THE
AN
ATTEMPT TO EXHIBIT THE DOCTRINES NOW PREVALENT
IN THE ORTHODOX CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES
OF NEW ENGLAND.
BY DAVID A. WALLACE,
BOSTON.
WITH AN INTRODUTCTION
BY DANIEL DANA, D. D.
BOSTON:
CROCKER  AND  BREWSTER,
47, Washington Street.
1856.




Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by
CROCKER AND BREWSTER,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.




ADVERTISEMENT.
In the following pages, the author has attempted to state
the Theology prevalent in the Congregational Churches of
New  England; usually styled "orthodox."  His aim  has
been to aid inquirers, whether in New England or out of it,
who have not access to-the original sources of information,
in coming to a knowledge of the facts. While he has
been careful to ascertain the truth, and state it clearly, he
cannot flatter himself, that he has perfectly succeeded.
Any mistakes, however, into which he has fallen, when
pointed out, he will be most happy to correct.








INTRODUCTION.
IT is generally admitted as a fact, that the
Scriptures of God utter their great and saving
truths in much simplicity and plainness. Miracles, it is confessed, are not excluded; but these
miracles are propounded, not so much to our reason, as to an unquestioning and child-like faith.
Far from  obscuring the doctrines at large, they
set them in their purest light, and reveal them in
their heavenly beauty, and glory, and harmony.
Yet, paradoxical as it may seem, their very
simplicity has proved a fruitful occasion of their
being misunderstood and misrepresented. Speculative men, men of acute minds, and reasoning
talents, coming to the Bible, and finding there
nothing which a well-instructed child cannot understand.nearly as well as themselves, are dissatisfied and disgusted. Hence philosophy is summoned to supply the defects, and adorn the artlessness, of scripture. But the attempt is fatal. By
these devices, men's minds are unhinged, reason
takes the place of faith, and endless doubts and




6
misgivings are substituted for positive and satisfying certainty. Breaking loose from  the eternal
truths of God, men are seduced into a labyrinth of
interminable and destructive error.
When we read the Epistles of St. Paul, we
find that he rebuked this arrogant species of philosophy, viewing it as eminently and irreconcilably hostile to the pure truths of the gospel. In
one passage, he brands it with the epithet of
science falsely so called. And most justly. For
what a wretched thing is that science which understands every thing but the truth of God, and
the way of human salvation. How mis-called is
that philosophy which arrays itself against divine
and everlasting truth.  Genuine philosophy is mo-dest and unassuming.  It delights to open its eyes
to the light of heaven.  It finds its most honorable and delightful place at the feet of Jesus.
While the proud and self-sufficient reasoner, feeling no need of divine instruction, turns away from
haiyenly light, and clinging to the feeble taper of
his own reason, wanders in the path leading to
eternal darkness and eternal death.
These remarks are strongly confirmed by a signal'passage in thei New Testament history. The
great Apostle of the Gentiles spent some days at
Athens, a city which was not only the boasted
light of Greece, but the seat of a great portion of
the science, art, literature, and refinement which
then existed in the world. And what was the
Apostle's success in this favored  spot?  Less,




7
probably, than in any other which was visited
with his preaching. For while in some regions,
comparatively dark and uncultivated, he witnessed
many trophies of divine grace, his successi in
Athens was so small, that a few scattered individuals comprise the whole catalogue of his converts.
-In modern times, the experiment of the power
of reason, when divorced from  Revelation, has
been conspicuously made in Germany. In that
favoredland, the birth-place of Luther and the
Reformation, who would not have wished that
pure religion might have lingered for many a century?  But such wishes have been sadly disappointed. About a century since, there arose there
certain philosophers who, closing their eyes to the
light of Heaven, and tfampling on the teachings
of the Bible, determined to make a religion for
themselves, and for the community. They were
men not destitute of genius, or of learning, or of
research. Still less were they wanting in selfconfidence. But they were awfully destitute of
that humility to which Heaven is used to confine
its holy light and aid. Their project was attended
with fatal success. Being followed by a long line
of successors of their own spirit, they poured darkness.on the public mind; darkness which might be
felt, and which is actually felt at the present day.
Under its baleful influence, men of knowledge and
refinement have yielded themselves to religious
absurdities which would disgrace the lowest state




of society.; Germany witnesses at this day, in her
tniversities, her Theological Seminaries, and in
her pulpits, men conspicuous for infidelity. The
consequence of this state of things is natural and
inevitable. The whole land is deluged with error
and infidelity, with vices and crimes. We are recently informed, indeed, of some appearance of a
revulsion. It is announced: that men of sound
minds and sound theology are lifting a powerful
voice against the errors and abomination of the
time; and that they find listeners too. Still may
it-not require a century, or eveni more, to repair
the ravages which have been made on the cause
of truth, and the intellects of the community?
Hence arises a question of no common interest.
What is the influence which German theology
has exercised for years, and is now exercising, on
the theology of our own country?  Of the reality
of this influence, and of its extent, there can be no
doubt. The simple fact that our young preachers,
either at the commencement of their course, or in
their preparation for it, are so prone to resort to
that country, speaks an intelligible language. On
this subject, we need not adopt a strain of indis.
criminate reproof. A variety of motives and of
circumstances may operate in the case. The history, geography and chronology of the Scriptures;
their criticism, literature and antiquities, all have
their importance and use. In these departments,
the German religionists have exhibited indefatigable:activity, and amassed immense stores of




9
knowledge. Of these accumulations, religious
students may safely and wisely avail themselves.
Yet if, in these pursuits, their minds should be insensibly drawn away from  the great and distinguishing doctrines of scripture, or should receive
perverse or indistinct impressions of them, the evil
would be immense. The largest acquisitions of
such knowledge would but ill compensate for the
want or loss of the essential and saving truths of
God's word.
The attribute of Scripture which preeminently
stamps its value and importance, is its Inspiration.
Here lies the basis of all the instruction; the hope
and comfort which it imparts. To renounce this
precious attribute, is to give up ourselves to endless doubt and blank despair. While to have our
faith in it shaken, or impaired, is to want the first
and.most essential qualification of Christian instructors.  Surely no one will contend that our
young men, destined to the ministry, and subjected to the influences we have described, are in no
danger of contamination.
Another source of danger to our country is
found in the introduction of German writings.
These, within a few years, have been imported to
our land in a profusion formerly unknown. For
about a century past, Germany has been the
grand corrupter of Europe and the world. By its
novels and poetry, and false philosophy, by its rationalism, and pantheism, and atheism, (for pantheism  is substantially atheism,) it has spread




10
havock through the morals and religion of Europe.
Fir a long period, however, this great and tremendous  evil was much confined to the more
speculative and:literary circles. But in more recent time, the language being better understood,
and t:ranslations being abundantly multiplied, the
evil'has had a far more extensive diffusion, and
found its' way to all classes of society. And it
cannot be sufficiently deplored, that the case is
substantially the same in the country in which we
live.::Formerly, these skeptical -and infidel notions were chiefly broached in books designed for
speculative readers. But more recently, they find
a place in writings intended for all classes, not
excepting the most ignorant and uncultivated.
So that, as we are become a nation of readers,
these last bid fair to become as thorough proficients in infidelity as their superiors.  And it
must be confessed that in this school, they are
often willing and docile students.  Few, probably,
are aware of that awful deterioration of religious
views, feelings and practice which has swept over
New England within the last thirty or forty years,
and.which threatens to sweepaway every thing
worthy the name of religion. One thing is certain.  Unbelief is the order of the day; -the fatal
ialady of the age.  That religion _which our pilgrim fathers brought with them, which they cherished as their dearest possession, and which they
grasped to their hearts in life and in death, is, by
thousands of their descendants, ignored, or denied,
or treated with neglect and contempt.




- It cannot —be denied that -the great and distinguishing doctrines of the gospel are, by thousands
of-our christian community, disbelieved and contradicted; perhaps despised and ridiculed.  Other
thousands there are, who., at some period of their
lives, have solemnly declared their belief in them.
Their hearts, however, were never truly reconciled
to them. — And finding that they are much opposed, especially in the fashionable world, and
that'much can be plausibly said and reasoned
again'st- their truth, they rejoice to employ these
things as pretexts for discarding them  altogether,
and thus escaping their humbling and painful influence.
A third class value themselves on holding their
judgment in suspense between these doctrines and
their opposites. This, they contend, is dictated
by candor and impartiality. They hold that on
these topics, the Bible itself is obscure and indecisive: not fitted to give satisfaction to inquiring
minds.:'Yet what is this but virtually to allege
that the Book of God has been given us in vain;
that while'possessing a Revelation from God, we
need, another revelation to explain it, and that that
inspired volume, which was designed to guide us
to:truth and heaven, is wholly incompetent to its
object, and has utterly failed in its effect.
We may not neglect a fourth class of the religious in our community.  It is composed of those
who firmly believe1 and cordially love, the distinguishing doctrines of the gospel-doctrines at'once




12
lying-at its foundation, and manifest on the surface.  On these doctrines hang their immortal
hopes, and from them they derive their best consolations.  At the same time, they are surrounded
by multitudes by whom these truths are ignored,
or disregarded, or opposed, or treated with scorn.
Yet they withhold from these truths their open and
vigorous support. Here is an inconsistency which
we cannot sufficiently lament.  And surely it will
not always last.  These good men must ultimately come forward, and, bitterly lamenting their past
defects, throw all their weight and influence on
the side of God's despised truth.  May Heaven
grant that this "consummation" so "devoutly to
be wished " may not come too late.
There is a class of-religionists in our community
yet unmentioned.  They hold that Christians at
large are generally agreed; at least that they
maintain no discrepancies in views which may
not be easily merged. Let mutual candor and
conciliation be cherished, and all will be well.
To contend earnestly for particular doctrines, is
needless and useless, and tending only to evil.
Let this disposition subside, and Christians will
remain in harmony, and the church in peace.. This train of thought is extremely plausible.
But it is not more plausible than dangerous.  It
is proper, then, to give it a careful scrutiny.
The great and absorbing question before the
christian public is this: do the doctrines which
have been fashionable, and which are rapidly in



13
creasing in prevalence and extent, agree with the
oracles of truth? In other words, are they the
same doctrines which the church has, in every age,
found in the Bible?
It has been well remarked that deceit lies in
generals.  To come at the truth, then, we must
descend to particulars.
The Bible declares, explicitly and uniformly declares the entire and awful depravity of man; a
depravity, which, descending from the first progenitor of the race, has infected all his offspring,
This is the doctrine which pervades the Scripture
from beginning to end. The doctrine is strictly
fundamental. It lies at the basis of the structure
on which human salvation is built. It gives character, complexion and features to all the doctrinesand provisions of the gospel. It directly follows}
that as this doctrine is received or rejected, the
gospel itself is received or rejected. It cannot
then be denied, that on this very spot, error, essential error is chargeable on the modern theology.
It repudiates a cardinal doctrine of the Bible. It
denies and discards original sin in the sense in
which it has been understood and maintained by
the church of God in all ages. That there may
be no mistake on this vital point, we quote from
the writings of a professor in the most important
theological seminary of New England; a gentleman well known as the chief Expounder and Advocate of the new system. -In a note appended to
his Convention Sermon, he writes as follows:
2




14
" Is it said, that a passive nature, existing antecedently. to all free action, is itself, strictly, literally
sinful?  Then we must have a new  language,
and speak, in prose, of moral patients as well as
moral agents, of_ men besinned as well as siriners,
(forex vi termini sinners as well as runners must
beactive;) we must have a new conscience which
can decide on the moral character of dormant conditions, as wellas of elective preferences; a new
law, prescribing the very make of the soul, as well
as the way in which this soul, when made, shall
act, and a law which we transgress (for sin is'a
transgression of the law') in being before birth
passively mis-shapen; we must also have a new
3ible, delineating a judgment scene in which
some will be condemned, not only on account of
the deeds which they have done in the body, but
also for having been born with an involuntary
proclivity to sin, and others will be rewarded not
only for their conscientious love to Christ, but also
for a blind nature inducing that love; we must, in
fine, have an entirely different class of moral sentiments, and have them disciplined by Inspiration
in an entirely different manner from  the present;
for now the feelings of all true men revolt from
the assertion, that a poor infant dying, if we may
suppose it to die, before its first wrong preference,
merits for its unavoidable nature, that eternal punishment, which is threatened, and justly, against
the smallest real sin. Although it may seem paradoxical to affirm  that'a man may believe a pro



15
position- which he knows to be false,' it is yet
charitable to say that whatever any man may
suppose himself-to believe, he has in fact an
inward conviction, that'all sin consists in sinning.'- - 
It is needful here to remark, though the remark
is uttered with inexpressible pain, that the author
of the foregoing paragraph has repeatedly declared
his assent to the Westminster Assembly's Shorter
Catechism, and as often solemnly engaged to conform his instructions to that Summary of doctrine;
expressly discarding the doctrine of Pelagianism.
It is needless to add, that if the essence of Pelagianism consists in the denial of the native depravity of man, that signal error is plainly couched
in the paragraph cited.
It is not denied that the term  depravity is admitted into the new theology.' But, wonderful as
it may seem, it is represented as a sinless depravity.: But who sees not that this is an abuse of
terms?  But why should such an abuse be admitted, tending only to vitiate and confound language,
and to darken a subject which demands the utmost plainness and perspicuity?:-With the doctrine of native depravity, that of
Regeneration holds a close alliance.  Indeed they
involve each other.  Nor is it'less evident that the
views entertained of the one, will greatly modify
our views of the other.  This we should naturally
anticipate; and this is found to be the literal fact.
If man is but partially depraved, a partial regen



16
eration is all which he- needs. If only nominally
depraved. a nominal regeneration is sufficient to
meet his case. Accordingly, the advocates of the
new doctrine, while they admit the term regeneration, eviscerate it of all its meaning and force.
They do not admit that it involves either a holy
change, or a change of nature. As to the former
point; contending, as they do, that all holiness as
well as sin, consists in action; and allowing, as
they must, that all holy action in the creature is
preceded by regeneration, they cannot surely find
holiness in regeneration itself. Maintaining that
Adam, as he came from  his Creator's hand, was
not holy till he began to act,-must they not maintain, that those regenerated by the Spirit are not
holy- till they begin to act?  As to the other
point, they deny that human beings are, properly
speaking, depraved in nature.  Where then is the
necessity, where even the possibility of their being
regenerated?  And what a strange and nondescript kind of regeneration must that be, which
passes on creatures not in their nature depraved
and sinful.
As to the theory that all sin and holiness consist in action, or exercise, though it assumes the
proud name of philosophy, we submit that it is as
contrary to sound philosophy as to common sense
and the Bible.  There are certain states or conditions of the mind which belong, not to the class
of volitions, but of principles, propensities,-dispositioris, or affections. But they are not, therefore,




divested of a decidedly moral character. It would
be absurd to contend that pride is a volition. Yet
pride, by universal consent, is the most odious of
vices. Nor would it be easy to prove that humility is a volition. Yet in the judgment of God
himself, humility is the loveliest of virtues.
The doctrine of Justification by faith has ever
been viewed by the church, in its best days, as a
doctrine of the clearest evidence, and the deepest
interest. What the great Luther thought of its
importance is well known. Our puritan fathers
guarded it with a sleepless vigilance, and zealously resisted every attempt to corrupt its purity.
It has not been altogether so with their descendants. Within a century or less, this doctrine has
lost much of the attention and respect which it
claims. Many divines of some reputation have
treated it with great neglect. Others, it should
seem, have scarcely found it in the Bible. While
others have manifested a wish to expunge it from
the list of christian doctrines. From the modern
theology it has experienced much disregard and
opposition. The treatment which it has recently
received, would, had it appeared half a century
since, have been regarded with astonishment, not
to say with horror. That Christ our Savior, beingman, so needed obedience for himself as to
have no merit to impart to his believing people;
that the imputation of his righteousness is an absurdity; and that men must look to their own holiness and obedience to bring them  to heaven2*




v
these are among the dreams which are now extensively propagated. Thus the proud and selfrighteous are propped up in their own imaginary.
goodness; and thus the self-diffident and humble
are plunged into a species of despondence,"and
even despair.
It is much to be wished, that those who deny,
and perhaps denounce the imputation of Adam's
sin to his posterity, and Christ's righteousness to
his believing people, would carefully study the
fifth chapter of Romans. Doubtless they would
discover that these doctrines are stamped with
the same divine authority; that both -the one and
the other are equally and truly doctrines of the
Bible. "As BY THE OFFENCE OF ONE, JUDGMENT
CAME UPON ALL MEN TO CONDEMNATION; EVEN SO
BY THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ONE, THE FREE GIFT
CAME UPON ALL MEN UNTO JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE.
FoR AS BY ONE MAN^S DISOBEDIENCE MANY WERE
MADE SINNERS, SO BY THE OBEDIENCE OF ONE SHALL
MANY BE MADE RIGHTEOUS.We have no satisfaction in multiplying these
reproofs, though some of our remarks may appear
unduly severe. But there is still a topic of some
interest deserving a serious attention. 
For many years past, the subject of man's ability and inability has been much discussed, both in
the sacred desk and in other scenes of instruction. Arguments on each side, almost equally
plausible, and almost equally valid, are arrayed
in mutual opposition. Still the debate continues




19
and-still the minds of men remain either in anxious uncertainty, or in unreasonable confidence.
The truth is, that questions on this subject are
much less likely to be decided by philosophic reasoning, than by common sense and the Bible.;Still there are truths in the case, the force of
which-most candid minds will admit. That all
human beings are under immediate and everlasting obligations to repent of their sins, to obey the
law and receive the gospel-that there is no obstacle in tlie way, but such as arises from their
own obstinacy and wickedness-and that their
perdition, if they finally perish, will be of their
own procuring; these are unquestionable facts.
It is equally unquestionable that sinners lie
wholly at the mercy of God; that he holds their
salvation and perdition in his own sovereign hand;
and that all their efforts to save themselves will
be utterly abortive, without divine and ornnipotent aid.
Between these two classes of propositions there
may be seeming  discrepancies. But they are
only seeming. All truths are reconcilable with
all other truths.  What appears to our frail minds
to be discordant, may be quite otherwise in the
eye of an omniscient God. And we ourselves, in.a future state, may see clear and satisfying light,
where now  we -behold only impenetrable darkness.
The propensity of the present day seemsto be
to magnify human power. Thoughts are sported




20
on  this  subject, obviously irreconcilable with
Scripture and common sense. This is undoubtedly a serious evil. For though  these  views
seemingly tend to excite men to action, their
real tendency is to lull them  into  sloth'and
security. Let a man believe that his salvation
is fully, and in every sense, in his own power,
and he will delay the disagreeable task to a more
convenient season.  He will become proud, selfsufficient, and careless.  It is worth a serious
inquiry, whether that recklessness as to religion
and the soul, and even that laxity in principles
and morals which so lamentably prevail in our
day, are not attributable to extravagant views of
human power and sufficiency.
On the topic thus briefly discussed, there arise
some reflections too important to be neglected or
forgotten. The error in question respecting human
ability was, in former times, inculcated by ministers of great seriousness and fidelity-men who,
in their private speculations, cherished sound and
scriptural views on  many gospel subjects; and
who, in their public instructions, uttered many
things suited to alarm the fears, and awaken the
consciences, of the impenitent.  But the case is
otherwise now.  The modern theology is superficial and unimpressive. It contains little which
tends either to awaken the consciences, or alarm
tHe fears of the irreligious. Of course, the error in
question is left unqualified and unchecked, to produce its disastrous effects on the minds of men,
and lead them insensibly in the path to ruin.




21.Concerning many of the errors which we have
rnoted, it may be thought, perhaps, that they arise
less from substantial deviations, than from  mere
changes in terminology. But to this grave remark,
we reply in brief, that words are things. A slight
change of terms may communicate very false impressions. WVe have likewise a right to enter a
solemn protest against a new, unauthorized and
inaccurate use of language.  It is not fit, that in
this way, the instructions of the pulpit should beconme unintelligible, the minds of men filled with
confusion, and the religious public kept in a state
ofunceasing agitation.
But perhaps the case demands an attention and
statement still more serious.  Can it be for a moment denied that, within a few years, words have
so entirely changed their meaning, that the christian pulpit emits darkness rather than light? Can
it be denied that the terms Depravity, Conversion,
Regeneration, Atonement, Justification, etc., have
lost their original sense, and assumed a meaning
altogether new?  Can it be denied, that in the
principal Theological Seminary of New England,
the religion taught is depravity without sin, regeneration without holiness, and justification without
the righteousness of Christ?  Can it be denied,
that pious hearers often retire from the sanctuary,
and from  the instructions of a preacher whose
leading views are entirely opposite to their own,
yet honestly believing that they have heard the
very gospel which they loved?  Can it be denied,




22
that different classes of hearers, widely distant- in
sentiment, have each come away in the confidence
that the preacher was of their own opinion?
In these cases, charity would perhaps forbid us
to suspect that the preacher has harbored a direct
intention to deceive.  Perhaps his aim  has been
to exhibit truths so modified and ornamented as
that they shall neither displace the tasteful and
philosophic, nor disgust the worldly, nor repel the
open enemies of religion. But surely it cannot be
sufficiently lamented, that the pious should be defrauded of the food on which they feast and live;
the consciences of sinners left undisturbed, the unbelieving confirmed in their infidelity, and the
hypocrite and self-deceived encouraged in their
ruinous delusions.:Where are the Christians who have occupied
this stage for twenty or thirty years, and have not
witnessed a real revolution in religion-in its doctrinal views, its experience and its practice? The
wide and perceptible distance once existing between the pious and the impenitent is almost annihilated. The irreligious are prone to imagine
that they are half as good as Christians; the
church, instead of communicating its stamp to the
world, receives from the world its own stamp; and
the really pious are too often lost in the crowd.
The decline and abandonment of the truth, so
prevalent and undeniable, have unquestionably
sunk our churches into a sadly depressed condition. That lukewarmness, formality and awful




23
defections are found in thousands of professed
Christians is generally admitted.  The fact, too,
appears to be generally lamented.  It is one of
the wonders of the time, that the close connection
that exists between these two grand evils, seems
to be rarely traced and acknowledged.  Yet how
can it be expected that evils will be removed until
they are distinctly seen-seen in their causes and
connection, as well as in their magnitude and aggravations?  Should it please God, in his holy
sovereignty, to visit our community with the influences of his Spirit, and with pure revivals of
religion, one. of its first effects would be found in
a return to those simple gospel truths, which were
once acknowledged and prized, but are now neglected and scarcely understood.  Should it please
him, on the other hand, to awaken a general and
interested attention  to  these heaven-descended
truths, this would prove an auspicious omen that
religion itself would rise from its depressions, and
richly diffuse around us its sacred and saving influences.
The worthy and respected Author of this pamphlet has executed a task of no common importance. He has presented to the churches a view
of the Theology of New England as it now exists,
together with the means and steps by which it
has arrived at its present position.  The whole
work is marked With great care and accuracy of
investigation, with great clearness of statement,
and with a candor which is mingled with a de



24'.  -:. -           ^'   ^..
ecided and warm attachment to the pure principles
of.gospel truth.  In a work involving such extensiveness- of general survey, and such a minute
statement of particulars, it would be strange indeed,:were there to be found no mistakes. -Ii the
-present-case, it is believed there are few, and those
of small importance.:-Mr. -Wallace  has laid  our New  England
churches under great obligations. These obligationsthey-will not be slow to acknowledge, or to
appreciate.  His pamphlet, it is anticipated, will
excite a general attention.  His statement will.confirm the friends of truth, and will furnish matter of useful reflection to inquirers and errorists.
TFhe writer of this Introduction is aware that,
by his present and former communications to the
public, he may incur the suspicion of severity to"wards  his christian and ministerial brethren. But
he-pleads innocence. On this point, he can appeal
o:his own conscience, and he hopes also to his
omniscientlJudge.- At no period has he felt more
anxious to live and die in peace with every human
being. i- Yet feeling that his final account is near,
he is anxious to spend his last breath in defending
the truth of God, and in opposing the errors which
threaten. its subversion. Conscious -that he- is
liable to:error, he knows that the same liability attends his valued brethren who differ from him in
judgment. Nor is it impossible, that when he shall
have retired from  the stage, they may remember
his warnings, with regret that they have not been
regarded.




25
The Theology of New England is obviously in
a state of transition. What is the point at which
it' will stop, is known only to Him who knows all
things, and who loves his church with an affection far superior to that of the best of its friends.
One thing is certain. Our spiritual condition will
soon become either materially better, or materially
worse. At such a time, there are reasons enough
for fear and trembling, for sleepless vigilance, and
active exertion; but none for despair, nor even for
despondency. He who sways the sceptre of the
world, sways likewise the sceptre of the Church.
She cannot be swallowed and lost in the- ocean,
for her great Pilot is at the helm. Let Christians
shake off their guilty slumbers; let them stand in
their lot; let them rouse every nerve and sinew to
active exertion, and all will yet be well. " GOD IS
OUR REFUGE AND STRENGTH, A VERY PRESENT -HELP
IN TROUBLE."  THEREFORE WILL NOT WE FEAR,
THOUGH THE EARTH BE REMOVED, AND THOUGH THE,
MOUNTAINS- BE CARRIED INTO THE MIDST OF THESEA.
DANIEL DANA.
Newburyport, Nov. 19, 1855.
3




-THE THEOLOGY OF NEW" ENGLAND.
"THE Theology of New England," say the Editors of the Boston Congregationalist, "is not one
simple, well-defined system.  There has existed as
great a variety among the New England divines,
who are essentially orthodox, as among the divines
of any other nation."*  This fact renders 4it very
difficult to point out, clearly and definitely, the
principles commonly included  under that term.
There is no generally received creed, which embraces and authoritatively exhibits this theology.
We must look for it in works on divinity usually
regarded as standard, in labored  articles of reviews, newspaper editorials, decisions of councils,
published sermons, confessions of faith, and such
other quarters as we may obtain light on the prineiples actually received and taught in  the New
England churches.  From  such sources as these
*March 15, 1850. The responsible editors of the "Congregationalist" at
this date were Rev. E. Beecher, D. D., Rev. R. S. Storrs, D. D., and Rev.
H. M.Dexter. The articles from which we quote were., it is believed, written by the then se.ior editor, Dr. Beecher.




the material for the following pages has been
drawn. The reader must determine for himself
the degree of credit to be attached to the several
witnesses whose testimony is here recorded.
What the "Theology of New  England" at
present is, may be inferred, with some degree of
correctness from the influences which operated in
forming it.
Hopkins, holding that all sin consists in selfish
exercises, denying that there is in man any nature
orttendency to sin that can be properly called sinful, exalting his doctrine of disinterested benevoience to'being in general to the skies, rejecting
the imputation of Adam's sin, teaching the doctrines of the atonement and justification in a loose
and unsatisfactory manner, as well as deviating
from the old faith in other important particulars,
exerted a wide-spread and powerful influence on
the ministry-and churches in succeeding generations. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, who rejected the
doctrine of imputation in all its branches, and
who is regarded as the father of the new scheme
of the atonement, which denied that Christ paid
the debt-his people owe to God, or died in their
room and stead, or in any proper sense satisfied
divine justice in their behalf, or secured any thing
for them, or did any thing more than open up the
way by which God can pardon and save sinners
and still maintain the integrity of his government,
and which claims that his death has the same favorable aspect on all men, is regarded by many as




28
second only' to his father.  Long ago he was ad-.mitted into: the. catalogue of New England saints.
Emmons, -the -great apostle  of:the ". Exercise
Scheme," who taught that there is no such. thing
as original sin, that there  is no disposition,to sin
antecedent to unholy exercises, that all isin consists in exercises, that Christ nerited. nothing -.for
sinners, that Christ by his death only opened up
the.'way-by which God might save all men, or
none, as he saw fit, that justification signifies pardon of sin-no more, no less-that eternal life is
bestowed as the reward of the believer's own si-n
eere obedience, and who rejected imputation in
every sense of the term, claiming that the distinction of Christ's obedience into active and passive
is wholly unscriptural, instructed nearly a hundred
students of theology, most of whom are now New
Ebngiland pastors, many of them  occupying positions of great influence. Emmons held views -respecting divine agency now  accepted',by few.
These, however, are:among his "aberrations in
the-. direction of ultra Calvinism.".Dr.-.-Dwight,
for many years President of Yale -College,:. and.
Professor of Theology, while he taught fully and
distinctly the old doctrine in relation to sin,:depravity, and regeneration, nevertheless. held views
on imputation, -the atonement, justification, and
other subjects, nearly akin to those of Emmons,
and palpably.diverse from  the theology'of the
Westminster standards.  For a quarter of a century,.Dr. Taylor and -his colleagues, at New Ha



29
ven, have been teaching that God could not pre.
vent the entrance of sin into our system; he could
not govern the world, so as to have less sin and
less misery in it; he does the: most and best he
can to banish sin:and bring in holiness; men p6rsevere in in in spite of all he can do to reclaim
them; he converts and saves as many souls as he
can, and would willingly -save all if he could;
there is no sinful nature antecedent to sinful acts
or exercises; sin is the free preference of the
world and worldly good to the will and glory of
God; infants come into the world as free from sin
as.Adam; death no more proves sin in infants
than in animals; the imputation of Adam's sin is
unreasonable and absurd; regeneration is a change
in the governing purpose of the mind; it is a
gradual, progressive work; there is no change in
the nature or disposition of the sinner antecedent
to the exercise of right affections; the sinner may
so resist the grace of God as to render it impossible for-:God to convert him; the agency of the
Spirit in regeneration is altogether persuasive exerted through the medium  of truth or motives;
selflove: or desire of happiness, is the primary
cause or reason of all acts of preference or choice
which fix supremely on any object. According
to the  Congregationalist, " Dr. Taylor has, within
the last twenty years, instructed a larger number
of students in the department of doctrinal theology
than any other theological teacher in New England. These students are now, to a very considera3*




30
ble:extent, the settled, pastors in the churches of
Massachusetts: and Connecticut." "Besides, it is a
well known fact, that a very large proportion of
the pastors. of New England who:did not study
theology under' Dr.!Taylor,? hold' essentially his
views.on: the'great and prominent ddctrines of-the
gospel, and rank themselves as New School men."Dr. Woods, for thirty-eight years':: Professor: of
Christian:'Theology at Andover,  orthodox as he
was, and Old:School.as he" is now  regarded, was
understood to teach a system which might be considered a.compromise between old Calvinism: and
Hopkinsianism.-:: For near a quarter of aa-century,
those memorable sentences, in his  "Letters -to:Unitarians,"' in which he declared that the orthodox in: New England, cannot with goodconscience
bscribe- to:every expression the Assembly's Cate*
chism contaiis in relation to the doctrine- of origiialsii, and that they cannot admit that the:sinfuilness of our naturalfallen state consists in-any
tmeasure in the guilt of Adam's first sin, remained
unailtered' as the record of his deliberate judgm.ent.;:it —wasi not until. advanced in life that he publicly
announced; his change of opinion-:in relationlto
the  ropropriety of conforming to old -sschool divines,
ii:the:u-se of theological terms.'Thruoughofithis
eitire connection with the Seminary, Professor
Stuart, and during a- part -of it, Professor Park,.were:'associated-  with -him.  Theirn, influence,'it
Aug. 2, 1E50.  t Letters to: Unitarians p. 44,-1820.




31'
may -well- be believed, did not, in any degree, remedy -the.deficiencies in his orthodoxy.  Indeed,
r., Dana.complains that the instructions of Dr.
Woods, because:of opposing influences, had not
been.permitted to operate with full force. on the
m i-nds.:f.-. -the -students.: — There: were collisions
even-in-the pulpit of the Seminary.*
Such were some of the influences that operated
in tforming. the prevailing theology of New England.:. What then is it?
Dr —Enoch. Pond, Professor in: the- Theological
Seminary at Bangor,  Maine, one of the most emit
ient -f:. New: England divines, speaking of the
nnion between the old-Calvinists and Hopkinsians,
in? founding. the Seminary at Andover, and in
other.:benevolent-enterprises, says:-" As they had
now.become-a united body, they neeed some
name:or phrase by which their theology might:be
Hdesignated,.t It was not Calvinism or Hopkinsianis.m, i.n the:sense in which these terms had been
used for half a century, but the coalition, the run-.ing;together of both.; and it is just here that we
find the origin of a phrase about which there is no
little dispute-at the present day-THE  NEW  ENG-.LAND: THiE OLOGY."
~'Old Calvinism, though the prevailing theology
in. this:section for the first one hundred and thirty
iyars,could not, he argues, with any propriety be
called.New. England theology, as it was not pecu*Dana's Remonstrance, p. 7




-32
liar to New England.  Hopkinsianism, he farther
claims, never prevailed to such an extent as to be
entitled to the name of New England theology.'-ButB when":he says, "the great body of the
Hopkinsians and Calvinists came to unite their
forces to sustain the same institutions and publica,
tions, the result was a modified theology-neither
old Calvinism, on the one hand, nor High Hopkinisianism  on the other-which  began to be
called New  England theology, and has been so
designated ever since." "As the two classes which
united in 1808, did not become perfectly one in
sentiment, so' the theology which they inculcated
admitted of some diversity of statement and explanation. _Still they were agreed in almost all
important points, and wherein they differed they
were pledged to mutual toleration. They unitedly
hdld'what have ever been considered the promi-nent points of Calvinism: such as the universal
and unconditional purposes of God; the free
moral agency of man; the entire sinfulness of the
natural heart, in consequence of the original apostacy; the necessity of regeneration by the Spirit 
justification by faith; redemption by the blood of
Christ; -the perseverance of saints unto eternal
life; and the endless punishment of those who die
in their sins'. If these are Calvinistic doctrines,
some of them  peculiarly so, the New  England
theology is Calvinistic,'and our ministers may
with-propriety be denominated  Calvinists, still,
they-are not Calvinists in the exact sense of the




33;
New England fathers a hundred years ago.": Noticing a few particulars in which the current theology-of New England differs from the Calvinism.
of- a former age, he mentions the: imputation of
Adam's si-inability, directions to the uncon.
verted, regeneration, and the atonement.  He says,
moreover, that New  England divines are not
agreed among themselves, but differ as to the natue.of sin, our connection with Adam, regeneratioan,- and kindred doctrines. These differences, he
claims, are found among the soundest' and most
orthodox: theologians, and therefore ought to be
no bar, to union and cooperation.  Such are the
views of this theology held by one of its ablest
and. most sober-minded advocates.*
- Professor Park,- of Andover, is, however, the
most devoted admirer, as well as the ablest ex-.
pounder of this system.  His statements have,
therefore, peculiar authority. In the closing article
of? his.late; controversy with Professor. Hodge, of
Princeton, he thus writes:-" We beg leave, thereforefirst of all, to explain the term New England
theology. It signifies the formal creed which a.
majority of the most eminent theologians in New
England. have explicitly or implicitly sanctioned,
during and since the time of Edwards.  It includes:  not the peculiarities in which Edwards
differed, as he is known to have differed from  the
larger part of his most eminent followers, nor the
*Sletch of the Theological Hist. of New England. Boston Cong., Nos. 7and 8.




v_
peculiarities in which  any  one  of his followers
differed, as some of them  did, from  the larger part
of the others; but it comprehends the  principles,
with  their logical sequences, which  the greater
number of our most celebrated  divines have approved expressly, orby implication.  It was first
called  New-light Divinity,  then  New   Divinity,
afterward  Edwardean, more  recently  Hopkintonian or Hopkinsian. From  the fact that Edwards,
Hopkins, West, and Catlin, resided  in  Berkshire
county, it was  once  called  Berkshire   divinity.
When it was embraced by Andrew Fuller, Dr.
Ryland, Robert Hall, Sutcliffe, Carey, Jay, and
Erskine, it was called American theology by the
English, in order to discriminate it from  the European  systems.*   It has  been  denominated  New
England theology, in order to  distinguish it from
the systems that have prevailed  in  other parts of
the land.  In 1756, two years before the death  of
Edwards, there  were, according  to  Dr. Hopkins,
not more than four or five clergymen who  espoused this new  theology.  In 1773, it was  advocated
by  about forty-five  ministers;  and  Dr. Hopkins
says that in  1796  it was favored by  somewhat
more  than  a  hundred.  In 1787, Dr. Stiles men* In relation to the above assertion, an eminent old school Professor of Theology uses the following language: " Professor Park's assertion, that Hopkinsianism was embraced by Fuller, Ryland, Hall, Erskine, etc., is so unfounded,;and can be proved to be so by the writings of the persons named, that I am
surprised at its rashness. The distinction between moral and natural abilitywhich, however, is far older than Edwards-and the unlimited extent, or
rather the boundless efficacy of the Atonement, are the only ideas which they
derive from New England."




tions as among its champions the two Edwardses;
Bellamy, Hopkins, Trumbull, Smalley, Judson,
Spring, Robinson, Strong, Dwight, Emmons. In
1799 Hopkins appended the names of West, Levi
Hart, Backus, Presidents Balch and Fitch. We
may now add such honored men as Dr. Catlin,
President Appleton, Dr. Austin. They gave form
and pressure to -our theological system. They
were imperfect men. They did not harmonize on
every theme; but a decided majority of them
stood firm for the three radical principles, that sin
consists in choice,.that our natural power equals,
and.that.it limits our duty."
Characterizing this system particularly, he says:
" It is.marked by certain new features."  He does
not specify them, but says in general: " We do
not mean to say that the Edwardean school discovered principles that were never thought of before. They:claim to have brought out into bold
relief the obscurer faith of good men in all ages.
They gave a new distinctness, a new prominence
to doctrines which: had been more vaguely believed by the church. They produced new arguments for a faith which had been speculatively
opposed by men who had practically sanctioned
it."  As an example, he mentions the doctrine
that "an entirely depraved man has a natural
power to do all that is required of him," claiming
"that it has been so clearly unfolded by New
England divines that it properly belongs to their
distinctive system."  He further maintains'that




36
"New  England-theology is Calvinism in an improved form." — It does not'profess to be original
in' its  ardinal truths.  It has ever claimed that
they are the- common faith of the church; -that
they arrerecognised in many evangelical creeds;
that'Calvinism- contains the substance of New
England theology,- not always well-proportioned,
not seldom intermingled with the remnants of an
erring scholasticism, and sometimes enveloped in
inconsistencies, and expressed in a nervous style.
The substance of our theology is Calvinistic:
here it is old. Much of its self-consistency is Edwardean and Hopkinsian; here it is new.  It is
not mere Calvinism, but it is consistent Calvinism.  It is a revised and corrected edition of the
Genevan creed."  As specimens of the crooked
parts of Calvinism  that New  England divines
have straightened out, he mentions the agency of
God in producing sin, and'the nature of necessity.
"Strong, practical common sense," he says, "is
another characteristic of the New England divinity."  This feature he illustrates by a reference to
its theory concerning the nature of moral evil, affirming that all sin consists in sinful acts, or exercises,- and' denying that there is any antecedent
sinful nature.  In his remarks on this topic it is a
noticeable fact, that Prof. Park has the hardihood
to claim: Pres. Edwards and Dr. Dwight as holding this theory.  Does the learned Professor suppose that his readers are not capable of comprehending for themselves the- plainest and most di



37
rect statements of these divines?  In the next
place, he characterizes "New England theologyas
a-comprehensive system of biblical science."  "It
unitesa: high, but not an ultra Calvinism, on the
decrees and agency of God, with a philosophical,
but not an Arminian theory, on the freedom and
worth of the human soul."  "When its opposers
think of. its efforts to justify the ways of God to
man, they hastily accuse it of Arminianism; and.when they turn their minds to its descriptions of
the supreme, universal Governor, they hastily accuse it of hyper-Calvinism."  In the last place, he
claims that "it is the only system of speculative
orthodoxy that can endure examination, and therefore destined to prevail." "It is a system which
will bear to be looked at, and is not a theology of
mere'-dissolving views.' The science of the world
is in favor of it. The moral instincts of the race
are in favor of it. The common sense of common
men is in favor of it. They can be kept back
from  it only by the incessant roll of a polemic
drum, which alarms them by its discordant sounds."
This synopsis of Prof. Park's article will show the
light in which this system is regarded by its great
champion.  A shade of difference will be observed
between him and Prof. Pond.'
Still another eminent divine has undertaken to
interpret the phrase "New  England theology."
We refer to Dr. Woods. A short time before his
*Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1852.
4




.38
death he published a pamphlet,-in which he maintained that the theology of New England is- simply that of the: Shorter Catechism-nothing more:nnothing less —nothing different.- All who swerve
from it,.he mainainis, swerve from  the true New
England theology.- He is, however, compelled to
admit that among those who would be; numbered
with orthodox ministers,' there are individuals who
entertain.-opinions obviously: at variance  with
what-'he calls the settled theology:of the: Puritans.
These:.erroneous doctrines are,.that: the purpose of
God to save sinners rests wholly on his foreknowledge -of their repentance, faith, and obediencethat Adam's posterity begin their. existence, as he
did, free -from moral corruption or any sinful propensity-that God was- not able to exclude sin.fom a world of free -moral' agents, however much
he.may have::desired it-that -when God has favored. sinners:with:-the:privileges of the gospel and
the strivings of the Spirit, he has done all -he can
for.their-conversion —-that the: new  birth consists
in a right exercise of free:agency —that  Christ did
not:.. die. in place of sinners, but merely made. an
affecting demonstration of God's readiness to save
sinners, etc. These opinions he looked upon  as
exceptions to the common.belief.: He was persuadled, that -the.great -body.of: Congregational
ministers and, churches. are sound in the- faith."
Here, however,' the  editors of- the Congregation-' *Theology of the Puritans, pp. 39-42.




39:
alist joined issue with the doctor, and maintained
that-the prevalent theology of New  England is
not in: all -respects that. of the Catechism, but
something very different.* - Prof. Pond, while he
admits that Old School Calvinism  was the pre'
vailing theology in New England for the first one
hundred. and thirty years, insists-. that since that
time it-:,has-:ome tobe something different:.  The
editors, of the Panoplist-a periodical started in
RoSton, January, 1850, for the express purpose of
ceunteracting the erroneous influences: abroad, but
whicbia after a sickly existence-:of not quite three
yerars, was discontinued for want of support, say:'"-We: think.the charity. of Dr. Woods has led
himt too  a nore hopeful view  of the state- of the
orthodox faith than. the facts will warrant..We
have-no doubt the defection, both in  Puritan
habits and doctrine, is far more extensive than is
generally believed, or  even suspected."-  High
authorities among both new  and old school men,
it will thus be seen, differ from  Dr. Woods, in
their estimate of New  England theology.  Men,
howeverv  whose judgment is. worthy of very high
respect substantially agree with him, as will appear in- the sequel.:
The editors of the Panoplist,in their introductory: address, give a more formal expression  of
their estimate of the new theology.  They repre* Congregationalist for 1850 and 1851.
t Sketches of the' Theological History of New England, Nos. 7 and 8.
$ Panoplist, Vol. III, p. 104. 




40
sent it as having carried away "a great portion of
the Congregational churches."  Styling it a "species of rationalism," they use the following language:-~" We-have said it is dangerous in the
last degree. But we have not been beating the
air, telling a story of a chimera, or some frightful
object which every body has heard of but nobody
seen. We speak of it as something which exists,
which exists among us, which is fast spreading
itself among our churches. We speak-what we
know, and testify of something which we have
seen. We know that it has long shown its influence in our colleges, that it characterises the
discussions in- our theological seminaries and the
discourses of the pulpit: we know that it is rapidly extending itself, and threatens a very general
defection from the faith of our fathers."  Let it be
observed that reference is here made to the inroad
of-principles different from, and what we would
call still more erroneous than the New England
orthodoxy of a quarter of a century ago.*
Prof. Hodge of Princeton, in the concluding article of his controversy with Prof. Park, has given
us a glimpse of what he regards as New England
theology. His views are exhibited in the following extract. It will be seen that he agrees very
nearly with Dr. Woods:-" There is another feature in Prof. Park's mode of conducting this discussion, which is very little to our taste.  He con*Panoplist, Vol. T, p. 9.




41
stautly endeavors to represent us as assailing New
England theology.  This is a ruse de'gerre every
way unworthy of a candid disputant.  We stated,
as the three radical principles of the Anti-Agustinian system —irst, all sin consists in sinning;
that there can be no moral character but in moral
acts; secondly, that the power to the contrary is
essential to freeagency; that a free agent may
always act.contrary to any influence, not destructive of his freedom; that may be brought to bear
upon: him;,.thirdly, that ability limits responsibility: that men are responsible only so  far:as they:bhave. adequate power to do what is required of
them, or that they are responsible for nothing not.;under the control of the will.' If there is one?characteristic of New  England theology more
prominent than any other, it is opposition to these
principles. The world-wide fame of President
Edwards, as a theologian, rests mainly on his
thorough refutation of them. In this opposition,.Bellamy, Dwight, and the other great men of
New England, were no less strenuous than Edwards. The aberration of the advocates of the
-' Exercise Scheme,' though it led them to a denial
of at least the first of the above principles, was in
-the direction of ultra Calvinism.  It was not until:he rise of what is popularly called New Haven-.ismn,-that those principles were rejected by any
-other class -of New England divines reputed orthodox. It is Prof. Park and not we who is the
assailant of New England theology, a fact which
4*




42
he will not be able to conceal. We recently
heard of a certain Unitarian gentleman who seemed honestly to believe that Trinitarianismis dying
out inrthis country. It is possible that a similar
hallucination may lead Prof. Park to regard the
little coterie to which he belongs as all New England."*  Such is the estimate of the great living
champion of the old school theology.
After the controversy between Prof. Park of
Andover, and Prof. Hodge of Princeton, closed, in
1852, Dr. Lord, President of Dartmouth College,
published a letter to Dr. Dana of Newburyport.
In it he thus speaks of the theology of New England: —" Prof. Hodge, Dr. Woods, and others, of
thi  Edwardean school in New  England, have
good hopes.  They imagine that Calvinism  is
still ascendant among the churches of the fathers.
But I fear they err. I fear that Prof. Park judges
truly that the current of theological opinion is
running in the'new' channels. - I fear he would
be found, if occasion should serve, in the centre
of a larger'coterie' than these good men imagine.
For IT IS TRUE that the Assembly's Catechism has
mostly ceasedfrom the families, schools, and churches
of New  England. It is true that wanton hands
have marred that venerable digest itself, and few
care to uipe the infamy away. It  is true that we
are altering our confessions and covenants, our
psalms and hymns, and our style of worship in gen*Princeton Review, Vol. XXIII, p. 693-4.




43
eral, to.suit a more highly illuminated state of the
public mind. Unequivocal signs exist that a great
change is coming over New England< And there
is plenary evidence that this change is referable to
a period when our theology was diverted into a
speculative channel, when its learned teachers began to light their torch at the altar of the imaginative reason, and, in their circuits after divine
knowledge, went up to Alexandria and Athens,
rather than to Jerusalem."*:;After showing, at considerable length, that the
theology.of New England was the theology set
orth in the Catechism, he uses the following language:-" The Professor, if he pleases, in his
commendable, though misdirected zeal of knowledge, may cull the flowers of the patristic metaphysics, and distil them  in his well furnished
laboratory at Andover. He may digest these essences, if he will, in his concentrated eclectic solvent.  He may give out the compound, if he will,
asa panacea for the moral and theological diseases of the age, and multiply certificates of its
healing power over the catholicons that have gone.
before it; but let it not be labelled' New England
theology.'  That endures no counterfeit.  It has a
regular. Puritan image and superscription, unique,
intelligible and unmistakeable, to the end of time.
A spurious-article may supplant it, and have its
run till overtaken by some, more sublimated spe*Letter, p. 27.




44
cific — But it cannot be long mistaken for the genuine. XWe have seen many attempts to give currency to -the false by' the alleged authority of venerated names. But they have, always failed.
Whoever calls Taylorism  New England theology
now; or imagines that it could have sprung from'the heart of Edw ards, or even from his head, except in sleep? The modern digests ofthe ancient
incoherent- and equivocal speculations', may, in
deed, become New England theology, if it is right'to: call them by that' sacred name. I fear they
will; for the majority would rather be killed by
nostrums, than cured by the regular physicians.'Such' has ever been the history of sophistry and
unbelief, and we have no right to expect exemption from  a universal law. But these specifics'can never be New England theology-as it was;
They can never stand the reaction of the Assembly's Catechism, or the  Statutes at Andover.
God be thanked! we have made sure of something in New England. The Puritans did not'bleed and die for a chimera."*
Thus writes an eminent divine who occupies a
place on one of New England's'watch towers.
His testimony is worthy of special attention.
Tee next witness, whose testimony we would
add to the foregoing, is from  a different classembracing but very few  individuals, yet well
qualified to testify in -uch a case —New England
* Letter, p. 33-4.




45
Presbyterians. On fast day, 1848, Rev. W. W.
Eells, pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church
in.Newburyport, in connection with the General
Assembly, himself a New England man, perfectly
familiar with the prevalent theology, preached two
sermons, specially intended to point out the defections of the descendants of the Puritans from the
faith and practice of their fathers. These sermons
were' afterwards published. The author talks
plainly —bluntly, indeed. Take the following extracts, as exhibiting his estimate of New England
theology:-" Notwithsanding the cry of Puritan
theology;from pulpits, and tracts, and pamphlets,
and newspapers, and more aspiring periodicals, it
is evident from our practice, that there is very little
of true Puritan theology amongst us."  "Itis an
undeniable fact, that very little doctrinal preaching
of any kind is found in the pulpits of the present
day, in this land of the Puritans. A sickly sentimentalism —a morality scarcely more refined than
that of Plato-the discussion of abstract topics of
speculation-the advocacy of some scheme of real
benevolence, or of the multitude, whose name is
legion, of counterfeit schemes of good-or, at most,
the indefinite and indirect preaching about the
gospel, the delicate and distant allusion to some
of the plainer first principles of truth-this is the
provision now too generally set before the sons of
those who.desired.to be fed, and. were fed, and
sustained, and strengthened on the strong meat of
the gospel of grace. This is a truth-an awful




46
truth..h And:many an humble Christian- has mourned' over it when.he has gone to the sanctuary and
found -no -:Savior-there;- and out' of a heart burdened:with:grief- has groaned with -Mary-'  They
have taken waway my Lord, and I know not where
they have-laidhim.''":-The popular theology of
thed'ay —that which- is held to an alarming extent, and is increasing,- almost unrebuked, and
which bids fair soon to-be universal-is a-direct
contradiction, in every important point, to the theology and doctrine of our fathers."." The adherents of this- new system  of antiquated error and
falsehood, commence their work by sinking away
this - foundation stone,"'(the doctrine of original
sin.)'='" -Si'n,~' they'  say,:: is voluntary action in
view -of known  law. -Sin is altogether action.
The very idea of. a sinful disposition, a depraved
nature,.a sinful propensity, is scouted and ridiculed as an, absurdity,."  "The representative character of Adam, as well as any imputation of his sin,
or any thing like inherent sinfulness or hereditary
depravity, is utterly denied and derided."  "   I but
echo' the cry' of'these new system-mongers when I
say.that this doctrine of atonement, and this doctrine of justification," (that taught in the Confession and Catechisms,)' are almost wholly unknown among the descendants of the Puritans in
thisland of their prayers. And not only so, but
men in high places in the church seem  to' find a
malignant- pleasure, first in caricaturing these doctrines, and then in holding them  up to derision




47
and-contempLt.::.After- describing. the doctrine of
the. Confession as to - the application of- redemption, he' goes on " to say: —" But all this glorious
truth is a fable, and a: dream, to these wise men1wise in old folly." -"Regeneration is a:change
from sinful action to holy action.- And this-man,
whi is thus: to change, is: not-dead in sins. He is
as. fully able to keep:all the law of:God as Adam
was." -"All the:work of the Spirit is reduced to
mere persuasion, to the application of motives to
thea will of -man. He -. may- bring the- truth home
-ith power -upon the. understanding, buthe- cannot. change -.the -— heart.".. Mr.- Eells:closes up this
discussion.with the following energetic language:
"Here I will pause, not that the catalogue of
falsehood and of folly is exhausted, but that
enough has been. said to show that all the foundations of Puritan theology are overthrown by those
who  vainly boast: that the  Puritans are their
fathers.* These are the doctrines that are taught
by professors of theology, that are preached from
the pulpit in: this land of the pilgrims.  And the
evil is wide-spread, and is fast extending itself.
THI S.:IS AN UNDENIABLE TRUTH."  Thus a New
England Presbyterian characterizes the prevalent.theology.
The author of the —  Andover Fuss" —a pamphlet published in 1853, in review  of -Dr. Dana's
remonstrance, we would:bring forward as- another
witness. - The pamphlet, though anonymous  yet
bears marks -of being "by authority.":Speaking




48
of the efforts of the few genuine Old School men
in this region, the writer says:-" They have compassed sea and land to proselyte New England to
a-faith which it abhors, and which it shook off as
offensive to the first, principles of justice and the
most rooted convictions of common sense. Those
cast-off errors, for which the orthodox would not be
held responsible, it requires no gift of prophecy to
foretell, will never regain their ascendancy over New
England, or ever come out, barefaced, in many, if in
any of her churches; the Westminster doctrine of
original sin will never come back to the region from
which it has been so decisively and considerately
cast out. We only wonder that men of so much
wisdom should be men of so much folly. If the
triple force of cunning, secrecy, and combination,
could insure success, theirs would not be doubtful.
What arts have been spared to deluge the orthodox churches of New England with a scholastic
catechism, which it is hard to understand, and still
harder to believe?  What manceuvres have been
wanting to lay hold of every religious press, and
turn its weeklies and quarterlies up the channel of
time? What subtle scheming and patient assiduity have not attested the fdnd desire and fixed
intent to overturn the platform of Congregationalism, and foist into its place a system of disguised,
but rank  Presbyterianism?  What inventions
have not been plied to coerce the elder theological
seminaries in New England to caress a doctrine,
which, in 1820, was branded by Dr. Woods as a




49
fugitive and a vagabond, or else to direct- theological students to a seminary that was an Ishmaelite
from its conception. What secret correspondence
has not been carried on to extend over New England an ultraism  of orthodoxy, which that region
had lost sight of? What espionage has not leered
at a freedom of thought that ranged over a field
broader than the dogmas of Westminster, or indulged in a moral sentiment at variance with its
obsolete and preposterous doctrine of original sin?
What vigilance has not been on the look out for
vacant pulpits, agencies, and offices of honor and
influence in seminaries of learning, to manage
into them candidates of stockstill fixedness in an
effete creed, and to fly-blow such as ventured a
step out of the magic circle of the Westminster
faith?"
Desiring to throw light from every quarter on
this subject we present two more extracts. An
article in the Boston Congregationalist of Aug. 2d,
1850, understood to be from the pen of Dr. Edward Beecher, who twenty years ago was regarded
as a "strenuous advocate of Taylorism," contains
the following language: —" We should like to
know, however, what is to be allowed hereafter to
pass for orthodoxy in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Within the last twenty years Dr. Taylor
has, we suppose, instructed a larger number of
students in the department of doctrinal theology
than any other theological teacher in New Eng-^
land. These students are now, to a considerable
5




50.extent, the settled pastors in the churches of Massachusetts and Connecticut....But besides, it
is. a well-known fact, that a very large proportion
of the pastors of New England who did not'study
theology under Dr. Taylor, hold essentially his
views on the great and prominent doctrines.f-the
gospel, and rank themselves as  New Schoolmen.
These views were entertained -by multitudes long
before- Dr. Taylor's day. We have been interested
of late in noticing how this matter works.. Our
delegate to the Old School General. Assembly is
very -happy to inform that venerable body:that the
orthodoxy of -Massachusetts was never in a more
healthy, vigorous, and prosperous state.: True, unquestionably. But if nothing is to be reckoned as
orthodoxy in Massachusetts.but Old School Calvinism, the delegate ought not to have made any
such report. He ought frankly to have: told that
body that Massachusetts' orthodoxy was sadly on
the decline. It seems to us,. our Old- School
friends, when they make a summing up of the condition of orthodoxy, are very glad to reckon in all
the New School men, because they would make
rather -a meagre- show without us; but in other
circumstances: they magisterially talk about our
having embraced'some form of rationalism."'. The last general estimate of -the Theology of
New England, which we would present, is that
made by Rev. William. T. Dwight, D. D., of Portland, Maine, in a discourse delivered in Boston
before the.'. Congregational Board of Publication,"




May 30, 1855. His theme was " Characteristics
of New England Theology."  He described it as
independent, steadily progressive, truly scriptural,
and as having formed the New England character.
Speaking- of it as scriptural he uses the following
language:
*"'When we would thus describe the theology of
New England, we intend that it is more scriptural
than the Apostle's Creed, or than the Nicene
Creed; than the theology of Luther and Melancthon:,,of Knapp and Tholuck and Hengstenberg;
than the thehelogy of Leighton, of Butler, and Magee,e or- than:the::piebald theology of Coleridge;
than that-of Symington and Chalmers; orthan:
that:of Calvin andTurretin.  Or, if such comparisons are thought to savor of presumption, it is:intended that this theology would peculiarly harmoltize with such a system of divine truth as the
great Apostle to the Gentiles would have prepared
soon after completing his Epistle to the lomans,
had he been then led to undertake such a work,
and without the immediate guidance of inspiration in its execution."
In presenting these testimonies, we have had no
pre-conceived theory of our own to make good.
Our aim  has been simply to throw light on the
subject from all quarters, to aid the reader in forming a correct estimate of the real facts..We now proceed to point out the views of the
great facts in the plan of salvation prevalent in
the Puritan churches of-New England. At the




52
Synod, met in Boston, A. D. 1680, composed of
ministers and messengers from all the New England churches, according to Cotton Mather, "the
Confession of Faith, consented to by the Congregational churches of England in a synod met at
the Savoy-which, excepting a few variations,
was the same with what was agreed by the Reverend Assembly at Westminster, and afterwards
by the General Assembly of Scotland-was twice
publicly read, examined, and approved, and some
small variations made from that of the Savoy, in
compliance with that of the Westminster, and
so, after such collations, but no contentions, voted
and printed as the faith of New England."* We
have examined this Confession with care. As far
as its exhibition of the plan of redemption is concerned, it corresponds in every particular with
that of the Westminster divines. In the most important chapters, there is not even a verbal difference. Such was the standard of ancient orthodoxy in New England. We shall aim, in the sequel, to point out whatever important departures
from it have taken place. We shall be careful to
set down as true only well established facts.
Orthodox Congregationalists are usually spoken
of as divided into Old and New School. The position of these parties is clearly stated in the following extract from the "Boston Congregationalist," of September 13, 1850:-" Those who con* Magnolia, Vol. II: p. 156.




53
sistently hold and unfold the views of Edwards,
in his treatise'on Virtue,' are New School divines,
though their more proper name is New England
divines. Those who repudiate these as false and
dangerous, are Old School."  In answer to the
question, Who are to be ranked among the Old
School? the writer says:-" The Princeton divines, the editors of the nrodern Panoplist,and all
who with them wish to revolutionize the theology
of New England."  Again, in answer to the inquiry, Would he include the Calvinists of New
England, as distinguished from the Hopkinsians,
among the Old School? he says:-" By no means.
They are separated by an impassable gulf from
Old School Princeton divines. For what the
Princetonian~ abhor and renounce as the source
and fountain of all evil, the old Calvinists of New
England have eminently honored as the truth of
God."  It is well to remember, that in the judgment of the editors of the Congregationalist,
those diVines-in New England known as." Old
Calvinists," are separated in sentiment by an impassable gulf from the Princeton divines. Even
among the New School or New England divines,
as the Congregationalist prefers to style them,
there is a well-defined line of division. Of these,
one class is sometimes called Old School, and the
other New. The former is, in their judgment, but
a "meagre party."  In the sequel the theology of
these parties will be carefully distinguished..5*




I. Inspiration of the Scriptures.
Among those who claim to be included within
the pale of orthodoxy, are some-how many we
have no means of knowing-who reject, or at
least practically deny, the commonly received doctrine of inspiration. Dr. Woods, who is very solicitous to vindicate the orthodoxy of the orthodox, is compelled to acknowledge "that lax opinions are occasionally put forth as to the inspiration of the Scriptures."  He goes on to say:" Some ministers, who wish to be called orthodox,
show more confidence in their own reason than in
the holy Scriptures. They set aside, or new-model
those teachings of revelation which transcend their
own intellectual powers, and which require them
to submit their understanding to the absolute authority of the Word of God."*  If the writer is
not misinformed, at least one instance has occurred of a council ordaining and installing a man,
who, when examined, avowed his disbelief of the
plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. These views
must, however, be regarded as exceptional to those
generally prevalent.
II. Election.
On this subject "The Confession of Faith"
teaches that" Those of mankind who are predes* Theology of the Puritans, p. 42.




65
tinated unto life, God hath chosen in Christ unto
everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and
love, without any foresight of faith or good works,
or perseverance in either of them, or any thing in
the creature as conditions or causes moving him
thereunto."  It also affirms that the "means are
foreordained," and that "all the elect are-effectually called unto faith by the Spirit, justified,
adopted, sanctified, and kept through faith unto
salvation."' This is the doctrine of all who have
any claim  to  be' regarded as Calvinists. Dr.
Woods, however, acknowledges that there are
among those who claim  to be regarded as orthodox, some who hold the "Arminian view of the
doctrine of election, namely, that the purpose of
God to save sinners rests wholly upon his foreknowledge of their repentance, faith, and obedience."  How many hold these views it is difficult to ascertain. It is, however, believed to be a
fact that "orthodox" ministers very generally, if
not universally, exchange, on equal terms, with
avowed Arminians. It is also believed to be a
fact, that there is little, or no appreciable difference, as to the principles they ordinarily preach.
Yet the formal creed of the mass of " orthodox"
ministers is doubtless Calvinistic, as contradistinguished from.Arminianism.
* Confession of Faith, Chap. III, Sec. 5 and 6.




56
III.  Adam's.Relation to his Posterity.
On this subject: the doctrine of the Westminster standards.is, that "our first parents being the
root:of all mankind, the guilt of their first sin was
imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted
nature conveyed to. all their. posterity descending
from them by.. ordinary generation."*" The covenant being- made with Adam  as a public person,
not for.himself but for his posterity, all mankind
descending from him   *  sinned in him  and fell
with him in that first transgression."t —" The sinfulness -.of that estate whereinto man fell consisteth," they say among other things, "in- the guilt
of.Adam's first sin.":-" We are- by nature children of wrathand justly liable to all punishments
in-'this world and in that which is to -come."lI
There are some among the orthodox who hold
this doctrine.  Among these, Dr. Woods, during
the last years of his life at least, claimed to be
numbered. In his lectures, as published, he vindicates what he understood to be the Westminster doctrine on this subject, as well as the propriety of using the phraseology employed in those
standards.  There is good reason to believe, however, that this is not the prevalent doctrine in
New England.  Dr. Woods, in his Letters to Unitarians, declared:-" The imputation of Adam's sin
* Confession of Faith, Chap. VI, Sec. 3. t L. Cat. Q. 23. $ L. Cat. Q. 25.
11 L. Cat. Q. 27.




57
to his posterity, in any sense which those words
naturally and properly convey, is a doctrine which
we do not believe.*  The editors of the Congregationalist bear testimony to the correctness of this
statement.  They say, speaking of the above ex:
tract and its context-" It admirably sets forth the
true position of New  England divines."t  The
Doctrinal Book and Tract Society-an association organized for the express purpose of disseminating what its members regard as the truth, and
in which all parties are united, in No. 2 of its Series of Tracts, says:-" Sin, as well as holiness, is
strictly personal, and cannot be transferred from
one to another. By this it is meant, that no sinful
act of one person can ever become the sinful act
of another person.  Although fallen Adam's posterity are constituted sinners by means of their
connection with him  as their public head, yet his
sin is not their sin. God declares -'The soul that
sinneth, it shall die;' and, in connection with this,
he teaches that no person shall bear the iniquity
of another, but only his own; that no person shall
be punished for the sin of another, but only for his
own sin.  Thus, it appears, that in consequence
of the first offence of the first man, all his descendants have become sinners.":
This language is introduced in such a connection that there is no doubt but that it was intended.to state what is regarded as the truth in oppo*p. 44.  tJune 22, 1849.  t p. 1 and 2.




58
sition: to: the ancient doctrine. Prof. Pond, after
describing the old theology on this subject says:-_
" I:think there are few clergymen in New England
now, who would explain the connection of our sin
with that of Adam in this way." Professor Park's
theory has:-no place for this doctrine: indeed it
seems to be- absolutely inconsistent with it. Prof.
Stuart, with much learning and ingenuity combated the doctrines of Adam's Federal Headship
and the imputation of his sin. He teaches "that
all of Adam's posterity are affected by his offence,
and have sustained great losses thereby, and are
subjected to many evils."  "But this," he claims,
":is something very different from  proper punishment; TThe fall of Adam  brought our race into a
new state- of probation.::The whole race are now
heirs by nature of a frail and dying condition;
theyare no longer:in that state in which they are
inclined to holiness.: And this comes on all without any concurrence of their own.  But this may
still be regarded in another light than that of simple punishment. It is trial: it is discipline: it is
probation sui generis."f  The Old School doctrine, Dr. Taylor rejected with indignation. "To
believe this," he exclaims, "'I mustrenounce the
reason God has given me; I must believe it also
in the face of the oath of God to its falsehood
entered on the record."t Dr. Dwight does not
teaph Adam's federal headship; he argues that
* Sketches of N. E. Theology, No. 8. t Stuart on the Romans, p. 595.
t Concio ad clerum.




59
the posterity of Adam. are neither.guiltyof his
transgression nor punished for it: the simple proposition,' that in consequence- of the apostacy of
Adam all men have sinned," embodies his whole
doctrine on the subject.*  Emmons and Hopkins
both discarded the Westminster doctrine.  This is
well known.. It may therefore be affirmed with
all confidence, that the doctrine of Adam's federal
headship and-the imputation of his sin, is not a
doctrine of the theology prevailing in New Eng.
land.. Some think that the New England doctrine: differs from the Westminster doctrine on: this
subject only in the language employed to express
it. -We:think  differently.  The two doctrines
seemto us palpably diverse. Hopkins, Emmons,
Dwight, Taylor, Stuart, and others were certainly
able to comprehend the meaning of terms; and
beyond all doubt they rejected not merely what
they: considered objectionable phraseology but
also a well-defined principle, which they certainly
well understood.
IV. Sin and Depravity.
On this subject the Confession of Faith teaches
that our first parents being "the root of all mankind- *   * the same death in sin and corrupted
nature were conveyed to all their posterity, descending from  them  by ordinary generation."  "This
* Sermon 32.




60
corruption of nature, both itself and all the motions thereof are truly and properly sin."*  And
the Shorter Catechism  teaches that "the sinfulness of that state whereinto man fell consists in
the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original
righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin, together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it."t  "Sin is any want of conformity
to or transgression of the law of God."t
On this subject, New  England divines differ.
Some hold to the old doctrine of a sinful, corrupt,
depraved nature in man, antecedent to all sinful
acts.  Such is the position of Dwight and Woods.
They believe in original sin, as well as actual.
Others, again, maintain that all sin consists in
acts or exercises contrary to God's law, and that
there is no such thing as a sinful nature or disposition antecedent to sinful exercises.  These are
pre-eminently the New  School.  In this fundamental principle, the regular Hopkinsians, New
Haven divines, and Emmonites, all agree.  The
" Exercise " men, as they are called, however, differ among themselves. Some admit the existence
of a propensity or disposition to sin, but deny that
this propensity or disposition  is at all sinful.
Others refuse to admit that there is, in any man,
any such bias, but maintain that all exercises of
the soul-are the direct result of the divine efficiency.
* Chap. vi: Sect. 3 and 5.  t Q. S1.  t Q. 14.




61
The former call Hopkins father, the latter Emmons.'-The New Haven men plead that infants
come into the world as free from  sin as Adam,
and that they are not subjects of moral government until they become moral agents.  The advocates of this scheme, commonly known as; the
"Exercise Scheme,"- are neither few nor feeble.
Taylor and his coadjutors were its avowed champions.-  Prof. Park, of Andover, in his "Convention Sermon," and in his controversy with Prof.
Hodge growing out of it, boldly avowed and earnestly maintained there is no nature in man antecedent to sinful acts that can truly and properly
be called sinful. " That all sin consists in action,"
Dr. Dana declares to be Prof. Park's favorite
maxim.
These principles-which are throughout totally
inconsistent with the old doctrine of original sin,
which:indeed cut it up root and branch-are believed to be widely prevalent. They have been
long taught at New  Haven and Andover-the
leading orthodox theological seminaries in New
England. They are asserted and defended by the
most prominent and influential divines. The editors' of the Panoplist, in their introductory address,* say:-" For the last fifteen or twenty years,
the great doctrines of original sin and regeneration, as they were understood by the reformers
and the churches of the Reformation, have been
* Vol. I, p. 12
8




62
assailed with- the same arts, and for the most part
with;the same arguments and objections, which
they, encounter among  Socinians and infidels.:,.'-The fundamental doctrine of:the New - School in.theolgy i~s:this.;- that-.there-. is,-and -can be.:noothing
holy or sinful in any- intelligent being aside from
his acts.;-that all the inherent, inclinationis, dispositions, and affections of the soul, are. innocent,
neither holy nor sinful:; that Adam came iinto this
orld.without any inherent holiiess,'his moral excellence originating with himself,-and his posterity
come into life with no dispositions or inclinations
morally- wrong. This - is- also. the:- fundamental
principle:of Pelagianism, which necessarily leads
to all-the rest, and can end only in: gross: rationalism, or infidelity, which has always been the issue
of.this doctrine.:. It was..also - the fundamental
principle:of New  England:_- A.rminianism, — wh:ose
developments have..- been Socinianismi -and. Pantheism.": This theology, they declare, has affected
a- great portion of the Congregational churches.,
On these extracts the editors of the Congregationalist remark:-" Why limit the prevalence of this
peculiar type of theology to the last fifteen or
-twentyF years?  Do — not:the editors know, that
~what is here denominated the fundamental. principle -of the New School theology, i.e., that all- sin
consists in action, has been very generally held in
New England, and to a considerable extent out of
it, for more than fifty years; that it was the theology of Hopkins and Emmons, of West and




spring, a:.dhe meenof:thaday-t -names great and
euerable;:thaat: it was the chief distinguishingtfeat'iof.that' school and system,- called, from its
ilstrious founder, the Hopkinsian; that it is the
theology not only:of some of the ablest and best'
mi:n:now  living, but'of the greatest and best:
names on t:he roll of American divines for the last:
half century-; that it is the:theology of the very
men wihose6 writings the Doctrinal Tract Society
are engaged at-this very time in publishing?"*
When. Mr. Finney was in Boston, something more
than!twenty years ago, he preached this" fundamental-idoctrine of the New  School theology."
His-position was severely reviewed in a religious
journal:ofthatcity.  Something of a controversy
followed.  In a review  of the whole subject, the
": Spirit of the Pilgrims" says:: —" A vast majority.
of the orthodox clergy of New England might be
represented, on this ground, as denying the' doctrine of entire-depravity,' with the same propriety
as-Mr. Finney; for they agree with him  in discarding the notion of a sinful bias or taste, as distincet; from, and prior to, sinful exercises of the
will:-"t  Many of those among New England dii8nes, who:hold to the doctrine of an original, depraved nature, seem to regard those who maintain
the "Exercise Scheme" as equally entitled with
themselves to be styled "orthodox."  Dr. Woods
pleads a compromise.  Dr. Pond speaks of "this
* Cong. Feb. 1, 1850.    t Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. v., p. 161.




64
difference as existing among our soundest theolo-.gians," and "as in practice amounting to very little."  He says:-" It has proved no bar to fraternal union and cooperation, and expresses a hope
that it may be so in time to come."*  Prof. Park
has for many years occupied the most important
chair in the most important theological institution
in New England. He has boldly taught this and
kindred doctrines all along, and teaches them still.
The venerable Dr. Dana, an eminent Old School divine, who has been a member of the board of trustees from the beginning, remonstrated more than
five years ago. Little attention was given to his
solemn words. All now seems quiet. The number of students at Andover has not apparently
been diminished by this cause. Prof. Park is secure in his place. Now what do these facts tell?
Simply this: The orthodox sentiment in Massachusetts sustains the Professor of Christian Theology
at Andover. It is true that some-we might, perhaps, say many-do not approve his teachings on
this subject. They lament the position of things
and would gladly see it altered. Yet we cannot
see how the conclusion can be avoided, that the
popular voice endorses Prof. Park, or also agrees
with Dr. Pond, in believing the difference between
him and the Old School, to amount in practice to
very little. A review of all the facts certainly justifies us in affirming that the doctrine of original
# Sketches, etc., viii.




65
native depravity is not a principle of the prevailing theology of New England.
V. Human Inability.
The doctrine of the Confession of Faith on this
subject is expressed in the following terms:-" By
this original corruption we are utterly indisposed,
disabled, and made opposite to all good, and
wholly inclined to all evil."+-" Man by his fall
hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual
good accompanying salvation: so, as a natural
man, being altogether averse from that good and
dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to
convert himself or prepare himself thereunto."' —
The Catechism  says: "No mere man since the
fall is able in this life perfectly to keep the commandments of God."t This plain and unequivocal
language is regarded by Old School divines as
an admirable exhibition of the doctrine of Scripture on this subject. Since the days of Edwards,
however, theologians of all classes have been accustomed to speak of man as possessing full natural ability to keep God's law, but as destitute of
moral ability —as naturally able, but morally unable to do God's bidding.  This phraseology has
been, and still is, employed in widely different
senses. Under it one man teaches Scripture truth,
* Chap. vi: Sect. 4.  t Chap. ix: Sect. 3.  t Quest. 82.
6*




66
another soul-destroying error. The Old School
man, wishing to employ the phraseology immortalized by the elder Edwards, concedes man's natural ability-understanding thereby those powers
and faculties necessary to constitute a moral
agent. At the same time he asserts strongly
man's moral inability-understanding thereby the
native depravity or enmity of the human heart
against God-and thus leaves on the minds of
men adeep sense of their absolute helplessness
because of sin. The New School man, conceding
man's moral inability-understanding thereby a
fixed unwillingness to render obedience to God's
law —affirms most earnestly his complete natural
ability, understanding thereby that he comes into
this world fully equipped with all that is necessary
to qualify him for keeping perfectly God's commandments, and hence teaches the proposition
"that there is nothing to hinder a man's loving
God, and obeying him perfectly, but his own unwillingness," —" that ability is commensurate- with
responsibility." From such instructions the sinner
goes away with the belief that he can be perfectly
holy the:moment he chooses. At present those
who are really solicitous to teach men their' dependence on God for converting and sanctifying
grace, discard this ancient distinction as' embarrassing and likely to convey erroneous views in
spite of all the care the preacher can take. Of this
class Dr. Woods is a notable example. In plain
Scripture language, he teaches man's inability in




67
the broadest and most absolute sense, and points
out his desperate wickedness or depravity of nature as that in which it consists. There are those
among the "orthodox," whose views on this subject and modes of presenting it agree with those
of.Dr. Woods.
- There is, however, reason to believe that the
prevailing theology on this subject is something
very different. We may ascertain it with a good
degree of accuracy, by examining the teachings of
theb theological seminaries.
C Dr, Tyler, of East Windsor, Conn.-president
of a seminary founded for the express purpose of
maintaining a testimony for truth betrayed at
New Haven-in a recent sermon, preached and
published with the view of correcting what he
deemed erroneous opinions gaining currency in
that neighborhood, affirms as his main proposition, that" God does not require of man what he
has no power to do."  In his discussion he concedes man's inability, but places it altogether in
want of inclination to obedience. Throughout
his entire discourse he gives great prominence to
man's natural ability, and adduces a variety of
considerations to prove it. The whole drift of his
argument is to lessen, or explain away man's inability, and exalt his ability. The tendency of the
discourse is to weaken in the mind of the sinner
the sense of dependence on divine grace. Dr.
Harvey-an Old School Presbyterian of Thompsonville-took the professor to task for his sermon.




68
Dr. Tyler replied, assuring Dr. Harvey that all he
meant iin vindicating man's natural ability, was
to teach that he is  a free agent.  Whereupon Dr.
Harvey reads him a timely lecture on the proper
utse "of terms, and suggests the  propriety ofem'ploying language that will convey his meaning,
~and not' something the  very opposite. Dr. Tyler
published- another sermon — good many years ago,
ii whichl he: lays down-'as his main proposition,
tliat -there'is. nothing- to- hinder -the salvation: of
any man but his own will."' In the same discourse
he-aflirms-''-that.-man has perfect ability to comply
with the termsof salvation, if-he-will.'- In:another
sermon, published about the same — time, -he uses
he'b f0olowing language:- "Hw  many-'' hear'the
gospel, upon whom it "produces no salutary effect.
A:'nd' "why-:? "'Not because- they- are' incapable -of'yielding t tothe motives of the gospel, but because
they resist those motives."- " It will not avail the
sinner to plead he has no power to obey.  He has
we. Ifhe haspower-      to sin, he has power to
cease'from  sinning-if he has — power to'rebel
again-st -God, he has power to submit to God. He
has all the power he needs: all indeed, which he
an possess.  If God were to renew his heart this
mfment,-his power would not be increased; he
would only be- willing'to use aright the power
which he now abuses and perverts."'. "'-When God'works in men to will and to do, it is not to enable'men to do their duty; but to incline them  to do
what they are able to do and what they ought to




69
do without any supernatural divine influence."
In time the Doctor was quoted by the Congrega-,
tionalist as favoring the New  School theology.*
Soon after he comes forward with sundry explanations, seemingly intended to show that his true
meaning was something very different from what
his language imports. -In the recent controversy,
growing out of the Enfield case, he avowed views
on this subject which Old School men generally
will accept as sound. Yet if we are to take his
published sermons as specimens of his method of
teaching the doctrine, there can be but little doubt
but that his influence contributes to swell the tide.
of error on this subject.
The position occupied by Prof. Park renders it
particularly important to ascertain his views and
teachings on this subject. Dr. Dana says:-" His
views of human ability are extravagant and extreme. They obviously tend to foster in man a
spirit ofpride, of self-sufficiency, of independence
on God, and emphatically of procrastination."t
In.his Convention sermon and appended notes, he
plainly teaches man's ability to be commensurate
with his responsibility, and places this inability,
of which he is subject, in his unwillingness. In
his controversy with Prof. Hodge, he entered into
a-long and labored argument to prove that the
Edwardean divines, in affirming man's natural
ability, " meant something more than that he is.
* Cong. Nov. 21, 1851.    t Remonstrance, p. 24.




70r
possessessed- of natural capacities of soul and body."
He-quotes, with approbation,' the f'ollowing from
DIr.:rEmronns-:':Unrenewed men- are -as -able to
do right as-to do wrong; and to do their duty,-as
to meglect:their'dutv;- to love God -as'to hate God,
to choose:elife as'to choose death'; to walk' in the
narrow:ay to- life, as in the broad wayto hell;"
" as able to embrace the gospel as a thirsty' man-is'
to0 drink-water, or-:a hungry man'to eat the most
delicious food."- " They can love God, repent of
sin, and- believe in Christ, and perform  every religious'duty, as well as they can-thirik, or speak,
or -walk." And-:the following from Dr. Smalley:"It must be granted that we do generally suppose
a' manxs present duty -cannot exceed his present
strength, suppose.it to have been impaired by what
means it may."- "Andd this," says Prof. Park, "is
the -common representation of the' Exercise School.'"
"JIt- is the:common remark of the Edwardean
school, that men have' no inability to repent except their unwillingness."  "The doctrine of New,
England is, that any powerlessness in the original,
literal, proper meaning of the word, -is- incompatible^with obligation.'"* Such is the theologytaught
iiln-hthe most-prominentl theological seminary, -and
in-the leading theological quarterly in New England.-  - -                          -      -'':On this subject the -influence' of East Windsor
and- Andover seem'to- be in -the same direction'.
* Bib. Sac., Jan., 1852.




71
-The NewHaven  theology is well -known.  Most
likely no antagonism exists at Bangor.: Prof. Pond
would- hardly find anygood::reason:for rejecting
the language of his ancient instructor, Dr. Em.
-Mons.
The Boston Congregationalist, under date of
Decemeer 14, 1849, has the following language in
its. editorial columns in relation to the answer in
the.Catechism to the question-" Is any man able
perfectly to:keep the commandments' of- God?"-'jt — cnot betr-b ue trutha.t we are not -'able to "keep
that -law. —: nWeeed no'better proof that we — can
keep it than the. simple fact. that God requires'us
to do so. —--- -- have always regarded the  above
answer in the Catechism  as conveying an idea
which either is -not intended, or if intended, is altogether false and unsound in theology.- That no
mere man can possibly keep the divine law in this
life, is by no means true."  This language is clear
and explicit.:-:The Doctrinal Book and Tract Society teach,
in No. 23 of their series, that the -Holy Spirit is
necessary merely because men are unwilling to
receive th'e gospel. "Had they a willing mind,
the work would be done."*  In No. 8 we find the
following language:-" A sinful man can become
holy-the non-elect can comply with the terms of
the gospel-they are just as able to repent and
believe the gospel as the elect-as capable of do*p. 7.




72
ing right as doing wrong-it is proper to say they
can do what they are willing to do."*
These views, there can be no doubt, prevail
anmong the orthodox in New England.
VI.  Christ's Satisfaction.
The doctrine of the Westminster Standards on
this subject is expressed in the following terms:" The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and
sacrifice of himself, which he through the Eternal
Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied
the justice of his father: and purchased not only
reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in
the kingdom  of heaven for all those whom the
father hath given unto him."f  This is usually regarded as the doctrine, substantially set forth by
Dr. Woods in his published lectures. It will also
be difficult to make good a charge of heresy on
this subject against Dr. Hopkins. His neighbor,
Dr. Stiles, a thorough going old-Calvinist, while
finding fault with some of Hopkins' disciples, for
"-denying a real vicarious suffering in Christ's
atonement," admitted that Hopkins himself" differed from them, and held the atonement in a just
and scriptural sense."  Edwards and all the great
orthodox divines who preceded him in New England, taught the doctrine of the Confession. Even
yet there are those who believe it and preach it.
*p. 4.  t Chap. viii: Sect. 5.




73
Dr. Woods, however, informs us that erroneous
opinions on this subject exist among the orthodox.
He states them in the following terms:-  Christ
did not die in the place of sinners, as a vicarious
sacrifice, to satisfy divine justice and procure t1e
forgiveness of sins, but merely to make an affecting demonstration of God's perfect readiness to
save sinners, and by a striking instance of patience and quiet submission in suffering to win
their hearts to love and obedience."*  From other
sources we learn that the New England doctrine
of the atonement is something different from that
which formerly prevailed, very nearly identical
with what Dr. Woods calls an erroneous opinion.
Dr. Pond throws much valuable light on the subject. He says: —"The doctrine of atonement,
which seems not to have been touched by President Edwards, except as involved in the more
general subject of redemption, w4as very lucidly
treated by his son, and by Rev. Dr. West, of
Stockbridge. To these men, more than to any
others, are the theologians of New England indebted for the clear and consistent views which
now generally prevail in relation to this vital topic.
The distinction between atonement and redemption; the universality of the former as to its sufficiency, and the particularity of the latter as to its
application; the entire consistency between full
satisfaction, on the one hand, and free grace in
* Puritan Theology, p. 41.
7




74
forgiveness on the other; these are points, which,
so far: as I know, had never been clearly stated
and established, previous to the publications of
"the younger Edwards and of Dr. West."*
-' i-Dr. Podl gives us to understand that the views
w'hich'now generally prevail, on this subject, are
more clear'and consistent than the ancient doc-trine and authorizes us tolook to o Dr. Edwards as
their expoundeir. It  is therefore important to ascertain what are the teachings of that celebrated'divine.:They arefully set forth in his Sermons on
the Atonementt-" preached before His Excellency
t:he Governor, and a large number of both houses
of the legislature of the State of Connecticut, during their sessions at New Haven, in October, 1785,.and published by request   Tie'difficulty of reconciling the. great tru th at forgiveness of sins is
inconsequence of the riches of Divine grace, with
the commonly received doctrine of the atonement,
led him to endeavor after some other view of the
subject, that would not be'exposed to these difficulties. -If the sinner's debt be paid, howdoes
it appear that there is any pardon or grace in his
deliverance?" he asks. "By this difficulty," he
says in his introduction to the discussion of this
subject, "some have been induced to reject the
doctrine of Christ's redemption, satisfaction, or
atonement.  Others who have not been driven to
that extremity by this difficulty, yet have been ex* Sketches, etc., No. 5.




75
ceedingly perplexed and embarrassed.  Of these
last I freely admit myself to have been one. Having from my youth devoted myself to the study of
theoretic and practical theology, I have regarded
this as one of the GORDIAN KNOTS in that science."
His theory he regards as a solution of the problem. The Gordian knot he professes to untie, not
cut. While he maintains that we are forgiven
through the atonement of Christ, and can be forgiven in no other way, he also asserts as a principle fundamental to his theory, that "the atonement does not consist in the payment of a debt,
properly so called."  The reason why an atonement is' necessary to the pardon of a sinner is the
same why his punishment would have been necessary if no atonement had been made.  It is necessary, as he says, to maintain the dignity and
authority of the lawgiver, as well as the consistency between the legislative and executive departments.of his government.  His definition of
the atonement corresponds with his reasons for its
necessity. "It consists," he says, "in doing that
which, for the purpose of establishing the authority of the Divine law, and of supporting in due
time the Divine government, is equivalent, to the
punishment of the sinner according to the letter of
the law."  Although he speaks of Christ as a substitute for sinners, yet he does not use the term in
the sense in which it is ordinarily employed by
Calvinistic writers discussing this subject. His
meaning is that the atonement is the substitute




76
for the punishment threatened in the law. and was
intended to accomplish the same ends in relation
to God's law and government.  He does not teach
that Christ, standing in the "room  and stead" of
his elect, pays their debt, or endures the penialty
due to their sins; his sufferings and death, however, he regards as equivalent to the eternal punishment of the sinner, as far as the maintenance
of the authority and dignity of his law and government is concerned.
In expounding the doctrine of the atonement,
he speaks of three kinds of justice-commutative,
distributive, and general. Commutative justice,
he says, respects property, and requires that every
man should receive the payment of his debts.
Now the atonement, he pleads, has no respect to
this kind of justice at all. It is not the payment
of any of our debts. It does not, therefore, satisfy
commutative justice. Distributive justice has respect to man's personal character or conduct, and
requires that virtue, or good conduct, should be
rewarded, and crimes, or vicious conduct, punished.
The atonement, he claims, has no respect whatever to this kind of justice, since man just as much
deserves punishment as though Christ had made
no, atonement. If Christ, by his sufferings and
death, had satisfied distributive justice, then, he
argues, forgiveness would not have been of grace,
but of debt-nothing more than man's due.. But
the atonement does not satisfy this kind of justice;
and hence, he reasons, forgiveness is a grace, a




77
free gift, because, notwithstanding the atonement,
man deserves death just as much as if Christ had
never died.  General or public justice, he says,
comprehends all moral goodness, and requires that
the thing which is right be done.  To practise
justice, in this sense of the term, is to act agreeably to the dictates of general benevolence.  And
the pardon of the hsinner is, according to this view.of the subject, an act of justice, because it is undoubtedly most conducive to the divine glory and:gneral good of the created system, that every believerin Christ should be pardoned.  The atonemient satisfies this kind of justice, because it was
right and proper that it should be made, and tends
tothe greatest good of intelligent beings.  This
sense of the word justice is, however, he tells us,
an improper one, and hence he claims that the
atonement, in no proper sense of the term, satisfies
justice, nor is forgiveness an act of justice. Dr.
Edwards regarded the efficiency of the atonement.as consisting in this, that, in consequence of it,
God. dcan.pardon and save sinners, and still main-;tain the dignity and authority of his government.
It secures nothing. It only opens up the way for
God's mercy and grace to go forth. How it operates to accomplish this end, he does not tell us.
HIis theory renders necessary a departure from the
Common phraseology on the subject; yet he still
uses it to a considerable extent, and thus not unfrequently seems to teach a doctrine different from
that'which he really holds.
7*




Such are what Prof. Pond styles "the clear and
consistent views now generally prevalent on this
vital topic."
Dr. Emmons' views very nearly accord with
those of Dr. Edwards.  A few  propositions will
clearly set them  forth.  All that was necessary
was that the way should be opened up, whereby
God, consistently with his justice, could forgive
sin. If a substitute would suffer in the room of
sinners God's justice would be appeased, and the
obstacles in the way of his exercising pardoning
grace removed, Christ became this substitute,
endured the needful suffering, and thus atoned for
sin.  Christ's obedience to the law was no part of
his mediatorial work-further than it qualified
him for suffering, as the lamb must needs be without blemish. The entire efficacy of his sufferings
wasto open the way for the forgiveness of sins.
God, in consequence, can offer salvation to all
mankind, and bestow it upon all penitent, believing, returning sinners.  All that the believer receives for Christ's sake is forgiveness. Christ did
not endure the penalty due to sinners-he did not
endure any punishment at all-he did not pay the
debt sinners owed to God, either of suffering or
obedience.  The doctrine of a limited atonement
he rejected totally, contending Christ's death had
the same favorable aspect on the non-elect as the
elect. He denied that Christ merited anything
for sinners. The very phrase, merits of Christ, he
discarded as unscriptural and improper. He says':




79
"It is often designedly or undesignedly used to
convey the idea that Christ, by his obedience and
sufferings on the cross, paid the debt of suffering
and obedience in the room of sinners, so that Ggd
is obliged, in point of justice, to release them from
eternal sufferings, and bestow  upon them eternal
life. This is a false and unscriptural sentiment,
and naturally tends to lead men into several other
great and dangerous errors."*  "Though Christ
suffered the just for the unjust, though he made
his soul an offering for sin, and though he suffered
most excruciating pains in the garden and on the
cross, yet he did not lay God under the least obligation to pardon and save a single sinner."t
The views of Emmons, on some subjects, are
not received by many in New England. His doctrine of the atonement, however, does not appear
here to meet with any opposition. Dr. Dwight's
views of the atonement conform  substantially to
those of the younger Edwards, nor do they differ
materially from those of Emmons. His definition
learly exhibits the sense in which he held the
doctrine. " The atonement consists in making
sufficient arfiends for the faults which men have
committed, and placing the law and government
of God in such a situation that when sinners are
pardoned, both shall be equally honorable and efficacious as before."f  Christ was a substitute,
equally of all mankind. He no more atoned for
* Works, Vol. V. p. 35. t Id. p. 25.  Dwight's Theology, Vol. II. p. 206.




80the elect than for:the damned.  He did not pay
the-debt his people..owed to God; he only made
such.amends forthe sins. and ults of men, that
God might honorably pardon and save whom he
o,uld,T...he atonement secured.nothing;.,.it only
rendered....salvation.possible.. The obedience of
Christ.was essentially concerned in the atonement, but. only as qualifying him  to work it out.
It was necessary that Christ should be holy, that
be:l mightbe a.fit Mediator.  Such is the atonement Dwight teaches.  He does not give the obedience of Christ the prominence, or hold it in the
sense customary among Calvinistic divines. He
does not exhibit it as needful to merit eternal life
for those for whom Christ atoned by his sufferings, nor does he assign it any separate, independ-'entfuuction; he subordinates it altogether to his
propitiatory sufferings. He expressly says:-" The
attempts made to discriminate between these parts
of Christs's mediation, and to assign to each its
exact proportion of influence in the economy of
redemption,.seem  to me to have been very par-.tially successful."* Dr. Dwight has exerted a powerful influence over the New England mind..:.In 1823, James Murdock,D. D., Professor in the
Theological'Seminary at Andover, published a
sermon on the "Nature of the. Atonement." "The
sermon.was delivered," he tells us, in his advertisement, "to an audience composed chiefly of
*Dwight's Theology, Vol. II., p. 216.




81
theological students, and designed to aid them in
forming their opinions on the important subject
discussed."  This fact, together with the position
of the author, renders the sermon peculiarly irflportant as a source of information on the subject
in hand. The following brief extracts, it is believed, fairly exhibit his doctrine. "The atonement must be something different from the execution of the law itself: because it is to be a substitute for it, something which will render it safe
and proper to suspend the regular course of distributive justice." " The atonement was in the nature of it an exhibition of the righteousness of
God. It did not consist in an execution of the
law on any being whatever, for it was a substitute for an execution of it."  " It did not fulfil the
law or satisfy its demands on transgressors." " Its
immediate influence was not on the characters
and relations of men, as transgressors, nor on the
claims of the law upon them. Its direct operation
was on the feelings and the apprehensions of the
beings at large who are under the moral government of God."  "The atonement was a public
exhibition; and such an exhibition as would impress all the creatures of God with a deep and
awful sense of the majesty and sanctity of his
law, of the criminality of disobedience to it, and
of the holy, unbending rectitude of God as a
moral governor."  "It represented  these things
symbolically."  " It did not satisfy the demands of
the violated law  upon the sinner."  "All that it




82
could do was to display the feelings of God in
regard to his law: and secure by the impression
it made the public objects, which would be gained
by an execution of the law. It did not cancel
any of the claims of the law upon us. And hence
after the atonement was made God was under no
legal obligations to exempt any man from punishment. If he had never pardoned a single transgressor, neither law nor distributive justice would
have been contravened.  And if he pardons at all,
it is mere grace. Or to state it otherwise, the
atonement was not of such a nature as to require
God to pardon us, but it enables him to do it,
with credit to himself and safety to his kingdom."
Such were the views taught at Andover twentytwo years.ago.,They, were opposed, however.
Prof. Stuart, it is said, published two discourses
to counteract their influence; and Dr. Woods,
filling, as he did, the chair of Professor of. Christian  theology, could hardly have been silent.
There must have been collisions, even in the pulpit of the Seminary. It might be difficult, however, to point out any real difference between the
doctrine of Murdock on the one hand, and of Edwards the younger, Emmons and Dwight, on the
other..
Prof. Park, in a note to his - convention sermon,
declares his dissent from. the views of Symington,
and gives the following as his own definition of
the atonement: —'.A true representation seems to
be, that although Christ has not literally paid the




83
debt of sinners, nor literally borne their punishment, nor satisfied the legislative nor the remunera-.ive justice of God in any suchti sense or degree as
itself to make it obligatory on'.him  to-  save any
sirnnfers, yet the atonement' has  suh a relation to
the-whole moral government of God as to make it
consistent with the honor of his legislative and re-:tributive Justice to save all men, and to make it
e-ssential to the highest honor of his benevolence
or general justice to renew and save some. Therefore it satisfies the law and justice of God in such
a sense as to render it proper for him to offer salvation to all men, bestow it upon all who will ac-'ceptit, and cause those to accept it for whom the
interests of the universe will allow  him  to inter~:pose his-regenerating grace."  Dr. Dana represents
Prof. Park as "maintaining that it cannot be said
Christ's passive obedience frees us from  punishient, -and that in; case of the penitent the demands of the law  are evaded or waved."   Prof.
Park would hardly take exception to the doctrine
bof Dr. Murdock's sermon.:Tract No. 8 of the series issued by the Doctrinal
Book and Tract Society, uses the following language:-" - God has provided a full and complete
atonement for all the sins of all mankind."  "The
atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, offered to
-al, and irrespective of the divine purpose as to
its' effectual application made as much for one
* Remonstrance, p. 9




84
man as another."  "It has never yet been proved
that Christ died exclusively for the elect."  These
testimonies justify us in concluding that while
some may hold to an atonement such as is taught
in the Confession and Catechisms, the prevailing
theology teaches rather a symbolical transaction,
efficacious in securing the salvation of none, but
only in opening up the way for the consistent exercise of mercy on God's part, and which has of
course the same favorable aspect on the non-elect
as the elect.
VIII. Regeneration, Conversion, Effectual Calling.
That change by which the sinner is united to
Christ is in the Confession and Catechisms termed
"effectual calling."  This phrase has gone very
much out of use in New England. "Regeneration" and "conversion" are more commonly employed. Dr. Pond says:-" Our ministers do not
merge regeneration in effectual calling."  The
Confession of Faith -states the doctrine on this
subject in the following terms:-" All the elect,
God is pleased, effectually to call, by his word
and Spirit out of that state of sin and death in
which they are by nature to grace and salvation
by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of
God; taking away their heart of stone and giving
them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills and by




85
his almighty power determining them  to that
which is good and effectually drawing them to
Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace."  "Man is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and
renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled
to answer this call and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it."*  Such was the ancient
doctrine of New England. Dwight and Woods,
together with those who hold the old doctrine
of a depraved nature antecedent to sinful actions,
still maintain, substantially, the same principles.
Those, however, who with the New Haven and
Andover men deny antecedent depravity hold peculiar views as to regeneration. The New Haven
divines maintain that the term  regeneration is to
be understood in two senses-the theological and
popular. In the first sense it denotes a change in
the governing purpose of the mind; and is that
act of the mind, by which the sinner, prompted
by self-love, chooses God as his portion or chief
good. In the last or popular sense, it denotes a
process, or series of acts and states of mind, and
includes all those acts which they denominate
"Using the means of regeneration."  They maintain that antecedent to regeneration, in the restricted or theological sense, the selfish principle
is suspended in the sinner's heart, that the sinner
then ceases to sin, and is in a state of neutrality,
*Chap. X: Sect. 1 and 2.
8




6
and-that in- this -state-he uses-the means —of regeneration- with- motives which- are neither right -nor
-wrong-he - takes- into: solemn- consideration - the
question weerhetherthe- highest happines is -s to be
found.: —in:God or -in the-worldhe-pursues-this
inquiry. until it results inithe conviction that such
happiness is to be found in God only.:- e- follows
-up the: coliviction with engrossing: - contemplation,
till he -.discovers an- excellence     dvin die-objects
whieh- excites- him  to  make -desperat-e- efforts to
give his- heart to.God; and: in: this- process of
though- of  -effort,i:d an - dof actioen, he -perseveres -ti-ll
it- res:ults::in a — change -of- heart.  T -hust: hey-  -in
ifct, represent —regeneration as- a gradual- and - progressive,-w:ork.:-. They also -:ma —int ain- that the sinner. may:-so-resist. the -grace- of God -ias tA:render -it
impossible or: God:to convert him.  -That this representation is correct, will be-abundantly evident
toi any onte who: will -ecarefu lly- examine -the-Christian. Spectator for 1829, pp-16:17,18, 19,32,  3,
227. -: They- deny,-in the most - explicit-terms,:that
there is any change in the ~nature or disposition of
the sinner- antecedent- -to the-.exercise - of r-ight affections.:- "- As to those who hold -:to the infusion
of- something into the soul -previous, either in-the
order of time or nature to the -first:right affection,
and. asa - sort of fountain -from  which -such affection.is to flow, -we should only say, that althoughwe" do -not impute:to them  the-blasphemy, yet we
cannot wholly acquit them  of the absurdity of
Gibbon, who, in pretending to describe the man



87
ner in which the primitive -teachers were inspired,
says they were mere organs of the Spirit, just as
the.pipe or flute is of him who blows it.!"*  They
admit -the agency of the Spirit in regeneration,
yet-they maintain.that its influence is altogether
persuasive, exerted through the medium  of truth
or- motives.  " Indeed we know,"say they, " of no
other effectual hold which this divine agents can
have. on the sinner, whom he would turn from the
error-of. his ways,. but -.that which consists in so
bringng.the truths.of the Bible into contact with
his. understanding and sensibilities that he shall
voluntarily shun- the -threatened' evil, -and choose
the proffered good."j- ":-This influence he can resist, and. thus: harden his heart against God.":
"Free moral:agents can do wrong under all possible:preventing influence."~  "I do not believe,"
says Dr. -Taylor, in his letter to Dr. Hawes, -"that
the grace of Gpd can be truly said to be:irresistible in -the primary,: proper import of the term:
but I do believe that in all cases it may be resisted -byman as a free agent   and that when it does
become -ffectual. to —.conversion,:it is unresisted."
Such, substantially,   are; the. views of Finney,
(whp is:understood to. speak the sentiments of the
New- Haven divines,).as. set forth.in his sermon
entitled  " Sinners  bound to change: their -own
hearts."  As:far therefore as the theology of New'Haven extends this is the doctrine which prevails.* Christ. Spect. 1833, p. 361.   tlb. p. 356.     Ib. 1831, p. 637.  ~lb. 1830, p. 563.




88
Dr. Dana intimates that Prof. Park regards it as
a change in the balance of the susceptibilities.*
The Professor himself declares that in regeneration a nature inclining to sin, but not sinful, is
changed into a nature inclining to holiness, but
not holy, and that by the omnipotence of the regenerating Spirit.t  The editors of the Congregationalist, after quoting from Calvinistic divines,
with the view of exhibiting the Old School doctrine on this subject, reason thus:-" The statements which precede will enable any one to judge
how great is the change which has taken place
among many New England divines on this point.
It amounts to an entire revolution. The theory
of passivity in regeneration has been rejected, and
the Synergistic theory adopted in its place. Of
this we have a striking illustration in the tracts
written by various New England divinesfor the
Doctrinal Tract Society.  On p. 3, pf No. 27, it is
taught that the Scriptures represent men'as acting and being acted upon in their regeneration or
conversion.' On p. 7 there is an argument against
such as hold that man is'merely passive in regeneration.' On p. 15 it is said,'The sinner is not
passive, but active in regeneration.' In Tract No.
3, the ascription to the orthodox of the doctrine
that regeneration is'the sole act of God' is treated
as a slander, and the doctrine is taught that God
renovates us'by the use of means and motives
*Remonstrance, p. 8. t Bib. Sacra, XXXI. p. 627.




89'
which leave us as free in conversion and new obedience as we ever were ii transgression.'*: "   In a
subsequent number they affirm  that Dr. Woods
and Dr. Tyler coincided in teaching'that man js
active and cooperates with God in regeneration,
and thus are at.variance with the Westminster
divines; but nevertheless stand on the platform of
sound -and orthodox New England divines.- They
also labor;to show-: ta    t Jonathan Edwards taught
the samne doctrine.f      - -- ---.ev.:       Mr,: Eells, of -Newburyport thus: forcibly
describes te, prevalent theology on this subject:."'It isaction:only that needs renovation*'-:Regeneration-isa change from sinful action to holy- actionL -A ll the -work, of the  Spirit of God is redAtced.to mere persuasion.;, iHe. may bring the truth
home with power on:-the understanding and. con-.
science,: but, he cannot ghange.the heart.;  And:indeed, there is. no:heart to be changed.  After allthie-work of the Spirit it remains  in::the power of.
man-to yield or-refuse,-as he  pleases, -so -that -the
glory of thechange is all his own.: It is -not God
that makes men to. differ.;. -t is, their: own- work.'
These are the doctrines taught by professors of theolgy —that are preached from. -the pulpit in this
land of the. Pilgrims.  The evil is wide-spread,
and is fast-extending itself, - - This- -is am  ndenia`
ble truth."t -
* April 12, 1850.   t Dec. 19, 1851.  I Sermons, p. 36, 37,
8*




90
These testimonies will enable the reader to understand the views of regeneration and conversion
that prevail in New England.
IX. Justification.
The Confession of Faith teaches that: "Thosewhom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth; not by infusing righteousness into them,
but by pardoning their sins and by accounting
and accepting their persons as righteous; not for
any thing wrought in them  or done by them, but
for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act, of believing, or any other evangelical
obedience to them as their righteousness; but by
imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ
unto them, they receiving and resting on him and
his righteousness by faith; which faith they have
not of themselves: it is the gift of God."*  The
Catechism  defines justification as "an act of
God's free grace, whereby he pardoneth all our
sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight only
for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and
received by faith alone."t  There is no difficulty
in understanding the doctrine of these propositions. It is clear and well defined. This too was
the primitive doctrine among the churches of New
England. The Synods of 1648 and 1680 affirmed
* Confession, Chap. XI. Sec. 1 t Ques. 33.




91
it. Norton, and Willard, and Edwards, and Bellamy all taught it. Nor can a charge of heresy on
this point be made good against Hopkins. But
what is the present faith of New England?  We
must learn it from the teachings of her leading
Doctors.
Dr. Woods, after examining minutely the Scriptures which speak of justification, concludes thus:
"And we are sure the apostle meant to teach us
this momentous doctrine, namely, that sinners
cannot be justified by works of obedience to the
law; that if we are justified, it must be by~grace,
on the ground of the righteousness of Christ received by faith; and that good works, however
important or indispensable on other accounts, are
excluded from any influence as the meritorious
ground of our justification before God."* He
speaks of God treating men in justification as
though they had never sinned, as though they
were not ungodly. The mediatorial work of
Christ-his obedience and death-he represents
as the ground or meritorious condition of our forgiveness and acceptance with God. Our perfect
obedience would, according'to the law, have been
the ground of our acceptance with God and enjoyment of the blessings of his kingdom. This
ground of acceptance is wanting. But the obedience and death of our Redeemer come in place
of it, and on this ground we enjoy the same favor
*Works, Vol. III. p. 165.




92
with God and the same blessedness as we should
have done on the ground of our own obedience.*
Christ's work as Redeemer does, alone, form  the
perfect, meritor    iouns cor ground of our justitfiation bedfore God, nothing else being needed -or
admitted as a condition or any part of a condition
in:rthat respectt- He: makes -some interestingremarks in relation-to justification through the imputed;righteousness of -Christ.-  He affirms it to be
the'-doctrine   f orthodox  Protestants generally.
"Yet,' he says,-" this doctrine, or rather this manner: of stating it, has for some time past been objected to: by ministers of the -gospel in this country' chiefly inl New  England.  And many ministers aind laymen, who have not tcome-to-   a decision:
on the:subject,- have an  apprehension  that- this
form:  of the doctrine must be given up." --  The.
reason of this dissent -he finds to be that the doetrine is thought to imply: that there is a literal
transfer of moral character or personal attributes
from  one -to another.  The doctrine, however, heaffirms, never had any such  meaning  as this.
There is no reason, either from  the Scriptures- or
from- standard Calvinistic divines,:  to understandthe word impute in this manner. - When the righteousness of Christ is said to be imputed to; us, the
meaning is not that it properly belongs to us as
our own personal righteousness, but that it is:- so
reckoned to us, or put to our account, that- we
* Works, Vol. III. p. 177. — t Ib. p. 180.




93
share the benefits of it, or are treated as though
we were righteous. He pleads that the meaning
put upon the doctrine by some late New England
divines, is unauthorized. He says that the most
learned and discriminating of orthodox divines,
both Lutheran and Calvinistic, take special pains
to show that the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us does not imply that his righteousness is
transferred to us, or infused into us, so as to become our personal attribute, but only that we partake of its benefit-that his righteousness is ours
imputatively. He advocates the use of the "imputation" phraseology, and exhorts his brethren to
hold fast the form of sound words.*  This is the
theology taught in Dr. Woods' published lectures.
Prof. Stuart, his distinguished colleague throughout his entire professorial career, did not accord
with him entirely on this subject. His views are
set forth in his Commentary on the Epistles to
the Romans. The following extracts exhibit them
fully. Remarking on the 5th chapter and 19th
verse he says:-" Though I can scarcely entertain
a doubt, that the obedience of Christ in this connection of thought means in particular his obedience in assuming our nature and his suffering
an expiatory death in it, yet I would not exclude
the idea that the active (as well as passive) obedience of his whole life contribute, yea was necessary to the perfection of his character as a Media* Works, Vol. III. pp. 201, 207.




94
tor,.ard:a great- High Priest w.ho.-should: makeatonement-:for iusc. Without. sluchG: -obedience, he
wou-ld h-lave needed an — atonement for himtself in-.stead- of::being able to make iit:for others.-  But in
respect i-to- the pacific.allegation,:- that -Christ'sobedience is:. imputed- to us-': this Paul- does not
here, nor- elsewhere,-: say, nor — any other sacred
writer-.':This is a -phraseology superinduced upon
the Bibl-e many years since the Reformation, from
human-systems and —methods of explanation;and
not one which iis: taken from the -Scriptures and
transferred:-iito symbols;. In.all the -Bible:there
occurs:-. NOTn such.-a declarration, as that one man's
sin or.ritghteousness is. IMPUTED to another. — (The;
italics are;:the:Professors).. The- thingo for:sub —
stance.aimed at  by.many, -who -employ such
phraseology is doubtless a doctrine of the Bible,
viz., that:the  obedience o.of - Christ, above all his
obedience unto- death, did contribute to constitute
him  an:  all-glorious and -all-sufficient Mediator.
As- to the -rest,i that God FOR CHRIST'S SAKE -forgives sinners, not imputing their trespasses unto
them, is;the: very sum  and substance of what is
appropriately: called THEr  GOSPEr;, and all which
cCaniexegetically- be made out from — the-: simple interpre-tation.: of. the- Scriptures;:For in what part
of. the -Bible is it said that Christobeyed for us?
Or: where.: -that Mhis-obedience is. imputed to us?
And- yet that on'our- account. or:.in our beha,:he
obeyed and suffered, I believe to be a great and
fundamental doctrine of the Gospel."




95.In his.excursus- on: the. same- passage he says:
". Believersi:a-re.made really and.veritably holy inpart:(noat; putatively  so).by.the. -:sanctifying' i nflue nces
of — the   Spi-ritof God, - on account of:what Christ
-as done-:ands.- suffered;:so:t. hat their holiness is.not in t-nhi:s:case facttitious, and the -Redeemer's hooliness -is-not —veritably -theirs.  -If iti-wer  so,:then
perfeethoiness:  would be.theirs:; -.and-  they could
then-present a claim of osalvation on the grould of
meeting -the-demands — of: the law. i Mere- imputed
holinessi ho.weveri can never ahnswer- proper.legal
demannds, and tbherefore i~t can.:never entitle the
s:inner- to — a -.proper liegal:- acquittal. - Pardon  is
given, altogetherof: grace;: nt   on the ground of
either real -or factitious, i. e.: imputed obedience.
The first of these sinners cannot plead; the second
the law. does — not.in  itself admit.  If: any, one
should  reply, as doubtless -some may do, that
Christ is and-is called the Lord our Righteousness,
my-reply is. that he is::at the same -time called our
wisdoma and. sanctification. and redemption.:  Now
heJ is.by this representation:made just as much
our imputed wisdom, and our imputed: sanctifica.
tion, -and-our imputed redemption  as he is our
imputed righteousness."*  Prof. Stuart objects very
emphatically to the language of the: Westminster
standards on. the -subject.  He can hardly, however, be regarded  as still- holding the::same. doctrine. -.;He -uniformly  speaks..of-justification  as* Commentary, p. 583.




96
gratuitous. An expression above quoted well sets
fbrth his uniform teachings: "Pardon is given altogether of grace not on the GROUND of either real
or IMPUTED OBEDIENCE." When therefore he teaches
us that God forgives sinners for Christ's sake, we
are not to understand him  as meaning that what
Christ has done and suffered is the ground on
which he proceeds. The Professor's doctrine is
about this: Christ by his atonement, for making
which his holy life was a necessary qualification,
removed the difficulties in the way of God's saving sinners, and now God, in the exercise of his
sovereign mercy, bestows pardon and acceptance
on the believer, without any particular respect to
a law satisfying righteousness as the ground of
his procedure. His influence is doubtless in opposition to the ancient doctrine of New England, set
forth in the Westminster symbols.
Professor Murdock, in his Sermon on the Atonement, set forth his views of justification:-" Justification is not founded on the principles of law
and distributive justice. It is an absolute pardon,
an act of mere grace; and of grace on the part of
God the Father, as well as on that of God the Son.
For the operation of Christ's sacrifice, it appears,
was not on the regular course of distributive justice in regard to individual transgressors. Its influence was on the public feeling respecting the
character of God. And it only enabled God, with
honor to himself, and safety to his kingdom, to
gratify the desires of his heart by the pardon of




97
repenting sinners. Justification is therefore a real
departure from the regular course of justice; and
such a departure from it as leaves the claims of
the law on the persons justified, forever unsatisfied."*  The views of Murdock and Stuart were
about the  same. Their methods of statement
may differ; but not their doctrine. Diverse theologies, on this subject, must have been taught at
Andover from the foundation of the Seminary.
Nor does Dr. Dwight's exhibition of this doctrine come up to the ancient standards. To say
the least of it, it is exceedingly defective. Gospel
justification is not forensic in its nature; it only
closely resembles it; so thinks Dr. Dwight. "It
consists," says he, "in the three following things:
Pardoning the believer's sins, acquitting him from
the punishment which they have deserved, and entitling him to the rewards or blessings due by law
to perfect obedience only."t  All these are given
to the sinner out of the free and sovereign love of
the Father, Son,and Holy Ghost-given without
respect to any ground or consideration on which
the act proceeds, but simply of divine grace. The
work of Christ was efficient in removing, the obstacles in the way of such procedure, and in doing
no more. According to his views of the subject,
he cannot admit the doctrine of the imputation of
Christ's righteousness; and hence very properly
banishes it from his system. Dwight's justifica*p. 30.   t Dwight's Theology, Vol. II. p. 301.




98
tion is without any righteousness whatever. It
must be  admitted, however, that he carefully
guards against the idea  of justification  being
grounded on human merit.  He clearly and fully
teaches it to be of grace. Nor does he make faith
itself the righteousness. He represents it as being
only that on the exercise of which these blessings
are given.*
Dr. Emmons also taught a doctrine on this subject, far different from that of the Catechism.
Justification, in his judgment, "signifies no more
nor less than the pardon or remission of sin."t
He represents it at one time as an act, taking
place the moment the sinner believes.  Again, he
speaks of it as conditional on perseverance in
faith and obedience, (which condition is by divine
grace always fulfilled in the case of every genuine
believer,) and uses language which would seem to
teach the doctrine that justification is not complete until death, or until the required conditions
are actually fulfilled.t He further teaches that
forgiveness comes through the mediation of Christ,
and is on the ground of his atonement-that God
bestows no other favor on man oil this groundthat other blessings are bestowed in consequence
of the atonement, not on the ground of it-a sinner being pardoned for Christ's sake is in a fit
state for receiving other spiritual blessings on
other grounds.  He contended that there is no
*Dwight's Theology, Vol. II. p. 300,324. t Works, Vol. V. p. 44. $ Ib. p. 46.




99
propriety in directing sinners to go to Christ for
regenerating or sanctifying grace, or for any thing
but pardon, which is all that ministers have any
authority to offer sinners through Christ.*  The
distinction of Christ's obedience into active and
passive he pronounced unscriptural.  The doctrine that believers are accepted as righteous, and
entitled to eternal life, on the ground of Christ's
imputed righteousness, he rejected as unreasonable and absurd. Imputation found no favor in his
eyes. Eternal life, and all its implied blessings,
are bestowed, according to his teachings, as the
reward of the believer's own sincere obedience.
God does not, he holds, bestow eternal life on believers because their sincere obedience atones for
their sin, or because it merits eternal life, but because it is a proper ground, reason, or condition,
for bestowing on them  such a gracious and unmerited reward.f  The doctrine that believers are
rewarded, or receive eternal life, for Christ's obedience, as really and truly as they are forgiven for
his atonement, he pronounces a palpable absurdity."1   Such  are the views of the  "Sage of
Franklin " in relation to the great matter of man's
justification.
Prof. Park, according to Dr. Dana, teaches " that
Christ needed obedience for himself, and could not
perform a work of supererogation for others; that
if Christ obeyed the law for us we need not obey
* Works, Vol. V. p. 46, 47.   t b. p. 84, 86.   j Ib. p. 93.




100
it for ourselves, for that the law  does.not require
two. obediences; neither-in this case is there any
grace-in our pardon;.that Christ's obedience being imputed to us involves a double absurdity,
etc".: We much regret that we have not access
to any full statement of the Professor's views on
this subject.  Dr. Dana's testimony is, however,
worthy of all confidence.
Mr. Eells says, in his: Sermons, that the ancient
doctrine of justification is almost wholly unknown
among the descendants of the Puritans.; and that
men.in high places in the church seem  to find
a: malignant.pleasure, first, in carricaturing.it,
and.then_ in. holding. it up to -derision and: contemptt..:. 
There are those who:truly. hold the doctrine of
the Westminster -standards. on this: subject, and
state it in the language there employed; there are
those,: again, who accept: the. Westminster doctrine, but reject the Westminster phraseology, a
class, smaller, it is thought, than  many good men
are willing to admit; the prevailing theology,
however, it is believed, rejects both the ancient
phraseology and the ancient doctrine; it teaches
neither a justification by works, nor a justification
on the ground of Christ's righteousness, but a justification, purely gratuitous, without direct respect
to any righteousness whatever.
I* Remonstrance, p. 9.  t Sermons, p. 33.




101
We have thus endeavored to give a candid exhibition of the Theology of New England in relation to Inspiration, Election, Man's connection
with Adam, Sin and Depravity,- Inability, Regeneration -Conversion. or Effectual Calling, the
Atonement and Justification-the great doctrines
of the Gospel. -:No more is needed, we conceive,
to exhibit the peculiarities of the Theology of
New England, although there are still other points,
which it- would be interesting to pass under review.  -. - 
What, then, is the conclusion of the whole
matter? It seems to be this:-There are some
among the orthodox of New Englaud, who hold
and teach the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as held and taught by the puritan fathers. This- class it is to be feared is not
numerous.
There is another section of the orthodox, which
must be regarded as holding and teaching, to all
intents and purposes, the Arminianism  of John
Wesley.  This class is increasing. The tendency
of-things seems to be to sink all doctrinal differences between Wesleyans and Calvinians.
That theology, however, which claims to be
the theology of New England, embraces the great
middle-class. It teaches the decrees of God, a
particular providence, election, and the perseverance of the saints, as taught by Calvinists generally. It rejects the imputation of Adam's sin and
Christ's righteousness, and a limited, efficacious
9*




atonement. It asserts that man's ability is commensurate with his responsibility, and that his inability consists altogether in his unwillingness.
On these points the great mass of New England
divines seem to be agreed. As to the doctrine of
sin, depravity, and regeneration, there exists a diversity of opinion.  Some hold to a depravity of
nature antecedent to actual sin, and to a regeneration by the Spirit, in which man is altogether passive. Others reject the doctrine of a sinful nature; assert that all sin consists in unholy or sinful exercises; and teach a regeneration, which is
but a change in the governing purpose of the
soul, or of the balance of the susceptibilities, or
of a nature to sin, but not sinful, into a nature to
holiness, but not holy. This is the theology of
New  Haven, Andover, and probably of Bangor
also-the theology of the " Bibliotheca Sacra,"
the great New  England quarterly-the theology
of the Congregationalist-the theology, in short,
of the influences that to a great extent control
and determine public opinion all over the country-the theology, it is claimed, and would seem
with good reason, of a very large majority of New
England divines.
The prevailing theology in New England, at
present, does not appear to be the theology of the
Puritans.
It will hardly be denied by any, that the preceding statements are, in the main at least, correct. It may, however, be said, that these differ



103
ences are of little, very little importance; the
great essentials are held in common by both parties.  While it is joyfully conceded, that much
valuable truth is held even by those whose views
are most erroneous, it cannot, we think, be admitted consistently with truth, that the differences
specified are unimportant. The old and the new
are not the same-either in their principles or
their influence. If the one is truth, the other, in
so far as it is another, is error. If the one is meat
and drink to the soul, the other is spiritual poison.  Whoever carefully examines these systems
of doctrine, will see at once that in relation to
some of the most momentous subjects that concern man's salvation, they are antagonistic. It
cannot then be of little moment which is received
into the heart, or which is proclaimed from our
pulpits.
There is prevalent intense indifference to doctrinal truth.  A popular liberality smiles complacently on every form  of religious belief (except
old fashioned orthodoxy,) and insists that one is
just about as good as another. It is further to be
feared, that there is very little, earnest, thorough,
discriminating preaching of the truth, even as far
as it is professedly received; that many subjects
of vital importance to the soul, are seldom mentioned in the pulpit;-that many dangerous errors
abound, against which, the warning voice of the
watchmen on Zion's walls is seldom  lifted.  This
state of things is far from consistent with that




104.
importance every where  attached to  doctrinal
truth  in God's word.  Our Savior thought it
necessary to caution his: disciples in very pointed
terms against the doctrine of the Pharisees and
Sadducees.: Paul- -reminded- -Timothy- that,  All
Scripture' is- given.byinspiration -of God, and is
profitable-for doctrine, for reproof,: for correction,
for instruction —in righteousness, that the man of
God may. be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
all good works," at the same time exhorting him
to" hold fast the form of sound- words" he had reeeived,: and warning him against those who would
not endure sound doctrine, but would, after their
own lusts, heap to themselves teachers, having
itching ears.  The same apostle must-have thought
the truth as- it is in Jesus of momentous importance:when he thus wrote the Galatians: "But
though we or an angel from heaven preach any
other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him  be accursed.  As we
said. before so say I now again, if any man preach
any other gospel unto you than that ye have received let him be accursed." John, in his Epistle
to  the,elect, lady  expresses similar views:" Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the
doctrine of Christ hath- not God.  If there come
any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive
him  not into'your house neither bid him  God
speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."  There is -set forth in.God's word a system, called at one time, the




105
"Gospel," at another the " Truth as it is in Jesus,"
at-another the -:"-I)octrine.-of Christ," and- at still
another the " Word of God.".To:-this- system  of
truth- the Scriptures- continually attach the very.
first importance.  -It-is the sword of the Spirit —
the wisdom of God and power ofG -od unto salvation..'It.is this which the Spirit -uses in converting the sinner, and in sanctifying.and comforting
the people:of God. - Nothing else is the sword of
the Spirit; nothing else is - the means of effecting the salvation of souls-.  God::does-:not bless
error. Nor-:does  he. honor a diluted, or a mutilated- gospel.- No other-truth, however important,,
can accomplish the ends for which God has ordained the gospel of his grace.  It alone will reform  what is wrong among men, and save souls
from eternal misery.
If these things be true, as they are beyond all
controversy, then that indifference and that liberality already mentioned must be simply criminal
in God's sight.  If there is any thing in this world
about which the church ought to be jealous, it is
the purity, fulness and completeness of the doctrine proclaimed in our pulpits and issued from
our press.  If souls are converted and sanctifiededified to the highest degree-the truth as it is in
Jesus, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
must be learned. Those who substitute something
else for it, give famishing souls a stone instead of
bread.  Those who keep back a part are unfaithful
to their Master, who has bidden themr  declare the




106
whole counsel of God. Those who abandon important truth, leaving error to abound unopposed,
must be regarded as traitors to their Lord. If ever
the world is converted and the reign of righteousness inaugurated, it will not be by leaving out of
sight the truth of the gospel-nor by abandoning
whatever of it is offensive to the carnal mind-nor
by the preaching of error;-not even by the proclamation of OTHER truth however important. It
is only a pure gospel in its integrity-proclaimed
with the simplicity with which it is set forth in
the inspired volume, that will be the means of
ushering in that glorious era. Most assuredly the
church, styled the pillar and the ground of the truth
is called upon to look well to the truth, it is her
duty to maintain and propagate.
Let us then search the Scriptures. Let us go to
the great Teacher and find out the truth. Let us
hold it fast. Let us feed upon it.ourselves. Let
us send it-the bread and water of life-to the perishing world around us. Let us give our influence
to the support and propagation of a pure gospel.
Let no maxims of worldly prudence, no false liberality, induce us to aid in building up the cause of
error. Let us consent to no theology so " comprehensive" as to embrace both truth and falsehood.
Let us not be   children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the
sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby
they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth
in love, grow up into him in all things which is
the head even Christ."