NYPL RESEARCH LIBRARIES
3 3433 07954955
ESSAYS AND liE VIEWS.
CHARLES HODCtE, D.D.
SELECTED FROM THE PRINCETON REVIEW.
NEW YORK:
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS,
No. 530 BROAD W A Y.
~1857
El tered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Sonthem
District of New York,
STKBEOTYPETl BY
THOMAS )!. SMITH,
â– ii & Si Ucrikiuau-st., N.Y.
PEIN'TBIi KT
E. O. JEN KIN'S,
â– 28 Frankfort-st., N.Y.
6. Ji. THOMSON,
BIN DEB,
82 & 84 Beekman-st., N.V.
CONTENTS.
Page
I. — Regeneration l
n. — SrUAET ON THE ROMANS 49
III. — The Latest PoRii of Inpidelitt 8T
rv. — Beman ox the Atonement 129
V. — Ground of Faith in the Scriptures 185
VI. — Theories of the Church 201
VII. — Is the Church op Rome a part of the Visible Church? 221
VIII. — ^Finney's Lectures on Theology 245
IX. — Support op the Clergy 285
X. BUSHNELL ON CHRISTIAN NURTURE SO.'!
XL — Doctrine op the Reformed Church on the Lord's Supper 341
XII. — ^Responsibilities op Boards of Missions 393
Xm. — God in Christ 433
XTV.— Slavery 473
XV. — Emancipation 513
XVI. — The Theology of the Intellect and that op the Feelings. —
Article 1 539
XVn. — The Theology of the Intellect and that op the Feelings. —
Article II 5T1
XVIII. — The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings. —
Article III 613
I.
REGENERATION/
Voltaire, in one of his historical works, sneeringly inquires,
" How were the priests employed while the Saracens were deso-
lating the fairest portion of their church ?" " Disputing," he
answers, " whether Christ has one will or two !" It will be well,
if the theologians of the nineteenth century do not furnish occa-
sion to some future infidel historian for a similar taunting
remark. There is scarcely any subject in the history of the
church which is more humiliating than that of theological dis-
cussions of this nature. The evil appears to have arisen early,
for Paul, in his Epistles to Timothy, repeatedly and earnestly
exhorts him "not to strive about words to no profit," but to
avoid " foolish questions which gender strifes." Yet not a
century has passed from that day to this, w^hich has not been
disturbed and disgraced by disputes fairly within the apostle's
description. That there are serious evils attending controversies
of this character, no one will deny. They bring discredit on
religion ; they alienate brethren who should live together in love ;
they call off the attention from the practical duties of benevo-
lence and piety ; and they are, from their nature, destructive of
the spirit of true religion. These disputes, in nine cases out of
ten, turn, not on the correct exposition of the Bible, but on the
decision of some point in mental or moral science. Philosophy,
instead of being the handmaid of religion, has become the
mistress of theology. This is a fact deeply to be lamented.
The subjects, we admit, are so nearly alHed, that they cannot be
' Published in 1830, in review of " Regeneration and the Manner of its Occurrence.
A Sermon from John v. 24. Treached at the opening of the Synod of Now York, ia
Rutger's-street Church, on Tuesday evening, October 20, by Samuel H. Cox, D. D.,
Pastor of the Laight-street Presbjrterian Church." — Princeton Review.
1
2 RE GENERATION.
kept entirely distinct ; still, theology miglit have, and ought to
have, much less of a philosophical, and more of an exegetical
character than it has commonly assumed. The predominance of
the former, over the latter element in theology, has heen un-
questionably one of the most prolific sources of evil to the
church. What is Pelagianism, Arminianism, or almost any
other ism, but a particular system of religious philosophy ? And
what are the questions which now alienate and divide Christians
in this country, but questions in mental or moral science ? If a
man tells you his theory of virtue, you need ask no questions
about his theology. Hence it is that these diversities of opinion
are in a great measure confined to professed theologians, clergy-
men, or laymen. The views which ordinary Christians, under
the guidance of common sense and sanctified feeling, take of
divine truth, are, in all ages and countries, very nearly the same.
Nor does it seem to us correct to say, that common sense is
nothing more than the popularized results of philosophical spec-
ulations, because we find it the same in countries where entirely
difierent systems of philosophy have for ages prevailed. Look at
G-ermany and England for an illustration. The philosophical
theologians of these countries differ toto ccelo in their views.
They have hardly a single principle in common. But how is it
with common Christians ? They are as much united in opinion
as they are in feeling. And why ? Because their opinions are
formed from the Bible, under the guidance of the Spirit, and the
infliuence of those essential and consequently universal principles
of our nature, which it has been the grand result of phiLisophy
to sophisticate and pervert. Is all philosophy then to be pro-
scribed ? By no means. The very statements Ave have made
demonstrate its importance. If a man's speculative opinions do
thus influence his views of religious truth and duty, it is a
matter of unspeakable moment that these opinions should be
correct. And, in a multitude of cases, the only means of pre-
venting the cA-ils which flow from erroneous principles, is to show
the flxllacy of the principles them.selves. Besides, all truth is
harmonious, whether taught in the word of God or learned from
the constitution of our own nature, and in itself there can be no
subject more worthy of accurate knowledge, than that mysterious
and immortal principle which was created in the image of God.
All this we cheerfully admit. At the same thne the undeniable
EEGENEEATION. St
fact, that systems of philosophy have heen as changeable as the
wind ; that each in its turn has been presented, urged, and
adopted with the utmost confidence ; and each in its measure
perverted the simple truths of the Bible, should teach us to be
modest. We should learn to separate the human from the
divine element in our theology, and to be careful not to clothe
the figments of our own miuds witli the awful authority of God,
and denounce our brethren {or not believing him when they do
not agree with us. We should learn not to ascribe to men opin-
ions which, according to our notions, may be inferred from the
principles which they avow. This is an impropriety of very
frequent occurrence, and of which we think we have great
reason to complain in the sermon before us. To state what
appears to us to be fair deductions from principles assumed, as
arguments against them, is one thing ; but to charge those who
hold these principles with holding our deductions, is a very dif-
ferent afiair.
With regard to the author of this sermon, we can truly say
that we entertain for him the highest respect. We love his
honesty. AVe admire the frankness and decision with which he
always avows his opinions. We rejoice to see that there is little
of that evil spirit in the discourse, which so often converts inves-
tigations of truth into angry disputations. But while we give
Dr. Cox full credit for sincerity, and acquit him of entertaining
any bad feeling toward his brethren, wo still think that he is
chargeable with grossly misrepresenting their opinions, and hold-
ing them up to a contempt and reprobation due only to his
ackno\vledged caricature. We refer specially to page G of the
Introduction, where, after stating that there are certain dogmas,
"some of them not proved, or even suspected by those who
employ them," which have a tendency " to solace the sinner in
his distance from Christ," and " excuse his disobedience to the
gospel, and which ought to be rejected as false and ruinous," he
â– gives the following specifications :
" A man has no ability to do his duty,
" Where the means of grace are purely and abundantly vouchsafed, by the
, sovereign goodness of Providence, a man can do nothing for, but can only
counteract, his own salvation ; having no abOity, even if he had the incUnation,
to believe the gospel and be saved.
" The wickedness of men consists ia physical defect or cUsorganization of the
4 REGENERATION.
faculties of the soul, so that total depravity and physical depravity are nearly
synonymous, and both equally true.
" Regeneration is the implantation of a certain hind of 'principle of holiness,'
which is incapable of definition or demonstration, and has no connection with
human consciousness ; which precedes all active mental hohness, and is antece-
dent also to all ' the fruit of the Spirit,' as specified in the New Testament, ia
the susception and sustentation of which tlie Creator is sole as well as sovereign
agent ; man no agent at all, but only a passive receiver, an unconscious subject
of the mysterious gratuity ; and which is the happy contrary of a principle of
sin, which is concreated with us, and is the permanent fund of all our depravity,
in which also we are passive — though quite active in exercising all the wicked-
ness wliich flows (full copiously) from such an inserted fountain, and which has
its residence and location somewhere in the texture of the soul, which is itself a
very wicked thing somehow physiologically, in the very nature of it, antecedent
to any agency at all of ours.
" Eegeneration consists in some secret physical motion of the soul, which
restores its dislocated powers, and cures the connatural diseases of its texture ;
since the work of the Creator, as such, is not ' good,' but lays the foundation in
the yerj entity of the soul for all its overt wickedness, and for the necessity of
regeneration.
" The soul is passive, entirely joassive, and God the sole agent of regeneration.
*' The means of grace, and the gospel itself, are in no sense moral causes of
regeneration ; since their important use is merely to illustrate the strength of an
invincible depravity, to make the sinner worse and worse, tUl he is physically
regenerated, and then to signalize the prodigious efforts and labors of Omnipo- "
tence, in this department of constant miracle-working: — as if there were no
considerable difference between dividing the Eed Sea sj^mbolically by the rod
of Moses, and conciliating the human mind by the revealed glories of the ever-
lasting gospel !
" It is wrong to require a sinner in the name of God to repent immediately,
and believe the gospel, and to urge him to tliis as the only way of salvation.
" The ofibr of salvation is not made to every hearer ; or, if it be, to accept it is
impracticable, and to require this of the sinner, wanton and absurd.
" If there is a universal offer in the gospel, it is founded, not on the atone-
ment of Jesus Cluist at all, but only on the ministerial commission ; or on human
ignorance of whom the elect are ; or it has no moral foundation ; 9r it is only
man's offer and not God's ; or it is a matter of mere sovereignty, and so insolu-
ble ; or it is an offer in form, and in fact no offer or overture at all; and tliis,
although there is no salvation known to the gospel but that of our Lord Jesus
Christ as an atoning Saviour. — Prov. i. 20-33 ; Luke xiv. 24 ; Acts iv. 12, xiii.
26, 46."
The doctor then says, " If I have caricatured these dogmas, I
have done so intentionally ; but only by representing them as
they are, and making the reality govern the appearance." It is
not probable that Dr. Cox, in \vriting these paragraphs, had any
one class of theologians exclusively in his eye ; because some of
KEGENERATION. 5
•"' these dogmas " are iuconsistent with cacli other. We have no
doubt, liowever, that most of what is here stated, was intended
as an exhibition of the doctrines of the old Calvinists (sit venia
verbo). Our reason for thinking- so is, that we are accustomed
to see such, and even still more gross misrepresentations of these
doctrines, though, we acknowledge, not often from such men as
Dr. Cox. It is, however, notorious that this class of theologians
are constantly represented as maintaining that " man has no
ability, even if he had the inclination, to believe the gospel and
be saved," — that man's depravity " is a physical defect," — that
regeneration is " a physical change," etc. Representations have
been made of these doctrines which vv'e had supposed no man,
who felt the obligation " of interpreting language in conformity
with the known and declared nature of the thino' described,"
could ever allow himself to make. Belonging as we do to the
class, which for the sake of convenience and distinction we have
called old Calvinists, we feel ourselves aggrieved by such repre-
sentations, and called upon to show that no such doctrines can
be fairly imputed to tlie elder Calvinists. It will not be expected
that in a single article we should go over the formidable list
presented by Dr. Cox. We shall, for the present at least, con-
fine ourselves to the doctrine of this sermon, and show that the
old standard Calvinistic authors expressly disclaim the opinions
here imputed to them, and that they are not fairly dedncible
from any of the principles which they avow. Should we entirely
fail as to the second j)oint, it would still be very unjust to charge
men with holding doctrines which they constantly disclaim,
because we consider them as flowing from their principles.
The two main points of Dr. Cox's sermon are, first, that
regeneration is a moral, in distinction from a physical change ;
and secondly, that it occurs in a manner perfectly accordant with
the active jjowers of the soul. We use the word physical, not as
synonymous with natural, but in the sense in which it is used in
this sermon, implying something referring to the substance or
essence. By physical regeneration in this sense, is intended a
change in the essence or essential properties of the soul, or, in
the language of Dr. Cox, an influence by which " the connatui-al
diseases in the texture of the soul are healed." Our object is to
show that Dr. Cox has misrepresented the views of his brethren
on this subject ; that they hold to no change in the substance of
6 REGENERATION.
the soul nor in any of its essential properties, hut unifonnly
teach that the change is a moral one, and takes place in a manner
perfectly congruous to the nature of a rational and active heing.
We appeal to the language and doctrines of all the old Cahdn-
istic divines, in support of this assertion.
Charnock, in his discourse on regeneration, contained in Vol.
II. of the folio edition of his works, proposes in the first place to
state in reference to the nature of this change, what it is not. On
page 72 he says, " It is not a removal or taking away of the old
substance or faculties of the soul. Some thought that the sub-
stance of Adam's soul was corrupted when he sinned, therefore
suppose the substance of his soul to be altered when he is
renewed. Sin took not away the essence but the rectitude ; the
new creation, therefore, gives not a new faculty but a new qual-
ity." Who the " some " were, to whom Charnock refers as
holding that the substance of Adam's soul was corrupted by the
fall, we know not ; all we know is, that such is not the doctrine
of any respectable body of Calvinists, nor of any standard writer
on the subject. The only man of whom we have heard who
taught this doctrine, was Flaccius Illyricus, Professor at Jena,
and a pupil of Luther ; but we know, too, that his opinions on
this subject were condemned, almost without a dissenting voice,
by the reformed theologians of Germany and England.
On the 73d page, Charnock says expressly, " the essence and
faculties remain the same." " The passions and affections are
.the same as to the substance and nature of the acts ; but the
difference lies in the objects." " When a man loves God, or
fears God, or loves man, or fears man, it is the same act of love
and the same act of fear ; there are the same motions of the
soul, the same substantial acts simply considered," etc. " This
new^ creation is not a destruction of the substance of the soul,
but there is the same physical being, and the same faculties in
all, and nothing is changed in its substance as it respects the
nature of man." — P. 85. We have here a most explicit disa-
vowal of the doctrine of physical regeneration in the sense in
which Dr. Cox represents the old Calvinists as liolding it.
As to the manner in which this work is effected, he remarks,
in the first place, that " it is a secret w^ork, and therefore diffi-
cult to explain." " Yet, secondly, this is evident, that it is
rational, that is, congruous to the essential nature of man. God
REGENERATION". 7
does not deal with us as beasts or as creatures destitute of sense,
but as creatures of an intelligent order. Who is there that
believes in Christ, as heavy things fall to the earth, or as beasts
run at the beck of their sensual appetites without rule or
reason ?" — P. 217. " God that requires of us a reasonable ser-
vice, would work upon us by a reasonable operation. God therefore
works by the way of a spiritual illumination of the understanding,
in propounding the creature's happiness by arguments and reasons;
and in the way of a spiritual impression on the will, moving it
sweetly to embrace that happiness, and the means to it which
he doth propose ; and indeed without this work preceding, the
motion of the will could never be regular." — P. 218.
In speaking more particularly of the direct operation of the
Holy Spirit on the will, his first proposition is, that there is such
an influence; second, that "this work, though immediate, is
not compulsive. It is a contradiction for the will to be moved
unwillingly ; any force upon it destroys its nature. It is not
forced because it is according to reason, and the natural motion
of the creature ; the understanding proposing and the will em-
bracing ; the understanding going before with light, the will
following after with love." " The will being a rational facultv,
cannot be wrought upon but rationally." — P. 221.
The instrumentality of the truth in regeneration is strongly
asserted by all old Calvinists. Charnock says, " that to make an
alteration in us according to our nature of understanding, will,
and affections, it is necessary there should be some declaration of
things under those considerations of true, good, and delightful, in
the highest manner, to make a choice change in every faculty of
the soul ; and without this a man cannot be changed as a
rational creature," etc. — P. 233. " The word operates, first,
objectively, as it is a declaration of the will of God, and present-
ing the objects of all holy acts ; and secondly it has an active
force. It is operative in the hand of God for sanctification."
" The Spirit doth so edge the word that it cuts to the quick,
discerns the very thoughts, insinuates into the depths of the
heart," etc. — P. 235. " To conclude, the promise in the word
breeds principles in the heart suitable to itself ; it shows God a
Father, and raises up principles of love and reverence ; it shows
Christ a Mediator, and raises up faith and desire. Christ in the
word conceives Christ in the heart, Christ in the word the begin-
8 REGENERATION.
ning of grace, conceives Christ in tlie heart the hope of gloiy." — •
P. 236. The use of the word in regeneration is surely, according
to this view, something more than "the rod of Moses stretched
out over the Ked Sea." We presume, however, that the para-
graph in which Dr. Cox denounces the opinion that the means of
grace have no tendency to produce holiness, was designed for a
different quarter. Old Calvinists have generally been charged
with laying too much stress on the use of means.
Charnock was by no means singular in the views here express-
ed. Living as he did in the days of the Puritan ascendancy in
England, the companion of Owen, Goodwin, Burgess, Bates, and
many others of the same class, he was united with them in
opinion as well as in labors.
Owen, in his work on the Spirit, when speaking of regenera-
tion, lays down the follo\^ang proposition (page 270 of the folio
edition). " In whom or toward whomsoever the Holy Spirit
puts forth his power, or the acts of his grace for their regenera-
tion, it removes all obstacles, overcomes all opposition, and
infallibly produces the effect intended." But how is this done ?
Is it by changing the substance of the soul, or violating any of
the laws of its being ? The words which immediately follow,
and which arc intended to explain this general proposition, con-
tain the answer. " The power which the Holy Spirit puts forth
in our regeneration, is such in its actings or exercise, as our
minds, will, and affections are suited to be wrought upon, and to
be affected by, according to their natures and natural operations.
He doth neither act in them any otherwise than they themselves
are meet to be moved and to move, to be acted and to act,
according to their own nature, power, and ability. He draws us
with the cords of a man, and the work itself is expressed by a
persuading; ' Grod persuade Jai:)het;" I will allure her into the
wilderness and speak comfortably ;' for, as it is certainly effect-
ual, so it carries no more repugnancy to our faculties than a
prevalent persuasion doth." One can hardly imagine how men
who use such language can be charged with holding a " physical
regeneration," by which " connatural diseases of the texture of
the soul" are cured, Owen proceeds to say, secondly, that the
Holy Spirit " doth not in our regeneration possess the mind with
any enthusiastical impressions : but he works in the minds of
men on and by their own natural actings, through an immediate
REGENERATION. 9
influence and impression of bis power. ' Create in me a clean
heart, God.' He worketh to will and to do. Thirdly, he
therefore ofi'ers no violence or compulsion to the will. This that
faculty is not naturally capable to give admission unto. If it be
compelled it is destroyed." And again on the next page, " The
Holy Spirit, who in his power and ojjeration is more intimate, as
it were, unto the principles of our souls than they are to them-
selves, doth with the preservation and in the exercise of the
liberty of our "wiUs, effectually work our regeneration and conver-
sion unto Grod. This is the substance of what we have to plead
for in this cause, and which declares the nature of this work of
regeneration, as it is an inward spiritual work."
Bates's view of the manner in w^hich this change is effected, is
the same with that of Owen. In the fourth volume of his works
(octavo edition), page 140, he says, " The effectual operation of
grace does not violate the native freedom of the will, but is
congruous to it. God's drawing is by teaching : ' every one who
hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me.' When
the Author of the gospel is a teacher of it, the most stupid and
obstinate sinners shall be convinced and obedient." Again :
" God draws sinners to himself ' with the cords of a man,' in a
rational way, without violence to their faculties, and fastens
them by the bonds of love." In another place. Vol. II., page
298, he says, " The Holy Spirit does not work grace in us, as the
sun forms gold in the earth, without any sense in ourselves of his
operations : but we feel them in all our faculties congruously to
their nature, enlightening the mind, exciting the conscience,
turning the will, and purifying the affections."^
The opinions of the reformed, or Calvinistic divines of Germany
and Holland, were the same on these points as those of the
Calvinists of England. Turrettin, Theol. Elenct. loc. 15, qurest.
4, § 14, says, "Gratia^ efficacis motio non est simpliciter physica,
quia agitur de facultate morali, qua3 congruenter natura; sute
moveri debet ; nee simpliciter ethica, quasi Deus objective solum
ageret ct Icni suasione uteretur, quod pertendebant Pelagiani :
sed supernatm-alis est et divina, qu;B transcendit omnia hi\3C
genera." " Potens est, ne sit frustranea ; suavis est, ne sit
coacta. Vis est summa et inexpugnabilis ut vincatur naturas
corruptio et summa bene agentli impotentia ac male agendi
10 REGENERATION.
necessitas : sed arnica tamen et grata^ qiialis naturam iiitelli-
gentem et rationalem decet."
The Synod of Dort, in order to prevent any misa,pprehension
of their views of efficacious grace, as though it were inconsistent