained against opposing error and corruption, its practical tendency is to promote vital piety. I hope it will obtain an extensive circulation, and be the means of doing much good. JAMES HOGE. Columbus, O., March 4, 1844. Messrs. Dunlap & Smith: Dear Brethren — Your proposal to publish "A Dialogue between a Presbyterian Minister and a Young Convert," in the form of a book, meets my entire approbation. From various causes, I have not read the numbers regularly. I have read enough of them, however, to satisfy me of the propriety of giving them to the public in a more permanent form than that in which they have heretofore been issued. My opinion of the ability with which they are written will appear, when I inform you, that before I knew who was their author, I had attributed them to one of the ablest and best known polemical writers in the Western Presbyterian Church. Forming my judgment of the whole, from the portions I have read, I can cheerfully recommend the work to the christian community, and especially to the members of the Presbyterian Church, as deserving of their liberal patronage. D. ELLIOTT. Allegheny City, Pa., Feb. 15th, 1844, Rev. and Dear Brethren — I am pleased to hear that you are about to publish, in a volume, the interesting and valuable Dialogues which have appeared in the "Presbyterian of the West." I think them well adapted to be useful, and hope they will have an exten- sive circulation. To those who desire to obtain correct views concerning the doctrines of the Bible, and other important matters connected with the subject of religion, and especially, the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of the Presl yterian Church, I recommend this proposed volume, as being worthy of a candid and careful perusal. I am, very respectfully, yours, New Albany, Ind. JAMES WOOD. Mf.s c iis. Dubxai cc ^xith: Rrdkn — Having read, in the '"Presbyterian of the West," m s: of the numbers of " A Dialogue be: ween a Presbyterian M a:iJ a Young Convert." entitled "The ifesaon of Faith, and Common Sense," I nave long felt desirous that the . and given to the public in a more manent and abiding form. It is with hi easure, there! a contemplate issuing an edition of the work in a small, neat volume. I deem it valuable no: only lor its clear sat doctrines of divine truth. -.:re(notre- the mass of readers) of the . .. these doctrines have been assailed by their enc in have chosen to discuss the leading: doe- and the principles of our Form of srnment, will not fail to interest the wre learned class :: : -. m lile it will secure the :i (hose less informed npoD these su': : f::s. Believing that it will tend to diffuse a more prehension of the truth as held by the Presbyterian should be heartily glad tc see the little book in every family in ou: I With, affectionate regard, Your brother in the £C ; ~ I. N. CANDEE. Springfield, 0.. March S. 1844, To the Editors or the Presbyterian or the West : Dear Breih ■-; \ — I am z.'xl to hear that the series of Dialogues :i..~ecn. a u Presbyterian Minister and a Young Convert." which has i valuable paper, is about to be published in : form, for more general circulation. I have read these Dialogues sst and umning -. . s .-faction, and regard them as an no " clear and able vindication of the dig Tines of the Presbyterian Church, and of its admirable system of eccle- siastical polity. ng which adds greatly to their value, in :.. satisfactory explanation they give of the difier- and of the causes which led to the separation bf and New School I terians. Such an explanation was reeded and will unq I Ko great good. I am free to say. I should rejoice to i copy of these D;aiogu-s in every family connected with my ., and to hear that tiiey are widely circulated m every community. Yours truly, PHINEAS D. GURLEY. I . huL Indianapolis, February 20, 1844. Brethren Dunlap and Smith — In reference to your proposed publication/ I am prepared to say, that I can most cordially recom- mend it to the attenotin of the public. The plainness and famil- iarity of the style recommends it to common readers, while its dialogue fo;m, awakens attention and maintains the interest. The design also, of reducing some of the difficult and most frequently controverted doctrines of theology to the test of common sense, is a pood one. I have for a length of time been of opinion, that the distinguishing features of the Calvinistic churches need only to be fairly proposed, and correctly understood, to obtain for them a favorable verdict in the judgment of the common mind. Every man is conscious of laying a plan — of designing before he begins the execution — and this common sense principle is all that the doctrine of the divine purpose attributes to God, as the intelligent creator and ruler of the Universe. Common sense, therefore, when it understands what is doing, cannot attribute less of intelligence to God, than it claims for itself. The articles also on the govern- ment of the church, I consider as tending to throw light on that subject. The peculiarities of the Presbyterian Church government, are ronly such as distinguish the principle of representation, as opposed on the one hand to monarchy, and on the other to anarchy. The analogy between it and the republican institutions in the ^tate, you have shown to the apprehension of the common mind- Desiring that your labor may be abundantly blessed, I remain, Yours in the gospel, H. HERVEY. Martinsburg, March 4th, 1844. Dear Brethren — I am pleased to learn that you intend to publish the Dia ogues in a separate volume, and I only express the opin- ion of all classes who have read them, and whom I have beard say any thing on the subject, when I say, that the work in such form, is calculated to be very useful; particularly in relation to the doctrine of Election, and others of the more abstruse doctiines of the Confession of Faith. I have seen nothing on the distinguish- ing peculiarities of our Church, better calculated to enlighten and convince common readers. The style is plain, and the illustrations are such as to present the evidence with an almost irresistible force. Some who have labored under great darkness and doubt, on the subject of divine decrees and election, have found much relief from reading the numbers as they appeared in the "Presbyterian of the West," and many will, no doubt, experience similar advantage, by having the work furnished them in the manner proposed. Many are desirous to see the book. I hope it will be published, and, what is more, that it will be extensively patronized and read. D. MONFORT. Franklin, Ind., Feb. 14, 1844. 1 have read with interest, attention and profit, in the "Presbyterian of the West," a series of numbers, entitled, "A Dialogue between a Presbyterian Minister and a Young Convert ;" and understanding I hat the Editors of that excellent paper (the Rev. Messrs. Dunlap and ^mith) intend to publish those numbers in a volume, for the benefit of the public, I, with great pleasure, do most sincerely rec- ommend this valuable work to all who love the great doctrines of ^race as revealed in the word of God, as a plain, clear, and prac- tical exhibition of truth, peculiarly adapted to the wants of those who are earnestly inquiring for the way of salvation. I am per- suaded, that no individual will read this volume with an honest and prayerful heart, without being instructed and comforted ; and "my heart's desire and prayer to God" is, that it may be extensively circulated and read. N. H. HALL, Pastor of the First Presbyterian churchy Lexington, Ky. Lexington, Ky., March 5th, 1844. A number of other testimonials have been received, from both ministers and laymen, as to the character and utility of the woik, but these are deemed sufficient. Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: May 2006 PreservationTechnologies