DOCUMENTS RELATIVE TO THE DISMISSION LORING D. DEWEY FROM THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINAMY IN NEW- YORK. 1816. Ex ICtbrtB SEYMOUR DURST When you leave, please leave this book Because it has been said " Ever'tbind comes t' bim who waits Except a loaned book." Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library ADVERTISEMENT. It is deemed necessary, to a fair understanding of the following docu- ments, to present to the public a brief statement of the facts which preceded my dismission from the Theological Seminary in New- York. The Discourse which procured this dismission, was prepared to fulfil, in my turn, my part of the ordinary duties that devolve on the members of a private Theological Society, composed solely of the students of the Se- minary, and instituted for the purpose of Theological investigation. The Society, believing my views erroneous, appointed two of their number a committee, to request the discourse for examination, and to make a report to the Society. It was given them, and being represented to contain many and dangerous errors, the Society di- rected their committee to lay the report before the Professors of the Seminary. The discourse being requested by the Professors, for their examination, was condemned as heretical and contradictory, in a conversation I had with them ; and a few days after the letter of dismis- sion was received ; which, as it contains the grounds of dismission, is published as one of the documents. To that letter a reply, explaining some of the reasons why I maintain the opinions I do, was made ; as at that time I had no contemplation of publishing the discourse. The reply, that the public may know all relating to my dismission, will also be found in the following pages. But as the dismission is necessarily public, and as it necessarily exposes me to obloquy, wherever it is khowa, especially while each is left to form his own conjectures, with no data to judge by, the natural conclusion being, that if a person is dismissed from any Se- minary, and certainly, if from a Theological Seminary, there must be some just cause, and one of course reproachful to the person dismissed ; it is thought just, both to the Seminary and to myself, to make the grounds of the dismission public also. The discourse, therefore, unaltered, unfit for publication, as a production usually would be, which is prepared for such an occasion as that on which it was delivered, is given to the public, that all who are inclined to judge, may have the means of forming a fair judgment, whether it be for or against the writer. Notes, byway of il- lustrating some points, barely hinted at, or but slightly discussed, are added, to exhibit more clearly the writer's views. A few words explana- tory, between brackets, have been added in the body of the discourse. 4 4 But in no instance has there been even a verbal alteration from the ori- ginal, excepting in one or two grammatical inaccuracies. To these already suggested, there have been furnished some induce- ments to publish, from the consideration that a Theological Seminary holds a high interest in the feelings of the religious public, and that it u fit that public should know what qualifications are requisite for a student who may wish to pass through a course of Theological study in this Se- minary. To this I may add, that the opinions of several most respectable gen- tlemen, have concurred to strengthen my own, in favor of publication. All which is respectfully submitted. L. D. DEWEY. New- York, 1816. DISCOURSE ROMANS III. 24. Being justified, These words, you perceive, are taken from St. Paul's exposition of the doctrine of justification. The use I in- tend to make of them is to place them as the basis of an investigation into the scriptural idea of this doctrine. As it is an exclamation long ago made, " How should man be just with God !" and as the apostle applies these words to man, sinful man, it is intended to show what he meant by them. That he meant literal justification, we do not suppose ; for Paul was no opposer of the doctrine of hu- man depravity. Man, being sinful, can never present himself before his God, and say, " I am clean ; there is no fault in me." This, we know, would be his li- teral justification ; but this, we also know, can never be his. Hence the inquiry, what does the apostle mean, when he uses the words, " being justified ?" This, with a few inferences, will constitute the subject matter of what I shall say at this time. The inquiry is, What is the meaning of the words, " be- ing justified ?" I shall first notice two uses of these words, in their ap- plication to the saved of God. One in reference to the state of a man as to his eternal welfare ; as we say of a man, he is in a justified state ; being justified, his is a hap- py condition : that is, he is now a child of God, an heir of glory. Another use is in reference to the acceptance of the sinner by God, that act of adjudication which transfers a sinner from a state of condemnation, to that in which there is no condemnation. The word justified is used in both of these ways by the New-Testament writers. The latter you must perceive to be the subject of the present 6 inquiry ; for the first needs no investigation. We know what the state of those is who are justified, whether they be the just made perfect, or those still warring with their depravity. But the other use has afforded ground of con- troversy. One says, it is a sentence which pronounces the sinner just, truly and wholly so, and thus tnlitles him to all the joys of heaven. Another says, it is a sentence of pardon, a grant of all the favours of God, even the gift of eternal life. Which of these does the apostle mean ? for, that he fi^ant one of them, I think can easily be shown. Which of t/ie.sc is the true interpretation ? One contends for the Liu ral, ind-cial sense of the word ; although it [the sentence that declares the sinner just in such a sense] does not result from the sinner's own merits, but from the me- rits of another [" made his."] The other contends for a figurative sense of the word, meaning unlimited pardon, granted for the sake and intercession of another. The latter was the faith of the Westminster Assembly of Di- vines, as appears from their Confession of Faith and Cate- chism. " Justification," say they, " is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accept- eth us as righteous in his sight a ." I do not give the other a This is the definition, simply, all of it : — and what follows both in the Confession i>iid Catechism, is a statement of its condition, and the waj it is conferred upon the believer. That this discourse will afford an infer- ence that their representation of the mode of justifying the sinner, is not correct in every particular, I will not deny ; provided they meant by the word ' impute' and the phrase ' accepteth us as righteous,' what some understand them to mean ; and not as I have construed the phrase 1 ac- cepteih,' Sic. and understand imputation. I took the definition, because I believed it correct, and because it is well known ; and 1 did not then know but I understood it as others do. I did not suppose the words ' at righteous,' were understood by any to represent the real character of the justifed ; but the manner of their acceptance. I wa«. led to make the rein-irk I did on the phrase for the sake of perspicuity, and of being explicit. But 1 since learn thai I not only understood this phrase differ- ently from my fellow students and others who hold like peculiar sen- timents, but also the word ' pardoneth.' In a following note I shall have occasion to speak of pardon. In explication of my under- standing of tut; above phrase, I will add, I suppose in that transac- tion, the Duity views man as he really is, unrighteous, a violater of his law, and that there is no such imputation of righteousness as alters this, his roal character, any more than there is an imputation of sin to Christ of such a nature as to alter his character. He, in the midst of his sufferings, was truly righteous ; we, in tht midst of heavenly joys (if we are so wise as to improve offered mercy) shall remain truly sin- ners ; but pardontd sinners ; therefore under no obligation to punishment . therefore fit objects of the mercies of God, and therefore shall we have cause ever to shout the praises of redeeming love. While on earth, our Saviour was not ashamed to be found in the mi' i- 1 of sinners ; in bis glory too, theirs shall be the note of his h?ghe=t praise. If this is true, then 7 part of the answer to the question, " What is justifica- tion ?" because, at this time, I have nothing to do with the condition ol justification ; at most, no more than their close connexion will require. It will not be my endeavour to in- validate the testimony of this Assembly of Divines ; but to show, by a few considerations, the truth of tiieir definition ; that St. Paul's meaning was as they represent it, and as I understand them to represent it. One remark illustrative of my understanding the phrase, " accepteth us as right- eous in his sight." It means that, if we were righteous, our acceptance by God would not be different [from what it is; certainly not better, although sinners], and not that he accepts because righteous, with a righteousness really ours, though not of our working out. To establish the truth of the above definition, I lay down these three propositions. I. Moral turpitude, guilt of sin, can be removed* only by {>ardon ; therefore the sinner can never be justified in any iteral sense of that word [justification]. II. Pardon is the way guilt is removed*, in the Bible scheme of redemption ; therefore the word justified must be used in a figurative sense. III. Justified is used to signify pardon in the New-Tes- tament. I. Proposition. Moral turpitude, guilt of sin, can be re- moved only by "pardon. By guilt, I mean obligation to punishment ; and not w hat is usually meant in the use of that word ; as, when we say of a person, he is guilty, he shows guilt, he has guilt : — for what we mean in such a use, can never be removed, be- cause ever will it be applicable to say of that person, he is guilty of that act, while it remains a fact that he did that act. But obligation to puishment can be removed : there is a way by which it may be said of the guilty, thou hast guilt no more. The strong chain that chains the criminal the phrase declares the manner of our acceptance — the way we are treat- ed ; but does not specify our character, only impliedly, and the impli- cation i9, that we are unrighteous. It says, had we been, our whole ex- istence, of spotless, righteousness, our treatment from the hands of God would not have been better ; the blessings he bestows more precious ; no, nor so much so — our being unrighteous enhances the preciousness of the unmerited bounty. * By removed, I mean annulled, abrogated, taken out of existence as a claim. [The notes distinguished by asterisks were added before the discourse was given to the Committee of the Society.] 8 to the endurance of the penalty of the broken law, can be sundered. Its band of brass will melt at the touch of mer- cy. I'ardon can unloose its firm hold, and pardon only. For nothing can cancel * this obligation, because nothing can alter the demerit of sin. Moral pollution must ever remain moral pollution. Our God cannot change its na- ture ; and the being once contaminated by its baleful touch, can never be cleansed but by the streams of mercy. The turpitude of sin nothing can wipe away. Natural turpitude may be washed away — the gold that has become dim, may be burnished again — the garments that are pol- luted may be cleansed by washing — but the stain of the soul, moral pollution, deviation from right, breach of law, nothing can undo, nothing remedy, nothing wash away, no- thing take out its indelible hue, save this word of God, " Sins and iniquities I will remember no more for ever." Man, being bound by the very constitution of his nature ever to do right, if he but once step aside from the path of rectitude, and should then return, and never again swerve from his course ; still this aberration must ever remain against him for condemnation. Ten thousand on each side may continue undeviating in their course ; but their course can never alter his no more than his theirs ; their per- fection never can remedy his imperfection, no more than his imperfection injure their perfection. Still it must remain the crooked among the straight ; and this too, al- though those courses are run by beings infinitely superior to himself. For what can be more than straight ? And what being, capable of moral action, is not bound to do right — go straight ? And what one, capable of moral ac- tion, is not bound to do right for himself ? And what one, bound to do right for himself, can do more than right — go more than straight ? The being, then, that is chargeable with sin, must ever be chargeable ; and bound to endure the penalty of the broken law, unless the offended Lawgiv- b I find I have attached more to the meaning of this word cancel, than it imports in its ordinary use. I have used it to mean not merely, to cross out, but to cro. c s out in consideration of a claim's being satisfied — as the charge on a merchant's bonk is cancelled — crossed out in consideration of the amount's being balanced. I got my idea of the word from its use in mathematics — as in the reduction of a compound fraction to a simple one, the numerator of one term, if the same figure as the denominator of ano- ther, or its own, cancels that denominator. : X — X — = ~. \ or, in % i 4 4 algebraical equations, a negative quantity is said to cancel a positive quantity of the same symbol. 9 i say, " I will remember it against thee no more for ever." - Substitution cannot do it. All it can do, is, to alter the direction of its force ; direct it from the first criminal to the substitute. It does not remove the obligation to pu- nishment. It cannot annul its force. Still its victim is held in steeled jaws. No exertions can rescue it. But let mercy prevail with him who holdeth judgment, and this more than brazen band is solved in the breath of forgive- ness. This reason sanctions, and what says the scrip- ture ? So far from pointing out any other way, it assures us that even this — forgiveness, pardon, is inconsistent with the perfections of Deity, without an expiation. " Through his blood we have redemption, even the for- giveness of sins." " Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission," says St. Paul ; and the reason is obvious. If man is under obligation to punishment, some one is ob- ligated to punish him ; and as all sin is committed against God, God, as the lawgiver, must be the being obligated to punish him. Now, as he that is offended, alone has the right to forgive the offence— this right can be exercised by GaAonly. But being under obligation to punish the offender, the exercise of forgiveness cannot take place till this obligation is removed. For mercy can never take precedence of justice. No ; we never suppose obligation can be removed at the pleasure of him that is obligated. He may fulfil its demands ; but never may nor can release himself from its demands. So that if we suppose Deity inclined to exercise mercy, not only his moral perfections would forbid it ; but this obligation to punish the trans- gressor, would restrain pardon, so long as it existed ; and it must exist till justice is satisfied. Hence " without the shedding of blood," blood which would satisfy jus- tice, " there is no remission." Before I proceed to the next proposition, 1 will remark, that these four principles, viz. obligation to punishment, and pardon for its de- mands — obligation to punish, and expiation for its de- mands, are so closely connected, that I know of no texts which contains one without another, and frequently all of them. Hence some texts seem to place that which expi- ates the obligation to punish, as the expiation of the obli- gation to punishment. Hence the idea which some enter- tain with regard to imputed righteousness 11 . t Having, as they suppose, ascertained that tfa$ obligation to punish- B 10 II. Prop. Pardon is the way by which guilt is removed in the bible plan of redemption. mcnt is not given up only by its demands being satisfied, they conclude and believe they find texts to substantiate it, that eternal life is obtained only upon some just ground of claim. But as man is unrighteous and can- not have it in himself, and as the righteousness of sanctification is not this ground, but rather a benefit derived by this claim, they go to that very i salvation which is nothing but grace and mercy from beginning to end, that plan which God most graciously devised for the recovery of fallen, lost man, to find a ground of claim to that eternal life which this plan of redemption brought to light — and this they find in an imputation of such a nature as brings with it a grant of a " right and title unto eternal life." This imputation includes in it, " 1st.* a grant or donation of the thing itself, (viz. righteousness) unto us, to be ours on some just ground and foundation And " 2d. a will of dealing with us, oran actual deal- ing with us according unto that made ours." The first particular is that to which I exclusively refer, and object. It would seem from this as if they were unw'dling to receive the blessings of immortality, as free gifts dispensed by n.ercy and grace — grace too, as it respects the giver as well as receiver ; that is, to confer which there exists no obligation of any kind, binding the giver to give — but they must have these blessings by ' right and title, 1 although the 'right and title 1 is a grant — so that the blessings themselves they obtain by claim — the claim by grace. Imputation, I un- derstand the bible to represent to be a " dealing" with us, in view of what our Saviour has done " to declare the righteousness of God, that he might be just, and thejustifier of him that believeth in Jesus, as if we were righteous — and thi- not on account of a righteousness " «»/cnuittcd in any shape, or upon any pre- tence whatever. , We are, therefore, under the afflicting necessity of informing you, that your connexion with our Seminary ceases from this d;iy. You will consider the present decision as peremptory ; and not to he altered, unless it shall please God to give you a sounder mind, and enable you to recover your- • ■ 1 1 out of Ihe snare of the devil. That such may be yuur happiness is oar heart's desire and prayer for you. J. M. MASON, Principal Th. Sem. A. R. C. New-York. J. M. MATTHEWS, AuU. Profmor Th. Htm. A. H. C. New-York. New-York, March 12, 1C16. 'To the Principal and Assistant Profeuort of the Theological Seminary, A. Ji. C. New-York t HONOURED SIRS, Your communication of dismemberment from the Theological Semi- nary of the A. R. C. in New-York., received this afternoon, I cannot saj was unexpected, when 1 considered the stress laid by thi* Seminary upon certain controverted points ; and neither can I toy I feel much alarmed for myself, when I see the same principle that expels me from your Theological Seminary, if it could be carried out, would cast out of the Church and Mi- nistry, multitudes whose labours in the love of the truth enlarge the bor- ders of Ziou — when I find a place in point of belief, with multiiudi s who have been eminent workmen in the v ineyard of the Lord, and with many who now shine, the choice lights of the Church, itat while it assigns me such a station, I rejoice also that the effect of litis principle is confined. It debars me from some valuable privileges ; but at the same time it takes away these benefits, it casts me without its further control, and affords an opportunity to embrace other advantages. I had come within its influence, little suspecting that, at this time of the world, such a principle existed any where, without the limits of Papal power. You will not expect me to think this act deserved, nor, 1 hope, think me impertinent, when I say, my opinion caan.ot sanction it as judicious, considering the present 23 sfate of the American Church. But white I thus freely and ingenuously give you my view of it, I do not hesitate to judge favourably of the mo- tives of this action ; nor doubt, that the respected officers of this Seminary " verily believe they are doing God's service." I believe them when they say, " It is matter of grief to us," and that the " necessity," under which they were thus to act, was an " afflicting" one; for repeated have been the reasons offered to my mind, to believe them to be the sincere followers of the Lamb, and hearty supporters of his kingdom ; and therefore they la- ment to be obliged to separate from such, one who professes and hopes he belongs to that blessed company. Be pleased to accept the declaration of my cordial respect for them as such, and the grateful acknowledgment of treatment, favours, and instructions, that have evinced them to be such. I hope they will be so good as to accept this as a small expression of the gratitude I owe them, and the assurance of my approbation of all their treatment of me, this last act excepted, since I have been in this Semi- nary. But permit me, before I leave you, as I have no way of vindicating my- self, unless I should appeal to that public which cannot be keptunacquaint- ed with my expulsion, to make a few remarks upon the charge laid against me, through tire belief of the correctness of which you have cut off my connexion with this Seminary. As the refutation of that part of it which declares ray doctrines to be " erroneous," cannot be attempted in this place, I shall pass over the assertion*, as assertion proves no fact. But with an unqualified ipse dixit, you declare them " subversive of the whole Gos- pel scheme." As you have unhesitatingly declared your opinion of my doctrines, and more, in the manner of this declaration pronounced your views to be right, you will permit me to state to you mine, in relation to some of yours. That my doctrines are subversive of your peculiar Gospel scheme, I know ; and that yours is the scheme that subverts the Gospel in many important points, I believe. Is not the Gospel good news to man without limitation? and docs not your scheme make it good news only t« a part, unless the others are so richly laden with disinterested benevolence, as to rejoice in that which, while it brings to a neighbour the highest bless- ings, casts them into the deeper misery ? Does it not come declaring, that " not as the offence so also the free gift, but if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gifj by grace, by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many?" But no, says your scheme, not even so much as the offence is the free gift, but for a part on- ly is this grace, according to your scheme. " Go, preach the Gospel to every creature," said He who "-wSlleth that all men every where should repent," " and he that believeth shall Le saved." But, says your scheme, there are creatures for whom, even if they should believe, there is no salva- tion. The charge further asserts, without a reserve, that I hold doctrines '* ruinous to the souls of men." Is it ruinous to the souls of men, to hold doc- trines which make it consistent to invite all sinners, without limitation, to the Gospel feast, saying, " Come, for ail things are ready ;" and to charge the failure of an iriterest in Jesus, wholly to their own foolish neglect of this invitation? And is it not runinous to say, All things arc ready, but ready tnJy for a part ? Where shall the others go ? They cannot say with Pe- ter, " To whom shall we go? — thou hast the words of eternal life;" for Jesus has no eternal life for them — no salvation for them ; they are without the possibility of escape for ever, and this too, oy your scheme, because: they are the descendants of the unhappy father of his race, who sinned perhaps thousands of years before they had an existence. 1 his limited view of the atonement, which shuts out even hope from those for whose debts (as your scheme calls sins) there is no satisfaction made, to me seema mo»t fatally " rtjittous"* to man, betides dijj-aragi.ig to the character of 24 Oar God. To bring down this " magnificent moral transaction to Ihe le< vcl of a commercial bargain," is such a belittleing of the " ways of God to men,' 1 as chocks my reverence for bis name ; and say;, Thy way; art aa our ways. To quote the words of a late writer, (VVardlaw on the Socini- an Controversy,) u I know not how yoit may lee), my brethren, but my mind 1 own revolts from this sort of minutely calculating process on such a subject, weighing out the precise quantum of suffering due to each sin of each individual who obtains forgiveness ; and thus of course limiting the sufficiency of the Surety's mediation. Such views have always" (since I have known there were such, and this knowledge I have gained since join- ing this Seminary) " appeared to me utterly inconsistent with the grandeur and majesty of this wonderful part of the Divine Administration.'' But 1 must not enlarge. Such, I believe, are a few of the outlines of a scheme, for not conforming to which, and supporting, as 1 suppose, a more consistent doctrine, I am cut off from your Seminary. Per- mit me to detain you, honoured sirs, a little further, and pardon me for taking a stand upon ground so near to an equality with your- selves. It is done, I believe, respectfully ; certainly the intention U such ; and only upon that ground of equality where we all lake the, same rank — fallible, fallen men, ever liable to err. Your communica- tion views me of an " unsound mind," and within the " snare of the de- vil." 1 speak not of the deep reproach this would heap on me ; but simply ask, where does it place many who, e»en in Dr. Owen's day, and since, have combated the idea that " God is bound, in strict justice, in respect of his Son Jesus Christ, to confer grace and glory on all those for whom be died," and that " he died only for the elect?" Where does it place Bax- ter and Usher; where Pierce and Fuller; where Magee, Hall, and Ward- law; and where a large proportion of the Rev. Divines of the American Church.'' Indeed, Reverend ^ir c , 1 cannot view myself that "misguided youth" you believe, nor think myself presumptuous in having some confi- dence in my opinions, when in casting my eye over orthodox Christendom, ? behold such vast portions of the Church professing the doctrines you con- demn — behold them in England and Ireland, establishment and dissenters, io Scotland and America. With grateful respect, yours, I trust, in the bonds of a tie which opinion cannot sever; but which shall last long after the last sound of clashing opinions shall have died away, LORING D. DEWEY. P. S. Immediately on the receipt of your communication, I commenced this reply. I aftewards hesitated ; but further consideration pronounced it a duty I owed to myself, that you might better understand my views. It will not be considered to have any respect to that part of your decision which pronounces it " peremptory, and not to be altered." I am sorry if is made, or rathar that there is a difference, but I never should have at- U'Dia'cl to hf.ve altered it. h. D. D.