i!i! i 
 
( 
 
 
|U6u ^rbat C OlonuwUiF 
 
THE BIBLE, 
 
 CONFESSION OF FAITH, 
 AND COMMON SENSE: 
 
 BEING A SERIES OF 
 
 DIALOGUES BETWEEN A PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER AND 
 
 A YOUNG CONVERT, 
 
 ON SOME PROMINENT AND MOST COMMONLY DISPUTED 
 
 DOCTRINES OF THE 
 
 CONFESSION OF FAITH 
 
 OF THE FBESBXTERIAN CHUBCH; 
 TO WHICH ARE ADDED,' 
 
 FIVE DIALOGUES 
 
 CN THE GROUNDS AND CAUSES OF THE DIVISION OF 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, IN 
 
 1837 & 1838, 
 
 U- 
 
 BY WII^tlAM D. ^MITH. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD, OHIO: 
 
 *RrXTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESBTTEBIAN OF THE WEST» 
 1844. 
 
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year of our Lord 
 one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, by William D, Smith, 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Ohio. 
 
iPllEFACE. 
 
 ix appearing before the public as an author, in these days of 
 book making, the writer of the following pages has no apology to 
 offer, but, simply 'a statement of facts. When he commenced 
 writing, he had no intention of any thing more than some articles 
 for the "Presbyterian of the West," in which most of the work 
 has appeared, in successive numbers. But, before the articles on 
 "Decrees"' and "Election" were completed, urgent requests were 
 received from different quarters, to have them embodied in some 
 permanent form. At the same time requests were made, that the 
 writer should go through all the most commonly controverted 
 points of the Confession of Faith. The field was thus enlarged 
 beyond the original design ; and much encouragement to proceed 
 was afforded, by the reception of numerous testimonials as to the 
 utility of the articles, in relieving the minds of those who were 
 in doubts, and establishing those who were wavering. 
 
 When the first seven dialogues were completed, they were 
 embodied in a cheap pamphlet ; and though an edition of near two 
 thousand was issued, it was found altogether inadequate to supply 
 the demand. And as the numbers were farther continued in the 
 Presbyterian of the West, calls were received from many readers, 
 to have them all embodied together. To supply this demand, and 
 to serve the cause of truth as far as possible by the work, it is now 
 issued in its present form. 
 
 It is, perhaps, proper to add, that for some of the arguments used 
 in the fifth dialogue, the writer is indebted to a published sermon, 
 entitled, "The unpopular doctrines of the Bibie," by Kev. A. G. 
 Fairchild, D. D., of Pennsylvania. 
 
INDEX 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 Introduction, --------- 9 
 
 DIALOGUE IL 
 
 Misrepresentations of Calvinism, ----- 13 
 
 DIALOGUE IIL 
 Decrees of God, 23' 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 Decrees of God continued, - 31 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 Election, - ---37 
 
 DIALOGUE VL 
 Election continued, - 45 
 
 DIALOGUE VII. 
 Original Sin, 5S 
 
 DIALOGUE VIIL 
 Free Grace, 64 
 
 DIALOGUE IX. 
 Good Works, '3'^ 
 
 DIALOGUE X. 
 Inability, ---------84 
 
Vi INDEX, 
 
 DIALOGUE XL 
 Free Will, ' - * - 95 
 
 DIALOGUE XIL 
 Etfectual Calling, ]0'2 
 
 DIALOGUE XIIL 
 Sinless Perfection, --__.-- no 
 
 DIALOGUE XIV. * 
 
 Sinless Perfection continued, - - - - * * 117 
 
 DIALOGUE XV. 
 Perseverance. ^* 12G 
 
 DIALOGUE XVL 
 
 Perseverance continued, - - - - * * 135 
 
 DIALOGUE XVIL 
 Admission to the Church, Ho 
 
 DIALOGUE XVIIL 
 Church Government, -.._.*. 153 
 
 DIALOGUE XIX. 
 Bible Republicanism, 160 
 
 DIALOGUE XX. 
 Bible Presbyterianism, 167 
 
 DIALOGUE XXL 
 Primitive Presbyterianism, - - - -/•- - 175 
 
 DIALOGUE XXIL 
 Presbyterianism of the Reformers, 18^ 
 
INDEX. Vli 
 
 FART II. 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 Bifference in Doctrine,. ,-.-,..- 191 
 
 DIALOGUE IL 
 Difference in Doctrine continued, . ^ , , , 2.00 
 
 DIALOGUE in. 
 
 Diflerence in Measures, --^ ---■«.» 211 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 Doings of 1837, - - - 224 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 The Division, ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^ 23'i 
 
THE BIBLE, 
 
 CONFESSION OF FAITH, 
 
 AND COMMON SENSE. 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Co?ivert. — I have called this evening to convei>:} 
 with you on a subject, which has of late occupied 
 my mind very mucJi. I have recently, as you are 
 aware, through divine grace, had my mind very se- 
 riously exercised on the subject of religion, and now 
 have hopes that I have experienced a gracious 
 change, and have become a child of God — conse- 
 quently, I have felt desirous of connecting myseli* 
 with some religious society. As it was through the 
 instrumentality of Presbyterian Ministers I was 
 first led to see my lost condition, and ultimately to 
 cast myself on Christ for salvation, I had a prefer- 
 ence for that Church. But, I have been told, yoj 
 believe such dreadful doctrines, that I have been'led 
 to doubt what would be duty. 
 
 Minister. — What are the dreadful doctrines of 
 our Church, which make you hesitate ? 
 
 Con. — I have been told, you believe that God, hv 
 an unchangeable and arbitrary decree, has divided 
 the human family into two classes, elect and repro- 
 2 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 bate — that the electa he has, from eternity, decreed 
 to save, let them Hve as they may. No matter how 
 ungodly, or careless they are, they will all certainly 
 be saved. But, the reprobate class, are created for 
 the purpose only of eternal damnation, which God 
 has so arbitrarily decreed, that no matter how ear- 
 nestly and diligently they may seek salvation, they 
 must be lost. These, with a great many other simi- 
 lar doctrines, such as infant damnation, &c., I have 
 been told, are the doctrines of the Presbyterian 
 Church, to which I must give my assent before I 
 could be admitted as a member. 
 
 Min. — Did any member of our Church give you 
 this representation of our faith and practice ? 
 
 Con. — No, Sir. I had them from a neighbor, a 
 member of the Methodist Church, who has mani- 
 fested considerable interest in my case, and express- 
 ed his regret that I would even attend a Church 
 where such doctrines are held and taught. 
 
 Min. — Did you ever hear such doctrines advanced 
 in our Church, by any one? 
 
 Con. — No, Sir. 
 
 Min. — I believe no one has ever heard such doc- 
 trines advanced by any Presbyterian ; and I have of- 
 ten been surprised at the pertinacity with which 
 such misrepresentations are insisted upon, as being 
 the doctrines of our Church. Indeed, I have rare- 
 ly heard, or seen our doctrines stated in their true 
 light, by any of our opponents. They uniformly 
 n-iake some gross misrepresentation of them, such as 
 you mention, and then hold up to odium and ridi- 
 cule, the creatures of their own misguided, or malig- 
 nant fancies. It reminds me very forcibly of the 
 infidel, who, in order to show his malignant hatred 
 of the Bible, sewed it up in the skin of an anima!> 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 11 
 
 and endeavored to set his dogs on it. So our doc- 
 trines are always dressed up in something that does 
 not belong to them, before any attempt is made to 
 excite odium against them. These misrepresenta- 
 tions, moreover, are often made under circumstances 
 which preclude all excuse on the ground of igno- 
 ranee. A few w^eeks ago, in preaching a sermon 
 which involved the doctrine of innate depravity, i 
 took occasion to mention the ground on which ^ye 
 beheved in the salvation of infants — that it w^as not 
 because we beheved them holy, and without sin ; 
 but, because we believed they were sinful, and would 
 be saved, through the imputed righteousness ot 
 Christ. A few days afterwards, it w^as told wdth a 
 great deal of aftected, pious horror, that I had preach- 
 ed the awful doctrine of infant damnation. 
 
 Co7i. — Such things I know have been done, and 
 this led me, at first, to suspect that the representa- 
 tions I had of your doctrines w^ere not true ; but 
 my neighbor gave me a book, which professes to 
 give extracts from your standard Avriters, and the 
 Confession of Faith of your Church, in w^hich 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 1 
 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 difiiculties, having confi- 
 dence that they would be met and treated in a spir- 
 it of candor and truth. 
 
 Min. — I thank you for your confidence, and hops 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 you will find it has not been misplaced. What ifcr 
 the book that your neighbor gave you, in which you 
 have found those doctrines that you say have been 
 charged upon us? 
 
 Con, — 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. 
 
 jWin. — 1 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 w^ritings of any 
 individual, though we may approve of his w^orks in 
 the main ; and he may be classed among our stan- 
 dard writers. It is only our Confession of Faith 
 that we ixdQ])i as a ivkole, as containing the system 
 vi' doctrines taught in the Bible. 
 
 Con. — Some of the extracts are from the Conies- 
 ^ion 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 Bibkf the 
 Confession of Faiths and Common Sense, are in per- 
 fect accordance with each other. 
 
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. It 
 
 DIALOGUE 11. 
 
 MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 
 
 Convej't. — 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, 
 and 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 "pubhshed 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- 
 lire want of candor and honesty, and containing so 
 many palpable miisstatements. 
 
 Con. — Are any of its quotations incorrect? 
 
 Min. — There is scarcely a single quotation cor- 
 
14 MISREPRESENTATIONS OF 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." 
 .\ow, let me read the language of the Confession: 
 "God from all eternity did^ by the most wise and ho- 
 ly coitnsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably 
 ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as therebif 
 neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence of- 
 fered to the 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-. 
 <Ment 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 "5o" ordained respect- 
 ing them, that "he is not the author of sin ;" that it 
 does not offer any "violence" or constraint "to the 
 will of the creatures," and in a way that ^^establish- 
 rs,''^ 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. 
 
 Mill. — On the same page is another, equally un- 
 fair, respecting the finally impenitent. It reads 
 thus: "The rest of mankind God was pleased, for 
 tlie 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- 
 iendeth 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 for 
 THEIR SIN, to the praise of his glornous justice.''^ You 
 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" 
 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 "^o 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 eterncd reprobation — that 
 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 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- 
 
18 MISREPRESENTATIONS OP CALVINISM, 
 
 fession of Faith, you have perceived that the Cate- 
 chisms are not divided into chapters; and, where to 
 find the Jlfth chapter of the Assembly's Catechism, 
 we will have to ask *Hhe General Conference,^' by 
 whose order the book has been published, who should 
 liave known, at least, that there were chapters in 
 the Catechism, before they cited us to one of them. 
 But you will, perhaps, be surprised to learn, that 
 there are not only no chapters in the Catechism, 
 hut no such language as is quoted. The quotation is 
 as folloAvs : "The Almighty power of God extends 
 itself to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and 
 men." Now, there is no such language, or any 
 thing like it, any where in either of our Catechisms, 
 nor is there any thing any where in the Confession, 
 to afford the least ground for a sentiment so grossly 
 blasphemous as this is made to be, in the connec- 
 tion in Avhich it stands. It is in Tract number S, en- 
 titled, "Jl Dialogue between a P7xdestinarian and 
 his Friend,^' in which the Predestinarian is repre- 
 sented as speaking the language of Calvinists, to 
 prove that God impels men to sin; and, then, this 
 (quotation is given, to prove that our Catechism 
 teaches, that God's almighty power is exerted in 
 compelling men to sin. On page 194, is another 
 £|uotation of the same kind, professing to be from 
 the "Assembly's Catechism, chapter 3." But the 
 third chapter of the Catechism will be as difficult to 
 tind as the ffth. 
 
 Con. — But, is there not something, in some other 
 part of the Confession, to give a semblance of truth 
 to the quotation ? 
 
 Min. — Chapter 5, section 4, of the Confession, 
 thus speaks of God's providence : "The Almighty 
 power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness 
 
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 well 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,—li 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 
 
18 MISREPRESENTATIONS 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 
 find a reference to Calvin's Institutes, chapter 21, 
 section 1. Calvin's Institutes consist of four books, 
 and these books are divided into chapters 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 Avhole work, and can 
 find nothing of the kind. On page 97, there is ano- 
 ther reference to Calvin's Institutes, chap. 18, sec. 1. 
 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 IS 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 
 hjm to fall. Man is blinded by the will and com- 
 
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 19 
 
 mandment of God. We refer the causes of hard- 
 ening us, to God. The highest, or remote causes 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: "Nothing 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, w^hich 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. 
 
5iO 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 w^orld 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 some 
 garbled extracts from Mr. Toplady's Avork; 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 Mr. Toplady, nor any 
 other Calvinistic writer, ever penned such a senti- 
 ment. It is a gratuitous forgery. The history of it 
 is this : Mr. Toplady published a work on Predes- 
 tination, Avhich, though it contained unguarded ex- 
 pressions, proved the doctrine so clearly, that Ar- 
 minians felt it was dangerous to their system. To 
 
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF 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, beheve this, or be damned. 
 Witness 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 
 handy" 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 way, 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 
 
S2 MKREPRESENTATIONS 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 difterent. 
 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.—l think them perfectly reconcileable on 
 
 * What I have said of the "-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 1836,) 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 
 (xod the Father, full of grace and truth, as a hypocrite^ a deceiver 
 of the people^ a man void of common sincerity.'''' And page 170 : 
 "It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil., as both 
 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 as 
 needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not that 
 God hat/i taken the work out of thy hands ? And that A e doth it 
 more eJj'ectuaUy ? * * Thou iemptest ; Heforceth us to be damn- 
 ed. * * * Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the 
 destroyer of souls, the murderer of men?'' ''^ &c. And page 173 : 
 "0 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 
 shout for joy,' " «fec. Perhaps I owe an apology to the reader 
 fur 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. 
 
 Co7i. — I will be glad to embrace the opportunity, 
 at any time you may have leisure. 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 DECREES OF GOD. 
 
 Minister. — I think you mentioned, in our last 
 conversation, that one difficulty under which your 
 mind labored respecting the doctrine of Divine de- 
 crees, was, that it necessarily made God the author 
 oi 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 Ave 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, noth- 
 
24 DECREES OF GOD. 
 
 ing can take place, except what he does, or permit i^ 
 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^ould be useless 
 for us to pray that God Avould restrain the wicked 
 in their designs against the Church, or in any other 
 respect; and, indeed, it would close the mouth of 
 prayer almost entirely, to believe God either could 
 not, or did not govern all things, both great and 
 small. JVow^, though sin is hateful to God, it con- 
 stantly takes place in his government ; and, it is 
 Atheism to say, he could not prevent it ; for, he is 
 not God, if he cannot govern the world. We must, 
 therefore, conclude, he permits it, for reasons un- 
 known to us. 
 
 Con. — That is very plain. To say he could not 
 govern and overrule all things, according to his plea- 
 sure, would deprive him of his character as infinite ; 
 and, to say that he refuses to do it, and leaves the 
 world to manage itself, is not only contrary to tlio 
 Bible, but is foolishly absurd. But, wdiat connec- 
 tion has this with the doctrine of decrees? 
 
 Min. — God, in his providence, fulfills his decrees; 
 or, as the Bible expresses it, "what his hand and 
 counsel determined before to be done" — Acts 4: 28. 
 Hence, our Catechism says, that "God executeth 
 his decrees in the w^orks of creation and providence." 
 His providence and decrees are co-extensive; that 
 is, what he does, or permits to be done, in his prov- 
 idence, he always designed to do or permit in his 
 purpose. This is as plain a proposition as the other, 
 
DECREES OF GOD. 25 
 
 and equally consistent with common sense. When 
 he created the world, he of course did it from de- 
 sign ; that is, he did not do it by chance, but he de- 
 signed to make the world just as he did make it. 
 Now, when did he form that design? Did he form 
 the design of creating the world, just at the time it 
 was done, or had he it before? If the design was 
 formed then, he is subject to form new designs, and 
 is therefore changeable; for, it must have been, 
 that he saw some reason for creating a world which 
 he did not see before, or some motive operated which 
 did not before. He must have become more wise, 
 more mighty, or benevolent, or have seen something 
 in a new light, which induced him to adopt the new 
 design of creating the world. But this, you per- 
 ceive, is blasphemy; for, it would make him both 
 finite and changeable. Then, we are driven to the 
 conclusion, that he must have had the design from 
 eternity. Now, the same reasoning, apphed to any 
 thing he does in creation or providence, will issue ill 
 the very same conclusions. If he convert a sinner 
 to-day, he does it from design. But, when did he 
 form the design? Here, you perceive, we run into 
 the same necessity of concluding that the design was 
 eternal, as in the case of the creation of the world. 
 The same is true with regard to what he permits. 
 He permitted our first parents to fall. He permit- 
 ted Judas to betray the Savior. He permitted per- 
 secution to arise in the Church, under Popery, &c. 
 Did he not knoAv our first parents would fall, when 
 he created them? This, all admit. If, then, he 
 knew they would fall, he determined to permit them ; 
 that is, he determined not to prevent them ; and, it 
 is in this sense, I use the term permission. Then, if 
 he knew from eternity they would fall, he deter- 
 3 
 
26 DECREES OP GOD. 
 
 mined, or decreed, from eternity, to permit them. 
 So with all sin which he sees fit not to prevent. He 
 knew from eternity it would take place, and decreed 
 from eternity to permit it. So we must either ad- 
 mit that Avhat God does or permits to be done, he 
 always designed to do or permit — or, deny the per- 
 lections of his character. 
 
 Con. — But, is this permission a decree? 
 
 Min. — It is as much a decree as any thing else. 
 To decree, is nothing more than to determine be- 
 forehand, or to foreordain; and, to resolve, or de- 
 termine to do or permit any thing, is to decree it 
 in that sense. The word decree, in the sense in 
 which it is used in the Bible, and theology, signifies, 
 to determine the certainty of a future event , by posi- 
 tive agency or permission. That which is deter- 
 mined to be done, is decreed; and that which is de- 
 termined to be permitted, is also decreed, when there 
 is power to prevent it; because, when it is known, 
 certainly, that it will be done unless prevented, and 
 there is a determination not to prevent it, it is ren- 
 dered as certain as if it were decreed to be done by 
 positive agency. In the one case, the event is ren- 
 dered certain by agency put forth ; and, in the other 
 case, it is rendered equally certain by agency with- 
 held. It is an unchangeable decree in both cases. 
 The sins of Judas, and the crucifiers of the Savior, 
 were as unchangeably decreed, permissively, as the 
 coming of the Savior into the world was decreed 
 positively. From this you can perceive the consist- 
 ency of the Confession of Faith with common sense, 
 when it says, that "God from all eternity did, 
 by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will^ 
 freely and unchangeably, foreordain whatsoever 
 comes to pass," &c. You perceive, also, that this is 
 
DECREES OF GOD. 2?7 
 
 clearly reconcilable with the following sentiment, 
 that "he is not the author of sin," &c. 
 
 Con. — Still, however, as God is the author of all, 
 and the originator of the plan, does it not still make 
 him the author of sin, in a certain sense? 
 
 Min. — His being the author of the plan, does not 
 make him the author of the sin that enters into his 
 plan, though he saw fit not to prevent it. Perhaps 
 I can make this point, and some others connected 
 w^ith it, more plain by an illustration. 
 
 Suppose, to yourself, a neighbor who keeps a dis- 
 tillery or dram shop, which is a nuisance to all around 
 — neighbors collecting, drinking, and fighting on the 
 Sabbath, with consequent misery and distress in 
 families, &c. Suppose, further, that I am endowed 
 with certain foreknowledge, and can see, with ab- 
 solute certainty, a chain of events, in connection with 
 a plan of operations which I have in view, for the 
 good of that neighborhood. I see that by preaching 
 there, I will be made the instrument of the conver- 
 sion, and consequent reformation, of the owner of 
 the distillery, and I therefore determine to go Now, 
 in so doing, I positively decree the reformation of 
 the man; that is, I determine to do what renders 
 his reformation certain, and 1 fulfiJl my decree by 
 positive agency. But, in looking a Httle farther in 
 the chain of events, I discover, with the same abso- 
 lute certainty, that his drunken customers will be 
 filled with wrath, and much sin will be committed, 
 in venting their malice upon him and me. They 
 will not only curse and blaspheme God and religion, 
 but they will even burn his house, and attempt to 
 burn mine. Now, you perceive, that this evil, which 
 enters into my plan, is not chargeable upon me at 
 all, though I am the author of the plan which, in its 
 
28 DECREES OF GOD. 
 
 operations, I know will produce it. Hence, it is 
 plain, that any intelligent being may set on foot a 
 plan, and carry it out, in which he knows, with ab- 
 solute certainty, that evil will enter, and yet he is 
 not the author of the evil, or chargeable with it in 
 any way. 
 
 Con. — But, if he have power to prevent the evil, 
 and do not, is he not chargeable with it? 
 
 Min. — In the case supposed, if I had power to 
 prevent the evil, yet I might see fit to permit it, and 
 yet not be chargeable with it. Suppose I had pow- 
 er to prevent those wicked men from burning their 
 neighbor's house; yet, in looking a little farther in 
 the chain of events, I discover, that if they be per- 
 mitted, they will take his life ; and, I see, moreover^ 
 that if his life be spared, he will now be as notorious 
 for good as he was for evil, and will prove a rich 
 blessing to the neighborhood and society. I, there- 
 fore, jiermit them to do as they please. They, (Con- 
 sequently, burn his house, and come with the de- 
 sign of burning mine; but, I have things arranged, 
 to have them arrested and confined in prison, where- 
 by they will be prevented from taking their neigh- 
 bor's life, which they otherwise would, and he is 
 spared for the great good of the community. There- 
 fore, upon the whole plan, I determine to act ; and, 
 in so doing, I positively decree the reformation of 
 that man, and the consequent good; and, I permis- 
 sively decree the wicked actions of the others; yet, 
 it is very plain, that I am not, in any way, chargea- 
 ble with their sins. Now, in one or other of these 
 ways, God "has foreordained whatsoever comes to 
 pass." This, as you know, is the simple language 
 of our Catechism, which has been so long and loudly 
 proclaimed as the doctrine of fatality; woi'se than 
 infidelity; originating in hell, &c. 
 
DECREES OP GOD, 29 
 
 Con. — The distinction you make between positive 
 and permissive decrees, relieves my mind entirely; 
 and, I do not see how any thing else can be believed 
 by any one who believes in the sovereignty of God, 
 as the author and ruler of the universe. And, if this 
 be the doctrine of your Church on the subject, it is 
 surprising that such gross misrepresentations of it 
 are so industriously circulated, by professing Chris- 
 tians. They surely do not understand it. Is this 
 view of it given plainly in the Confession of Faith? 
 
 Mi7i. — I have never seen it stated in any other 
 work so clearly and concisely, as it is in the Confes- 
 sion of Faith. Chap. 3, sec. 1, which asserts the 
 doctrine of decrees, says expressly, that God has 
 ■''so" decreed all things, that he is "not the author 
 of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the crea- 
 tures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second 
 causes taken away, but rather established.''^ Chap- 
 ter 5, section 4, thus speaks : ^'The Almighty pow- 
 er, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of 
 God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, 
 that it extendeth itself to the first fall, and all other 
 sins of men and angels, and that, not by a bare per- 
 mission, but such [a permission,] as hath joined with 
 it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise 
 ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dis- 
 pensation, to his own holy ends, yet so as the sinful- 
 ness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and 
 not from God, loho, being most holy and righteous, 
 neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."" 
 Here, you perceive, the view I gave, is stated in as 
 plain language as could be used. But, further, chap. 
 6, sec. 1 : "Our first parents, being seduced by the 
 subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating 
 ithe forbidden fruit. This, their sin, God was pleased, 
 
30 DECREES OF GOD. 
 
 according to his loise and holy counsel, to peimit, ha- 
 ving purposed to order it for his own glory." So, 
 you perceive, this plain common sense doctrine, is 
 the doctrine of the Confession of Faith. It now 
 only remains for me to show, that it is the doctrine 
 of the Bible; for, however reasonable it may appear, 
 if it be not found there, I will give it up. 
 
 Con. — I will be glad to avail myself of further in- 
 struction on this point, at another time, I have an 
 engagement this evening, that renders it necessary 
 for me to deny myself the pleasure now. Before I 
 leave, however, there is one objection Avhich has aris- 
 en in my mind, which I would be glad to have re- 
 moved. If God permitted evil to come into the 
 world, in order that he might overrule it for good, 
 is not that doing evil that good may come ? 
 
 Min. — I have not said, nor does either the Confes- 
 sion of Faith, or the Bible say, that God permitted 
 evil in order to overrule it for good. We know no- 
 thing but the simple facts, that he permitted it, and 
 has overruled it for good : but, whether that was 
 his reason or not, he has not seen fit to tell us; and, 
 therefore, it is not our place to inquire: and, if men 
 would not wish to be wise above what is written, 
 there would be less controversy and difference of 
 opinion. 
 
BGCREES OF <30D. 31 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 DECREES OF GOD. 
 
 Convert. — In our last conversation, I understood, 
 from some of your remarks, that there is an insepa- 
 rable connection between God's decrees and fore- 
 knowledge. Yet, I find the Confession of Faith 
 says, in chapter 3, section 2, that "he hath not de- 
 creed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or 
 as that which would come to pass upon such condi- 
 tions." 
 
 Minister. — You will observe, that the Confession 
 only says, that he did not decree any thing because 
 he foresaw it — that is, his foreknowledge is not the 
 ground^ or cause^ of his decrees — still, they are in- 
 separably connected. His decrees are not dependent 
 upon his foreknowledge, nor identical wdth it; but, 
 his foreknowledge is rather dependent upon his de- 
 crees, though perfectly distinct from them. 
 
 In the case of the distiller, mentioned in our last 
 conversation as an illustration, how could I know 
 certainly that I would go to that neighborhood to 
 preach, if I had not determined to go? If my pur- 
 pose to go, were in any degree unsettled or undeter- 
 mined, I could not know certainly that I would go. 
 But, if I had determined to go, then I would know it 
 certainly. So, if God knew that he would create 
 the world, it was because he had determined to do 
 it. If his purpose were unsettled, or if he had not 
 come to the determination to do it, he could not 
 know it certainly. But, if he had his purpose fixed, 
 then he knew it certainly. It is in this sense that 
 
32 DECREES OP GOD. 
 
 the decrees of God, and his foreknowledge, are in- 
 separably connected. 
 
 Con.. — I understand it, I think, now, perfectly, 
 and must confess, that the doctrine of decrees, in all 
 its parts, seems to me so reasonable and plain, that I 
 am surprised, moie and more, at the virulent oppo- 
 sition which many professors of religion manifest 
 against it. I find, too, from looking at the scriptural 
 references in the Confession of Faith, that it is 
 abundantly sustained by the Bible. 
 
 Min. — The passages quoted in the Confession, are 
 but a few of the many with which the Scriptures 
 abound. Indeed, the doctrine is so interwoven 
 through all the promises, calls, threatenings, and in- 
 structions of the Bible, that to take it away, Avould 
 mar the whole. But, did you notice the peculiar 
 force of the language of the Bible on this point? 
 One of the passages quoted, is Eph. 1 : 11 — "In 
 whom, (Christ) also we have obtained an inherit- 
 ance, being predestinated according to the purpose 
 of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his 
 own willy This is stronger language than can be 
 found any where in our standards. Here is a "/)?^e- 
 destinatioUf^^ a ^^piirpose,^^ and a ^''counseV of God, 
 "according" to which, he '•'•worketh all things.^'' Pe- 
 ter, in his first epistle, 1: 20 — speaking of Chiist, 
 says, he was ^^verWy foreordained before the founda- 
 tion of the world." Now, it is admitted on all 
 hands, that God had, in the counsels of eternity, 
 decreed to send .the Savior for the ledemption of 
 fallen man — but, how could that be, if the fall of 
 man was uncertain? In Acts 4: 27, 28, we read 
 thus : "Of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, 
 whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius 
 Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, ^Yere 
 
DECREES OP GOD. 33 
 
 gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and 
 thy counsel determined before to be done." Now, 
 can any one say, that the death of Christ was an un- 
 certain event in the purpose of God? He knew, 
 certainly, that they would assemble to take away 
 his life, and he had decreed to permit it; and, thus 
 it was fixed upon as certain, without the smallest 
 possibility of mistake, with the wise and almighty 
 disposer of all events. 
 
 Con. — Then, are we to conclude, that Judas and 
 his accomplices could not have acted otherwise? 
 
 Min. — That does not necessarily follow from the 
 absolute certainty of their course. They could have 
 acted otherwise, if they would. A man has power 
 to do that which it is absolutely certain he will not 
 do, and to refrain from doing that which it is abso- 
 lutely certain he will do. Had the Savior called 
 "twelve legions of angels," which he said he could 
 have done, and overcome the band that came against 
 him with Judas, or forcibly prevented them, in any 
 other way; or, if he had impelled them against their 
 will to do as they did, they could not have acted 
 freely. But he left them to fulfill his purpose, in 
 doing as their wicked inclinations prompted them. 
 Hence, Peter charges them with the crime, whilst 
 at the same time he declares that they acted accord- 
 ing to the purpose of God. Acts 2 : 33 — "Him be- 
 ing delivered by the determinate counsel and for^e- 
 knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked 
 hands have crucified and slain." From this you can 
 perceive, that the Confession of Faith speaks the 
 language of the Bible and of common sense, when 
 it says, that God has so decreed all things, that "wo 
 violence is offered to the will of the creatures^ nor is the 
 liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, 
 but rather established.^^ 
 
S4 DECREES OF GOD. 
 
 Con. — But, if God thus brings good out of evil, 
 and the wicked actions of men are al] thus overruled 
 for his glory, why are wicked men punished? 
 
 3Iin. — I'his is the very objection that the Apostle 
 meets, in Rom. 3 : 5 — "If our unrighteousness com- 
 mend the righteousness of God, what shall we say ? 
 Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance ? (I speak 
 as a man)" — that is, he speaks the language of a 
 common objection, which men might be likely to 
 make, and no doubt did make, then as well as now. 
 But, how does he answer it? "God forbid ; for, 
 then, how shall God judge the world?" The same 
 objection he meets, in the 9th chapter and 19th 
 verse : "Thou wilt then say unto me, ivhy doth he 
 yet find fault; for who hath resisted his Avill ?" And 
 what is his answer ? "A^ay, but O man, who art 
 thou that repliest against God?" This would be 
 sufficient; but, I may add, that an action being over- 
 ruled for good, cannot, in the smallest degree, lessen 
 its criminality. In the case I have already supposed, 
 my determination to overrule for good the wicked- 
 ness of those men in burning their neighbor's house, 
 and attempting to burn mine, could not, in any de- 
 gree, lessen the criminality of their actions. So, you 
 perceive, that God can still "judge the world" in 
 righteousness, as Paul asserts, though he overrules 
 sin to his own glory, and for a greater good. 
 
 There are hundreds of other passages in the Bible 
 equally as plain as those I have mentioned. Isa. 
 46: 10 — "I am God, and there is none like me, decla- 
 ring the end from the beginning, and from ancient 
 times the things that are not yet done, saying, viy 
 counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.''^ 
 Paul, in Acts 17: 26, says, God "hath made of one 
 blood all nations of men, for to dwell on ail the face 
 
DECREES OF GOD. 35 
 
 of the earth, and hath determined the times before ap- 
 pointed, and the bounds of their habitation:' I shall 
 cite but one passage more, though I might produce a 
 hundred. Joseph's brethren were, Hke the crucifiers 
 of the Savior, very guilty in selling their brother in- 
 to Egypt; but, he tells them plainly, Gen. 50: 20 — 
 "As for you, ye meant it for evil against me, but 
 God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this 
 day, to save much people alive." A^ow, can any 
 thing be plainer, than that God intentionally permit- 
 ted the selling of Joseph for important reasons, and 
 had decreed so to do, as well as to direct his future 
 course. Now, I would ask any candid man, wheth- 
 er the Confession of Faith pushes the doctrine of 
 decrees farther than the Bible ? — or, whether com- 
 mon sense can find any other system of doctrine, 
 consistent with the character of God? 
 
 Con. — My mind is perfectly satisfied that the doc- 
 trine of the Confession is both reasonable and scrip- 
 tural. But I have a difficulty still, with regard to 
 some of its consequences. If all things are so cer- 
 tainly arranged in the purposes of God, what en- 
 couragement have we to pray ? 
 
 Min. — We have infinitely more encouragement 
 to pray, than if events depended upon creatures, or 
 were suspended in uncertainty. God has so arranged 
 all events, that every effectual fervent prayer of the 
 righteous shall be fulfilled, and that without resort- 
 ing to miracle, or interfering with his other purposes. 
 But take away the doctrine, and we have no en- 
 couragement to pray, that I can conceive of. You 
 ask God to convert a sinner, but if the matter be not 
 in his hands, and is left to chance, or the sinner's 
 own natural inclinations, you pray in vain. God 
 cannot interfere for fear of destroying free agency. 
 
36 DECREES OF GOD. 
 
 Thus you perceive, that if God be not the sovereign 
 disposer of all events, the mouth of prayer is closed. 
 But, if it be a part of his plan, certainly to answer 
 every prayer of faith, then we can come to him with 
 confidence and great encouragement. 
 
 Con. — But, does it not discourage the use of 
 means ? 
 
 Min. — In the illustration I gave of the distiller, 
 did my determinations and arrangements in my 
 plan, discourage the use of the means in carrying it 
 out? It embraced all the means of its accomplish- 
 ment ; and the arrangements of the plan were the 
 ground of encouragement tor the use of the means. 
 So of God's plan. It embraces all the means of its 
 accomplishment ; and, when we engage in his ser- 
 vice, in the use of his prescribed means, we have the 
 great encouragement of knowing, that it is by these 
 he has determined to accomplish his great work. 
 
 Con. — It is to be regretted that this doctrine is 
 by so many misunderstood. Would it not have been 
 better for the framers of the Confession of Faith, to 
 have been a little more guarded, and not to have 
 used language that w^as so liable to be misunderstood 
 and perverted ? 
 
 Min. — I know not what they could have done 
 more than they have, without departing from Scrip- 
 ture truth. The Confession is easily understood by 
 any one who wishes to understand it. We may as 
 well say, why did not the writers of the Bible use 
 other language? There are hundreds of passages 
 in the Bible just as strong as any used in the Con- 
 fession. Why did Paul say, "Predestinated accord- 
 ing to the purpose of him who worketh all things," 
 &c. Why did he not leave out the whole of the 
 first chapter to the Ephesians, and the eighth and 
 
ELECTION. 37 
 
 ninth to the Romans ? Indeed, I believe if the fra- 
 mers of the Confession had taken verbatim some 
 passages of Scripture, it could not have lessened the 
 opposition. Jude says, there Avere certain men 
 "who were before, of old, ordained to this condemna- 
 tion,''^ Now, if the framers of the Confession had 
 taken that language as it stands, without inserting 
 the words *for their sin,^^ what would our enemies 
 have said? 
 
 Con, — I believe it is best to follow the Bible, re- 
 gardless of the opinions of men ; and, I believe, the 
 truth will ultimately commend itself to all intelligent 
 minds. I would be glad to have some further con- 
 versation with you on some other doctrines which I 
 find it difficult to understand, if it would not be tres- 
 passing too much upon your time. 
 
 Mill. — I will be glad to give you all the informa- 
 tion I can, and will be at leisure to-morrovv^ evening, 
 when we will take up the doctrine of election as it 
 is intimately connected wdth the doctrine of decrees. 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 ELECTION. 
 
 Convert. — Since our last conversation, I have been 
 examining the Confession of Faith, and have been 
 not a little surprised that I cannot find the terms 
 reprobate, and reprobation, any where used. I 
 thought they were used in contradistinction to the 
 terms elect and election. 
 
38 ELECTION. 
 
 Minister. — They are not used in our standards, I 
 believe, any where, though uniformly charged up- 
 on us, as an epithet by which to excite odium. I 
 have been the more surprised at this, because they 
 are Scripture terms; and, I would have no objection 
 to use them in the sense in which the Bible uses 
 them. They mean, 7wt appiwed, or chosen — and, if 
 in this sense applied to the finally impenitent, their 
 use would be proper. But the enemies of the doc- 
 trine of election, have coined a new meaning for the 
 words, and then charge us with using them, with 
 their meaning. The doctrinal tracts of the Metho- 
 dist Church, Avhich we examined some time ago, 
 ring their changes upon "election and reprobation," 
 as if scarcely any thing else were in our standards ; 
 whereas, reprobation, in the sense in Avhich they use 
 it, is neither part, nor consequence, of the doctrine 
 of election. 
 
 Con. — The idea I have had of the common mean- 
 ing of the term reprobation, is, that God made a 
 part of mankind merely to damn them — and, that he 
 has, by his decree respecting them, made it impossi- 
 ble for them to be saved, let tliem do what tliey may: 
 and, that this is a necessary consequence of the 
 doctrine of election, and so necessarily connected 
 with it, that they must both stand or fall together. 
 
 Min. — I know this is the common misrepresenta- 
 tion, but such sentiments are no where to be found 
 in our Confession of Faith, or in any of our stan- 
 dard writers; and only exist in the imaginations 
 and writings of errorists, who scarcely ever oppose 
 the truth without misrepresentation. Election has 
 nothing to do with the damnation of a single sin- 
 ner. It is God's purpose of love and mercy, em- 
 bracing in itself the means and agencies for carry- 
 
ELECTION. Z9 
 
 iiig it out. It embraces no decree^ or purpose, that 
 hinders any one from coming to Christ and being 
 saved, if they would. There is nothing that hin- 
 ders their sah^ation but their own aversion to holi- 
 ness, and their love of sin — and, it is /or thiSf that 
 God has purposed to damn them. 
 
 Con. — What then is the doctrine of election, as 
 held by the Presbyterian Church? 
 
 Min. — The best definition I can give of it, is con- 
 tained in the answer to the 30th question in our 
 Larger Catechism: "God doth not leave all men to 
 perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which 
 they fell by the breach of the first covenant, com- 
 monly called the covenant of works; but, of his 
 mere love and mercy, delivereth his elect out of it, 
 and bringeth them into an estate of salvation, by 
 the second covenant, commonly called the covenant 
 of grace." Now, one simple question will deter- 
 mine the truth of this, on the plain principles of 
 common sense. Does God save all men out of their 
 estate of sin and misery, or does he leave some 
 to perish in their sin, as they choose? If he save 
 all men "through the sanctification of the spirit and 
 belief of the truth," then the doctrine of election 
 is not true — but, if he do not, then it is true. 
 
 Con. — It is very plain, that he does not save all 
 men — hut does he not otfer salvation to all men? 
 
 Min. — Certainly. But, do you suppose that noth- 
 ing more is necessary for salvation than to offer it? 
 
 Con. — By no means. I believe if God would 
 leave men with a mere offer of salvation, not one 
 would ever accept of it. At least I judge so from 
 my own experience. I fully believe, if he had not 
 come with the influences of his Spirit, I should have 
 listened carelessly to the calls of the Gospel, until 
 
40 ELECTION. 
 
 death would have sealed my doom forever — and, I 
 feel, that I cannot be too thankful for his unspeaka- 
 ble mercy. 
 
 Min. — You believe, then, that salvation is entire- 
 ly of God; or, as the Apostle expresses it, he is "the 
 author and Jlnisher of our faith;" and, that he has 
 done a work in this respect for you, which he has 
 not done for your unconverted neighbor. But, do 
 you suppose it was on account of any thing natu- 
 rally good in yourself, that he made the difference? 
 
 Con. — I can take no praise to myself. I was 
 running the same course with my wricked compan- 
 ions; and, in some respects I believe, I was the 
 most wicked of all. I know, and feel, that it is all 
 of grace, and can truly say, it is "by the grace of 
 God, I am what I am." 
 
 Min. — Your experience in this respect, corres- 
 ponds with the language of Scripture, 1st Cor. 4: 7 
 — "Who maketh thee to differ from another ; and, 
 what hast thou, that thou didst not receive ?" Eph. 
 2 : 1 — "You hath he quickened, who were dead in 
 trespasses and sins." 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.'' Tit. 3: 5— "Not 
 by works of righteousness which we have done, but 
 according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing 
 of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost." Indeed, the Bible every where ascribes sal- 
 vation entirely to God; and, I have never yet been 
 able to find a true Christian who felt he had any 
 ground of boasting, as being in any sense, or in any 
 degree, the author of his own regeneration. But, 
 as you ascribe the work entirely to God, do you 
 suppose he intended your regeneration and conver- 
 sion, when he came in mercy by his Spirit; or, was; 
 
ELECTION. 41 
 
 it accidentally done, without any gracious design to- 
 wards you ? 
 
 Con. — I can hardly suppose you serious in asking 
 such a question. 
 
 Min. — It does imply an absurdity. A man who 
 acts without design, or purpose, is accounted fool- 
 ish ; and, it would be both absurd and impious, to 
 impute any thing of the kind to God. But, I pro- 
 posed the question preparatory to another. If God 
 acted with a gracious design in thus changing your 
 heart, when did he form that design ? Do you sup- 
 pose he conceived a gracious purpose towards you 
 at the time, or had he it previously ? And, if he 
 had it previously, when was it first formed ? 
 
 Con. — It must have been eternal, for he cannot 
 have any new designs. With him there cannot be 
 any succession of time. He is "from everlasting to 
 everlasting ;" and, as his existence is eternal, and 
 "his understanding infinite," all his designs and pur- 
 poses must be eternal. And, when I think of his 
 "gracious thoughts" towards me, and attempt to 
 trace them to their fountain, I find myself lost in 
 eternity. 
 
 ■Min. — You have now expressed every thing that 
 is intended and embraced, in the doctrine of elec- 
 tion. It is simply grace traced to its eternal source. 
 It is the design or purpose of God, to accomplish 
 that work of grace in the heart, which believers ex- 
 perience in regeneration, and to carry it on to per- 
 fection and glory. Now, the simple question is, did 
 he purpose to accomplish this work of grace in the 
 hearts of all men? This, no man of common sense 
 can believe. So, you perceive, we must either deny 
 the doctrine of regeneration and sanctification by 
 grace, or admit the doctrine of election. Those who 
 4 
 
42 ELECTION. 
 
 pretend to believe that salvation is entirely by the^ 
 grace of God, and yet deny the doctrine of election^ 
 can lay but {ew claims either to consistency, or com- 
 mon sense. 
 
 Con. — But, does not the believer do something in 
 his own conversion ? 
 
 M'i7i. — The action of the mind in believing andi 
 turning to God, is the believer's own work — that is,. 
 he believes. God does not beheve for him. But, 
 this is the //7iff of regeneration : and, they are so 
 intimately and inseparably connected, that persons 
 do not always distinguish between them. They 
 are, however, clearly distinct. Breathing is the re- 
 sult of life, and always inseparably connected wdth 
 it. A person must live in order to breathe, yet 
 breatliing is the operrdion of life, not life itself. So 
 ill spiritual life. Regeneration is the giving of life ; 
 and holy exercises are the operations or action of a 
 "quickened" soul. Your own experience will per- 
 haps be the best illustration of the fact. Though 
 convinced of sin, and dreading its consequences, you' 
 felt a strong disinclination to give yourself to God,, 
 on the terms of the Gospel ; but, you were after- 
 w^ards brought to see its beauty, and its perfect 
 adaptedness to your case. It was the same Gos- 
 })el, and the same Savior, who had been ofiered be- 
 fore, but, you seemed to view them in a new light. 
 You, in short, felt your views of God and religion- 
 changed, in a way that led you to desire and seek 
 what you formerly disliked and slighted. Now, it 
 is this change of views and feelings, that is called 
 regeneration ; and is the work of God — and, the ex- 
 ercises of love, faith, and hope, and the action, 
 of giving yourself to God, consequent upon your: 
 change of feelings, i'i conversion. Now^, it is admit- 
 
ELECTION. 43 
 
 ted on all hands, that you acted freely, and felt that 
 you were exercising and doing those things your- 
 self — but, the question is, did you change your own 
 leelings ? This, you have said, and the Bible every- 
 where declares, is the work of God. In doing it, he 
 accomplished a gracious design, which he had to- 
 ward you from eternity — and, that gracious design, 
 was your election. Hence, it is sometimes called* 
 ])ersonal election, because God has the same gracious 
 design toward each individual whom he calls. 
 
 Con. — It is surely a doctrine that is calculated to 
 excite gratitude in the heart of a Christian ; but, 
 does it not show partiahty in God, in doing more for 
 ijome than others ? 
 
 Min. — God distinguishes, it is true, but he is not 
 -partial ; for, partiality means a preferring one be- 
 fore another, without sufficient reasons, or overlook- 
 iiig just claims. If any of the human family could 
 claim any thing at the hand of God, there would be 
 cause of complaint, that some were passed by, in 
 his purpose of mercy. But, when aH equally de- 
 serve hell, if he see fit to save some, for a display of 
 his mercy, and leave others to the fate they choose, 
 for a display of his justice, though the former have 
 great ground of gratitude, the others have no cause 
 of complaint. 
 
 Suppose the monarch of some mighty empire 
 hears that some province of his dominions has re- 
 belled. Having no pleasure in their death, he sends 
 them an offer of pardon upon consistent terms, and 
 they all refuse to accept it. Still inclined to mer- 
 cy, he sends out embassadors, who use every en- 
 treaty with the rebels, but in vain. They call their 
 monarch a tyrant, and persist in their wicked rebel- 
 lion. The compassionate monarch, still unAvilling 
 
4i ELECTIOJT, 
 
 to give them up, goes among them himself, and \jj 
 his own personal influence, prevails on a greater 
 part of them to accept his proposals of pardon. But, 
 as such signal obstinacy ought not to go unpunish- 
 ed, he executes the sentence of the law on the rest. 
 Thus the greater part are reconciled, and the rest 
 are punished. Now, who could accuse the monarch 
 of partiality, or blame his course ? 
 
 But, vary the case a little. Suppose this monarch 
 has foreknowledge, and can clearly foresee the re- 
 bellion long before it takes place. He reasons with 
 himself thus; "I see that some years hence, part of 
 my kingdom will rebel. Well, I will send them a 
 proposal of pardon. But, I know they will all re- 
 ject it. I will then send special messengers to ex- 
 plain to them their danger, and the honorable man- 
 ner in which I wish to save them, and to use every 
 entreaty to bring them back to their allegiance. 
 But, I see they will reject all. I will then ^-o 7ny- 
 self, and prevail on the greater part of them to ac- 
 cept my ofter, and will punish the remainder as en- 
 samples to my whole empire. But, seeing that my 
 proclamation and my messengers will effect no- 
 thing, shall I omit to send them ? No ; I will send 
 them, to convince all, of my sincerity in offering 
 pardon and mercy; to show what obstinacy existed 
 in the hearts of the rebels ; and, to convince all, of 
 the wisdom, justice, and mercy of my proceed- 
 ings." 
 
 Now, can we find any more reason to blame the 
 monarch, because his determinations were formed 
 previously to the rebellion ? Can we condemn him 
 for taking the course he ought to have taken, if his 
 purposes had not been formed until the time ? Was 
 he partial in determining to make a public exam- 
 
ELECTION. 45 
 
 pie of some of the rejecters of his mercy ? Can any- 
 one say that his determination to save some, wrong- 
 ed the others ? Did his decree to save some, fix the 
 condition of the others, so that it was impossible for 
 them to accept his ofier of pardon? They fixed their 
 condition themselves. They were "ordained to 
 wrath and dishonor for their sins.'^ But, will any 
 one blame him for not constraining all to accept his 
 offer? This were to allow him no room for the ex- 
 ercise of discretion. Or, wdll any one say, he ought 
 not to have used his influence to persuade any, but 
 left all alike ? Then there would have been no ob- 
 jects upon whom to exercise mercy. 
 
 Now, though we cannot find an illustration that 
 will exactly, in all points, meet the case, yet I have, 
 I beheve, in this, exhibited our view of election in 
 every material point, and you can easily make the 
 application of it in your own mind to God, as the 
 sovereign of the universe, and this world a rebelled 
 province. God, in infinite mercy, has offered par- 
 don to the rebels of Adam's race, through his Son. 
 His language is, "Whosoever will, let him come.'* 
 But, all refuse; and, if left to themselves, every in- 
 dividual of mankind will reject the offer, and ever- 
 lastingly perish. Christ would have died in vain, 
 and there could be no trophies of his mercy. But, 
 God determined that this should not be the case. 
 He sends his spirit, and sweetly constrains them to 
 yield, in a manner that will forever redound to the 
 praise of his mercy and grace. What proportion of 
 the human family he has included in his purpose of 
 mercy, we are not informed ; but, in view of the 
 future days of prosperity promised to the Church, 
 it may be inferred, that the greater part wdll, at last, 
 be found among the number of the elect of God. 
 
46 ELECTION. 
 
 But, although the number is unknown to us, it is 
 "certain" and "definite" with God; so that he can- 
 not be disappointed, either in finding among them 
 one whom he did not expect, or in losing one he 
 purposed to save. This is what our Confession of 
 Faith means, and all it means, in saying that the 
 number is so "certain and definite, that it cannot be 
 increased or diminished," 
 
 I have now, I think, shown you, that the doctrine 
 of election is, in every point, a plain dictate of com- 
 mon sense. I wish also to show you, that it must 
 be true, from the character of God, and the Bible. 
 But, our conversation has been sufiiciently protract- 
 ed at this time. Call when you have leisure, and 
 we will pursue the subject farther, in the light of 
 God's word. 
 
 DIALOGUE VI. 
 
 ELECTIO?f. 
 
 Convert. — Since our last conversation, I have been 
 reflecting on the views you presented, and am con- 
 strained to acknowledge, that I can find no other 
 doctrine consistent with facts, the character of God, 
 and the Bible. It is a fact that must be conceded, 
 that God is the author of regeneration ; and, this 
 once conceded, the doctrine of election must be true, 
 or we at once deny his character as infinite. But, 
 still, there are some consequences of the doctrine, 
 which seem to me irreconcileable with God's good> 
 
ELECTION. 4.7 
 
 siess and sincerity, in offering pardon to sinners. 
 .Does it not render it necessary that some must be 
 •lost, and some must be saved ? 
 
 Minister. — You fail to distinguish between necessi- 
 ty and certainty. If you were to say, it renders it cei^- 
 tain that some loill be lost, and some will be saved, 
 .then you have the true issue ; but this, you perceive, 
 alters the case materially. There is no necessity 
 placed upon the impenitent to refuse the offers of 
 the Gospel, though God knows certainly they wilL 
 But, even that certainty, does not flow from the 
 doctrine of election. Take away the doctrine, and 
 see if the case will be any better. Will any be 
 saved without election, .that will not be saved with 
 it? If you take away God's special purpose to save, 
 every sinner of Adam's race will most certainly per- 
 ish. 
 
 Con. — But, still it seems, that God cannot be sin- 
 cere in offering salvation to all men, when it is cer- 
 tain that some will not accept it. 
 
 Min. — If he had formed no purpose to save any, 
 and offered salvation to all, knowing they would re- 
 fuse, could he be sincere ? 
 
 Con. — Certainly; for, if they would accept, they 
 w^ould be saved. Besides, he might offer, knowing 
 certainly they w^ould refuse, to show his willing- 
 ness to save, and the justice of their condemnation. 
 
 Min. — You have now answered the objection; 
 for, God's purpose to save some, does not affect, in 
 any point, the light in Avhich he stands to the rest, 
 or the relation in which they stand to him. They 
 are left just as they w^ere; and still, if they would 
 accept his offer, they would infallibly be saved ; and^ 
 it is just as much their duty to repent and be saved, 
 as if he had elected none. 
 
48 ELECTION. 
 
 Con. — Bat, will the doctrine not discourage the 
 use of means', and making exertions to obtain sal- 
 vation ? 
 
 Mill. — To whom can it be discouraging? Sure- 
 ly not to Minivers of the Gospel. When Paul was 
 preaching at Athens, he was discouraged, until God 
 preached to him the doctrine of election. In the 
 midst of his discouragement, how cheering it must 
 have been, to be told of God, "Be not afraid, but 
 speak, * * for I have much people in this city." — 
 Acts 18: 10. Now, here we have election from the 
 mouth of God — and, what could be more encoura- 
 ging, than to be thus informed, that God intended to 
 convert a number of that wicked city, through the 
 instrumentality of his preaching? Now, you will 
 observe, God did not tell Paul, he had all the city, 
 nor how ??iany. It was enough for Paul to know he 
 had some. He could then go forward, confident of 
 success. Take from me the doctrine of election, and 
 I have not the least hope of success. But, when I 
 know that God has determined to save a vast num- 
 ber of the human family in every age, "by the fool- 
 ishness of preaching," I can go forward in the use 
 of hi> appointed means, with confident hope. 
 
 Neither can it be discouraging to sinners. It is 
 the sinner's only hope. Take it away, and despair 
 must shroud the whole race of Adam. But the sin- 
 ner can now come to God, trusting in his special 
 purpose of mercy, feeling that his help is laid upon 
 one who is mighty to save, and who will infallibly 
 save every one who comes to him through Christ. 
 I know the doctrine sometimes makes careless sin- 
 ners uneasy, and wicked men uniformly hate it. 
 But, what does that amount to? Simply this. 
 They refuse mercy, and wickedly reject God's 
 
ELECTION. 49 
 
 grace ; and, knowing that they cannot be saved in 
 sin, and being unwilhng to repent, they hate the 
 whole system of grace. But, if any one truly de- 
 sires salvation, and wishes to turn from sin, he finds 
 in the doctrine of election the richest encourage- 
 ment. Would it not be encouraging to the people 
 of Corinth, to know that God had purposed to con- 
 vert a number of them, and make them trophies of 
 the cross? But, is the doctrine discouraging to the 
 praying Christian ? He acknowledges the truth of 
 it every time he prays that God would convert sin- 
 ners, and build up his Church. And it is the fact, 
 that God has promised to give this world to his Son, 
 and gather the vast multitude of his elect from every 
 nation, that is his only encouragement to pray. I 
 have, indeed, sometimes, wondered what encour- 
 agement those have to pray, who deny the doctrine. 
 II' it be not true that the work is God's, and he has 
 purposed to carry it on, why need any one pray ? If 
 the work be left to the decisions of sinners, or to 
 chance, the proper course would be to pray to those 
 who have the work to do. It is foolishly absurd, as 
 well as impious, to deny, that the work is God's, 
 and then pray that he would do it. So, you per- 
 ceive, it is the denial of the doctrine, that discour- 
 age ; prayer. But, what encouragement it affords, 
 to know, that God has puryosed to. carry on this glo- 
 rious v/ork, until the blessed religion of Jesus shall 
 triumph over the whole world, and has declared, 
 too, that it will be done, in answer to the earnest 
 prayers of his people. 
 
 Con. — I see much depends upon a right under- 
 standing of the doctrine. But, still, is it not calcu- 
 lated to do harm? 
 
 Min. — How can it do harm? We have seen, that 
 
5G ELECTIOTJ. 
 
 it contains the only ground of hope, to the Minister 
 as well as the sinner. Who was a more zealous ad- 
 vocate for the doctrine than Paul? There is no 
 modern writer who states the doctrine so plainly, or 
 in so forcible language; and, yet, who was more 
 zealous and indefatigable in labors? And the rea- 
 son is plain. He knew that God had determined to 
 save a great many in the world, and had placed the 
 instrumentality in his hands. This, with love to 
 his Master, constituted the glorious motive that ac- 
 tuated him in all his labors. Can it do harm for a 
 Minister to believe, that God, the Father, has prom- 
 ised the Savior "a seed," which shall surely be gath- 
 ered, as the glorious reward of his sufferings ? — and, 
 that his is the important work, so far as instrumen- 
 tality is concerned, of gathering this promised seed 
 to the Savior ? Could there be any higher motive 
 placed before the mind of a true lover of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ? Or, can it do harm, to preach this 
 doctrine, as a motive to Christian effort, or as an 
 inducement for sinners to believe? When a sinner 
 is told, that there is nothing on the part of God to 
 keep him away ; that there is nothing but his own 
 unwillingness and hatred of God, that stands in the 
 way of his acceptance ; and, that if he will only give 
 himself to God, on the terms of the Gospel, he will 
 be among those whom God has purposed to save ; 
 he has the greatest encouragement that can be giv- 
 en, to look to God for grace, and pray that he may 
 be included in the number of his chosen. 
 
 But, I grant, there is one way in which these 
 doctrines are the occasion of harm. W^hen our en- 
 emies misrepresent them, and endeavor to make 
 people believe that we make God the author of sin ; 
 that we deny free agency, and the use of means ; 
 
ELECTION; 
 
 51 
 
 and loudly proclaim that our doctrine "came from 
 hell, and leads to hell;" and, that, "according to our 
 belief, sinners may rest secure, the elect must be 
 saved, and the rest must be damned, do what they 
 may," &c., people will take occasion to say, "if so 
 large, respectable, and upright a class of Christians, 
 believe a doctrine which is pronounced 'worse than 
 infidelity,' there is no truth in religion." In this 
 way, the doctrine is the occasion of much harm. 
 But, because others wickedly 'Hum the truth of God 
 into a lie,'^ must we, therefore, give it up ? We may 
 as well say that Christ should not have preached 
 concerning "his kingdom," because he was wickedly 
 misrepresented as claiming an earthly crown. 
 
 Co7i. — 1 know such assertions are often made ; 
 and, I could not but wonder, that such awful doc- 
 trines were believed by a class of Christians that 
 seemed so generally pious and upright in their de- 
 portment, and at the same time so zealous in the 
 cause of Christ. I found them, as a body, general- 
 ly, the most liberal in sustaining the cause of benev- 
 olence, and making at least full as many sacrifices 
 and eftbrts for the spread of the Gospel, as any oth- 
 ers. 
 
 Min. — Let us now attend to some direct proofs 
 of the doctrine of election ; and, I would remark, 
 that it must be true, in the first place, from the 
 character of God and his promises. 
 
 Laying aside the thousand other promises he has 
 made on this subject to his Church and people, I 
 will only mention the reward promised to the Sa- 
 vior. Would Christ suffer and die on an uncertain- 
 ty? Would the Father subject his Son to all the 
 infinite load of wrath which he bore for sinners, 
 without any certain prospect of an adequate result . 
 
52 ELECTION. 
 
 And, if he, himself, had not made it certain^ how 
 could it be certain? If it were placed in any other 
 hands but his, it could not be certain. Let us for a 
 moment suppose, that God has not 'positively deter- 
 mined to bring any one to Christ; and, where is the 
 certainty that any will come ? 
 
 Con. — In that case, it would be certain that none 
 would come. 
 
 Min. — Then, you perceive, we are at once driven 
 to the conclusion, that he determined to "make 
 them willing," or there could be no certainty that 
 the Savior should "see of the travail of his soul, and 
 be satisfied." We might reason in the same way 
 respecting all the attributes of God. It is inconsist- 
 ent with any one of them, to deny his special pur- 
 poe of mercy. But, enough has been said, in the 
 light of reason. Let us examine the Bible, and see 
 if it teaches the doctrine ; for, however reasonable 
 it may appear, if it be not plainly taught there, we 
 must give it up. Eph. 1 : 4 — "According as he hath 
 c/iosen us in him before the foundation of the world y 
 that we should be holy and without blame, before 
 him, in love;" and, that hi^ meaning might be the 
 more plain, he adds, in the 5th verse, "Having pre- 
 destinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus 
 Chri-it, to himself, according to the good pleasure of 
 his will." And, in the 11th verse of the same chap- 
 ter, he says, "In whom aho we have obtained an in- 
 heritance, being predestinated according to the pur- 
 pose of him who worketh all things after the coun- 
 sel of his own will." Does not this look like the 
 doctrine of election? But, again, Rom. 8: 28 — 
 "We know that all things shall work together for 
 good, to them that love God ; to them who are the 
 called, according to his purpose.''^ "For, whom he 
 
ELECTION. 52^ 
 
 did foreknow, he also did predestinate^ to be con- 
 formed to tlie image of his Son. * * Moreover, 
 whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and 
 whom he called, them he also justified, and whom 
 he justified, them he also glorified." Now, if the 
 doctrine of election be not true, we may safely chal- 
 lenge any man to tell us, what the Apostle means 
 by such language. But, in 2 Thes. 2: 11 — 13, he 
 uses still stronger language: "And for this cause, 
 God shall send them strong delusion that they should 
 believe a lie, that they all might be damned, who be- 
 lieve not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous- 
 ness,^^ Is the language of our Confession stronger 
 than this, when it says, they weie "ordained to 
 ■wrath and dishonor for their sins"? People may 
 call this reprobation, or give it any other opprobri- 
 ous epithet, and say, "it originated in hell," &c. ; 
 but, there it is, in the language of Paul, much more 
 strongly expressed than in our Confession. But, in 
 the very next verse, we have the doctrine of elec- 
 tion, expressed in language equally strong : "But we 
 are bound to give thanks alway to God, for you, 
 brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath, 
 from the beginning, chosen you to salvation, 
 through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
 truth." He expresses the sam.e sentiment, in lan- 
 guage equally explicit, in his 2d epistle to Timothy, 
 1 : 9 — "God hath saved us, and called us with an 
 holy calling, iiot according to our works, but accord- 
 ing to his own purpose and grace, which was given 
 us in Christ Jesus, before the world began^ Such is 
 the language of Paul on the doctrine of election — 
 and, any person is at liberty, to weigh our Confes- 
 sion of Faith in this balance. 
 
 But, let us see what the Savior himself says on 
 
51 ELECTION. 
 
 this point. John 6: 36 — "All that the Father 
 GivETH ME, SHALL COME TO ME, and him that Com- 
 eth to me I will in no wise cast out." Here he first 
 states God's special purpose of mercy, in giving 
 him a seed to serve him, and the certainty of their 
 coming; and then adds the encouragement it affords 
 for sinners to believe. He, it seems, did not think 
 the doctrine discouraging. Those that the "Father 
 gave him," he calls his sfiee]) — John 10: 27 — "My 
 sheep hear my voice, and / know them, and they 
 follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and 
 they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them 
 out of my hands. My Father, who gave them me, 
 is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them 
 out of my Father's hands." And, in allusion to the 
 Gentiles, who had not yet had the Gospel preached 
 to them, he says, in the 16th verse, "Other sheep I 
 liave, which are not of this fold; them also I must 
 bring, and they shall hear my voice.''^ If this does 
 not express a special purpose of mercy towards all 
 those that shall be eventually gathered in, language 
 has no meaning.. 
 
 But, finally, he tells us of a day in which he will 
 preach the doctrine to the assembled universe, 
 amidst the awful grandeur of the Judgment, and 
 with a voice more awfully impressive than ten 
 thousand thunders. Matt, 24: 31 — "And he shall 
 send his angels, with a great sound of a trumpet, 
 and they shall gather together his elect from the 
 four winds." And in the 25th chapter, and 34th 
 verse, he tells us how he will address them: "Come 
 ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom pre- 
 pared for you from the foundation of the worlds 
 And to the others who, as Paul expresses it, "had 
 pleasure in unrighteousness," he will say, "Depart. 
 
ELECTION. 55 
 
 ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the 
 devil and his angels." Thus, his purpose of mercy 
 will be fulfilled, in a manner worthy of it, and of 
 himself; ?i\\& hi'i purpose of judgment , too, respeci- 
 ing the finally impenitent, will be fulfilled, in a man- 
 ner that will forever vindicate him from the charge 
 of partiality. 
 
 Con. — It will certainly be a grand and glorious 
 winding up of a scheme, equally grand and glorimis; 
 and, I think, it will then be acknowledged, that the 
 whole plan was laid in eternal and infinite wisdom 
 and love, and executed in infinite grace and glory. 
 I begin to see now the beauty and consistency of 
 the Calvinistic scheme, because it is the scheme of 
 the Bible. Those doctrines I find are justly styled 
 the ^^doctrines of grace" and I would like to ex- 
 amine with you some more of the prominent points 
 of this scheme, if I have not already consumed too 
 much of your time. 
 
 Min. — I consider my time w^ell spent in vindica- 
 ting the truth from the aspersions oi" its enemies. i> 
 shall be pleased, at any time, to examine with you 
 any other doctrine of our Confession, about w^hich 
 you have any difficulty. 
 
 Con. — There are some things about the doctrine 
 of total depjYwityy that I cannot fully understand. 
 1 have no doubt as to the fact; but, how we are 
 held responsible for Adam's sin, presents a difficulty 
 to my mind. 
 
 Min. — We w^ill take up that subject at our next' 
 interview. 
 
56 ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 DIALOGUE VII. 
 
 ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 Minister. — In our last conversation, you men- 
 tioned a difficulty under which your mind labored, 
 respecting the doctrine of hereditary depravity; 
 but, I think you stated, that you had no difficulty 
 as to ihefact, that all mankind are depraved. 
 
 Convert. — Judging from the exhibitions of human 
 nature, as they are seen on the general face of soci- 
 ety, I do not see how any one can deny the fact. 
 Looking at these exhibitions, under any circumstan- 
 ces yet found in the world, it seems to me that any 
 reflecting mind must be convinced, that mankind 
 are, by nature, '•'•wholly inclined to sin^'' as I find it 
 expressed in the Confession of Faith. 
 
 Min. — Your sentiments accord with the language 
 of the Bible, which gives a much stronger picture 
 of the state of man by nature, than our Confession. 
 Paul, in the first and third chapters of his epistle 
 to the Romans, states it at length, in as strong lan- 
 guage as can be used; and, in hundreds of other 
 places, we find mankind spoken of as being "in the 
 gall of bitterness, and bonds of iniquity." Gen. 6; 
 5 — "God saw that the Avickedness of man Avas great 
 on the earth, and that every imagination of the 
 thoughts of his heart was only evil, continually.''^ 
 Gen. 8: 21 — "The imagination of man's heart is 
 evil from his youth." But, I need not multiply 
 proofs of a fact which, as you say, is proved by 
 every day's observation. 
 
 The simple fact of the universal wickedness of 
 
ORIGINAL SIN. 57 
 
 mankind, has always proved a great difficulty with 
 those who deny the doctrine of innate depravity. 
 Some have attempted to account for it, from the in- 
 fluence of example — that men are wicked, because 
 ihey are surrounded with a bad influence. But, 
 whence the universal bad example? This is endeav- 
 oring to account for a fact, by referring to the fact 
 itself; and, is about as wise as to say, that men are 
 wicked because they are wicked. 
 
 Others have said, that it is an abuse of their free- 
 dom of will. But, why the universal abuse of free 
 will? It is admitted on all hands, that the will is 
 free. But, why does it uniformly choose evil? 
 There must be some cause that operates in inclin- 
 ing the will to act as it does. This method of ac- 
 counting for the fact, is, if possible, more absurd 
 than the other, and is about as consistent with com- 
 mon sense, as to account for the changes of the 
 wind, by the turnings of a weathercock. 
 
 Con. — I do not see how we can avoid the con- 
 clusion, that there is in man an innate propensity 
 inclining him to evil. 
 
 Min. — The next step, then, is to inquire whence, 
 and upon what principles, came this propensity to 
 evil. If this world be inhabited by a depraved in- 
 telligence, how came it to be so? Man was not so 
 created. The evil cannot be imputed to God. The 
 fault must be in man himself. "God hath made man 
 upright, but they have sought out many inventions," 
 is what the Bible tells us on this point, and to this 
 statement we must all assent. It is admitted, too, 
 on all hands, I believe, that some how, in conse- 
 quence of the fall of our first parents, all the evil 
 found in the world, has been entailed upon their 
 posterity; but, the principles upon which this is to 
 5 
 
58 ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 be accounted for, is a point much controverted, and 
 about which you say your mind labors. 
 
 Some deny that there was any legal connection 
 between Adam and his posterity, and that they had 
 no concern whatever with his sin, but that the pre- 
 sent state of mankind is to be accounted for on the 
 simple principle of transmission. As a tree propa- 
 gates its kind, so the posterity of Adam naturally 
 inherit his nature. The advocates of this doctrine, 
 express great abhorrence at the idea of being held 
 in any way legally responsible for the sin of Adam; 
 and represent it as highly tyrannical in God, to hold 
 us responsible for a sin, committed so long before we 
 were born. But they forget, that they are quarrel- 
 ing with an admitted fact in the government of God. 
 They admit that all evil is entailed upon us, in con- 
 sequence of Adam's sin, and yet deny that we had 
 any concern with it whatever. Now, what could 
 be more tyrannical than this? In the government 
 and providence of God, w^e are visited with all the 
 tremendous consequences, and dreadful evils of a 
 sin, with which we had no concern whatever. If 
 we had no concern with his sin, it is certainly the 
 highest injustice and tyranny to visit us with any of 
 its consequences. How much more consistent with 
 xhe character of God, and with common sense, to 
 admit the simple fact as it is expressed in our Cate- 
 chism, that we *^ sinned in him, and fell with him.^^ 
 Con, — But how could we sin in himl 
 Min, — Upon the simple principle of representa- 
 tion , which enters into all God's dealings with us. 
 It is easy to understand how a man acts through a 
 representative or agent. And who would ever 
 think of calling it injustice, or tyranny, to hold a 
 |)ersou responsible for the actions of Iiis agents or 
 
ORIGINAL SIN. 59 
 
 representative? The people of Ohio act in, and 
 through their representatives in the Legislature. If 
 they make wholesome laws, the people, with thenj- 
 selves, reap the benefit; and, if they make unjust 
 and oppressive laws, the people, equally with them- 
 selves, are involved in the evil consequences; and, 
 in this way, the people becom.e liable to all the evils 
 resulting from such mal-administration. It is in this 
 way, upon the principle of representation, that we 
 all "sinned in Adam, and fell with him," and became 
 liable to all the consequences of his sin, equally with 
 himself. This is the sense in which the term "^^^^7^' 
 is used in our Confession. We are not guilty of 
 Adam's sin personally, but liable to punishment, on 
 account of it; and, it is in this way, that w^e say, 
 his sin is imputed to us — that is, it is set to our ac- 
 count. 
 
 Con. — But, is not this doctrine liable to objection, 
 on the ground that we had nothing to do with his 
 appointment as our representative? 
 
 Min. — Under the circumstances, it was impossi- 
 ble that we could select our own agent to act for 
 us; but, the simple question to be determined, is, 
 was it just, wise, and merciful, in God, thus to deal 
 with us on the principle of representation? and, 
 when we could not choose our own representative, 
 to choose one for us? Will any one say, that it 
 would have been better for the human family, that 
 each should have stood singly for himself, in the 
 great trial of obedience? In that case, we must 
 leave out of view the covenant of grace and the 
 Savior; for, each individual, standing for himself 
 upon the great trial for life or death, can have no 
 reference to another. Then, all mankind, from in- 
 fancy to age — every moment — is on trial; and, the 
 
60 ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 moment any one fails in thought, word, or action, 
 then eternal death is the penalty, without &. single 
 gleam of hope. The feeble infant, with no distinct 
 conceptions of law, or penalty, with almost no 
 power to distinguish between good and evil, una- 
 ble properly to appreciate the tendencies of con- 
 duct, and, more than all, without any knowledge 
 that it is placed on such a trial; yet, is every mo- 
 ment standing in such a relation to God and his 
 law, that the indulgence of a single sinful feeling, 
 brings upon it all the weight of the infinite penalty 
 of God's law. Now, how it displays the goodness 
 of God, to put that infant on trial, in the person of 
 such a perfect being as Adam ! And, when the 
 Bible reveals the fact, that this was actually done, 
 who, in the name of common sense, and of wisdom 
 and goodness, can find fault and say, it was unjust 
 and tyrannical? 
 
 But, to put the matter in a still more favorable 
 light, suppose that all should be kept by God until 
 maturity, and then put on trial; and, even allowing 
 them to be as fully endowed with moral strength as 
 Adam was, yet placed upon the awfully solemn tri- 
 al, under such circumstances, that the moment any 
 one should sin, in thought, word, or deed, his case 
 is forever as hopeless as that of the fallen angels, 
 (who stood precisely in those circumstances,) and 
 the case is very little better. Now, is there any 
 one of all Adam's race, who would prefer thus to be 
 placed ? Does it not show, in a striking light, the 
 wisdom and goodness of God, in thus putting us on 
 trial in our original progenitor, and thereby increas- 
 ing, mere than ten thousand-fold, his motives to 
 obedience? Does not the principle o{ representation, 
 upon which God deals with us, commend itself to 
 
ORIGINAL SIN. Si 
 
 the plainest dictates of reason and common sense ? 
 And, who will find fault with his Maker, for select- 
 ing a representative for us, when we could not, un- 
 der the circumstances, choose one ourselves? And, 
 moreover, he appointed the very person, whom all 
 mankind would have chosen, if it could have been 
 left to them. 
 
 Con. — Is this what is meant in the Catechism by 
 the ^^ covenant" which, it says, was "made with 
 Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity"? 
 
 Min. — Yes ; the agreement entered into between 
 God and Adam, w^hereby he stood as our represent- 
 ative, is called a covenant, because there were cer~ 
 tain stipulations to be fulfilled, and a reward prom- 
 ised; and, on the other hand, a penalty threatened 
 for the breach of it. 
 
 Con. — But, is all this clearly revealed in the Bi- 
 ble? 
 
 Min. — We are not told, in express words, that 
 there was a covenant made between God and Ad- 
 am ; and, the opposers of the doctrine, have at- 
 tempted to triumph, because it is not stated,- in so 
 many Avords, that there w^as such a covenant trans- 
 action. But, such attempts at tiiumph, are, to say 
 the least, very silly. I once heard a Socinian tri- 
 umph in the same way, because he said the words 
 divinity of Christ, were not to be found in the Bi- 
 ble. And, a Universalist also, once, in my hearing, 
 pretended to triumph, because he said the words /w- 
 ture punishment, were not found in the Bible. You 
 can easily perceive, that such things only betray 
 their weakness. The question is not, are the exact 
 words, by which we express an idea, found in the 
 Bible — but, is the idea there plainly taught ? 
 The idea of the representative character of Adam, 
 and of his covenant relation to us, is as plainly 
 
(52 ORIGINAL SIIC. 
 
 taught in the Bible, as almost any other truth. Rom. 
 5: 19 — "By one man's disobedience, many were 
 made sinners." Verse 12 — "By one man, sin enter- 
 ed into the world, and death by sin, and so death 
 passed upon all men, /or tJiat all have sinned" We 
 are here taught, as plainly as can be, that death is 
 the consequence of sin ; and, the reason that all die, 
 is, ^Hhat all have sinned^ Now, we know, that 
 many die in infancy, before any actual sin can be 
 laid to their charge. Then, how have they sinned? 
 It is impossible to explain it on any other supposi- 
 tion, than that they sinned in Adam ; and they 
 could not sin in him in any other way, but by rep- 
 resentation. 
 
 Con. — Do you then believe, that those dying in 
 infancy, will be condemned on account of their ori- 
 ginal sin? 
 
 Min. — That is not a necessary conclusion. Rea- 
 soning from analogy, we may conclude, that it is 
 consistent with God's character and manner of deal- 
 ing with mankind, to save them through the atone- 
 ment of Christ. Paul tells us, Rom. 5 : 14 — that 
 "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over 
 them that had not sinned, after the similitude of 
 Adam's transgression" — that is, infants who had not 
 sinned actually. Now, seeing that they are invol- 
 ved in the consequences of Adam's sin, without ac- 
 tual participation, they may be included in the pur- 
 pose of mercy through Christ, without actual parti- 
 cipation by faith. But, if saved, they will be saved 
 as redeemed sinners, and will unite with all the host 
 of God's elect, in singing "glory to the Lamb that 
 redeemed us, and washed us in his blood." N^ow, it 
 is plain, that they cannot be redeemed, if they are 
 not lost ; they cannot be washed, if they are not 
 
ORIGINAL SIN. 63 
 
 poiluted; they cannot be saved through Christ, if 
 they are not sinners. If they are saved through 
 Christ, it is an incontrovertible proof that they are 
 sinners through Adam. 
 
 But, farther, Paul says, Rom. 5 : 18 — "By the 
 offence of one, judgment came upon all men to con- 
 demnation." If this does not prove that all men are 
 liable to condemnation, on account of the sin of Ad- 
 am, language has no meaning. And, there is no 
 way that they could become thus liable, but by sus- 
 taining to him a covenant relation, such as I have 
 spoken of. Many other passages are equally clear, 
 in teaching the same truth, by plain and necessary 
 deduction, which I need not enumerate. But, we 
 are not left to this mode of proof entirely. It is 
 plainly manifest, that every item essential to a cov> 
 enant, is contained in the transaction between God 
 and Adam ; and the term ^^covenant," is given to it 
 by Hosea, 7 : 9 — "They like men have transgressed 
 the covenant." The literal rendering of the He- 
 brew, is, "they like Adam have transgj^essed the cov- 
 enant.''^ The Hebrew phrase, "X:e Adam," which is 
 here used, is so rendered, in Job 31 ; 33 — "If I cov- 
 ered my transgression, as Adam" &c. ; from w^hich 
 it is plain, that the idea of a covenant with Adam, 
 was familiar to the inspired writers. 
 
 I have now given a few, and only a few, of the 
 many arguments that might be drawn from reason 
 and the Bible, as well as from facts, to prove the 
 representative character of Adam, and our covenant 
 relation to him, on the ground of which his sin is 
 imputed to his posterity : and they consequently in- 
 herit a sinful nature, having "sinned in him, and 
 fallen with him, in his first transgression." Enough, 
 however, has been said, I think, to show you, that 
 
64 FREE GRACE. 
 
 the doctrine of our Confession of Faith on this 
 subject, is the doctrine of the Bible, and of common 
 sense. 
 
 Con. — My mind is entirely relieved of its difficul- 
 ty; and, I find the doctrine of imputation, so far as 
 it respects Adam's sin, is far different from what I 
 had conceived it to be. 
 
 Min. — The other part of the doctrine, viz: the 
 imputation of Christ's righteousness as our only de- 
 pendence for salvation, I presume you understand 
 more clearly. 
 
 Con. — I have made it my only dependence, and 
 rejoice to do so ; but, still I would be glad to un- 
 derstand it more fully, as my Methodist neighbor 
 tells me that faith, and good works, are, at least in 
 part, the meritorious ground of my justification. 
 
 Min. — We will take up that subject, in our next 
 convei"^ation. 
 
 DIALOGUE VIIL 
 
 FREE GRACE. 
 
 Minister. — In establishing the doctrine of the im- 
 puted righteousness of Christ, as the only ground oi 
 our justification in the sight of God, it is important, 
 in the first place, to have a clear understanding of 
 our relations to him, and the claims of his law. 
 
 Convert. — Are we still under obligations to obey 
 the law of God, notwithstanding we have broken it» 
 and incurred its penalty ? 
 
FREE GRACE. 65 
 
 Mi?i. — The fact that we have broken God's law, 
 cannot free us from obligations to serve and obey 
 him, in the smallest degree. But, we are speaking 
 now, more particularly, of w^hat is necessary to es- 
 cape the penalty justly due us as sinners. It is said 
 by some, that God has relaxed the original terms up- 
 on which eternal life was first promised, and that he 
 has been graciously pleased, for Christ's sake, to 
 make a new covenant with man, in which he prom- 
 ises to pardon our sins if we repent ; and, since we 
 cannot render perfect obedience during all our life, 
 he will accept of our imperfect obedience, if it be 
 sincere. This, I suppose, is the opinion of your 
 Methodist neighbor, whom you mentioned as main- 
 taining, that we are justified, in part at least, by 
 works. But, this is only an attempt to "establish 
 our own righteousness," and, is not only unscri})- 
 tural, but absurd. The law of God is a transcript 
 of his character, and was so intended to be. "Be 
 ye holy, for I am holy^^^ was the sanction that ac- 
 companied it ; and, who will dare to set up a lower 
 standard ? If its claims are let down, then it is ab- 
 rogated, and a new one set up, through Christ. But, 
 Christ says expressly, that he "came not to destroy, 
 but to fulfill." Besides, if there be a change in God's 
 law, it is no longer to us a transcript of his charac- 
 ter, and cannot be a perfect standard of holiness. 
 Consequently, too, the principles of his government 
 are changed ; and, things which were once sins, 
 cannot now be so accounted ; and, things that were 
 once duties, are now dispensed with, which casts a 
 severe, if not impious reflection, upon both the Gov- 
 ernor and his law. It is, in fact, nothing more than 
 salvation by works, and casts away altogether the 
 necessity of a Savior ; for, if the high authority of 
 
66 FREE (GfRACE. 
 
 the law may give way for the accommodation of a 
 criminal, why was it necessary that any obedience 
 or satisfaction should be rendered to it by another 
 in his stead ? The obedience and sufferings of the 
 Savior were, in that case, mere works of superero- 
 gation, given to a law, which, after all, did not ne- 
 cessarily demand them. 
 
 Con. — But, may we not suppose, that the suffer- 
 ings of Christ, were intended to show God's hatred 
 of sin in such a light, that he might consistently par- 
 don sin, without an impeachment of his law or cha- 
 racter, when the sinner sincerely repents ? 
 
 Min. — The sufferings of the Savior do exhibit, in 
 a very striking light, the great evil of sin; and, it 
 was no doubt intended, that they should do so. 
 But, if we stop there, we make the atonement a 
 very small matter* It represents God as maJcing a 
 show of respect for his law and government, which, 
 in fact, does not exist, if he can look over a viola- 
 tion of it without the satisfaction it demands ; and* 
 the atonement of the Son of God, was nothing more 
 than this governmental display, which would be un- 
 worthy of an earthly king. This theory is, howev- 
 er, becoming very popular at the present day ; and, 
 what is more strange, it is advocated by some who 
 call themselves Presbyterians, and profess attach- 
 ment to the Confession of Faith, though they are 
 not now in our connection. But, to see in a still 
 clearer light, the unreasonableness of these systems, 
 we have only to consider what are, in reality, the 
 claims of God's law, as laid down in the Bible, which, 
 I have already said, is necessary to a right under- 
 standing of the subject. "Love the Lord with all thy 
 heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, 
 and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself," 
 
FREE GRACE i 
 
 67 
 
 IS what God claims of all his intelligent creatures. 
 And, will any one say, he asks too much, or that it 
 would be consistent with his character, to accept of 
 any thing less ? "God is love ;" and, in this sum- 
 mary of his law, he has given us a transcript of his 
 character. It is the same grand principle that binds 
 angels, and all the intelligent universe. It is like 
 himself, and all his works ; simple, yet grand, ma- 
 jestic, and glorious in its simplicity. It extends to 
 every faculty and power of the creature, "heart, 
 soul, strength, and mind ;" and, being thus the ba- 
 sis, or grand principle of his moral government, it is 
 as unchangeable as himself. The moment he should 
 give up with any of its requirements, and accept 
 from a creature an obedience that was defective, 
 the stabihties of his throne would be undermined. 
 Hence, Christ says, that "Till Heaven and earth 
 pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from 
 the law, till all be fulfilled. Think not that I am 
 come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am 
 not come to destroy, but to fulfill"— Matt. 5 : 17, 18. 
 It is, therefore, not only absurd, but impious, to 
 plead, that the law is changed, for the accommoda- 
 tion of sinful man. Sooner may we expect Jeho- 
 vah to annihilate universal creation, than give up 
 "one jot or one tittle" of that law, which is the 
 transcript of his character. Now, it is this law, 
 which claims obedience originally from us, and its 
 claims we must answer in ourselves, or by another, 
 if we would inherit eternal life ; and, I presume, I 
 need not stay to prove, that no sinner of Adam's 
 race can, in himself, answer its demands. 
 
 It is proper, also, that we should notice here, the 
 penalty by which obedience to the law of God is en- 
 forced. It corresponds with the law, in its great- 
 
68 FREE GRACE. 
 
 ness and justice. Deaths with all the dreadful con- 
 sequences which the Bible attaches to that terrn^ 
 when speaking of it as a penalty threatened, is a 
 punishment in which will be exhibited, forever, the 
 greatness, justice, and majesty of God, and his law. 
 We, therefore, as sinners, having incurred this pen- 
 alty, the law has a two-fold claim upon us — satis- 
 faction and restitution. The law must be satisfied, 
 to place us on terms of reconciliation with God; 
 and then it requires complete and perfect obedience, 
 to entitle us to life. It is equally plain, that no 
 finite creature can give to the laAv the infinite satis- 
 faction it requires ; and this is one reason that the 
 punishment of the wicked must be eternal. 
 
 Con. — Mankind are then, by nature, in a very 
 wretched condition. 
 
 Min. — That is very true; and, this is no doubt 
 one reason, that so much opposition is manifested 
 toward the doctrines of grace. Volumes have 
 been written, the Scriptures have been perverted, 
 and every expedient has been tried, to prove, that 
 the spiritual condition of mankind is not so bad. 
 But, the only effect that can result from it, is to 
 make sinners more careless. It is always best for 
 us to know the worst of our spiritual condition. If 
 there were no remedy provided, it would be humane 
 to endeavor, as far as possible, to allay fears that 
 could be of no avail. But, when God has gracious- 
 ly provided a remedy, it is unfaithfulness to the 
 Savior, and cruelty to the souls of men, to attempt 
 to hide, in the smallest degree, their real condition. 
 
 But this brings us to speak of what God, in infi- 
 nite mercy, has done to save us from this wretched 
 condition. The Son of God took upon himself to 
 answer the claims of the law, in our stead, both as 
 
FREE GRACE. 69 
 
 it respects obedience and satisfaction, and, in both 
 respects, satisfied its claims to the full. By his obe- 
 dience and sufferings, he has wrought out a right- 
 eousness, on the ground of which we may be accept- 
 ed. And here again, God deals with us on the 
 principle of representation. The Savior stood, and 
 still stands, as our representative and agent. Our 
 sins were imputed to him — that is, they were set to 
 his account — he engaged to answer for them — and 
 was thus treated as a sinner. On the other hand, 
 his righteousness is imputed to us ; that is, it is set 
 to our account, and we are treated as righteous, on 
 the ground of what he has done for us. All this is 
 briefly, yet clearly expressed, in our Confession of 
 Faith and Catechisms. "Justification is an act of 
 God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, 
 and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for 
 the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and 
 received by faith alone." — Shorter Cat., Quest. 33. 
 
 Con. — What do you understand by faith, as you 
 use the term in this connection? 
 
 Min. — It is simply the act of the soul in casting 
 ourselves upon Christ, and trusting to his righteous- 
 ness for salvation — or, as our Catechism expresses 
 it, "Faith in Jesus Christ, is a saving grace, where- 
 by we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, 
 as he is offered to us in the Gospel." — Quest. 86. 
 Christ is offered us in the Gospel, as a Savior who has 
 fulfilled the law, and satisfied the justice of God in our 
 stead; and, we are invited to come, and be saved 
 through him. When Ave accept of him as our 
 Savior, and cast ourselves upon him for salvation, 
 the act of the soul in so doing, is faith ; and hence, 
 in this sense, it is called saving faith. It is then 
 that the righteousness of Christ is set to our ac- 
 count, and made ours through faith. 
 
70 FREE GRACE. 
 
 Con. — Is faith, then, a necessary condition of our 
 salvation? 
 
 Min. — It is necessary f but can hardly be called a 
 condition, in the sense in which the termis general- 
 ly used; at least, it is not a meritorious condition. 
 Inhere can be no merit in simply accepting a thing 
 otfered, though it is necessary that we accept it, be- 
 fore it can be ours. It is in this sense, that faith is 
 necessary to our salvation. We must accept of the 
 salvation offered through Christ; and, in the accept- 
 ance of it, God makes it over to us. Hence, the 
 Catechism says, it is ^^received by faith alone^ And, 
 from this, also, you will be able to understand the 
 numerous texts of Scripture, which speak of salva- 
 tion by faith. "lie that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be 
 damned." — Mark 16: 16. "Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." — Acts 16: 
 31, &c. We are also said to be ^^ justified, by faith." 
 — Rom. 5: 1. "Therefore it is of faith, that it 
 might be by grace.'^^ — Rom. 4: 16. "Justified free- 
 ly by his grace through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus." — Rom. 3: 34. Besides many other 
 passages, which I need not enumeiate. 
 
 Con. — -But, a difficulty presents itself to my 
 mind here, respecting the atonement of Christ, 
 and which I have heard urged against the doctrine 
 of an infinite satisfaction being given, or the full 
 penalty of the law endured by him. How could he 
 give an infinite satisfaction in so short a period? He 
 did not suffer eternally, nor did he sufier remorse, 
 &LC., which was due the sinner. 
 
 Min. — Eternal death, strictly speaking, was not 
 the penalty of the law. It became so from the na- 
 ture of the persons incurring it. They are 
 
FREE GRACE. 71 
 
 finite, and cannot give the full satisfaction, in ail 
 cx)nceivable time; therefore, they must atone for 
 their sins eternally. But, an infinite being may 
 give infinite value to an atonement in time. Thus, 
 the divinity of the Son of God, stamps his atone- 
 ment with infinity. We are told he "magnified the 
 law, and made it honorable." No finite being could 
 thus magnify the law, or show its greatness and dig- 
 nity in any clearer light, because it was made for 
 them, and all owe it obedience. But, the Son of 
 God, being infinite in all the perfections of Deity, 
 did not owe it obedience for himself; and, when he 
 made it the rule of ]iis life, and condescended to sat- 
 isfy its claims, he "magnified it, and made it honor- 
 able," in a light in which it never was before. Its 
 holiness, justice, majesty, and excellence, are dis- 
 played in a more glorious light than they could have 
 been, in any other conceivable way. The law is 
 more honored and magnifi.ed, by the obedience and 
 satisfaction rendered to it by the Son of God, than 
 it could have been by the perfect obedience, and 
 eternal death, of all the intelligent creatures in the 
 universe. Hence, the Apostle calls it ''Hhe right- 
 eousness of God" — Rom. 3: 21, 22, and in several 
 other places. It is this obedience and satisfaction 
 of the Son of God, that constituted the glorious 
 righteou:^ne3s, on the ground of which, God has offer- 
 ed salvation to all who believe on his Son. It is a 
 righteousness as great, perfect, holy, infinite, and 
 glorious, as God himself — a righteousness, on the 
 ground of which, he can be J2ist, and yet the justi- 
 lier of every one who will believe, however sinful 
 and polluted he may be. Nay, moie: It is a right- 
 eousness, on the ground of which he cannot only be 
 barely justy but also glorious in its exercise. Hia 
 
72 FREE GRACE. 
 
 justice, holiness, truth, mercy, and every attribute, 
 will be forever glorified, in the justification extend- 
 ed to every believing sinner, through the glorious 
 righteousness of his Son. 
 
 Now, when God has lavished his love and wisdom 
 on such a plan of salvation, so glorifying to himself, 
 and so suitable for us, how strange, that men, in the 
 pride of opinion, will endeavor to find out another ! 
 And, when we are ofiered such a righteousness as 
 the ground of our salvation, we may well ask, wheth- 
 er any one truly loves the Savior, who will bring 
 up his own faith and obedience, and plead them be- 
 fore God, as meriting salvation; as if the glorious 
 righteousness of the Son of God were not sufficient. 
 
 Con. — It cannot be salvation by grace, if we mer- 
 it it in any degree ourselves. Any true Christian will 
 desire to ascribe all the glory to his Savior. At 
 least it so seems to me. It surely contributes in no 
 small degree to the enjoyment of the believing sin- 
 ner, to ascribe all the praise to his Savior. 
 
 Min. — Let us now see what the Bible says on 
 these points. And, first, let us examine what proofs 
 it contains that our sins were imputed to Christ, and 
 that he took our place under the law. Isa. 53 : 4, 
 5 — "Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried 
 our sorrows. * * But he was wounded for our trans- 
 gressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the 
 chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with 
 his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have 
 gone astray; we have turned every one to his own 
 way ; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of 
 us ally Verse 11 — "By his knowledge shall my 
 righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear 
 their iniquities.''^ Verse 12 — "He bare the sin of 
 many." 2 Cor. : 5, 21 — "He hath inade him to he 
 
FREE GRACE. 
 
 sin for us, * * that we might he made the righteousness 
 of God in him." Here, both truths are plainly sta- 
 ted, that our sins were set to his account, and his 
 righteousness to ours. There is no other conceiva- 
 ble sense in which he could be '■^made sin,'' or we 
 ^'■made the righteousness of God." 1 Pet : 2, 24 — "His 
 own seU ba7^e our sins in his own body on the tree ; 
 by whose stripes ye are healed." Hei-e, a^ain, both 
 truths are thrown together. 1 Pet.: 3, 18 — "Chiist 
 also hath once suffered for sin, the just for the un- 
 just, that he might bring us to God." These, with 
 all the texts which speak of him as "dying for us," 
 and being a "propitiation for us," and a "propitia- 
 tion for our sins," (of which kind hundreds might 
 be adduced,) prove the doctrine of his substitution 
 in our stead, as plainly as language can j)rove it. If 
 they do not prove that the death of Chiist was a 
 true and proper sacrifice for sin in our stead, human 
 language cannot state it. 
 
 That his righteousness is imputed to us, is taught 
 in language equally plain. And, I would observe, 
 that all the passages which deny salvation by 
 "works," the "deeds of the law," &c., by necessary 
 implication, prove that we are saved only by the 
 righteousness of Christ. Rom. 3 : 20—28—"! here- 
 fore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justi- 
 fied in his sight. But, now, the righteousness of 
 God without the law is manifested, * * even the riglU- 
 eousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, 
 unto all, and 7ipon all them that believe. Beino- jvsti- 
 Jied freely by his grace, through the rede?n]jtion that 
 is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be 
 a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare 
 his righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
 past, through the forbearance of God. To declare 
 6 
 
T4 FREE GRACE^ 
 
 I say, at this time, his righteousness ^ that he might 
 be just, and thejustifier of him which belicveth on 
 Jesus, Where is boasting then? It is exchided». 
 By what law? Of works? Nay; but by the law 
 of faith. Therefore, we conclude, that a man is 
 justijied by faith^ without the deeds of the law." 
 Now, is it not strange, that any one pretending to 
 common sense,, and to be guided by the Bible, would,, 
 in the face of all this plain and unequivocal lan- 
 guage, uphold salvation by works, in any degree 
 whatever I But, farther still, the Apostle reat^ons 
 the case at length, in the fourth chapter; and, in 
 the fifth, in drawing a parallel between Christ and 
 Adam, states the doctrine again, with equal plain- 
 ness. Rom. 5 I IS — "By the righteousness of one^ 
 the fre3 gift came upon all men into justification of 
 life.''^ Verse 19 — "By the obedience ol one shall 
 many be made righteous." Chap. 10 : 3, 4 — "But 
 they being ignorant of God^s righteousness, and go- 
 ing about to establish their own righteousness, have 
 not submitted themselves to the righteousness of 
 God. For Christ is the end of the Law for right- 
 eousness to every oiie that helieveth .^'' Phil. 3: 9 — 
 "That I may win Christ, and be found in him, not 
 haviig mine own righteousness which is of the law, 
 but that which h through the foith of Chiist, the 
 righteousness which is of God by faith.'''' But, I 
 need not multiply quotations, which might be done 
 to almost any extent. 
 
 Con. — I find that the Calvinistic doctrines are 
 justly styled the docti^ines (f gi^ace, and yet those 
 who deny them, lay strong claims to a system of 
 "free grace," and "tree salvation." 
 
 Mi7i. — It is only another of their inconsi-tencies. 
 How can that be free, which is merited or bought by 
 
GOOD WORKS. 75 
 
 works ? If our good works merit salvation, it is d^ 
 contradiction in terms to call it free. So Paul rea- 
 sons, Rom. 4 : 4 — "To him that worketh is the re- 
 ward not reckoned of grace, but of debt,^^ And, 
 further, verse 16 — "Therefore it is of faith, that it 
 might be by grace.''^ And, again: Rom. 11: 6 — 
 **Il' it be qf works, then it is no more grace.^^ So, 
 according to Paul, they can lay no claim to the doc- 
 trine of a "free salvation," who maintain that it is 
 in any sense by works. 
 
 DIALOGUE IX. 
 
 GOOD WORKS. 
 
 Convert, — Since our last conversation, I have been 
 reflecting upon the doctrine of imputation, and ex- 
 amining the Bible; and find, that it is one of its 
 plainest doctrines. And, 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 Uable 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 
 meritorious ground of our salvation; but, in every 
 other respect, it secures and establis/ies them. This 
 
7^ 
 
 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, 
 knoAving 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 f" 
 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 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 estahlisk 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 })lain. 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, suflering and 
 dying to redeem me from hell, I felt as if it would 
 be the joy of my life, to serve him w^ith 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 less 
 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 
 worket/i by love.^^ And Peter, in Acts 15 : 9, as- 
 cribes to it the effect of '^pmnfying the heart." And» 
 in Acts 26: 18, we are said to be ^^saiictijied 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 thai just fies, 
 he has also the faith that sanctifies^ It i? impossible 
 to separate them. It is true, faith is not meritori- 
 (jus, m either ca-^e, but only instrumental ; but, it is 
 always just as surely instrumental of the one, as of 
 the other. It i ; absurd to suppo e, 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 suppo -e, 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, 
 
is 
 
 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 alojie, 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 — "The^e 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 
 con 'equence. 
 
 Con. — But, is faith not sometimes to be under- 
 stood in a more extended sen?e, than .^imply depend- 
 ing on, and tru:.ting in, Chii-^t for salvation? 
 
 Min. — Though this is its principal act, it ex- 
 tends to, and acts ujion, every tiling that God has 
 revealed. As it is expressed in our Confession, chap. 
 14, sec. 2 — "By this faith, a Chi i tian believeth to 
 be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the 
 authority of God himself, speaking therein; and 
 ^cteth 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 were made, &€- 
 
GOOD WORKS. 7^ 
 
 And, again, *'He that cometh to God, must believe 
 that ha is, and that he is the re warder of them that 
 diHgently seek him." But, faith in all these acts^ is 
 subjrJinite, and depandeiit for it> 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 adaiit 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 belie veth 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 
 Goi's word, it "e tablishes the law" as the great 
 rule of obedience, in conformity to which the be- 
 liever strives to live. "Working by love," which is 
 ■'Hhe fulfiUing 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? 
 
80 
 
 GOOD WORKS. 
 
 Min. — They commend us to God as obedient 
 children, striving after conformity to his law, and 
 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 1 
 mean all the graces of } iety 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 tliat thou 
 fearest God." And, the A] ostle James tells us, that 
 "by hii works his faith was miade perfect." — James 
 2 : 22. That ii, it was proved to be of the right 
 kind. 
 
 Con. — Bat, does not James say, in the same con- 
 nection, that Abraham was justified by works? And 
 how is this to be reconciled with the lanouacre of 
 Paul? .. 
 
 Mill. — 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 thii that James 
 was writing, and abo, 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 ?" 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 belie vest 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 
 Avorks, and, by woiks was faith made perfect ? And 
 the Scripture was 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 Sciip- 
 ture, which the A]:)ostle says was fulfilled by Abra- 
 ham offering his son, is Gen. 15 : 6. "x\nd he be- 
 lieved in the Lord, and he counted it to him for 
 righteousness." The faith that Abraham exercised 
 in this in.'tance, w^as belief and confidence in the 
 promise that he should have a son, and including the 
 
m 
 
 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 uncircumciiion? 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 uncircumcisedJ'^ 
 
 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 
 oflfering of his !=on, in which James says this scrip- 
 ture was fulfilled. Noav, will any one pretend, that 
 the Apostle intended to teach, that Abraham was 
 not justified until he offered his ^on ? This would 
 be inconsistent both with scripture and common 
 sense, and the language of the A):o:tle himself. In 
 what Fense, then, was thi-; s-crij tiu'e fuliilled, in the 
 oflTeiing of hi^ son ? Plainly in thi ■, that he thereby 
 proved his faith to be of the light kind, a genuine 
 faith of the go>pel, working by love, and producing 
 obedience to the commands of God. Theie is no 
 other conceivable sen e in which it could be fulfilled. 
 Neither can we suppose, that the ApoUle intended 
 to teach, that true evangelical faith is ever found 
 without good woi'ks ; and, unles; we deny a plain 
 pa>sage of scripture, written by Mo^e>, and quoted 
 by both James and Paul, we must conclude that he 
 only intended to teach, that we cannot be ju tified 
 by a "dead faith," which i^ "without works ;" and, 
 that a believing, active faith, which "works by love 
 and puiifie^ the heait," is nece^i-ary to our justifica- 
 tion. For, he expre^.sly say-, 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 tlie 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 i?, to do w/iatsoevcr he com- 
 mands. To do thi^, 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 lells us, Luke 17: 10— "When 
 ye shall have done all the.^e things Avhich 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 di>:ciple in the 
 name of a di^ciple, shall not lose it-; 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 
 ingredient 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- 
 count of by our Savior. "J was an hungered, and 
 ye gave me meat," &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, 'Ho tJie praise of the glo- 
 ry of his grace.''^ — Eph. 1 : 6. 
 
 Con. — There is a passage of Scri})ture that I have 
 met with some where, which says, "whatsoever is 
 not of faith, i-; sin ;" which I ibuad 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 rio^ht 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 hi^ tail into a state of sin, hath wholly 
 lost all ability of will to any spiritual good, accom- 
 
INABILITY. 85 
 
 panying salvation ; so, as a natural man, being alto- 
 gether averse iVom that which is good, and dead in 
 sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert him- 
 self, or prepare himself thereiuito." 
 
 Bat 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/ 
 
 Minister. — 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- 
 bihty 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- 
 
86 INABILITY. 
 
 itual things. "The natural man," says Paul, 1 Cor., 
 2: 14, "receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
 God, /or t/iey are fooUs/iness 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- 
 ate, 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 spiritKalli/ discerned." In order 
 to see them aright, and appreciate them, he must be 
 made a "spiritual man." His understanding must 
 be enlightened, and hi> 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 
 
 Min. — 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 hea^ 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, which 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 presumje, 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 obhgation to 
 love him. It lifts the sinner above the law of God. 
 He requires obedience; the s: inner 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 forther. You can see clearly, that man's ina- 
 bility to obey the law of God, can, in no sense, free 
 him from obligation. 
 
 Cun. — But, has not man some kind of ability? I 
 have some where, in the course of niy 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 morale 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— jthe 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 w??- 
 abh, 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 comie to 
 me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw 
 him." And, again, he shows the nature of this ina- 
 bilitv: "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have 
 life." 
 
 If tho3e who contend that the sinner has a natu- 
 ral ability, would tell us plainly what they mean by 
 it, and what it amounts to, we would 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 
 
■ f 
 
 liNABILITY. 89 
 
 rr.s 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 attections and 
 inclinations are turned aw^ay 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 tiiat 
 are good in themselves, and, indeed, to do any thing, 
 predicable of his nature as man, which he chooses to 
 do, or, in other w^ords, 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, 
 whom 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 
 
90 INABILITY. 
 
 refuse to acknowledge his authority. They lire- 
 morally, not because God has required it, but fronr* 
 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 : 
 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 to* 
 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 Gcxl and his law together, as characteristic of 
 every unregenerate man. Then, while the heart is 
 thus at enmity with God, the strictest outward mo- 
 rality is nothing in his s-ight, 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 
 ?iot inconsistent with the fact, that unregenerate 
 men are often m©ral 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 liot 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 
 
 ment, 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 
 ©f pirates, we may find many things that are good in 
 
9^ 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 thing^:, 
 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. 80, 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 world, 
 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 spurned, 
 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. 3^3 
 
 |)ent 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 pleas*; 
 God." And, Heb. 11 : 6— "Without faith, it is im- 
 }X)ssible 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 eas}' 
 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 ploitirJiing 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 
 Qt wrath" — and no ability to help themselves. 
 
 Mi?i. — It places them entirely dependent upon the 
 
9^ 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 Gody 
 has he not some power over his will, that might be 
 exercised in determining his choice of God and ho- 
 liness ? 
 
 Mill. — I have already remarked, that the will in 
 choosing, is influenced by motives, and the motives 
 preponderate, according to the state of the heart, 
 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. 
 
FREE WILL. ^ 
 
 DIALOGUE XL 
 
 FREE AVILL. 
 
 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, Avhich 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, it' 
 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, and whether these strongest inclina- 
 tions do not always operate in determining choice. 
 
 Co?i. — But, do not men often choose that which 
 is contrary to their desires and inclinations 1 
 
 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,. 
 Fov instance, a man may, and can eat wormwood. 
 
^ 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 tvholc^ 
 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. 
 Xow, 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. di 
 
 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. 
 
 Co7i. — 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 he 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 
 etiect — but, without it, they will 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. "Verily, 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 
 oi the inner man, without any power in itself to 
 put forth choices contrary to that moral state, is the 
 doctrine not Hable to objection, on the ground that 
 the motives are often presented under circumstances 
 over which the man has no control ? 
 
 Mill. — 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 silly, that because 
 God places man in ciicumstance^', and gives him op- 
 })ortunities to do good, because he choo.ses to pervert 
 them to evil purposes, God is, therefore, blameablc 
 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 Avith 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, 
 all 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 
 jiiake so many litful 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." 
 
 Co7i. — I believe it b always best for us all, to know 
 the worst of our spiritual condition. 
 
 3Iin. — 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 jto the things which were spoken of Paul." 
 1. Thes. 1: 5 — "Our Gospel came not unto you in 
 word onl}^ but in power, and in the Holy Ghost.-' 
 1. 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: U^ 
 — "It is God that worketh in you, both to loilU and 
 io 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 XIL 
 
 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 
 
 Convert. — Since our last conversation, I have 
 V>een 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, 
 but by the almighty power of God," But, I find it 
 
EFFECTUAL CALLING. 103 
 
 also stated in the same connection, that God gives 
 to all men "sutiicient 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 oftering salvation to all men. 
 
 Minister. — That is the most common doctrine of 
 those who reject the doctrines of grace, respecting 
 regeneration, effectual calling, (fee; 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, 
 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 will be, a single instance of a 
 true penitent, whose heart is unchanged. I need 
 not stay to prove, that God does not give "sufficient 
 grace to all men," in this sense. The outward 
 (•alls of the gospel are gracious, but no one except 
 tiiose who deny the operations of the Spirit altogeth- 
 er, will contend that this is "sufficient." The move- 
 ments of the Spirit, which 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, 
 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 
 
i04 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 w^ould be just to save 
 them, and Avhatever 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 
 
 dt' 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 away 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 
 ( /hrist, v/hich I have heard Presbyterian ministers 
 urge as strenuously upon sinners, as any other class 
 of preachers ? 
 
 Mi?i. — It is the duty of the sinner to strive ; and, 
 to those whodoso, 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 
 Avord of God. "Work out your oAvn salvation with 
 feor and trembling, for it is God that worketh in ijou 
 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 doincj- noth- 
 ing, makes it the ground of his encouragement to 
 work. There is no language in our Confession of 
 Faith more forcible or compiehensive than this. 
 God works in us "both to unll and to <^o;" and, 
 thereupon, the Apostle bases his exhortation to 
 "work out our salvation." And, "what God hath 
 
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 toa 
 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 what 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 calhng is the 
 work of God's Spirit, whereby convincing us oi 
 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 — "W^hom he did predestinate, them he also 
 called, and whom he called, them he also justified." 
 
 2 Thes.2: 13— "God hath from the beginning cho- 
 
EFFECTUAL CALLING. 107 
 
 sen you to salvation, through sanctification of the 
 Spirit and behef 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 callings not according to our works, but 
 according to his own purpose and grace." Ezek. 
 36 : 26 — "A nev/ heart also will I give you, and a 
 new spirit will I put within you," &c. Ezek. 11 : 
 19 — "I Avill 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 S — "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 
 grace to all men," meet, in the most satisfactory 
 manner, the objection, that God is partial in giving 
 more grace to some than to others ? 
 
108 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 
 
 Mill. — Even if it did, we are not bound to adopt 
 it, when it is so plainly contradicted by the Bible. 
 1 believe, however, that this is the ground upon 
 which it is based. Men are unwilling to allow (Jod 
 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 oi" 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? If 
 God gives to all men the same amount of grace, 
 there surely can be no chai'ge of partiality. 
 
 Mm. — 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 effiscts. 
 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. 109 
 
 taught from their infancy to disobey God and con- 
 temn reUgion. 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 another, 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 v/ill 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 
 rnercy," 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. 
 
 Co7i. — 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 Avhich it must be impious to con- 
 trovert, either directly or indirectly. 
 
 But, there is another point upon which I wish to 
 have your view^s, 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 1 
 should be, and my desire is to get clear of all sin. 
 
no SINLESS PERFECTIOiV. 
 
 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 XIIL 
 
 SINLESS PERFECTION. 
 
 Minister. — The doctrine Ave 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 want of perfect conformity to all its holy re- 
 quirements. Gal. 3: 10 — "Cursed is every one'that 
 continueth not in all things which are written in the 
 book of the law to do them." It is a plain dictate 
 
SINLESS PERFECTION, Hi 
 
 of common sense, as well as of the Bible, that in 
 failing to do, or to be, what God requires, is sinfal, 
 as well as doing, or being, what he forbids. Hence, 
 our catechism says — "Sin is any want of conformity 
 unto, or transgression of, the law of God." — Shorter 
 Cat. ans. to qu. 14. 
 
 Convert. — Are we then to account all our infirmi- 
 ties sinful; and all our consequent mistakes and ab- 
 errations, whether voluntary or involuntary ? 
 
 Min. — Every thing that is not in strict accord- 
 ance with God's requirements must be sin. He re- 
 quires nothing but holiness, and Avhatever he re- 
 quires, it is our duty to give. I know it is said by 
 the advocates of the doctrine of perfection, that our 
 infirmities^ and mistakes are not sinful ; and yet, 
 they contradict themselves by saying, that "every 
 such mistake, were it not for the blood of atone- 
 ment, would expose us to eternal damnation." — 
 ^'Doctrinal Tracts," p. 311. That is, God would be 
 just in sending us to hell forever, for that which is 
 not sin. A sentiment more derogatory to God can 
 scarcely be imagined. It is only another attempt to 
 degrade the law of God — to take from it its strict- 
 ness and spirituality, and bring it down to the low 
 and common views entertained of it by men of the 
 world. It is too generally lost sight of in the world, 
 that the laAv of God, in its holy requirements, ex- 
 tends to the feelings of the heart, the thoughts, and 
 exercises of the inner man; and errorists almost 
 uniformly, fall in with the feelings of the w^orld, and 
 make the law of God a matter of such small mo- 
 ment, that perfect obedience is comparatively easy. 
 But the Bible speaks in difterent language. What 
 j-t mainly insists upon, is right feelings and disposi- 
 tions ; and it chiefly condemns feelings and dispo- 
 
112 
 
 SINLESS PERFECTION. 
 
 .sitions that are wrong, because, from these proceed 
 all the outward conduct. "Out of the heart," says 
 Christ, "proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, murders," 
 Slc. And, Solomon says, "Keep thy heart with all 
 diligence, for out of it are the issues of life." Love 
 is a feeling, repentance is a feeling, faith is an inward 
 exercise of the soul, humility is a feeling, hope, pa- 
 tience, resignation, charity, meekness, kindness, con- 
 tentment, &c., are all feelings. Yet, who, that 
 reads the Bible carefully, does not perceive, that all 
 these are required as indispensable duties? And, on 
 the other hand, enmity to God is a feeling, unbelief 
 is a feeling, selfishness, pride, impenitence, love of 
 the world, covetousness, envy, anger, hatred, re- 
 venge, &c., are all feelings, and all are forbidden as 
 the worst of sins. Hence, it is evident, that to form 
 any thing like a proper estimate of our character in 
 the sight of God and his law, we must first, and 
 chiefly have respect to the, feehngs and dispositions 
 of the heart. And, before we can be perfect, we 
 must in aJl these respects, be absolutely and entirely 
 free from the least failure, and exercise all those 
 feelings as purely as the angels in heaven. 
 
 Co?i. — In that case, I do not believe that any one, 
 who has a proper view of himself, will ever claim to 
 be perfect. 
 
 Mi7i. — It is, I believe, generally claimed on the 
 ground of perfect love. They claim to have per- 
 fect love ; and, as the Apostle says, "love is the ful- 
 filling of the law," therefore, they are perfect. But, 
 any one who thinks he has as much love as he ought 
 to have, has very grovelling ideas of his obligations 
 to God, or very superficial views of himself. But 
 there are other classes of sins, which are rather con- 
 sequent upon those of the heart and feelings, of 
 
 i* 
 
SINLESS PERFECTION. 113 
 
 which we must take account in forming a proper 
 estimate of our character in the sight of God and 
 his ]aw. The Bible says, that vain, trilling, and 
 foohsh thoughts are sinful. Christ classes "evil 
 thoughts" with "thefts, murder, adultery," &c. 
 "The wicked" is not only commanded to "forsake 
 his ways," but also "the unrighteous man his 
 thoughts.''^ Again, we are told, that "the thoughts 
 of the wicked are an abomination unto the Lord," 
 6z:c. And God says, in another place — "Hear, O 
 earth, I will bring evil upon this people, even the 
 fruit of their thoughts^ Indeed, the character of 
 the man seems to be in some measure determined 
 by his thoughts. "For as a man thinketh in his 
 heart, so is he." These passages, with many others 
 that might be quoted, prove very clearly, that much 
 sin is committed in thought. And if vain and fool- 
 ish thoughts are sinful, we may not only ask, who 
 is perfect ? — but, who can enumerate the sins of a 
 single day? We should remember, too, that 
 thoughts are the language of spirits, and each one 
 has a tongue in the ear of God. Christ answered 
 the thoughts of those around him, as if they had 
 spoken. It is no wonder that God says, "every im- 
 agination of the thoughts of man's heart, is evil 
 continually." But this is not all, still. We must 
 also take into the account, the sins of our tongues. 
 And here I need not speak of falsehood, slander, 
 profanity, &c. These, all know and admit to be 
 sins. But Christ says, that "every idle word, which 
 men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in 
 the day of judgment." Mere idle words, then, are 
 sins, and 
 
 Con. — But, what are idle words? 
 
 Mill, — All that are not necessary, and that do not 
 
114 SINLESS PERFECTION. 
 
 tend to produce some good result. The commands 
 of the Bible are; *'Let no corrupt communication 
 proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good, 
 to the use of edifying ;" "let your speech be always 
 with grace, that it may minister grace to the hear- 
 ers ;" "nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not 
 convenient, but rather giving of thanks." These 
 rules may be thought too strict, by the advocates of 
 perfection, but they are the rules which God lays 
 down in his word, by which we are to order our 
 conversation. Every word which does not comport 
 with these rules, is an "idle word," and sinful in the 
 sight of God. Then, where is the man w^ho will 
 stand up before God and say, that, in this respect 
 alone, he is free from sin ? 
 
 But, still more : When we take into the account 
 our actions in general, the mountain rises still high- 
 er. Here I need not go further than to speak of 
 our sins of omission. The command is, "Withhold 
 not good from him to whom it is due, when it is in 
 the power of thine hand to do it, for to him that 
 knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is 
 sin." From this it is plain, that whenever we have 
 an opportunity of doing good, either to the souls or 
 bodies of others, and neglect to improve it, we sin 
 both against our fellow-men and against God. But, 
 farther: God tells us, "Whether ye eat or drink, or 
 whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." This 
 applies to all our words and actions, and proves, be- 
 yond controversy, that every word we speak, and 
 every action we perform, which is not done with a 
 view to promote the glory of God, is sinful. Of 
 how many sins, then, are we guilty ? And, where 
 is the perfect man, in this respect? Again : we are 
 commanded to "pray without ceasing," to "rejoice 
 
SINLESS PERFECTION. 115 
 
 in the Lord always," &c. Every moment that we 
 have not a holy, prayerful, frame of mind, we sin. 
 It is admitted on all hands, that it is a sin to swear 
 profanely ; but few reflect that it is also a sin not to 
 pray, whenever it is our duty or privilege. But, I 
 need not enlarge, though much more might be said 
 in contrasting the obedience of the best men, with 
 the high and holy requirements of the law of God. 
 Enough has been said, however, to show you the 
 truth of the language of our Confession, that "we 
 daily break the commandments of God in thought, 
 word, and deed." 
 
 Co?i. — As it respects the simple fact, that all men 
 are sinners, and that, in this life, no one ever attains 
 to such a degree of perfection in holiness as to be 
 entirely free from sin, I think cannot be controvert- 
 ed, if we allow the law of God, in all its holy require- 
 ments, to be our standard. Indeed, I have never 
 had much difficulty in my mind as to the fact, that 
 all come far short of perfect holiness in this respect. 
 But, how are we to understand the commands ot 
 God requiring this perfection, if it be not attainable? 
 
 Min. — The fact that it is unattained, and unat- 
 tainable, does not arise from God, but from ourselves, 
 and therefore it is no less our duty, and it should be 
 the constant aim of every christian. Indeed, no 
 true christian can rest satisfied with himself, while 
 he feels any remaining corruption, and consequently 
 the warfare is still continued ; and, as the Bible ex- 
 presses it, he goes on "from strength to strength." 
 His standard of holiness is God himself, of whose 
 character the law is a transcript. With the com- 
 mand before him, "Be ye holy, for I the Lord your 
 God am holy," he finds no place to stop short of 
 this, until, like the angels in heaven, he reflects fully 
 and perfectly the image of his Maker. 
 
116 SINLESS PERFECTION. 
 
 Con. — But, are there not some passages of Scrip- 
 ture, wliicli favor the idea that some are perfect, or 
 that it has been attained in this life by some individ- 
 uals ? 
 
 Min. — We are told to "mark the perfect man, 
 and behold the upright, for the end of that man is 
 peace." Paul says, "Let us therefore, as many as 
 be perfect, be thus minded," &c. "Be perfect, be 
 of good comfort," &c. Noah, we are told, "was a 
 just man and perfect," &r. But, it is plain, from 
 the connection in which the word is used in other 
 places, that it does not mean an entire freedom from 
 all sin. The primary signification of the original 
 word, which Paul uses in his exhortation to the Co- 
 rinthians, "be perfect," is collecting together the 
 disjointed or broken parts of a body or system, so 
 as to make it uniform or complete, and that no 
 part be wanting, and there is such a thing attaina- 
 ble, and often attained, as perfection, in this sense : 
 that is, a perfect Gospel character For instance, if 
 a professor of religion be in the habit of prevarica- 
 tion, or if he be covetous or niggardly in his deal- 
 ings, or in any way exhibits to the world traits of 
 character inconsistent with his profession, they are 
 blots in his christian character which cast a shade 
 over the whole, and excite doubts as to the reality of 
 his piety. In this respect, every christian should 
 and can be perfect : that is, he should exhibit the 
 christian character complete in all its parts. But,^ 
 to love God as much as we should, to exercise con- 
 stant faith, in all the strength and unwavering con- 
 iidence that he requires, to have hope, repentance, 
 humility, and all the christian graces and virtues in 
 constant, joerfect operation, and to be entirely free 
 from sin in the sight of God, is a very different mat- 
 
SINLESS PERFECTION. 117 
 
 ter. The Savior evidently uses the term "perfect" 
 ill the former sense, when speaking to the young ru- 
 ler — "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all that thou 
 hast," &c. Surely he did not mean, that thereby 
 he would be free from all sin. Perfection, then, in 
 the Bible sense, means integrity, sincerity in our 
 profession, unfeigned love to God, and respect to all 
 his commands. But, as our time will not permit us 
 to enter fully into the Bible arguments on this sub- 
 ject, we will defer it to our next interview. 
 
 DIALOGUE XIV 
 
 SINLESS PERFECTION. 
 
 Convert. — Your views of the sinfulness of all men 
 in the sight of God, presented at our last interview, 
 cannot, I think, be objected to, except on the ground 
 that it is discouramno; to the christian to know that 
 his desires cannot be accompU^hed, until he ends his 
 earthly career. It must be the most earnest desire 
 of every true christian to be free from all sin ; and, 
 will it not have a tendency to paralyze his efforts to 
 grow in grace, to know that his whole life is to be 
 spent in endeavors to attain to that state of perfec- 
 tion which none ever find ? 
 
 Minister. — I believe it has just the opposite ten- 
 dency, judging both from the Bible and all christian 
 experience. Would it be discouraging to a man on 
 a journey, to know that the object he had in view 
 was to be obtained only at the end of it ? It would 
 
118 SINLESS PERFECTION. 
 
 tend to encourage him all the way, to know certain- 
 ly that he would finish his journey, and there, and 
 there only, he would obtain the object he had in 
 view. The way might be long and the journey 
 difficult, but the certain prospect of gaining the de- 
 sired object, would still cheer him in his toil. So 
 Paul expresses his experience, Phil. 3 : 13, 14 — 
 "Forgetting those things which are behind, and 
 reachnig forth unto those things which are before, 
 I press toward the mark, for the prize of the high 
 calling of God in Christ Jesus." This is very far 
 from the language of a Perfectionist. He counted 
 all his former good works and attainments in sanc- 
 tification only worthy of being forgotten, in com- 
 parison with those that were yet before him. But, 
 how eagerly he presses forward, knowing that the 
 prize was yet before him, encouraged with the hope 
 which animates every christian, that perfect meet- 
 ness for heaven, and release from the world will be 
 found in immediate connection. 
 
 It is, moreover, the desire of every christian to 
 grow in grace, and while he finds himself advancing 
 in hohness and growing in conformity to the image 
 of God, he finds in this his greatest encouragement 
 to press on still toward the high and glorious prize 
 that is before him, perfect holiness and perfect hap- 
 piness in heaven. Perfect happiness must always 
 be an immediate consequence of perfect holiness ; 
 and, how could Paul say he was pressing on to ob- 
 tain the prize, if he had already obtained it ? In 
 this Ava}^, the doctrine of perfection is destructive of 
 growth in grace. A low standard is set up as the 
 mark of christian attainment; and, when any one 
 entertains so good an opinion of himself as to think 
 he has arrived at it, all further advancement is at an 
 
SINLESS PERFECTION. 119 
 
 end. Such an one must conclude that he has attain- 
 ed to that which the Apostle, in his burning zeal, 
 felt himself wanting. And, I can only say, that 1 
 think a person w^io 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 hohness which the Bible has set up, I 
 think every one, who has a proper view of himself, 
 wdll 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 ofiend 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 
 
120 SINLESS PERFECTION. 
 
 keep himself unspotted from the iDorld" 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 charactei"? 
 
 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 / 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- 
 neth 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 dav 
 by day our daily bread," and the next petition in 
 immediate connection is, "forgive us our trespass- 
 es," &c. 
 
 It will not, I presume, be denied, that this direc- 
 tion was also intended for christians. But, if anv 
 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 mer- 
 cy amdjind grace to help in time of need." But a 
 9 
 
122' SINLESS PEKPECTION^ 
 
 Perfectionist has no time of need," he needs n^j 
 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.- Buty, 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 laAv 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 
 ])assages in which they record their sinfulness as 
 their constant experience. But w^e will look at 
 b-ome 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 inir- 
 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 takeD> 
 hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; 
 they are more than the hairs of mine heady 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* 
 sontinued confession of failure in duty, and prayer 
 
SINLESS PERFECTION. 1^3 
 
 for quickening grace. Verse 5th — "0 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 — "1 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 — "I 
 have seen an end of all perfection ; but thy corn^ 
 mandment is exceeding broad.^^ 123 — "Mine eyes 
 fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy rights 
 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 i.^ 
 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 L If then 1 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, 
 (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to 
 will is present with me; but ho-\v 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 would not, it is no more I that do 
 it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law. 
 that when I would do good, evil is present with me. 
 
I'M SINLESS PERFECTIOK. 
 
 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. O 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 
 flesh 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. 
 
 Co7i. — 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, 
 then, can they be "sold under sin ?" 
 
 Mill. — 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 shoAvn 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 the Apostle to explain himself, which he 
 does in the verse immediately following — "Fw that 
 which I do, I allow net," &c. The word "/or," con- 
 
SINLESS PERFECTIOJT. 1*25 
 
 nects the two verses, and shows that the one is ex- 
 planatory of the other. The simple meaning, there- 
 r'ore, is, that he was an unwilling "servant" of his 
 inward propensities, against w^hich 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 wdiich 
 every christian experiences and understands. The 
 passage taken together, contains an unanswerable 
 proof that perfection in holiness is not attainable in 
 [his life, or at least that the Apostle had not attaine4 
 it w^ien he wrote this account of his experience. 
 And to my mind it is clear, that a perfectionist, in- 
 stead of having completed the christian w^arfare, ha> 
 it yet to begin. 
 
 Con. — But, have we no account of any one in the 
 Bible, who claimed to have attained perfection in 
 'loliness? 
 
 Min. — 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 hLs 
 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 w^e kno\A 
 he claimed to be perfect, and washed to be so es- 
 teemed. He had no errand to a throne of grace 
 but to enumerate his virtues, and thank God tiiat 
 he had no sin. But, it is only another proof of the 
 truth of the saying of John, 1 John, 1 : S — "If we 
 say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves , and 
 ihe truth is not in us^ 
 
 Con. — But, if so much of our nature still remains 
 
126 
 
 PBRSEVERANCE. 
 
 iinsanctified. 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 ? 
 
 3Iiji. — 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- 
 iast interview, that the remaining corruptions of 
 our nature are instrumental in our perseverance in 
 holiness, seems to me a paradox, which I cannot 
 iully understand, or reconcile with the doctrines of 
 grace. Does it not make sin one of the means of 
 grace ? 
 
 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- 
 ledge 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 of 
 
TER6EVERA1S-CE. 123' 
 
 igrace, 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 in^Tmhies, that the power of Christ may 
 rest upon me. * * * Foi% wlien 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 
 ]ead 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 I 
 That can to life and bli-es 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 
 lis only hope of perseverance in holiness. This is 
 
128 PERSEVERANCE. 
 
 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 on 
 God for persevering grace. The work of sanctift- 
 cation is his, and his entirely. 
 
 Con. — But, is not the christian actively engaged 
 in his own sanctification ? 
 
 Min. — He "works out his own salvation" — but 
 still "it is God that workethin him, both to will mid 
 to ^0."— 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 lo 
 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 w^ill 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, and 
 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 th^) 
 
PERSEVERANCE. 12-^ 
 
 will of God, even your sanctification." If, then, the 
 work be his, and he be both able and wilhng 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 
 was no compulsion. Neither was there any want 
 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 Avhom 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 conditionallv : 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 dili- 
 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 
 jiromised. But, if a man is not actually pardoned 
 and justified, he is not a christian. It is not an 
 luiregenerated, 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 gxormd 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 and 
 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 and 
 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 said 
 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 PERSEVERAl^Cfe. 
 
 • 
 
 contradiction. Here, too, we see an argument fot 
 tlie 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 all 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 
 from 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, 
 
 Min. — 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 was 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 
 
134 PER9EVERANC1E. 
 
 filial attachment to know that his fatiier had done 
 so much for him. The more he would give the son, 
 the more the son would love him. So, if a chris- 
 tian 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 
 v/iil 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 markj 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 
 iias a contrar}^ effect, has much reason to doubt the 
 reality of his religion. His iove 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. 
 
FEKSEVER'AI^eiff. 135 
 
 DL\LOGUE 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 
 Ihan 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, with 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 w'ith 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 
 was 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 
 you, depart from me, ye that work 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 your 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 "?iez'er 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 any 
 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 mav 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 
 i-upposed ; it is no where directly asserted : where- 
 as, it is again and again directly asserted, that they 
 "-hall not fall away. And, it is a plain dictate of 
 common sense, that we should never make a suppo- 
 
PERSEVERANCE. 137 
 
 -sition 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- 
 lidence, 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 possibihty 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 say to the righteous, that he shall surely live ; 
 10 
 
138 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, 
 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," Avhich 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 th'd 
 term "righteous," true christians, it only amounts te> 
 a supposition, or, w^hat 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 think, 
 that there is no danger of a true christian "trusting 
 to his own righteousness." Yet, the case is sup- 
 posed; and, because it ts 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 Avhich is always quoted, and 
 relied on, to prove the doctrine, is Ileb. 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 hav-g 
 tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the 
 world to come, if they shall fall aiccty^ 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 
 
 'Mailing 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 w^ould actually occur, but to show- 
 us the necessity of continuing in holiness to the at- 
 tainment of final salvation. They are incentives 
 to Avatchfulness, diligence, mid prayer ; and thus, 
 are the means of our perseverance irr- 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 contest. 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 
 <:o7isolatio7if 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 PERSE1?1ERANCir.. 
 
 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 many 
 warnings, and made the subject of the operations of 
 the Holy Spirit, warning and convincing of sin, if 
 he wickedly resist all, there is a point at which the 
 Ibrbearance 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 by 
 the word enlightening him, and the Spirit's striving, 
 he has been brought almost into the kingdom, yet, 
 he "falls back into perdition." Now, it seems to 
 me, that the Apostle exactly describes the case of 
 such an one ; and all he says, may characterize one 
 who has never been truly converted. They w^ere 
 "once enlightened." So are those who bear the 
 Gospel, and understand its doctrines: they are not 
 savingly enlightened^ but enjoy the light of the Gos- 
 ])el in a very* important sense. They have "tasted 
 of 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 Avhat is the 
 precise meaning of this expression. If we are to 
 understand by it, hopes of heaven, thousands have 
 them who are not true christians. But, we caiit 
 
TERSEVERA1«3E. 
 
 141 
 
 ^(sund 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 ^ke Scriptures, addressed 
 to true christians, which seem to imply that they 
 are in danger of being lost, ii they indulge in sin? 
 
 Miiu — 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 saves 
 by his werd and ordinances, and a diligent improve- 
 ment of opporitunities 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 <3ut 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 declam- 
 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 lawj and wallv 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 wili 
 I not break, nor alter the thino; 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 shali 
 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 wili 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 mJghty," &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 i^o, to 
 support a favorite theory. In the "Doctrinal Tracts'- 
 
PERSEVERANCE. 143 
 
 of the Methodi-st Church, page 212, the writer, in 
 endeavoring to evade the lorce of so plain a state- 
 ment of the doctrine of perseverance, says, that the 
 covenant spoken of in this 89th psalm, ^'•relates 
 icholly to David and his seed." He then misquotes 
 the 35th verse. Instead of saying, "I will not lie 
 unto David," he quotes it, "I Avill 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 
 liis 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 "7?ez?er knew''' them ?) 
 "and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal 
 life; and they ^-d}^ never jjerish, neither shall any 
 man pluck them out of my hand. JMy Father, which 
 gave them me, is greater than all ; and no man is 
 able to ])luck 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. 8: 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 ? * * Nay, in all these things, we 
 are 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 
 depth, 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 hoUness, 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 you,^ 
 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 eternally saved." 
 
ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 1 4^ 
 
 DIALOGUE XYIL 
 
 ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 
 
 Convert. — During the progress of our several 
 conversations, on the different points of rehgious 
 truth which we have considered, my mind has not 
 only been reheved, 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 
 *'5^^cer^/?/," 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 Avho 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 
 instance 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 Avhom 
 we might, in other respects, consistently receive to 
 the church, are so well acquainted Avith 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, ^Uis 
 far as they are acquainted with it, and understand 
 it;^' but I have never known any one go farther. 
 
 Cofi. — 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? 
 
 Mi7i. — 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 
 Jind 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- 
 h'tances. 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 
 lov^e. 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 
 
148 ADMISSION TO T'HE ClitJRCIIi 
 
 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, Avere 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 
 afiect 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." 
 
 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- 
 sayers." — 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 adopf^ 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 I 
 
 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 Avere 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 w^ill 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 diflfer- 
 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, w^hat 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 w^ere 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 savedy — 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 du7'st 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 whole church, instead 
 of its officers merely ? The Avhole 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, 153 
 
 ^•always 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. 
 
 Convert. — 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 
 
154 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.. 
 
 laboring for lier 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 order* 
 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 Ministi^y, for the edifying of the 
 'body of Christy 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 
 ail only designed to eontinde 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 Avhich they should be appointed by the churchy 
 acting under the authority of her Head; and the 
 difierence 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 undej four gener - 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 155 
 
 al head's, 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 
 Miore and some less purely independent. 
 
 Con. — What are the grand, distinguishing feature? 
 'ofeach of these several classes, in which they of 
 each general kind agree? 
 
 Mi?i. — 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 Despotis?7i — all power and 
 authority being lodged with one man, w ho is su~ 
 preme head over all. Episcopacy is a spiritual Ar- 
 istocracy — all powder and authority being lodged 
 with a few, and those few not appointed by the 
 })eople, but entirely independent of those whom they 
 
156 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 govern. The people have nothing more to do m 
 the appointment of their rulers mider Episcopacy^ 
 than under Popery, Independency is a spiritual 
 Democj^acy — 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 coui^t, and 
 the whole mass of the people Avould hear the evi- 
 dence and pleadings in the case, and a majority de- 
 cide guilty, or not guilty, " and that decision to be 
 linal, 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. 
 
 Presbyterianism is a sjyiritual 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 
 and 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 and 
 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, 
 
 157 
 
 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 Presbyterianism, shows very 
 clearly that they have the same origin, but it proves 
 that true republicanism has its origin in Presbyteri- 
 anism. Any one who traces their points of similar- 
 ity, must be convinced that they have the same or- 
 igin. Presbyterianism 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." — 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 witii 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 i^epresentative 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, but 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 do we know that Presbyterianism is the origi- 
 nal, and republicanism the model ? 
 
 M'ui. — 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 
 was 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 
 lied to this country, bringing their principles with 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 150 
 
 tliem. 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 persec-uted, 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 w^ere 
 achieved, and the several colonial government's 
 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- 
 tirnment, whose principles are the Republicanism of 
 the Bible, which is only another name for Presbyte- 
 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, Avhich 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 
 governments then in existence. I was not aware 
 
160 BIBLE KEPTJBLICAWISM. 
 
 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^ we 
 will defer it until another time. 
 
 DIALOGUE XIX. 
 
 BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 
 
 Convert. — Did I understand you as saying, at O'Ui 
 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,, 
 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. Alt' 
 church officers hold their commission from him. 
 Rut, the authority to exercise that power, inhereiiti 
 
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, if 
 known, or thought of at all, by the generality of men. 
 
16^2 
 
 BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 
 
 Min.—\ 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 tt3 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, Ave have a light to guide us, which 
 stands out as a beacon amid the dark conflicting 
 ^slements 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 difTerent 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 wise men, and 
 understandins:, and known among your tribes, and 
 I Avill 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- 
 'iessor. 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 
 liojht of a monarch. He must be chosen from 
 among the people. He must not "multiply horses 
 to himself .''^ He must not "multiply to himself sW- 
 ver and gold." &c. He must be under the law 
 equally with the rest. His heart must not be ^Hifted 
 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 vv^ere 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 for me." Their influence was 
 so great, that he found it impossible to have them 
 condemned by the proper authorities, without which 
 he dare not proceed against them. These princi- 
 ples, however, were afterwards lost sight of, the 
 people became corrupt, and their kings became des- 
 pots; but, for four hundred years, they enjoyed as 
 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 repubhcan 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 ojf 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 was held sacred. If, 
 through misfortune, or other contingencies, any 
 family was compelled to sell their land, it could 
 
BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 165 
 
 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, which, 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 slothfuiness, 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, 
 ia raising the whole mass of the people, to a degree 
 of refinement and intelligence, then not equalled in 
 the world. 
 
 Co7i. — But, where do we 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 laws 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, which prescribe the rites and forms of the 
 Jewish worship. Third, those which are called ju- 
 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 conspicuously. 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. 
 
 rnanent and efficient national government. These 
 laws, moreover, were formally adopted by the peo- 
 ple. When Moses rehearsed to them the words of 
 God, they answered with one unanimous voice — 
 *'A11 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 Avherever 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. Consequentlyy 
 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 
 .lewish government was instituted and existed. It 
 vSeems 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, whicli 
 darkened and cursed the whole 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 efiects 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 
 Preshyterianism in all its essential features. But;, 
 a.s 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. 
 
 Concert. — 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 estabhshed by Moses, according to the di- 
 rection of God, and find very frequent mention made 
 
168 BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 of ^^ElderSf'' who seem to have been officers or ru- 
 lers among them. Is it from that title and office, 
 that the office and title of *^Ruling Elder" of the 
 Presbyterian system is derived? 
 
 Minister. — The term Elder, literally signifies an 
 aged person. The word in the original languages 
 of the Bible, has the same signification. Persons of 
 age and experience were usually selected to fill sta- 
 tions of honor and trust, because of their gravity 
 and wisdom ; consequently, the term Elder, became 
 an established title of office. The titles of Alderman, 
 Senator, and others, are of the same origin. The 
 term Presbyter, is simply the Greek word for Elder, 
 transferred into our language with a slight change 
 in its orthography, without being translated. 
 
 The office of Elder is derived from that which the 
 title signified with the "Elders of Israel," that is, 
 the Elders of the Presbyterian Church hold a similar 
 station, with similar duties and obligations. The 
 ■^'Elders of Israel" seem to have been the acknowl- 
 edged representatives of the people, acting for them, 
 and in their name. Even during their bondage in 
 Egypt, they seem to have had those who were 
 termed Elders officially, who acted by authority in 
 behalf of the people. God said to Moses, Ex. 3 ; 
 16 — "Go and gather the Elders of Israel together, 
 and say unto them," &c. Here was a message 
 that concerned the whole mass of the people, and 
 no doubt was designed for them ; yet Moses was 
 commanded not to deliver it to the people themselves. 
 but to their representatives, the Elders, whose duty 
 it would consequently be, to make it known to the 
 people. Moses was also commanded to take with 
 him "the Elders of Israel," when he should go with 
 the message of God to Pharaoh, (Ex. 3: 18,) that 
 
BIBLE PRESS YTERIANISM. 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 aristocracy ; the people were not 
 required to attend, which is contrary to independen- 
 cy ; but the Elders of the people were called, to 
 whom 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 Mo«es 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 Yery strik- 
 ingly exhibited in Lev. 4: 13 — 15 — **If the whole 
 12 
 
170 BIBLE PKE9BYTERIAN1SM. 
 
 congregation sin," &c., "The Elders of the congre- 
 gation shall lay their hands upon the head ot' the bul- 
 lock," brought for a sin offering. Here it is plain, 
 that the Elders Avere viewed as representing the 
 whole congregation ; and, what they did in the name 
 of the congregation, was accepted by God as the 
 act of the w^hole. 
 
 In many instances during the journeyings 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 your leisure — Ex, 
 IS: 12; Numb.ll: 16,25; Deut,25: 7; 29: 10; 
 31: 28; 33: 7; Josh. 24: 31. In these and many 
 other passages, you will find Elders spoken of in. 
 their official capacity^ as acting authoritatively for,, 
 and in behalf of the people. Their care 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 all 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, w^hen 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 w^ere so in- 
 timately connected in their first establishment? 
 
 3//9J. — To what extent their civil government be- 
 
BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM, 171 
 
 v^sme 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 in 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 
 Jews, 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. Dr. 
 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 
 
J72 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 instructio-n 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 would 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 w^orship ; 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, thereibre, 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 ver)' 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, IIW 
 
 portance to our present inquiry. We know that 
 there was such a system in e:^istence when our Sa- 
 vior came upon earth; and, that when the Ciiristian 
 •church was set up as a regular organization by the 
 Apostles, they adopted the order of the synagogue. 
 
 Con. — But, was that Presbyterian ? 
 
 3Iin. — 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, ail commentators and biblical 
 scholars agree, be their prepossessions as to church 
 government what they may. Did time permit, 1 
 could quote to you Stillingfieet, Vitringa, Selden, 
 Grotius, Lightfoot, Thorndike, Burnet, Godwin, Ne* 
 ander, Spencer, and others, who all agree, in every 
 
174 ]»IBLE PRESBYTERIANISM» 
 
 important point, respecting the order and polity of 
 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 tome 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 Presbyterianism, 
 
raiMITIVE PRESBYTKRIAJflSM. 1T5 
 
 DIALOGUE XXI. 
 
 PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 Convert. — A difficulty has occurred to my mind 
 since our last conversation, respecting the officers 
 «9f the synagogue. You spoke of Elders, but I do 
 not recollect that you said any thing about Minis- 
 ters^ 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 oifered 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 churchy 
 the preacher or pastor, together with the bench of 
 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 
 ^v£>rd and doctrine." — 1 Tim. 5: 17. Fr^om which it 
 
176 PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERMNISM. 
 
 is plain, that there was a class of Elders, who did no^ 
 labor in word and doctrine. Peter called himself an 
 Eldd'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 churchy 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 noAv 
 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 Avhich 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. "0% 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 'Maboring 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 theii* office by the lay~ 
 
PRIMITIVE PRESBYTEKIANISM. ITi 
 
 ing on of hands; we have all the essential prin- 
 ciples of Presbyterianism. This will appear to you 
 ihe more plain, when you recur to the fact I before 
 noticed, that the term Pi^esbyter 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 ovei'seer, 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 Ovprseers,^^ (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 plainl) 
 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 PRESBYTERIAJIISM. 
 
 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 w^e hnd in use 
 in the Presbyterian Church? 
 
 Min. — It is \^ery 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 PRESBYTERIAIflSM. 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. 
 
 Co-n. — How long did the church continue under 
 Presbyterian government, and what was the cause 
 o( the change'^ 
 
 Mill, — 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. * * * L^t the flock of Christ 
 enjoy peace, with the Elders that are set ovei' 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 PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 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 Polycarp, 
 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 I Tim. 5:1, says, that " the syna- 
 gogues, and afterwards the church, had Elders, 
 without whose counsel nothing was done in the 
 church, which greiv 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 oflicers 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 PRESBYTERIANISM. ISl 
 
 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 
 Mattered 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 Httle were admitted, and at length 
 (^tablished, 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 "Yicar of God," — with universal, unlimited 
 authority over the souls and bodies of all men in the 
 world. 
 
 Co7i. — And was the primitive order of the church 
 so entirely lost in this universal corruption, that 
 none remained to bear witness to the truth ? 
 
 Miji. — 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 
 
IS2 PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANI3M. 
 
 were oldei' 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, must 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 
 of 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 
 primitive 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 
 Albigenses, Avho were difterent branches of the 
 same people, and called by difterent names, as they 
 lived at different times, and in difterent places. 
 Moreland, Ranken, Comenius, Bucer, and others, 
 all give decisive testimony to the fact, that these 
 witnesses for the truth, during the long period of 
 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 
 
 Ife 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 183 
 
 ot" the Apostles to the Reformation by Luther. To 
 th-e 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, fronv 
 what has been said, you can perceive the puerile 
 ignorance manifested by those who alledge that 
 Presbyterianism was invented by Calvin. 
 
 6o«.— Were the Reformers Presbyterian in their 
 sentiments and practice? 
 
 Mi7i. — All the Reformers, of any note, agreed- 
 upon all the essential principles of Presbyterian- 
 ism. But, as our conversation has been sutficiently 
 protracted at this time, we will, on some future 
 occasion, examine what history says on that point. 
 
 DIALOGL^E XXII. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 
 
 Cimvert. — In our former conversations I have not 
 noticed, 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, 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 churchy 
 where circumstances require and admit of it; still,. 
 
184 PRESBYTERIANISM OP 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 
 oihcers 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, who 
 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 thi? 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. 
 
 Mi7i. — The allegation that Presbyterianism ori- 
 ginated with Calvin, has not even that foundation. 
 Ulric Zuingk, 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 oi Riding Elders: "The title 
 of Presbyter, or Elder, as used in scripture, is not 
 rightly understood by those, who consider it as 
 applicable only to those who preside m preaching : 
 For it is evident, that the term is also sometimes 
 used to designate Elders of another kind, that is, 
 Senators, Leaders, or. Counselors.''^ 
 
 CEcolampadius, whom D'Aubigne in his history 
 mentions as one of the bright stars of the Reforma- 
 ation, and Avho 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 consideretl as the decision of the 
 whole church." The testimony of Bucer, Lasco, 
 Peter Martyr, and others, is equally clear as to the 
 iact, 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 peo|)le 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 
 
186* PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 
 
 church they use, and whereby 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. Melaucthon, Fare], Viret and other^^ 
 might be added to the list of eminent Reformers^ 
 who all agree on the great principles of Presbyte- 
 rianism, viz: equahty of rank among ministers, and 
 the government of the church bv 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 Avith some of the prin- 
 cipal men of the Bohemian Church, Coa:ienius, 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 Avholesome, lout also in accordance 
 with the Apostolic order.. Near four years after- 
 wards he was recalled to Geneva, and made it one 
 of the conditions af hfe 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 of England. 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 187 
 
 Coji. — Why was it not received and adopted in 
 England ? 
 
 Mm. — 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 Ingo 
 been established, and it is not sm'prising 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 Ruling 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 
 
ISS PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REF0KMEK9. 
 
 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 Presbyteriaiis, 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 w^th their blood; and though perse- 
 cuted in every age, she still fives, 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. 
 
 Mi7i. — 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. 
 
J^ 
 
 THE 
 
 GROUNDS AND CAUSES 
 
 OF THE DIVISION IN THE PRESBYTERIAN 
 CHURCH, IN IS37 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, 
 
 Mbiister. — I w^ill endeavor to give you a candid 
 view of the subject; and, lest I might be considered 
 ])rejudiced, I \\\\\ confine myself, mainly, to a state- 
 ment ot facts, from which you may draw your own 
 conclusions. 
 
 It w^ill 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: difterence in 
 doctrine, and difterence in measures, or practice. 
 
 Con. — In conversation, a few days ago, with a 
 New School minister, I understood him to say, that 
 there was, in reality, no diff'erence in doctrine; that 
 they all held and taught, the same fundamental 
 truths; and that the only difterence, w^as 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 Avere true, it would exhibit in them 
 a bigoted attachment to non-essentials; which, to 
 say the least, is far from being jDraiseworthy. 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 Avas broken. Now, our New^ 
 School brethren knew, that w^e 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 ustogiveu]> 
 Avhat we thought of vital importance to the system 
 
DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 19S 
 
 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 
 Avhich has been called ^^new divinity ^^ is not the 
 system of doctrine taught in our standards, w4th 
 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 \i, so far as they 
 hclieve it, which is httle 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 ia this way. Others pretend to adopt it as 
 a icliole, 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 w^hich 
 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 Godi cannot prevent sin, ox 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 Avritten 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 dejiance of it, would reheV* 
 — Chinstian Spectator, 1832: jjage 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 ? 
 
 Min. — 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 "6rOG? had done all for them that he could 
 
196 DIFFERENCE IN DCCTRINE. 
 
 </o." 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- 
 oi" this error is, to discourage prayer; for, if it he 
 true, that God is doing every thing that he can do, 
 prayer is mockery. Its dreadful consequences are 
 thus strikingly shown, by the eminent and pious 
 Dr. Griffin: 
 
 **If God could not have prevented sin in all 
 worlds and ages, he cannot prevent sin in any 
 Avorld 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 that 
 he could do short of destroying their moral agency. 
 He is liable to be defeated in all his designs, and to 
 be as miserable as he is benevolent. This is 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. AH is doubt and sepulchral gloom. 
 
DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 197 
 
 And where is the glory of God? Where the 
 transcendant glory of raismg to spkitual life, a 
 world dead in trespasses and sm? 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, ISl. 
 
 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 /«c^ is stated, that 
 that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of all his 
 posterity, * * * yet men have not been satis- 
 tied 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. * * * 
 
198 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 objection 5." 
 
 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. 19^ 
 
 lie 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 sa3^s, expressly, that it does 
 not mean, 'Hhat 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.^^ — Serrjions on the Atone^ 
 meni,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 
 tiiey only the wild errors of some individuals? 
 
 Min. — The body are responsible for them, in 
 
 t 
 
200 
 
 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 for consideration at 
 some future time. 
 
 DIALOGUE 11. 
 
 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 
 
 Convert, — Since our last conversation, I 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. 1 
 ({uoted purposely from his first edition, because it 
 was on that he was 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 
 School men, in the General Assembly of 183(), 
 refused to condemn. Since I saw you, however, 
 I have seen the Neiv-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. 201 
 
 ♦of grace decidedly condemned. In noticing the 
 ^< Ciiristian 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 
 r.ontrovert 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 pevver- 
 sions, the phrase, 'as in Adam all die,' to m.ean, 'as 
 by xidam all died' — and the passage, 'so death 
 passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,' to 
 jnean, '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- 
 bihty, 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. — Cortainly. 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 onlv 
 to inform our readers of what they may be doing, if 
 attracted by the excellent design, the pious spirit, 
 14 
 
202 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 
 
 and general adaptedness of the work, they should 
 think of reading it themselveSy or of placing it iiT- 
 the hands of the young." Now, you will he sur- 
 prised to learn, that Edwards, Bellamy and Dwight,. 
 teach the doctrine of imputation, as plainly as it 
 can be taught by Dr. Brownlee, or any other; and 
 yet the 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 
 New School Presbyterian Church, and has,.I believe,, 
 a more extensive circulation, than auy other perir 
 odical belonging to the body. I shall only refer 
 you to the published sentiments of one more lead- 
 ing 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 
 m\ instantaneous, hu.i j)rogressive work; or, rather j. 
 denies that there is any such thing, distinct from, 
 conviction and sanctificatiom "The Bible," he 
 says, ^^ knows no instantaneous regenerationP To^ 
 illustrate his views, he published a diagram consist- 
 ing of 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;. 
 drawn from this centre, which meet the sinner in, 
 his road to hell, and influence him to di-verge a, 
 httle. But, that you may^be able to judge more 
 satisfactorily of this new and improved method 
 of regeneration, by attraction, 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 New 
 
DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 
 
 203 
 
 Theology," a book, by the way, worthy of genera), 
 circulation. 
 
 Here is the figure, with the author's explanation: 
 
 Heaven. 
 D G 
 
 Truth 
 
 E F 
 
 HelL 
 
 THE AUTH0R"^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 sanctificatjon, .at C 
 
 I 
 
304 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 
 
 (or at death,) becoming perfect, he flies off, if you 
 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 owai 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 powder 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 thief 
 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 powder 
 which 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.' * * 
 ' 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 aj' 
 the Equatorial lineJ' * * ^ 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 cdl our moral relations and circum- 
 stances. Like the Equatorial line, however, it is in 
 itself of no consequence at all.'''' 
 
 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 
 evddence 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." 
 
 Co?i.— 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, w^hich the Synod of Penn- 
 3ylvania, (N. S.,) at its last meeting, recommended, 
 as worthy of the patronage and confidence of their 
 <=^hurches. 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 am.ong 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 dox^trinal 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, w^as that h^ 
 was ''too orthodox;'' that is, he adhered too closely 
 io the Confession of Faith. Dr. Skinner said: " This 
 
DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 
 
 207 
 
 Ss not a trial of Mr, Barnes as an individual. It is 
 virtually the trial of a tJiousand ministers of the 
 gospel, and of a large number of the members ol 
 this body. * * * / ^jn virtually identified ivith 
 Mr. Bariies, and so are^ perhaps^ a majority 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 
 ohurch. 
 
 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 so expressed them- 
 selves. Even among Old School men, different 
 opinions obtained of what should be done in the 
 case. Some wished to have himi 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- 
 ified with either course. But, the Assembly refused 
 '.^o do either. And, after they had restored him to 
 che full exercise of all the functions of the ministry 
 
208 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 Avith 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 
 which the righteousness of Christ ccm 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 world his dangerous errors, and his works 
 are recommended by all the New School publica- 
 tions. Mr. Gilbert can teach that there is no such 
 thing as regeneration, distinct from conviction and 
 sanctification, and, that "z?i itself it is of no import- 
 ance at all ;'''' atid yet he is one 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, .meets with not one word of oppo- 
 sition or reproof. And, Dr. Beecher, 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. 20^' 
 
 made by all to sustain him, and the Institution o\-er 
 which he presides. It is not surprising, then, that 
 these, Avith 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, we 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 Xhe 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 oftended God. 
 
 But, again: If there be *'?zo 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, 
 5^ou 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 I 
 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 doctriae. Did you mean what 
 are commonly termed "New Measm'es;" 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, Avho 
 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 evarin 
 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 etforts, 
 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 
 nur distinctive doctrines; yet, had other denomina- 
 tions remained contented with it, as an organ 
 through which to operate in this department of 
 benevolence, Presbyterians would have remained 
 satisfied without any distinctive organization. But, 
 as 'Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, &c., organs 
 ized their own Tract Societies, for the dissemination 
 of their own peculiar views, by some of which 
 
;214 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 
 
 Presbyterianisin was assailed, and grossly misrep- 
 resented, we were compelled to have an organiza- 
 tion of our OAvn, in self-defence. But, 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 we, 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- 
 7'ian 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 if 
 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 MEASITRES, 215 
 
 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, 
 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, we 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 repubhcanism, 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. 
 Plence, we are bound, not only as Presbyterians^ 
 but as Patriots, to do all we can for the wide dis- 
 sem.ination of our system of truth and order. And 
 those who attempted to hinder us in this good 
 work, we viewed as opjiging our best interests, both 
 as Presbyterians and Republicans. ^ 
 
 o 
 
SI 6 DIFFERENCE IN MEASt^RES. 
 
 Con. — It not only seems reasonable, that the 
 f^hurch 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- 
 jsm. 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 
 «:hurch, and thus made the New School defection 
 much more extensive than it would otherwise have 
 been. 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. *J17 
 
 ism 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, 
 ignorance of our doctrines, or hostility to them^ 
 was too generally characteristic of the men thus 
 ushered into the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 Con, — What were the means and efforts used by 
 the New School men to break down the Boards of 
 ihe church? 
 
 Min. — Their opposition to the Board of Educa- 
 tion was not so open and direct, as against the 
 Board of Alissions. They, however, uniformly set 
 themselves against it; and, so far as their influence 
 *jxtended, prevented churches from contributing to 
 Jts 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 
 fjrst 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^ 
 
 1828, an overture Avas presented to the General 
 Assembly, for some important modifications in our 
 Board, to give it more efficiency, and to enable it 
 to prosecute its w^ork vAih more vigor. This wnb 
 violently opposed by the New School men; and., 
 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 "^//e 
 last kick of P7^csbyterianism,^' 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 vigorou;-» 
 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 two 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 Boards 
 could not exist without conflict, and that the proper 
 course was for our Boaid to become auxiliarv ta 
 
DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 219 
 
 theirs! This will 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 la}' 
 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 Societv 
 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 Avhile 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 v/as 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 Avere 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. 
 
'^20 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 Avere calculated to create 
 difficulty. But, while it seems to me reasonable 
 ;ind proper, that the church should have been left 
 to carry on her own Domestic Mission work, 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 Avith other denominations, 
 in the work of sending the gospel to the heathen ? 
 
 Min. — There is no department of benevolence 
 over which the church should exercise so strict and 
 watchful 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 Ave expect from the preaching and 
 instruction of a missionary, who would tell the 
 })oor, 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 Ave, as Presbyterians, too often 
 sent to the heathen, Avhile we carried on our 
 missionary work through the Am-erican Board of 
 
DIFFERENCE IN 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 doctrinai views of their missionariesj 
 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, we 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 fcouJd accom.pllsh a greater amount of j 
 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 
 fvas a sy nodical organization, it was felt that we 
 
222 
 
 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 
 
 needed one that would more properly belong to the 
 whole church. In the General Assembly of 1835^ 
 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 1836, to cap the climax of its high- 
 handed 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. 
 
 Mi'n. — 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 when 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 w^ere other 
 things, which increased the difficulty; but we felt 
 particularly grieved with the action of the Assembly 
 
DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 223 
 
 in 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 io facts, 
 and from these facts you must draw your own 
 conclusions. 
 
 I freely admit, that the Old School men w^ere, 
 in some things, to blame. Many things Avere 
 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. 
 
^24 DOINGS OF 1837. 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 DOINGS OF 1837. 
 
 Mhiister. — ^We are now to take a view of the 
 ix:currences 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. 
 
 Convej't. — I suppose you allude to what are called! 
 the "excinding acts" of the Assembly of 1837. 1 
 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 pei'haps 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 faulty 
 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^ 
 tScC, I know has been raised against the General 
 
DOINGS OF 1837. 225 
 
 Assembly. Bat, 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 churchy 
 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 in 
 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 was 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 ot 
 Western New- York, and the Western Reserve in 
 Ohio, Presbyterians and Congregationalists having 
 settled promiscuously in the same neighborhoods. 
 
'226 DOINGS OF 1837v 
 
 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 
 Congi'egationaj 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 nnportant 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 of 
 churches without elders, v/hich 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 
 laws 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 
 
 stmed 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 w^ere 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 
 
22S 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 CongregationaUsm, that every church is 
 independent, and acknowledges no higher author- 
 ity than its own. All the Association could do hi 
 the case, was 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 with the best inten- 
 tions, yet, when it was 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. 
 
 Coil. — In what way particularly, did it operate 
 injuriously? 
 
 Mill. — 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 which 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 Presbyte- 
 rians in their own way, through the General As- 
 sembly, the authority of which they themselves 
 did not acknowledge. They wished to govern us, 
 while 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-five 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, which had near two hundred and fifty 
 churches, all Presbyterian, sent only eighteen. 
 Thus, we found, that questions involving, deeply, 
 the 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 churcltes be represented in 
 the General Assembly, when the delegates to that 
 r ody are sent by the Presbyteries? 
 
 Min. — 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 
 £3 the mmisters. 
 
 Con. — Were the other three Synods, that the 
 A^ssembly decided were not constitutionally con- 
 nected with the church, as largely Congrega- 
 tional as that of the Western Reserve? And did 
 
230 DOINGS OF 1837. 
 
 they come in under the operation of the same plan? 
 
 Min. — Most of them, I beheve, came in under the 
 operation of the same plan, though some did not, 
 The vSynod of Geneva, came in under another plan, 
 adopted in 1808. 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 v/as a body of Congregationalists in New 
 York, called the "Northern Associate Presbytery," 
 and another called the "Middle Association of the 
 Western District," in w^hich proposals were made 
 for uniting wdth the Presbyterian Church. But, not 
 liking the "Plan of Union" of 1801, 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, wqth whom they 
 %vere to unite, sent the ])roposal to the General 
 Assembly of 1808. 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 
 vStandards and government." But they refused to 
 adopt our Standards, and the Synod received them 
 notwithstanding. These bodies, with another, w^ere 
 afterwards organized into the Synod of Geneva. 
 How much Presbvterianism there is, in bodies who 
 
DOINGS OF 183>7. 231 
 
 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 ot 
 1S37, 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.Siich 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 Avere 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, vv^as felt by every lover of truth and order. 
 A committee was appointed, consisting of men in 
 ditferent parts of the church, to correspond w^ith 
 each other, and wdth 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 of 
 1836. This convention met accordingly, but still* 
 were at a lo>?s what to do, from the fact, that thev 
 
'232 DOINGS OF 1837. 
 
 <:ould not tell what would be the character of the 
 Assembly, I have been told by those who attended 
 that convention, that it Avas 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 
 difterent 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 which w^e 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 thirtij. 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 
 ?neasure was then proposed and carried, to cite to 
 the bar of the next Assembly, those inferior judica- 
 tories in which error and disorder prevailed. Thi'^ 
 sneasure 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. — 1 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 
 they 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 Avould 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 was 
 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, howev^er, 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 DOINGS OF 1837. 
 
 entirely dissolved, and two new Assemblies to be 
 oro-anized 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 
 Dlan, 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 
 they were, only they were no longer churches, and 
 church courts, in coimection icith us. 
 
 Con. — The measure was perhaps necessary,, 
 thouo-h 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. 
 
 Min. — If that could have been accomplished, 1 
 believe it w^ould 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 separa- 
 
DOINGS OF 1837. 235 
 
 t'lon 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 w^e 
 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 found them arrayed 
 against what we thought our dearest rights, and 
 the best interests of our church, and seemin^lv 
 desirous of casting under their feet every thin^n- 
 that was excellent and dear in Presbyterianism, we 
 had to say to them, "Brethren, this must not' be- 
 Ave 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 
 sell-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 I 
 should thmk 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. 
 
 3f27i._That was a difficulty which the Assembly 
 
236 DOINGS OF 1837. 
 
 felt, and consequently, in immediate connection with 
 the resolutions, by Avhich 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 with us, are hereby directed to apply for 
 admission into those Presbyteries belonging to our 
 connection, which are most convenient to their res- 
 ])ective 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 ditferent 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 facty 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. 
 
238 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 afibrd 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. For, 
 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 shotild attempt to interfere in 
 the government of the family, telling the father 
 that his family discipline was too strict, ^vhile he. 
 
THE DIVISION. 239 
 
 himself, claimed to be independent of it, he might 
 occasion difficulty, and gain some members of the 
 family over to his views. But, 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 ? 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 vievv^s, 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. 
 
 Mill. — 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 
 times of peace the Assembly might, and would 
 have 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 would 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 Avill 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? 
 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? 
 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 of 
 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 Avere 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? 
 
 Mi7i. — 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^as no longer a body possessing any 
 authority, and none of its acts Avere 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 was 
 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 tlie 
 midst of the proceedings of the Assembly. 
 
 Con, — It must have been a scene of confusion 
 
THE DIVISION. 243 
 
 mdeed. It would certainly have appeared better 
 for them to have quietly organized in some separate 
 place. 
 
 Mill. — 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 washed 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 was their starting point. For, if the 
 organization of the Old School Assembly without 
 those delegates was constitutional, then, no other 
 could be. They were mistaken then, as to the first 
 point; but eA^en had they been correct in this, they 
 mistook the second. If it w^ere true that the As- 
 sembly vitiated its organization by refusing those 
 delegates a seat, that refusal must first take place. 
 But they did not wait 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 was yet no house to appeal 
 to. This they took as the refusal upon which they 
 w^ere 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, 
 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 they 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 w^ay was this exclusive claim set 
 up, and prosecuted with any prospect of success? 
 
 Min. — They declared themselves to be 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 
 refused. 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 declared 
 by the court the true General Assembly, the next 
 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 dragged 
 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 highest 
 court of Pennsylvania, procured through their instru- 
 mentality. It operated in the same way to their 
 disadvantage, so far as the inlluence of such a 
 decision went. They would have succeeded better 
 in laying their claims before the community at large, 
 had no such decision been procured. They would 
 
THE DIVISIOX. 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 this 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 olfence 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 appUcation to the civil 
 court, to have Dr. Elliott and others, fined and 
 imprisoned, for actinoj 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 
 who, at the same time, were denouncing ■ the acts 
 of the General Assembly, as worse than Popish 
 persecution. How near the^v approached to perse- 
 cution, in asking the civil authority to imprison their 
 brethren, you can judge. 
 
 Co?i. — But were these suits actually prosecuted? 
 ^ Mi}i. — They were actually entered for prosecution. 
 
248 THE DIVISION. 
 
 and summons were actually served on these vener- 
 able men, to appear and answer the charges. But, 
 when the Supreme Court decided the case so fully 
 on the first trial, these suits were not prosecuted 
 any farther. 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? 
 
 3Iin.— 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, whose acts bind all. 
 Presbyteries act independeatly 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. 249 
 
 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, w^ho 
 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 e:s tended, 
 how does the division seem to affect the church, 
 and the cause of religion in general? 
 
 yiin. — 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 
 
^50 THE DIVISION. 
 
 to avoid strife, sought the communion of other 
 churches. Those cases, however, were few. More 
 w^ere 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 etibrts, more tlian 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 New 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 "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 tears shall fall, 
 For her my prayers ascend, 
 To her my cares and toils be given, 
 Till toils and care^ shajl en.d." 
 
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 
 would 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 with 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 hoj)e 
 i shall be profited in after life. 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 S 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 
 .^nd 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. 
 
 Messhs. DuNtAP & Smith: 
 
 Dear Brethren — Your proposal to publish "A Dialogue between a 
 Presbyterian Minister and a Young Convert," in tlieform 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 
 tsaued. 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 
 ray 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 
 Ihem well adapted to be useful, and hope they will have an exten- 
 pive circulation. To those who desire to obtain correct views 
 concerning the doctrines of the Bible, and other important 
 znatters connected with the subject of religion, and especially, the 
 Confession of Faith and Form of Government of the Piesbyterian 
 C/hurch, I recommend this proposed volume, as being worthy of a 
 f'andid and careful perusal. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, yours, 
 
 ^'ew Albany. Ind. JAMES WOOD. 
 
Mks<!rs. Duxlap & Smith: 
 
 Dear Brelkren — Having read, in the "Presbyterian of the West," 
 niust of the numbers of " A Dialogue between a Preob3'terian Min- 
 ister and a Youn,? Conveit," entitled *'The Bible, Confession of 
 Faith, and Common Sense," I have long felt desirous that the 
 articles should be collected and given to the public in a more per- 
 manent and abiding form. It is with unfeigned pleasure, therefore, 
 that I understand you contemplate issuing an edition of the work 
 in a small, neat volume. I deem it valuable not only for its clear 
 statement and sound discussion of the great doctrines of divine 
 I ruth, but especially for the exposure (not readily accessible to the 
 mass of readers) of the unfairness with which these doctrines have 
 been ai-siiled by their enemies. 
 
 The form in which you have chosen to discuss the leading doc- 
 trines of our Confession of Faith, and the principles of our Form of 
 Government, will not fail to interest the more learned class of 
 readers, while it wdl secure the attention of those less informed 
 upon these subjects. Believing that it will tend to diffuse a more 
 correct apprehension of the truth as held by the Presbyterian 
 Church, I should be heartily glad to see the little book in every 
 family in our land. 
 
 With affectionate regard, 
 
 Your brother m the gospel, 
 
 I. N. CANDEE. 
 
 Springfield, 0., March 8, 1844, 
 
 To TUE EdITOKS of the PUESBXTERIAN OF THE WeST : 
 
 Dear Brethren — I am glad to hear that the series of Dialogues 
 between a "Presbyterian Minister and a Young Convert," which 
 has appeared in your valuable paper, is about to be published in 
 book form, for more general circulation. I have read these Dialogues 
 with deep interest and unmingled satisfaction, and regard them as 
 an uncommonly clear and able vindication of the disputed doctrines 
 of the Prei?byterian Church, and of its admirable system of eccle- 
 siastical polity. Another thing which adds greatly to their value, 
 in my view, is the satisfactory explanation they give of the ditler- 
 ence between what has been called "Old and New Theology," and 
 of the causes which led to the separation between Old and New 
 School Presbyterians. Such an explanation was needed and will 
 unquestionably do great good. I am free to say, I should rejoiqe to 
 s^e a copy of these Dialogues in every family connected with my 
 own congregation, and to hear that they are widely circulated in 
 every community. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 PHINEAS D. GURLEY, Pmior 
 of the First Presbyterian church, Indianapolis, Ind. 
 
 Indianapolis, February 20, 1844. 
 
Brethren Dunlap and Smitli — In reference to your proposed 
 pubIicaiion,V I am prepared to say, that I can most cordially rt-com- 
 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 stnse, 
 is a p'ood 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 thai the 
 doctrine of the dirinc purpose attributes to God, as the intelligent 
 creator and ruler of the Universe. Common sense, therefore, when 
 it understands what is 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 lOnly 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 ^State, 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 4tb, 1844. 
 
 Dear Brethren — I am pleased to learn that you intend to publish 
 the Dia'ogues in a separate volumf, and I only express the opin- 
 ion of all classes who have read them, and whom 1 have heard 
 say any thing on the subject, when I say, that the work in such 
 form, is calculated to be very useful; particularly in r( latioii to the 
 doctrine of Election, and others of the more abstruse doctrines of 
 the Confession of Faith, I have seen nothing on the distinguish- 
 ing peculiarities of our Church, better calculated to enligh'en and 
 convince common readers. The style is plain, and the illustrations 
 are such as to present the evidence with an almost irresistible force. 
 Some uho 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. M;iny 
 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. MONFOKT, 
 
 Franklin, Ind., Feb. 14, 1844. 
 
I have read with interest, attention and profit, in the "Presbjteriau 
 of the West," a series of numbers, entitled, "A Dialogue between 
 a Presbyterian Minister and a Young Convert;" and understanding 
 that the Editors of that excellent paper (the Rev. Messrs. Dunlap 
 and Smith) 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 
 grace 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 salvalion. I am per- 
 t:.uaded, 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 church, LexingUm, Ku. 
 
 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. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 iriiniMiiWiliiW'^*'^'*^ 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 •0**^ 
 
 
 
 ,. — *.™^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
^ ^012 01034 
 
 8086 
 
 :i-;i'i'