CHAPTER
XI
NEW
ENGLAND THEOLOGY.
PRIOR
to the rise of Edwards, the theology of New England had always been strictly
conformed to that of the body of the Reformed Churches. His own theological
views, as to the doctrines of the Reformed confessions, were in general harmony
with the Westminster divines. In two respects, however, he must be recognized as
the spring, whence have flowed many heresies, to plague the Church of God, which
he loved; in the nature of some of his opinions; and in the mode of discussion
which he introduced. Holding, in accordance with the Cartesian philosophy, then
prevalent, that God himself is the only cause of all phenomena and events, he
hence deduced his extraordinary theory of identity, and incorporated it with the
fundamental doctrines of theology. There is no such thing, according to this
view, as real continued existence among the creatures. The moon that now is, is
not really the same that was a moment ago. That, has fled into nothingness; and
this, is a new creation, which is in the act of giving place to another; and so
on continually. Upon this assumption, he proceeds to reason thus. If the
existence of created substance, in each successive moment, be wholly the effect
of God's immediate power, in that moment; without any dependence on prior
existence; as much as the first creation out of nothing, then, what exists at
this moment, by this power, is a new effect; and, simply and absolutely
considered, not the same with any past existence; though it be like it, and
follows it according to a certain established method. And
there is no identity or oneness in the case, but what depends on the arbitrary
constitution of the Creator, who, by his wise sovereign establishment, so
unites these successive new effects, that he treats them as one, by
communicating to them like properties, relations and circumstances; and so leads
us to regard and treat them as one." This divine constitution, he says is
"the thing which makes truth, in affairs of this sort." By such a
"constitution," by asserts that God made Adam and his posterity to be
one, so as to involve the imputation of his sin to them.
That is, when "he spake, and it was done, he commended and it stood
fast," God did not give permanent existence to anything. He only arranged
matters so as to mislead the popular mind into that belief, by a
"constitution" of so strange a character, that whilst the divine
sovereignty " makes truth" out of the really false appearances, it is
truth of a texture so flimsy that the acuteness of this philosophy detects and
exposes it as unreal and deceptive. And so in regard to our relation to Adam.
On this subject, two diverse
views had obtained more or less currency in the Reformed Church, prior to
Edwards. The first was the doctrine of the mediaeval realists, who held, that
human nature is an impersonal substance, created in Adam and diffused from him
to his posterity, each individual being a mere phenomenon or mode of this
substance. This nature had a will of its own, which apostatized from God, and
carried with it, in the fall, Adam and all the race.
The
other view was more generally prevalent; and was embodied in all the Reformed
confessions. According to it, we "being in Adam's loins, as branches in the
root, and comprehended in the same covenant," "sinned in. him and fell
with him, in his first transgression.” As Boston clearly expresses it,
"We are not only made liable to punishment, by this disobedience, but we
are made sinners by it. Not only is the guilt ours, but the fault is ours: we
not only die in Adam, 1 Cor. xv 22, but we sinned in him, as our federal head,
Rom. v. 12 ; we broke the covenant in him; that breach, in law reckoning, is
ours; and is reckoned ours, because it is ours, by virtue of our being one with
him, in his loins, as our natural and federal head."
"It is reckoned ours,
because it is ours." Here, precisely, is the point of difference between
the old, the true, Reformed theology, and the Edwardean theory. The former
teaches that we are, by generation one with Adam, and, therefore, so treated in
the covenant. Edwards inverts this order, and teaches that we are regarded and
treated as one with him; and are thus, contrary to the real fact,
"constituted" one with him, and, therefore, legally, so recognized and
dealt with.
In addition to Edwards'
metaphysical gloss upon the doctrine of imputation, he held and propagated two
or three pregnant errors. The first was, that all sin consists in selfishness;
and all holiness or virtue in disinterested benevolence. The second grows out of
this. If holiness consists in disinterested benevolence, God, when he brought
creation into existence, was, bound, as a holy being, to produce that system
which would secure the greatest possible amount of happiness to the universe.
Edwards also insisted upon the distinction between natural and moral ability. Of
the latter only is the sinner devoid, with respect to evangelical obedience.
The peculiarities of Edwards
have, in themselves, a very harmless appearance. But, not only did they involve
consequences which he would have utterly repudiated—they were, moreover, so
incorporated by him into his doctrinal system of theology, that, when they are
taken away, nothing but a wreck remains. In this respect, his influence has been
most disastrous, leaving his disciples afloat on the deep, without guiding star
or compass. "New England theology," in all its phases, is
characterized by the adoption of Edwards' definitions of sin and holiness; and
by a rejection of the doctrine of imputation; identified as it was supposed to
be with his doctrine of identity.
The first fruits of Edwards'
speculations were seen in the teachings of Hopkins, West, Spring, Emmons, the
younger Edwards, and their followers. The school of Emmons, with unflinching
courage and logic, followed out the premises to their legitimate
consequences. The larger number of Edwardeans stopped short, in the milder
system, which goes by the name of Hopkins. The logical process was brief and
simple, and the conclusions inevitable. If the creatures be no causes, if God be
the sole and immediate cause of all effects, he and he only is the cause of sin,
in Adam and in us. If there be no powers in man's nature, if the phenomena of
his affections and actions are the immediate effects of the power of God, there
can be, in him, no native tendencies and dispositions, either sinful or holy.
These qualities can only be predicated of exercises or acts of the will and
affections. If Adam's nature is no cause to his posterity, it does not cause
their depravity; God, the only cause, must in some way, be its author. If we are
one with Adam, only by .a "constitution," making seeming truth out of
a falsehood, then he was only seemingly, and not really and truly, our head;
and, hence, could not have been, and was not, our covenant head and
representative. No covenant, therefore, was made with him for his posterity. His
sin was not their sin. They did not, in him, break the covenant, and justice
cannot, therefore, exact its penalty of them. God may, in sovereignty, act
toward us as he would toward sinners, but the inflictions so visited upon us, on
account of Adam's sin, cannot be, in any proper sense, punitive nor judicial.
For the same reason, Christ could not so unite himself to us as to covenant for
us, or to be held accountable to justice for our sins. Nor, on the other hand,
can we, by union with him, acquire a property in his righteousness. The
consequence is, that Christ's atonement is denied any properly vicarious
character. It was a governmental display, not a satisfaction; it was made for
sin, in general, and not specifically for the sins of his elect; and his work
was not determinate of the redemption of a covenant people, but only made way
for the salvation of those who shall believe. The system ignores and precludes
the spiritual union of Christ and the believer—that union which fills so large
a place in the old theology of the Church, and a knowledge of which oar fathers
thought of so much importance to the maintenance of vital religion.
Such were the teachings of
the earlier disciples of Edwards. Some of them still clung to his untenable
appeal to the distinction between a privative and a positive cause, to account
for God's agency in the production of sin. Untenable, for, if God be the only
cause, as Edwards insists, what avails the distinction ? Privative; or positive,
God is the cause. From this difficulty, many took refuge in ambiguous phrases;
whilst others did not hesitate to attribute all their sins direct to the
efficiency of God. But they fell
back upon the optimistic theory, and maintained that, since God was bound to
produce the best possible system, and is a most powerful and excellent being, we
are shut up to the conclusion that the present system is the best; and, sin
being found in this system, we must conclude it to be an incident of the best
system, and necessary to it. Sin, therefore, is not„ upon the whole, an evil,
but a good. Hence, it is consistent with God's holiness to produce it. It is
only evil, in that the sinner is actuated by no such apprehension, but by
selfish and malevolent feelings. Retaining partially the old forms of speech
these theologians utterly rejected the old doctrines of original sin, the
atonement and justification.
The new divinity was first
presented to the public, in systematic form,
in Hopkins' "System of Doctrines," which was published in 1793. Its
author, the Rev. Samuel Hopkins of Newport, was not only a personal pupil of the
elder Edwards, with whom he resided, as a student of theology, but was also his
literary executor.
"Upon the death of Mr.
Edwards, Mrs. Edwards, in consequence of verbal directions, given to her by Mr.
Edwards in his life-time, put all his manuscripts and his library into my hands
and care," says Hopkins, in his autobiography; "his manuscripts to be
disposed of by me, and two other ministers. And Mrs. Edwards solicited me to
write the life of Mr. Edwards, to be published, with a number of sermons, to be
selected from his manuscripts." He complied with the request, and says that
"as these manuscripts were in my hands a number of years, I paid my chief
attention to them, until I had read them all; which consisted of a large number
of volumes, some of them larger besides sermons; of which sermons, I did not
read the whole. In doing this, I had much pleasure and profit. My mind became
more engaged in study, rising, great part of my time, at four o'clock in the
morning, to pursue my study; in which I took great pleasure." So intimately
were Edwards and Hopkins related; and so thoroughly was the mind of the latter
imbued and moulded by the teachings of the former.
The following were some of
the leading points of peculiarity,
in the system, which, in contradistinction to Old Calvinism, was, by its
advocates, early styled, the New Divinity.
1. Holiness consists
altogether in disinterested benevolence.
2. All sin consists in
selfishness.
3. All holiness and sin
consists in voluntary exercises or actions.
4. The moral law is the rule
of duty, because it is founded in the nature and fitness of things; and,
therefore, God could not but promulgate and enforce it.
5. Adam's sin is not imputed
to his posterity; but by a divine "constitution" it was determined
that if he, the father, should sin, all his posterity should also become
sinners.
6. The depravity into which
man is fallen is wholly of his will; and is total, because the will is entirely
prone to evil. But it is not universal, inasmuch as the understanding and
conscience remain, at least, partially unimpaired.
7. Men are possessed of a
natural ability to do all the will of God. They, are sinners, only because of
indisposition of will, to what is right.
8. Christ's obedience and
sufferings were fulfilled by him, not distinctively, as the Head of his body,
the elect; but as, in general, the substitute for sinners; in whom is made an exhibition,
of divine justice, in consequence of which God can safely and consistently
bestow pardon on whomsoever he will. It is not, however, such in its nature as
to involve a demand of justice for the salvation, specifically, of any.
9. In order to true faith,
we must feel perfect acquiescence in the will of God, though it demand our
perdition.
10. Faith implies a right
taste and disposition. It thus shows the heart to be in harmony with the mind of
Christ; and, so, renders it fit and proper that the Mediator's righteousness
should be reckoned in the party's favor. Christ's righteousness does not,
however, become the property of the believer, but it constitutes the meritorious
ground for the acceptance of his faith for righteousness.
11. God, as a holy being, is
bound, in all his works, to do that which is wisest and best; whence we may
conclude the present. system, sin included, to be the best possible system.
12. Hence, upon the whole, sin is
not an evil; but incident to the greatest good; and, as such is caused by the
efficient agency of God. Moral good and evil are equally the consequences of the
divine disposal. Here, division arose. While Hopkins and others talked
obscurely, and left it undecided, whether the divine efficiency employs
different modes of operation, concerning the production of good and evil, Emmons
did not hesitate to accept the logical conclusion from the premises; and to
insist that sin and righteousness are, in the same manner, the results of the
agency of the Only Cause.
In another line of deduction, the
teachings of Edwards were, in their consequences, fatal to the gospel. No point
of theology can be more important and vital than that which is involved in the
exposition of the moral character of God. An exhaustive answer to the question,
What is God? would contain all theology; and a false definition of any one of
the divine attributes, as it would infuse poison into the fountain-head, must
convey death through all the streams. How evidently must this be the case, if
such a definition should obscure or obliterate some of the most conspicuous
attributes of the divine nature! Yet this, and no less, was done by Edwards, in
his definitions of sin and holiness. "All sin is selfishness;" and
"All holiness or virtue is disinterested benevolence." The holiness of
God is the consummate attribute, comprehensive of all the moral perfections of
the divine nature. If this all-embracing attribute is adequately described by
disinterested benevolence, it is manifest that the divine character is divested
of every moral perfection not included in this definition. If disinterested
benevolence covers and controls the whole case, then, justice and truth are
subordinate, and their exercise must be determined, not by their own several
claims, but by the demands of benevolence. In a word, they are excluded from
among the essential attributes of God. The divine administration, determined by
disinterested benevolence, may sometimes seem to conform to their requirements,
but may also utterly disregard them, if benevolence should require it. The
doctrine, therefore, that God is "a just God and an avenger," means
nothing, and is ignored; whilst the fact that he" is of great
kindness" is supposed to determine every issue in his moral government.
Now, whilst it is true that
the loving-kindness of God is largely insisted on in his Word, it is also true
that his truth and justice or righteousness are exhibited as entirely distinct
from the other, and every way as essential, conspicuous and prevalent, in
determining the plans and administration of the Most High. If mercy goes before
his face, it is in the companionship of truth; while justice and judgment are
the habitation of his throne. And the whole problem of the gospel was, to
discover how God could be just, and yet good to men; and its glory is that on
behalf of sinners, mercy and truth have met together, righteousness and peace
have kissed each other, in the Lord Jesus Christ.
As relating to systematic
theology, Edwards' definitions were effectual, in the hands of his son, the
younger Edwards, in essentially modifying the doctrines of the atonement and
justification. On this subject, three sermons, preached by him, were of signal
importance. “They did much toward changing the previously common mode of
thinking and teaching, on the subject; and led to the adoption of those
consistent and scriptural views," says Dr. Pond, "which have since
generally prevailed among the evangelical clergy of New England."
The
discourses, which occupy so important a position in the history of New England
doctrines, have in view the obviating of a Socinian objection, which the author
thus states: "If we be, in the literal sense, forgiven, in consequence of a
redemption, we are forgiven on account of the price of redemption, previously
paid. How, then, can we truly be said to be forgiven;
a word which implies the exercise of grace? And, especially, how can we be
said to be forgiven, according to the riches
of grace? This is, at least, a seeming inconsistency. If our forgiveness be
purchased, and the price already paid, it seems to be a matter of debt and not
of grace."
To this, the true and
scriptural answer is found in the words of Christ, "I and My Father are
one." True, justice is fully satisfied; the debt is paid; and so,
justification is by process of law, at the tribunal of justice. But it is God
who has paid the debt. And, not content, merely to blot out the handwriting. of
condemnation, not satisfied with a mere removal of the curse, he has procured
for us a perfect righteousness, not only sufficient to secure acquittal at the
bar, but to confer a full title to life and glory. And is not this riches of
grace? "He hath raised us up together and made us sit together, in heavenly
places, in Christ Jesus; that, in the ages to come, he might show the exceeding
riches of his grace, in his kindness toward us, through Christ Jesus."
The objection was
anticipated and answered by the Westminster divines. But, in the estimation of
Dr. Edwards, there is no grace, if the law and justice of God are satisfied.
Justice, he discriminates as of three kinds. The first is commutative justice, "which respects property and matters of
commerce, solely; and secures to every man his own property." But, although
the Scriptures use the terms, redemption, ransom, bought with a price, these
"are metaphorical expressions, and therefore not literally and exactly
true. We had not deprived God of his property; we had not robbed the treasury of
heaven. God was possessed of as much property, after the fall as before; the
universe and the fullness
thereof still remained his. Therefore, when Christ made satisfaction, he
refunded no property."
Does this mean, that there
can be no property in anything that does not have a money value? And, that there
can be no debt. nor payment that is not pecuniary? Do we owe God nothing at all?
Commutative justice is, of course, by Dr. Edwards, put out of the account.
Christ paid no money for us.
The second kind of justice,
named by Edwards, is distributive justice,
by which a man is treated according to his personal character or conduct.
"Nor is distributive justice satisfied. If it were, there would be no more
grace in the discharge of the sinner, than there is in the discharge of a
criminal, when he bath endured the full punishment, to which, according to law,
he had been condemned."
If, then, the judge were to
take the condemned criminal's place, in the dungeon, that the transgressor may
go free, there would be no grace in this!
The third kind of justice,
is general or public justice, and comprehends all moral goodness. "To
practice justice in this sense, is to practice agreeably to .the dictates of
general benevolence." This it is, which, according to Dr. Edwards, is
satisfied in the atonement of Christ. But of this third kind of justice, he
states that "as this is improperly called justice, as it comprehends all
moral goodness, it is not at all opposed to grace; but comprehends that, as well
as every other virtue; as, truth, faithfulness, meekness, forgiveness,
patience," etc. So, then, this all-comprehending grace, of general, or
disinterested, benevolence, does not include justice, properly so called. To
save appearances, the name is given to an attribute, to which Edwards admits it
does not belong. It is not justice; and
that attribute is formally excluded from the scheme, as inconsistent with grace.
The end of the whole matter is, either, that justice is not an attribute of God;
or, that, in the salvation of men, by the blood of Christ, violence is done to
it, and for ever, even in heaven, must the blood-bought throng be under its
frown. In either case, justice is excluded from any part in the administration
of God. "Justice and judgment are" no longer "the habitation of
his throne!" Then, woe, to the universe! woe to his own people!
To this theory of the
atonement, Dr. N, S. S. Beman is fully committed; while it, more or less
pervades and enfeebles all the writings of Mr. Barnes, on the subject.
The New Divinity, by
degrees, spread through the churches of New England, during the closing years of
the last, and the first quarter of the present century. Then arose the school at
New Haven, for the propagation of the system, developed by the professors there;
and it is a significant fact, that the first formal announcement of a new school
of doctrine, by those divines, addressed a challenge to the optimists of the
prevalent school, to justify themselves in assuming that God could prevent all
sin in a moral system. Thus, the fatalism, which was involved in. the Edwardean
theory of divine efficiency, induced a recoil to the opposite extreme, in the
assertion of the Pelagian heresy of free‑will; and, by both, the whole
system of biblical theology was corrupted, with doctrines having no pretence,
even, to a scriptural basis; but growing wholly out of false philosophy.
The divines of New Haven
found, in the very heart of the Hopkinsian system, some of the fundamental and
most efficient principles of the Pelagian heresy—That Adam was not the cause
of his posterity; that, consequently, they were not in him, in the covenant;
that they are not, therefore, punishable for the first sin; nor is depravity
derived from him to them; and, that sin consists, only, in exercise, or action.
Accepting these, as unquestionable principles, and recoiling, with just
abhorrence, from the idea that God is the author of men's sins, they adopted the
alternative, deducible from the same premises; and concluded that men are
created without moral character; and that their depravity and sins are the
result of circumstances, and beyond the control of God; and that regeneration is
the effect of moral suasion, and not wrought by the immediate agency of the
Spirit of God.
Boldly repudiating the
system of "constituted" relations and fictitious intendments, which
the Hopkinsians generally insisted on, the New Haven school, openly and
unequivocally, denied Adam to have been the representative of his race, or
Christ of his people. They held that every man comes into the world in the same
moral and legal attitude in which Adam was created., Each one sins and falls,
for himself, by his own free will. Christ
died, not as a legal substitute for his people, a vicarious expiation for their
sins, but as an exhibition of the love of God to sinners, and a display
of the evil of sin, its just desert, and the goodness of God, in passing it by;
so that, consistently with the welfare of the universe, he may forgive sin.
Thus, the sinner is pardoned, and not justified; sin is forgiven not blotted
out; and justice is waived, not satisfied, Again, inasmuch as man's free will
sins, and can sin, in spite of God's opposing power, it follows, that the
regeneration and conversion of the sinner are beyond the power of the Spirit of
God. All he can do, is to present the motives to the sinner's mind, which should
induce him to turn from his sins. The rest must be the product of man's free
will. Regeneration is, therefore, to be accomplished only by means of moral
suasion. Man is thus induced to exert his own powers, which are altogether
adequate to turn from sin unto God.
Such is the nexus of the system, the seeds of which were planted in the theology of New England by the genius of Edwards. Germinating under the stimulus given by his writings to metaphysical speculations in theology, the scheme has reached a position where it is impossible to remain, and, upon which, logically, the only advance can be to the open adoption of the more specious heresy of Arius, or the avowed Deism of Socinus. Already, an infinite atoning Priest and King and an almighty Renewer and Sanctifier are eliminated from the system; and the divinity of the Son and Spirit of God, although acknowledged, is meaningless and inane. The whole history, is a mere rehearsal, in slightly modified form, of the process through which the Church of Geneva, the English Presbyterians and the non-subscribers of Ulster, in the eighteenth century and the nineteenth, passed; and from whence they plunged into the abyss of apostasy. Such, in fact, was the result of the ministry of the younger Edwards, himself; who was, by many, held to have been as much the author of the Hopkinsian system as was he whose name it bears. For twenty-six years, Edwards ministered to a church in New Haven; and was then constrained to leave, by the prevalence of Unitarian and other fatal heresies among his people, the proper fruits of a quarter of a century's training in the new theology.
