Review of a Defense of Hopkinsianism in the Presbyterian Church.
James Dodson
[from The Evangelical Guardian and Review, Vol. I. No. 8. December, 1817. p. 350-364.]
Letters concerning the Plan of Salvation, as deduced from the Scriptures: addressed to the Members of the Presbyterian Church, Spring-street, New-York, by MATTHEW LA RUE PERRINE, A.M. Pastor of the said Church. New-York, published by Dodge & Sayre. 1816. 12mo. pp. 236. price 75 cents bound.[1]
THE work before us, is one of those publications which have been made in the city of New-York, as a combined and systematic attack upon the old Calvinistic doctrines, and the reputation of some of their most distinguished public advocates. The design of gaining the City, as they had already succeeded in gaining a majority in the Presbytery of New-York, seems to have been the object of gentlemen of the Hopkinsian School, in those various writings of which the TRIANGLE was by far the most able, and the most abusive. Some of those productions have already passed under review: and we have also taken notice of the state both of the parties and the controversy, pages 72—75 of this volume. [McLeod’s earlier Review of the Hopkinsian errors.]
The Hopkinsian publications, hitherto made in this city, have not, however, been calculated to make a very favourable impression upon the religious community. Deficient, alike in liberal discussion and in honourable feeling, they have little more to recommend them to attention than a characteristic confidence, and a virulence which is only adapted to the more ungenerous passions. The Authors, nevertheless, have endeavoured to exhibit themselves to the compassion of their fellow-citizens, as if they were the aggrieved party, and that too, at a time, when perhaps the recollection of their existence did not occur to the writers whom they affect to oppose, and when certainly their names were not mentioned, nor their persons alluded to in the composition of those works which they have been attempting to condemn. As it respects verbal animadversions and oral traditions, we have nothing to observe, except that it is highly probable many remarks may have, in that manner, been made on those persons who changed their opinions in favour of the New Divinity, and upon the different principles of the new system itself.
The Reverend Matthew La Rue Perrine certainly did hear something of this kind; and what he heard must have been of a touching description: otherwise so amiable and innocent a man, as we believe him to be, never would have displayed, in his appeal to the press, so much wounded sensibility, and so much bitterness, towards his immediate ecclesiastical connexions, as are apparent in the fifteen letters which are announced at the head of this Article. It might indeed have been expected that, in a city, in which men are permitted to exercise freedom of thought and of expression upon religious as well as other subjects, persons would be found to animadvert upon the conduct of a Pastor, who avowed, like Mr. Perrine, an important change with regard to those principles, upon the footing of which he was called by the people, and settled by the Presbytery, as the Bishop of the Church in Spring-street.
To such remarks he alludes with no pleasant feelings.
“I was informed that many unkind and reproachful things were circulated concerning the doctrines taught in this Church—and by persons in communion with the Presbyterian Church.” The attentions passed without public animadversion upon “these talkers—concluding that if nothing else, their own conscious ignorance would soon have stopped their mouths. I was born of those who gloried in the Presbyterian faith; and in this faith was I instructed from my mother’s breast. I must own I have had occasion to alter my mode of thinking on some points—it would not be honest to with hold this confession. I remember, in contemplating the Atonement of Christ formerly, I formed some indistinct ideas of his being so substituted in the place of the elect as that their sins were transferred to him—unanswerable difficulties attend the idea of a legal substitution and transfer.”[2]
Perhaps, however, the change in the Author’s own sentiments, and even the unkind remarks of the ignorant Calvinists, could not have moved him to the mighty effort of a duodecimo, had there not been greater men involved with him in the same censure. No: too disinterested to take the pen in mere self-defense, and too full of impartial love to indulge animosity for the support of his own party, it was the vast quantity of actual being, possessed by other Hopkinsians in the city, which roused to action the pure benevolence of their recent proselyte.
“The writer doest not suppose any would ever have noticed him or his little flock in this manner, if there had not been others in the city with whom it was supposed he in some measure agreed in sentiment—and no doubt it was the standing and influence of others, more deserving of having evil spoken against them, falsely, for their Master’s sake, that particularly excited them.” [Pp. 4, 5.]
With this account of the moving cause, as the Schoolmen would say, he gives us, in another place, a statement of the ultimate—himself the efficient cause of this book of letters.
“My object is not—to complain of our neighbours in a peevish or pitiful manner—to return railing for railing; nor to teach you how to reproach; nor to show how you may in your turn accuse your accusers. No: it is to DEMONSTRATE—that you are taught the way of salvation as presented to us in the oracles of truth, and as recognized in the excellent standards of the Presbyterian Church.” [P. 16.]
The object is presented, 1. Negatively—2. Positively: and the positive is to be DEMONSTRATED. All this we think commendable: but verily, if the Author has failed, as much in the latter as he has done in the former—if he has failed in doing what he proposed to do, as much as he has prevailed in doing what he proposed to leave undone, he must be considered as rather an unsuccessful undertaker. If the demonstration of his doctrines be as incomplete as the promised abstinence from “peevish or pitiful complaint, from accusation or reproach,” the avowed object of the Reverend Pastor is not yet accomplished.
That Mr. Perrine has succeeded, to admiration, in effecting all that he promised not to do, will appear from the following specimen of epithets and accusations with which his letters are liberally interspersed.
“Supposing that these talkers would not have formed their opinions from what they had heard themselves—concluding that, if nothing else, their own conscious ignorance would soon have stopped their mouths.—The persons who have awakened your fears, and have interrupted your peace, are to be pitied as much as revered. They only try to frighten you, that they may laugh at your credulity. I have seen that many modes of reasoning, employed by good men in support of it (the system of grace) are futile, yea, destructive of this precious doctrine. If a rotten argument is become old surely we may call in question its solidity. I have dreamed, as I know others have, of a commercial transaction, when they have read and heard of sinners being ransomed. The fact is those who adopt this interpretation vim at little as possible to be said about the influence or efficacy of faith. They are not pleased with the language of our standards on this subject—They are in great difficulty to know what to make of it (faith). Extremely unwilling are they to speak of any holiness in man—they make faith in the Holy Jesus, yea, that act which unites the soul to him, an unholy, an ungodly act—they make faith to consist in believing I am elected.” [Pp. 3, 6, 12, 13, 62, 170, 210, 216.]
Such general representations of his Presbyterian brethren frequently occur in the letters of Mr. Perrine, together with some particular and equally appropriate reflections upon the sentiments of the Rev. Dr. J[ohn] B. Romeyn, and the doctrines of the Christian’s Magazine, edited by Doctors [John Mitchell] Mason and Romeyn.
It is a pity, for his own sake, and for the sake of the general interests of religion, which always suffer with the reputation of its ministers, that he permitted himself to deal so freely in misrepresentation. Had it even sufficed him to describe the Calvinistic reasonings as futile and destructive of precious doctrine, or as rotten arguments, although this would not have been very courteous, it would have been tolerable; and might have passed without reprehension. Nay, had he only represented the men as ignorant, and dreaming of commercial transactions, as he confesses himself to have been when called and settled in the Spring-street Church, it would not have been quite so unbecoming one, who is just awakened by new light, as to assure his congregation that their Christian connexions are withal so unprincipled as to “try to frighten them” in order to make sport of their credulity. We are, besides, apprehensive that not a few of his readers will suspect, that there is something bordering on a breach of the ninth commandment, in the witness which he bears against his neighbours, in the concluding sentences of our quotation. There are no Calvinists, certainly, in. New-York, who wish to say little about the influence of faith—who profess displeasure at the language of our standards—who are unwilling to speak of holiness, or to urge its necessity—who describe faith as an ungodly act, or as an intellectual assent to the proposition “ I am elected.”
So much we thought it proper to say concerning the success, of the letter-writer, in the NEGATIVE part of his undertaking. The POSITIVE part is the most difficult task—To demonstrate that his people are taught the way of salvation as presented in the Bible. His failure, in the part which required only not doing, is, to be sure, no great encouragement to expect success in a task, which is so very difficult as to identify Hopkinsian tenets with revealed truth. We would not cherish the idea that Mr. Perrine failed intentionally, nor permit our readers to suspect his integrity as a Christian. We had rather believe that he labours under a capital defect. But if this be the case, we would expect previously to very minute examination, a more complete failure in the positive part of the Author’s undertaking. In DEMONSTRATIONS clearness of head is of all things most necessary. To him who would demonstrate even a theorem, and much more a very difficult problem, deficiency or crassitude of the cerebrum is more injurious than impurity of the centre of the sanguiferous system. In Mr. Perrine, particularly, it is an adventurous undertaking, to identify his own doctrines with those which are presented in the oracles of truth: for he has himself said, “it is supposed no one wishes to identify his own dogmas with the truths of God’s word—No, it is not to he supposed that anyone can be so ignorant or arrogant: should there be any so foolish and vain, it is high time they were known.” [P. 13. Note.]
Far be it from us to blame public instructors for endeavouring, with all diligence, to have their religious principles conformed to the heavenly instruction. Although we should unhesitatingly declare it presumption, in any man, to set his own words on a par with the word of the living God, we would not charge, even the Author, whose work is under review, with so gross a fault as that with which he appears to charge himself, in the above quotation, for representing his doctrine as the very plan of salvation. He proposed to demonstrate, that his congregation was taught, by him, the way of salvation as revealed: and after having finished his letters, he presents them to the Church, with a motto prefixed, which, if it have any meaning at all, indicates that Mr. Perrine would have his people receive his doctrine as truth—as the same with divinely-revealed truth. In his application of the words of the Apostle Peter to himself, “I have written briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand,” we have no doubt that he wished to have his own sentiments identified with the truths of Scripture, although we have to lament that, in many instances, they do not in fact happen to be the same.
It is troublesome to analyze this little volume. The Author, it is true, professes to give, in a table of contents, the subject of each letter; but we find, upon examination, that he is so much engaged in creating feeble phantoms, and in warily combating the phantoms of his own creation, that he loses himself, and leaves the reader frequently at a loss where to find him; that he says and gainsays ; that he utters many orthodox and many heterodox opinions; that he is by times at war with Hopkinsians, with Calvinists, with his own ecclesiastical standards, with himself, and with almost every other writer, and not unfrequently with the truths of God. It is obvious enough, that he inclines to the new divinity; but it is equally apparent that he has not entirely extricated himself from the faith of his Fathers. It seems as if he were lost in a mist, or led astray by the glare of a novel phraseology, which his mind, not of the most discriminating character, is incapable of understanding much better than he did the old Theological phraseology, upon which, in the days that are past, he tells us himself be was wont to dream.
We will, however, give a summary of the contents of these letters:
All spiritual blessings come from God to man by and through Jesus Christ: All temporal benefits flow through the same channel—In saying these blessings come by and through the Mediator, the meaning is, they are given in virtue of the merits of Christ’s obedience unto death: There is real merit in Christ’s holiness, obedience, and sufferings—The merit consists in two things: 1. Removing an obstacle to the exercise of divine benevolence; 2. Inclining God to save as many sinners as shall comport with that benevolence—Christ did not make atonement for the sins of any one; or, properly speaking, die for any of our race, either the whole or a part: the atonement is God’s own property; he made it for himself—All the blessings of salvation are suspended upon faith, a condition which unregenerate sinners are well able to perform: The essence of saving faith is approbation of the divine character, government, law, and gospel—Faith is not only necessary as are holiness and repentance, but has a positive influence in our salvation: It answers the same end as the atonement of Christ, and has the same kind of influence; for 1. it supports the divine law by obedience, and, 2. secures the divine favour by its friendship to Jesus Christ.
Lest our readers should be disposed to question the accuracy of this compendium, we subjoin the Author’s own words.
“All spiritual good experienced by any of the human family, is by and through Christ: all the blessings experienced by any of the children of men, are to be regarded as the gracious effects of his mediation. On this principle we account for the sun’s rising on the evil and the good, and for the rains descending on the just and unjust.” [P. 38.]
“The design of Christ’s shedding his blood was to put away the punishment of sin from those who believe, and to secure their holiness and eternal happiness—in such a sense that there is real merit in it. No other merit but what is found in his blood can procure the blessings of eternal life.” [46—51.]
“The merit of Christ’s death consists, in part, in supporting the authority of God’s law. Over and above this, it inclines the Father to save as many of the sinful race of men as shall comport with a due manifestation of his holiness and justice—we say, inclines God to save sinners of our race. We then clearly perceive the obstacle which stood in the way of God’s exercising kindness towards those who had rebelled against him. The Lord Jesus Christ having by his obedience onto death opened the way for the infinite God to act out the benevolence of his heart.” [P. 99, 105. compared with 91 and 101.]
“It is not correct, in the highest sense, to say, that Christ died for any of our race, for the whole, or for a part.—Strictly speaking the atonement is God's property wholly; he owns it, it is his; he made it for himself.” [117, 118.]
“God’s suspending our salvation on faith, an act which we have strength to perform, is kind, infinitely gracious. The life of saving faith is a hearty approbation of the government, law, and gospel of God.” [224, 231.]
“Faith has an influence in the Gospel scheme of salvation, a necessary influence; yea, as necessary an influence as the atonement of Christ. What he requires of men, in order to salvation, most answer in its place, the very same end which the atonement of Christ answered in its place. We have a clear discovery of the way in which faith operates in procuring the salvation of sinners—not only as it supports the authority of God’s law,—but it has an influence in securing the divine favour, as by it believers become the friends of the Lord Jesus Christ.” [130, 179, 184.]
Although, however, we find, in this summary, a few evangelical principles, as well as some heresy, and have also discovered several instances of sound doctrine in the illustrations, it is obvious that the greater part of the volume was intended to be occupied in drawing what we deem a caricature of Calvinistic principles, and in defending the leading Hopkinsian tenets, which, since the publication of Mr. Perrine’s letters, have been embodied, as the creed of the COXITES [i.e., those of the party of Samuel Hanson Cox], upon their secession from the Young Men’s Missionary Society of New-York.[3] That the guilt of Adam’s first sin is not imputed to his posterity,—that the unregenerate are as able to keep the commandments of God as to break them,—that such ability is necessary to moral obligation,—that the atonement of Christ is indefinite,—that believers are not, in their justification, accepted as righteous for the righteousness of Christ imputed to them,—and that the love of being, as such, is the sum of all holiness, are the leading principles in dispute. This review is already protracted too far to admit an examination of these doctrines; and we shall bring it to a close, after giving some specimens of Mr. Perrine’s numerous inconsistencies.
1. He teaches that God gave the elect to Christ in the everlasting covenant, as the reward of his death, and that the death of Christ has real merit; but he denies that Christ can claim as his due that reward, his own death, and both the promise and oath of God notwithstanding.
“No one blessing flows unto them as a matter of debt, in any form or way whatever. Their salvation cannot be of debt, even to Christ himself. Be careful to view the blood of Christ as possessing in itself a peculiar virtue or efficacy in procuring our salvation. There is real merit in it. He gives them all (the elect, the sheep) to Christ as a reward for his labours. The atonement of Christ inclines him (the Father) to save all that ought to be saved. It is not correct in the highest sense to say that Christ died for any of our race.” [Pp. 24, 49, 50, 101, 103, 117.]
2. Mr. Perrine, in order to set aside the doctrine of the imputation of our sins to Christ, says, p. 75. that “bearing our sins,” signifies suffering their punishment; but he denies, p. 78. that Christ did suffer the punishment due to our sins; and affirms, that the people of God are themselves punished. He asks triumphantly, “Can the law demand punishment from both the substitute, and from those for whom he was punished?”
3. He affirms, p. 105. and elsewhere, repeatedly, that “Christ’s death inclines God to save sinners of our race;” and as frequently affirms, as in p. 60, that God “felt towards sinners, after Christ’s death, precisely as he did before.” After he was inclined, he felt precisely as before he was inclined. Strange language!
4. In pp. 207 and 208, the author affirms that the covenant of grace is an expedient by which God determined prospectively, with respect to men, according to their personal characters; and that he did not determine on the acceptance of any, without taking into view their good character; and yet be denies that the divine decree depends on foreseen good works.
5. He positively affirms, page 209, “the Gospel is founded on the Law;” and in page 211, as positively affirms that “the Gospel method of acceptance is not founded on principles of law.”
6. Concerning faith he informs us, page 157, everything that concerns the condition or personal welfare of the believer, is merely a fruit of faith, and does not enter into the nature of it; yet he had described, in the preceding page, the exercises of faith, as loving God, grieving for sin, acquiescing in the plan of salvation, desiring the honour of Christ, cleaving to this anointed Saviour with firm confidence, and rejoicing in him. The author, moreover, challenges the Calvinists in regard to the mystical union, as if it were impossible to “tell plainly what union faith forms between Christ and believers that did not exist before;” [P. 171.] but afterward he found it convenient himself to say, “a new relation takes place between Christ and believers, which did not exist before they exercised faith in him. By it we also become one with Christ.” [Pp. 185, 187.]
We have done with his self-contradictions. These may serve as specimens of his talents at demonstration, as well as evidence of his success in proving that his people are taught, with peculiar accuracy, and without metaphysics, and without metaphor, the very plan of salvation revealed in the Scriptures.
We shall now show the reverend letter-writer, without any comment, in contrast with those standards to which he professes adherence.
Perrine’s Letters.
Confession and Catechism.
All that can be said on this subject consistently, is, that in consequence of our first parent’s sin, we have all gone astray, and are actually sinners,—we go astray as soon as we are born. Pp.86, 89.
I. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression. Larger Cat. Ques. 22.
He has as much power or strength to choose as to refuse, to love as to hate, to believe as to disbelieve. In fact, if he has faculties to refuse, he has to choose; if he has faculties to hate, he has to love, &c. God’s suspending our salvation on faith, an act which we have strength to perform, is kind. Pp. 223, 224.
II. Man by his fall unto a state of sin, 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 to prepare himself thereunto. The grace of faith whereby the elect are enabled to believe, is the work of the Spirit. Con. 9. 3. And cap. 14. 1.
We do not think those have succeeded better in illustrating the influence of faith, who represent it as the instrument;—that mode is dark and unintelligible which speaks of it as using Christ, and of applying him—using him as if he were an ointment plaster. It is also far from the truth. No clear idea is conveyed by those who say it forms a marriage union between Christ and the believer. Faith has an in fluence in our salvation, as it supports the authority of God’s law, and as by it believers become the friends of the Lord Jesus Christ Loving his Son, he is inclined to treat with kindness all his real friends. Pp. 171, 174, &c.
III. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification. The union which the elect have with Christ, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband. Larger Cat. Ques. 66, 73.
You have heard it said that the blood of Christ was shed to pay the debt which we owed to divine justice—that Christ died in the room and stead of the elect,—but this is perverting the plain and obvious meaning of the sacred oracles. It is not correct, in the highest sense, to say, that Christ died for any of our race. Strictly speaking, the atonement is God’s property wholly,—he made it for himself. It was made for one as much as another. Pp. 114, 117, 214, &c.
IV. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf—did, in the fulness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same. Con. 8. 8. and 11.3, 4.
We forbear censuring Mr. Perrine’s reflections on his Presbyterian brethren, for teaching what he is pleased to call, a commercial, selfish, debt and credit scheme,—a mercenary scheme of religion: for he is so seldom witty, that we would not repress a few sallies of a frolicsome fancy, though here, perhaps, they are out of place. We trust he will not make his own religion an article of merchandise. We must however declare, that we feel more than disgust at the disrespect which he uniformly shows to terms and illustrations consecrated for our instruction and comfort, by the Holy Ghost,—covenant, ransom, marriage, union, purchase, debt, price, pay, &c.: for we prefer greatly this phraseology to his own figures, urged upon us under pretence of superior perspicacity—inclining God to feel,—removing obstacles out of his way, &c. &c. In such figures there is nothing, in our estimation, preferable to the scriptural language. Justice, nevertheless, demands from us the confession, that these letters are sufficient to acquit the author from a general charge, brought rather rashly against the Hopkinsians,—that they are too metaphysical. It is plain enough that this volume has nothing in common with metaphysical science, or philosophical reasoning.
General usage seem to have consecrated, to the service of the doctrine of indefinite atonement, the story of the Pythagorean Zaleucus, king of the Locrians. Even Mr. Perrine repeats it, and seems to prefer it to all the Scriptural illustrations of the merit of Christ’s death, to the types and the figures, and the declarations, of the Bible. We begin to fear that it is about to pass as canonical. The frequent use of the anecdote respecting this petty tyrant’s mode of dispensing justice, reminds us of a clergyman, who lamented, on a certain occasion, the want of his Concordance to aid him in finding, in the book of Genesis, the legend concerning Abraham and the idolater, which Jeremy Taylor gave, from Jewish story, to the English reader, and which has since been ascribed, by the critics, alternately to Lord Kaimes and Dr. Franklin.
The old Grecian, it seems, substituted one of his own eyes for one of the eyes of his son, who, by adultery, had forfeited both to the law. True, here there is nothing very indefinite; and certainly there is substitution : but after all, we see little in the act to admire, except what Hopkinsians would call mere selfishness, or sin, a strong private affection. The love to his son we regard; but the judgment we think unjust. So far from being a parallel case with Christ’s obedience unto the death, for our redemption, the act of Zaleucus was an evasion, not a fulfilment, of the law; a perversion, not a satisfaction to justice; and we would not encourage the introduction of the principle into the jurisprudence of any Christian commonwealth. It may have answered a purpose among uncivilized Pagans; but we do not wish to see our own judges and governors sharing with the convicts, their stripes, the pillory, or the gallows. Magistrates have no light either to give or to take any such commutation; and it would be injurious, as well as unjust, to subject a useful member of society to the loss of either limb or life, for the sake of a base man, whose reformation is problematical. We think Mr. Perrine might have seen, that the legal substitution of the Son of God for his people is infinitely more worthy of regard than the transaction of this heathen despot. Provided by the grace of God, an act of grace upon the part of Jesus Christ, and securing for us the graces of the Holy Spirit; this substitution magnified the law, and satisfied the demands of divine justice. The Redeemer had a right to lay down his life, and to take it again; He was neither lost nor disqualified, for exercising his care over the universe, by the sufferings which be endured; He did not ransom by halves, but with a full price, the whole church of God; and there was made, in the covenant of grace, certain and ample provision that they, for whom he undertook to be a substitute, should be reformed in their lives, become useful members of society, be blessed in their departure from this world, and made perfect in glory and in happiness world without end.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The reasons for not inserting this Review at an earlier period, as was originally intended, need not now be laid before the public. Sat cito, si sat bene. [Soon enough, if well enough.]
[2] See these expressions, and many more of the same kind, pp. 1, 3, 7, 11, and 71, 73.
[3] See a Review of A Brief View, &c. p. 72 of this work.