3. In positive theolorjical, anthropological, and soteri- olor/ical teachings the two systems are in marked accord. (1.) The Decrees of God.— The New-school divines of
THEOLOGY, NEW ENGLAND 330 THEOLOGY, NEW ENGLAND
New England hold to a universal foreordination, ab- solute as respects all divine acts, off'ectual as regards all consequences of those acts. One of the consequences of those acts is the establishment and maintenance of human freedom. What said Arminian theology? (a.) All divine acts are absolutely decreed — " Deus nihil facit, nisi prius apud se id decrcverit facere" (Curcel- la;us, p. 82). (b.) God foreordains (positively or per- missively) whatsoever cometh to pass — "Nihil absque ipsius permissu aut directione cvenit" (ibid. p. 87). (c.) God decrees to do things which lie knows will occasion sinful choices on the part of men, and to abstain from acts which, if wrought, he knows would prevent sinful choices. This also is clearly involved in what is laid down by Arminius (iii, 4 18-429), Episcopius, Curcelteus, and Limborch on Pennitsio, Exccfcotio, and Induratio. ((/.) God decrees to do that which he knows will occa- sion sin, for a specific end, and that end is the best pos- sible (Arminius, iii, 4 1 9). (c.) A decree to do that which will as a matter of fact occasion sin does not in anywise necessitate that sin (Curcellteus, p. 382, 1021).
(2.) The Constitution of Men not Sin, but the Invaria- ble Occasion of Sin. — No New England divine has pro- duced an abler exposition and defence of this view than are found in C'urcelheus, Dissertatio de Peccato Oriyinis, and in Limborch, III, iv.
(3.) The Atonement. — The identity of the Edwardean theory of the atonement with the Dutch Arminian, as respects the nature of the atonement, ground of its ne- cessity', and its extent, is articulately proven ui art. iii of the Meth. Quar. Rev.JnXy, 1860.
(4.) Justifcation. — Arminins's definition of justifica- tion could be subscribed to by the whole body of New England divines with perhaps the exception of Em- mons. "Justification is a just and gracious act of God as a judge, by which, from the throne of his grace and mercy, he absolves from his sins man, a sinner, but who is a believer, on account of Christ and the obedience and righteousnessof Christ, and considers him righteous [y«.s/(HM], to the salvation of the justified person, and to the glory of divine righteousness and grace" (ii, IIG).
(5.) Regeneration. — By the elder Arminian, Calvinis- tic, and Lutheran divines this operation of the Spirit is not shar(>h'and definitely distinguished from sanctifica- tion, but in the definitions of the representative New England divines there is nothing to which xVrminius or his disciples would have objected.
(6.) Persei-ei-ance. — (a.) The regenerate can fall away. This is universally maintained by the Arminians. (b.) The regenerate in point of fact never do fall away. Ar- minius did not decide. He says, " At no period have I asserted that believers do finally decline or fall awaj' from faith and salvation" (ii, 280. Like New England Calvinists, he asserted the possibi/iti/, but not the /act, of a total and final defection of the elect.
From the foregoing it is evident that the evangelical New England reaction against Calvinism, while re- markably indigenous and original, resembles in a most striking manner the earlier Arminian reaction. The Remonstrants repudiated no part of standard Calvinism which these New England theologians do not repu- diate; they revolted fr(>m traditional tenets from the same honorable motives; they anticipated by two cen- turies nearlj' every favorite idea of their New England successors, and would perhaps have anticipated every one explicitly, had it not been for the backwardness of the psychological and ethical sciences. Nevertheless, there ever remains this radical difference, that accord- ing to New England theology, as according to original Calvinism, the real reason why one man is saved and another is not, is always in the last analysis to be found in the different foreordinations of God respecting the two, and this difference of foreordinations is referable solely to the sovereign good-pleasure of God.
IV. Variations a)ul Side-issues. — Several noteworthy views and speculations,to which their respective authors owed no small share of their reputation, are either not
adopted or positively repudiated by the great mass of recent New England Calvinists. For example:
1. The Edwardean notion of human liberty. Presi- dent Edwards is generalh* understood to have accepted the definition of Locke and of the sensational school, making the liberty of the human will " the power, op- portunity, or advantage that any one has to do as he pleases ;" in other words, one's ability freelj' to execute volitions philosophically or coactively necessitated. The inadequacy of this definition is now universally admit- ted. See EinvAKDS.
2. Hopkins's doctrine of disinterested benevolence. This was at one time the most vital and essential ele- ment in the New Divinity. With Hopkins it was the corner-stone of systematic theologj'. See Hopkins.
3. Emmons's hypothesis of God's efficient causality of every moral act of man. Emmons held that God was the efficient originator of every volition of the human mind, good or evil, hoh' or sinful. He has had but few adherents, and doubts are expressed as to whether he has been correctly understood by many on this point (Park, Memoir, p. 385 sq.). See Esuions.