ilip Mi«'tf0«l #tiiiia 
 
 f 
 
 $^M 
 
 Or m 
 
 OF ^■^SiOL.S 
 
 Rev Drs. Hawes, Spring, and ?ermilye; 
 
 AND 
 
 KEY. MESSES. CHILDS & PARKER : 
 
 KEPUBLTSIIED FROM 
 
 f Ijr fell) |ovlt dbsfi-luv, 
 
 AV I T H N O T K S , A N D A REVIEW 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED 
 
 A STATEMENT OF THE MANCHESTEE CASE. 
 
 For the Word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Rev. 1 : 9. 
 
 
 HARTFORD, CONN. 
 
 AJ.i<:X'R CALHOUN & CO., PUBLISHERS. 
 
 1860. 
 
^, '^ ,\\ 
 
 :.^^* 
 
 sA 
 
 ^4 ^t Sljpniogfra/ ^ 
 
 X 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 \. 
 
 Di'visiofi..L-J/\-l '■- ' 
 Section. ■■•i\\'0 C-O 
 
Vi 
 
 %L 
 
 £s;ou stttj*^ 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 OF 
 
 \i\. Drs. Hawes, Spring, and ?ermil!E 
 
 AND 
 
 REV. MESSRS. CHILDS & PARKER: 
 
 REPUBLISHED FROM 
 
 f|c |to |0rk (Sterrber, 
 
 AVITH ^OTES, AND A REVIEW 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED 
 
 A STATEMENT OF THE MANCHESTEE CASE. 
 
 .,' — "For the Word of God, and foe the testimony of Jesus Christ." — 
 
 Bev. 1 : 9. 
 
 HARTFOED, CONN. 
 
 ALEX'R CALHOUN & CO., PUBLISHERS 
 
 1860. 
 
PRELIMUT ART REMARKS. 
 
 The publication of this pamphlet, though demanded, has been 
 for some time delayed ; and it would, perhaps, have been withheld 
 altogether had not recent developments seemed clearlj to call for 
 it. It is no grateful task to review the acts of venerable men to 
 whom we have been bound by many ties, but from whom we are 
 now constrained solemnly and strongly to differ. ISTo age, no 
 relation, no reputation, can outweigh the claims of Divine truth. 
 Nor are we wholly without hope that when the full force of these 
 facts is fairly before our fathers and brethren, they may see and 
 admit the peril which now threatens us. 
 
 Of the churches of New England we have the right to ask the 
 earnest and candid attention. Their interests are most deeply 
 concerned. It is easy to dismiss the whole subject with a smile, or 
 a sneer, or with condemnation. Some will do so ; but no intelli- 
 gent, faithful and conscientious Christian. Those who regard the 
 character of men more than the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ — 
 who value the reputation of their pastors more than the truth of 
 Grod — who place the peace of the church above its lymity — will con- 
 demn this publication. But if any man who believes there is 
 anything in the christian system worth contending for — anything 
 in the faith of our Puritan fathers worth holding to — can read 
 calmly the facts here established and not feel that there is cause for 
 
alarm, deep and sorrowful ; if not for ourselves, for our children ; we 
 have no more to say. It is, perhaps, due to the public that a fact 
 should here be stated which, to every fair mind, will be an addi- 
 tional justification of the re-issue of these letters. Certain religious 
 papers of considerable influence in New England have published 
 article upon article on one side of the controversy, whilst studi- 
 ously withholding from their readers the evidence upon the other 
 side. How far this is just, manly or Christian, every honorable 
 mind will judge for itself In this pamphlet the statements of both 
 sides will be found. If, therefore, any reader should differ from 
 the conclusions of the reviewer, he has before him the material for 
 his own judgment. For ourselves we have little to gain. Our 
 heart's desire and prayer to God for our New England Zion is that 
 she may be saved. If to this end this publication should be blessed, 
 even in the least, we shall find abundant recompense and abund- 
 ant consolation in all the obloquy it may incur. Whether we 
 are right or wrong will soon be revealed ; but we beg to say, once 
 for all, in behalf of ourselves and of our brethren in the faith 
 throughout New England, to those who are wont to meet our con- 
 victions by ridicule and abuse, that these convictions are quite too 
 deep and too solemn to be met by any such arguments. If we are 
 wrong, this is not the way to convince us. If we are right, it is a 
 vain and a thankless w^ork thus to endeavor to silence us. In the 
 fear of God, and of the tribunal where we and those who differ from 
 us must soon meet, we submit these pages as our humble testimony 
 '• to the faith of God's elect.'' 
 
On the eleventh day of January 1860, Mr. Edwin Pond Parker 
 was ordained and installed Pastor of the South Congregational 
 Church of Hartford, Conn. Mr. Parker was a graduate of Bangor 
 Theological Seminary ; and had been recommended as "sound in 
 theology" by the Eev. Dr. Pond, Professor in that Institution.^ — 
 The council by which he was installed was probably one of the 
 ablest and most respectable that could be gathered in New 
 England. It was composed of Pastors and Delegates from eleven 
 Churches, and Professors from two Theological Seminaries. The 
 examination was public, and in accordance with the invitation 
 given, was attended by a large audience. Of course the facts 
 which transpired were fairly public property. There could be no 
 impropriety or reasonable ground of complaint in the use of those 
 facts, provided they were of importance to the community. 
 
 A few weeks after the ordination the following letter appeared 
 in the public prints. This letter was written by the Eev. Thos. S. 
 Childs of Hartford, to a friend by whom it appears to have been 
 sent to two or three pajDers for publication : § 
 
 * For the facts stated ia this pamphlet, which do not appear ia the letters of the 
 Observer, we are indebted chiefly to the Independent ; the Boston Recorder ; the 
 Congregationalist, and the Presbyterian Expositor. 
 
 § Much has been made of this circulation of the letter ; but it seems to us a very 
 small matter. The question is, are the statements true ? not, how far have they been 
 spread ? 
 
THE LETTER. 
 
 My Dear Brother; — You ask me for some accoimt of the 
 examination of the young man who has just been installed over 
 the South Church in Hartford. I give you the impression left on 
 my mind, with a sad heart. This church, as you know, is one of 
 the oldest, and has been regarded as one of the soundest in the 
 State. 
 
 The examination was public ; a large audience was present, and 
 of course the views of the young man were no secret. 
 
 He rejected emphatically the verbal inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. He was not clear on the Trinity, doubted as to the use of the 
 word Person, and stated that the unity of God meant one personality. 
 
 All sin and holiness were aiSrmed by him to be voluntary. — 
 God has no holy nature. Man has no sinful nsvture. Every mau 
 has ability (in the sense of " adequate power") to fulfil the com- 
 mands of God, even to sinless perfection in the present life. 
 
 The gospel is not absolutely necessary to the salvation of adult 
 heathen. Some are undoubtedly saved without it. God will give 
 all men a fair chance, and Christ died with the same design for all. 
 Hence if all men have not had a fair chcoice in this life, they will 
 have it after death. The candidate stated openly, that he inclined 
 to the belief that after death, and before the final judgment, there 
 was a state (Hades) for all souls — where some who had died im- 
 penitent — some even who had rejected Christ in this life — would 
 have a new offer of Christ and salvation, and the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, and be saved : — so that if called to the death-bed of an im- 
 penitent sinner, and knowing that he had but a short definite 
 time to live, he would not shut him up to faith in Christ within 
 that time, or final ruin. 
 
 These views were in direct conflict with the articles of the 
 Church to which every private member is rec{uired to give his as- 
 sent. Yet they were not regarded by the Council as a disqualifi- 
 cation for the pastorship. 
 
 I hope that I am not a vain alarmist. Far be it from me to 
 utter a word which should needlessly disturb the peace of our 
 churches. But can any candid mind look at the events, so often 
 now occurring, and not feel that there is a 23rocess going on, silently 
 but surely, which by another generation must entirely change the 
 character of our churches ? 
 
 And one of the saddest things about it all is, that if any man is 
 found to express anxiety about these things — if any man arises, 
 who feels it to be a solemn duty to God to j^rotest against the in- 
 coming errors, his reward is overwhelming ridicule as a man be- 
 hind the age, or violent denunciation as a troubler of Israel. 
 
 "Well — God is the judge. The day is coming which will reveal 
 every man's work of what sort it is. My strong conviction is, that 
 
unless there shall soon be a mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit, 
 the day is not distant which will witness a more extensive and ap- 
 palling apostasy in New England, than we have ever yet seen — 
 and that apostasy will be into Universalism. May (rod in His 
 infinite mercy avert the catastrophe. 
 ^ Your Brother in the faith and work of Christ. C. 
 
 The New York Observer, in publishing the substance of this 
 letter, said: — 
 
 "It is in harmony with what we hear from various quarters. The fact that a respect- 
 able number of ministers, in any part of our country, would consent to induct such a 
 teacher as this candidate into the ministry, to preach such another gospel as the above, 
 is enough to fill with painful apprehension the mind of every Christian who believes 
 the truths there denied to be essential to the integrity of the gospel of Christ. * * * 
 Apostasies are generally gradual. Scarcely any great defection in church history, 
 however, has been so rapid as that which is now rushing to its crisis in New England . 
 
 To turn back the tide of corruption, to strengthen the things that remain, to save 
 the rising generation from being borne away into the mire and misery of Pelagianism 
 and Universalism, is a work that should command the active and untiring energies of 
 every sound man in the church. Pastors should lift up no uncertain or trembling 
 voice at such a time as this. The people, who love the faith of the noble fathers of 
 New England, whose wholesome doctrines have been incorporated as the preserving 
 salt in almost the whole body of sound churches in this country, the people ought to 
 take the alarm, and by watchfulness, prayer and faithful labor, fortify themselves, 
 their families and their neighbors against the inroads of this moral pestilence. Daily 
 we behold the gathering evidence that a new reformation, the Reformation of the 19tb 
 century, must be preached and the "Word of God, the doctrines of the cross, the faith 
 of the Reformers and the Puritans, the system known as the Evangelical, must be 
 re-established in the heart of the people, to the expulsion of that rationalism, or semi- 
 infidelity, that now threatens the ruin of the churches." 
 
 The publication of this letter produced a very marked impres- 
 sion both in and out of New England. On the one hand it was 
 regarded as furnishing unexpected and alarming evidence of defec- 
 tion from fundamental truth; on the other it was violently 
 denounced as slanderous or ridiculed as absurd.^ 
 
 In the Observer of March 8th, Drs. Hawes and Spring appeared 
 on the part of the council with the following letter which, with 
 some variations, was also published in the Boston Recorder. § 
 
 * The Independent pronounced it a " calumnious article" whose author was to be 
 "held to a strict account." The Congregationalist assailed it, its author and publishers, 
 n an editorial surpassing anything we ever remember to have seen in its violation of 
 all the courtesies of religious life. 
 
 § Dr. Samuel Harris, Professor in the Bangor Seminary, also published an article 
 in behalf of the council in the Recorder of March 1st. Dr. Spring appeared over his 
 separate signature, in the Presbyterian Expositor of March 15th. Whatever is impor- 
 tant to the case in these communications will be found in the notes. 
 
For the New York Observer. 
 
 Hartford, March 2d, 1860. 
 
 Messrs. Editors: — You have noticed the examination of Eev. 
 Mr. Parker, now pastor of the South Church in this city, which 
 occurred on the 11th of January. TFe, the undersigned mem- 
 bers of the Council, request you to publish the following article ; 
 and justice to the candidate in question, to the Council which or- 
 dained him, as well as the interests of religion in this city and 
 state, demand this expression of our condemnation of the state- 
 ments made in your issue of Feb. 23d, in regard to Mr. Parker. 
 They who were present at the examination of the candidate, or 
 know anything of it, need not be told, that your statements (or 
 the statements you reproduced from an "intelligent" correspond- 
 ent) were a succession of misrepresentations, exaggerations, sup- 
 pressions and fiilsities. Your sources of information were strange- 
 ly corrupt, and it is to be regretted that you should so unguarded- 
 ly allow them to find an outlet through your columns. It is 
 greatly to be deplored, that such careless, needless interruptions 
 of fellowship are consummated. A misrej)resented and maligned 
 minister, a calumniated and aggrieved ministry, and an indignant 
 Christian community — these are the results of a hastily published, 
 or reproduced letter. 
 
 Your article, headed "New Gospel in New England," as a ivhole^ 
 is adapted to make only wrong impressions, and in j^nrts, is utterly 
 untrue. Mr. Parker read a somewhat long and j)articular creed be- 
 fore the Council, which was followed by a long and careful exami- 
 nation, chiefly in the line of the articles of faith adopted by the 
 Church. 
 
 The creed referred to is before us, and this, with our own recol- 
 lections, will enable us to state what is true in the case, and to cor- 
 rect what is untrue. 
 
 The first charge refers to "Inspiration." "He denied emphati- 
 cally the ver]3al inspiration of the Scriptures." This implies that 
 the candidate held such views as would invalidate the authority 
 of Scripture. Hear his creed : 
 
 "The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, * * * -were written by men 
 inspired of the Holy Ghost. They are a ?(?ii/ — a body, of which tho various books 
 are the members ; each book has a polarity towards the cross of Christ ; hence all 
 this Scripture is inspired. It is the "Word of God." While the Logos is the Re- 
 vealer and the Revelation, the Holy Ghost is the distinctive inspiring Power, enabling 
 the sacred penmen to give an adequate expression of the truth, whether revealed to 
 them, naturally apprehended by them, or simply communicated through them." 
 
 Whether this implies verbal inspiration or not, it contains all 
 that is necessary to make the Scriptures a complete and authorita- 
 tive rule of faith. 
 
 Only one gentleman proposed questions to the candidate on this 
 topic. It was then nearly dark ; the answers were very short, and 
 
9 
 
 thorouglily consistent with tlie article copied above. How unjust 
 was the charge then ! 
 
 The next statement is — "He was not clear on the Trinity : doubt- 
 ed as to the use of the word 'person.' " Hem' his creed: 
 
 " I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. I believe in 
 only one God. (Art. 1.) Christ is the God-human, the humiliation of the eternal 
 Logos. The proof of this doctrine is found only in the Bible, It is a rational doc- 
 trine ; and was chiefly held in the Apostolic and patriarchal church. I believe in the 
 divinity of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 On being questioned as to his views of the Sabellian theory of 
 one God manifesting himself under a three-fold name, he expressly 
 discarded it as untrue, and admitted fully, as understood by the 
 Council,' the common orthodox views of the Trinity. He said the 
 word "person" was often misused and misunderstood. 
 
 The third charge is — The candidate distinctly affirmed that "God 
 has no holy nature, and man no sinful nature." 
 
 Yet he said in his creed, "God is essentially and eternally holy." 
 
 Now the statement in your columns distinctly contradicts this, 
 and is suited to make a false impression. The candidate did not 
 choose to ring changes on the word "nature"; but regarding all 
 holiness, and all sin, ap predicable only of voluntary, choosing 
 mind, he could not predicate holiness of the simple being or con- 
 stitution of,the Deity, nor sin of the passive, inert nature of man. 
 B ut, lest we may not exactly represent him, let the candidate 
 speaETor himself: 
 
 "Psycholocjically, I believe holiness is the supreme choice of the mind, by which the 
 person is devoted to the universal, rather than to his individual interests and good. I 
 believe that by nature, men are sinners. That such is the corruption of the soul, that 
 each person, obeying the influence of the depraved appetites and desires, will sin so 
 soon as he comes to act consciously of the right and wrong. I do not believe that 
 man is blameworthy, either for his nature or its hereditary corruption." 
 
 Who does believe so ? or who can believe otherwise than this 
 article expresses ? The next thing charged is this — "The gospel is 
 not absolutely necessary to the salvation of adult heathen." The 
 candidate said no such thing. He explicitly stated, "there is no 
 salvation without Christ!" He believed that some heathen, as 
 some other persons who have never heard of Christ, may be re- 
 newed and saved through him, or on account of what he has 
 done : but '•'■all hy Christ P'' This is no new doctrine, nor is it any 
 heresy. Watts, Emmons, Dwight, and other theologians held it, 
 and it is taught in several confessions of faith adopted by the Ee- 
 formed Church — the Presbyterian Church, and others.^ 
 
 * Their letter in the Recorder contains the following in addition : — " As to what 
 the letter cliarges, that the candidate holds that every man has ability in the sense of 
 ' adequate power ' to fulfill the commands of God " — let that speak for itself. It is 
 accounted no deatlly heresy, at least in this part of the country, to hold that man has 
 power to do what God commands him to do ; or, that he cannot be justly blamed or 
 punished for not doing impossibilities." 
 
10 
 The grossest charge of all is this : 
 
 "The candidate openly stated that lie inclined to the belief, that after death and be- 
 fore the final judgment there was a state (Hades) for all souls where some who had 
 died impenitent, and some who had rejected Cliriat in this life, would have a new offer 
 of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and be. saved: so that if called to the 
 death-bed of an impenitent sinner, and knowing that he had but a short time to live, 
 he would not shut him up to faith in Christ within that time or to — final ruin." 
 
 Now there are several very sad charges made in this statement, 
 not one of which was lield as an opinion by the candidate. He 
 explicitly stated, that though he sometimes inclined to the belief 
 that the Bible spoke of an intermediate state or place of departed 
 spirits, called Hades, still he was wholly undecided in the matter. 
 He repeatedly stated, that for such as knew their duty and '■'■rejected 
 Christ in this life," he believed there was no future probation. 
 This was his statement: — That for such as had never heard of 
 Christ, had lived and died in ignorance of religious things, the 
 'possihilitfj that there might be a future probation, sometimes entered 
 his mind in the form of a liope, but never as yet as a settled con- 
 viction. He said that it floated in his mind as a thing that per- 
 chance might be, and claimed a place in his thoughts, not in his 
 convictions. It was regretted by the council that his mind was in 
 such an attitude in regard to this subject, but they could see in it 
 no sufficient reason to refuse ordination. 
 
 As to the latter part of the allegation, "that if called to the 
 death bed of an imjDenitent sinner," &c., it is enough to say that 
 he explicitly stated that he should not feel influenced or authorized 
 to broach the supposition of a future probation, either in public or 
 in private, to an impenitent man. "Whatever my secret hope 
 might be, I should hold out no such tinreliahle promises or hypoth- 
 esis." It may be added that the candidate publicly signified his 
 assent to such of the articles of faith adopted in the church of 
 which he is now pastor, as were read to him. It is to be presumed 
 he did it seriously and sincerely. 
 
 With that spirit of holy horror, which sees fanaticism in a manly 
 frank way of stating the truth, we have no sympathy. It is said 
 of the Eoman army, that except the shedding of blood, a stranger 
 could not distinguish their exercises from their battles. Did your 
 correspondent, in his simplicity, mistake the animated discussions 
 of that council in Hartford for veritable antagonisms ? He is mis- 
 taken. Not a drop of blood was spilt, and candidate and council 
 retired from the field on terms of tried fellowship. The wail of 
 sorrow,_ which arises from your correspondent at the imagined 
 apostasies of Connecticut churches, is so dolorously soloistic, as to 
 sound very ludicrously about here ! There is no foundation, save 
 in a morbid imagination, for the lugubrious lamentations of said 
 reporter. 
 
11 
 
 The facts are now stated. How far they differ from those stated 
 in the letter, the public must judge. No motives are imputed, no 
 comments offered. No reflections are cast upon your correspond- 
 ent. He must be left to his own reflections, which we can imagine 
 must be not of the pleasantest character. We conclude with the 
 earnest wish, that while he stands up manfully for the truth, he 
 will not bring false accusations against his brethren ; and that 'the 
 next time he attends a council of Congregational ministers, assem- 
 bled to ordain a Congregational pastor, he will hear with a more 
 candid spirit, and report with a more accurate pen. '^ 
 
 J. Ha WES, 
 Samuel Spring. 
 
 *Di\ Spring, in his letter to the Expositor, says, that the impression made by Mr. 
 Childs' letter is " totally at variance with the truth/'— that he " cither stolidly misap- 
 prehended or wilfully misrepresented his (Mr. Parker's) views"— vouches for Mr. 
 Parker's orthodoxy, and states that " the articles of faith adopted by the church of 
 which he is now the pastor, were each and all openly accepted bv him, not merely for 
 substance ©f doctrine, but literally and in full." He notices o'nly the one point of 
 probation after death. He says, "The council were at first somewhat disturbed by it, 
 but more particular investigation satisfied them that the suspected sentimeat was not an 
 opinion or belief adopted by the candidate, but only a floating thought, which lie rather 
 wished were true, than firmly believed. He did not " state openly that he inclined to 
 the belief," that there would be a place and a mode of probation "beyond this life, for 
 any who had died impenitent ; but that he had earnestly desired to hope, that in some 
 peculiar, exceptional cases, where there had been no knowledge, and of course no 
 rejection of Christ, there might be a probability that the mercy of God would pro- 
 vide a "Tray by which the sin of ignorance might be pardoned, even beyond the 
 grave. And when inquired of what was the foundation for such a hope, he stated that 
 the passage in 1st Peter, 3:19, might possibly be regarded as furnishing some grounds 
 tor such an opinion. He said, however, explicitly, that for those who knowingly 
 rejected Christ in this life, it was his firm belief that there was and could be no proba- 
 tion beyond that enjoyed, and such should be his uniform and unqualified teaching." 
 
 The following is the substance of Prof. Harris' defence. 
 
 "He (Mr. P.) rejected the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures," but distinctly 
 affirmed his belief in the " plenary inspiration " of the whole Bible and of every part 
 of It. He 2t'as " perfectly clear " in his statements on the Trinity, distinctly dis- 
 claiming the doctrine that the distinction of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is one of 
 manifestation only, and affirming that it is an eternal distinction in the Godhead, and 
 that each of the Three is very God. He stated precisely and clearly the Ortho- 
 dox doctrine. What he said of the term persons was the statement, familiar I had 
 supposed to all theologians, that the term person is not applied to the distinctions in 
 the Trinity in its full ordinary sense ; that God is not one person in the same sense 
 in which he is three persons. "He affirmed all sin and holiness to be voluntary," 
 using the term ivill in the broader sense of Bellamy and Edwards, and not in the re- 
 stricted sense which assigns to the will the function of volitions only. He affirmed 
 that man's nature is corrupt, the occasion of the uniform certainty of sin from the 
 beginning of moral action, but declined to predicate sin of the nature itself on the 
 ground that a man is not accountable for a nature that is born in him. He affirmed 
 distinctly that all men are sinners by nature. He made the usual distinction between 
 natural and moral ability, and affirmed natural ability to obey the law. He defined 
 natural ability to be " the possession of faculties adequate to obedience." 
 
 As to the salvation of the heathen, he distinctly and repeatedly affirmed that no 
 human being can be saved except through the atonement of Ciirist and regeneration 
 by tne Holy Ghost. He expressed his belief, however, that some heathen have in 
 
12 
 
 MR. CHILDS' REPLY. 
 For the New York Observer. 
 
 THE ORDINATION IN HAETFORD. 
 
 Messrs. Editors: — If the writer of the letter referred to in the Obser- 
 ver of Feb. 23d desired to awaken a spirit of theological inquiry in 
 New England he seems likely to succeed. From Bangor to New 
 Haven the depths are stirred. Out of this we ferventh'- hope 
 good may come. 
 
 In regard to the letter itself, allow me one or two remarks. It 
 was written to a friend — a Congregational minister — in reply to a 
 request for some account of the examination. The writer of the 
 letter did not send it to any paper for publication. This is not 
 said to avoid any just responsibility whatever. It is stated simply 
 as a fact, and to meet certain statements from other quarters. As 
 to the spirit of the letter we are quite willing to leave it to be com- 
 pared with the replies. 
 
 Two replies have appeared ; one in the Boston Recorder, under- 
 stood, by an editorial note, to have been from Rev Dr. Harris, Pro- 
 fessor in the Theological Seminary at Bangor, and father-in-law of 
 the candidate; the other over the signatures of Drs. Hawes and 
 Spring. It is with the latter that we now have to do. It is to be 
 regretted that these gentlemen should ^ far have forgotten their 
 position as to have indulged in such exhibitions of feeling. — 
 Truth can afford to be calm. Hard words and hard names are no 
 answer to facts. 
 
 A word to yourselves, Messrs Editors, to relieve somewhat the 
 pain of the reflections these venerable fathers have cast upon you. 
 We assure you that this "Christian community" is not all "indig- 
 nant" — the Christian "ministry" does not feel itself "calumniated 
 and aggrieved" — and whether the "minister" has been "misrepre- 
 sented and maligned" is a point to be determined when the evi- 
 dence is in. 
 
 this life been renewed by the Spirit without the knowledge of the Gospel, and so pre- 
 pared to receive Christ whenever made known to them. * * * 
 
 As to the intermediate state, instead of affirming that " some who had rejected 
 Christ in this life would have a new offer of Christ and be saved," in the next, the 
 candidate explicitly and repeatedly declared the contrary belief. But he said that in 
 considering the case of the heathen and others who died without hearing the Gospel, he 
 had in his perplexity sometimes conjectured that they might have an offer of mercy in 
 the intermediate state ; yet he repeatedly affirmed that this conjecture had never 
 amounted to a belief that such an offer would be made, nor could he even say he 
 doubted the commonly received doctrine ; but only that it was a conjecture and a diffi- 
 culty which had perplexed him and prevented his affirming without any qualification, 
 his belief that there is absolutely no provision for the offer of mercy to persons of this 
 class after death. He also stated repeatedly that he found no reliable evidence in the 
 Bible justifying this conjecture ; that the teaching of the Bible uniformly concentres 
 on the duty of repentance and faith now, giving no intimation whatever of hope to any 
 beyond the grave ; that therefore, he should feel bound to preach according to this 
 scriptural pattern." 
 
13 
 
 We now come to the case in hand — the ordination of Mr. Par- 
 ker. The question is this : "Were the position and views of Mr. 
 Parker, as explained hy himself on his examination, such as to jus- 
 tify his ordination and installation over an orthodox Congregational 
 church of Connecticut ? " 
 
 Drs. Hawes and Spring appeal to his creed. This is their main 
 reliance. In regard to this we observe (1) That there are no men 
 on earth who ought to know better than Drs. Hawes and Spring 
 the utter insufficiency of a written creed to prove a man's sound- 
 ness in the faith in New England. Do they need illustrations ? 
 
 (2) If that creed was sufficient and decisive why the long and 
 tedious examination that followed? What was the use of that 
 oral examination at all, unless it was to reveal in ivhat loay the 
 candidate interpreted his creed? With all due deference to these 
 venerable men we beg leave to take the candidate's own interpre- 
 tation of his creed rather than theirs. And this is precisely what 
 was done by the writer of the letter. This is what we shall insist 
 on doing. The reading of the creed excited no special attention 
 — it was defective — it foreshadowed some of the subsequent devel- 
 opments ; but it was not until the oral examination was fairly 
 opened that the very serious errors and defects of the candidate's 
 views were revealed. 
 
 (3) Subsequent events throw some light upon this point, if we 
 are not misinformed, Mr. Parker's first sermon after his ordination 
 was from the words, "By their fruits ye shall know them ;" and 
 unless~he was grievously misunderstood by intelligent minds, the 
 burden of that sermon was this — a man is not to be judged by his 
 creed or his speculative faith, but by his life. As an illustration of 
 his meaning he maintained that in his judgment the author of 
 that fiction, "the Conflict of Ages," was just as good a man and 
 just as reliable a religious teacher as if he had never held or pub- 
 lished those speculations ! Are Drs. Hawes and Spring ready to 
 endorse this also ? 
 
 Thus much for the force of a written creed. 
 
 In addition to the creed, these gentlemen rely upon their mem- 
 ory. Let us give this all due weight, remembering that it is called 
 into exercise six weeks after the transactions occurred. The writer 
 of the letter relied upon ivritten notes of the examination taken down 
 at the time from, the candidate! s oimi mouth. 
 
 There is one thing which will strike most minds as quite re- 
 markable in the memory of these venerable men. They under- 
 take to remember, after an interval of weeks, not only what ivas 
 said, but what was not said, through a tedious and at times, con- 
 fused examination of three or four hours. And they undertake to 
 remember exactly alike. The thing is simply a moral impossibil- 
 ity ; and we shall have occasion to show that it fails as a matter 
 of fact. These good men have quite overdone the matter at this 
 point. 
 
14 
 
 Now for the statements of the letter. 
 
 1. The candidate rejected the verbal inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. This is admitted on all hands. Here, then, the letter 
 stands justified. But the defendants appeal to the creed ; and 
 say that but "one gentleman j^roposed questions to the candidate 
 on this topic." Here, at the outset, is an illustration of what we 
 have just said as to the memory of the witnesses. They affirm pos- 
 itively and without the least hesitation, that "only one gentleman 
 proposed questions to the candidate on this topic." There were at 
 least two, who examined him at different times. Now when the 
 memory of the witnesses "agreeing together" fails upon so palpable 
 a point as this — the asking and answering, not of a single question, 
 but of a series of questions — we submit whether it does not 
 throw a doubt upon their equally positive assertions on other 
 points. 
 
 They, however, fix the time of this examination, and this indi- 
 cates the gentleman to whom they refer. 
 
 Now what is the evidence of that gentleman ? He affirms, and 
 is ready to affirm, if need be, under oath, the substantial truth of 
 the following statement : To the question, "Do you believe in the 
 plenary inspiration of the Scriptures?" the candidate declined to 
 give a direct answer, but replied that he did not know that he ex- 
 actly' understood what was meant by plenary inspiration. To the 
 question, "Are you prepared to admit verbal inspiration ?" he re- 
 plied, with an emphasis more significant even than the words, "I 
 am prepared to reject it! " 
 
 Now this is a case directly in point in regard to the creed. The 
 venerable gentlemen tell us to " hear his creed." We do hear it; 
 it sounds pretty well ; we hear him say that " all this scripture is 
 inspired." But we want to know what he means by inspiration ; 
 we have heard in these days of other writings being inspired — we 
 want to know what Mr. Parl^er means by ins]3iration ; he says it is 
 such an influence as enables the penman to "give an adequate 
 expression of the truth " — we are troublesome we know, but we 
 want to understand again what he means by an "adequate expres- 
 sion of truth." We presume that Drs. Hawes and Spring think 
 they have given an "adequate expression of the truth" in their 
 rejoinder ; but we do not think it is inspired ; so we ask the candi- 
 date in the plain old language of the Church and of the Evangel- 
 ical faith, if he believes in plenary inspiration ; and he does not 
 know what it means ; and we ask him if he believes in verbal in- 
 spiration ; and then we have an answer. 
 
 We must say, however, that we were not surprised that the 
 Council were not disturbed by the candidate's views of inspiration ; 
 we were j^repared for this by previous experience. We had seen 
 a man examined and ordained, by a council composed in part of 
 the same men, who stated openly that there were parts of the Bible 
 
15 
 
 whicli were not inspired — that the Holy Spirit suffered them to re- 
 main because He saw they wouldn't do any hurt — and we had heard 
 the venerable Dr. Hawes express the highest satisfaction at the ex- 
 amination of that gentleman. From that time forth we have ceased 
 to be surprised at any errors to which this venerable man may 
 have given his sanction. 
 
 2. As to the Trinity. The letter says he loas not clear ; he 
 doubted as to the use of the word person ; and stated that the 
 unity of God meant one personality. The last two statements are 
 exegetical of the first. We will go back from these to that. Now 
 for the proof. To the question by Dr. Spring, " What do you 
 mean by the unity of God? " the candidate answered with some 
 hesitation, but in these very words, "I rnQd^^n one personality.''' This 
 point the venerable gentlemen who undertake to "state what is 
 true and to correct what is untrue," do not touch. 
 
 " He doubted as to the use of the word Person,'''' says the letter. 
 " Hear his creed," cry the defendants. We do hear it, gentlemen, 
 but we do not hear in it the first letter of the word "Person." 
 What is the meaning of this ? Will you tell us, if the candidate 
 loas clear on the Trinity, wh}-, in a deliberately written article 
 upon this great subject, he utterly ignores the tri-personality of 
 the Godhead ! 
 
 The Confession of Faith of the Congregational churches of Con- 
 necticut sayi3 : " In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons 
 of ona^ubstance, power, and eternity," and it declares the " doc- 
 trine of the Trinity to be the foundation of all our communion 
 with God, and comfortable dependence upon him." We would 
 reverently but earnestly suggest to these venerable fathers of the 
 Church to beware what countenance they give to the undermining 
 of this great doctrine. 
 
 The explanation which Dr. Harris gives of the candidate's posi- 
 tion upon this subject, Avhich position he affirms to be " perfectly 
 clear," is striking and to us original. He thinks that all the 3^oung 
 man meant to say was, " that God is not one person in the same 
 sense in which he is three persons ; " a statement which he sup- 
 poses familiar to all theologians. Now we are not a professor of 
 theology as Dr. Harris is ; but this statement which he supposes 
 " familiar to all theologians " is entirely new to us. We are quite 
 familiar with the expression : " God is not one in the same sense in 
 which he is /Aree ; " but that "he is not one person in the same 
 sense in which he is three persons," is a fact which we do not 
 remember to have ever before seen affirmed or denied. 
 
 We might safely leave this point of clearness on the Trinity 
 here. There was an incident, however, in the examination, quite 
 too much in point to be passed over. The candidate had read his 
 creed upon the subject — he had been examined and cross-examined 
 at length upon it — the work was nearly through. Dr. Hawes rose 
 
16 
 
 and said: '^AU that you have .said, sir, could he said hy a S(d)ellian — 
 do you receive that doctrine ? '' The reply of the candidate was 
 equally remarkable. " I do not know as I understand what Sabel- 
 lianism is. I have tried to find out, but I have not been successful." 
 
 Now whatever answers may have been given to leading questions, 
 to break the full force of this development, we submit that the 
 case is made out. The candidate was not clear on the Trinity, 
 
 3. The statements of the letter in regard to sin and holiness, the 
 nature and power of man, are really admitted by all the reepond- 
 dents. At a future time, if the way be open, we hope to take up 
 their own statements and show how utterly opposed they are to 
 the faith of Evangelical Christendom, to the Confession of Faith of 
 the Connecticut churches, and to the Word of God. 
 
 "VVe content ourselves now with giving, on the strength of our 
 notes and the evidence of the Examiner, the substance of the can- 
 didate's statements on these points. He did distinctly affirm that 
 there was no such thing as a sinful or holy nature. Man was 
 sinful through nature, not naturally sinful. But who does not see 
 the door of boundless errors opened here ? Who does not see that 
 this statement is perfectly consistent with the affirmation that man 
 is born innocent and sinless ? Did not Adam become sinful 
 through nature ? Did not the fallen angels become sinful through 
 nature, or ^%y nature? " * 
 
 The gentlemen who have undertaken this defence would leave 
 the impression, we presume, that Mr. Parker holds the honest old 
 doctrine of original sin. And the members of the South Church 
 in Hartford have no doubt read with great delight the expressions 
 of his creed "by nature," "corruption of the soul," "depraved 
 appetite," "hereditary corruption," &c. 
 
 Now we have one simple question to ask, and if these venerable 
 gentlemen will answer it, it will be more to the point than a vol- 
 ume of exj^lanations. Is that "corruption of the soul," that 
 " hereditary corruption," sinful in Mr. Parker's view? 
 
 ■i. To a question by Dr. Spring, the candidate replied " that God 
 did not require of man what he had no ability to perform." To 
 the question in another form he said he should answer differently, 
 according to the use of the word ability. (Q.) " Take the word 
 ability in its proper sense of ' adequate power,' do you hold that 
 man has ability in this sense to meet the requirements of God ? " 
 (A.) "I do." 
 
 (Q.) " Are you prepared to carry out that position to its logical 
 results, and hold that man has ability to obey God perfectly in the 
 present life ? " (A.) " Yes, sir." 
 
 5. Another charge of the letter is, "the gospel is not absolutely 
 necessary to the salvation of adult heathen. Some are undoubt- 
 edly saved without it." The candidate not only declared this in 
 general, but he made a specific application of it : "I have no doubt," 
 
17 
 
 said he, " that Socrates went to heaven," The statement, whether 
 true or false, important or unimportant, is undeniable. 
 
 6. The letter stated as a doctrine held by the candidate that 
 " Christ died with the same design for all men." He not only- 
 stated this in general, but he affirmed in particular that " Christ 
 died with the same design for Judas Iscariot as for the Apostle 
 Paul." This the gentlemen do not deny. 
 
 7. We now come to the "crisis"* — Mr. Parker's views of the 
 future state. And we shall meet the whole matter by a simple 
 statement of facts which we stand ready to verify before any 
 tribunal. 
 
 (1.) The germ of his views was in his written creed. Why did 
 not Drs. Hawes and Spring ask us to " hear his creed " on this 
 point ? ; _. ._:M 
 
 (2.) After an examination upon the subject which had gone on 
 to weariness, with questions and cross questions, with explanations 
 and counter explanations, the candidate did say frankly and expli- 
 citly, " I wish to conceal nothing; I will state ray position ujwn this 
 whole subject. I INCLINE TO THE BELIEF that there is after death a 
 state (Hades) for all souls, good and bad, where the good are happy, 
 and where some who have died impenitent, may have a chance of 
 salvation," &c. In reply to inquiries he stated that he supposed 
 this salvation would be in connection with the means of grace — 
 the offer of -Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 (3.)^e not only stated it ; he argued it ; feebly and doubtfully 
 indeed, but he argued it. He said he thought there were passages 
 of Scripture which pointed to such a state, e. g., " Christ preached 
 to the spirits in prison." 
 
 (4.) He not only argued it, he called upon the Council to prove 
 that the doctrine was not true. " Will any one quote to me a 
 scriptural proof against this view ? " 
 
 (5.) When asked to reconcile his doctrine with the articles of 
 the church over which he was about to be installed, and which 
 articles affirm that men are to be judged " according -to the deeds 
 done in the body," he replied that he should not interpret the 
 " deeds done in the body," as referring strictly to the present life. 
 
 (6.) He applied his theory, not merely to some who "had never 
 heard of Christ," but to those who had heard and died unbeliev- 
 ing. Surely the gentlemen cannot have forgotten the case so sol- 
 emnly put and so unequivocally answered : "Suppose, sir, you 
 were called to the death bed of an impenitent man, and knew that 
 he had but ten minutes to live ; would you tell him that he 
 must repent and believe in Christ within that time or be lost ? " 
 
 * This was the word used by Mr. Parker in his creed, to denote that point of time 
 beyond the grave, up to which he was understood as entertaining hope for some who 
 died impenitent. 
 
18 
 
 (A.) ''I would uot! " Nor can they have forgotten the earnest 
 exclamation which burst from the lips of the venerable Dr. 
 Ilawes, " Then he vjould never repentl " 
 
 It is true the candidate did say that his doctrine was " not 
 expressly taught in Scripture " — it is true he admitted that the gen- 
 eral drift of the Bible shuts men up to the present ; but this only 
 makes the matter worse, and is a most significant comment upon 
 his views of inspiration. In the most solemn moments of his 
 ministerial life — in the very article of death — standing to usher an 
 immortal soul through the awful portals of eternity, he declares that 
 he ivill not shut that soul up^ for its everlasting hopes^ to the p)oint of 
 time to which he admits the ivhole burden of God^s word shuts him up I 
 
 Gentlemen of the Council ; is there here no practical issue of the 
 faith you have ordained ? Does it not pierce to the very heart of 
 the glorious gospel of the blessed God ? It is not " enough " — it 
 is solemn trifling for you to tell us that there was something else 
 also, which he said he would not do. There was this which he 
 said he would not do, and this which takes hold upon the whole 
 matter of the eternal destiny of men. 
 
 The denial of Drs. Ilawes and Spring here amounts simply to 
 this — that Mr. Parker, when called to the death bed of a sinner, 
 would not deliberately sit down and comfort him with the hope of 
 a future probation. If this is " enough " for these worthy men, 
 we are very sure it is not enough for the Christian community. 
 Nor is it the question ; — it is not whether Mr. P. would positively 
 preach a future probation, but whether he would positively preach 
 Christ received noio as the sinner's only hope ! He declared that he 
 would not. Whether this be, as the Observer says, " another gos- 
 pel " or not, let the world judge. It is not the gospel we preach ; 
 it is not the gospel Christ preached. 
 
 And yet these gentlemen did not hesitate to present a man in 
 this state of mind as a qualified guide and teacher of a flock of 
 Christ ! We recall that. If the reports are true, which from 
 various quarters are now floating through the community, that 
 secret session of the Council was not as harmonious, nor the final 
 vote as unanimous, as the statements of Drs. Hawes and Spring 
 would seem to imply. If there be any foundation for these reports, 
 gentlemen, you did hesitate, you doubted, you feared. You hs- 
 tened to earnest explanations and fervent appeals from the theolog- 
 ical instructor and near friend of the candidate — you hoped, and 
 you yielded. 
 
 Drs. Hawes and Spring have been pleased to charge the author 
 of the "Letter" with a succession of misrepresentations, exagge- 
 rations, suppressions, and falsities. They have been pleased to 
 state that all " who were present at the examination, or knew any- 
 thing of it," understand this to be so. 
 
19 
 
 Now we call upon tiiem to throw open the doors of that secret 
 session, and let us know the impression made by the examination 
 upon the minds of the fathers and brethren there. Tell us if it be 
 true that votes were obtained for the candidate, not on the strength 
 of his examination, but in spite of that examination, and on the 
 ground, simply and solely, of the explanations, apologies and ap- 
 peals of his theological instructor and friend ! Tell us if you had 
 a divided vote at last, and give us the names of the men who re- 
 fused to go with you in your final deed ! Let us summon them — 
 and we do summon them, wherever they are — to give their testi- 
 mony in this case. The cause of truth demands it. Give us, gen- 
 tlemen, the ivhole and faithfulldsiory of tliat secret Council; and we 
 consent to leave the case to the decision of the public ! 
 
 A word more and we yield the pen. We give place to no man 
 in all due respect for the age, position, and reputation of the men 
 whose statements we have felt called upon to review. But the 
 truth of Christ is more sacred than the person of any man. In 
 our inmost soul we believed that that truth was imperilled — we 
 believe so still ; and though every member of the Council should 
 sign the letter of .Drs. Hawes and Spring — which they never will 
 — we appeal the case to coming time and a higher tribunal. 
 
 You have, Messrs. Editors, my name, which you are at liberty to 
 give, whenever it shall be essential to the cause of Truth, 
 
 Hartford,' Afarch 12, 1860. 
 
 In some editorial remarks connected with the above letter the 
 Observer stated that the Eev. Dr. Vermilye, Professor of Theology 
 in the Seminary at East Windsor, Ct,, was on the Council ; and 
 called for his statement. Dr. Vermilye responded in the Observer 
 of March 29th— 
 
 STATEMENT OF EEV. DR. VEEMILYE. 
 
 Messrs. Editors : — As my name has been mentioned in the 
 Observer, and elsewhere, in connection with the recent ordi- 
 nation at Hartford, it seems due to truth, that I should explain 
 my position in that case. As you intimate, I was a member of 
 the ordaining council, and on the examination of the candidate 
 was constrained to cast my vote in the negative. I differed with 
 great reluctance from venerable and respected brethren : but my 
 judgment and conscience permitted me to take no other ground, 
 than that of opposition to the ordination, under the circumstances. 
 And subsequent reflection has not led me to doubt of the pro- 
 priety and necessity of my vote. 
 
 In regard to the discussion to which the ordination has given 
 rise, perhaps the foregoing statement may be sufficient to indi- 
 
20 
 
 cate my view of the foots. It is hardlj necessary to say, that they 
 appeared to me, in all essential par ticrdars^ as your correspondent rep- 
 resents them. I will, however, add that I have read his last commu- 
 nication with some oare, and am prepared to affirm its substantial 
 truth. There are two or three of his statements which I cannot 
 distinctly confirm, as my attention was partially diverted during 
 that part of the questioning. Their truth however, with a single 
 exception, is conceded, I believe, by the other writers : while similar 
 though not identical answers were given by the candidate at other 
 times. As it respects the last point, that of probation after death, 
 — (which it may be said occupied more than half the time of the 
 examination,) according to my recollection, his statements are entirely 
 accurate. In my judgment they leave a fair and just impressioji 
 of the candidate's views, as defined by himself before the Council. 
 And if the anxiety manifested by more than one member during 
 the public examination, is any index, it is the impression which they 
 were naturally calculated to give. It was exceedingly painful to 
 me to reach the conclusion, that such were his views ; but I did not 
 see how to avoid it. 
 
 At present I limit myself to these brief statements. But if cir- 
 cumstances should demand it hereafter, I shall be prepared to state 
 more fully my reasons for the vote I was constrained to give. 
 
 Robert Gr. Yermilye. 
 
 East Windsor Hill, Ct., Marclt 2M. 
 
 April 5th, Drs. Spring and Ilawes replied to Mr. Childs. 
 For the New York Observer. 
 
 REV. DRS. SPRING AND HAWES REJOINDER TO REV. 
 
 MR. CHILDS. 
 
 Messrs. Editors : — We are constrained to ask, once more, for the 
 indulgence of your columns, and for the last time on this subject, 
 that we may disabuse if possible, your own minds, and those of 
 your numerous readers, of the errors which might very naturally 
 be imbibed from an implicit reception of the article in your issue 
 of 22d. inst., headed, "The Recent Ordination in Hartford." 
 We know not from what sources your correspondent has gathered 
 his impressions of the manner in which his attack upon the Council 
 and the candidate is received. We can assure him that, with very 
 few exceptions, both his spirit and his statements meet with gen- 
 eral and unqualified disapprobation. It would not be surprising 
 if those who are eagerly watching for symptoms of heresy in the 
 New England churches and their ministry, should hail with pleas- 
 ure the assistance of a respectable ally ; but he may believe us 
 when we say, that this sort of approval will afford him but Httle 
 
21 
 
 comfort when he comes to learn that his course in this matter is 
 "Widely looked upon as an unaccountable expression of perverse 
 and determined suspicion. 
 
 Your correspondent, in speaking of our letter is pleased to say, 
 "It is to be regretted that these gentlemen should so far have for- 
 gotten their position as to have indulged in such exhibitions of 
 feeling." We are not aware that we gave utterance to anything 
 unbecoming in that communication. If anything in it has 
 offended him, it may be well for him to inquire whether it was 
 not imperatively demanded by his unprovoked assault, simultane- 
 ously made, in at least three different papers, and in parts of the land 
 quite distant from each other.* This studied contiguity, in point of 
 time, of the several and yet almost exactly similar blasts of the note 
 of alarm, could not but awaken some surprise, and lead us to enquire 
 if we were not, in common with our brethren of the Council, 
 called upon to offer some defence. The occasion certainly would 
 not justify rudeness, but it did call for a tone of distinct and well 
 defined complaint. Is it then to be wondered at that some dis- 
 pleasure should be expressed at the fact that an anonymous attack 
 was made upon the character, and regard for the truth, of a large 
 Council, and upon the standing of a young pastor j list introduced 
 by us into the ministry, and henceforth to take part with us in the 
 promulgation and defence of the gospel. If warmth were excus- 
 able in the discussion of such grave matters as your correspondent 
 presented in his communication, it certainly might be pardoned in 
 us, when we were thus unkindly arraigned, and charged with such 
 delinquency to our Master's cause. 
 
 There is one point, though not a very material one, on which we 
 are willing to defer to our brother's alleged confidence in his better 
 means of information. We mean his statement that there were 
 two, if not more, questions, or series of questions, put to the candi- 
 date on the subject of his belief in Inspiration ; while our letter 
 says that only one of the Council questioned him on this article. — 
 We were not careful to keep an account of the number of exami- 
 ners, nor even who they were. We felt that the main object of 
 the examination was sufiicient to absorb our attention, and made 
 our statement on the authority of Mr. Parker, with respect to this 
 part of it. He still says that we were correct in saying that only 
 one took the lead in questioning him on this topic, and that if there 
 were more inquiries, they were but interposed and occasional, and 
 were no serious interruption to the general drift. However, it is 
 easily seen that this is an unimportant point. Whether one, or 
 two, or six questioned the candidate, is not so important as to learn 
 what his views were. If our statement in this minute particular be 
 incorrect, to the full extent even stated by your correspondent, let 
 
 *This is hardly candid, after the assurance that Mr. Childs had not made an "unpro- 
 voked assault in three different papers." 
 
09 
 
 the error have its clue weight. We do not peremptorily deny that 
 it might have been a mistake ; but if it were, we think it should 
 not have been made the basis of a grave charge against our ver- 
 acity, and insisted upon as invalidating our testimony in other par- 
 ticulars.* 
 
 Your correspondent has dwelt at some length upon what he 
 regards as discrepancies between Mr. Parker's creed and his subse- 
 quent "interpretation" of it. We are gratified to learn that, in 
 the opinion of your correspondent, the creed "sounds pretty 
 welL'^t We think more than this; it sounds very well; and if the 
 candidate could — and we believe he could — ex animo, adopt that 
 creed, we did not feel, nor do we now feel, that his correctness in 
 the faith should be called in question.§ His subsequent examina- 
 tion, or if you please so to call it, his interpretation of his creed, 
 was not an absolute necessity, but was entered upon in compliance 
 with an honored and a general custom, partly to afford the candidate 
 in such cases a more full opportunity to explain his views, and to 
 satisfy any listeners, whether prejudiced in his favor, or possibly 
 captious, that he is to be relied on as a firm friend, and able de- 
 fender of the truth. 
 
 * If Drs. H. & S. -will refer to Mr. Childs' letter they will see that he did not 
 make "a grave charge against their veracity . " They had not been as carefixl in re- 
 gard to him. On points where it is now admitted that he was correct, they charged 
 him with "a succession of misrepresentations, exaggerations, suppressions and falsi- 
 ties ;" again and again they accuse him of falsehood; they sneer at his "intelligence ;" 
 speak of him as "a corrupt source of information," as having "stolidly misapprehended 
 or wilfully misrepresented" the facts. Yet they see nothing "unbecoming" in all this. 
 jVIr. Childs had carefully forborne to retort their language. Even where it was per- 
 fectly evident that they were wrong, he ascribed their error to their memory. It now 
 seems to have been a more serious thing than this. These gentlemen put "forth posi- 
 tive statements, for the correctness of which they pledged the accuracy of their own 
 memories. They now admit tliat upon this point they did not remember, but relied 
 upon Mr. Parker for the fact. The "point," indeed, is "not a very material one," but 
 it is material, as a matter of evidence, to know how many more of their statements 
 were made on the same authority. 
 
 It is now no secret that these A'enerable gentlemen are willing to avoid the odium 
 of their first letter, on the ground that it was altered after leaving their liaiids. This 
 can hardly avail. To most minds it would be a very serious question, what moral 
 right they had, in so grave a case, to allow a letter go out of their hands for revision 
 and alteration. If they gave their names to Mr. P. or any other man, to be used at 
 discretion, it is not they, but the public, who have the right to remonstrate at this fur- 
 ther remarkable development in a very remarkable defence. It will be observed, 
 moreover, that in their second letter, they fully endorse and defend the manner and 
 spirit of the first. 
 
 t If these gentlemen will turn to Mr. C's letter, they will see that they have again 
 misapprehended it. His remark was made in reference to a particular article. In 
 regard to the creed as a whole, he said expressly "it was defective, &c." See p. 13. 
 
 ^ Why then did these gentlemen at one time "call in question the correctness of the 
 faith" of Dr. Bushnell, who was willing to accept as many creeds as could be presented 
 to him ? On the ground on which they now stand, we do not see by what right they 
 ever accused Dr. B. of heresy. Is it not possible that some ministers in New England 
 have obtained a general reputation for orthodoxy, on the ground of their opposition to 
 Dr. Bushnell on certain points, who, on other points, are even farther from the evan- 
 gelical faith than Dr. B. himself '. 
 
23 
 
 And in this place, if at all, we might enter again into the partic- 
 ular items of Mr. Parker's belief, as set forth severally, and at 
 length, in the article on which we are commenting. But after the 
 full treatment of the matter in our former letter, and the endorse- 
 ment of the pastor elect by the whole Council, with a solitary and 
 greatly esteemed exception, this is the less necessary. We content 
 ourselves, therefore, with a few general remarks, rather as supple- 
 mentary to our former communication, than as a new and indepen- 
 dent discussion. 
 
 On the subject of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures ; the 
 use of the word Person in the statement of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity ; a sinful and holy nature in distinction from sinfal and 
 holy action ; and moral and natural ability ; it is perfectly well 
 known that differences of opinion exist, not only between Presby- 
 terian and Congregational divines, but between the advocates on 
 the one hand, and the opposers on the other, of some forms ol 
 these doctrines, in Congregational churches reputed orthodox. 
 Nay, if we mistake not, the Presbyterian Church is divided on 
 some, if not all, of these topics. Your correspondent has seen 
 Mr, Parker's views from his Presbyterian stand-point ; and we have 
 looked at them from ours. We hope we love the truth, and are reso- 
 lute to defend it ; but we hare yet to Jearn that firmness in this 
 position requires us to. "make a man an offender for a word," or 
 would justify us in separating from those whom we love to claim 
 as our-iiatural allies in the holy cause of truth and God, 
 
 To the ver}^ disrespectful and unkind remark, that your corres- 
 pondent has " ceased to be surj)rised at any errors to which (Dr. 
 Hawes) may have given his sanction," the writer of this para- 
 graph may be permitted to say that he marvels at its temerity. 
 Dr. Hawes is too well known, here and elsewhere, to be seriously 
 injured by such an insinuation. Why the pastor of the Presbyte- 
 rian church in Hartford should have seen fit to go thus out of his 
 way, and call up an isolated and detached circumstance connected 
 with another installation, and admitting of full explanation, were all 
 the circumstances known, is not easily accounted for. It reveals a 
 spirit more bitter and unlovely than we had expected to witness 
 in our Brother Childs. The topic is dismissed, however, with the 
 comforting reflection that Dr. Hawes is fully competent to sustain 
 himself, and stands in no need of the writer's feeble hand to repel 
 any such accusation from any quarter whatever. 
 
 Allow us, Messrs. Editors, one word, in closing, with regard to 
 the source from which you very honorably acknowledge that you 
 received your communication. The author occupies a position, 
 which, in our view, is not the best adapted to enable him to judge 
 with fairness, or even report with impartiality, the entire char- 
 acter of the examination, of which he has given you a distorted 
 and unfair account. 
 
24 
 
 He is the pastor of a Presbyterian church, in the neighborhood 
 of Congregational churches, whose defects, if there be any, he is 
 interested to discover, and when discerned or imagined, under 
 strong temptations to magnify and proclaun. Possibly this fact 
 may have had too much to do with the animus of his communica- 
 tion — quite too visible for his reputation as a Christian minister 
 and a candid observer. Your correspondent has been admitted, 
 with all kindness, and without the suspicion that he would make 
 any other than a friendly and honorable use of the confidence thus 
 reposed in him, to the most unreserved disclosures which his breth- 
 ren, of three denominations in the city, have made of their views 
 of theological subjects. And no one knows better than he, that, 
 on many points, their opinions are not in perfect harmony. Nor 
 should it have appeared strange to him that in a large Council, 
 composed of the pastors and delegates of eleven churches, all were 
 not alike satisfied with the candidate's explanation of his creed. 
 If in the main they were prepared to pronounce him sound in the 
 faith, and as such could commend him to the confidence of the 
 churches, this was all they were called upon to do in the circum- 
 stances of the case. 
 
 To the demand that the retired, and necessarily exclusive delib- 
 erations of the Council should be made public, we have only to say 
 that it is a very unusual one. When was it known that a body 
 selected for the exjDress purpose of settling a question referred to 
 their sole decision, should either call in to their aid the deliberations 
 of others, in making up their result, or openly proclaim the possi- 
 bility of minuter shades of differing opinions in their own body ?* 
 
 And now, Messrs. Editors, we are happy to say that we have 
 done with your correspondent, and we hope never to be unfortu- 
 nate enough to meet with another so disingenuous and uncourteous. 
 It is refreshing to turn to your own calm, dignified, and temperate 
 statement of the whole question. It lies in a nut-shell. You are 
 willing, and we honor you for the liberality, to put aside for the 
 
 * Here again Drs. H. and S. seem to have misapprehended the point of Mr. C's 
 letter. They had denied the truth of his report, and had said that " those who were 
 present at the examination or knew anything of it, need not be told that his statements 
 were a succession of misrepresentations," &c. They had said (Bost. Rec.) that he was 
 probably the only man wlio had received such an impression. They had represented 
 the action of the Council as harmonious, and had left the impression strongly that on 
 the whole it was a clear and satisfactory case to the entire Council ; and had severely 
 rebuked the papers that had given currency to any opposite impressions. Now the 
 case was very easily settled. The Council "were present and knew something about 
 it." Mr. Childs oifered to submit the whole case to the public if Drs. Hawes and 
 Spring would simply state the facts in reference to this harmonious Council. If the 
 facts had been as Drs. H. and S. represented, then there could have been no possible 
 objection to their being known. On the other hand, there seems to us to have been 
 every reason why so easy and satisfactory a way for ending the controversy and silenc- 
 ing the objector should have been embraced. This single point must carry with it to 
 every reflecting mind, an overwhelming force of evidence as to the real facts connected 
 with the ordination. 
 
25 
 
 present the matters wliicli constitute disputed ground between 
 Presbyterians and Congregationalists, and to inquire whether the 
 Council should have proceeded to the installation of the candidate 
 after such an avowal as is involved in the following question and 
 answer. 
 
 Q. Suppose, sir, you were called to the death bed of an impenitent 
 man, and knew that he had but ten minutes to live ; would you 
 tell him that he must repent and believe in Christ within that time 
 or be lost ? 
 
 A. I WOULD NOT. 
 
 Were this statement fairly made by your correspondent w^e 
 should say with you, that it fully justifies the most alarming view 
 you have taken of the case, and would have required the Council 
 to pause before proceeding to the ordinatic"^ But it is not fairly 
 made. The question and answer are heard out of their connexion, 
 and totally misrepresent the case. Had the Council taken the view 
 of it thus artfully given, they would not long have deliberated, 
 and Mr. Parker, by their act, never would have been the pastor of 
 the South Church in Hartford. And were he to advance such a 
 sentiment now, on a suppositious trial before his Consociation, we 
 would be among the first to wash our hands of complicity with the 
 error, and our suffrages for his deposition would not be lacking. 
 We will tell you what he did say, and under what circumstances 
 he said it. 
 
 The-4Dpic under examination was the candidate's expressed hope 
 touching the 'possihiUty of a future state of probation for those who 
 had never heard of Christ. In this connexion he repeatedly and 
 distinctly said : 
 
 1. That there was no future probation for those who rejected 
 Christ in this life. Their case was desperate and admitted of no 
 hope. 
 
 2. That neither in the case of pagans, or unbelievers in a gos- 
 pel land, would he hold out any expectation of a future state of 
 probation. 
 
 3. That if called to the bedside of a dying pagan, or a dying 
 man in a Christian land ignorant of Christ, and believing that he 
 had but a short time to live, he could not shut him up to a belief 
 in an unknown Christ or perdition. Such an one could have no 
 sufficient intelligence of the way of salvation, and must be left in 
 the hands of a righteous and gracious God. He would not tell 
 such a man that within that brief space of time he must believe in 
 Christ or perish. 
 
 4. And in the case of a dying sinner under the light of the gos- 
 pel, he would urge no other demand, and suggest no other hope 
 than this — an immediate repentance and faith in Christ ; not in 
 nine minutes, nor five, nor one ; but nov: — or you are lost ! 
 
 Such were the circumstances in which that decisive answer was 
 
26 
 
 given. By the veiy circumstances in which the question was put, 
 it and the answer were limited to the case of one ignorant of Christ. 
 "We well remember, and the Council will remember, that Mr. Parker 
 presented in defence of his possible theory, the supposition of a 
 youth educated in all the ignorance and crime of the "Five Points," 
 who had never heard of the way of salvation, and yet in whose 
 moral sensibilities there might still remain some gTOund for the 
 hope -that if Christ w^ere understandingly proposed to him he 
 would accept the Saviour. Such an one he vjoidd not shut up con- 
 clusively to present faith in Christ or final perdition. We do not 
 defend or approve his views. They are repulsive to our moral 
 sense. We had rather leave such a case where the Sciiptures have 
 left it. The Judge of all the earth will do right. We only state 
 the fiicts as they can easily be recalled by every member of the 
 Council. Any other construction than such as we have here put 
 upon the question and answer, is at variance with the particular 
 topic then under discussion, and in conflict with Mr. Parker's 
 statement that for such as reject Christ there is no hope. 
 
 We know that popular favor is no certain criterion of a minis- 
 ters soundness in the faith. But it is to us a somewhat significant 
 circumstance that after a trial of five weeks or more, during which 
 Mr. Parker had preached to a watchful church and congregation, 
 not a few of whom are distinguished for shrewdness, intelligence, 
 and love of the truth, he received from that people an unanimous 
 invitation to become their pastor. They were willing themselves 
 to sit, and to place their children, under his ministry, for his and 
 their life, if God pleased. We have heard more than one of them 
 declare with thankfulness their confidence that in him the great 
 Head of the Church had sent them a teacher after his own lieart. 
 And they are not loose and careless thinkers, but men of clear- 
 sighted and far-reaching views, whose discernment and probity, 
 and_ earnestness in contending for the faith, have won for them an 
 enviable reputation in this city and its vicinage. And the exam- 
 ination was conducted in their presence, and in that of hundreds 
 more — eager and interested listeners — and resulted in their entire 
 apiproval, with the exception we are bound to say, of the single 
 article already repeatedly spoken of, and which probably every 
 member of the Council had rather not have heard. 
 
 With thanks for your former courtesy, and trusting that we may 
 acknowledge a repetition of it in the insertion of this communica- 
 cation, we remain. 
 
 Your brethren in the faith, 
 
 Samuel Spring. 
 J. Hawes. 
 
 Hartford, March 26, 1860. 
 
 To this letter the Observer added the following remarks : 
 
27 
 
 REMARKS BY THE EDITORS. 
 
 1. The change of tone in this communication, from that which 
 pervaded the former from the same venerable men, is at once re- 
 markable and gratifying. 
 
 2. The former article censured ns in severe and unwarrantable 
 terms for giving publicity to well attested facts. The communica- 
 tion above furnishes as complete a vindication of the propriety of 
 that publication as could be desired. 
 
 3. It is now evident that on most of the points in question a 
 large majority of the Council coincided with the candidate in theo- 
 logical opinions. 
 
 4. On the subject of a future state of probation, the testimony 
 of Drs. Spring and Hawes will be regarded as decisive by nine- 
 teen-twentieths of the Protestant Christian world. According to 
 the testimony of these venerable men, the candidate held such 
 views of the future state, that if he were called to a dying sinner 
 ignorant of Christ, he would not shut him up to the necessity of 
 receiving the Saviour, or of being lost. His views were, they say, 
 "repulsive to our :*[Oral SENSE." They are so to ours. They 
 are so to the whole Protestant Christian world, with here and there 
 an eccentric exception. And then the question meets us : Should 
 a man be ordained to preach the gospel whose views on a funda- 
 mental doctrine of the gospel are " repulsive to our moral sense ? " 
 Let us stand alone in the opinion, if it must be so ; let the united 
 judgment of all the Councils from that of Nice down to Hartford 
 condemn us, but when, by holding up the right hand or saying 
 AYE, we vote to ordain a man whose expressed sentiments are 
 repnhive to our moral sense, let our right hand forget its cunning, 
 and our tongue cleave to the roof of our mouth. 
 
 * April 12th, a reply to Drs. Spring and Hawes appeared from 
 Dr. Yermilye. 
 
 For the New York Observer. 
 
 REV. DR. VERMILYE'S STATEMENT. 
 
 HIS OWX QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS IN THE HARTFORD 
 EXAMINATION. 
 
 Messrs. Editors : — At the close of my communication in regard 
 to the Hartford ordination, it was intimated that should it become 
 necessary, 1 would make a fuller statement on the subject. The 
 recent letter of Drs. Spring and Hawes releases me from that ne- 
 cessity on all particulars but one, inasmuch as it concedes almost 
 every point of any importance. I 'have no disposition to enter 
 upon any controversy with them, nor to take any part in that now 
 
28 
 
 in jjrogress, except to confirm what I suppose to be the truth. I 
 may be permitted, however, to express my regret, that in a matter 
 of so grave importance, the spirit of sectarian prejudice has been 
 invoked, and the controversy represented as one concerning points 
 disputed between Presbyterians and Congregationahsts. I do not 
 thinlc that during the whole session of the council, a single ques- 
 tion was asked or point raised, which could be so interpreted. The 
 matters in dispute were matters of faith, not of form ; and in re- 
 gard to which the standards of the two denominations are not at 
 variance. Especially is this true of the one question which occu- 
 pied so much of the time of the council. 
 
 The writers of the letter have stated that there was a solitary 
 exception to the unanimity with which the council endorsed the 
 candidate. It is now known that I am the person referred to. I 
 am thankful for the kind terms in which they have been pleased to 
 refer to me. While I have no disposition to evade any just respon- 
 sibility, nor to pronounce upon that of others, it is right to say 
 that this statement is hardly fair, if it is designed to influence pub- 
 lic opinion, by the supposed unanimity of the council. I put it 
 to my venerable friends, whether it is fair, not to me but to the 
 council, and the truth, to leave the impression that they reached an 
 easy and harmonious decision, with a single exception, or that 
 there were only "possibly minuter shades of differing opinions?" 
 On this very delicate subject, I have felt it my duty neither unnec- 
 essarily to proclaim nor to conceal the facts. In less than a week 
 after the ordination, another member of the council, (with no un- 
 kind intention, I am sure,) amid a circle of ministers, made a 
 statement similar to that which I am now considering, and named 
 me as the single dissentient. I considered it proper then also, to 
 protest against it, as an unfair exhibition of the facts. But I here 
 dismiss this point. I did cast the only negative given on that 
 occasion. 
 
 As I asserted the substantial truth of your correspondent's stato- 
 ments, and as this last letter charges that some of them are artfully 
 made, and purports to refute them or explain them away, I may 
 be excused for noticing the new points here made. I fully agree 
 with you, Messrs. Editors, that the great and important facts are 
 virtually admitted, and the truth of previous statements confirmed. 
 Yet respect for my venerable friends demands, that what they 
 regard as a satisfactory explanation should be examined. I have 
 read, with all the candor which I can gather, this communication ; 
 and I am constrained to say that I see no reason for altering at all 
 my j udgnient of the case, or withdrawing the confirmation before 
 given to the original statements. On all the points preceding that 
 of future probation, there is now a fair understanding, and a sub- 
 stantial agreement as to what took place. Everything of any 
 importance is virtually conceded. It seems to me, that no injustice 
 has been done to the candidate ; I will however say, in regard to 
 
29 
 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, that while the statements of the letter- 
 writer were literally true, and the candidate was not perfectly 
 clear, my own impression, upon the whole, was, that his views 
 were not so much positively erroneous, as defective and confused. 
 This I said, during the session of the council, in answer to the 
 inquiries of a friend. 
 
 Let us come now to the last, and most contested point, that of 
 future probation. Now, in the first place, I cannot at all concede, 
 that the whole decision turns upon the question and answer now 
 newly expounded. The difliculty did not arise with that interrog- 
 atory, nor was it first made apparent then, nor did it even centre 
 around it. The whole handling of this subject by the candidate 
 was grievously unsatisfactory. Not only were his opinions virtu- 
 ally included in his creed ; not only were they voluntarily presen- 
 ted, without any necessity at the point of the examination when 
 they were brought out, as far as I could see, but they were insisted 
 on, and elaborately defended, before this now famous question was 
 put. I do not hesitate to affirm, that if it had never been put the 
 case would have been a trying one to the council, and their decis- 
 ion would have been reached through great concern and perplexity. 
 And if that question were now dropped out of the case, there re- 
 mains a mass of evidence as to the opinion of the candidate, which 
 cannot be easily set aside. 
 
 But we have now what purports to be a satisfactory explanation 
 of the^answer given ; with the concession that if its more obvious 
 meaning were the true one, that answer would have been a bar to 
 the ordination. It is claimed that no other meaning than that now 
 given is consistent with the circumstances of the case. What then 
 is this new interpretation ? It is this : that the question referred 
 to the case of persons, jDagans or others, who were in absolute igno- 
 rance of every iiKty of salvation^ and of the first principles of the 
 Christian religion. It was in regard to this class of persons, actu- 
 ally pagan, in whatever land, that this answer was given. The 
 phrase "ignorant of Christ " is to betaken in its most absolute 
 sense. There is virtually but one class of persons to whom the 
 exception involved in the answer refers. If called to the bedside 
 of a dying pagan., in India, or New York, the candidate would not 
 shut him up to the necessity of finding Christ as his Saviour, or 
 being left without hope. 
 
 Now with all respect for my venerable brethren, I will state 
 why I cannot accept the interpretation thus given. I claim a right 
 to speak with some certainty as to the real object of the question, 
 because it was framed and put by myself, during that part of the 
 examination which I conducted. It was deliberately and carefully 
 stated to the candidate with all necessary explanations. It was 
 designedly put as an extreme case, to test the ]3ractical eftect of his 
 theory, in his ministry. It was put not as a general question, but 
 
30 
 
 to him individually as the supposed pastor of the South Church in 
 Hartford ; and the' point was not what it might be expedient to do, 
 but what would he feel justified in saying^ doctrinally, if it were 
 expedient to state such an alternative. It was put as significant of 
 the last lingering hope in my own mind, that the candidate might 
 be extricated from his unhappy position, though of course with the 
 ruin of his consistency. The answer did not surprise me : it was 
 in the direct line of his previous statements : and on hearing it, I 
 surrendered the case as hopeless, so far as I was concerned. Now 
 I claim that I ought to have known the bearing and relations of 
 my own question ; and at the risk of being considered a witness in 
 my own case, I affirm that the candidate ought not to have misun- 
 derstood it. Nor can any advantage justly be taken of the "Five 
 Points" illustration, or of the ambiguity of the phrase " ignorant of 
 Christ." For as to the former, the question was partly framed to 
 carry the candidate beyond such cases ; and as to the latter, I dis- 
 tinctly said in substance, " I mean a man who has intelligence 
 enough to understand you, and who, finding himself suddenly in 
 the face of death, sends for you to tell him how he may_ save his 
 soul." It is said, that any other than the new interpretation is in- 
 consistent with the circumstances of the case. But how is the ex- 
 clamation of Dr. Hawes (substantially) — " then the man will never 
 repent, if you give him any time beyond the present life," — consist- 
 ent with the new view, or with the "shutting up a man to a belief 
 in an unknown Christ, or perdition," which I am supposed to have 
 demanded ? The application of my question to the literal pagan 
 is absolutely untenal^le. No such application was in my thoughts. 
 The question was personal and practical — " What would you do?" 
 — and the pastor of the South Church in Hartford is not likely to 
 be called to the dying bed of a literal pagan. This view of the 
 case also represents Mr. Parker as cherishing the hope of a future 
 probation for all the heathen indiscriminately. But if the applica- 
 tion of the question be confined to the supposed virtuous heathen, 
 they were expressly remitted to a more hopeful condition. For 
 when the attempt was made, by the kindness of one of Mr. P.'s 
 friends in the council, to reduce the whole case to this category, 
 and to make him admit that his scruples referred only to those of 
 whom, for example, Socrates was a type, the reply was, "No, Sir; 
 that is not it at all ; I believe Socrates went to heaven." Of course, 
 he needed no further probation. I must repeat, that the case of the 
 dying pagan was absolutely excluded from my cpiestion. Nor did 
 it apply to the case of one dying in a christian land in entire igno- 
 rance on the subject of religion. Indeed it seemed to me, that the 
 true application was conceded in the first defence offered. The 
 excuse for the unhappy answer then alleged was, not that it applied 
 to a man in pagan or semi-pagan darkness, but that " he would not 
 broach the supposition, in public or in private, to an impenitent 
 
31 
 
 man." Need I say what is the common meaning of the phrase, 
 " an impenitent man ?" 
 
 But did he not say, that for those who rejected Christ there was 
 no hope ? I will not deny that he did ; though the sentiment was 
 not as clearly presented to my mind as it seems to have been to 
 otliers. StOl I will yield to their clearer convictions. But I can 
 only say, that I was compelled to think that he referred to a class 
 of persons, who deliberately and obstinately repudiated this way of 
 salvation. For them there was no hope. Another class consisted 
 of those who were utterly " ignorant of Christ :" for these he hoped 
 for a future probation. Another class consisted of impenitent men ; 
 such as many of those who hear the word. These he would not 
 shut up absolutely in a dying hour, to a reception of Christ, or 
 perdition. My venerable friends now say that he would. They 
 affirm for him, the very thing which to me he denied. 
 
 And now, Messrs. Editors, I believe with you, that the case is 
 given up by your correspondents, in their very statement of it. — 
 Why would not Mr. Parker shut up a dying sinner, a dying pagan, 
 if you please, to faith in Christ, or perdition ? He certainl}^ would 
 not rest on the paltry evasion that "ten minutes" was not long 
 enough to teach him : for no stress was laid upon the time, except 
 that it was ^^a short time^^^ as your correspondents say; and the 
 measure of it was varied. He will not seriously say, that I asked 
 him to-shut a man up to faith in an unknown Christ. Let us 
 brush away the fog. "Would he make known to a dying man "igno- 
 rant of Christ," that Christ is his only hope of salvation? "If 
 called to the death-bed of an impenitent man, who had but a short 
 time to live, would he tell him that he must repent and believe in 
 Christ, loithin that time^ — before he died, — or be lost?" He said he 
 would not. I think he meant so : and his reason was found in his 
 hope of a future state of probation. And the mind is not relieved, 
 but the more perplexed, by the " Five Points" illustration. As has 
 been said before, the "question" went beyond that case, intention-* 
 ally. But what is the meaning of the language, "in whose moral 
 sensibilities there might still remain some ground for the hope that 
 if Christ were understandiugly j)roposed to him, he would accept 
 the Saviour?" I should interpret it to apply to one, who, as was 
 said of some of the heathen, might have the spirit of faith, but to 
 whom the object of faith was not made known. But these would 
 be regenerate persons, and, like Socrates, would go directly to 
 heaven ! A member of the council said to me, that he understood 
 the candidate to deny the doctrine of original sin. Will that fur- 
 nish the explanation ? I fear the trvie explanation must be found 
 in Mr. P.'s declaration, when asked a reason for his views, that he 
 felt as if God would give every one a "fair chance." I am afraid 
 that the vague and general interpretation which has been given, 
 cannot hide the true meaning of that unfortunate expression. It 
 
32 
 
 was uttered in the connection I have indicated. It revealed to my 
 mind, at least, the source of all the young pastor's difficulties, in 
 the principle that God's mercy would not permit hun to cast off 
 any who had not deliberately rejected the way of salvation through 
 Christ. Every one must have a '/a/;- chance.'''' 
 
 My venerable friends will bear with me in so long a letter ; the 
 more as it is now publicly known, that no one else in the council 
 will be likely to annoy them with any further remonstrance. I 
 had no agency in bringing this matter before the public, and only 
 spoke under an apparent necessity And I might be permitted 
 now, perhaps, to say a word as to my personal relations to the 
 council, and the examination of the candidate. I took my seat, 
 with the intention to ask no question myself; and every one put 
 by me was in kindness, and with the purpose, if possible, of satis- 
 fying my own mind of his substantial soundness. When I found 
 myself alone in the negative, I considered myself exonerated, and 
 my personal duty at an end. But it is far more important than 
 any personal matters to say, that we may believe that the truth 
 will be promoted and good accomplished by this discussion. The 
 irritation of feeling on the part of brethren will pass away. The 
 trouble and annoyance which have been experienced by the young 
 pastor, and by his friends in his church and elsewhere, will be for- 
 gotten ; if, at least, he shall jDrove himself a faithful teacher of the 
 truth, and shall vindicate the charitable judgment of the council in 
 his case. But this is gained. "We have the unequivocal declaration 
 of Drs. Spring and Hawes, for themselves and the council, that 
 had they understood Mr. Parker to hold what he was supposed by 
 some to hold, they would have refused him ordination ; and even 
 now would vote for his deposition. We have also their judgment 
 that w^hat he did avow on this important point, is erroneous, and 
 "repulsive to their moral sense." This is enough; they will not 
 now be quoted as holding or sanctioning any modified views on 
 •this topic. If any have been disposed to defend Mr. Parker's 
 views, or if Universalists have been anxious to claim him, as 
 in the first steps of the road towards their encampment, — let it be 
 distinctly understood that the fathers of the churches pronounce 
 those supposed views to be "heresy," and severely condemn the 
 "laxity" with which the young pastor is really chargeable. Let it 
 be distinctly understood that orthodox councils will not sanction 
 such deviations from the truth. If this shall be gained, I shall be 
 content to be supposed to have erred in my solitary vote. 
 
 Ea.st Windsor mU, Ct ^^^^- ^- ^^rmilye. 
 
 Mr. Parker himself then appeared in the Observer of April 
 19th:— ^ 
 
33 
 
 MR. PARKER'S LETTER. 
 
 EEV. E. P. PAEKEE, ON HIS EXAMINATION FOR OE- 
 
 DINATION AT HAETFOED, CONN. 
 
 Hartford, April 13, 1860. 
 To the Editors of the Neio York Observer: 
 
 Until I read tlie letter of Dr. Vermilye, (Observer, April 
 12,) I had strong hopes that a fair statement of the facts in the 
 case would satisfactorily explain to him my position at the Hart- 
 ford ordination. I now neither hope nor care to satisfy him. I 
 only wish to make a few remarks, state the facts, and leave the 
 truth to God. I have in my possession elaborate articles from 
 men who attended the examination and carefully noted doiun my 
 positions, in which are statements irreconcilable with those of Mr. 
 Childs, or with the limping logic of Dr. Vermilye. I now forbear 
 to publish them, being quite convinced that such a course would 
 only tend to protract a disgusting controversy. In regard to Dr. 
 Vermilye's letter I beg leave to make the following remarks. 
 
 (1.) It is merely a specious and repetitious plea/o?" his oion forced 
 construction of a question, which without any inteUigihle explana- 
 tion, was put to me by him at the examination. It is quite re- 
 markable that, according to this letter, that question was purposely 
 framed so as to meet and obviate all other possible constructions. — 
 The thing is slightly overdone we think ! 
 
 (2.) "No such explanation as he says "in substance" he gave, fell 
 on my ears. 
 
 (3.) Whatever the real object of the question may have been, as 
 it revolved in the interrogator's mind, the council and candidate 
 could but interpret the question for themselves. If Dr. Y. had 
 any such object in asking the question as he labors to state, 
 that object was unhinted by him in the question itself. I answered 
 the question and "claim a right to speak with some certainty as to 
 the" obvious meaning of the question. 
 
 (4.) In neither of the letters written by Dr. Yermilye has he 
 given my answer to his question. Mr. Childs has given a part of it, 
 but only the flexible part. The answer was, "I would not, but 
 WOULD tell him of Christ P^ 
 
 (5.) I indignantly deny that I voluntarily presented my perplex- 
 ities on this matter to the council. On the other hand, an ac- 
 knowledgment of them was screvjedoMi of me by Dr. Hawes and 
 others. I distinctly told the council that I thought an examination 
 on this mere doubt was unfair ! 
 
 I also deny that I defended on any ground a belief in a future 
 probation /or any. I never had any such belief I never expressed 
 any such belief. 
 
 (6.) I am happy to state that Drs. Hawes and Spring very much 
 lament an unaccountable slip of the pen in their last article. They 
 
34 
 
 intended to say — ''the views ascribed by Mr. Childs to Mr. Parker 
 were repulsive to their moral sense!" In the hurry of writing or 
 recasting their article they omitted a part of what they intended to 
 say. Therefore, all the clever patronage with which Dr. V.'s letter 
 so complacently closes, is so much waste ink. 
 
 (7.) I ever have, still do, and pray God I ever shall believe, that 
 God will give all men '■'■afairchanceP'' I Jcnoiv he will. 
 
 (8.) The construction now put upon "the awful question," and 
 most triumphantly arrogated throughout this letter, is, in view of 
 the connection in which the question was put, an unnatural and il- 
 logical one ; and (if I may be allowed to look up towards the East 
 Windsor Hill with the least bit of levity) at once reminded me of 
 the old sons: — "When a twister a-twisting will twist him a twist, 
 &c."! 
 
 Let me now state the facts in the case, 
 
 I pass by the questions on "Inspiration," "Trinity," and "Abil- 
 ity," not because, as is modestly assumed^ the charges of Mr. Childs 
 are conceded to be true — for I claim that they are false charges — 
 but because the whole discussion has been hinged on the single 
 subject of future probation. 
 
 And first, let us compare the original charge with the one now 
 insisted on. I extract from your columns of the 23d of February. 
 " He (the candidate) held that after death * * * there is a state 
 for all souls * * * where some loho had rejected Christ in this life 
 would have a new offer of Christ and salvation." Noio the charge 
 is that the candidate said — " Undine to the belief that after death, 
 &c. And the words "rejected Christ in this life" are omitted! 
 Which of these charges were [was?] made from ^Hliose notes,^^ we are 
 not informed. For the progress towards truth, however, we should be 
 grateful.'" 
 
 But let us take the more guarded charge, which is nearest truth. 
 " I incline to the helief,^^ &c. 
 
 The answer of which these words are the beginning was not 
 given at all, to a question concerning salvation in a future state ; 
 but only to a question concerning my views in regard to the fact of 
 an intermediate state of the dead. I was requested to state my 
 views on this point, and I said — "I incline to the belief that there 
 is a state or condition after death for all souls," and then added 
 that I rather inclined to the opinion that this intermediate state 
 would 136 the lot of all the dead until the resurrection, when the 
 righteous would enter upon the consummate bliss, being incorpo- 
 rate, and the wicked depart into their full measure of woe. I said 
 that my mind was as yet unsettled on this point. Now the question 
 of the 'possibility of salvation in this state was an after question. It 
 had no logical connection whatever with the words, " I incline to 
 
 * This reflection would have been saved, if the writer had noticed that the Observer 
 in this remarli, did not profess to quote the words either of the Letter or the notes. 
 
35 
 
 the belief." I did not say, at any time during the examination 
 that I helieved, or "inclined to the belief" that some souls would 
 have a new offer of salvation in Hades. " I inclined to a belief" 
 in an intermediate state. (See Note I. below.) As to what I did 
 say :' Throughout the whole discussion on that memorable day, I 
 limited the bare possibility of future probation to such as had never 
 heard or hioicn of Christ. I repeatedly remarked that for such as 
 rejected Christ in this life there was nothing to support a conjecture 
 of future probation. (See Note II. below.) On this point I felt no 
 perplexity. In regard to such as had never had any knowledge of 
 religious things, I said in substance this : " The Bible does not 
 make it decisive and unquestionable to me, that the eternal state of 
 every human soul will be fixed at death." I said that the whole 
 Bible looked that way ; that it gave me no reliahle evidence that there 
 would be a probation for any after death. Consequently I said I 
 had no such belief In the general and awful silence of the Bible 
 I simply listened to the echoes of my own quick heart-beats, while 
 thinking on the matter. Dr. Lawrence, with his characteristic 
 kindness, quoted a certain passage, and remarked in tones that fell 
 strangely sweet into that hoarser confusion of voices, that he doubted 
 not the candidate by a prayerful study of that passage would come 
 to be wholly relieved of his perplexity. 
 
 I am sorry to contradict Dr. Vermilye and Mr. Childs — but am 
 glad to say that I did not defend the belief in a future probation. I 
 did not quote a verse from the Epistle of Peter in support of such 
 a theoryT I said that this passage had been used by eminent men 
 in the church to support the doctrine, but that it did not satisfy 
 me .'* (See Note 3d below.) I wiU add that considerable inge- 
 nuity was displayed by one member of the council in an apparent 
 attempt to force me to some extreme position on what I repeatedly 
 told him was a doubtful, unsettled point in my mind. We come 
 now to the awful question. What Dr. Vermilye's aim was in ask- 
 ing the question, nobody knows but himself I can modestly 
 return his compliment and assure him that his letter is "grievously 
 unsatisfactory" on this point. I thought I knew what the ques- 
 tion fairly should mean, when it was put ; though at the time it 
 was generally considered a remarkable, rather than an appropriate 
 question. There are one or two versions of this labored ques- 
 tion. We will take Mr. Childs' version. I most solemnly affirm 
 that the question ivas ashed in connection with an outcast from 
 the " Five Points " who had no knowledge of Christ. The ques- 
 tion rested squarely on that basis. It was generally so under- 
 stood. (See note 4th below.) Observe that only a part of my 
 answer to this question has yet been given. The answer was this 
 — " I would notj hut icoidd tell him of Christ!''^ Now the question 
 was in substance this, " would you, if called to the death bed of 
 
 * Compare with this the statement of Dr. Spring in the Expositor, p. 11. 
 
36 
 
 an impenitent man (who liad no knowledge of Christ, or who had 
 been brought up in ignorance of religious things) who had but ten 
 minutes to live, tell him he must repent and believe on Christ 
 within that time or be lost? " Ansioer — " I would not, hut ivould 
 tell him of Christ.'''' I insist that this is the true light in which to 
 view the question. This is the light in which nine-tenths of those 
 present did view it, whatever obscure purpose the questioner may 
 have had. 
 
 Well, I am made to appear as answering, " I would not in my 
 instructions shut a man up to immediate repentance and faith ;" 
 whereas I own that the Bible hems us all in to immediate recon- 
 ciliation, and would myself follow the leading of the Bible im- 
 plicitly in this respect. But the ictus of the question fell on the 
 word " tell !" Would you " tell" such a man that be must believe 
 in ten minutes or be damned. " I would not," &c. " Would 
 not" what? Why, would not place any such alternative before 
 such a man. It would be just such spiritual angling as Bellamy 
 reproved a student for. Said he — " You toss your great hook in 
 and say "5«fe or he damned P'' No sirs! I would not tell such 
 a soul any such thing. Why did Dr. Vermilye say '■Hen minutes" 
 if he objects to sticking to it? Such a man, I would above all pray 
 for with all my might. Then I would tell him of Jesus if possibly 
 I might just introduce him to the Saviour, or the Saviour to him. 
 That is what I would do. That is what I said I would do. To a 
 man who had previously rejected Christ I would say — Not ten, 
 or five, or two minutes but noiu ! You have not the shadow of a 
 hope beyond just now ! This sirs, is the true interpretation of the 
 question and answer. If, I^r. Y. asked the question and so ought 
 to know about it, I answered it and was more interested in it. I 
 should answer the question as then put and understood, in the 
 same way, if it should be put to me again. 'Would you shut him 
 up ?" This is another thing ; what do you mean by this ? Would 
 I pass judgment on him? No! Would I, in my instructions, flash 
 the terrors of hell-fire before his face ? No ! Would I close every 
 door on him to which I had access, hut that of faith in Christ? Yes 
 I loould ! Thus the Bible shuts men up, and thus I would do it 
 always ! But neither I nor you, nor any but God has a right oth- 
 erwise to shut up a dying soul. / would environ a soul with the 
 necessity of immediate repentance and faith, but as for dropping 
 it into hell, if I saw no evidence of its repentance, why I never 
 
 would do it. I would leave it with God and follow it with 
 
 fears ? hopes ? doubts ? yes, but above all with faith in God f^ 
 
 * What is the meaning of this ? Mr. Parker would not drop into hell a soul in 
 whom he saw no evidence of repentance ! Does he mean solemnly to assurcthe pub 
 lie that he is not the Eternal Judge 1 The public needed no such assurance. Does 
 he mean to say that for a man who has died with no evidence of repentance, he has no 
 ground to decide whether he is sealed to perdition ? Does he mean to say that he sees 
 no inevitable connection between an impenitent death bed and eternal woe ? We 
 
37 
 
 Is tliat lieresy ? Then put a cross against my name, or brand 
 the black mark of heresy npon the yet soft cheek of my character 
 and I will wear it as an ornament ! I said in substance before the 
 council, what Mr. Childs would have me say — though I suppose he 
 otherwise understood me — that "Christ believed on ?20t<,' " is the 
 only reliable ground of hope. The Bible surveys no other ground 
 for us. There and then I declared I should be thus compelled to 
 preach ; and would I have promised to preach what I did not be- 
 lieve? Dr. Yermilye says " He will not seriously say that I asked 
 him to shut a man up to faith in an unknown Christ ! " I do say 
 with all respect, that if the question in its connection meant any- 
 thing at all, that 2vas ichat it did mean ! Would I tell a man who 
 had been brought up in utter ignorance of religious things, who had 
 but so many minutes to live, to believe in Christ or he would be 
 eternally damned? It would be neither justifiable nor expedient. 
 I will leave the matter here. I can state my views on this subject 
 when courteously asked, or ecclesiastically summoned so to do. At 
 present, cheered by many messages from various quarters in New 
 England, blessed with kindest encouragements even from one who 
 came from East Windsor Hill to my examination, and with perfect 
 unanimity sustained by my church, I prefer to listen and wait, 
 after having thus explained my views as stated to the council. — 
 And now, to show you that I have evidence of what I say, allow 
 me to present the following notes in order, coined from the ^yrivate 
 note-hooJc of Dr. Samuel Harris, where they written by him imme- 
 diately after reaching home after examination.'-^ 
 
 Dr. Harris' statements were written independently of mine of 
 course. He says, "I am sure that Mr. Childs has not obtained a 
 correct idea of Mr. Parker's actual belief; and that every one of his 
 seven specifications is either an incorrect or inadequate representation 
 of Mr. P.'s doctrine on the point. In many instances your corres- 
 pondent has omitted imiwrtant .stafe7we/ife actually made by the can- 
 didate, which prove his doctrine widely different from that ascrib- 
 ed to him." Now as to the notes. Note 1st. Dr. Harris says, "I 
 distinctly remember the remark, ' I incline to the belief,' and also 
 that the subject respecting which he said it, ivas not the question 
 whether there will be any offer of mercy after death, but the gen- 
 ercd subject of an intermediate state of the dead." Note 2d. Dr. 
 
 think he does. For he would follow such a soul not only with "fears," but with 
 "hopes !" not only with "doubts" but with "faith in God !" Hopes of what ? and faith 
 for what 1 What, but the mercy of God 1 and where, but beyond the grave 1 These are 
 significant words. To our mind they reveal the spring from which all that has been 
 affirmed of Mr. Parker's faith could come. 
 
 * These notes bear such unmistakable evidence of reference to the controversy as it 
 was in progress, that Mr. Parker must be in error in supposing them written im- 
 mediately after the ordination. Of course the reference to Mr. Childs was not then 
 written; the expression "your correspondent" seems quite unintelligible ; and the words 
 in Note 1st, "I distinctly remember the remark, &c.," obviously refer to a remark 
 in Mr. Childs' letter. 
 
38 
 
 Harris says, "Mr. P. declared that lie felt sure that there will be no 
 offer of mercy in the future life to such as have had the gospel in 
 this life." Note Sd. Dr. H. says, "He (candidate) had examined 
 1st Peter, 3 : 19, and was satisfied it does not j^rove thsit there will be 
 probation to any after death. He was convinced that there is no 
 reliable evidence in the Bible, justifying a belief in a probation 
 after death." 
 
 Note 4:th. " The case being supposed of an outcast in the Five 
 Points, in N. Y. city, who had never heard of Christ, the question 
 was asked, If called to such a person, knowing that he had but ten 
 minutes to live, &c. The answer was, I would not, but would tell 
 him of Christ."* I could quote more fully and conclusively from 
 these notes, had I time and room. 
 
 There remains only this to be added : Drs. Hawes and Spring 
 fully endorse these notes of Prof. Harris, as a fair representation 
 of the case. I forbear to quote, except upon the most important 
 points. A dozen men who heard the examination have told me 
 that they could heartily subscribe to these my statements. In fact 
 29-30ths of those present at that examination would join in affirm- 
 ing these same things. Allow me, in closing, to express my deep 
 regret that this controversy has arisen. In a strange land, such a 
 publicity has been a source of grievous suffering to me. Nor would 
 it be delicate for me to expose the severer wounds which these 
 weekly arrows, unwittingly winged, have made in the tenderer 
 heart of one of far dearer to me than even my reputation. If there 
 may be a peaceable close of this controversy, I pray that it may 
 speedily come. I hereby call upon all aggrieved persons rather 
 than to prosecute any longer a war with these paper bullets, to call 
 me to some face-to-face account, that the matter may be settled. 
 
 Am I guilty of heresy ? I wish to know it. Do I preach the 
 ministry of reconciliation, rightly dividing the word of God ? I 
 wish to do it, unbespattered and unsuspected. 
 
 Towards Mr. Childs I have not the slightest ill-feeling. I think 
 he is mistaken ; and had he consulted with me I think we could 
 have come more nearly together. That God will speedily bring 
 this matter to a settlement, that he will guide all who have taken 
 part in this discussion into truth, and keep them in good faith and 
 temper, and more especially thus bless Mr. Childs, the Eds. of Ob- 
 server, Dr. Vermilye and myself, is my sincere prayer. 
 
 Very respectfully^ Edwin Pond Parker. 
 
 *lii regard to this addition to the answer. (1.) If Drs. Hawes and Spring had 
 heard it, it is very remarkable that they make no reference to it in any of their replies. 
 (2.) "We have the direct evidence of Dr. Vermilye and Mr. Childs that they did not 
 hear it, and Dr. Vermilye Avas the gentleman to whom the answer was given, if it was 
 given at all. (3.) Tlie answer is utterly inconsistent with the admitted exclamation 
 of Dr. Hawes. Accordmg to this statement Mr. Parker says ' I would tell the dying 
 sinner of Christ,' and Dr. Hawes exclaims, ' then he will never repent' — a very remark- 
 able logical inference ! 
 
39 
 
 This letter was accompanied by the following editorial com- 
 ments : — 
 
 Eemarks by the Editors. 
 
 The little flings in the first paragraph of Mr. Parker's letter 
 must be excused on account of the writer's youth, and not be 
 allowed to weaken the force of his argument. 
 
 Mr, Parker must have misapprehended Drs, Spring and Hawes, 
 if they have attempted to explain to him personally their remarks 
 respecting his views. Their language is this : 
 
 "We well remember, and the Council will remember, that Mr. Parker presented in 
 defence of his possible theory, the supposition of a youth educated in all the ignor- 
 ance and crime of the "Five Points," who had never heard of the way of salvation, 
 and yet in whose moral sensibilities there might ^ill remain some ground for the hope 
 that if Christ were understandingly proposed to him he would accept the Saviour. 
 Such an one he would not shut up conclusively to present faith in Christ or final per- 
 dition. We do not defend or approve his views. They are repulsive to our moral 
 sense. We had rather leave such a case where the Scriptures have left it. The judge 
 of all the earth will do right. W^only state the facts as they can easily be recalled by 
 every member of the Council." 
 
 No "slip of the pen" and no "omission" can make this language 
 refer to anything but the views that Mr. Parker expressed. Drs. 
 Spring and Hawes declare "we do not defend or approve his views. 
 They are repulsive to our moral sense." And so they are to the 
 Christian Church. 
 
 Mr.~Parker is needlessly sensitive respecting the discussion as if 
 it mainly concerned him. He mistakes the point entirely. It is 
 not what he believes, that the public "cares" to know. The_ coun- 
 cil, not the candidate, is now before the public. The question is 
 "what did the candidate profess to believe, or not believe ivhen un- 
 der exctminationr Perhaps he failed to express his sentiments, and all 
 we have sought to learn is now sufiiciently proved by the letters of 
 Messrs. Spring, Hawes, Yermilye and Childs, who have satisfied all 
 intelligent minds as to the facts in the case. With the facts before 
 them, the Council ordained a candidate whose views on a vital 
 point in the gospel they do not "defend or approve." If nothing 
 else is settled, that is. 
 
 Mr. Parker's letter makes but one addition to the testimony. In 
 reply to the question, would you shut a dying sinner up to &c., he 
 said "I would not." So the witnesses have told us. He now adds 
 ''I loouldtellhim of Christ,'' as part of his answer. This additional 
 clause does not help the case. What would you tell him of Christ? 
 Would you tell him he must now believe or perish ? If you he- 
 lieved so, you would tell him so : if you do not believe so, you 
 would not preach the gospel to that poor sinner. _ But the exclama- 
 tion of Dr. Hawes shows clearly that this additional clause was 
 not heard by the Council. It is in evidence that when Mr. P. re- 
 plied, "I would not," Dr. Hawes exclained, ^^Then he would never 
 
40 
 
 repentP'' Now we repeat the reply in the new form proposed, "No, 
 I would not : I would tell him of Christ." And Dr. Hawes ex- 
 claims: "Then he would never repent," a remark that would be 
 very extraordinary after the answer suggested. 
 
 Mr. Parker must divest himself of the idea that the public has 
 anything to do with him. Let him by a faithful, zealous, and 
 scriptural exhibition of the Gospel, show to his people and to the 
 Church at large, that his views have been totally misapprehended : 
 that he regards with abhorrence the idea that the heathen may re- 
 pent and believe after they are dead : that he does not hold even the 
 sentiments which the council believed him to hold when they or- 
 dained him ; and this unpleasant affair will not be a damage ; it will 
 be a great blessing to him. 
 
 Here, we trust, this particular discussion will be suffered to rest. 
 Other cases and other subjects demand our space and attention. — 
 We have great reason to bless God that this matter has been 
 brought vcp and has arrested so widely the attention of the 
 churches. The discussion has already ^Tone vast good. The de- 
 velopment has satisfied the most incredulous that there is far more 
 ground for anxiety than they supposed. Orthodox ministers will 
 be more careful and watchful and faithful. Theological teachers 
 have had a new lesson to learn, by which they will not fail to im- 
 prove. And we have been taught to be more vigilant, earnest and 
 outspoken in defence of the evangelical doctrines of our holy re- 
 ligion. 
 
 April 26th the Observer closed the controversy with the folio w- 
 
 mg notes : — 
 
 For the New York Observer. 
 
 DES. SPEING AND HAWES. 
 
 Messrs. Editors : — We had not intended to draw upon your in- 
 dulgence, or the j)atience of your readers, any further. But the 
 construction put upon one expression, in our last communication, 
 requires a brief notice. We then said, "We do not defend, or ap- 
 prove his (Mr. Parker's) views. They are repulsive to our moral 
 sense." This remark, you, and your respected correspondent at 
 East Windsor, will perceive was expressly lunited to a suppositious 
 case, and furnishes no ground for the premature triumph that we 
 have " yielded the main points at issue." And we may be permit- 
 ted to claim the privilege of interpreting our own admission. It 
 was not that Mr. Parker's avowed belief— including his creed, and 
 his examination as a whole — was repulsive, but that on this partic- 
 ular point he put forth a suggestion — or rather a hope, not a belief 
 — which we could not adopt, and which if interpreted as had been 
 done, and we thought un&irly, would have furnished valid reason 
 
■il 
 
 for his rejection by the Council. Enough had been said, in various 
 parts of both of our communications, to exempt us from the charge 
 of endorsing even his cautious and modified speculations on the 
 subject of a possible, future probation. A fair, and, as we intended, 
 the only, construction that could be put upon our admission is, 
 ,that his views, as inteiyreted hy your first correspondent^ are obnoxi- 
 ous, and would, if so understood by us, have been a bar to our 
 further progress in the ordination. The words used by us may 
 seem to imply more than this ; but then, they would be totally at 
 variance with what we have elsewhere abundantly asserted ; and 
 our brethren will, we think, hardly allege that we have been so 
 grossly inconsistent as in the same communication to have perpe- 
 trated so stolid a contradiction. We regret that our decided con- 
 demnation of the construction put upon Mr. Parker's views by his 
 critics, should have been deemed a condemnation of the candidate's 
 belief. We should have indeed stultified ourselves, and have 
 deserved at once to fo^-feit the confidence of the churches, if such 
 a charge could be righteously alleged. And how our brethren, 
 who say they respect us, can admit such a reflection, we are not a 
 little perplexed to understand. 
 
 Eespectfully yours, 
 
 Samuel Speixg, 
 J. Hawes. 
 
 Ttat the intelligent reader may have the connection in which 
 the remark, now explained, was made, we subjoin the whole para- 
 graph from the former letter of Drs. Spring and Hawes. — Eds. of 
 Obs. 
 
 "Such were the circumstances in which that decisive answer was 
 given. By the very circumstances in which the question was put, 
 it and the answer were limited to the case of one ignorant of 
 Christ. We well remember, and the council will remember, that 
 Mr. Parker presented, in defence of his possible theory, the suppo- 
 sition of a youth, educated in all the ignorance and crime of the 
 " Five Points," who had never heard of the way of salvation, and 
 yet in whose moral sensibilities there might still remain some 
 ground for the hope that if Christ were understandingly proposed 
 to him he would accept the Saviour. Such an one he woiddnot 
 shut up conclusively to present faith in Christ or final perdition. 
 We do not defend or approve his views. They are repulsive to 
 our moral sense. We had rather leave such a case where the 
 Scriptures have left it. The Judge of all the earth will do right. 
 We only state the facts as they can easily be recalled by every 
 member of the council. Any other construction than such as we 
 have here put upon the question and answer, is at variance with 
 the particular topic then imder discussion, and in conflict with Mr. 
 Parker's statement that for such as reject Christ there is no hope." 
 
42 
 
 For the New York Observer. 
 
 REV. MR. CHILDS. 
 
 Messrs. Editors : — I shall not burden you with a long communi- 
 cation. The statements of both sides are before the world. I 
 re-afiirm the truth of my original letter. As to the only point now 
 at issue, if it be understood that not to receive an offered Christ is to 
 reject him, the controversy is at an end. 
 
 My object now is to correct a single statement in the last letter 
 of Drs. Hawes and Spring. The rest we can afford to jjass. In 
 their substitution of remarkable personalities for facts and argu- 
 ments, they say, "Your corresj)ondent has been admitted, with all 
 kindness, and without the suspicion that he would make any other 
 than a friendy and honorable use of the confidence thus reposed in 
 him, to the most unreserved disclosures which his brethren of three 
 denominations in the city have made of their views," &c. 
 
 The reference is to certain informal meetings of the pastors of 
 different churches in the city ; and the implication is, that, in this 
 controversy, I have made a dishonorable use of information re- 
 ceived at these meetings. To this my reply is — (1.) I do not accept 
 ministerial fellowship from any man as a favor. (2.) The ordina- 
 tion of Mr. Parker took place in January last. I have not attended 
 one of the meetings referred to since that time, nor for more than 
 a year previous. This Dr. Hawes knew when he signed the letter. 
 (3.) I made use of no information in my statements and proofs, 
 that was not given to the public on the open examination of Mr. 
 Parker.* Truly yours, 
 
 T. S. Childs. 
 
 Hartford, April 21, 1860. 
 
 ■ In the Presbyterian Expositor of May 17th, Mr. Childs replied to 
 Dr. Spring as follows : 
 
 * The endeavor of Drs. Hawes and Spring to break the force of Mr. Childs' testi- 
 mony", in the manner referred to in the above note, deserves a much severer reply than 
 Mr. C. has given it. As the meetings in question were gatherings of Hartford pas- 
 tors, Dr. Spring could have known nothing of them personally, and had no right to 
 bear witness in the case. As they were mutual gatherings, it was as much a favor to 
 Dr. Hawes to be "admitted" to them, as to Mr. Childs. There was no favor in the 
 case, and the claim' is pure arrogance. But the thing assumes a worse aspect in view 
 of the fact that Mr. Childs had entirely loithdraivn from these meetings more than a year 
 before the present events, and ttwkt that Dr. Ilawes knew it! 
 
 So far, therefore, from having made a dishonorable use of information received, Mr. 
 Childs has confined himself carefully to facts which were fairly open to the public, 
 and to which the public was fully entitled. 
 
For the Presbyterian Expositor. 
 
 THE HAETFORD OEDINATION. 
 
 Rev. Dk. Rice — Dear Sir : — I have refrained from noticing the 
 letter of Dr. Spring, in regard to the above subject, which appeared 
 in the Expositor of March 15th, preferring to wait till the evidence 
 was in. As the controversy seems closed, I may now claim that 
 every point in the letter which appeared in the Expositor of Feb. 
 23d, is either admitted or clearly proved. On the one point on 
 which the defenders of the Council took their last stand — namely, 
 that of probation after death — it is clearly admitted by Drs. Hawes 
 and Spring, that there were some impenitent persons to whom the 
 candidate was supposed to be ministering on a death bed, whom 
 he would not shut up to a present faith in Christ as the only hope 
 of salvation. If, (as Dr. Spring I presume constantly teaches,) 
 not to receive an offered Saviour is to reject him, then he has 
 granted the only point of the letter, which he undertook to refute. 
 In view of the facts of the case, it is not easy to reconcile either 
 with justice or Christian courtesy, his strong statements that my 
 communication "conveys an impression totally at variance tvith the 
 truth,^^ and that I have " either stolidly misapprehended or wil- 
 fully misrepresented his (the candidate's) views." The fact is, the 
 worst aspect of this whole case is not yet before the public ; and 
 with^the exception of one point, it is not an uncommon case. I 
 had heard the public examination of a member of this same coun- 
 cil who was himself all unsettled as to a state of eternal punish- 
 ment for any. Another member had declared on his examination, 
 that there were parts of the Bible which were not inspired — had 
 denied the Scripture doctrine of original sin — and asserted that 
 man had natural ability to repent and believe independent of 
 Christ and the Holy Spirit ; and still another has recently said, 
 while preaching in a Universalist pulpit, that " he hoped the day 
 would come — and that day was not far distant — when all Christ- 
 ian denominations would overcome their prejudices, and be willing 
 to listen to the preaching of any Christian minister without sacri- 
 ficing their own ideas upon religious matters ; " a sentiment, which, 
 if it meant anything, distinctly recognized the christian character 
 and equal standing of Universalism. I have it also from a respon- 
 sible source, that a member of this council has publicly, in his 
 pulpit, given thanks to God that there were such denominations as 
 the Universalist and Unitarian, to modify the views others have 
 of God. It stands uncontradicted that five of the students of 
 Andover, last year, lapsed into Universalism. In these cases we 
 have representatives from three of the TJ4«ological schools of New 
 England, viz: Bangor, New Haven, and Andover. These are 
 fearful facts. As a New England man, I have no pleasure, but 
 profound grief in stating them. How such good men a-s Dr. 
 
44 
 
 Spring, can look upon them with indifference — how in view of the 
 awful issues involved, and their own near judgment, they can ever 
 appear as the defenders of those who hold any such views, is to 
 me amazing. 
 
 In regard to the statements of the Congregationalist^ which refer 
 to me as the author of the exposures of the New England theol- 
 ogy, they give me too much credit. In the first place the expos- 
 ures began long before I had entered the ministry. In the second 
 place, until this ordination I do not remember to have written an 
 article for the papers, except two or three brief ones upon other 
 subjects, for several years. Whether the facts in this case were 
 such as to justify their publication will be judged differently, accord- 
 ing as men value the truth of God, Yours truly, 
 
 T S Childs. 
 
 Hartford, Ct., May 5, 1860. 
 
tvtt 
 
 In regard to the issue of the foregoing controversy we suppose 
 there can hardly be two opinions. The defence has clearly failed. 
 They have failed, in the first place, to convict the author of the 
 original Letter of one of the charges, touching his veracity or his 
 honor, which they had laid against him. In this view their strong 
 denials and bitter personalities are quite unjustifiable.* In reli- 
 gious controversy there is much in the spirit with which it is con- 
 ducted. A bad spirit is presumptive evidence of a bad cause. No 
 man is called of God to defend His truth to whom He does not 
 give some portion of His spirit for the work. On the other hand, 
 when a man gives himself up to error or to the defence of error, 
 it is~ in accordance with the Divine dealings that he should be 
 given up to a corresponding temper. 
 
 The endeavor to invalidate Mr. Childs' testimony, by a reference 
 to his ecclesiastical position, seems to us neither relevant nor fair. 
 The whole community were invited to attend Mr. Parker's exam- 
 ination, that they might judge of his qualifications for the office to 
 which he had been called. If the result had been favorable, and 
 Mr. P. had passed a satisfactory examination, there would have 
 
 * Upon this point the Boston Recorder, which will not be accused of partiality 
 towards Mr. Childs, says, (April 12th) :— "Drs. Spring and Hawes have appeared in 
 a letter of nearly two closely printed columns, in explanation of the course which they 
 took as members of the ordaining Council, and illustrative of their own views upon 
 the general case. In the course of their communication they speak frequently, and in 
 terms which appear to us stronger than were called for by the circumstances, of the 
 improper spirit of the author of the first Letter. Their language is, in several instan- 
 ces, such as if taken in its full meaning, would bring on him an odium which we do 
 not think his course, in the present matter, at all deserves, and we believe the great 
 Christian public are with us in this opinion. With Mr. Childs we have no acquaint- 
 ance except what has grown out of this single affair,— we have never seen him, and 
 till very recently, we did not know whether he was a minister or a layman, a Presby- 
 terian or a Congregationalist. We have looked upon the case from outside the circle 
 of excitement, and have endeavored to judge of it candidly, and in the fear of Him 
 who tries the hearts of men, and our judgment is, that while Mr. Childs has written 
 earnestly, he is not to be charged with a perverse spirit, or a desire to do wrong to 
 Christian brethren. Truth on points like those which come into the questions raised 
 by this discussion, is important, and worth defending, and a good degree of earnest- 
 ness should be allowed to a writer without incurring the charge of perverseness of 
 spirit, or a disposition to accuse or find fault with his brethren." 
 
46 
 
 been no objection to its being published by any man, as widely as 
 he saw fit. Why, then, should there be any objection when the 
 result was different ? Surely the public were not less interested in 
 it ; nor was it less important that the truth should be known. If 
 the facts were as stated, we put it to every candid man, whether it 
 would not have been perfectly competent for any person who was 
 present, to give them to the public ; and if a Presbyterian minis- 
 ter, in answer to a request from a Congregational brother, writes 
 his honest impressions in regard to the examination, and that 
 brother believes the letter sufficiently important to justify its pub- 
 lication, it would seem quite unworthy grave and venerable 
 men, to meet its statements by proclaiming the ecclesiastical posi- 
 tion of the writer. 
 
 That the case is one in which publicity was justifiable will now 
 hardly be questioned. It was a public act of a public Council ; 
 from which, it is to be remembered, there is no appeal except to 
 the public. The propriety of such appeal, if the statements were 
 correct, was granted by the parties and papers which have most 
 earnestly taken the side of the defence. The " specifications and 
 proofs " were demanded.* It was insisted, " that if there is such 
 unsoundness among us, the Christian public have a right to know 
 the facts.'''' \ This is correct ; and we can hardly reconcile it with 
 these demands, or with good faith to the public, or with fairness to 
 the parties concerned, or with fidelity to the truth, that, when the 
 "specifications and proofs " which they had demanded were given, 
 and the "facts" established, these papers should have entirely 
 refused to give them to the public. 
 
 The defence has failed in regard to the subject matter of the 
 controversy. The statements of the original Letter are maintained. 
 Mr. Parker did deny the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures ; he 
 was not clear on the Trinity ; he rejected the common doctrine of 
 Original Sin ; he affirmed the ability of sinners to fulfil the com- 
 mands of Grod ; he maintained that the gospel was not absolutely 
 necessary to the salvation of adult heathen ; he held that Christ 
 died with the same design for all men ; and he inclined to the belief 
 that for some who died impenitent there was a future state of pro- 
 bation. These were the points stated in Mr. Childs' letter ; and we 
 think it will be generally agreed that every one of them has not 
 only been proved, but has been really admitted by the defence. 
 It is admitted, on all hands, that Mr. Parker rejected the verbal 
 inspiration of the Scriptures ; it is in uncontroverted evidence that 
 he was not clear on the Trinity — his own written creed showing 
 that he so far " doubted as to the use of the word person " as to 
 entirely suppress it. It is admitted by all, that he denied holiness 
 as pertaining to the nature of God, and sinfulness as pertaining to 
 
 * Independent, t Congregationalist. 
 
47 
 
 the nature of man ; it is admitted that he maintained the sinner's 
 ability, in the sense of ' adequate power,' to fulfil the commands 
 of God ; it is admitted that he held that some heathen (as Socrates 
 for example,) have gone to heaven without the gospel ; it is in evi- 
 dence, and nndenied, that he said that " Christ died with the same 
 design for Judas Iscariot as for Paul ; " it is admitted that there 
 were some impenitent persons to whom Mr. Parker was supposed 
 to be ministering on a death bed, whom he would not shut up to a 
 present faith in Christ as the only hope of salvation. 
 
 All these points but the last are really yielded, not only in detail 
 but in a mass, in the second communication of Drs. Spring and 
 Hawes. In regard to the last point, while Mr. Parker is to be 
 allowed the benefit of his present statements for himself, this can 
 not set aside the whole body of testimony as to the action of the 
 Council. In all that testimony there is not the slightest intimation, 
 until we come to Mr, Parker's letter, that the " famous question " 
 referred to the propriety of a certain form of speech to be used to a 
 dying man. Neither Drs. Harris, Hawes or Spring undertake any 
 such defence as that. Everything shows that the examination was 
 on no such trifling matter as that. Dr. Vermilye was not asking 
 Mr. Parker whether "in his instructions, he would flash the ter- 
 rors of , hell fire before the man's face ; " he was not asking him if 
 he "would pass judgment" on him; he was asking him if he 
 would shut the sinner up to a present faith in Christ as the only 
 hope of salvation ! Mr. P. now says " I would close every door 
 on him to which I had access, but that of faith in Christ." Why 
 does he say " to luhich I had access? " Does it intimate that there 
 was a door to which he had not access, and which, therefore, he 
 had no right to close ? This is in accordance with the evidence. 
 Why does he not say ^present faith in Christ ? ' The testimony is 
 that his hope of salvation for some beyond the grave, was con- 
 nected with the ofter of Christ there. His statements, therefore, 
 are not contradictory of the evidence. Nay, they confirm it. For 
 this very soul upon which he says he would shut every door to 
 which he had access but that of faith in Christ, he declares he 
 would follow into the eternal world with " hopes," even if he saw 
 the sinner die with "no evidence of repentance" ! This is enough. 
 It settles the case. Mr. Parker could not follow an impenitent soul 
 into eternity with hope unless "he inclined to the belief " that 
 there was hope for it there ! And this is a soul, let it be observed, 
 to whom Mr. P. is ministering. The explanation of the members 
 of the Council, that the reference was to one who had never heard 
 of Christ, is, in itself, a contradiction. He was one to whom Mr. 
 Parker was actually preaching Christ. He was one whom he was 
 supposed to meet in the actual discharge of his pastoral duties. It 
 was a practical question of practical life. But the evidence does not 
 rest upon this question. There is, as Dr. Vermilye has said, a mass 
 
48 
 
 of testimony quite distinct from this which, stands unrefuted. It 
 is a very significant thing, to which the defence does not even 
 allude, that Mr. P's views had such hold upon his mind that 
 they had found their way into Ids loritten creed, and that he under- 
 took to explain the articles of the church in accordance with them. A 
 defence in the face of such facts is either mere trifling or sheer 
 desperation. 
 
 Now the question arises. Is a person in the state of mind in 
 which Mr. Parker was, on the eleventh day of January, 1860, to 
 be regarded as a qualified teacher of an orthodox Congregational 
 Church ? In examining this question, we must notice one or two 
 views that have been presented. 
 
 Prof Harris says {Bost. Bee. March 1st.) "The simple question," 
 in such examination of a candidate, "is, are his christian belief and 
 christian character such that he is worthy to be ordained as a min- 
 ister of Christ?" According to this principle, a Congregational 
 Council is bound to settle over a Congregational Church any Meth- 
 odist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Episcoj^alian who may apply, if 
 "his christian belief and christian character are such that he is 
 worthy to be ordained as a minister of Christ!" The implication 
 here is that Congregationalism has no distinctive principles what- 
 ever. This is certainly liberal ; but it is a liberality that will work 
 the ruin of any organization adopting it. 
 
 Much stress has been laid upon the fact that Mr. Parker had not 
 a definite faith upon certain points, as for example, the Trinity, 
 and a future state of probation. Because he was not prejDared 
 absolutely to o^eject the tri-personality of the Godhead ; because he 
 did not positively believe that the impenitent dead would have a 
 chance of salvation beyond the grave, his orthodoxy, it is argued, 
 is not to be called in question. 
 
 Now this is the very point. Is a man to be regarded as sound 
 in the faith who is not settled upon these points ? Is he qualified 
 for the ministry of an evangelical church if he has not a definite 
 faith upon all the great fundamental truths of the gosj^el? How 
 preposterous is it for a man to teach others to "continue in the 
 faith, grounded and settled," who is himself all unsettled ! We care 
 not what a man's talents or personal character may be, if Christ 
 has not taught him the great substantial truths of His gospel, He 
 has not yet called him to preach that gospel ; and no man has a 
 right to ask entrance to the ministry of reconciliation, and no 
 Council has a right to grant such entrance, unless the promise of 
 Christ has been fulfilled, and the Holy Spirit has been given to lead 
 the man into all essential truth. This we regard as a primary 
 principle in the gospel ministry. It can never be rejected or neg- 
 lected without peril. 
 
 Where these qualifications are wanting, the least that any man 
 who desires the ministry can do, is to wait until they are obtained ; 
 
49 
 
 and the least that any Council can do, in such a case, is to require 
 the man to wait ; rather than by endorsing his errors and confirm- 
 ing him in them, inflict upon him, as well as upon the cause of 
 truth and of Christ, a great and lasting injury. 
 
 Mr. Parker was endorsed by one of the most respectable Coun- 
 cils of New England ; and he was endorsed, not with one or two 
 diversities from the evangelical faith, but with the whole series 
 presented before. It is clear, then, that in the judgment of this 
 Council, neither one nor all these views combined, now constitute a 
 bar to good and regular standing in the Congregational ministry. 
 Nor does this case stand alone. It appears from the facts brought 
 out in this controversy, that men may deny the plenary inspiration 
 of the Scriptures, boldly affirming that parts of the Bible are not 
 inspired ; may be all unsettled as to the doctrine of eternal punish- 
 ment ; may, in Universalist pulpits, recognize the Christian char- 
 acter and standing of Universalism ; may deny the doctrine of 
 original sin ; may affirm the sinner's ability to do all that God re- 
 quires of him independent of Christ or of the Holy Spirit ; may 
 do all this without prejudicing their claim to ordination or to a full 
 position in the Christian ministry. These are startling facts. The 
 churches cannot safely sleep under them much longer.* 
 
 Yet it, is not easy for many good men among us to believe that 
 there is any serious peril. They are told that there is no change ; 
 that the same doctrines are taught now that have been held from 
 the first ; that the cry of danger is a vain alarm. Dr. Hawes, for 
 example, in his last reconciliation with Dr. Bushnell, {Religious 
 Herald^ June Ist^ 1854,) says, "I remain in the faith in which I 
 entered the ministry; in the faith in ichich the church ivas planted, 
 which it has been 7ny privilege to serve 7iotu thirty -six years ; andivhich 
 is held by the great body of evangelical churches and ^ministers in New 
 England^ Dr. Hawes thus claims for himself, and for those who 
 agree with him, the original faith of the New England churches. 
 And this is the claim, made everywhere so confidently and freely, 
 that has secured general belief, and acquiesence in the present 
 state of things in the churches. Efibrts to effect a change for the 
 
 * It is worthy of notice that a short time previous to the ordination of Mr. Parker, 
 Dr. Hawes himself had publicly expressed great anxiety in reference to the state of 
 the Congregational churches. At a meeting of the Congregational Board of Publica- 
 tion in Boston he preached a sermon, a brief report of which was published. We 
 cannot now lay our hand upon the report, but we recollect distinctly some of its points. 
 Congregationalisnc, he maintained, had two great wants, a common creed and a better 
 organization. We liave, he said, no common standards and no common bond of unity. 
 To the question, 'what is Congregationalism,' we cannot give an answer. There are 
 great divergencies in faith and practice among us. Independency has n© foundation in 
 reason or scripture — in nature or grace. We must have a change, he urged, or we 
 shall loose our hold on the conservative and thoughtful, and fall into the hands of the 
 rash and the radical. These were Dr. Ilawes' sentiments then. We can hardly 
 understand how, within less than a year from that time, he could ridicule Mr. Childs' 
 expressions of anxiety upon the same subject as "dolorously soloistic." 
 
50 
 
 better have been met by the cry of "Presbyterianisni — Princetonism 
 — Triangular Theology," &c., and those who have seriously believed 
 that there was a drifting away from the old foundations, and have 
 endeavored earnestly and conscientiously to prevent it, have been 
 held up as hostile to New England and her theology. 
 
 Now it is this claim that we propose to examine briefly in the 
 light of the present controversy ; and in doing so we shall be di- 
 rectly on the line of our main inquiry — the action of the Council 
 in ordaining Mr. Parker over an orthodox Congregational church. 
 
 The first question is, What is the true New England theology ? 
 The second is. What doctrines are now held, and what were en- 
 dorsed by the Hartford Council ? 
 
 Fortunately we have no difficulty in determining the first of 
 these questions. The original theology of New England is settled. 
 It was declared again and again by solemn synodical action ; and 
 was confirmed by the preaching of the whole body of ministers to 
 whom, under God, New England owes so much. 
 
 The synod which formed the Cambridge Platform met in 1648 ; 
 the ministers and churches of Connecticut taking part in its action. 
 This synod unanimousJy adopted the " Westmi7ister Confission of 
 Faith,^^ as expressing the doctrinal belief of the ministers and 
 churches of New England. This is the present standard of the 
 Presbyterian Church. In 1680, a second synod in Boston adopted 
 the )Savoi/ Confession^ which, in articles of faith, is almost identical 
 with the Westminster Confession. The synod "in fact adopted 
 both Confessions in one." "After the example of the synod of 
 1680, the churches and ministers of Connecticut, in 1708, met in 
 a consociated Council and gave their consent to the Westminster 
 
 and Savoy Confessions both After the adoption of the 
 
 Saybrook Platform, 'the ministers of Connecticut, in their public 
 Conventions, several times renewed their consent to this Confession 
 of Faith,' zuhich remains as it tuas tvJien if first received their ap- 
 jrrobation, and as it was tuhen it ivas approved hy the Neiv England 
 Churches. '''"'' 
 
 The "Congregational Order" containing the standards of the Con- 
 gregational Churches of Connecticut, was issued by order of the 
 General Association of Connecticut as late as 1811 ; and approved 
 by the General Association of Massachusetts the same year. We 
 shall make this the basis of our examination. It is of course 
 perfectly proper to test the faith of ministers and churches by 
 their own standards. 
 
 I. In regard to Inspiration. The Congregational Confession 
 after enumerating the books of the Bible, says, "o?^ which are given 
 by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."t And 
 again, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Tes- 
 
 * Congregational order : Hist, account, &c., p. 16. t Chap. 1, Sec. 2. 
 
51 
 
 tament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God," &c.* 
 
 The New England fathers never thought of doubting the perfect 
 plenary inspiration of Scripture. They held with Robinson, the 
 father of their churches, that "the Scriptures have the Spirit of God 
 for the author both of matter and manner and ioritingJ''-\f They 
 beheved that what inspired men wrote, they wrote, "not in the 
 WORDS which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost 
 teacheth." I. Cor. 2 : 13. 
 
 This verbal inspiration Mr. Parker emphatically rejected, and in 
 his rejection was sustained by the Council. Nor would it seem 
 now to be an imcommon case for candidates to be licensed and or- 
 dained, who openly declare that parts of the Bible are not inspired. 
 
 II. The teaching of the Congregational Confession in regard to 
 the Trinity has been quoted in Mr. Childs' letter, (p. 15.) 
 
 III. Upon the subject of /SV??., we give the whole chapter of the 
 Confession; omitting the scripture proofs, for which we would 
 refer our readers to the volume itself, (^jjo. 180-182.) 
 
 Confession of Faith, Chapter VI. 
 " Of the Fall of Man ; of Sin ; and of the Punishment thereof." 
 
 I. "God having made a covenant of works and life thereupon, Avith our first 
 parents, and all their posterity in them, they being seduced by the subtilty and temp- 
 tation of Satan, did wilfully transgress the law of their creation, and break the cove- 
 nant in eating the forbidden fmit. 
 
 II. By this sin they, and we in them, fell from original righteousness and communion 
 with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts 
 of soul and body. 
 
 III. They being the root, and by God's appointment standing in the room and 
 stead, of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to 
 all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. 
 
 IV. From this original corruption whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and 
 made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual trans- 
 gressions. 
 
 V. This corruption of nature during this life, doth remain in those that are regen- 
 erated ; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and 
 all the motions thereof are truly and properly sin. 
 
 VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous 
 law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, 
 whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject 
 to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal." 
 
 These are the professed doctrines of the Congregational churches. 
 Compare now with these the doctrines avowed by Mr. Parker and 
 endorsed by the Hartford Council. "He declined to predicate sin 
 of the nature of man." "I do not believe," says Mr. Parker, "that 
 man is blameworthy either for his nature, or its hereditary corrup- 
 tion." {Creed.) This is a distinct rejection of the doctrine of orig- 
 
 * Chap. 1, Sec. 8. \ Works, Vol. 1, pp. 44-5. 
 
52 
 
 iual sin. lu this rejectioa Drs. Hawes and Spring heartily unite. 
 "Who does believe so ?" they say, "or who can believe otherwise 
 than this article (of Mr. P.) expresses?" If they really wish to 
 know, we tell them that the whole evangelical church of God 'can 
 believe otherwise'; that all the fathers of the New England churches 
 did believe otherwise ; that their own Confession of Faith teaches 
 otherwise ; and — if we may come down to a more limited sphere 
 — that the whole line of pastors of the First Church of Hartford 
 down to the days of Dr. Hawes have believed otherwise. 
 
 The Confession of Faith of the Connecticut churches says, in re- 
 gard to the original corruption of nature, ^'•Both itself and all the 
 motions thereof AU^ truly AND PROPERLY SIN;" and "every sin, 
 
 both original and actual doth in its own nature bring 
 
 guilt upon the sinner, wherehy he is hound over to the larath of God 
 and curse of the laiu, and so made subject to death with all miseries, 
 spiritual, temporal and eternal." 
 
 We presume we shall not be contradicted in saying that Dr. 
 Hawes is the first of the honored line of pastors of the First Church 
 of Hartford, who has rejected the great and fundamental doctrine 
 of Original Sin ! Thomas Hooker was the first of those pastors. 
 Dr. Nathan Strong was the last, preceding Dr. Hawes.* 
 
 To give the full testimony of these men to this doctrine would 
 require a volume rather than a pamphlet page. Take the following 
 as a specimen of the teachings of the venerated Hooker. To the 
 sinner whom he would direct to Christ, he says, "Say — O Lord, I 
 have a cursed nature ; and though there were no devil, no world, 
 no temptations outwardly, yet this cursed nature of mine would sin 
 against thee." "Dosttho'u say it is thy nature to sin ? Then I say, 
 
 the greater is thy wickedness ; Therefore rather mourn 
 
 the more for thy sins, hecause it is thy cursed nature so to do^ ("Soul's 
 Preparation for Christ." pp. 40-41.) 
 
 The writings of Dr. Strong are burdened with the deep and 
 awful and sinfvX depravity of human nature. "Both experience 
 and Scripture testimony," he says, "afford abundant conviction that 
 every creature of the human race, is, from the beginning, possessed of a 
 nature corrujyt and GUILTY." ( Sermon at the ordination of Joseph 
 Strong.) " The need of regeneration implies the natural and total 
 luickedness of the hearth (Sermons, vol. 2, p. 158.) 
 
 *Mr. Hooker was one of the ablest of the New England ministers. The estimation 
 in which he was held in the Keformed Church, may be judged from the fact that he 
 was invited to sit as a member of the Westminster Assembly. His church at Hart- 
 ford was the first in Connecticut ; and "embraced the territory now occupied by the 
 churches of the city ; of East Hartford and of West Hartford." 'This fact is of interest 
 as showing "the Faith in which" all "these churches were planted." 
 
 Dr. Strong was one of the leading ministers of New England at the close of the 
 last century and the commencement of the present. The relation of the First Church 
 of Hartford, therefore, to the other churches of Connecticut, and especially to those 
 represented in the Council which ordained Mr. Parker, justifies our special reference 
 to its original faith. 
 
53 
 
 All men, lie affirms, ^^ corne into the world with sinful hearts,^^ 
 and " when the Scriptures speak of any exercises in the human 
 heart that are pleasing to God, they ascribe them to an origin per- 
 fectly consistent with the doctrine of a total moral corruption of 
 human nature.''^ (Sermon on Depravity.) 
 
 Dr. Hawes maintains that "a child, properly speaking, has no 
 character." "Character," he says, "is not anything which is born 
 with us or makes an essential, constituent part of us. It is not in- 
 herited by birth, nor transmitted by natural descent from parent to 
 child." (Sermon on Character, &c., pp. 6, 8.) 
 
 Dr. Strong says, " The natural^ unholy character of man is an 
 essential truth to he plainly taught by Christian minister s^ "If 
 this doctrine be false," he maintains, "the whole gospel is false; 
 and in the same proportion as men believe the reality, the exten- 
 siveness and the guiltiness of our natural character in the sight of 
 God, they will see the need of a gospel," &c.* Dr. Hawes denies 
 the naturally sinful character of men. Dr. Strong maintains that 
 such denial involves the denial of the whole gospel. And yet Dr. 
 Hawes says he " remains in the faith in which his church was 
 planted ! " 
 
 ly. In regard to the doctrine of Ability^ Drs. Hawes and Spring 
 say: 
 
 "Afl to what the letter charges, that the candidate holds that every man has ability, 
 in the sense of ' adequate power,' to fulfill the commands of God — let that speak for 
 itself. It is accounted no deadly heresy, at least in this part of the country, to hold 
 that man has power to do what God commands him to do ; or that he cannot be justly 
 blamed or punished for not doing impossibilities ;" (p. 9 — note). 
 
 This is the plain, unambiguous statement of the doctrine of ple- 
 nary ability. It is not even shaded by the distinction of " natural " 
 and "moral ability."f 
 
 * Sermons at the ordinations of J. Strong and of J. L. Skinner. 
 
 t It is well known that since the days of Edwards, many have used the term " natu- 
 ral ability," as he did, to denote simply moral agency, without intending at all to deny 
 the sinner's real and utter inability to the great end of his own salvation, or his abso- 
 lute dependence on the Holy Spirit for every saving grace. It is equally well known 
 that others — of late especially — have taken advantage of this, to foist in and establish 
 the doctrine of the sinner's full and complete ability in himself to meet all ths require- 
 ments of God ; and that they have claimed for this doctrine the support of men, living 
 and dead, by whom their views have ever been held in abhorrence. The late venerable 
 Dr. Tyler suffered much from this source. Adopting the common phraseology of 
 "natural ability," (by which he afSrmed, however, he " meant nothing more than the 
 possession of those faculties wiiich are essential to moral agency,") he whs claimed as 
 an ally by men and schools whose principles he utterly repudiated. His name was 
 employed to sanction doctrines which his soul loathed. It was in view of this, as we un- 
 derstand it, that he remarked at the close of his life, "that, inasmuch as some terms 
 used by him many years ago, were now liable to be misunderstood, and their meaning 
 perverted, he should substitute other terms for them, or be more cautious in using them 
 without careful explanation." (Memoir, p. 108.) 
 
 May it not be wise for us to receive the suggestion of this venerated man ? Inas- 
 much as the term " natural ability" is " misunderstood and its meaning perverted " — 
 inasmuch as moral ability is really the only ability that comes into the question — inas- 
 
54 
 
 It is the assertion, as clear as words can make it, that it is no 
 heresy here to hold that the sinner has full power to make himself 
 a new heart ; to repent ; to believe in Christ ; to be holy as God is 
 holy. For all these things "God commands him to do." This teach- 
 ing is, of course, in direct contradiction to the word of God. "A 
 new heart will I give you;" "Christ has been exalted to give re- 
 pentance;" "Faith is the gift of God;" are passages which, with 
 hundreds more of the same nature, the Evangelical Church has 
 ever been wont to regard as indicating the absolute dependence of 
 men upon the sovereign grace of God for these gifts. Of course 
 there can be no such dependence if every man " has power to do 
 all that God commands him to do." We are then driven to the 
 ground that has been openly taken among us, that there is no abso- 
 lute necessity of the Holy Spirit to renew and save the soul ! 
 
 God commands all men to come to Christ. If God commands 
 it, Drs. Hawes and Spring say they can do it. Against this asser- 
 tion we must receive the equally positive one of Christ himself: 
 " No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me 
 draw him." (John 6 : 44.) 
 
 The doctrine of ability is also in express contradiction of the 
 standards of Congregationalism. 
 
 The Confession of Faith (chap. 9, sec. 8,) says : 
 
 "Man by his fall into 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." 
 
 And again : (chap. 16, sec. 3,) 
 
 " Their (believers') ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from 
 the Spirit of Christ." 
 
 See also chap. 6, sec. 4, already quoted, p. 51. 
 
 Thomas Hooker, in a discourse upon Luke 1 : 17, proposes to 
 establish, among others, the following points: — "That a man must 
 will to receive Christ and grace before he can receive them. That no 
 man of himself, voluntarily, am luill that he may receive Christ. 
 Lastly, that God ivill loork a will in his servants to receive the 
 Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 God commands all men everywhere to repent. According to the 
 doctrine endorsed by Drs. Hawes and Spring, if God commands it, 
 it is in their own power. Hooker says, "If thou didst consider 
 
 much as " natural ability," after all, leaves the sinner at an infinite remove from the 
 end in view, namely, his regeneration and salvation, and therefore is not in any proper 
 sense an ability to this end — inasmuch as " moral agency" can be maintained in per- 
 fect consistency with the sinner's true inability and his absolute dependence on Divine 
 grace — inasmuch as, by persisting in the use of the term, we are now obviously and 
 strongly playing into the hands of errorists, may it not be wise and right to lay it aside 
 and unite with the great body of the Church of Christ in all ages, in affirming simply 
 the sinner's inability " to any spiritual good accompanying salvation." 
 
55 
 
 thy own weakness thou wouldst not say that repentance is in thine 
 own power. Eemember what the apostle says : If peradventure 
 God would give repentance, &c.""^ 
 
 God requires of sinners a change of heart. This also must of 
 course be in their own power if they can do all that God requires. 
 Dr. Strong contends that " men cannot change their own hearts :" 
 "Sinners," he says "may imagine they can turn when they please; 
 but they will never jjfcase to turn until they are turned hj Almighty 
 power f and he adds : "I do not see how those who deny the need 
 of a new heart, or the necessity of the Holy Spirit to give this heart, 
 can afterwards come forward and call themselves sound believers 
 in Christ or of the Scripture."f 
 
 If it be said that those who hold the doctrine of ability do not 
 deny the necessity of the Spirit, we ask how that can be ? If the 
 sinner has in himself "adequate power" to fulfil the commands 
 of God, what possible necessity can there be for any more power ? 
 If he can do all that God requires of him, it is enough ; he needs 
 no Holy Spirit. This is the necessary, logical issue of the doctrine 
 of the sinner's ability. It destroys the whole system of grace. If 
 that system is to stand, this doctrine must be modified so as really 
 to mean 'no ability,' or it must be given up. For ourselves, we 
 choose to unite in the confession of Inspiration and of the Evangelical 
 Church, and say, "We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any- 
 thing, as of ourselves ; but our sufficiency is of God." (2 Cor. 3:5.) 
 
 To say that a sinner has any real ability or adequate i^ower to do 
 all that God requires of him, is contradictory not only to the Scrip- 
 tures and the universal faith of the Church, but to all true Christian 
 experience. God requires us to be holy as He is holy. Every true 
 Christian knows that he is not holy, and he knows that he cannot 
 make himself holy. He knows that nothing but Almighty j)ower 
 and grace can make him holy. To tell him otherwise, is to contra- 
 dict the deepest convictions of his Christian consciousness and the 
 teachings of the Spirit of God within him. 
 
 V. In reference to the salvation of the heathen, we quote simply 
 this article of the Confession. (Chap. 10, sec. 4.) 
 
 " Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and 
 may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by 
 the Father, they neither do nor can come unto Christ, and therefore can not be saved ; 
 much less can men not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other ivajj whatso- 
 ever, he they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the 
 law of that reliqion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very per- 
 nicious, and to be detested." 
 
 If any intelligent man chooses seriously to say that this is the 
 
 *Soul fitted for Christ, p. 50. 
 
 t Sermon at ordination of J. L. Skinner ; and Sermons, vol. 1, p. 262. 
 
56 
 
 same doctrine that was promulged by Mr, Parker on his ordina- 
 tion, and has since been taught from his pulpit, it is hardly worth 
 while to argue the point. Argument would go very little ways 
 with one who could see no difference between the above article, 
 and the doctrine that a heathen, the last act of whose life was one 
 of gross idolatry, 'undoubtedly went to heaven!' 
 
 VI. Touching the design of Ghrisfs death, the Congregational 
 Confession says : 
 
 "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he by the eternal and most 
 free purpose of his will fore-ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who 
 are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto 
 faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, 
 and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed 
 by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect 
 only." (Chap. 3, sec. 6.) 
 
 Robinson, the father of New England Congregationalism, says : 
 " Christ died effectually and in his and his Father's intention of 
 love, for them only that are saved." (Works, v. 1, pp. 333, 334.) 
 
 "Do you think, brethren," says Thomas Shepard, one of the 
 greatest and holiest of the New England fathers ; "Do you think 
 that Christ's blood was shed to work no more in his people than in 
 hypocrites? ... If Christ should have died as much for 
 Judas as for Peter, . . then Peter had no more cause of bless- 
 ing Christ for his love in redeeming him than Judas !" (Works, 
 V. 2, pp. 208, 209.) 
 
 "Christ," says Hooker, "will not miss his end; he came for the 
 lost slice]) ; then the lost sheep he will have ; and though the lost 
 sheep can not seek nor save themselves, yet Christ will save them." 
 
 " Christ never prayed for the world, and he will never save the 
 world." (Soul's Prep, for Christ, pp. 39, 159.) 
 
 When Christ shall appear with all his ransomed church before 
 the Father in glory, Edwards represents him as saying, " Here am 
 I, and the children which thou hast given me;" "as much as to 
 say," Edwards adds, "Here am I, with every one of those whom 
 thou gavest me from eternity to take care ofj that they might be 
 redeemed and glorified ; and to redeem whom, I have done and suf- 
 fered so much," &c. (Works v. 1, p. 504.) 
 
 " Christ," says Dr. Strong, " has suffered and become a ransom 
 for all those who are hisJ'' (Sermons, v. 1, p. 131.) 
 
 This was the doctrine of all the New England fathers, and of 
 the New England churches. It was the faith in which the First 
 Church of Hartford was "planted." The founders of that Church 
 with the whole body of their co-laborers in New England, believed 
 that God will accomplish all he undertakes. They believed that 
 if God eternally designed that the death of His Son should have the 
 same relation to, and effect upon, all men, it will have the same. If 
 Christ died with the same design to save all men, all will be saved. 
 
57 
 
 Thej believed it to be a denial of the character of God, and 
 the destruction of the hopes of the Church, to say that Christ, 
 in his death, had just as much intention to save Judas Iscariot as 
 the Apostle Paul. This is not a question as to the sufficiency or 
 value of the atonement, which all admit to be infinite ; but as to 
 the eternal 'purpose of the Father as executed in the mission of the 
 Son. Eobinson only uttered the voice of Evangelical Christendom 
 when he said — "They for whom Christ died never perish." To 
 deny this " impeacheth God's power, and makes him unable (do 
 what he can) to save any more than he doth save, though he desire 
 it never so much." (Works, v. 1, pp. 333, 334.) The Church has 
 always understood Christ to have meant something when he said — 
 " I lay down my life for the sheep.'''' It is not our purpose now, 
 however, to argue this point. We are simply stating the doctrine 
 of the New England standards and the New England fathers. — 
 That they held, with one accord, to the doctrine of a definite atone- 
 ment, is just as clear as that they held to any atonement. 
 
 VII, Upon the Future State, it will be sufficient to quote the ex- 
 plicit language of the Confession. Until recently there has been 
 no diversity of sentiment upon this subject among those who claim 
 to be orthodox Congregationalists, 
 
 The Confession (chap. 31, sec. 1) says: 
 
 " The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption, but their souls, 
 (wbreh neither die nor sleep,) having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to 
 God who gave them; the souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, 
 are received into the highest heavens where they behold the face of God in light and 
 glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies ; and the soul? of the wicked are 
 cast into hell, where they remain in torment, and utter darkness, reserved for the judg- 
 ment of the great day ; besides these two places of souls separated from their bodies, the 
 Scriptures acknowledyeth none." 
 
 It is clear, then, that upon all these points the New England 
 churches have a well defined and positive faith. These standards 
 have never been formally renounced. Nay, it is claimed that they 
 have not been departed from. It is perfectly fair, therefore, to test 
 the faith of the ministry by these standards. It is unfair for any 
 man to reject the doctrines of these standards and still say that he 
 holds the faith in which the New England churches were planted. 
 Against this we protest. If a man chooses to deny these doctrines, 
 he is at liberty to do so ; if he has any which he thinks better, it 
 is a wonder that he does not wish to proclaim them ; but to re- 
 nounce the old faith and to teach doctrines subversive of it, and still 
 profess before the people to cling to it, is what we can not reconcile 
 with good faith. 
 
 Judged by these standards, it is plain that the doctrines avowed 
 and endorsed at Hartford, are very wide departures from the true 
 faith of the New England churches. If that faith is scriptural 
 and safe, this is unscriptural and perilous. 
 
58 
 
 These facts show, too, how uncandid it was for Drs. Hawes and 
 Spring to dismiss the points in controversy, with one exception, as 
 unessential, or as constituting the debated ground between Presby- 
 terians and Congregationalists. If the points were unimportant 
 at last, they were so at first ; and their strong denials and denun- 
 ciations were uncalled for. If they were sufficiently important at 
 first to demand their earnest defence, they are important still, and 
 these gentlemen are not at liberty thus to dismiss them. 
 
 Nor do these points constitute the debatable ground between 
 Presbyterians and Congregationalists as such. The Confession of 
 Faith shows conclusively that the doctrines which Mr. Parker de- 
 nied, and whose denial the Council endorsed, are a part of the pro- 
 fessed faith of the Congregational churches of Connecticut. They 
 are a substantial part of the faith in which the churches of New 
 England were founded. If they are now disputed ground it can 
 only be because some among us have departed from that faith. Let 
 them depart if it must be so, but let them not denounce and revile 
 those who prefer to abide in the faith in which our fathers lived 
 and died.* 
 
 *It does seem to us time we were done with the miserable attempts to forestall the 
 defence of truth and the exposure of error, by the perpetual cry of " Presbyterianism." 
 The simple fact is, the professed doctrines of Congregationalism and Presbyterianism 
 are identical. The doctrines now held and taught in the Old School Presbyterian 
 Church are neither more nor less than the precise doctrines of the New England stand- 
 ards and the New England fathers. To denounce and ridicule these doctrines is to 
 denounce and ridicule the original faith of New England. To overthrow these is to 
 overthrow the foundations of the New England churches. Let us understand then 
 what those men are doing who appeal to the churches by the outcry of " Presbyterian- 
 ism" and " Princetonism." Let us understand that under this cover the battle is waged 
 against the bulwarks of our faith — against the foundations of the true New England 
 theology and of the word of God. 
 
 It deserves to be said that our fathers had none of this jealousy of Presbyterianism. 
 They were neither afraid nor ashamed of the name. The writer has before him two 
 volumes of " Sermons by Nathan Strong ; Pastor of the North Presbyterian Church, 
 in Hartford, Conn.," printed in 1798-1800. Dr. Strong, as we have said, was the 
 immediate predecessor of Dr. Hawes. In 1799 the Hartford North Association of 
 Ministers, composed of such men as Drs. Strong and Flint of Hartford, and Dr. Per- 
 kins of West Hartford, made the following declaration of their principles : — 
 
 " This Association give information to all whom it may concern, that the constitution of the churches 
 in the State of Connecticut, founded on the common usages, and the Confession of Faith, Heads of 
 Agreement, and articles of Church Discipline, adopted at the earliest period of the settlement of the 
 State, is not Congregational, but contains the essentials of the government of the Church of Scotland, 
 or [<Ae] Presbyterian Church in America ; particularly as it gives a decisive power to ecclesiastical coun- 
 cils ; and a consociation, consisting of ministers and messengers, or a lay representation from the 
 churches, is possessed of substantially the same authority as Presbytery. The judgments, decisions, 
 and censures in our churches and in the Presbyterian are mutually deemed valid. The churches there- 
 fore, in Connecticut at large, and in our district in particular, are 7iot noiv, and never were, from the 
 earliest period of our settlement Congregational cA«rcA«, according to the ideas and forms of church 
 order contained in the Book of Discipline, called the Cambridge Platform. There are, however, scat- 
 tered over the State, perhaps ten or twelve churches (unconsociated) which are properly called Con- 
 gregational, agreeably to the rules of Church Discipline, in the book above mentioned. Sometimes in- 
 deed, the associated churches of Connecticut are loosely and vaguely, though improperly termed 
 Congregational. While our churches in the State at large are, in the most essential and important 
 respects, the same as the Presbyterian, still in minute and unimportant points of church order and 
 discipline, both we and the Presbyterian Church in America acknowledge a difference." 
 
 According to this testimony the true and proper form of the Connecticut churches 
 is Presbyterian, and not Congregational. And can any man doubt where Drs, Strong 
 and Perkins would have stood at such a time as this ? Would they have opposed 
 sound Presbyterianism for the sake of unsound Congregationalism? 
 
59 
 
 We submit these pages to our brethren in the churches and min- 
 istry of JSTew England. We only ask for them a candid consider- 
 ation. We have written as we have solemnly believed the truth 
 and the highest interests of the church demanded. If the fears 
 expressed shall prove unfounded, no man will rejoice more than the 
 writer. But let us not forget that apostasy from the faith always 
 comes in gradually. Here is our peril. "Giving up one truth," 
 says Dr. Strong, "is only preparing the way to give up another." 
 The whole history of the Church proves it. Every great and fatal 
 defection from the faith follows this law. First one truth is given 
 up, then another, and another, until shipwreck has been made of 
 the whole Christian system. Can we claim exemption from this 
 law ? Is it sure, because we have the Puritan for our father, that 
 we can never be given up to the rejection of the Puritan faith? 
 Glance back for a few years. Does any man believe that fifty years 
 ago the ordination of a man holding such views as Mr. Parker's 
 could have taken place in the city of Hartford ? Would Dr. Hawes 
 have been ordained avowing such sentiments? Could a Council 
 have been found who would have hesitated for an instant to refuse 
 ordination in such a case ? This is a great change to take place in 
 a single generation. And now what is the prospect for the future? 
 When Drs. Hawes and Spring are in their graves, and such men 
 as these whom they are now placing over other churches, are gath- 
 ered" to ordain their successors, what manner of ordination shall it 
 be ? Whom would these men not ordain ? Whom would they 
 reject? We put the case solemnly to these venerable fathers. 
 Their work must soon close. Surely it is something to them what 
 is to be the destiny of the churches they leave behind them. 
 
 Dr. Hawes closes his letter of reconciliation to Dr. Bushnell in 
 these words : " Sure I am that my sun will go down brighter, and I 
 shall leave this much loved field of my labors and my prayers with 
 a happier mind and more cheerful hopes, if, as I close my course, I 
 may think of these dear churches of our Lord as rooted and ground- 
 ed in the truth, and their pastors as happily united in fellowship 
 and love, and contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to 
 the saints." {Religious Herald, June 1, 1854.) 
 
 By all the force of this impressive declaration, we appeal to this 
 venerable man to lend his influence for the brief remnant of his 
 days, to secure the issue he so earnestly desires, by securing for the 
 churches pastors "rooted and grounded in the truth," and willing 
 to " contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." 
 
 Here we dismiss the subject. We have no desire for contro- 
 versy for its own sake. We would not needlessly offend one of 
 our brethren in Christ. New England is dear to us, and will be 
 while we live. Here are the homes and the graves of our fathers ; 
 and here, if God will, we wait our own charge. We protest against 
 
60 
 
 the unjust clamor that we are hostile to New England and her 
 faith. We yield to no man in all due love to the land of our birth. 
 We believe most firmly and heartily in her glorious old faith. We 
 believe it to be "the faith of God's elect ;" and because we believe so ; 
 and because we believe that faith is in peril ; because we believe the 
 future welfare and glory of New England are wrapped in it ; be- 
 cause we believe her woe and shame lie in its rejection, we plead 
 for its deliverance. 
 
 And that deliverance, we are fally assured, will come. If it 
 tarry we will wait for it ; but that it will come, sooner or later, we 
 have no more doubt than we have that the glory of the Lord shall 
 cover the earth. This is the strong consolation of those who, now, 
 amidst opposition and reproach, contend for the faith delivered to 
 the saints. Error may triumph for a time ; but in its own nature, 
 and in the falfilment of God's glorious promises to the Church, it 
 must perish. The word of the Lord abideth forever. 
 
 THE MANCHESTER CASE. 
 
 THE ORDINATION OF MR. DOR MAN.* 
 
 After the substance of the preceding pages had been prepared, 
 an event occurred which casts important light upon the facts of 
 the above case. 
 
 On the 31st of May, 1860, a Council was called to ordain and in- 
 stall Mr. L. M. Dorman as pastor of the Congregational Church in 
 Manchester, Ct. Mr. Dorman had been licensed to preach by the 
 Third (New School) Presbytery of New York, about two years 
 before. It deserves to be said, however, that at his ordination he 
 refused to give his assent, in part at least, to the Confession of Faith 
 of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 " The following ministers were jDresent at the Council, with four 
 or five delegates : Eev. Dr. Calhoun, of Coventry ; Kev. Messrs. 
 Cheeseboro, of Glastenbury ; Snow, of Eastbury ; L. Hyde, of Yer- 
 non ; S. B. Forbes and H. Day of North Manchester. . . . The 
 body, though small, embraced representatives of the two schools of 
 New England Theology. 
 
 * The facts in regard to this case are derived from the Hartford Daily Times and the 
 Boston Recorder. The article in the former was evidently written by some one friendly 
 to Mr. Dorman. The articles of the Recorder appeared, one fJuly 12,) over the sig- 
 nature " H. R. ;" the other, (Aug. 9,) signed by Rev. G. A. Oviatt, Scribe of the Coun- 
 cil which settled Mr. Dorman. The correctness of the statements has not been called 
 in question. 
 
61 
 
 The examination proved unsatisfactory. The lax views of the 
 candidate on inspiration, election, depravity, and above all, pro- 
 bation after death, rendered it impossible for the Council to proceed. 
 In this judgment they were imanimous." The result is thus sta- 
 ted in the Hartford Times^ of June 2d : 
 
 " The Congregational Society in Manchester is quite excited over the action of the 
 Ecclesiastical Council which met in that place on Thursday, to ordain the new pastor 
 chosen by the Society, the Rev. Mr. Dorman. Although the Society (a large and im- 
 portant one,) are unanimous for Mr. Dorman, yet the Council refused to ordain him. 
 The alleged reason was, that in his examination they had obliged him, by close ques 
 tioning, to admit that he was not clear in his own mind on certain doctrinal points. 
 These points (which, we believe, relate to certain accepted but abstruse and little-under- 
 stoo'd notions concerning the exact nature of the Trinity, &c.,) are not considered by 
 Mr. D.'s friends as being in any sense vital, or affecting in any degree his standing as 
 an orthodox believer in the essential points of the New England creed. They are pre- 
 cisely the same on which Dr. Vermilye and other disciples of the rigid old East Wind- 
 sor school of theology opposed the ordination of the Rev. Mr. Parker, of the Hartford 
 South Church, last January ; and it is maintained by Mr. Dorman's friends that the 
 delegates who composed the Council, were influenced in their unexpected action, by a 
 re luctance to override Dr. Vermilye's precedent on that occasion. It was not a full 
 Council ; and the Society, as soon as the decision was announced, at once gave notice 
 of anotlier meeting on Monday, to call another Council. They expect the second Coun- 
 cil will act in a less arbitrary and illiberal spirit, and ordain the minister they want. 
 If not, Jhey are determined to have him at any rate, and will take measures to accom- 
 p lish their object without the agency of^the Council." 
 
 A second Council was called, and met on the 6th of June — within 
 less than a week from the adjournment of the first. This "Council 
 consisted of Dr. Hawes, and Eev. Messrs. Parker, Webber, and 
 Burton of Hartford, and Dr. Spring of East Hartford, and Rev. 
 Messrs. Cheeseboro of Glastenbury, Oviatt of Somers, Fessenden 
 of Ellington, Clapp of Rockville, and Forbes of North Manches- 
 ter, with delegates sufficient to make the whole number in attend- 
 ance twenty." Dr. Hawes was chosen moderator, and took the 
 leading part in the examination. A correspondent of the Recorder 
 (H. R.) thus reports : 
 
 "The Moderator and his associates were not a little troubled to ascertain what Mr. 
 Dorman believed on some important points, and some of them were still more troubled 
 by his explicit avowals on other points. 
 
 On the question whether the Gospel will be offered to any of the human race in the 
 future world who die impenitent, the candidate was more reserved than when before 
 the first Council, but there was no retraction or essential modification of the views 
 then expressed. He admitted no connection between Adam's sin and the sin and 
 ruin ©f his posterity except what he was pleased to state thus : — "Adam set a very 
 bad example." The Bible was written only in part by inspiration of God. By elec- 
 tion we are to understand simply, that God foresaw who would accept the Gospel, and 
 them he determined to save. He thought it probable, and after much questioning he 
 was almost confident, that all true believers will persevere in holiness and be finally 
 
62 
 
 saved. On the doctrine of divine decrees the answers were so singular that Dr. Hawes 
 referred the candidate to his license, which certified his assent to the creed of the 
 Presbyterian Church. But he declined giving his assent, at Manchester, to the doc- 
 trine in question as laid down in the Presbyterian Confession of Eaith. The Modera- 
 tor then produced the creed of the church over which it was proposed to ordain him. 
 He was understood to dissent positively from the Manchester Confession, also, respect- 
 iag the decrees of God." ' 
 
 Eev. Mr. Oviatt, who was certainly not unfriendly to Mr. Dor- 
 man or the Council says : 
 
 " During the early part of the examination, Mr. Dorraan appeared tolerably well ; 
 during the latter part, far otherwise. To many of the leading questions, his answers 
 were very equivocal, certainly "non-committal." I remember distinctly the questions 
 I put to him, and his answers thereto, almost word for word. I will give them in sub- 
 stance, and nearly verbatim, without the quotation marks. What is election ? — 
 Answer. — I suppose God's choosing some. Why does God choose some ? Answer. 
 I cannot tell. I sometimes lean to the opinion that God chooses some for reasons 
 best known to himself, and sometimes I lean to the opinion that God chooses whom 
 he does, because he foresees that they will repeat and believe in Christ ; and therefore 
 he elects them. I read the article in the "Confession of Faith" of the Church in 
 Manchester, on election, and asked the candidate how he would expound it|in a ser- 
 mon, should his people request him to preach on this doctrine. Answer. — I don't 
 know ; I am studying the Bible to find out. With regard to [probation, I asked 
 him, do you or do you not believe that the probation of all men ends at death ? — 
 Answer. — I cannot tell. God will give all men a fair chance. Faith in Christ is 
 necessary to salvation. There may be some, I sometimes think, who, not naving a 
 sufficient knowledge of Christ in this world, will have an offer of pardon after 
 death. I am not satisfied on this subject. About it I have my doubts. I don't know 
 that any to whom I may ever preach in this land, will be amoug the number of 
 those who have another chance after death. I asked, On what texts do you ground 
 the belief of a probation for any, after death ? Answer. — "All manner of sin and 
 blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
 shall not be forgiven unto men." &c. 
 
 The license to preach, given to him by (I think) the Third Presbytery of New 
 York, which specifies that he in his examination by that body assented to the "Confes- 
 sion of Faith," was read, when the Moderator asked him, De you now believe as you 
 did at the time this license was given to you ? Answer. — I don't know but I do. Do 
 you believe in the main, in the Assembly's Catechism "? Answer. — I don't know. I 
 don't know much about the Catechism. With regard to the "Perseverance of the 
 Saints," the candidate was equivocal, undetermined in his answers. All thi'ough 
 the examination, the candidate was, in respect to many leading, fundamental doctrines 
 thus indefinite in his statements : seldom answering a question definitely, distinctly. 
 
 I was unwilling to ordain and install Mr. Dorman ; to me, the way was not open 
 thus to proceed for these reasons : — 1. I seriously thought Mr. Dorman unsound in 
 iAe/aiVA, in some essential particulars . 2. I thought he was too undetermined in his 
 faith, was too full of doubts, leaned in too many different directions to be set over 
 the church in Manchester." 
 
 The examination lasted from three to four hours, and resulted in 
 a vote, by a majority of four, to proceed to the ordination. On 
 this majority were Dr. Hawes, Dr. Spring, and Mr. Parker; the 
 
63 
 
 latter gentleman, having exerted himself earnestly to secure the 
 result ; and "on giving the right hand of fellowship, assured the 
 pastor that he voted for him most cordiallyy When the decision 
 had been reached, part of the Council withdrew, and the rest pro- 
 ceeded to the ordination. 
 
 The above we believe is a mild statement of the case. Mr. Ovi- 
 att's report, we have reason to suppose, was intended to be as favor- 
 able to Mr. Dorman and the Council as it could fairly be. He con- 
 fines himself chiefly to that part of the examination which he him- 
 self conducted. No reply has been made to any of the reports. 
 
 In view of this case, it may be observed — 
 
 1. It abundantly confirms the statements made in regard to the 
 Hartford ordination. Those who felt constrained to condemn the 
 action of the Council in that case could ask no more complete jus- 
 tification than is furnished here, 
 
 2. It illustrates strikingly the point made in the preceding review, 
 in regard to future danger, (p. 59). It answers, in part, the ques- 
 tion, "Whom would these men not ordain ?" Mr. Parker can work 
 earnestly, and ^^Yotemost cordially''^ for the ordination of a man 
 whom one Council has rejected unanimously, and in regard to whom 
 the greater part even of the Council which ordained him, are " per- 
 plexed" and "dissatisfied." Is there no downward process here ? 
 
 Oae of the correspondents of the Recorder states, that at the ex- 
 amination of Mr. Dorman, " a member of the Manchester Church 
 expressed his concern at finding that certain young preachers hold 
 that salvation will be offered to some who die impenitent." "A 
 theological student," with whom he was conversing, " assured Mm 
 that 'most of his associates in professional study adopted that o'pinion^ 
 The correspondent asks with point, "Is this one of the signs of the 
 times?" 
 
 3. This case cannot be met by the cry of " Presbyterianism." 
 The witnesses have not " looked from a Presbyterian stand-point." 
 They are all Congregationalists ; and so gross was the case that 
 Congregationalists of both the Old and New Schools, had " no di- 
 versity of opinion touching the examination of Mr. Dorman." 
 Defenders of Dr. Bushnell coidd not vote for a man whom Drs. Hawes 
 and Spring could ordain ! 
 
 4. Doctrinally the case was substantially like that at Hartford. 
 This appears not only from the reports, but from the thorough en- 
 dorsement of Mr. Dorman by Mr. Parker. It is hardly conceivable 
 that Mr. Parker could have " voted most cordially " for Mr. Dor- 
 man, if he had not cordially sympathized with him. It throws, 
 therefore, a decisive light upon the Hartford ordination. It settles 
 Mr. Parker's position. It shows what such fathers of the Church 
 as Drs. Hawes and Spring mean by " orthodoxy." To say that " the 
 Bible is written only in part by inspiration " — to deny original sin — 
 to be all unsettled in regard to election, the perseverance of the 
 
/ 
 
 64 
 
 saints, and the future state of those dying out of Christ — to be 
 wholly indefinite and ignorant "in respect to many leading, /wwc?a- 
 mental doctrines " — to hold views in direct conflict with the Con- 
 gregational Confession of Faith, and with the Articles of the church 
 over which a man seeks ordination ; all this, in the judgment of 
 these venerable men, is not inconsistent with good standing in the 
 orthodox Congregational ministry. This is an important point for 
 the churches to understand. It is a point that is now settled beyond 
 controversy. Its bearing upon the preceding discussion is obvious. 
 5. It is a remarkable case in ecclesiastical order. Here is a can- 
 didate who rejects not only the common standards of Congregation- 
 alism, but the particular Articles of the Church over which he is 
 to be settled — a man so thoroughly unsound that a Council of Old 
 and New School men unanimously refuse to ordain him : another 
 Council is immediately called, and in the face of the former Council, 
 proceed to the ordination ! A regular Congregational Council de- 
 clares a man unqualified for the Congregational ministry : within 
 less than a week from that time, this man, by the action of another 
 Congregational Council, is in fuU and regular standing in that min- 
 istry ! Is this the legitimate working of the system ? If so, we 
 agree fully with Dr. Hawes, that " there must be a change, or we 
 shall lose our hold upon the conservative and the thoughtful, and 
 fall into the hands of the rash and the radical." 
 
^