iiliilllr 
 
^ 
 
 
 
 
 1 J^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 1" 
 
 i 
 
 
 C 
 
 c > 
 
 CO en 
 
 ^ uJ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 c 
 
 .§ ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 •H ^ 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 &D dJ 
 
 §> s 
 
 
 •H IS ' 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 U 
 
 § a 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 •« 2 
 
 >-- 
 
 00 
 
 0) +J 
 
 J^ B 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 1^' 
 
 
 o 
 c 
 
 1 .^j^ 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 O W 
 CO 0) 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ID 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 t 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ o 
 
 4J U 
 
 % 
 
 ^ 
 
 4 
 
 PQ 
 
 ►—J 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2009 with funding frorn 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/lettersonorigiOOnewy 
 
LETTERS 
 
 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 
 
 V 
 
 From a New England Minister to one at the South. 
 
 J 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 ROBERT CARTER AND EZRA COLLIER. 
 
 M DCCC XXXVII. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1837, by 
 
 CASE, TIFFANY AND COMPANY, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut. 
 
 Printed by 
 CASE, TIFFANY & CO. 
 
 Hartford, Con. 
 
r-T 
 
 
 '' S'Jgo 
 
 < 
 
 ^ ■ -''^IV'rrr ~ • 
 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 The circumstances which have led to the publica- 
 tion of this little volume, are the following : In the 
 month of February, 18:37, the author received a letter 
 from a distinguished clergyman in one of the Southern 
 States, requesting some information respecting the 
 origin and progress of the New Divinity in New 
 England. He probably expected no more than a 
 single letter, in reply. The author, however, in 
 attempting to answer his inquiries, soon perceived 
 that he could not give the desired information in 
 a single letter. He accordingly concluded to write a 
 series of letters, and commit them to the disposal of his 
 correspondent, who judged it expedient to give them 
 to the public through the press. They were first pub- 
 lished in the Southern Christian Herald, and have been 
 copied into several other papers in different parts of the 
 country. The interest excited by them is far greater 
 than was anticipated by the writer. They are now col- 
 lected into a volume, at the earnest request of many 
 who have read them, and with the hope that they may 
 contribute something to the cause of truth. 
 
 The object of these letters, is to give a brief, but 
 faithfid account of what has sometimes been denomina- 
 ted the i!iev7 Haven controversy. Considering the 
 
JV PREFACE. 
 
 interest awakened by this controversy, it is obviously 
 important that its history should be known ; and that 
 the points of doctrine involved in it, should be clearly 
 understood. And this is the more important at the 
 present time, on account of the pains which have been 
 taken to make the impression that the New Haven 
 Divinity is New England Divinity, and in this way to 
 excite prejudice in the Presbyterian church against the 
 whole of New England. Several of the last letters in 
 the series, are intended to set this matter in its true 
 light. By a comparison of the wTitings of the New 
 Haven divines with those of the standard theolo:iical 
 writers of New England, it is shown, that they not only do 
 not harmonize, but are widely at variance ; ard that in 
 relation to fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. 
 In revising these letters, the writer has made some 
 slight alterations in the phraseology ; and added a few 
 quotations, for the purpose of giving a more full view of 
 the controversy to those who have had but a limited 
 acquaintance with the public discussions of the last eight 
 or ten years. 
 

 LETTER I. 
 
 February 10, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 Although I never had the pleasure of seeing 
 your face, I have for some time felt acquainted 
 with you, having heard so much respecting you 
 from our mutual friend, Mr. Nettleton. I was 
 therefore fully prepared to reciprocate every ex- 
 pression of confidence contained in your kind 
 and friendly letter of the first inst. I can assure 
 you that brother N. remembers with deep inter- 
 est the season which he spent under your hospi- 
 table roof; and that he will ever cherish a grateful 
 sense of the tokens of affection which he receiv- 
 ed from you and your family. And here permit 
 me to say, that, having been intimately acquaint- 
 ed with him for the last five and twenty years, I 
 can cheerfully subscribe to every word which 
 you have said in testimony of his worth. 
 
 But I must proceed to answer your inquiries 
 respecting " the origin and progress of Arminian 
 views in New England." I suppose you refer to 
 the New Haven speculations. I have had oppor- 
 tunity to know something of the history of these 
 1* 
 
b ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 speculations ; but the story is long, and cannot 
 be told in a single letter, Jf you will have pa- 
 tience with me, I will attempt to give you a brief 
 history in a series of letters, promising to bring 
 my narrative within as narrow compass as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 It is true, as was stated by Dr. Porter in his 
 letter to Dr. Beecher, that " Arminianism re- 
 ceived from the hand of Edwards its death blow, 
 of which it lingered more than half a century in 
 New England and died. Our orthodoxy had set- 
 tled into a solid, tranquil, scriptural state ; and 
 perhaps no body of ministers since the world 
 began have been so united, and so manifestly 
 blessed of God, as the ministers of New Eng- 
 land." Such was the state of things, when, as 
 Dr. Porter says — " A battery was opened in 
 Connecticut, a standard raised, and a campaign 
 begun." 
 
 The first indications that the New Haven di- 
 vines were beginning to adopt opinions at vari- 
 ance with those which commonly prevailed 
 among the orthodox, appeared while the con- 
 troversy between Dr. Woods of Andover, and 
 Dr. Ware of Cambridge, was in progress; which 
 was in 1820, '21. Dr. Taylor expressed to some 
 of his brethren great dissatisfaction with the 
 manner in which Dr. Woods had conducted the 
 controversy, and with the views which he had 
 advanced, particularly on the subject of Native 
 Depravity. He was heard to say, that on that 
 subject Dr. Ware had the better of the argu- 
 ment, and that Dr. Woods had put back the con- 
 troversy with Unitarians fifty years. Under the 
 impulse of these feelings, he prepared an article 
 
OP NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 7 
 
 for the Christian Spectator, which he submitted 
 to the association of gentlemen, by whom, in 
 connexion with the editor, the work was conduct- 
 ed. The Association decided that it was not 
 expedient to publish the article. Of the charac- 
 ter of the piece, and the sentiments which it 
 contained, you may perhaps form some conjec- 
 ture from the following circumstance. While 
 Dr. Taylor was reading it, one of the gentlemen 
 present composed and wrote with his pencil this 
 stanza : 
 
 Immortal Edwards, whom religion hails 
 Her favorite son, a Taylor overthrew ; 
 A Taylor now tlie great man's gliost assails. 
 His doctrine doubts, and error vamps anew. 
 
 I am not able to fix the precise date of this 
 event. I am not certain whether it was previous 
 or subsequent to the fact which I am about to 
 relate. On Saturday evening, Dec. 15, 1821, 
 Professor Goodrich of Yale College, in his course 
 of lectures to the college students, came to the 
 doctrine of Original Sin. He commenced his 
 lecture by observing that he was about to present 
 a different view of the subject from that which is 
 commonly received; and proceeded to exhibit 
 the views which were afterwards published in the 
 Christian Spectator ; and which I shall have oc- 
 casion to notice in a future letter. Some of the 
 pious students, who had read the controversy 
 between Dr. Woods and Dr. Ware, thought that 
 the views exhibited in this lecture bore a strik- 
 ing resemblance to those of Dr. Ware. They 
 were grieved and alarmed. Some of them wrote 
 to their friends, and in this way considerable un- 
 easiness was excited. Mr. Nettleton was at this 
 
8 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 time laboring in Litchfield with Dr. Beecher. 
 On hearing what had transpired at New Haven, 
 Dr. Beecher wrote to Dr. Taylor, and some cor- 
 respondence ensued. Professor Goodrich sent 
 his lecture to Litchfield. About that time Dr. 
 Humphrey, then pastor of the church in Pitts- 
 field, now President of Amherst College, hap- 
 pened to be there on a visit. He and Mr. Net- 
 tleton examined it together, and were greatly 
 dissatisfied. Dr. Beecher did not approve of the 
 views expressed by Professor Goodrich and Dr. 
 Taylor; yet in his correspondence at this time, 
 he made some concessions with which Mr. Net- 
 tleton was not satisfied ; and in a letter which 
 he (Mr. N.) wrote to Dr. Taylor, he said : 
 
 " With all my love and respect for brothers 
 Taylor and Goodrich and Beecher, I must say 
 that neither my judgment, nor concjence, nor 
 heart, can acquiesce, and I can go with you no 
 farther. Whatever you may say about infants, 
 for one, I do solemnly believe that God views, 
 and treats them in all respects, just as he would 
 do if they were sinners. To say that animals 
 die, and therefore death can be no proof of sin 
 in infants, is to take infidel ground. The infidel 
 has just as good a right to say, because animals 
 die without being sinners, therefore adulis may. 
 If death may reign to such an alarming extent 
 over the human race, and yet be no proof of 
 sin, then you adopt the principle that death may 
 reign to any extent over the universe, and it can 
 never be made a proof of sin in "any case. Then 
 what Paul says " Death by sin, and so death 
 passed upon all men for that all have sinned," is 
 not true. ' Infants die either on account of their 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 9 
 
 own sin, or the sin of Adam, or neither. Hence 
 the most that Paul can mean is this, death by sin, 
 if tliey live long enough ; if not, they shall die 
 without it. You may speculate better than I 
 can ; but I know one thing better than you do. 
 I know better what Christians will, and what 
 they will not receive ; and I forewarn you that 
 whenever you come out, our best Christians will 
 revolt. I felt a deep Interest in the controversy 
 between the Orthodox and Unitarians, while it 
 was kept out on the open field of Total Deprav- 
 ity, Regeneration hy the Holy Spirit, Divine 
 Sovereignty, and Ehetion. For this was taking 
 the enemy by the heart, and I knew who would 
 conquer. But you are giving the discussion a 
 bad turn, and I have lost all my interest in the 
 subject, and do not wish my fellow sinners to 
 hear it. I do fear it is a trick of the devil to 
 send brother Taylor on a wild goose chase after 
 what he will never find, and which if found would 
 not be worth one straw." These are only short 
 extracts from a long: letter. The whole has not 
 been preseived. This letter Mr. Nettleton read 
 to Dr. Beecher. 
 
 This was in December, 1821. After this Mr. 
 Nettleton had repeated private discussions with 
 the brethren at New Haven, in which he express- 
 ed his dissatisfaction with their peculiar views, 
 and faithfully expostulated with them on the dan- 
 ger of causing division among the ministers and 
 churches of New England. And yet for several 
 years it was curreiitly reported, and extensively 
 believed, that he agreed with the New Haven 
 divines, and the influence of his name was made 
 use of to give currency to their peculiar views. 
 
10 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 How unjustly this was done, is evident from the 
 foregoing extracts. The alarm which was occa- 
 sioned among the pious students, by the lecture 
 of Professor Goodrich, was somewhat allayed by 
 some explanations which he made to them, and 
 for a season the matter was in a great measure 
 hushed. But Mr. Nettleton, and some others 
 who were acquainted with the facts, were not 
 without great solicitude. Meanwhile the Pro- 
 fessorship of Didactic Theology was founded in 
 Yale College, Dr. Taylor was appointed Profes- 
 sor, and the Theological School was organized 
 in its present form in 1822. The founders of 
 this Professorship, required the Professor to sign 
 the following declaration : '' I hereby declare my 
 free assent to the Confession of Faith and Ec- 
 clesiastical Discipline, agreed upon by the 
 churches of the State, in the year 1708." Dr. 
 Taylor signed this declaration and was inducted 
 into office. The Confession of Faith here speci- 
 fied is what has been denominated the Saybrook 
 Platform, and so far as doctrines are concerned, 
 differs scarcely at all from the Confession of Faith 
 of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 In 1826, Professor Fitch preached and pub- 
 lished his discourses on the nature of sin, in 
 which he advanced the position that all sin con- 
 sists in the voluntary transgrcssio?i of known 
 law. This was regarded by many as a virtual 
 denial of original sin and native depravity as 
 maintained by Calvinists. These discourses 
 were reviewed by Dr. Green ii^ the Christian Ad- 
 vocate. Professor Fitch replied to the Review. 
 Meanwhile young men began to issue from the 
 New Haven school, and to proclaim the discov- 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 11 
 
 eries of their teacher. In this way very consid- 
 erable alarm was created in some quarters. Still 
 those who were dissatisfied dreaded an explosion 
 which should hazard the peace of the churches, 
 and refrained from publishing their views; and 
 all hope of avoiding a public controversy was not 
 given up till Dr. Taylor published his Concio ad 
 Clerum. Some account of this, and the contro- 
 versy which it occasioned, I will give you in my 
 next letter. 
 
 Yours very affectionately. 
 
LETTER II. 
 
 February 13, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 Dr. Taylor's " Concio ad Clerum" was preach- 
 ed in the Chapel of Yale College on the evening 
 of Commencement, Sept. 10, 1828. It was soon 
 after published. This was the commencement 
 of the public controversy in New England. The 
 object of the sermon was, to exhibit and establish 
 the author's views of the doctrine of native de- 
 pravity ; it was apparent from the whole strain of 
 the sermon, that the preacher was conscious that 
 the views which he was exhibiting were different 
 from those which were commonly received. He 
 attempted to demolish what he called " very com- 
 mon, but groundless assumptions — assumptions 
 which, so long as they are admitted and reasoned 
 upon, must leave the subject involved in insuper- 
 able difficulties." In one of his notes, after stat- 
 ing the different forms of the doctrine of deprav- 
 ity, which he supposed to be held by the ortho- 
 dox, placing that form of it which he adopted 
 last, he says, " Those who reject the last form of 
 it, and adopt either of the preceding forms, will, 
 
NEW HAVExN THEOLOGY. 13 
 
 it is hoped, favor the world with some better ar- 
 guments on the subject than have hitherto been 
 furnished." This was throwing down the gaunt- 
 let and challenging a controversy. But I must 
 give you some account of the sermon. 
 
 The text was Eph. ii. 3: Anctioerehy nature 
 cidldren of wrath even as others. The doctrine 
 of the text, he stated to be, " that the entire mor- 
 al depravity of man is by nature." The state- 
 ment of this doctrine seemed to give promise 
 that he was about to exhibit the common views 
 on this subject. But in his explanations of the 
 nature of depravity, and of the sense in which it 
 is by nature, he was understood to advance prin- 
 ciples utterly inconsistent with his main proposi- 
 tion — principles which lead to the conclusion 
 that there is in man no natural hereditary pro- 
 pensity to sin, and that there was no real con- 
 nexion betw^een the sin of Adam and that of his 
 posterity. Moral depravity he defines to be, *' a 
 man's own act, consisting of a free choice of 
 some object rather than God, as his chief good ; 
 or a free preference of the world and worldly 
 good, to the will and glory of God." By man- 
 kind being depraved by nature, he says, " I do 
 not mean that their nature is itself sinful, nor 
 that their nature is the physical or efficient cause 
 of their sinning; but I mean that their nature is 
 the occasion or reason of their sinning; that such 
 is their nature, that in all the appropriate circum- 
 stances of their being, they will sin, and only 
 sin." But he elsewhere maintains, that all men 
 come into the world with the same nature in kind 
 as that with which Adam was created, and which 
 the Child Jesus possessed. 
 
14 ORIGIN AND PROGIlEriS 
 
 If this be true, it is certainly difficult to see 
 how their nature can be in imy sense the cause 
 or reason of their sinning ; or how there can be 
 any hereditary corruption of nature, or any real 
 connexion between the sin of Adam and that of 
 his posterity. Towards the close of the sermon, 
 in reply to the inquiry, why God permitted man 
 to sin, he says, " Do you know that God could 
 have done better, better on the whole, or better, 
 if he gave him existence at all, even for the indi- 
 vidual himself I The error lies in the gratuitous 
 assumption, that God could have adopted a mor- 
 al system, and prevented all sin, or at least, the 
 present degree of sin." 
 
 This subject he resumes in a note, and pro- 
 ceeds at some length, to show that the reason 
 why God does not prevent all sin in the moral 
 universe and make all his rational creatures holy 
 and happy, is, that it is not possible for him to do 
 it. He says, "If holiness in a moral system be 
 preferable on the whole to sin in its stead, why 
 did not a benevolent God, were it possible to him, 
 prevent all sin, and secure the prevalence of uni- 
 versal holiness? Would not a moral universe of 
 perfect holiness, be happier and better than one 
 comprising sin and its miseries ? And must not 
 infinite benevolence accomplish all the good it 
 can? Would not a benevolent God then, had it 
 been possible to him in the nature of things, have 
 secured the existence of universal holiness in his 
 moral kingdom?" Again he says, " Who does 
 most reverence to God, he who supposes that 
 God would have prevented all sin in his moral 
 universe, but could not ; or he who affirms that 
 he could have prevented it, but icoidd not?" 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 15 
 
 This note gave great dissatisfaction, and was 
 extensively regarded as a virtual denial of the 
 Omnipotence, and universal Providence of God, 
 and as being utterly subversive of tlie Calvinistic 
 doctrine of the divine decrees. It called forth, 
 as I shall have occasion to mention hereafter, 
 the ]ettei;s of Dr. Woods to Dr. Taylor, which 
 were published in 1830. This sermon was re- 
 viewed by the Rev. Dr. Harve}^ The reviewer 
 points out what he conceives to be the peculiar- 
 ities of sentiment contained in the sermon, and 
 attempts to show that they are inconsistent both 
 with the Bible, and with the writings of the stan- 
 dard orthodox New England divines. To this 
 review a reply was published in the Christian 
 Spectator, ascribed, at first, to the Rev. Dr. Por- 
 ter, of Farmington, but ascertained afterwards to 
 have been written principally by Professor Good- 
 rich. It comprised the substance of his lecture 
 to the College Students, in 1821, of which some 
 notice was taken in my last letter. 
 
 In this reply the following principles are clear- 
 ly maintained, viz : That infants possess no 
 moral character — that they sustain precisely the 
 same relation to the moral government of God, 
 as brute animals — that sulTering and death are no 
 more proof of sin in them than in brutes — that 
 salvation by Christ in their case denotes deliver- 
 ance from the future existence of sin and its con- 
 sequences, and that it is proper to baptize them, 
 not because they need sanctification, but because 
 they will need it, if they live to become moral 
 agents. The fact that all men become sinners 
 is accounted for in the following manner : "A 
 cliild enters the world with a variety of appetites 
 
16 
 
 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 and desires, which are generally acknowledged 
 to be neither sinful nor holy. Committed in a 
 state of utter helplessness to the assiduity of pa- 
 rental fondness, it commences existence, the 
 object of unceasing care, watchfulness, and con- 
 cession to those around it. Under such circum- 
 stances it is, that the natural appetites are first 
 developed, and each advancing month brings 
 new objects of gratification. The obvious con- 
 sequence is, that self-indulgence becomes the 
 master principle in the soul of every child, long 
 before it can understand that this self-indulgence 
 will interfere with the rights, or intrench on the 
 happiness of others. Thus by repetition is the 
 force of constitutional propensities accumula- 
 ting a bias towards self-gratification, which be- 
 comes incredibly strong, before a knowledge of 
 duty or a sense of right and wrong, can possibly 
 have entered the mind. That moment, the com- 
 mencement of moral agency at length arrives." 
 
 Thus the universal sinfulness of mankind is 
 accounted for, not from any corruption of nature 
 derived from Adam, but from the circumstances 
 in which mankind are placed in early infancy. 
 An able answer to this article was published, sup- 
 posed to have been written by Dr. Harvey, to 
 which Dr. Taylor made a short reply. The con- 
 troversy thus far, was confined principally to^the 
 doctrine of native depravity, although the note in 
 Dr. Taylor's sermon respecting God's ability to 
 prevent sin, was not passed over without due an- 
 imadversion. 
 
 You will be interested to know what were the 
 views of your friend Mr. Nettleton, at this stage 
 of the controversy. The foUowinof extract of a 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 17 
 
 letter written by him to Dr. Beecher at this peri- 
 od, will give you some information. The 
 letter is dated at Enfield, Mass, Sept. 18, 1829. 
 
 " While at Amherst, I read through Dr. Tay- 
 lor of Norwich, and much of Edwards in reply. 
 And I must say, that so far as I understand the 
 subject, the sentiments of our New Haven breth- 
 ren, are more in accordance with the former, 
 than with the latter. And so far as the interpre- 
 tation of the Bible is concerned, brother Tay- 
 lor's students, some of them at least, (whether 
 they arc conscious of it or not, I cannot say,) in 
 every important particular, are fully with Dr. 
 Taylor of Norwich, and at war with Edwards. 
 The Reviewer of Taylor and Harvey does not 
 give us the meaning of the texts which seem to 
 cross his path ; but he has adopted principles 
 which are at war with all that Edwards has writ- 
 ten on original sin, and the nature of regenera- 
 tion. If the sentiments contained in that Re- 
 view be correct, then Edwards was wrong in his 
 interpretation of every text in his piece on ori- 
 ginal sin. Brother Taylor has not come to the 
 most important part of his work — to give us the 
 meaning of the Bible. After abandoning impu- 
 tation, and what he calls physical depravity, 
 we shall be compelled to adopt the sentiments 
 of Dr. Taylor of Norwich, and genuine Ar- 
 minianism, or actual sin from the commence- 
 ment of the soul, or deny that infants need re- 
 demption by Christ, and regeneration by the Ho- 
 ly Spirit ; or if they do need redemption, it must 
 be a redemption from something which is not 
 sinful in any sense, and if they need regeneration, 
 it must be a change of something which is not 
 2* 
 
18 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 sinful in any sense. If the soul be innocent, it 
 can be redeemed from nothing, and can never 
 join the song of the redeemed, " unto him that 
 loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own 
 blood." If the soul be innocent, it can be 
 regenerated, only for the worse. Then, if you 
 doubt, as some are beginning to do, whether the 
 soul commences at birth, would it not be idle to 
 reason about the nature of that which has no ex- 
 istence. To admit the necessity of redemption 
 by the blood of Christ, and of regeneration by 
 the supernatural influences of the Holy Spirit, 
 of something of whose nature we know nothing, 
 and of whose existence we doubt, is bad philoso- 
 phy as well as bad theology. I say these things 
 to show that brother Taylor cannot stand where 
 he is. His students, some of them at least, do 
 not take the ground assumed in his printed ser- 
 mon, that infants need redemption and regene- 
 ration. When interrogated by ecclesiastical 
 bodies, *' Have infants souls?" the answer 
 sometimes is, " 1 do not know." " Do they need 
 redemption?" " I do not know." *' Is it prop- 
 er to pray for them ?" "I do not know." " What 
 is the meaning of such and such texts?" " I do 
 not know." Now I do not wonder that minis- 
 ters are alarmed at the New Haven Theology. 
 Interrogatories like those above will always be 
 put to his students, when examined by ecclesias- 
 tical bodies. And since the alarm occasioned 
 by the recent publications, I anticipate that min- 
 isters will be better prepared, more critical and 
 sensitive than ever, on all these points. And if 
 Dr. Taylor cannot furnish his pupils with plain 
 answers, and answers, too, that shall comport 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 19 
 
 with his printed sermon, I think they will be in a 
 worse predicament than ever. 
 
 '' I have just received the last number of the 
 Christian Spectator, and Harvey's and Taylor's 
 pamphlets, issued on commencement day. I have 
 read them through, but have not time or room 
 to give my thoughts on paper. Harvey has 
 adopted nearly my views, and Taylor in some 
 places admits, and then again rejects them. Now 
 " he admits that infants are sinners from their 
 birth," p. 30 ; and this is in perfect accordance 
 with his admission that they have souls — " need 
 redemption by Christ" — "regeneration by the 
 Holy Spirit." And now why hesitate to admit 
 that death in their case is *' by sin ?" But this he 
 will not admit, but tries to evade it, and to prove 
 their innocence refers to Deut. i. 39 : " Moreover, 
 your little ones which ye said should be a prey, 
 and your children, which in that day had no 
 knmvlcdgc between good and evil, they shall go 
 in thither." These "little ones and children" 
 were all from twenty years old and under. See 
 Num. xxxii. 11. They were not summoned to 
 the field of battle, to go iip and take possession 
 of Canaan, and hence it is said, they *' had no 
 knowledge between good and evil," quoad hoc. 
 If that proves any thing to brother Taylor's pur- 
 pose, it proves that all mankind under twenty 
 years of age, are not moral agents, and are, of 
 course, innocent. He quotes, also, and so does 
 Professor Stuart, Jonah, iv. 11. I have formerly 
 heard these same texts quoted for the same pur- 
 pose by Methodists, and other Arminians, and I 
 feel disposed to give the old answer. 1. It wants 
 proof that they were infants. 2. "Cannot dis- 
 
20 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 
 
 cern between their right hand and their left" is a 
 proverbial expression, denoting great ignorance 
 in adults, and is no where applied to infants. 3. 
 It is incredible that Ninevah should contain 
 120,000 infants. 4. It would better accord with 
 the book of Jonah, and with our Lord's account 
 of their ignorance, to admit that the 120,000 em- 
 braced the entire population who repented at the 
 preaching of Jonah, and that the city was spared 
 on account of their repentance, and not for the 
 sake of infants, thus making void their repen- 
 tance." 
 
 We have now arrived at a period in the history 
 of the New Haven speculations when the dis- 
 satisfaction became quite extensive. Several 
 events occurred in the course of this year, which 
 it will be important to notice, and of which I will 
 give you some account in my next letter. 
 
 Yours, very affectionately. 
 
LETTER III. 
 
 February 17, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 In the year 1829, while the controversy men- 
 tioned in my last letter was going on, a series of 
 articles was published in the Christian Spectator, 
 on the Means of Regeneration, purporting to be 
 a Review of Dr. Spring's dissertation on that 
 subject. In these articles, which were written 
 by Dr. Taylor, the writer maintains, that antece- 
 dent to regeneration, the selfish principle is sus- 
 pended in the sinner's heart, and that then, 
 prompted by self-love, he uses the means of regen- 
 eration with motives that are neither sinful nor 
 holy. The manner in which the subject is dis- 
 cussed, seemed to many, to be utterly inconsis- 
 ent with the views commonly entertained by the 
 orthodox on this fundamental doctrine of the 
 Christian faith, Mr. Nettleton, in his letter to 
 Dr. Beecher, an extract from which was inserted 
 in my last letter, says in reference to this subject: 
 
 " As to Dr. Taylor's last piece on the means 
 of regeneration, it seems to me that he has 
 turned the thing bottom upwards. In his des- 
 cription of the means of regeneration, he includes 
 the exercises or evidences of a new heart. The 
 
22 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 carnal mind, which is enmity against God, sus- 
 pends all its enmity, and selfishness, and sin, and 
 then goes to work on the principle of self-love. 
 How long the sinner continues in this state of 
 neutrality he does not inform us. But no mat- 
 ter ; the sinner does not use the means of a new 
 heart until the old heart is gone, and he is in a 
 state favorably disposed, like the prodigal son 
 after he came to himself. No sinner ever did 
 what brother Taylor considers as using the means 
 of regeneration, until God had first regenerated 
 him. The distinction between supreme selfish- 
 ness and self-love, in the impenitent, exists only 
 in theory, never in matter of fact. Suppose a 
 sinner should go to brother Taylor and address 
 him as follows : ' I have always been dissatisfied 
 with the old doctrine of the entire sinfulness of 
 the doings of the unreorenerate, and therefore 
 nave done nothing to make a new heart ; but 
 when I saw your views I was pleased ; I found 
 that I was right, that sin could never be the 
 means of holiness, but that the exercise of self- 
 love might be. Accordingly, I have suspended 
 all my selfishness, and have not committed a sin- 
 gle sin for some time past, and have been to work 
 on your plan, from a desire for happiness, or a 
 principle of self-love. Thus I have made me a 
 new heart.' How would Dr. Taylor be pleased 
 with such an account. To me it sounds like 
 the talk of a Pharisee. No sinner ever suspen- 
 ded his selfishness, until subdued by divine grace. 
 The carnal mind, the enmity against God, the 
 heart of stone, remains, until slain, subdued, or 
 taken away, by the Holy Spirit." 
 
 This letter was written Sept. 18, 1829. Three 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 23 
 
 numbers of the treatise on the means of regene- 
 ration had then been published. A fourth num- 
 ber appeared in December, designed to obviate 
 objections, containing some statements which, 
 in the view of many, were utterly inconsistent 
 with what had been published in the previous 
 numbers. Dr. Porter, of Andover, speaking of 
 this in a letter to a friend, says : 
 
 " Dr. Taylor's closing number on means, was 
 a designed modification of the former ones, 
 partly at the suggestion of Dr. Beecher. The 
 latter told him that he had employed terms badly 
 in speaking of the ' suspension of selfishness.' 
 All that Dr. Taylor means, said he to me, is that 
 ' the carnal mind is held in check, or does not 
 act^ and not that it is extinct,' 'While this car- 
 nal mind is thus checked, has it moral qualities?' 
 said I. ' Doubtless,' he replied. ' Is it sinful, 
 or holy, or neither?' (Pause.) 'The man is 
 doubtless a sinner,' said he. ' Can one who pug- 
 naciously and ostentatiously maintains that all 
 sin consists in action, maintain too that a carnal 
 mind is sinful when its action has ceased?' (No 
 reply.) " 
 
 These articles on the means of regeneration, 
 created serious alarm in the minds of many 
 ministers, and were the foundation of the con- 
 troversy between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler, 
 which commenced near the close of the year 
 1829. But before I proceed to give an account 
 of this controversy, I will mention some events 
 which occurred previously in the course of this 
 year. In May, 1829, Dr. Porter wrote his letter 
 to Dr. Beecher, which has been recently pub- 
 lished, and which you have seen. The deep 
 
24 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 solicitude expressed in that letter, in view of the 
 new theological speculations which were coming 
 up in New England, was not confined to him, 
 but existed in the minds of many of his breth- 
 ren. In October, of the same year, he thus 
 wrote to a friend : 
 
 " From some remarks which were dropped 
 when you and brother Humphrey were in my 
 study, I have supposed that both you and he have 
 much the same views of Dr. Taylor's speculative 
 theory that I have. That he was very much dis- 
 satisfied last May, I know from his strong decla- 
 rations ; and his disquietude, I presume, cannot 
 have been diminished by the subsequent charac- 
 ter of the Christian Spectator. Since that time 
 too, I have known that such men as the Prince- 
 ton Professors, Dr. Spring, Dr. Porter of Catts- 
 kill, Dr. Hyde of Lee, Dr. Richards of Auburn, Dr. 
 Griffin, &c., are seriously dissatisfied. Without 
 time to enter into particulars, my difficulty is, that 
 his note to his sermon, the Concio ad Clerum, his 
 views of native depravity, of means and regene- 
 ration, are virtually Arminian ; at least, they will 
 be so understood as to bring up a race of young 
 preachers thoroughly anti-Calvinistic. The spirit 
 besides, is like the he-goat of Daniel, bold and 
 pushing— impatient of inquiry, or hesitation in 
 other men. Now, what is to be done ? Shall 
 we sustain our Calvinism, or see it run down to 
 the standard of Methodists, and laxer men? It 
 is time that a note ' of remonstrance be struck 
 up somewhere.' " 
 
 It has been currently reported in some quar- 
 ters, that all the dissatisfaction with the New 
 Haven Theology, has been produced by secret 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 25 
 
 whisperings, and rumors set afloat by one or two 
 individuals who were personal enemies to Dr. 
 Taylor. No representation could be more untrue. 
 Who were the men that in 1829 were seriously 
 dissatisfied? Dr. Porter has mentioned the 
 names of a few. Many others of similar char- 
 acter might be added to the list. And were 
 these men personal enemies to Dr. Taylor? Or 
 did they form their opinions of his theology from 
 floating rumors ? No, their dissatisfaction was 
 the result of a candid and careful perusal of his 
 writings, and those of his associates. 
 
 In September of this year, a little previous to 
 the date of the letter from which the above ex- 
 tract is taken, (at the time of the anniversary at 
 Andover,) a Conference was held at the house 
 of Dr. Porter, between the New Haven Divines 
 and several other ministers of distinction, with a 
 view, if possible, of coming to a friendly under- 
 standing, and of preventing the necessity of any 
 further public controversy. It was fondly hoped 
 that explanations might be given, and concessions 
 made which would relieve the minds of those 
 who were dissatisfied. At this meeting were 
 present. Dr. Taylor and Professor Goodrich from 
 New Haven, Dr. Beecher, the Andover Profes- 
 sors, Dr. Church, Dr. Spring, Dr. Cogswell, 
 Mr. Nettleton, Dr. Hewit, and some others whose 
 names I am not now able to specify. The re- 
 sult of this interview was not as happy as some 
 had anticipated. The explanations of the New 
 Haven brethren so far from removing the dissat- 
 isfaction which existed, served rather to increase 
 it. That the mind of Dr. Porter was not at all 
 relieved, is evident from the letter from which 
 3 
 
26 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 the above extract is taken, and which was written 
 only a few days after the interview. It is known 
 that others who were present felt as he did. 
 They were fully convinced that a public contro- 
 versy could not be avoided. As much as they 
 dreaded the evil connected with such a contro- 
 versy, it was their solemn conviction that they 
 were called upon by the great head of the Church 
 to take an open and decided stand against these 
 speculations, and to contend earnestly for the 
 faith once delivered to the saints. Dr. Woods 
 at this time came to the determination to publish 
 his letters to Dr. Taylor. 
 
 Shortly after this interview, Mr. Nettleton, be- 
 ing at Andover, dropped a line to Dr. Beecher, 
 requesting him to invite the orthodox ministers 
 of Boston to meet at his house, at a given time, 
 as he wished very much to see them. At the 
 time appointed he was there. He stated to his 
 brethren that he was about to leave New England 
 for the South, and that as reports were in circu- 
 lation that he accorded in sentiment with the 
 New Haven divines, and the influence of his 
 name was thus made use of to give currency to 
 their peculiar views ; he wished them distinctly 
 to understand that he did not adopt those views 
 and never had adopted them ; and that he should 
 feel it to be his duty on all suitable occasions, to 
 bear his testimony against them. He said that 
 such were his convictions of the tendency of 
 those views to corrupt revivals and produce 
 spurious conversions, that if all New England 
 should go over, he should prefer to stand alone, 
 and he requested his brethren to make known 
 his views as they had opportunity, that his name 
 
OF NEW HAVEN TIIEOLOfiV. y< 
 
 might not be made use of to sanction sentiments 
 which he did not, and could not receive. Mr. 
 Evarts, and Dr. Cornelius were at this meeting, 
 and entered iuUy into the views of Mr. Nettleton. 
 What course Dr. Beecher pursued at this time, 
 and at some other times, I may perhaps have oc- 
 casion to mention in a future letter. 
 
 I have mentioned that the controversy be- 
 tween Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler commenced the 
 latter part of this year. Dr. Tyler was at this 
 time pastor of a Church in Portland, (Me.) He 
 was a native of Connecticut, and spent the first 
 part of his pastoral life in that State, during 
 which time Dr. Taylor was one of his intimate 
 friends. He had been absent from the State 
 about nine years, and although he had heard of 
 the dissatisfaction which existed in Connecticut 
 and elsewhere, in regard to Dr. Taylor's Theo- 
 ogical views, he was inclined to believe that it 
 was in a great measure groundless. In the sum- 
 mer of 1829, he visited Connecticut and collect- 
 ed all the pamphlets which had been published 
 in relation to this controversy. On his return to 
 Portland, he sat down to a careful examination 
 of what had been published. The result was a 
 full conviction that the New Haven brethren had 
 adopted opinions which were erroneous and of 
 dangerous tendency. The state of his mind at 
 this time will be seen from the following extract 
 of a letter to a friend, dated Oct. 8, 1829 : 
 
 "Will you believe it, when your letter arrived, 
 I was poring over the New Haven Divinity, as I 
 have been for several days past. I should like to 
 read to you some remarks which I have written 
 on brother Taylor's Review of Dr. Spring. That 
 Review has opened my eyes. Unless I am great- 
 
28 
 
 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ly mistaken, there is much error in that Review ; 
 and the error regards principles of the first im- 
 portance. When I was in Connecticut, I had 
 not thought much on the controverted points, and 
 I was disposed to regard them, as of but little 
 practical importance. But since I returned 
 home I have carefully read what has been pub- 
 lished, and have come to the very conclusion 
 which you have expressed in your letter that 
 * there is a radical departure from our views of 
 the great doctrines of the Bible.' These breth- 
 ren cannot stand where they are. They are at- 
 tempting to strike out a middle course between 
 Calvinism and Arminianism, but they must go 
 over to the one side or the other. Now what 
 shall be done? What was the result of the con- 
 sultation at Andover ? Is the thing to be hushed, 
 or is there to be a public discussion? I have 
 been exceedingly distressed for a few weeks past 
 in reflecting on this subject. What is to become 
 of New England? Must we fight over the bat- 
 tles of former generations? And that too with 
 brethren in whom we have had the highest confi- 
 dence, and with whom we have long acted in 
 concert." 
 
 About this time Dr. Tyler wrote to Dr. Tay- 
 lor, and expressed with great frankness all his 
 fears. Several letters passed between them ; but 
 the explanations of Dr. Taylor so far from re- 
 lieving his mind, increased his dissatisfaction ; 
 and he finally consented at the earnest solicita- 
 tion of several of his brethren, to publish his 
 strictures on Dr. Taylor's treatise on the means 
 of regeneration. Some account of this contro- 
 versy, I will give you in my next letter. 
 
 Yours very alTectionately. 
 
LETTER IV. 
 
 February 21, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 Dr. Tyler published his Strictures, Dec. 1829. 
 He says in his Preface : 
 
 " The writer of the following Strictures is 
 conscious of no unfriendly feelings towards the 
 conductors of the Christian Spectator; and es- 
 pecially towards the individual who is generally 
 known to be the writer of the Review. He has 
 ever regarded him with the highest respect, and 
 cherished towards him the warmest sentiments of 
 personal friendship. Until recently, he has had 
 the fullest confidence in the general correctness 
 of his theological views. But recent publica- 
 tions, and particularly the articles noticed in the 
 following sheets, have produced the conviction, 
 that in some things he has swerved from the faith 
 of our Pilgrim fathers. Not that he has formally 
 denied any one doctrine of the orthodox system, 
 but, it is believed, that in his statements and ex- 
 planations, he has adopted principles, which will 
 lead, by inevitable consequence, to the denial of 
 important doctrines, and that his speculations will 
 3* 
 
30 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 pave the way for the gradual influx of error upon 
 the American Churches, disastrous to the inter- 
 ests of evangelical religion. Nothing but the 
 fullest conviction of the dangerous tendency of 
 these speculations, and the necessity of some 
 counteracting influence, could have induced the 
 writer to appear, in this manner, before the pub- 
 lic. But personal considerations are to be waved, 
 when the interests of truth and piety are con- 
 cerned." 
 
 In prosecuting his object, he in the first place, 
 attempts to correct some errors in regard to the 
 meaning and explanation of terms. He objects, 
 to the meaning which Dr. Taylor attaches to the 
 term regeneration. He uses it to denote " that 
 act of the will or heart which consists in prefer- 
 ence of God to every other object; making it of 
 course, an act of the sinner, and not exclusively 
 the work of God. He objects also to the dis- 
 tinction which Dr. Taylor makes between the 
 popular and theological use of the term regenera- 
 tion. In the popular sense. Dr. Taylor supposes 
 it to denote a process, or series of acts and states 
 of mind, and to include all those acts which 
 constitute, using the means of regeneration. 
 He objects also to the sense in which Dr. Tay- 
 lor uses the term selfishness. According to him, 
 selfishness consists not in a supreme regard to 
 our own happiness, but in the love of the world, 
 or in prefering the world to God, as our portion 
 or chief good. He makes a distinction between 
 selfishness and self-love, and supposes that the 
 former may be suspended in the unrenewed 
 heart, and that the sinner influenced by the lat- 
 ter, may use the means of regeneration with mo- 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 31 
 
 tives which are neither sinful nor holy. An 
 ultimate regard to our own happiness, according 
 to him, is not selfishness, but self-love, a principle 
 by which all moral beings of whatever character, 
 are actuated. He says, indeed, " Of all specific 
 voluntary action, the happiness of the agent, in 
 some form, is the ultimate end ;" thus confound- 
 ing as Dr. Tyler shows, all distinction between 
 holiness, and sin, making both proceed from the 
 same principle of action. 
 
 In regard to the suspension of the selfish prin- 
 ciple, Dr. Tyler asks, " But how is the selfish 
 principle suspended? Is it suspended by the 
 interposition of God, or by an act of the sinner? 
 Not by the interposition of God, for, if I under- 
 stand the Reviewer, he supposes that those men- 
 tal acts which constitute using the means of re- 
 generation, precede the act of divine interposi- 
 tion. Besides, if God by an act of his grace, 
 suspends the selfish principle, what is this but 
 regeneration ? Does the sinner while under the 
 control of supreme selfishness, and consequently 
 from a selfish motive resolve not to be selfish. 
 This would seem to represent selfishness as divid- 
 ed against itself, ' an absurdity sufficiently palpa- 
 ble to silence even Jewish cavilling.' Is the 
 selfish principle suspended without any act of the 
 mind ? What is the cause of this wonderful 
 phenomenon ? Or has it no cause ? Is it an 
 accident which may, or may not happen, and 
 which, nevertheles's must happen in regard to 
 every one of the human race before he can be 
 regenerated?" 
 
 He elsewhere shows that there is not, and 
 
32 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 cannot be, any such thing as the suspension of 
 the selfish principle in the unrenewed heart. 
 
 ^' It is admitted," he says, " that there is no 
 holiness in man antecedent to regeneration. 
 Consequently, there is no love to God, and no 
 true benevolence. By what principle then, is the 
 sinner actuated ? By self-love, it is said. But is 
 it possible that the sinner while destitute of love 
 to God, and of every spark of genuine benevo- 
 lence, should love himself at all and not love 
 himself supremely ? What other object does he 
 regard more than self? Not God, nor the hap- 
 piness of the universe. What other object does 
 he regard at all ? Nothing, except as it tends to 
 promote his ultimate end, viz. his own happiness. 
 This is his sole object of pursuit. This fills all 
 his eye, and engrosses all his thoughts and all his 
 purposes. To this he is supremely devoted. 
 Consequently he is supremely selfish. It is im- 
 possible to conceive of a being more so. Every 
 moral being destitute of benevolence, and actu- 
 ated by self-love, is necessarily a selfish being. 
 According to this supposition, self-love is the 
 governing principle of his mind, and if this does 
 not constitute selfishness, it is impossible to con- 
 ceive of any thing which can constitute it. To 
 suppose therefore, selfishness to be suspended in 
 the natural heart, and self-love to exist and oper- 
 ate, is to suppose an absolute impossibility. If 
 one is suspended, the other must be also." 
 
 After exhibiting fully Dr. Taylor's theory. Dr. 
 Tyler proposes seven queries, which are intended 
 to present in a single view its legitimate conse- 
 quences. His first query is, " Whether accord- 
 ing to Dr, Taylor's representations, regeneration 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 33 
 
 is not a gr ad 11 ell and progressive work?" The 
 second, " Whether the theory in question does 
 not involve the inconsistency of supposing that 
 the heart is changed antecedent to regeneration ?" 
 The third, " What becomes of the sinner's con- 
 viction of sin, while using the means of regene- 
 ration ?" The fourth, " Whether the theory in 
 question, does not dispense with the necessity of 
 divine influence in regeneration?" The fifth, 
 *' Whether Dr. Taylor does not represent the 
 sinner as laboring under a natural inability to do 
 his duty?" The sixth, ''Whether he does not, 
 in effect, deny the doctrine of sovereign and dis- 
 tinguishing grace?" The seventh, "Whether 
 this theory, if drawn out in detail, and inculcated 
 by the teachers of religion, has not a direct ten- 
 dency to stifle conviction of sin, and produce 
 spurious conversions?" 
 
 The strictures were reviewed in the Christian 
 Spectator, by Dr. Taylor. Dr. Tyler published 
 a vindication of the strictures. There was a 
 very brief notice of the vindication in the Spec- 
 tator, with an intimation that it might be fol- 
 lowed by a more extended review. But that 
 review has never appeared. 
 
 To give you an idea of the impression made 
 upon some minds by this discussion, I quote the 
 following extract from a letter of Dr. Porter, 
 dated Charleston (S. C.) May 1, 1830. 
 
 " A letter from brother Stuart, soon after I 
 left you, had this passage. ' Dr. Tyler has pub- 
 lished his pamphlet which has made an end of 
 tlie matter as to brother Taylor's regeneration 
 by self-love — a full end. There is no redemp- 
 tion. All the fog is blown away, and we have at 
 
34 
 
 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 last, a clear and sheer regeneration of the natural 
 man by himself, stimulated by self-love, made 
 out to be the scheme of brother Taylor. There 
 is no getting aside of it.' I quote this because 
 it accords so perfectly with my own views, and 
 because brother Stuart has been claimed by Dr. 
 Taylor, as on his side. 
 
 " I take it for granted that Professor Stuart can 
 have no objections that the above extract be seen, 
 because it perfectly accords with what he has ex- 
 pressed in conversation to many individuals, and 
 because I presume he is willing that his views 
 should be known; especially since the influence 
 of his name has been so extensively employed to 
 give sanction to sentiments, which he not only 
 does not believe, but rejects with abhorrence." 
 
 In the same letter from which the above is 
 extracted, Dr. Porter thus speaks of the reply to 
 Dr. Tyler's strictures, *' On returning to this 
 city, I find in the Spectator for March, Dr. Tay- 
 lor's review of Dr. Tyler's strictures, and though 
 I can hardly say I am disappointed, I am troubled 
 in spirit at the character of this review. I am 
 sorry to see a temper in some respects so excep- 
 tionable! Indeed, I am completely nonplussed to 
 see what Dr. Taylor vv^ould be at. He began 
 writing avowedly to correct what he thought com- 
 mon errors of our theologians : and next he sup- 
 ports his own views by quoting these theologians 
 as concurring in sentiment with himself. If Dr. 
 Taylor is radically wrong, it is a great evil. If 
 he is right, and yet uses language, so as to lead 
 others wrong in their own system, or wrong in 
 their views of his, it is still a great evil. What 
 can be done with a man who wijl tprn upon you 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 35 
 
 at every corner, with 'you mistake my mean- 
 ing?' I answer, let liim be candidly, kindJy, 
 and solemnly pressed farther. His vieus of self- 
 love cannot stand inquiry. His true benevolence 
 — love to God — in its most elementary form, is 
 what? Regard to one's own happiness. Fuller 
 in his 'Gospel its own witness,' shows this to be 
 an infidel sentiment; and Smalley shows that 
 Satan is innocent, if an ultimate regard to self, is 
 no sin." 
 
 In his published letters on Revivals of Reli- 
 gion, Dr. Porter has some excellent remarks on 
 this subject. I have room only for a short 
 extract. After quoting two or three passages 
 from Dr. Taylor's Treatise on the means of re- 
 generation he says, " This language certainly is 
 not so precise as one could wish, but it seems un- 
 avoidable to understand it as meaning, that re- 
 gard to his own happiness is the primary and 
 proper spring of action in every man ; that his 
 moral character is determined solely by the object 
 of his choice, or his estimate of his own inter- 
 ests as correct or incorrect; that if he chooses 
 the world as his chief good, from self-love, he is 
 an unholy man; but if he chooses God from 
 self-love, he is a regenerate man. And by that 
 voluntary act, in which he first prefers God to the 
 world, froQi regard to his own interest, he be- 
 comes regenerate. Any man may use language 
 so as not to express his own meaning. But de- 
 liberately to admit that self-love must be the 
 primary ground of moral affection, is to super- 
 cede all intelligent discussion, ■dhoutrcgeneratioii, 
 or any of the kindred doctrines of grace. This 
 one principle sweeps the whole away. There 
 
36 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 
 
 remains no radical distinction of character be- 
 tween the saint and the sinner. The most de- 
 praved individual on earth, or even among apos- 
 tate spirits, doubtless is the centre of his affec- 
 tions. And though he may have perverted views 
 of his own interest, he means notwithstanding 
 to act, and does act, from a primary regard to 
 himself And if this is the highest principle of 
 action to a holy being, then an angel and a devil 
 stand on the same ground as to moral character; 
 (in other words) there is no distinction between 
 holiness and sin. Besides, this theory would 
 split the moral system into as many jarring parts 
 with as many centres of 'primary' affections as 
 it contains individuals. It would set every moral 
 agent at variance with every other moral agent, 
 and with God himself. Whereas the simple pre- 
 cept, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
 all thy heart' — sets up another standard in every 
 bosom. It establishes a common centre of mor- 
 al affection to the universe of moral agents, and 
 binds the hearts of all to each other, and to the 
 throne of Jehovah." 
 
 I have made free use of the thoughts of Dr. 
 Porter, because he was extensively known and 
 highly esteemed at the South ; and because, in 
 his theological views, he may be regarded as a 
 fair representative of a large portion of the min- 
 isters of New England. 1 propose in my next 
 letter, to give you some accoi^nt of the contro- 
 versy between Dr. Woods and Dr. Taylor. 
 
 Yours very affectionately. 
 
LETTER V. 
 
 Februarj', 23, 183t. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 Dr. Woods published his letters to Dr. Taylor 
 in 1830. These letters were occasioned by the 
 note to Dr. Taylor's Concio ad Clerum, in which 
 he attempts to account for the existence of sin, 
 by supposing that its prevention in a moral sys- 
 tem is impossible to God. 
 
 In his first letter, he makes some remarks on 
 the proper manner of conducting theolocrical 
 discussion, the duty and responsibility of Theo- 
 logical Professors, the danger of giving too much 
 prominence to philosophical speculations in mat- 
 ters of religion, and the importance of conform- 
 ing exactly to the word of God. In the second 
 letter he attempts to ascertain the precise mean- 
 ing of Dr. Taylor's language. He understands 
 him to maintain these two positions, " First : 
 Tliat sin is not the necessary means of the great- 
 est good^ and as such, so far as it exists, is not on 
 the whole^ preferable to holiness in its stead. 
 Second, That in a moral system, God could not 
 prevent all sin, nor the present degree of it.'' In. 
 4 
 
OO ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 the third letter, he considers the question wheth- 
 er there is any thing in the nature of moral 
 agency which renders it impossible for God to 
 prevent sin, and shows that Dr. Taylor's theory 
 implies the independence of moral agents. On 
 this point he says : 
 
 " You hold that such is the nature of moral 
 agency, that it was utterly impossible for God to 
 prevent its perversion ; that if moral beings ex- 
 isted, it was unavoidable that some of them should 
 sin ; and that Omnipotence itself could not exert 
 an influence upon them sufficient to prevent this. 
 Let God create moral beings any way he pleases ; 
 let him place them in the most favorable circum- 
 stances, exert upon them the highest possible in- 
 fluence, and extend over them the most constant 
 and most powerful protection ; let him watch 
 them with his Omniscient eye, and shield them 
 with his Omnipotent arm ; still, according to your 
 theory, they will, at least some of them, fall into 
 sin. You think there is in moral agency itself, a 
 power so resistless, that it is impossible for God 
 himself, however strong may be his desire, to 
 prevent the existence, or even the present degree 
 of sin." 
 
 In the fourth letter, he shows that God has a 
 perfect control over the minds of all rational 
 creatures, without in the least degree impairing 
 their moral freedom. He also refutes the asser- 
 tion of Dr. Taylor, that the common theory 
 limits the goodness of God. In the fifth letter, 
 he continues his examination of Dr. Taylor's 
 reasoning from the nature of moral agency, and 
 shows that to prevent the perversion of moral 
 agency, is not necessarily to destroy it. In this 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGV. 39 
 
 letter he adduces direct proof that God is able 
 to convert more sinners than are converted. 1. 
 From his Omnipotence. 2. From what he has 
 done. 3. From the requisition of prayer. 4. 
 From the representation of scripture, that God 
 converts men according to his will or pleasure. 
 
 In the sixth letter, he considers the question 
 whether God could have secured the holiness of 
 any moral being without the influence of moral 
 evil. He also attempts to ascertain the meaning 
 of the position that sin is the necessary means of 
 the greatest good, and in what sense it is true. 
 Not that sin is good in its own nature and ten- 
 dency, but that it is so overruled and counteract- 
 ed as to be made to subserve a benevolent end. 
 In the seventh letter, he answers the objection of 
 Dr. Taylor, that if sin is, on the whole, for the 
 best, it is our duty to sin, and God cannot be 
 sincere in forbidding it. He repels the insinua- 
 tion that the orthodox consider sin as " excellent 
 in its nature and relations." On this point he 
 says : 
 
 " Now Dear Brother, who holds the opinion 
 which you here oppose and contrast' with your 
 own? Who among all the ministers and friends 
 of Christ, especially among the orthodox minis- 
 ters and christians in this country, ever enter- 
 tained an opinion so impious and shocking as 
 that God considered sin as ' excellent in its nature 
 and relations,' or purposed it as such. Such a 
 sentiment, I am bold to say, can be found in no 
 orthodox writer, and must be instantly repelled 
 by every pious heart. Why then, I ask, do you 
 use language which certainly implies, that this 
 opinion is held by those from whom you differ ? 
 
40 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 If you mean to convey this impression, then I 
 am constrained to say, that no calumniator of 
 the orthodox ever charged them more injuri- 
 ously." 
 
 In the eighth and last letter, he considers the 
 practical influence of Dr. Taylor's theory, as it 
 affects our views of the power of God — the bless- 
 edness of God — the system of his works — the 
 extent of his dominion — the happiness of the 
 good — submission — prayer — and dependence on 
 divine grace. He then closes with a friendly ex- 
 postulation with Dr. Taylor, in regard to his spec- 
 ulations generally. I should be glad to quote 
 largely from this letter, but I have room only for 
 a few brief extracts. 
 
 He says, " The unqualified language which 
 you sometimes employ respecting the natural 
 state, the free will and powers of man, the nature 
 and necessity of divine influence, the manner of 
 regeneration, and other points alluded to, is not I 
 apprehend, in accordance either with the letter or 
 the spirit of Revelation, and will have an unpro- 
 pitious influence upon the characters of men, 
 upon revivals of religion, and upon the interests 
 of the church. But on these subjects I would 
 not enlarge at present, as I have intended to 
 give my views respecting them more fully in 
 another way. But, my brother, you cannot sure- 
 ly think it strange, that serious disquietude and 
 alarm should exist among us, in consequence of 
 what you have published in relation to these sub- 
 jects. For you well know that Calvinists, though 
 not afraid of free discussion, are sincerely and 
 firmly attached to their articles of faith, and are 
 not apt to be carried about with the changing 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 41 
 
 opinions of others. Whether right or wrong, 
 we have been accustomed to consider the con- 
 troversy which early arose in the Church between 
 the Orthodox and Pelagians, and which after the 
 Reformation, was continued between the Lu- 
 therans and Calvinists on one side, and the Ar- 
 minians or Remonstrants on the other, as of rad- 
 ical importance. 
 
 " Now how would you expect us to feel, and 
 ivith our convictions, how ought we to feel, when 
 a brother who has professed to be decidedly or- 
 thodox, and has had our entire confidence, and is 
 placed at the head of one of our theological 
 schools, makes an attack upon several of the arti- 
 cles of our faith, and employs language on the sub- 
 ject of moral agency, free will, depravity, divine 
 influence, &c., which is so like the language of 
 Arminians and Pelagians, that it would require 
 some labor to discover the difference ? And how 
 would it be natural for us to feel, when such a 
 brother adopts, on several controverted subjects, 
 the language and the opinions which have been 
 adopted by the Unitarians; and when we find 
 that Unitarians themselves understand him as ar- 
 guing with them, and making such argument a 
 subject of exultation ? Would it not betray an 
 indifference and remissness in us, which you 
 would think unaccountable, if such things ex- 
 cited no solicitude in us respecting the cause 
 which ought ever to be dearest to our hearts]" 
 
 '* I have not adverted to this noticeable agree- 
 ment in phraseology, and in reasoning between 
 you and those I have mentioned, for the purpose 
 of stigmatizing your theory, or as proof that it 
 is erroneous." 
 4* 
 
42 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 *' But when we find you, on several interesting 
 points, siding with these sects against the ortho- 
 dox, siding too with Dr. John Taylor against 
 Edwards, on some of the main questions at issue 
 between them, and when, in addition to this, we 
 find you on some points coinciding so nearly 
 with the views of the French Philosophers, and 
 shall I say, on other points, throwing out the very 
 objections which we have so often heard from 
 cavillers against orthodoxy, it would certainly 
 be strange, if none of our sensibilities were 
 touched, and no concern or fear excited within 
 us in regard to the tendency of your specula- 
 tions. I acknowledge that on this subject, we 
 may be mistaken, and that our fear may be 
 groundless. And we will be anxiously looking 
 for evidence to satisfy us that it is so. To such 
 evidence, we will open every avenue to our un- 
 derstandings and our hearts. 
 
 *' But I feel myself constrained to say, that the 
 theory which you adopt, in contradistinction to 
 the common theory, appears to me, generally, so 
 far as 1 understand it, to be unscriptural, and of 
 dangerous tendency. And the more I examine 
 it, the farther I am from being satisfied with it. 
 And this is the case with the orthodox communi- 
 ty to an extent, as I have reason to think, far 
 beyond your apprehension. Compared with the 
 whole body of Congregational and Presbyterian 
 ministers, there are very few who embrace your 
 opinions; and though my knowledge may be de- 
 fective, yet among all the Professors of our The- 
 ological Seminaries and Presidents of our Col- 
 leges, I do not know of one, whose views coin- 
 cide with yours. 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 43 
 
 " But although such has been the case with me 
 and my brethren in the same office generally, we 
 have been slow, perhaps too slow, to make a pub- 
 lic declaration of our dissent. So far have we 
 been from acting the part of assailants, that we 
 have been very reluctant to come even to the 
 work of self-defence." " In the mean time, you 
 and your associates have been intent upon your 
 object, and by preaching and conversation, and 
 pamphlets, especially by a popular periodical, 
 have been zealously laboring to propagate your 
 tenets. At length, in conformity with the wishes 
 of many, far and near, I have been induced to 
 unite with those respected ministers who have 
 preceded me, not, be it remembered, in making 
 an attack on you, as has been very incautiously 
 said, but in repelling your attack upon us and 
 our brethren, and in defending our common and 
 long established faith against what we conceive 
 to be innovation and error. 
 
 " I most heartily regret the introduction of a 
 controversy, which may turn off the minds of 
 many from the great interests of religion, fill our 
 Churches with strife, and hinder the spread of 
 the Gospel. But for the evils of such a contro- 
 versy, who is responsible ?" " If after all the ef- 
 forts I have made, I have misapprehended the 
 true sense of the passages in your sermon, to 
 which I have attended, I shall hope for such 
 explanations from you, as will effectually correct 
 my mistake. And you will keep in mind, that 
 the mistake, if there is one, exists amono^ your 
 readers extensively. Do you not owe it then to 
 the public, to give a clear, unambiguous, and 
 full exhibition of the peculiarities of your system, 
 
44 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 SO that there may no longer be any complaint of 
 obscurity, or any suspicion of concealment." 
 
 " If it be true that your system agrees with 
 that of Edwards and D wight and New England 
 ministers generally, the public should be satis- 
 fied of this. Or if a new system is to be intro- 
 duced, and a new sect formed, with a new name, 
 and new measures to extend itself, and a new 
 and separate interest ; then the public ought to 
 have the means of understanding exactly what 
 the new system is, and what is to be the new sect. 
 The difficulty lies not at all between you and me, 
 personally, but between you, and the Christian 
 community. And if you will in any way satisfy 
 them that you do not entertain the views which 
 have been imputed to you; if you will satisfy 
 them, that you agree in your doctrinal belief, as 
 you profess to do, with Edwards and Dwight ; I 
 and others shall have nothing more to do, but to 
 signify our joy, that our mistake has been cor- 
 rected, and our entire confidence in you restor- 
 ed ; and so the whole matter may come at once 
 to a happy termination." 
 
 These letters were read with deep interest by 
 the ministers of New England ; and were exten- 
 sively regarded as a complete refutation of the 
 theory of Dr. Taylor. They were also admired 
 for the candor and Christian spirit by which they 
 were signally characterised. Such, however, was 
 not the judgment passed upon them by the New 
 Haven divines. In their review of them in the 
 Christian Spectator, they speak of them as being 
 filled with evasions and misrepresentations, and 
 as being pervaded by a '' personal incivility," 
 which is " without a parallel in our Churches for 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 45 
 
 the last thirty years." It may be interesting to 
 know the opinion of an impartial critic on the 
 other side of the Atlantic. Dr. John Pye Smith, 
 in the London Eclectic Review, after speaking 
 in high commendation of the reasoning of Dr. 
 Woods, in these letters, adds, " The soundness 
 of Dr. Woods' argument, so far as it is opposed 
 to the theory of Dr. Taylor, is not the only merit 
 which these letters possess. They afford an ex- 
 cellent example of the close and pressing pursuit 
 of an antagonist, without (as we can perceive) 
 the slightest improper feeling. There is no 
 vaunting, no contempt ; there are no anathemas, 
 and no imputations ; but many serious, and sea- 
 sonable cautions, the fruit of experience and 
 sound piety, addressed to one who, as it seems, 
 although a teacher, has much to learn of that 
 wisdom which should belong to men in responsi- 
 ble stations." 
 
 In the same number of the Christian Specta- 
 tor, which contained the review of Dr. Woods' 
 letters, there was a review of Bellamy's Treatise 
 on the Wisdom of God in the Permission of Sin, 
 in which the writer attempts to show, that Dr. 
 Bellamy maintained the theory of Dr. Taylor; 
 whereas it was the express object of that treatise 
 to overthrow this very theory. This misrepre- 
 sentation or perversion of the sentiments of the 
 venerable dead, is not among the least grounds 
 of complaint against the New Haven divines. 
 Yours affectionately. 
 
LETTER VI. 
 
 February 23, 1837, 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 In the early part of the year 1832, Dr. Hawes, 
 of Hartford, addressed a letter to Dr. Taylor, 
 informing him that there were suspicions in the 
 public mind, in regard to his soundness in the 
 faith, and requesting him to " make a frank and 
 full statement of his religious views," To this 
 letter Dr. Taylor replied, and the two letters 
 were published in the Connecticut Observer, of 
 February 20th, 1832. It was supposed by the 
 public, that the letter of Dr. Taylor, as it 
 appeared in print, contained the " frank and 
 full statement," which he had made to Dr. 
 Hawes, at his particular request ; but it was after- 
 wards ascertained that some part of the original 
 letter was suppressed. 
 
 When Dr. Hawes was inquired of in regard 
 to this fact, he acknowledged that the letter con- 
 tained some things which he deemed it not pru- 
 dent to publish, and that he wrote to Dr. Taylor, 
 and obtained permission to strike out the objec- 
 tionable parts. Thus it appeared, that the great 
 
NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 47 
 
 object of this correspondence was not so much 
 to obtain from Dr. Taylor a *' frank and full 
 statement of his religious views," as to obtain 
 such a statement as would remove from the pub- 
 lic mind the suspicions which had been created 
 by his previous publications. The plan, how- 
 ever, did not succeed. The letter, as it was 
 published, was far from giving satisfaction. It 
 \vould probably have been less satisfactory if it had 
 been published entire ; for I have understood by 
 an individual who saw the manuscript, that those 
 parts which were suppressed, contained the most 
 " frank and full statement" of Dr. Taylor's 
 peculiar views. 
 
 This letter contained a creed of eleven arti- 
 cles, expressed for the most part, in unexcep- 
 tionable language. But to this were subjoined 
 certain explanations, which seemed to many, 
 directly to contradict the articles of the creed ; 
 or at least, to make it evident, that while Dr. 
 Taylor employed orthodox language, he must 
 affix to that language a meaning entirely different 
 from that in which it is commonly received. 
 
 Some remarks on this letter were published by 
 Dr. Tyler, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, a period- 
 ical published in Boston. I will insert a few 
 extracts from these remarks. He says : 
 
 *' I have never supposed that Dr. Taylor inten- 
 ded to deny any of the leading doctrines of the 
 Calvinistic system. I have always supposed that 
 he would be willing to suscribe just such a creed 
 as that which he has given us in his letter. Is it 
 asked then, what are the grounds of my fears ? 
 I will frankly state them. Any one, at all ac- 
 quainted with ecclesiastical history must have 
 
48 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 observed, that the great errors which have infest- 
 ed the church, have usually crept in unawares. 
 They have originated in speculations, and .'phi- 
 losophical theories,' which, at first, were not 
 intended to call in question the commonly re- 
 ceived doctrines, but to explain them, and relieve 
 them of difficulties. The process has been a 
 gradual undermining process, and such, it has 
 appeared to me, is the tendency of Dr. Taylor's 
 speculations. That his theories do involve prin- 
 ciples subversive of some of the most prominent 
 and important doctrines of his creed, I shall 
 endeavor to show in the following remarks : 
 
 *' I. The doctrine of Decrees. 
 
 *' Dr. Taylor says, ' I believe that the eternal 
 purposes of God extend to all actual events, sin 
 not excepted ; or that God foreordained whatso- 
 ever comes to pass, and so executes these purpo- 
 ses as to leave the free and moral agency of man 
 unimpaired.' 
 
 '' Yet in the same letter Dr. Taylor says : 
 
 '* ' I do not believe that sin can be proved to 
 be the necessary means of the greatest good, 
 and that as such God prefers it on the whole, to 
 holiness in its stead ; or that a God of sincerity 
 and truth punishes his creatures for doing that 
 which, on the whole, he prefers they should do. 
 But I do believe that it may be true, that God, 
 all things considered, prefers holiness to sin in 
 all instances in which the latter takes place.' 
 
 " How are these two parts of his creed to be 
 reconciled? If it ' be true that God all things 
 considered, prefers holiness to sin in all instances 
 in which the latter takes place,' it cannot be 
 true that God has purposed or foreordained what- 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 49 
 
 soever comes to pass ; for, according to this rep- 
 resentation, it was from eternity God's will, or 
 choice, all things considerfd, that sin should not 
 exist in a single instance. Consequently, it could 
 not, in any sense, be his purpose, or his choice, 
 that it should exist. To say that God prefers, 
 all things considered, i\\?ii sin should not exist, 
 and at the same time to say that he has purposed 
 or foreordained that it shall exist, is a palpable 
 contradiction. It is the same as to say, that God 
 chooses and does not choose the same thing, at 
 the same time." " Again : It is a part of Dr. 
 Taylor's theory, that ' God could not prevent all 
 sin, or the present degree of sin in a moral sys- 
 tem.' ' He would have prevented all sin in his 
 moral universe, but could not.' Yet he foreor- 
 dained whatsoever comes to pass; that is, he 
 foreordained that which he would have prevented 
 if he could ! ! What can be a plainer contra- 
 diction? 
 
 " II. The doctrine of Original Sin. 
 
 *' Dr. Taylor says, ' I believe that all man- 
 kind, in consequence of the f^ill of Adam, are 
 born destitute of holiness, and are by nature 
 totally depraved ; in other words, that all men 
 from the commencement of moral agency, do, 
 without the interposition of divine grace, sin, 
 and only sin, in all their moral conduct. I also 
 believe, that such is the nature of the human 
 mind, that it becomes the occasion of universal 
 sin in all the appropriate circumstances of their 
 existence, and that therefore they may properly 
 be said to be sinners by nature.' 
 
 " To these sentiments understood according to 
 their plain and obvious import, I can most cheer- 
 5 
 
50 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 fully subscribe. But how are these declarations 
 to be understood, when taken in connection with 
 other things which Dr. Taylor has said on this 
 subject. 1 have always supposed that when it is 
 said, that in consequence of the fall of Adam all 
 have become sinners, the language is intended 
 to convey the idea that there is a real connection 
 between the sin of Adam and that of his poster- 
 ity; and that when it is said, all are hy nature 
 sinners, the meaning is, that there is something 
 in our nature which is truly the cause or reason 
 why all men become sinners : consequently, 
 that human nature is not what it would have 
 been, if sin had not existed, but has undergone 
 some change in consequence of the original 
 apostacy." " Now the question is, is the nature 
 of man different from what it would have been, 
 if sin had never entered the world ? Is there any 
 thing in human nature Avhich is hereditary and 
 the consequence of the original apostacy ? Or is 
 every thing pertaining to the nature of man, the 
 immediate production of creative power ? And 
 do mankind come into the world now, with the 
 same nature as that with which Adam was crea- 
 ated, and which the child Jesus possessed 1 If 
 so, then mankind are not hy nature sinners. 
 Their nature is in no sense the cause or reason 
 of their sinning ; for Adam was not by nature a 
 sinner ; nor was the child Jesus. They were by 
 nature holy. Nor is it possible to perceive ac- 
 cording to this view of the subject, that there is 
 any real connection between the sin of Adam and 
 the sin of his posterity. Now, unless I have en- 
 tirely mistaken the import of Dr. Taylor's spec- 
 ulations, he does maintain that the moral nature 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 51 
 
 of all accountable beings is alike, and is the 
 very nature which God has given." In support 
 of this declaration, he quotes several passages 
 from the Christian Spectator, and concludes this 
 part of the subject, by saying: " To what purpose 
 then are we told that, in consequence of Adam's 
 fall all mankind have become sinners — and that 
 they are sinners by nature, when the whole is 
 virtually denied ? 
 
 " III. The Doctrine of Regeneration. 
 
 " Dr. Taylor has expressed his belief in rela- 
 tion to this doctrine in the fifth, sixth, seventh, 
 eighth, and ninth articles of his creed." " All 
 this is very good ; but this is not all which he has 
 written on this subject. He has adopted theo- 
 ries which, in the judgment of many, at least, 
 tend to sap the foundation of this fundamental 
 doctrine of the Christian faith. Although he 
 explictly admits the influence of the Holy Spirit 
 in regeneration, yet in view of many things 
 which he has written, it is difficult to see v/hat 
 necessity there can be for this divine influence." 
 " This necessity results solely from the perverse- 
 ness and obstinacy of the sinner's heart. But, 
 according to Dr. Taylor's theory, the perverse- 
 ness and obstinacy of his heart are removed 
 antecedent to regeneration. The selfish prin- 
 ciple is suspended. He ceases to sin, and ceases 
 to resist. Every thing, indeed, which can be 
 rationally supposed to render the agency of the 
 Holy Spirit necessary in renewing the heart, is 
 removed." He shows also from Dr. Taylor's 
 statements, that according to his theory, " every 
 moral being chooses what he judges will be most 
 for his happiness. The reason, therefore, that 
 
52 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 the sinner prefers the world to God is, that he 
 has mistaken the true way of securing his high- 
 est happiness. What then is necessary to effect 
 his conversion ? Nothing but light to correct his 
 mistake. So soon as he shall be convinced that 
 more happiness is to be derived from God than 
 from the world, self-love will prompt him to change 
 the object of his preference ; where then is the 
 necessity of the influences of the Holy Spirit to 
 renew the heart? 
 
 " IV. The Doctrine of Election. 
 
 *' Dr. Taylor says, ' I believe that all who are 
 renewed by the Holy Spirit, are elected or cho- 
 sen of God from eternity that they should be 
 holy, not according to foreseen faith or good 
 works, but according to the good pleasure of his 
 will.' 
 
 " This is a full and satisfactory statement of 
 the doctrine of election. But how is this to be 
 reconciled with other statements of his? If it 
 be true that God, ' all things conside?^ed, prefers 
 holiness- to sin in all instances in which the latter 
 takes place,' then it must be his choice, all things 
 considered, that all men should become holy and 
 be saved, and his infinite benevolence will prompt 
 him io do all in his power io bring all men to re- 
 pentance ? What then becomes of the doctrine of 
 election ? Who malceth thee to differ? Not 
 God, truly; for if he prefers, all things consid- 
 ered, holiness to sin, in every instance, he will of 
 course do all in his power to make every individ- 
 ual holy. It cannot be true that he hath mercy 
 on whom he will have mercy, for he would have 
 mercy on all, if he could. The reason that a 
 part only of the human race, and not all, are 
 
OF NEW HAVEN TnEOLOGY. 53 
 
 saved, is not because God did not choose, all 
 things considered, that all should be saved ; but 
 because he was unable to save all. He would 
 have prevented all sin in his moral universe, but 
 could not. What, then, I ask again, becomes of 
 the doctrine of election?" Two or three passa- 
 ges are quoted from the Christian Spectator, 
 which evidently teach the Arminian view of the 
 doctrine of election, particularly the following : 
 
 " The means of reclaiming grace,, which meet 
 him in the word and Spirit of God, are those by 
 v/hich the Father draws, induces just such 
 jsinners as himself voluntarily to submit to Christ ; 
 ftnd these means all favor the act of his immediate 
 submission. To this influence he can yield, and 
 thus be drawn of the Father. This influence he 
 can resist, and thus harden his heart against God. 
 Election involves nothing more, as it respects 
 his individual case, except one fact : the certainty 
 to the divine mind, whether the sinner will yield 
 to the means of grace and voluntarily turn to 
 Crod, or whether he will continue to harden his 
 heart till the means of grace are withdrawn." 
 See Christian Spectator for Dec. 1831, p. 737. 
 
 Dr. Tyler closes with the following remark : 
 ''The reader will perceive that each of the top- 
 ics brought into view in the preceding remarks, 
 might be made the subject of extended discus- 
 sion ; but my object has been to present a brief 
 general view of what I conceive to be the ten- 
 dency of Dr. Taylor's speculations. I have felt 
 it the more important to do this on account of 
 the attempts which have been made to convince 
 the public that the points on which Dr. Taylor 
 differs from his brethren are of trifling conse- 
 5* 
 
54 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 
 
 quence, as they relate chiefly not to the doctrines, 
 but to the philosophy of religion. But if his 
 philosophical theories, as I have attempted to 
 show, do tend to sap the foundation of some of 
 the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, they are 
 not to be regarded as harmless; nor ouo-ht the 
 Christian community to slumber, while such 
 strenuous efforts are making to give them cur- 
 rency in the world." 
 
 I have made the foregoing extracts for the pur- 
 pose of giving you a general view of the state of the 
 controversy at this period,and of the ground of dis- 
 satisfaction which extensively prevailed in regard 
 to Dr. Taylor's speculations. The controversy 
 was carried on between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Ty- 
 ler for some time, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, 
 In the mean time, the remarks of Dr. Tyler, 
 from which the foregoing extracts are taken, 
 were reviewed in the Christian Spectator, for 
 September, 1832. Some account of this review 
 I will give you in my next letter. 
 
 Yours affectionately. 
 
LETTER VII. 
 
 March 2, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 I promised to give you some account of the 
 Review of Dr. Tyler's remarks, which was writ- 
 ten by Dr. Taylor, and which appeared in the 
 Christian Spectator for September, 1832. Dr. 
 Porter, in a letter dated Charleston, S. C, De- 
 cember 8, 1832, speaking of that Review, says, 
 " That Review surprised and pained me exceed- 
 ingly. Indeed, it is the most exceptionable per- 
 formance of the kind that I have read. The 
 temper of it is unmanly and unchristian. It 
 compares with some of the sectarian pamphlets 
 on baptism, &:.c., which I read in my boyhood, 
 though I think it beats them all." That you 
 may be able to judge of the justness of these 
 remarks, I will give you a few extracts. What 
 the reviewer proposes is, to examine the theories 
 of Dr. Tyler, in relation to the depravity of 
 man, and the divine permission of sin. In regard 
 to the first theory, he says : 
 
 " This theory is, that the nature of man since 
 the apostacy differs as realli/ from his nature be- 
 
56 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 fore that event as the nature of a lion which leads 
 him to feed on flesh, differs from that of the ox, 
 which leads him to feed on grass. Accordingly, 
 he asks ' what inconsistency is there in suppos- 
 ing that there is, in man a native propensity to 
 evil, propagated from parent to child, like other 
 natural propensities?' On this theory, then, we 
 would offer the following remarks : It exhibits 
 God as the responsible author of sin. We sup- 
 pose Dr. Tyler to believe, as others who have 
 advanced the same theory maintain, that this 
 propensity to sin is itself sinful ; or, as another 
 writer affirms, is the essence of all sin." " God, 
 therefore, according to this theory, is therespon-* 
 sible author of that in man, in which the essence 
 of all sin consists ; and actually damns the soul„ 
 for being what he makes it, or causes it to be by 
 physical laws. If Dr. Tyler should say that 
 the propensity to sin, of which he speaks, 
 is innocent, still man, as he comes into being, is 
 doomed to sin by a natural and fatal necessity." 
 " With such a propensity, man has not a natural 
 ability to avoid sin. This is alike true, whether 
 this propensity be supposed to be sinful or inno- 
 cent." " Man, therefore, by the laws of propa- 
 gation, is naturally unable to avoid sin, and to 
 become holy, and therefore is not a moral agent." 
 ^* According to Dr. Tyler's theory, sin must be 
 good in itself, and the only real good to man, as 
 a moral being." " According to Dr. Tyler's 
 philosophy, man in the act of becoming holy, 
 must be supremely selfish.'' " Dr. Tyler's theory 
 is inconsistent with undeniable facts. Adam 
 and satan, tvith his companions, all sinned. 
 Whence came their first propensity to sin ? 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 57 
 
 Whatever expedient Dr. Tyler may devise to 
 account for the first propensity to sin in these 
 creatures of God, one thing is certain, viz., that 
 being without father and without mother, they 
 did not become the subjects of such a propen- 
 sity by propagation." "According to Dr. Ty- 
 ler's theory, the divine lawgiver seems to have 
 entirely mistaken, in regard to man, the proper 
 object of a legal prohibition and penalty. The 
 radical evil lies in the constitutional propensities 
 which God has given to men. The divine law, 
 therefore, it would seem, should forbid men to 
 have, and punish them for having those constitu- 
 tional propensities which they derived exclusively 
 from their Creator." " The terms of salvation, 
 and the exhibition of motives to comply with them, 
 are, according to the same theory, a mockery." 
 *' The true and only .reason, according to this 
 scheme, why sinners are lost, is, not that they do 
 not act, but that God does not." " According 
 to Dr. Tyler's theory, what is commonly called 
 Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, is unnecessary." 
 ** To sin, according to Dr. Tyler, must be the 
 chief end of man." "Man's chief end is not to 
 glorify God and enjoy him forever, and the West- 
 minster Catechism is flatly contradicted." 
 
 In regard to Dr. Tyler's theory of the divine 
 permission of sin, he says, " How is it that those 
 are reproved who shut up the kingdom of heaven, 
 and neither entered themselves, nor suffered oth- 
 ers to enter, when according to Dr. Tyler, it 
 would prove a calamity on the whole, had one 
 more sinner reached heaven than has reached it. 
 How is it that God says in Isaiah, v. 3., that he 
 
 HAS DONE ALL THAT CAN BE DONE tO bring siU' 
 
58 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 ners to repentance, when he could do more, 
 if he would, and, would tlo more, did he 
 he not, on the whole, prefer their continued sin, 
 to their repentance ? ' My child,' says a father, 
 * never steal, never lie ; I hav e no pleasure at all 
 that you should, compared with being honest and 
 true ; but then, my child,' he proceeds, ' I greatly 
 prefer, on the ivhole, that you should steal and 
 lie, at least in nine cases out of ten ; for stealing 
 and lying in these instances, will be the best 
 things on the whole which you can do ; and al- 
 though I shall do every thing that can be done to 
 secure your obedience to my law, yet T could do 
 much more if I would; and I would do it, if I 
 did not, on the whole, prefer your stealing and 
 lying to honesty and truth. I have therefore de- 
 termined to do that, and that only, which will 
 secure your almost incessant stealing and lying, 
 because on the whole, these are the best things 
 you can do.' Such is God, according to this the- 
 ory." " According to the theory of Dr. Tyler, 
 God prefers sin to holiness, and decrees its exist- 
 ence, that thereby he may show his mercy, in the 
 salvation of apart only of the human race, and 
 this, when he could have secured the perfect 
 holiness and happiness of all, and of his entire 
 moral universe, throughout eternity; The case 
 is this. A father throws his own children, or 
 permits them to fall from a fearful precipice,, 
 when he not only could have prevented them, 
 hntzvoifld, had he not determined sorely to wound 
 them all, and ultimately to destroy many of them, 
 that he might show his mercy in healing the 
 broken bones of others, in restoring them to 
 comfort and happiness, and in imparting to them 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 59 
 
 the peculiar joys of so great a deliverance ! How 
 is it, according to the same theory, that God has 
 not, in the true and fearful import of the phrase, 
 made a great part of mankind on purpose to 
 damn them ?" " To sin and be damned to all 
 eternity is the result, and the sole result in res- 
 pect to the greater part of mankind, designed, 
 preferred, and purposed by their Maker. If this 
 is not creating men on purpose to damn them, 
 let any one tell what would be." " This theory, 
 too, limits the goodness of God. God, according 
 to Dr. Tyler could, if he would, have secured the 
 perfect holiness of this universe of moral beings 
 forever, but the perfect holiness of all would 
 have secured the perfect happiness of all. When 
 therefore God could, if he icoiild, have made a 
 universe of perfectly holy and happy beings, he 
 preferred, decreed, and made one comprising sin 
 and its everlasting miseries! We ask, is this 
 goodness ?" " Celestial spirits, if they utter 
 truth in their songs, praise God, not because he 
 vindicates his law, and sustains his throne by 
 the punishment of beings who have violated any 
 will of his, but for exactly fulfilling the sole pur- 
 pose of their creation ; they praise God for that 
 peculiar delight, those higher and excjuisite rap- 
 tures, which they could enjoy only by means of 
 the agonies of others in everlasting fire ! Dr. 
 Tyler will have it that a benevolent God could 
 not be satisfied with the perfect holiness and per- 
 fect happiness of all his moral creatures; but to 
 raise to some higher, conceivable perfection, the 
 happiness of those who are saved, they must owe 
 it, in no stinted measure to the eternal agonies of 
 the damned! Such is God, such is heaven, accord- 
 
bO ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 ing to this theory." *' We go further, and ask, 
 in what respect satan is more truly criminal as 
 a tempter than God is, according to this scheme ? 
 If satan tempts, with the single purpose to se- 
 cure the perpetration of iniquity, so does God, 
 according to this scheme. If he purposes 
 some personal advantage by the sins of oth- 
 ers, so does God, according to this scheme. 
 If he does it to secure the final and end- 
 less ruin of others, so, according to this 
 scheme, does God. If Dr. Tyler should say 
 that Satan's intention is evil, and that of God 
 benevolent, we answer first, by asking Dr. Tyler 
 to prove this by their doings; and secondly, by 
 affirming, that, according to the scheme in ques- 
 tion, the evil intention of satan is the crowning 
 excellence of the act. 
 
 " This theory, if carried out into its legitimate 
 consequences, leads to universalism, to infidelity, 
 and to atheism. Dr. Tyler maintains that God 
 can secure the holiness and happiness of all his 
 moral creatures. It follows, therefore, that God 
 will secure the holiness and happiness of all his 
 moral creatures. Of course, all men will be 
 saved. But this is not all. According to this 
 scheme, the divine authority of the Bible is sub- 
 verted. This book confessedly abounds in the 
 most unqualified declarations of the future end- 
 less misery of multitudes of the human race. 
 But how can a book which so explicitly and 
 abundantly contradicts demonstrable, known 
 truth, be divine? Especially, how can a book 
 pretend to claim an Omnipotent and benevolent 
 God for its author, which exhibits him as creating 
 myriads of beings, because he prefers on the 
 
OF NEW HAVEN theology. 61 
 
 whole, their sin and everlasting misery to their 
 perfect holiness and happiness ? As a benevolent 
 being, he must be disposed to prevent it. But 
 according to Dr. Tyler, the Scriptures clearly 
 teach that God will not secure the perfect holi- 
 ness and happiness of his moral creation, when 
 he can secure it. How then can a book which 
 belies every attribute of a perfect God pretend to 
 claim his authority? 
 
 "Apply now the principles of Dr. Tyler in 
 another form, and atheism is the consequence. 
 Dr. Tyler will admit that God is disposed 
 to prevent all evil — in itself considered — 
 throughout his creation. The argument then 
 for atheism furnished by this theory may be 
 thus stated. If there was a God, that is, a being 
 of infinite power and goodness, he could prevent, 
 and would be disposed, and therefore would in 
 fact, prevent all evil throughout his creation. 
 But evil exists. Therefore, there is not a being 
 of infinite power and goodness — there is no 
 God." " We admit the fact, that the foregoing 
 reasoning is that of the universalist, the infidel, 
 and the atheist. But we ask, who furnishes and 
 sustains its premises ; and what conclusions, 
 when the premises are admitted, are more unan- 
 swerable? We cannot but say, what we believe 
 in the integrity of our heart, that supralapsarian 
 Calvinists furnish the grand principle on which 
 these conclusions rest, and combining their pow- 
 ers of argument in its defence, with all their 
 means of influencing the faith of others, give to 
 it, and to the conclusions founded on it, a delu- 
 sive and fearful infallibility in the minds of 
 thousands. The principle is, an Oimnipotent 
 6 
 
62 origin and progress 
 
 God by the mere dint of power, can secure 
 
 THE universal HOLINESS OF HIS MORAL CREA- 
 TURES." 
 
 '* Sure we are, that a very limited acquain- 
 tance with facts, would show that the prin- 
 ciple advanced by Dr. Tyler and others is the 
 very same which, in the hands of Voltaire and 
 other enemies of the gospel, has spread infidelity 
 and atheism to such a fearful extent throughout 
 Europe, and is in fact the basis of all that lati- 
 tudinarianism which rejects Christianity, and 
 calmly reposes on false and undefined notions of 
 the power and goodness of God." 
 
 " Indeed, we know not a more striking illus- 
 tration of the appalling tendency and results of 
 adopting an unauthorised elementary principle in 
 reasoning. When men reason from principles 
 which the friends of Christianity regard as false 
 or groundless, there is hope that their errors will 
 be exposed, and that the truth will be triumph- 
 antly defended. But when the professed advo- 
 cates of Christianity espouse and vindicate the 
 very principles, which, in the way of legitimate 
 deduction, support the most destructive error, 
 what are we to expect but that light will become 
 darkness, and whole nations perish ? " " The 
 theory in question confounds right and wrong, 
 and thus subverts all moral distinctions. It is 
 not the name which constitutes moral action 
 right or wrong. If sin, as Dr. Woods says of it, 
 ' is undoubtedly calculated for the highest good 
 of the universe,' or as another says of it, ' is of a 
 most glorious tendency,' then it is morally right. 
 Sin, therefore, in every instance of its occur- 
 rence, is proved by the highest kind of evidence, 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 63 
 
 to be the best kind of moral action. Thus, sin 
 is no longer sin; vice is no longer vice. Right 
 and wrong, according to this theory have changed 
 places ; and what God has pronounced, and man 
 regarded, as wrong moral action, is right moral 
 action. If^Dr. Tyler should reply, as Dr. Woods 
 does, by merely saying, that this is a wounding 
 misrepresentation ; we answer, first, that it is 
 not a misrepresentation, and that no unpreju- 
 diced mind can be stultified into the belief that 
 the necessary means of the greatest good is not 
 an excellent thing — even the best thing in its 
 place. We answer, secondly, if this representa- 
 tion is icounding, let the theory that justifies it 
 be abandoned, and the wound will be healed." 
 
 '* If Dr. Tyler should say, that he utterly de- 
 nies that sin is a good thing ; — we answer we are 
 fully aware of this, and regard it as a peculiarly 
 grateful fact. But then Dr. Tyler also asserts 
 that sin is a good thing. And is a man to be al- 
 lowed, without correction, to say that which is 
 not true half the time, because he says that which 
 is true the other half? Now it is this happy in- 
 consistency which saves those who maintain this 
 theory, from being the very worst of here- 
 tics." "Nothing worse can be imputed to the 
 worst of men than the theory under considera- 
 tion, imputes to God. According to this theory, 
 God purposes sin, not for its own sake, or in it- 
 self considered, but as the means of good, i. e. on 
 account of certain advantages resulting from it. 
 Now the same things are true in every substan- 
 tial respect of the assassin." 
 
 " Dr. Tyler, according to his principles, can 
 not show that acts of assassination have not been, 
 
64 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 and may not be, perpetrated from the same mo- 
 tives as those with which he represents God as, on 
 the whole, preferring sin to holiness, viz. a de- 
 sire to promote the general good." 
 
 " If Dr. Tyler should say, that the objections 
 which we have brought against this theory, are 
 the same as those which the enemies of sound 
 doctrine commonly charge on the doctrine of the 
 divine purpose respecting sin, we answer, that 
 this is more easily said than proved. It is in- 
 deed readily confessed, that these objections have 
 been often charged on that form of the doctrine 
 which is taught by supralapsarian Calvinists, viz. 
 the theory that God prefers the existence of sin 
 rather than holiness in its stead. But it admits 
 of a question, whether these objections were ever 
 alleged against the true doctrine, respecting the 
 existence of sin. Who among Arminians, or 
 even Unitarians, at least in this age, would deny 
 the universality of God's providential government 
 and purposes, as the basis of contidence and sub- 
 mission under all evil." 
 
 These extracts are a specimen of the senti- 
 ment, style, and spirit of this Review. You can 
 now judge whether the language of Dr. Porter in 
 reference to it is too severe. 
 
 That the Arminians and Unitarians do not ob- 
 ject to Dr. Taylor's views of this subject, is very 
 true. But whether this is a recommendation of 
 his views, is a point about which different opin- 
 ions will be entertained. 
 
 Immediately after the publication of this Re- 
 view, Dr. Tyler wrote to the editor inquiring 
 whether he might be permitted to reply to it in 
 the Christian Spectator, and was informed that 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 65 
 
 no reply could be admitted, unless it was a short 
 letter of a page or two, accompanied by such 
 remarks as the editor might see fit to append to 
 it. Of this fact, Dr. Porter speaks in severe 
 terms. In one of his letters, he says, " within a 
 day or two, the Mirror came to hand, in which 
 the unworthy subterfuge of the editor in refusing 
 any reply, at least any adequate one is repre- 
 hended. This fact ought to be generally known. 
 It shows a systematic party disingenuousness, 
 that cannot commend itself to the Christian pub- 
 lic, and that could hardly have been tolerated 
 until this time if it had been understood." In 
 another letter he says, " Dr. Taylor should have 
 a jog as to occupying the Spirit of the'Pilgrims, 
 while the Spectator has been so closely shut up 
 against one sentence in opposition to his views, 
 except as quoted by its own writers for comment. 
 No work in our country has been so narrowly 
 conducted." 
 
 Yours, very affectionately. 
 
LETTER VIII. 
 
 March 7, 1837, 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 In the Spirit of the Pilgrims for May, 1833, 
 Dr. Tyler published an article in which he ex- 
 posed the misrepresentations which Dr. Taylor 
 had made of his sentiments, particularly in the 
 Review of which I gave you some account in my 
 last letter. Soon after this. Dr. Taylor publish- 
 ed a letter addressed to the Editor of the Chris- 
 tian Spectator, the object of which was to show 
 that he and Dr. Tyler were, after all, perfectly 
 agreed. This was a very extraordinary produc- 
 tion, and was, I believe, so regarded by not a 
 few of Dr. Taylor's particular friends, as well as 
 by other portions of the community. That after 
 having charged Dr. Tyler with adopting theories 
 which involve the positions that " sin is a good 
 thing;" that "God is the responsible author of 
 sin;" that "the divine lawgiver is a deceiver;" 
 that ''God is a criminal tempter;" that " in no 
 sense is satan more truly criminal as a tempter 
 than God is ;" that " we ought to praise God for 
 all the sin which we and others have ever com- 
 
NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY 
 
 67 
 
 mitted ;" and after having affirmed, that nothing 
 but the inconsistency of Dr. Tyler saves him 
 from being "the very worst of heretics," 
 and that his theories, " if carried out into their 
 legitimate consequences, lead to universalism, 
 TO infidelity, and to atheism ;" that Dr. 
 Taylor, after having said all this, and much more 
 to the same effect, should come forward and af- 
 firm, that " we perfectly agree in every partic- 
 ular respecting these important points," was not 
 a little surprising. Yet this he did, and that too 
 without retracting a single position which he had 
 taken, and without showing, or attempting to 
 show, that Dr. Tyler had retracted anything. 
 
 Dr. Tyler published in a pamphlet some re- 
 marks on this letter, which closed the contro- 
 versy between him and Dr. Taylor. In these re- 
 marks, after bringing into view a number of 
 points which he had explicitly maintained, and 
 comparing them with the statements of Dr. Tay- 
 lor, he proceeds to examine Dr. Taylor's mode 
 of reasoning, by which he attempts to show that 
 there is no difference of opinion between them. 
 He says : 
 
 " He (Dr. Taylor) does not pretend that I 
 have formally retracted any of the positions 
 which he has controverted. But because we are 
 agreed on certain points which have never been 
 a matter of dispute between us, he infers that we 
 must be agreed on all the points in debate. As 
 if he should say. Dr. Taylor and I are agreed that 
 there is a God, and that the Bible is his word, 
 therefore our views harmonize on every point of 
 Christian doctrine. Now any one can see, that 
 in this reasoning, the conclusion is broader than 
 
C8 
 
 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 the premises. Dr. Taylor has said, 'It is con- 
 fessedly unauthorized to charge opinions upon 
 any man on the ground of mere inference.' Yet 
 this is the very thing which he has done through- 
 out the whole of his last letter. He infers that 
 I admit certain positions (in the face of my most 
 explicit declarations to the contrary,) because I 
 admit certain other positions. 
 
 " I will endeavor to illustrate Dr. Taylor's 
 mode of reasoning by one or two examples. 
 Suppose that a Unitarian and a Calvinist are dis- 
 puting in respect to the doctrine of the trinity. 
 The Unitarian charges the Calvinist with main- 
 taining that there are three Gods, and goes on to 
 show that there is but one God. The Calvinist 
 replies, you misrepresent me, 1 have never main- 
 tained that there are three Gods — I have shown 
 that the doctrine of the trinity does not involve 
 any such sentiment. I believe as firmly as you 
 do, that there is but one God. I perceive, then, 
 rejoins the Unitarian, that we are perfectly agreed. 
 I now understand you to deny the doctrine of the 
 trinity. Again : Suppose A. and B. are discuss- 
 ing the question whether all men will be saved. 
 Says A. to B. you maintain that Christ died for 
 only a part of the human race, whereas the scrip- 
 tures say that he tasted death for every man. B. 
 replies, I do not believe as you represent me. I 
 admit that the atonement of Christ is sufficient 
 for all men, and that salvation is freely offered to 
 all. There is, then, replies A. no difference be- 
 tween us, I understand you to admit that all 
 men will be saved. These are exact specimens 
 of Dr. Taylor's mode of reasoning. He says, 
 ' Dr. Tyler does not believe, but denies that sin 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 69 
 
 is the best thing, or a good thing in any sense.' 
 From this he infers that I agree with him in re- 
 jecting the positions, that ' the existence of sin 
 is, on the whole, for the best,' and that 'God, all 
 things considered, prefers sin to holiness in all 
 instances in which the former takes place' — posi- 
 tions which he knows I have most explicitly and 
 uniformly maintained." 
 
 Dr. Tyler closes his remarks with a summary 
 view of the main points of difference between 
 him and Dr. Taylor, and of their practical im- 
 portance. He says : 
 
 1. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
 lief, that God could not have prevented all sin in 
 a moral system." 
 
 We have seen the importance which Dr. Tay- 
 lor attaches to this point of difference. In the 
 Review mentioned in my last letter, he repre- 
 sents the denial of this position, as leading to 
 Universalism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism. " I 
 also regard it as important; for it must, as it 
 seems to me, very materially affect our views of 
 the character and government of God. Accord- 
 ing to this statement, God has created a universe 
 of moral beings which he cannot govern. -Were 
 I to adopt this position, I could not regard Je- 
 hovah as an Almighty being ; nor could I feel 
 the least assurance that he will be able to accorft- 
 plish his purposes or fulfil his promises. If his 
 creatures are so independent of him, that he can- 
 not control their moral actions at pleasure, what 
 assurance can he give us, that every Saint and 
 every Angel will not yet apostatize, and spread 
 desolation through the moral universe. Besides, 
 if God has not a perfect dominion over the hearts 
 
70 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 and moral conduct of his creatures, how can we 
 consistently pray that God would incline our 
 hearts, or the hearts of others? And how can 
 we regard the afflictions, brought upon us by the 
 agency of men, as divine judgments; or the 
 blessings we receive, through their instrumental- 
 ity, as divine mercies? This view of the subject, 
 as it seems to me, tends directly to discourage 
 prayer, and takes away the principal motives to 
 submission and gratitude. 
 
 2. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
 lief, that the existence of sin is not, on the whole, 
 for the best, and that a greater amount of good 
 would have been secured had all God's creatures 
 remained holy, than will result from the present 
 system. 
 
 " According to this view of the subject, as it 
 appears to me, God must look with everlasting 
 regret upon the moral universe. While he pre- 
 fers, all things considered, that all his creatures 
 should be holy and happy, and while he is doing 
 all in his power to make them so, he must be lit- 
 erally grieved and unhappy to find his efforts con- 
 stantly defeated. And is this the view which the 
 scriptures give us of the ever blessed God — 
 that God who has said, my council shall standi 
 and I will r/o all my pleasure. Besides — the 
 above position subverts the doctrine of special 
 grace. If God regards universal holiness, as, on 
 the whole, desirable, it nmst be his desire, all 
 things considered, that every individual should 
 be holy ; and he must of course do all in his 
 power to make every individual holy. What, 
 then, becomes of the doctrine of special, distin- 
 guishing, sovereign, and electing grace? 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 71 
 
 3. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
 lief, that God, all things considered, prefers holi- 
 ness to sin, in all instances in which the latter 
 takes place. 
 
 " This position, as I have shown, utterly subverts 
 the doctrine of decrees. It amounts, in my view, 
 to a declaration that God does not in any sense 
 prefer, and of course, has not decreed the exis- 
 tence of sin ; for sin certainly would not exist, 
 if in all instances, holiness should exist in its 
 stead. How is it possible for God to prefer, on 
 any account, the existence of sin, in any instance, 
 if, all things considered, that is, on all accounts, 
 he prefers something else in its stead, in all in- 
 stances ? I have also shown that this position 
 subverts the doctrine of election. 
 
 4. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my belief, 
 that mankind come into the world with the same 
 nature, in kind, as that with w^hich Adam was 
 created. 
 
 *' According to this view of the subject, Adam 
 was not created holy, nor is there, as I can see, 
 any real connexion between the sin of Adam 
 and that of his posterity. This position, there- 
 fore, entirely subverts the doctrine of original 
 sin, as generally maintained by Calvinists. Be- 
 sides; if this position be true, infants are in no 
 sense sinners, and do not need to be born again, 
 nor to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. If 
 admitted to heaven, they will be accepted on the 
 ground of their own righteousness, and without 
 regeneration, contrary to the express declarations 
 of Christ and the apostle. ' Except a man be 
 born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heav- 
 
72 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 en. By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be 
 justified.' 
 
 5. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
 lief, that the only reason that the posterity of 
 Adam do not exhibit the same moral character 
 which Adam exhibited, is not that they have a 
 diSerent nature, but that they are placed in dif- 
 ferent circumstances. 
 
 " This, if I mistake not, is the precise ground 
 which the oppo^rs of Calvinism have uniformly 
 taken, when controverting the doctrine of origin- 
 al sin ; and it seems to me to be intimately con- 
 nected with those systems of belief which en- 
 tirely discard the doctrines of grace. Indeed, 
 if the depravity of man is owing solely to the 
 circumstances in which he is placed, it would 
 seem that no other remedy would be needed for 
 it but a change of circumstances. Consequent- 
 ly, a man does not need a radical change of heart 
 by the power of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 6. " Dr. Taylor and I differ in regard to the na- 
 ture of selfishness. According to him, selfish- 
 ness does not consist in making our own happi- 
 ness our ultimate end, but in love of the world, 
 or in preferring the world to God, as our portion 
 or chief good. 
 
 7. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my belief, 
 that ' self-love is the primary cause of all moral 
 action.' He says, " The being constituted with 
 a capacity for happiness, desires to be happy, and 
 knowing that he is capable of deriving happiness 
 from different objects, considers from which the 
 greatest happiness may be derived ; and as in this 
 respect he judges, or estimates their relative value, 
 so he chooses one or the other as his chief good.' 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 73 
 
 " This I regard as one of the most dangerous 
 parts of Dr. Taylor's system ; for it affects the 
 very essence of religion — the very nature of ho- 
 liness. According to him, self-love, or the de- 
 sire of happiness, is the grand principle by which 
 every being, whether sinful or holy, is actuated. 
 All have the same ultimate end. ' Of all specific 
 voluntary action, the happiness of the agent, in 
 some form, is the ultimate end.' According to 
 this statement, the distinction of moral character 
 which exists among men, does not arise from the 
 fact that they have different ultimate ends, but 
 from the fact, that they adopt different means to 
 obtain the same ultimate end. The reason that 
 one is holy, and another sinful, is, the one seeks 
 his own happiness by choosing God as his por- 
 tion and chief good ; the other seeks his own 
 happiness, by choosing the world as his portion or 
 chief good. Both have a supreme regard to 
 their own happiness. Consequently there is no 
 radical distinction between holiness and sin. 
 Both may be traced to the same principle of ac- 
 tion. I cannot but say, what I honestly believe, 
 that the religion which is in accordance with this 
 theory, is a selfish, and of course, a spurious] re- 
 ligion." 
 
 " Besides — according to this theory, depravity 
 consists in ignorance; and all that is necessary 
 to effect the conversion of sinners; is, to enlighten 
 them as to the best means of securing their high- 
 est happiness. Regeneration, therefore, by the 
 agency of the Holy Spirit cannot be necessary. 
 8. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my belief, 
 that sinners may so resist the grace of God as to 
 render it impossible for God to convert them. 
 7 
 
74 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 He says, ' I do not believe that the grace of 
 God, can be truly said to be irresistible, in the 
 primary and proper import of the term. But I 
 do believe that in all cases, it may be resisted by 
 man as a free moral agent ; and that when it is 
 effectual to conversion, it is unresisted.' He 
 also says, ' Free moral agents can do wrong un- 
 der all possible preventing influence. Using their 
 powers as they may use them, they will sin ; and 
 no one can show that some such agents will not 
 use their powers as they may use them. This 
 possibility that free agents will sin, remains, (sup- 
 pose what else you will,) so long as moral agency 
 remains; and how can it be proved that a thing 
 will not he, when for aught that appears it may 
 he 1 When, in view of all the facts and evidence 
 in the case, it remains true that it may he, what 
 evidence or proof can exist that it will not he?' 
 
 9. "Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
 lief, that antecedent to regeneration, the selfish 
 principle is suspended in the sinner's heart, that 
 he ceases to sin, and uses the means of regene- 
 ration, with motives which are neither right nor 
 wrong. 
 
 " The tendency of these views, I have pointed 
 out at length in my Strictures and Vindication^ 
 to which I beg leave to refer the reader. If I 
 mistake not, I have shown that they lead to the 
 subversion of important doctrines, and deeply 
 affect the interests of evangelical religion." 
 
 " It has sometimes been said, that the differences 
 between Dr. Taylor and his brethren, relate sole- 
 ly to theories, and that they are agreed as to all 
 the important facts taught in the Bible. This, 
 however, in my view, is entirely a mistake. The 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. /5 
 
 question whether God was able to prevent sin in 
 a moral system is a question of fact. So the 
 questions whether sin is, on the whole, for the 
 best, — whether God, all things considered, pre- 
 fers holiness to sin in all instances in which the 
 latter takes place — whether mankind come into 
 the world with the same nature, in kind, as that 
 with which Adam was created — whether self-love 
 is the primary cause of moral action — and wheth- 
 er the selfish principle is suspended in the sin- 
 ner's heart antecedent to regeneration, are ques- 
 tions relating to matters of fact ; and questions 
 too, which have an important bearing upon the 
 system of divine truth. Our views of christian 
 doctrine, and of experimental religion, must be 
 materially modified by the manner in which these 
 questions are decided." 
 
 I have made the foregoing extracts for the pur- 
 pose of enabling you to see at a single glance 
 the prominent points on which the New Haven 
 divines differ from their brethren. That after all 
 which they have said, they should now claim that 
 there is no difference, or at least no important 
 difference between them and their brethren, is 
 truly surprising. Dr. Tyler closes his remarks 
 with the following observations on this point. 
 
 He says : " What I have maintained is, that 
 he (Dr. Taylor) has adopted principles which, 
 when carried out in their legitimate consequen- 
 ces, lead to the subversion of fundamental doc- 
 trines. It is on this account that I regard his 
 errors as dangerous, and the difference between 
 us as important. Still I have not attached to 
 them the importance given to them by Dr. Tay- 
 lor. I have never said, that nothinfr but his in- 
 
/b ORIGIN AND PROGRES?! 
 
 consistency saves him from being * the very 
 worst of heretics' — that his theories ' lead to 
 Universalism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism' — 
 and that they involve such horrid blasphemy as 
 he has charged upon my theories. Surely, Dr. 
 Taylor and his associates are the last men in the 
 world, who ought to say that the differences be- 
 tween them and their brethren are of little im- 
 portance. If they really believe that their breth- 
 ren do maintain such shocking and blasphemous 
 errors as they have imputed to them in the Chris- 
 tian Spectator, they ought, in order to be consist- 
 ent, to renounce all fellowship with them at once. 
 How can they hold fellowship with men who 
 maintain that ' sin is a good thing, even the best 
 thing V 
 
 "Yet they have imputed this sentiment not only 
 to me, but to Dr. Bellamy, to Dr. Hopkins, to 
 Dr. Strong, to Dr. Woods, and to all who adopt 
 their views in relation to the divine permission 
 of sin. They have charged them with holding 
 sentiments which involve the positions ' that the 
 Divine Lawgiver is a deceiver' — that ' God is a 
 criminal tempter,' and many other consequences 
 which no sober man can contemplate without 
 horror. And do they wonder that their brethren 
 are dissatisfied ? Can they suppose that the min- 
 isters and churches of New England, will look 
 with indifference upon such representations of 
 doctrines which they have ever regarded as the 
 truth of God, and which were taught by those 
 eminent divines whose praise is in all the church- 
 es? It is truly with an ill grace that they should 
 now pretend, that there is no difference between 
 them and their brethren. They are the men who 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 77 
 
 have magnified this difference, and attached to 
 it momentous consequences. If they are con- 
 vinced of their error, let them frankly and hon- 
 orably retract. But let them not, in one breath, 
 charge their brethren with maintaining senti- 
 ments which lead to the very worst of here- 
 sies, and involve the most horrid blasphemies; 
 and in the next, say, we are perfectly agreed. 
 This, surely, is not the way to heal the bleeding 
 wounds of Zion, and to restore peace to the 
 heritage of the Lord." 
 
 This pamphlet, as I observed, closed the con- 
 troversy between Dr. Tyler and Dr. Taylor. 
 Although Dr. Taylor had given to the controver- 
 sy so serious an aspect by charging upon his op- 
 ponent the most blasphemous errors ; and al- 
 though Dr. Tyler called upon him in this pamph- 
 let to retract his charges or substantiate them — 
 yet he has not deigned to do either. Meanwhile, 
 the watchword of the party for the last three or 
 four years has been," No difference." 
 
 Yours very affectionately. 
 
 7* 
 
LETTER IX. 
 
 March 13, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 In 1833, Dr. Griffin published his treatise on 
 " The Doctrine of Divine Efficiency," in which 
 he examines the theories of the New Haven Di- 
 vines so far as they have a bearing on this sub- 
 ject ; and shows most conclusively, that many of 
 their positions are essentially Arminian, This 
 is a valuable work, and ought to be extensively 
 circulated and read. No answer to it has as yet 
 been published. 
 
 On the 10th of September, 1833, a conven- 
 tion of ministers was held in East Windsor, to 
 take into consideration the expediency of estab- 
 lishing a new Theological Seminary in Connec- 
 ticut. This was a very interesting meeting. Twa 
 days were spent in prayerful deliberation, during 
 which time, the great Head of the Church seem- 
 ed to grant them special tokens of his presence. 
 There appeared to be an unusual spirit of prayer. 
 Nothing like a spirit of party was apparent in 
 their deliberations; but great spirituality and 
 harmony of feeling pervaded the meeting. Sen- 
 
NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 79 
 
 sible of the responsibility resting upon them, 
 they acted in the fear of God. " The great and 
 aJl-absorbing inquiry was, what do the honor 
 of God, and the interest of his kingdom demand ? 
 They were unanimous in their result. Fully 
 satisfied that they had discovered the path of duty, 
 they resolved to go forward in the strength of the 
 Lord." Accordingly, they organized themselves 
 into a Pastoral Union, formed a constitution, and 
 appointed a Board of Trustees. Shortly after, 
 the Trustees proceeded to locate the Institution, 
 to elect a Faculty, and to provide the necessary 
 buildings, library, &c. On the 13th of May, 
 1834, the corner stone of the Seminary edifice 
 was laid with appropriate services; and on the 
 same day, the President and Professor of Eccle- 
 siastical History were inducted into office. In 
 October, of the same year, the Professor of Bib- 
 lical Literature was inaugurated, and the Semi- 
 nary went into full operation with a respectable 
 number of students. Hitherto the Lord has 
 seemed to prosper the infant Seminary far be- 
 yond the expectations of its founders. May it 
 continue to enjoy his smiles, and be made instru- 
 mental of incalculable good. The reasons which 
 led to the establishment of this Seminary, are 
 fully set forth in the " Appeal to the Public," 
 published by the Trustees, in October, 1834 — 
 a copy of which I take the liberty to send you. 
 This appeal was occasioned by an attack made 
 upon the Seminary in a Manifesto from the The- 
 ological Professors in Yale College. I must give 
 you some account of this Manifesto. 
 
 The Rev. Daniel Dow, a member of the Cor- 
 
80 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 '^ration of Yale College, having been appointed 
 on a committee to attend the examination of the 
 Theological School, and being called upon to 
 make a report to the Corporation, at their annual 
 meeting in September, 1834, took occasion to 
 object to some of the doctrines taught in the 
 School, and to suggest that the Professor of 
 Didactic Theology had taught and published 
 sentiments inconsistent with the creed on which 
 this Professorship was founded. This led to 
 some discussion in the Corporation, to a confer- 
 ence with the Professors, and to the Manifesto 
 of which I have just spoken. 
 
 It may be proper here to state, that since 1722 
 until recently, all the officers of Yale College 
 have been required to declare their assent to the 
 Confession of Faith contained in the Saybrook 
 Platform, which is almost entirely the same as 
 that of the Westminster divines. But within a 
 few years past, the test-law of the College has 
 been repealed ; so that now, neither the Presi- 
 dent nor Professors are obliged to give their as- 
 sent to any Confession of Faith; nor are the cor- 
 poration authorized to dismiss them from office 
 on account of any religious opinions whatever. 
 This applies to the theological no less than to the 
 academical Professors, with the exception of the 
 Professor of Didactic Theology. 
 
 But the repeal of the law could not affect this 
 Professorship, because there were certain stipu- 
 lations with the founders, which it was beyond 
 the power of the corporation to repeal. The 
 principal subscribers to the fund, made the fol- 
 lowing requisition : " Every Professor, who shall 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 81 
 
 receive the income or revenue of this fund, shall 
 be examined as to his fiiith, and be required to 
 make a written declaration thereof agreeable to 
 the following: 'I hereby declare my free assent 
 to the Confession of Faith, and Ecclesiastical 
 Discipline, agreed upon by the Churches of the 
 State in 1708 — (i. e. the Say brook Platform.) 
 If at any future period, any person who fills the 
 chair of this Professorship, holds or teaches doc- 
 trines contrary to those referred to, it shall be 
 the duty of the Corporation of the College to 
 dismiss him from office forthwith ; and if they 
 do not dismiss him, then we reserve to our heirs 
 the right to demand the several sums which we 
 have paid, or may hereafter pay respectively.'" 
 
 The Corporation, after reciting the foregoing 
 in a preamble, passed the following vote : " This 
 Board doth accordingly found and establish in 
 this College, on said fund, a Professorship of 
 Didactic Theology, on the terms, conditions, 
 and limitations expressed in said instrument 
 signed by Timothy D wight and others." 
 
 It would seem, from the foregoing statement, 
 that the Professor of Didactic Theology is re- 
 quired to give his unqualified assent to the Con- 
 fession of Faith contained in the Saybrook Plat- 
 form. It was so understood by Mr. Dow when 
 he made his report to the Corporotion. But the 
 Professors in their Manifesto, defend the princi- 
 ple that a subscription to articles of Faith, is 
 made only for " substance of doctrine." They 
 admit that Dr. Taylor does hold and teach doc- 
 trines contrary to those contained in the Say- 
 brook Platform. They say, moreover, that while 
 Professor elect, he " had certain knowledge, 
 
82 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 from personal intercourse with the founders, that 
 had he embraced every minute doctrine of the 
 Confession, it would have been considered a de- 
 cisive disqualification for the office." This is 
 certainly a very extraordinary declaration; and 
 it naturally suggests several inquiries. 
 
 What could be the object of the founders, to 
 require their Professor to give his unqualified 
 assent to a creed, and then inform him that if he 
 did comply with their requisition fully and sin- 
 cerely, they should consider him disqualified for 
 the office? Was such a thing ever heard of be- 
 fore on the face of the globe 1 Why did they 
 not prescribe such a creed as they should be will- 
 ing to have their Professor subscribe, ex animo, 
 and without reservation ? Or if it was their in- 
 tention that assent should be given to the creed 
 " for substance of doctrine," why did they not say 
 so 1 And if Dr. Taylor intended to give his as- 
 sent only " for substance of doctrine," why did 
 he not say so ? If he had informed the Corpo- 
 ration, that he could not give an unqualified as- 
 sent to the creed, and if the Corporation had 
 been authorized by the founders to accept, and 
 had actually accepted of a qualified assent, the 
 case would be different. 
 
 But it does not appear that the Corporation 
 are authorized to accept of any but an unqualifi- 
 ed assent ; and so far as appears, the assent given 
 by Dr. Taylor was unqualified. And is the doc- 
 trine to be maintained and defended, that when 
 persons give their assent to Confessions of Faith 
 in the most solemn manner, and in the most un- 
 qualified language, they are not to be understood 
 as meaning what they affirm ? 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 83 
 
 Besides — on what is this Professorship found- 
 ed, and for what cause are the Corporation re- 
 quired to dismiss the Professor from office ? The 
 founders, so far as appears from their statutes, 
 make it the duty of the Corporation to dismiss 
 the Professor from office, if he holds or teaches 
 doctrines contrary to those contained in the 
 Platform. Yet it is admitted that the present 
 Professor does hold and teach doctrines contrary 
 to those above referred to. But it is contended, 
 that he is not liable, on this account, to impeach- 
 ment, because he had '* certain knowledge from 
 personal intercourse with the founders," that it 
 is their will that he should hold and teach doc- 
 trines contrary to the Confession to which they 
 have required his free assent in the most unqual- 
 ified terms. What then is the creed by which 
 this Professor is bound ? Is it the Saybrook 
 Platform " for substance of doctrine?" But this 
 is not mentioned by the founders. And if we 
 may suppose it to have been so understood, how is 
 it to be ascertained what is implied in subscrip- 
 tion to a creed "for substance of doctrine?" 
 How much may be rejected, and still the sub- 
 stance be retained ? Who shall draw the line, 
 and where shall the line be drawn? 
 
 But I have still another question in relation to 
 this subject. Can a person be truly said to re- 
 ceive a confession of Faith '* for substance of 
 doctrine," when in his view that confession con- 
 tains the most destructive errors ? According 
 to Dr. Taylor, the Saybrook Platform contains 
 principles which lead by legitimate consequence 
 to " the very worst of heresies" — " to Universal- 
 ism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism," — principles 
 
84 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 which involve the positions, that " sin is a good 
 thing" — " good in itself — " the only real good to 
 man" — that " when men sin, they do the very 
 best thing they can do" — that " God is the re- 
 sponsible author of sin" — that " the terms of 
 salvation, and the exhibition of motives to com- 
 ply with them, are a delusive mockery" — that 
 **God is a criminal tempter" — that " in no re- 
 spect is satan more truly criminal as a tempter 
 than God is" — that '* we ought to praise God for 
 all the sin which we and others have ever com- 
 mitted" — that "the worst kind of moral action 
 is the best" — and that " mankind are bound to 
 believe that they shall please and glorify God 
 more by sin, than by obedience, and therefore to 
 act accordingly." Now is it possible for a man 
 to receive " for substance of doctrine," a Con- 
 fession of Faith, when he believes it to contain 
 such horrid and blasphemous errors ? 
 
 In this Manifesto, as I have already remarked, 
 the Professors take notice of the establishment 
 of the Seminary at East Windsor, and endeavor 
 to make the impression that the founders and 
 friends of the new institution are laboring under 
 a delusion in supposing that any important errors 
 are taught in the New Haven School ; and that 
 under the influence of this delusion, they have 
 gone forward to establish a Seminary which is 
 not called for, and ought not to be patronized by 
 the Christian public. This attack called forth 
 the Appeal of the Trustees, which I have al- 
 ready mentioned. To this Appeal, the Profes- 
 sors replied, in a manner and with a spirit, which 
 did them little credit. About the same time the 
 Rev. Mr. Dow published a pamphlet, the object 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 85 
 
 of which is to show what is the New Haven Di- 
 vinity. It is made up of extracts from the wri- 
 tings of the New Haven Divines, together with 
 some short comments, suited to show the nature 
 and tendency of their doctrines. This book is 
 very useful to any one who wishes to ascertain 
 what the new divinity of New England is, with- 
 out looking over the various publications in 
 which it has been taught for the last eight or 
 ten years. 
 
 I am yours, very affectionately. 
 
LETTER X 
 
 March 15, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 You desire to know what has been Dr. Beech- 
 er's course in relation to the recent controver- 
 sies in New England, and to what extent he has 
 identified himself with the New Haven divines. 
 I regret exceedingly that there should be any 
 occasion for such inquiries. A minister of Dr. 
 Beecher's age and standing in the church, ought 
 to be '*' an epistle known and read by all men."^ 
 There ought to be no cause for doubt or supi- 
 cion in regard to his theological opinions. And 
 yet, I suppose it to be true, that notwithstanding 
 all which has been said and written by himself 
 and others, there are even now, very different 
 opinions in regard to his doctrinal views. There 
 are those who do not hesitate to affirm that, on 
 most points at least, he is a thorough Calvinist, 
 and that his sentiments are entirely opposed to 
 the New Haven speculations ; while there are 
 others who are equally confident that his views,, 
 in the main, coincide with those of Dr. Taylor. 
 How he has contrived to make these different 
 impressions on the minds of different individu-^ 
 
NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 
 
 87 
 
 als, and I may add, on the minds of the same 
 individuals, at different times, is a question which 
 some have found it very difficult to answer. 
 
 That he does not agree on all points with the 
 New Haven divines, is certainly true, if any con- 
 fidence is to be reposed in the statements con- 
 tained in his " Views in Theology," recently 
 published. On the doctrine of original sin, for 
 instance, his views and theirs are irreconcileably 
 at variance. Instead of maintaining that " man- 
 kind come into the world with the same nature 
 in kind as that with which Adam was created," 
 that " they possess no constitutional propensity 
 to sin," that " infants are innocent," or have 
 " no moral character," that " they sustain the 
 same relation to the moral government of God as 
 brute animals," he maintains directly the oppo- 
 site of these opinions. He says : 
 
 " It would seem that I am supposed to hold 
 the Pelagian doctrine on the subject ; that 1 deny 
 that Adam was the federal head and represen- 
 tative of his race — that the covenant was made 
 not only with Adam, but also with his posterity ; 
 that the guilt of his sin was imputed to them ; 
 that there is any such thing as native depravity ; 
 or that infants are depraved. That on the con- 
 trary I hold and teach, that infants are innocent, 
 and as pure as Adam before the fall ; and that 
 each one stands or falls for himself, as he rises 
 to personal accountability ; and that there is 
 no such thing as original sin, descending 
 from Adam by ordinary generation ; and that 
 original sin is not sin, or in any sense de- 
 serving of God's wrath and curse. Now 
 every one of these assumed errors of my faith, 
 
88 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 I deny to be my faith." He says also, ''Adam 
 was created holy, and placed in a state of proba- 
 tion, the consequences of which were to extend not 
 only to himself, but to his posterity. If he con- 
 tinued holy, they would be born holy. If he be- 
 came a sinner, his children would be born de- 
 praved. In the hour of temptation, he fell, and 
 lost FOR A WORLD the inheritance of life, and en- 
 tailed upon it the sad inheritance of depravity 
 and wo. For, if by one man's offence death 
 reigned by one, how did death reign by one 
 man's offence, if the depravity of his race was 
 not the consequence of his sin ? If his poster- 
 ity are born holy, (innocent) and become sinners 
 by their own act, uninfluenced by what Adam 
 did, then death enters the world not by one man; 
 but by every man. And so death has passed 
 upon all men, for that all have sinned ; passed 
 upon infants possessing a depraved nature, 
 though they had not committed actual sin. They, 
 as well as adults are subject to pain and death. 
 They, as well as adults, need a Saviour, and a 
 change of heart by the Holy Ghost to fit them 
 for heaven." He says again, " Original sin is 
 the effect of Adam's sin upon the constitution of 
 his race, in consequence of his being their fede-^ 
 ral head and representative, by divine appoint--^ 
 ment or covenant." " It consists in the perver-^ 
 sion of those constitutional powers and suscep- 
 tibilities, which in Adam before the fall eventual 
 ted in actual and perfect obedience, and which, 
 in their perverted condition by the fall, eventu- 
 ate in actual and total depravity." " It is a bias 
 or tendency of nature to actual sin, which baffles 
 all motives, and all influence, short of Omnipo- 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 09 
 
 tence, to prevent its eventiiation in total actual 
 depravity, or to restore the perverted will and 
 affections to holy obedience." " It is denomina- 
 ted by Edwards, and justly, an exceedingly evil 
 and depraved nature." 
 
 In these passages, Dr. Beecher advances the 
 very principles which Dr. Taylor represents as 
 involving the positions that " God is the respon- 
 sible author of sin," that "to sin is the very 
 end of man's creation, the highest end of his 
 being, the chief end of man," that " man is 
 doomed to sin by a natural and fatal necessity," 
 that " he is naturally unable to avoid sin^ and be- 
 come holy, and therefore is not a moral agent," 
 " that the terms of salvation, and the exhibition 
 of motives to comply with them are a delusive 
 mockery," that " the true and only reason why 
 sinners are lost, is not, that they do not act, but 
 that God does not," and that '" in respect to any 
 capacity for happiness from the objects of right 
 affection, man as he is constituted by his Maker, 
 js like a stone or corpse." 
 
 On the subject of God's ability to prevent sin, 
 and sanctify the hearts of men, the statements of 
 Dr. Beecher are also entirely opposed to those 
 which have come from the New Haven school. 
 Just notice the following statement of Dr. Tay- 
 lor : " How is it that God says, Isaiah v. 4, that 
 he has done all that can be done to bring sinners 
 to repentance, when he could do more if he 
 would, and would do more, did he not, on the 
 whole, prefer their continued sin to their repent- 
 ance ? ' My child,' says a father, ' never steal ; 
 jiever lie ; I have no pleasure at all that you 
 phould, compared with being honest and true. 
 8* 
 
90 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 ' But then, my child,' he proceeds, ' I greatly pre-, 
 fer, on the whole, that you should steal and lie, 
 at least in nine cases out of ten ; for stealing 
 and lying, in these instances, will be the best 
 thing you can do ; and though I shall do every 
 thing that can be done to secure your obedience 
 to my law, yet I could do much more if I would ; 
 and I would do it, if I did not, on the whole, 
 prefer your stealing and lying to honesty and 
 truth." ' Compare this with the following from 
 Dr. Beecher : 
 
 '' That God is able, by his direct and immedi-. 
 ate power to approach the mind in every faculty, 
 and to touch all the springs of action and affec-. 
 tion, I have never denied or doubted. And that 
 he is able, by the direct interposition of his pow- 
 er, so to rectify the mind of man as disordered 
 by the fall, as that the consequence would be the 
 immediate, unperverted exercise of the will and 
 affections in obedience, is just as evident as that 
 God can create minds in such a condition that 
 they will, in these respects, go right from the 
 beginning. I have no sympathy for the opinion 
 that it depends on sinners whether they be re- 
 generated or not, in the day of his power — or 
 that God DOES all he can, and leaves the event 
 of submission or not, to rebel man. The passa- 
 ges quoted to prove such an assertion are misun- 
 derstood and perverted. The texts, * what could 
 have been done more to my vineyard that I have 
 not done in it,' (Isa. v. 4.) and ' he could not do 
 many mighty works there because of their unbe- 
 lief,' and other kindred passages do not teach 
 that God is ever efficaciously resisted by any sin- 
 .ner whom he attempts to subdue, or that there 
 
OF NEW HAVEN TIIEOLOnY. 91 
 
 is any sinner on earth so stubborn and obstinate 
 that God could not reconcile him if it seemed 
 good in his sight. The limitation is of God's 
 unerring wisdom, and is the same as when 
 it is said, he cannot deny himself, or cannot lie, 
 or where God himself says, ' though Moses and 
 Samuel stood before me, yet my mind -could not 
 be towards this people.' " 
 
 This, you will perceive, is in direct opposition 
 io the views of Dr. Taylor. And not only so, 
 Dr. Beecher has here advanced the very princi- 
 ple which, according to Dr. Taylor, " leads to 
 Universalism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism," 
 " the principle which, in the hands of Voltaire, 
 and other enemies of the gospel, has spread infi- 
 delity and atheism to such a fearful extent 
 throughout Europe," and which involves all the 
 horrid blasphemies which he has charged upon 
 Drs. Woods and Tyler. 
 
 A large part of Dr. Beecher's book is adapted 
 -to make a favorable impression upon the minds 
 of orthodox readers. On all the subjects of 
 which he treats, except that of moral agency, his 
 statements, so far as they go, will be regarded 
 as generally sound. On this topic, however, 
 (moral agency) he has advanced principles which 
 lead inevitably to Arminian conclusions. And 
 on some other topics, his statements do not con- 
 tain a full view of his sentiments. On the doc- 
 trine of regeneration, for instance, no one would 
 conjecture from what he has published, " that 
 he does not believe in the direct and immediate 
 agency of the Holy Spirit in regeneration." 
 
 Yet such is not his belief, unless he has quite 
 recently altered his opinion. He maintains, as 1 
 
92 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 happen to know from repeated conversations with 
 him on the subject, that the Holy Spirit never 
 operates directly on the heart in regeneration, 
 (except perhaps in the case of infants, idiots, 
 &LQ,.) but only through the medium of truth and 
 motives — that the influence of the Spirit is a 
 persuasive influence, analogous to the influence 
 which one man exerts over the mind of another. 
 This is what has been denominated the doctrine 
 of Divine moral suasion." It is the same doc- 
 trine which was maintained by a certain popular 
 preacher of the present day, when he said, 
 *' Were I as eloquent as the Holy Ghost, I could 
 convert sinners as well as He/' and the same 
 doctrine which is taught by Mr. Finney, in his 
 sermon on making a new heart, in which he says, 
 •' In renewing men, the Spirit employs means, 
 He does not come and take right hold of the 
 heart, and perform an operation upon it ; but he 
 presents motives; he persuades by meang of 
 truth, and the heart is overcome. To change 
 men's hearts requires only the presentation of 
 truth by the Spirit of God. His influence dif- 
 fers not at all from that of the preacher except 
 in degree." This sermon Mr. Finney preached 
 in Boston, at the time of which Dr. Beecher 
 speaks when he says, *' It will be long before I 
 again hear so much truth with as little to object 
 to, in the manner of its exhibition, in the same 
 space of time." 
 
 Most of Dr. Beecher's book, as I have already 
 intimated, is adapted to make the impression that 
 he does not adopt the peculiarities of the New 
 Haven School. And many things which he has^ 
 at divers times, said to his intimate friends wh.Q 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 93 
 
 he knew were opposed to these peculiarities, 
 (such as Dr. Porter, Dr. Woods, Dr. Tyler, Mr. 
 Nettleton, 6lc.) have been adapted to make the 
 same impression on their minds. He has some- 
 times spoken freely, and in terms of strong dis- 
 approbation of Dr. Taylor's writings, and of the 
 manner in which he had conducted the contro- 
 versy. He has also made such statements in 
 regard to his own sentiments, as to convince 
 them that he could not adopt the New Haven 
 opinions. 
 
 But notwithstanding all this, truth obliges me 
 to say, that, in my apprehension, Dr. Beecher 
 is in a high degree responsible for the spread of 
 these opinions. It is through his influence, 
 more than that of any other man, that they have 
 gained so much favor in the eyes of the commu- 
 nity. He has been an apologist for them. He 
 has had no sympathy with those who have been 
 distressed on account of them ; but has uni- 
 formly frowned on every expression of alarm.^ 
 He has insisted that the New Haven divines are 
 orthodox, and that their sentiments are fraught 
 with no dangerous tendencies. He has express- 
 ed it as his " full and deliberate belief," that 
 these sentiments " will prevail and predominate 
 both in New England and elsewhere." He has 
 occasionally thrown out intimations " that the 
 theology of New England is running down to 
 natural inability, and old Calvinism — and wait- 
 ing God's time, and formality, and Triangular- 
 ism," — that " old Calvinism must go down," — 
 that, " the system of Calvinism needs to be ex- 
 amined and discussed by a new and original 
 investigation of all the points," — and that the 
 
94 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 result will be, " the sifting out of false philoso- 
 phy," and the burning up of " wood, hay, and 
 stubble," enough of which he thinks there is even 
 in New England, " if brought out and laid on 
 one pile to make a great bonfire." Although I 
 write '* currente calamo," I am not writing at ran- 
 dom. I state nothing of which I have not the 
 proof in my possession. 
 
 In the mean time, the New Haven divines and 
 all their adherents, have considered Dr. Beecher 
 as agreeing with them in sentiment, and siding 
 with them in their controversies. They have 
 not hesitated to make use of his name, in 
 public and in private, in conversation, in letters, 
 and through the press, to promote the prevalence 
 of their views ; and so far as I have known, he 
 has not been disposed to contradict their state- 
 ments. He has seemed, at least, to be willing to 
 have them understand that he did accord with 
 them in their views and measures. 
 
 Dr. Taylor has been in the habit of submit- 
 ing his controversial articles to Dr. Beecher for 
 inspection previous to their publication. This 
 was the fact in regard to the Review of Dr. Ty- 
 ler's remarks, published in the Christian Specta- 
 tor, for September, 1832, some account of which 
 I gave you in my seventh letter. It was true in 
 reo-ard to Dr. Taylor's communications for the 
 Spirit of the Pilgrims, in his controversy with 
 Dr. Tyler. In one instance, Dr. Beecher took 
 so much liberty with a communication, that Dr. 
 Taylor in a subsequent number had occasion to 
 make the following remark : " Here I shall first 
 advert to an error in phraseology which, though 
 not my own, occurred in some instances, in my 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 95 
 
 reply to Dr. Tyler's remarks. This arose from the 
 insertion of a passage, while my reply was passing 
 through the press by one of the conductors of the 
 Spirit of the Pilgrims. For the liberty thus taken^ 
 I am not disposed to censure my friend, consider- 
 ing our long intimacy, and the coincidence of our 
 views on theological subjects, and the desire from 
 which it sprung of giving an additional illustra- 
 tion of my opinions." 
 
 That Dr. Beecher is the " friend," here referred 
 to, was well understood, and you will perceive 
 that Dr. Taylor here, in this public manner, 
 claims " a coincidence of views," with Dr. 
 Beecher, "on theological subjects," This was 
 published under Dr. Beecher's own eye, and suf- 
 fered to pass without contradiction. All the 
 young men who have come out from the New 
 Haven School, and all others who have adopted 
 the peculiar sentiments of that School have rep- 
 resented Dr. Beecher as an advocate of these 
 sentiments. It has been proclaimed by them 
 through the length and breadth of the land ; and 
 it is owing to their representations more than to 
 those of any other persons, that the orthodoxy 
 of Dr. Beecher has been so extensively suspected. 
 Some of his intimate friends, particularly Mr. 
 Nettleton, did for a long time feel authorised 
 to contradict these representations. He did 
 suppose, from statements which Dr. Beecher 
 made to him, and from writings which he read to 
 him, and which he talked of publishing, that he 
 did not agree with Dr. Taylor, and that he 
 intended he should so understand him. Accord* 
 ingly, when he found at the South, reports in cir- 
 culation that Dr. Beecher accorded in his doctri- 
 
96 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 nal views with the New Haven divines, he took the 
 liberty to contradict them. Wherever he went he 
 vindicated Dr. Beecher, and it was in consequence 
 of his representations that Dr. Miller and Dr. 
 Green were led to repose that confidence in Dr. 
 Beecher which was expressed in their letters to 
 him which he exhibited on his trial. But in 
 1830, Dr. Beecher called Mr. Nettleton to an 
 account for reporting that he did not agree with 
 .. Dr. Taylor. Since that time, he has not felt at 
 * liberty to contradict the representations which 
 the friends of the New Haven Divinity have been 
 continually making. 
 
 From what I have written, you will perceive 
 that in the estimation of some of his brethren, 
 the course of Dr. Beecher has not been, in all 
 respects, so consistent as it might have been. 
 What you experienced when you heard him 
 preach two sermons during the session of the 
 last General Assembly is a specimen of the ex- 
 perience of some of his brethren for a course 
 of years. Their hearts have been alternately 
 rejoiced and pained. They have loved Dr. 
 Beecher. They have often listened to his voice 
 with intense delight. They have blessed God for 
 the good accomplished through his instrumen- 
 tality, and they have been grieved and distressed 
 that his influence should be perverted to promote 
 the prevalenceof what they believe to be danger- 
 ous error. 
 
 For many years after his first settlement in 
 New England, he enjoyed the entire confidence 
 of his brethren. He, and Dr. Porter and Dr. 
 Harvey, and Dr. Tyler, were located in neigh- 
 boring parishes, and lived on terms of the great- 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 97 
 
 est intimacy. He and Mr. Nettleton were true 
 yokefellows in the cause of revivals. In those 
 days, we heard from him no suspicions of a ten- 
 dency in New England ministers to " hyper-Cal- 
 vinism and antinomian fatality ;" and no intima- 
 tions of the necessity of a reform in the system 
 of New England orthodoxy. Those were days 
 of peace and harmony, and brotherly love among 
 the ministers of New England. But we have 
 fallen on other times. That harmony of senti- 
 ment which so long prevailed exists no longer. 
 New doctrines have been broached, and are zeal- 
 ously propagated ; and to what extent the defec- 
 tion may be suifered to go, is known only to Him 
 who seeth the end from the becrinnincr. But it is 
 consoling to reflect that Zion's God reigneth, and 
 that he is able to bring light out of darkness, 
 and order out of confusion, and to overrule all 
 the commotions of this sin-distracted world for 
 the promotion of his own glory, and the greatest 
 possible good. 
 
 I am yours, very affectionately. 
 
LETTER XI. 
 
 March 20, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 You will naturally inquire to what extent does 
 the new divinity prevail in New England? — in 
 other words, how large a proportion of the New 
 England ministers adopt the peculiar sentiments 
 of the New Haven School ? On this point, I 
 can only give you my opinion, as I have iio data 
 from which to make out an accurate calculation. 
 Different individuals would doubtless give differ- 
 ent answers to this question. The New Haven 
 divines would probably tell you that their views 
 prevail very extensively in New England ; that 
 quite a large proportion of the ministers adopt 
 them. I am satisfied, however, that their esti- 
 mates are far from being correct. 
 
 It appears from Dr. Porter's letter to Dr. 
 Beecher, that when he informed him that one of 
 his brethren was dissatisfied on hearing him 
 preach a certain sermon, Dr. Beecher acknowl- 
 edged that probably three fourths of his brethren 
 would have had the same feelings in the same 
 circumstances. 
 
NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 99 
 
 In a letter to a friend, dated August 6, 1832, 
 Dr. Porter says : " Our orthodox community for 
 near a century had been but little disturbed, till 
 this new luminary appeared, and volunteered to 
 shed darkness on the world. He wrote and talk- 
 ed and talked and wrote; and what has been the 
 result? The great body of ministers said- for a 
 while, * we do not know what he means.' He 
 has been reputed sound in the faith, and all this 
 vaunted originality, consisting of novelty and 
 obscurity in diction, and paradoxical boldness, 
 is at bottom rather bad taste, than bad theology. 
 He complained of the obtuseness of readers that 
 could not understand him ; — wrote again — and 
 then again ; and then complained bitterly that so 
 many misunderstood him. After a long time, a 
 few men say, ' Dr. Taylor is right, and Calvinism 
 is wrong' — a few others, much fewer than he 
 supposes, say, • Dr. Taylor is right, and Calvin- 
 ism is right too — he is a consistent Calvinist.' 
 This latter number is not one tenth of the New 
 England ministers, and not one hundredth of 
 those that are thirty-five years old. The great 
 body of ministers now say he is wrong — not al- 
 together so, of course — but wrong on his own 
 favorite points." 
 
 Such was the language of Dr. Porter in l8o2. 
 Dr. Woods, in his eighth letter published in 1830, 
 says : " I feel myself constrained to say, that the 
 theory which you adopt in distinction from the 
 common theory, appears to me, generally, so far 
 as I understand it, to be unscriptural and of dan- 
 gerous tendency. And the more I examine it, 
 the farther I am from being satisfied with it. 
 And this is the case with the orthodox communi- 
 
100 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 ty, to an extent, as I have reason to think, far 
 beyond your apprehension. Compared with the 
 whole body of Congregational and Presbyterian 
 ministers, there are very few who embrace your 
 opinions." Whether these estimates are correct 
 or not, I am confident that Dr. Taylor's peculiar- 
 ities are adopted far less extensively than he is 
 wont to imagine. Indeed, I have rarely met with 
 a minister, excepting those^ young men who have 
 been educated in his school, who is willing to 
 express his unqualified approbation of Dr. Tay- 
 lor's speculations. Many even of those who are 
 apologists for these speculations, and who lend 
 their influence to promote their prevalence, are 
 unwilling to be considered Taylorites, and are 
 very careful to tell you that they do not adopt all 
 Dr. Taylor's opinions. Or if they do not object 
 particularly to the doctrines of the New Haven 
 School, they will tell you they do not like the 
 spirit with which those doctrines are inculcated. 
 I have just seen a letter written a little more than 
 three years ago by a minister of some distinction 
 in New England, who is considered by the New 
 Haven divines as one of their warmest friends 
 and adherents, in which he says : *' I am frank to 
 say, that I see some things connected with the 
 theological department in Yale College which I 
 cannot approve. I refer to the speculative cast 
 of the system there taught, and to the gi eat 
 prominence which is given to some points, which, 
 to say the least, are of very little importance, 
 and are deemed by many to be of bad tendency. 
 I probably see less to fear in their system on the 
 score of heresy than you and some others do. 
 But I see much in the spirit and manner in which 
 
OP NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. lOl 
 
 that system is inculcated, which I deeply regret, 
 and which I should heartily rejoice to see any 
 judicious measures adopted to correct." 
 
 But a large proportion of the ministers of New 
 England do not adopt any of the peculiar senti- 
 ments of the New Haven School. Their views 
 of doctrine accord with those inculcated in the 
 writings of our standard divines ; such as Ed- 
 wards Bellamy, D wight, &dc. But although the 
 
 crreat mass of the New England ministers are 
 
 . . . . 
 
 sound in the faith, and united in their views of 
 
 Christian doctrine, and in the rejection of the 
 Nevv Haven errors ; — yet they entertain different 
 opinions as to the manner in which these errors 
 should be regarded and treated. There are 
 those, (and the number is not small) who regard 
 them as dangerous- — as tending to sap the foun- 
 dation of the evangelical system. They look 
 upon their prevalence with distress and alarm, 
 and feel it to be their duty to bear their testimo- 
 ny against them. You have already seen from 
 the several extracts which I have given you from 
 Dr. Porter's letters, in what point of light he re- 
 garded them. The following statement of a 
 friend, will show what were his feelings near the 
 close of his life. 
 
 " I called on Dr. Porter more frequently the 
 last two months of his life, (I believe I may say 
 the last three months,) than usual. There was 
 something in his pale, consumptive face, and in 
 iiis solemn interesting manner of conversing on 
 the great truths of the gospel, and the errors 
 which seemed coming in on the church, which 
 were very impressive. When on these visits, I 
 have heard hjm as many, at least, as three differ- 
 9* 
 
102 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 ent times, and I believe more than three, express 
 his deep apprehension in regard to the sentiments 
 of Dr. Taylor. Once he said, 'It would take a 
 hundred years to do away the evils brought on 
 the church by his speculations; that Dr. Taylor 
 was taking a fearful responsibility on himself ; 
 that Edwards fought a great battle with the Ar- 
 minians, and gained the victory, but now all was 
 to be gone over again.' " 
 
 Dr. Humphrey, in a letter written Nov. 4, 
 1833, an extract from which was published in the 
 Southern Religious Telegraph, says : " My opin- 
 ion expressed freely and every where is, that the 
 gentlemen there, (at New Haven) are building 
 their system on philosophy, more than on the 
 Bible ; that this philosophy is Arminian, and of 
 course can never support a Calvinistic creed. 
 The tendency of the scheme, I solemnly believe, 
 is to bring in a flood of Arminianism, or rather 
 perhaps, I ought to say Pelagianism upon our 
 churches. Where this tendency will stop, I 
 know not. If not arrested, I fear it may end in 
 fundamental error." 
 
 Dr. Woods in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Plura- 
 mer, dated Feb. 8, 1836, says : '* I believe what 
 you sayj that there is a perfect understanding 
 among those in every part of our country who 
 are opposed to Calvinism, and that they are act- 
 ing in concert — that there is an alarmino- loose- 
 ness among young preachers ; and that there is a 
 fixed determination to maintain a party holding 
 loose opinions — and that there must be a battle 
 fought here and there and every where, (only let 
 it not be fought with carnal weapons.) And I 
 agree with you, that there must be a friendly and 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 103 
 
 brotherly understanding among all who hold fast 
 the great truths of the gospel, and that the love 
 of the truth must bind them together, though 
 they do not think exactly alike on minor points. 
 I agree, too, that men of influence must lift up 
 their voice, and that we ought to make known 
 what were the views of distinguished men, who 
 have had a high reputation, but who have gone 
 to their rest, such as you mention. The fact is, 
 that Dr. Porter, Mr. Evarts, and Dr. Cornelius, 
 were most deeply alarmed and distressed with the 
 loose speculations which have come from the 
 New Haven School, and from Mr. Finney and 
 others of that stamp. I know how they all felt, 
 and what a full conviction they had that the no- 
 tions which were peculiar to Dr. Taylor and Mr. 
 Finney, would undermine the fair fabric of our 
 evangelical churches, and spread a system far 
 more unscriptural and pernicious than Wesleyan 
 Methodism." Dr. Griffin, speaking of the New 
 Haven sentiments, says : " I consider the honory 
 of raising to spiritual life, a world dead in tres- 
 passes and sins, as one of the brightest glories 
 of the Godhead ; and I have been grieved at my 
 heart to see this honor taken away. This has 
 been the severest cut of all." 
 
 Dr. Tyler in his strictures, published in 1829, 
 says : '* 1 cannot but express my conviction, that 
 he, (Dr. Taylor) has taken positions which, when 
 followed into their legitimate consequences, will 
 lead to the subversion of the doctrines of grace." 
 And again : " Nothing but the fullest conviction 
 of the dangerous tendency of these speculations, 
 and the necessity of some counteracting influ- 
 
104 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 ence, could have induced the writer to appear in 
 this manner before the public." 
 
 Mr. Nettleton, in a communication written by 
 him in Feb. 1834, after having read an article in 
 the Christian Spectator, entitled, " What is the 
 real difference between the New Haven divines 
 and those who oppose them?" shows that the 
 positions laid down in that article tend to subvert 
 the scriptural doctrine of regeneration, and ob- 
 serves : " On the whole, their views of depravity, 
 of regeneration, and of the mode of preaching 
 to sinners, I think, cannot fail of doing very 
 great mischief. This exhibition overlooks the 
 most alarming features of human depravity, and 
 the very essence of experimental religion. It is 
 directly calculated to prevent sinners from com- 
 ing under conviction of sin, and to make them 
 think well of themselves while in an unregene- 
 rated state. It flatters others with the delusion, 
 that they may give their hearts to God, or that 
 they have already done it, while their propensi- 
 ty to sin remains in all its strength." " I know 
 that converts may be made by hundreds and by 
 thousands on these principles with perfect ease, 
 for so it has been in former times among different 
 sects in New England, as I have had full oppor- 
 tunity to know. But piety never did and never 
 will descend far in the line of these sentiments. 
 Were I to preach the sentiments contained in 
 that article, I do solemnly believe that I should 
 be the means of healing the hurt of awakened 
 sinners slightly, and be guilty of crying peace, 
 peace, when there is no peace, and of throwing 
 the whole weight of my ministerial influence op 
 the side of human rebellion against God." 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 105 
 
 These extracts will give you a specimen of the 
 views and feelings which are entertained by a 
 large number of the ministers of New England. 
 Such, however, are not the feelings of all who 
 do not adopt the peculiarites of the New Haven 
 School. There are some who, through love of 
 peace and dread of controversy, persuade them- 
 selves that the best way to remedy the evil is to 
 let it alone. Others, not having read much of 
 the discussions which have been published, and 
 of course having only a vague and indefinite 
 knowledge of the points in controversy, flatter 
 themselves that the difference is not so great as 
 many have supposed — while others, after having 
 read some of Dr. Taylor's writings, and found 
 themselves unable to understand them, have come 
 to the conclusion that nobody can understand 
 him, and that all the diffculty originates in amis- 
 understanding. On this point I would just ob- 
 serve, that if Dr. Taylor cannot write so that the 
 most distinguished theologians in the land, such 
 men as Dr. Porter, Dr. Woods, Dr. Griffin, Dr. 
 Humphrey, the Princeton Professors, &c, can 
 understand him, what kind of a teacher of the- 
 ology must he be? Or to adopt the language of 
 Dr. Porter to Dr. Beecher, " If he cannot make 
 clear heads combined with honest hearts, com- 
 prehend his meaning, what sort of a system must 
 his be to enlighten and save the world ?" 
 
 Still, however, the New Haven sentiments do 
 prevail to a considerable extent. Those who 
 have been zealously engaged in propagating them, 
 have enjoyed many advantages for the prosecution 
 of their plans, and they have not labored with- 
 out some success. 
 
106 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 And what, you will ask, have been the practi- 
 cal results, so far as they have been developed ? 
 The answer to this inquiry, in the opinion of 
 many, at least, is well expressed by a distinguish- 
 ed and excellent minister in Connecticut, in a 
 letter written Oct. 1, 1833. He says: "The 
 New Haven theology lowers, and lowers exceed- 
 ingly the standard of our doctrines, of our revi- 
 vals, and of real piety in and out of the State. 
 It turns every good thing downward, and gives 
 a strong descending impetus." Where these 
 sentiments prevail, the great doctrines of the gos- 
 pel are not preached as they formerly were. Lax 
 views of doctrine are creeping into the churches, 
 and the character of revivals is evidently deteri- 
 orating. The religious excitements which have 
 taken place where the new divinity is preached, 
 differ widely from the revivals which took place 
 eighteen, twenty, and twenty-five years ago. 
 Those revivals were remarkably pure, as time 
 has abundantly shown. They were characteri- 
 sjed by deep and awful solemnity, by powerful con- 
 victioqs of sin, and by a remarkable exhibition 
 of the fruits of- the Spirit. The converts were 
 meek, humble, docile, and but few apostacies oc- 
 curred among them. But many of the religious 
 excitements of the present day are very transient, 
 and although a great number of conversions is 
 sometimes reported, yet it not unfrequently hap- 
 pens that, within a short period, very few of them 
 are to be found. Many melancholy facts might 
 be given on this subject. I will mention one or 
 two. A year or two since, I was conversing with 
 a pious layman who resides in a town where, 
 leighteen months before, there had been said to 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. l()1f 
 
 be a very powerful and extensive revival. I en- 
 quired of him the state of religion. He said it 
 was very low. But I understand you had a very 
 remarkable revival of religion in your town win- 
 ter before last. *' Yes," said he, " but converts 
 do not seem to wear as they did formerly." 
 Have not the subjects of that revival worn well ? 
 " Not at all," he replied. Great numbers, I un- 
 derstood, were supposed to be converted, how 
 many of them have been added to the church ? 
 ** Not more than six or seven, and some of those 
 do not adorn their profession.*' 
 
 In another town there was a religious excite- 
 ment in 1833, where about forty youth were sup- 
 posed to be converted. One year afterwards, I 
 was informed that not one of them had made a 
 profession of religion, or at that time gave any 
 decisive evidence of piety. These are specimens 
 of many facts which have occurred within a few 
 years past in New England ; and not only where 
 those wandering stars, Mr. Foote and Mr. Burch- 
 ard, have been, but under the ministrations of 
 settled pastors. It was not so under the labors 
 of brother Nettleton ; nor under the labors of 
 those New England pastors, through whose in- 
 strumentality such accessions were made to the 
 churches at the commencement of the present 
 century. 
 
 I am yours, very affectionately. 
 
LETTER XII. 
 
 March 21, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 As great pains have been taken to make the 
 impression that the New Haven divinity is New 
 England divinity, and in this way to awaken jeal- 
 ousy and prejudice in the Presbyterian Church 
 against the ministers and churches of New Eng- 
 land generally, I have thought it might be useful 
 to devote a few letters to the object of correcting 
 this impression. I have already remarked that 
 the great body of New England ministers ac- 
 cord in sentiment with our standard theological 
 writers, such as Edwards, Bellamy, Hopkins, 
 Dwight, Smalley, Strong, &c. What I now pro- 
 pose to show is, that the New Haven divines have 
 departed from the views maintained by these wri- 
 ters. Before I proceed however, to adduce di- 
 rect proof of this allegation, I will just glance at 
 the opinions which are entertained of their spec- 
 ulations by different classes of the community. 
 Their writings have been extensively read, not 
 only by Calvinists, but by professed Arminians 
 and Unitarians. And how are they regarded by 
 
NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 109 
 
 these different classes of individuals? Are they 
 regarded as according with the writings of those 
 who have heretofore been considered as Calvin- 
 ists ? What is the opinion of those who are de- 
 nominated Old School divines in the Presbyte- 
 rian church ? Is there an individual in this nu- 
 merous class of ministers, who does not regard 
 the New Haven divines as having departed wide- 
 ly from the CaKinistic system? What is the 
 opinion of such men as Dr. Richards, Dr. Spring, 
 Dr. Woodbridge, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Hilyer, and 
 many others in the Presbyterian Church, who, as 
 Dr. Miller says, " still possess no small share of 
 New England feelings V Do they regard the 
 New Haven divines as consistent Calvinists? On 
 the contrary, do they not think as unfavorably of 
 their speculations as any in your church ? And 
 how are these speculations regarded by the most 
 distincruished theoloo-ians of New England ? 
 What were the views entertained of them by 
 those venerable servants of God now at rest. Dr. 
 Hyde, Dr. Porter, Mr. Evarts, and Dr; Corne- 
 lius? Dr. Hyde, in a letter dated April 13, 1830, 
 said, " I notice with much trembling the pro- 
 gress of error in this land, and among the 
 churches of New England. The New Haven 
 scheme of theology is a broad step-stone to Ar- 
 minianism. You may possibly live to-have your 
 attachment to the Lord Jesus Christ put to a 
 severe test. The doctrines of sovereign grace 
 are more and more discarded." What were the 
 views and feelings of Dr. Porter, Mr. Evarts and 
 Dr. Cornelius, is sufficiently apparent from ex- 
 tracts inserted in my previous letters. And what 
 are the opinions of such living men as Dr^ Grif* 
 10 
 
110 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 fin, Dr. Church, Dr. Woods, Dr. Humphrey, &c. 
 " My opinion," says Dr. Humphrey, " expressed 
 freely, and everywhere, is, that the gentlemen 
 there, (at New Haven) are building their system 
 on philosophy more than on the Bible ; that this 
 philosophy is Arminian, and can never support 
 a Calvinistic creed. My solemn belief is, that 
 the tendency of the scheme is to bring in a flood 
 of Arminianism, or rather, perhaps I ought to 
 say Pelagianism upon our churches." Dr. 
 Humphrey has here expressed the ' opinion' and 
 solemn belief of very many of the most discrimi- 
 nating and judicious ministers of New England. 
 And what do professed Arminians think of these 
 speculations ? The Rev. Dr. Fiske, President 
 of the Wesleyan University, in his reply to Pro- 
 fessor Fitch's Review of his sermon on Predesti- 
 nation, says, "Ifl understand the reviewer, he is 
 in principle an Arminian. The reviewer's whole 
 ground of defence is solely this Arminian expla- 
 nation of the doctrine of predestination. He 
 acknowledges, nay, boldly asserts, in a strain of 
 rugged controversy with his brethren who may 
 differ from this view of the subject, that there is 
 no other explanation by which the arguments of 
 the sermon can be avoided; that is, as 1 under- 
 stand it, the only way to avoid the arguments 
 against the doctrine of Calvinian predestination, 
 is to give it up and assume the Arminian senti- 
 ment. I cannot approve of the aeviewer's use 
 of terms, though to my understanding he has 
 evidently given the doctrine of predestination not 
 merely a new dress, but a new character, yet he 
 more than intimates that it is the old doctrine, 
 with only a new method of explanation. And 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. Ill 
 
 SO confident is the reviewer, that he still believes 
 in the fact of predestination in the old Calvinis- 
 tic sense, that in stating his sentiments on this 
 subject, he uses the same forms of expression 
 which Calvin ists have used when their meaning 
 was as distant from his as the two poles from 
 each other. I feel safer in understanding the 
 reviewer in an Arminian sense, because he and 
 some others take it very ill of me that I have 
 represented them as Calvinists. By God's fore- 
 ordaining whatever comes to pass, he only means 
 that God foresaw that sin would certainly take 
 place, and predetermined that he would not hin- 
 der it, either by refraining from creating moral 
 agents, or by throwing a restraint upon them 
 that would destroy their free agency ; in short, 
 that he would submit to it as an evil unavoidably 
 incident to the best possible system, after doing 
 all that he wisely could do to prevent it. This 
 is foreordaining sin ! that is, predetermining 
 that it should be ! I cannot but express my 
 deepest regret that a gentleman of the review- 
 er's standing and learning should lend his aid, 
 and give his sanction to such a perversion of lan- 
 guage, to such a confusion of tongues. Do the 
 words predestinate, foreordain, decree, mean in 
 common language, or in their radical and criti- 
 cal definition, nothing more than to permit, not 
 absolutely to hinder — to submit to as an unavoid- 
 able but offensive evil ? The reviewer certainly 
 will not pretend to this. The use of these terms 
 by those who believe as I understand the review- 
 er to believe, is the more unjustifiable, because 
 they are used by most Calvinistic authors in a 
 different sense. Why then should the reviewer, 
 
113 ORIGIN AND PiROGRESS 
 
 believing as he does, continue to use them in the 
 symbols of his faith ? Different persons might 
 give different answers to such a question. For 
 one, I would prefer he should answer it himself. 
 His mode of explanation turns the doctrine into 
 Arminianism. But the sermon was never writ- 
 ten to oppose those who hold the decrees of God 
 in an Arminian sense. Why then, does the 
 reviewer complain of the sermon? It seems 
 that Calvinism, in its proper character is as ob- 
 noxious to the reviewer as to the author of the 
 sermon. If it is safer to attack Calvinism in 
 this indirect way, I will not object. But I cannot 
 see that it would be safer. An open, bold front, 
 always ends best. As I understand the reviewer, 
 from the days of John Calvin down to the pres- 
 ent hour, there is, on this point, between the 
 great body of Calvinists and himself, almost no 
 likeness except in the use of words. Theirs is 
 one doctrine, his another. Why then, does he 
 hail from that party, and hoist their signals, and 
 then, after seeming to get the victory by espous- 
 ing the very cause of the assailed, encourage the 
 Calvinists to triumph, as if their cause had been 
 successful ?" 
 
 Dr. Griffin, after quoting the foregoing passa- 
 ges in his treatise on divine efficiency, makes the 
 following observation : " These remarks of the 
 President of the Wesley an University of Con- 
 necticut, appear to me to be candid and judi- 
 cious, and go far towards exposing the unhappy 
 incongruity between the language and sentiments 
 of this Review." 
 
 And what opinion do the Unitarians entertain 
 of the New Haven speculations ? If I had at 
 
or NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 113 
 
 command a file of the Christian Register, (a 
 Unitarian paper printed in Boston,) for the last 
 six or seven years, I could turn to numerous pas- 
 sages in which they have exulted in the progress 
 of liberal sentiments at New Haven. They have 
 often quoted with high commendation the wri- 
 tings of Dr. Taylor, and have affirmed again and 
 again, that the New Haven divines have given up 
 the most objectionable parts of the Calvinistic 
 system. The following passages are from the 
 " Last Thoughts" of Noah Worcester, a Unita- 
 rian clergyman in Massachusetts. The book 
 was published in 1833. 
 
 " In former days, the Calvinistic creed of hu- 
 man depravity affirmed the corruption of man's 
 lohole nature, as the consequence of Adam's sin." 
 
 This theory was modified in some important 
 respects by the Hopkinsians of New England, 
 by whose theory the corruption was limited to 
 the heart or will of man, leaving the mental fac- 
 idties unimpaired. Still, it was admitted that 
 the posterity of Adam are born with a nature or 
 disposition wholly sinful. A still further modifi- 
 cation has been advanced and ably supported by 
 Dr. Taylor of New Haven and his associates. 
 To state the hypothesis in authorized language, 
 I shall take my extracts from a '' Review of Tay- 
 lor and Harvey," which appeared in the Chris- 
 tian Spectator, for June, 1829. After quoting 
 two paragraphs, he proceeds, "In the first para- 
 graph I see nothing objectionable ; and I rejoice 
 that such views of human nature have been pro- 
 posed and are acquiring belief. If I have not 
 misunderstood these writers, the New Haven the- 
 ory asserts that sin is a voluntary transgression ot 
 in* 
 
114 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 a known law, and that as infants are incapable 
 of moral agency, they are incapable of sin ; and 
 that there is no such thing as sinful nature, ante- 
 cedent to sinful volition, or moral action. They 
 strongly assert that nature is not sinful. Thus 
 far I acquiesce." " Within a few years Dr. Tay- 
 lor, of New Haven, with his associates, including 
 the Christian Spectator, have done much to di- 
 minish the reputation of what has been regarded 
 as the Orthodox and Calvinistic views on this sub- 
 ject." (original sin.) 
 
 In regard to the divine permission of sin, the 
 writer adopts the views of the New Haven 
 divines, and speaks in terms of high commenda- 
 tion of their reasoning on this subject. He 
 says, " The New Haven writers have contended 
 for the hypothesis that sin is an evil incident to 
 the best plan of government." 
 
 Now here is a problem to be solved. If the 
 New Haven divines are consistent Calvinists, and 
 if they do agree substantially with the standard 
 orthodox writers of New England, how has it 
 come to pass that they have been so egregriously 
 misunderstood? And not by a few individuals 
 merely, but by vast multitudes; not only by per- 
 sons of one particular class, embracing similar 
 sentiments, but by persons of different classes, 
 and embracing widely different sentiments ? 
 
 Besides, if there is no difference, or no mate- 
 rial difference between them and the orthodox 
 generally, what are we to understand by the great 
 improvements which they are said to have made 
 in theological science ? That they have made 
 such improvements is not only a matter of con- 
 stant exultation by their friends and adherents, 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGV. 115 
 
 but is more than intimated by themselves. In the 
 Christian Spectator for September, 1833, they 
 say, " But greatly as our views on this subject, 
 (the influences of the Spirit,) and some others, 
 have been misrepresented, we are happy to find 
 that they are beginning to be extensively under- 
 stood and appreciated. We know of very few, 
 who are now inclined to ask, ' can there be no 
 other sin than that which consists in voluntary 
 transgression of known law?' — and the number 
 is far less than formerly of those who hold that 
 regeneration is so exclusively the work of the 
 Spirit that the subject of it has, and can have 
 no voluntary agency in it. There has of late 
 been a great improvement in the doctrinal views 
 of vast numbers, in relation to these and a few 
 other points which we esteem of high impor- 
 tance. And if the humble labors of the Christ- 
 ian Spectator have, in any degree, contributed to 
 this desirable result, ' we therein rejoice, yea and 
 will rejoice.' " 
 
 It is worthy of remark, that they here speak 
 of the points respecting which they and their 
 brethren differ, and in regard to which they sup- 
 pose " a great improvement" has been made, not 
 as matters of little consequence, out as points of 
 " high importance." 
 
 There has been a very great inconsistency in 
 the advocates of the new divinity in relation to 
 this matter. Sometimes they give us startling 
 and even shocking representations of the ten- 
 dency of the views commonly entertained by the 
 orthodox. They speak of them as tending to 
 ''the very worst of heresies," and involving the 
 most horrid blasphemies. At other times, they 
 
116 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 insist that they and their opponents are substan- 
 tially agreed — that all the difference relates to 
 minor parts, and philosophical theories, which do 
 not affect the fundamentals of Christianity. 
 Much indeed has been said about the philosophy 
 of religion, and great stress has been laid on the 
 distinction between the doctrines of religion and 
 the philosophy of the doctrines. It is said that 
 persons may agree in their belief of the doc- 
 trines or great facts of Christianity, and still dif- 
 fer in their philosophy. Where this is the case, 
 it is contended that the difference canno.t be fun- 
 damental or of great importance. 
 
 If I understand those who make this distinc- 
 tion, they mean by the philosophy of the doc- 
 trines, the mode of explaining the doctrines. 
 The principle then contended for is this. Those 
 who agree in admitting the doctrines or facts of 
 the Bible are substantially agreed, although they 
 may differ widely in their mode of explaining 
 those facts. 
 
 Let us test this principle. The apostle says, 
 "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all 
 acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the 
 world to save sinners." And this fact is admit- 
 ted to be true by persons who entertain widely 
 different opinions of the plan of salvation. One 
 maintains that Christ came to save men by teach- 
 ing them the will of God, and setting an exam- 
 ple for them to imitate. Another, that he came 
 to suffer and die an atoning sacrifice, and in this 
 way to honor the law, and render it consistent 
 for God to pardon those who repent and believe. 
 Another, that he came to secure, and actually 
 
OF NEW HAVEX THEOLOGY. 117 
 
 will secure the salvation of all men. Are all 
 these individuals substantially agreed? 
 
 Again. Our Saviour said, " Except a man be 
 born again he cannnot see the kingdom of God." 
 But one man who admits the doctrine of the new 
 birth to be true, explains it to mean water bap- 
 tism. Another, conversion from the Jewish or 
 Gentile religion to the belief and profession of 
 Christianity. Another, a gradual change of char- 
 acter. Another, a mere change of purpose. 
 And another, a radical change of heart by the 
 power of the Holy Ghost. Are all these individ- 
 uals substantially agreed ? 
 
 Again. The scriptures teach the doctrine of 
 justification by faith. But one man understands 
 by faith a mere speculative belief of the truth. 
 Another, that Christ died for him in particular. 
 Another, a cordial reception of the truth as k is 
 in Jesus. Are all these individuals substantially 
 agreed 1 
 
 This illustration might be pursued to any ex- 
 tent. But enough has been said to show the fal- 
 lacy of the principle in question, and to show, 
 moreover that if admitted to be true, it will 
 sweep away all.distinction between true and false 
 religion. According to this distinction, all the 
 difference betweenCalvinists, Pelagians, Armini- 
 ans, and Unitarians, and even Universalists, res- 
 pects only the philosophy of religion. They all 
 admit the la^ts stated in the Bible, but they differ 
 in their explanation of these facts. And is the 
 principle to be maintained, that if different indi- 
 viduals express their belief in the same terms, it 
 is no matter how much they may differ in their 
 explanation of those terms? Does a man's faith 
 
118 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 
 
 depend on the language in which it is expressed, 
 or in the sense in which he uses that language 1 
 
 Dr. Porter, in a letter written August 6, 1832, 
 says, " On the late hobby distinction between 
 doctrines and the theory or philosophy of relig- 
 ion, I could write a sheet or two. I said to 
 brother Beecher, give me that door, and I will 
 bring all the churches of Boston to meet on one 
 floor, as orthodox. Try the principle on the trin- 
 ity, and all that is essential to the truth is easily 
 set aside under the head of philosophy, or theory. 
 Worse yet as to the atonement, regeneration, 
 &/C. Noah Worcester, in the Christian Regis- 
 ter, three or four weeks ago, followed up the 
 principle capitally in behalf of the Unitarians." 
 
 Much reproach has been cast upon the ortho- 
 dox for disparaging philosophy in matters of 
 religion. But it is not true that they disparage 
 it when kept within its proper limits, and directed 
 to its proper ends. That to which they object is 
 setting up reason above revelation, forming philo- 
 sophical theories, independently of revelation, 
 respecting the powers and susceptibilities of 
 man, the principles of moral agency and moral 
 government, and then explaining the Bible so as 
 to make it conform to their theories. This is, and 
 ever has been, the fruitful source of error in re- 
 ligion. True philosophy bows with humble rev- 
 erence to the decisions of revelation. She is 
 modest in her pretensions, and like Mary, sits at 
 the Saviour's feet, that she may learn of him who 
 is meek and lowly in heart. 
 
 Yours affectionately. 
 
LETTER XIII 
 
 March 21, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 Dr. Porter, in one of his letters written in 
 1830, says, " I am completely non-plussed to see 
 what Dr. Taylor would be at. He began writing 
 avowedly to correct what he thought common 
 errors of our theologians ; and next he supports 
 his own views by quoting these theologians as 
 concurring in sentiment with himself." This 
 inconsistency of the New Haven divines has 
 often been noticed, and remarked upon with 
 astonishment. Notwithstanding the claims set 
 up by themselves, and their adherents to the 
 merits of having made " great improvements" 
 in the science of theology; yet when they are 
 charged with having departed from the establish- 
 ed orthodoxy of New England, they repel this 
 charge by insisting that they do not differ from 
 Edwards, Bellamy, Dwight, Strong, &lc. and 
 that, too, on the very points respecting which 
 they profess to have made such " great improve- 
 ment." 
 
 Without dwelling on this inconsistency, I pro- 
 
120 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 pose to show, by a few brief quotations, how ut- 
 terly groundless is this claim. 
 
 The first topic to which I would direct your 
 attention is the government of God. 
 
 On this point, the New Haven divines have 
 maintained the following positions, viz : " That 
 God has not a complete control over the moral 
 universe. That moral agents can do wrong un- 
 der every possible influence to prevent it. That 
 God prefers, all things considered, that all his 
 creatures should be holy and happy, and that he 
 does all in his power to render them so. That 
 the existence of sin is notj on the whole, for the 
 best. That sin exists, because God cannot pre- 
 vent it in a moral system. And that the bless- 
 edness of God is actually impaired by the diso- 
 bedience of his creatures." 
 
 These positions are clearly maintained in the 
 following passages, and many others that might 
 be cited. 
 
 " God not only prefers, on the whole, that his 
 creatures should forever perform their duties, 
 rather than neglect them, but proposes on his 
 part to do all in his power to promote this very 
 object in his kingdom. — Christian Spectator, 
 1832, p. 660. 
 
 " It will not be denied, that free moral agents 
 can do wrong under every possible influence to 
 prevent it. The possibility of a contradiction, 
 in supposing them to be prevented from doing 
 wrong is, therefore, demonstrably certain. Free 
 moral agents can do wrong under all possible 
 preventing influence." — Ch. Spec. 1830, p. 563. 
 
 "■ But this possibility that moral agents will 
 sin, remains (suppose what else you will) so long 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 121 
 
 as moral agency remains ; and how can it be 
 proved that a thing will not be, when for aught 
 that appears it may be? When, in view of all 
 the facts and evidence in the case, it remains 
 true that it may be, what evidence or proof can 
 exist that it will not be? — Ch. Spec. 1830, p. 
 553. 
 
 " We know that a moral system necessarily 
 implies the existence of free agents, with the 
 power to act in despite of all opposing power. 
 This fact sets human reason at defiance, in every 
 attempt to prove that some of these agents will 
 not use that power and actually sin." — Ch. Spec. 
 1831, p. 617. 
 
 " it is groundless assumption thr.t God could 
 have prevented all sin, or at least, the present 
 degree of sin in a moral system. If holiness in 
 a moral system be preferable to sin in its stead, 
 why did not a benevolent God, were it possible 
 to him, prevent all sin, and secure the prevalence 
 of universal holiness? Would not a moral uni- 
 verse of perfect holiness, and of course perfect 
 happiness, be happier and better than one com- 
 prising sin and its miseries ? And must not in- 
 finite benevolence accomplish all the good it can ? 
 Would not a benevolent God, then, had it been 
 possible to him in the nature of things, have se- 
 cured the existence of universal holiness in his 
 moral kingdom." — Dr. Taylor s Coricio, p. 28. 
 
 Now I am bold to affirm that these positions 
 have never been maintained by any of the ortho- 
 dox writers of New England, nor by any divines 
 claiming to be Calvinistic, since the llefomation. 
 The universal sentiment of New England Cal- 
 
 11 
 
122 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 vinists, in relation to this subject, may be learn- 
 ed from the following extracts : 
 
 President Edwards. " Objectors may say, 
 God cannot always prevent men's sins, unless he 
 act contrary to the free nature of the subject, or 
 without destroying men's liberty. But will they 
 deny that an omnipotent and infinitely wise God 
 could possibly invent and set before men such 
 strong motives to be obedient, and have kept be- 
 fore them in such a manner, as should have in- 
 fluenced all mankind to continue in their obedi- 
 ence, as the elect engels have done, without de- 
 stroying their liberty ?" — Decrees and Election, 
 Sec. 19. 
 
 *' Sin may be an evil thing, and yet that there 
 should be such a disposal and permission that it 
 should come to pass may be a good thing. — Trea- 
 tise on the Will, p. 339. 
 
 " God does not will sin as sin, or for the sake 
 of any evil; though it be his pleasure so to order 
 things, that He permitting, sin will come to pass ; 
 for the sake of the great good that by his disposal 
 shall be the consequence." — Id. p. 314. 
 
 Dr. Bellamy. " Others, to solve the difficul- 
 ties, have asserted that it was not in the power 
 of God to prevent the fall of free agents, with- 
 out destroying their free agency, and turning 
 them into intelligent machines, incapable of vir- 
 tue as well as of vice. But it is enough for us, 
 to confute this hypothesis, that it is contrary to 
 plain scripture representations, which teach us 
 that the man, Christ Jesus, our second Adam, 
 was a free agent, capable of the highest virtue, 
 and yet in a confirmed state, so that he could 
 not sin ; as are also the saints and angels now 
 
or NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 123 
 
 in heaven. From whence, it appears that it was 
 in God's power to have confirmed all intelligen- 
 ces at first ; and left them moral agents notwith- 
 standing." — lVurL:<, Vol. I. p. 50. 
 
 " We agree, that if God had pleased, he conld 
 have hindered tlie existence of sin, and caused 
 misery to be forever unknown in his dominions, 
 with as much ease as to have suffered things to 
 take their present course." — Id. p. 126. 
 
 In the following passages, he quotes from his 
 antagonist, and answers the very objection which 
 the New Haven divines have so often urged on 
 this subject. The objector says : " For if once 
 I should believe that it was wisest and best in 
 God to permit sin, most for his glory and the 
 good of his system, I should feel myself under a 
 necessity to look upon sin as being, in its own 
 nature, a good thing, for the glory of God and the 
 good of the system ; and that God delights in it 
 as such. And that, therefore, instead of hating 
 sin, mourning for it in ourselves, lamenting it in 
 others, we ought rather to esteem it as really a 
 good and virtuous thing, and as such, to rejoice 
 in it, and even to keep an everlasting jubilee in 
 remembrance of satan's revolt, and Adam's fall ; 
 events so infinitely glorious! Absurdities so 
 shocking that I never can believe them." To 
 this. Dr. Bellamy replies : " And absurdities, let 
 me tell you, if you did but understand the scheme 
 you are opposing, you would know are, so far 
 from following from it, that they are absolutely^ 
 inconsistent with it. For the doctrine of the 
 wisdom of God, in the permission of sin, sup- 
 poses sin in itself, and in all its natural tenden- 
 cies, to be infinitely evil, infinitely contrary to the 
 
V24: ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 honor of God and good of the system. For 
 herein consists tlie v.isdom of God in the affair, 
 not in bringing good out of good, but in bring- 
 ing infinite good out of inhnife evil, and never 
 suffering one sin to happen in all his dominions, 
 but which, notwithstanding its infinitely evil na- 
 ture and tendency, infinite wisdom can and will 
 overrule to great ijood, on the whole." — Id. p. 
 145. 
 
 " Now, since it is a plain fact, that sin and 
 misery do take place in the system, methinks 
 that every one who is a friend to God and the 
 system, should rejoice with all his heart to hear, 
 that the seed of the woman will bruise the ser- 
 pent's head, bring glory to God, and good to the 
 system, out of all the evil that ever has taken 
 place, or ever will ; (and the more good the bet- 
 ter ;) and so completely disappoint the devil." — 
 Mp. 171. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins. " Moral evil is, in its own na- 
 ture and tendency, most odious, hurtful, and 
 undesirable; but in the hands of Omnipotence, 
 infinite wisdom, and goodness, it may be intro- 
 duced into the most perfect plan and system, and 
 so disposed and counteracted in its nature and 
 tendency, as to be a necessary part of it, in order 
 to render it most complete and desirable." — S?/s- 
 tem. Vol. 1. p. 114. 
 
 Dr. DwiGHT. " That God could not prevent 
 the existence of sin, cannot be maintained. He 
 has prevented it in the angels who kept their first 
 estate. He prevented it in the person of Christ, 
 who, in his human nature knew no sin. He has 
 promised that he will prevent it, and he will 
 therefore prevent it in the spirits of just men 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 125 
 
 made perfect in the heavens. Should it be said, 
 that these beings, by their own voluntary agency, 
 and without any interference or influence on the 
 part of God, continue in a state of holiness ; this 
 supposition affects not the point at all ; for God 
 plainly could have created every moral agent with 
 exactly the same attributes, and placed him in 
 exactly the same circumstances, with those sev- 
 eral beings who persist in holiness. Whatever 
 we suppose to be the means by which they are 
 preserved from sin, those very means he certainly 
 could have used, to prevent, in the same effectu- 
 al manner, all others." — Si/stcm of Theology Vol. 
 I. pp. 244, 245. 
 
 " Ft will not be denied, that God is both able 
 and disposed to plan a perfect system of good. 
 It follows, therefore, that he certainly has planned 
 such a system. What accords not with his pleas- 
 ure, upon the whole, accords not with this sys- 
 tem; this being the thing which is agreeable to 
 his pleasure ; but must be defective or surperflu- 
 ous, out of place or out of time, aside from, or 
 contrary to the perfection of the system. Con- 
 sequently, if the actions of voluntary beings be 
 not, upon the whole, accordant with the pleasure 
 of God, he was not only unassured of the accom- 
 plishment of the end, which he proposed in cre- 
 ating and governing the universe ; but he enter- 
 ed upon this great work without knowing that it 
 would be accomplished; and was originally cer- 
 tain that the perfect good which he proposed, 
 would never exist. — Id. p. 2o0. 
 
 Dr. Strong. " Human incapacity to bring 
 the greatest good out of much evil — much sin, 
 and much misery, is no argument that an infinite 
 11* 
 
12G ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 God cannot do it." — Benevolence and Misery, p, 
 15. 
 
 " We ought to have such confidence in the 
 wisdom and goodness of God, when he tells us 
 that creatures shall be always miserable under 
 punishment, as to believe, that the eternal hap- 
 piness of every creature, and the greatest happi- 
 ness of the whole, are incompatible, and cannot 
 come together into that plan or scheme of exis- 
 tence and government, which are the best possi- 
 ble.— /d p. 120. 
 
 CuRisTiAN Spectator. " Now it is possible 
 that many things, which in themselves are right,^ 
 would not be for the best, on the whole ; and on 
 the other hand, that many things are, on the 
 whole, for the best, which in themselves are 
 wrong. I say this is possible — nay, it is certain. 
 The wars and bloodshed, the despotism and bon- 
 dage, the subtlety and dishonesty, the folly and 
 sin which overspread the earth, though in them- 
 selves wroi^g, are, on the whole, for the best."rr^ 
 Vol 1. p. 447. 
 
 Such were the views inculcated by the Chris- 
 tian Spectator in 1819. How different from the 
 views inculcated in the same work in 1832. 
 
 Mr. Day. (Father of President Day of Yale 
 College, a distinguished New England divine.) 
 I have before me a sermon of his preached at 
 Bethlehem in 1774, before the Association of 
 Ministers of Litchfield county, and published at 
 their request. The object of this sermon was to 
 refute the very hypothesis which has, of late, 
 been revived and strenuously maintained by the 
 New Haven divines. The title of the sermon is 
 *' The ability of God to restrain sin, in a way con- 
 
OF NEW HAVEX THEOLOGY. 127 
 
 sistent with the liberty of the creature." The 
 following extracts will show not only what were 
 his views, but what were the viev.s of the Asso- 
 ciation, and of Calvinistic ministers generally, 
 in New England at that period. 
 
 " Is not the parent of the universe kind and 
 benevolent ? Can he overrule all things for the 
 best, and will he not? Can he restrain the wrath 
 of man, and will he not therefore do it, whenever 
 it would praise him ? Reason and scripture join 
 to demonstrate that he will. If God does, there- 
 fore, in every instance, restrain sin, so far as it 
 would be for the best, it is certain that whatever 
 moral evil is in the universe, it shall somehow or 
 £>ther subserve the noblest and best purposes." — 
 Preface, p. 4. 
 
 " What I propose in the ensuing discourse is, 
 to establish God's absolute clominion over the 
 hearts of men ; to evince his entire ability to 
 govern and control the human heart, so, that to 
 whatever enormous height, the turbulent passions 
 and violent corruptions may arise, yet they are 
 perfectly limited and curbed at the divine pleas- 
 ure ; so that it may without propriety be said 
 with respect thereto, as is said concerning the 
 boisterous ocean — " Hitherto shall thou come, 
 but no farther, and here shall thy proud waves 
 be stayed." It would be a lamentable censider- 
 ation, indeed, if the horrid outrage and madness 
 of men was irresistible by Omnipotence itself; 
 and if the all-wise Governor and Superintendent 
 of the universe, could not restrain and suppress 
 the perverse rage of men, agreeably to his holy 
 will. — p. 5. 
 
 " If it is not in the power of God to keep a 
 
128 
 
 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 free agent from sinning, with what propriety can 
 he be directed to pray to God for restraining 
 grace, or that he may be preserved from sin?" — 
 p. 14. 
 
 *' If we suppose the consequence of God's 
 creating and upholding free agents, would be, 
 that they might act entirely inconsistently with 
 the divine purpose ; that in the use of their free- 
 dom, God could not keep them in those bounds, 
 which should eventually turn most for his glory, 
 and the greatest good of intelligent beings ; but 
 in direct opposition to the purpose of God, they 
 should act in such a manner, as to entirely over- 
 throw and subvert all the good which God pro- 
 posed in the creation of intelligent beings, how 
 shocking must the thought be ! Upon this sup- 
 position, all the noble and excellent ends which 
 God proposed in the creation of the universe, 
 might be frustrated ; for it not being in the pow- 
 er of God to restrain sin, and govern free agents 
 according to his will, they might in every respect 
 cross the will of God, and defeat every valuable 
 end the divine Being proposed in their forma- 
 tion." " It is very easy to perceive, that if it is 
 not in the power of God to control the hearts of 
 free agents, and restram them from sin, accord- 
 ing to his pleasure, dreadful consequences may 
 ensue. The will of God may be crossed — the 
 good he aimed at in the creation be prevented — 
 irreparable disorders introduced. The friends 
 of virtue would be filled with lamentation. The 
 enemies of God and all good, would triumph 
 and exult. Is it not easy to see that this might 
 have been the terrible consequence, if it was not 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 129 
 
 absolutely in the power of God to govern free 
 agents?"— pp. 24, 25. 
 
 " We infer, that as God is able to restrain sin 
 among the apostate, rebellious, children of men, 
 Avho are under the dominion of powerful vicious 
 habits ; so we can much more easily conceive, 
 that he was able to have prevented sin in beings 
 made originally holy." — p. 27. 
 
 The theory of the New Kaven divines, in re- 
 lation to this subject, is the very theory which 
 has uniformly been maintained by Arminians in 
 their controversies with Calvinists. The grand 
 objection of Arminians to the Cahinistic doctrine 
 of the Divine Decrees, has been, that it involves 
 the position that God purposed or decreed the 
 existence of sin ; and when they have been ask- 
 ed, why God did not prevent the existence of sin, 
 unless it was, on the whole, his purpose that it 
 should exist? their reply has been invariably, in 
 substance, as follows; God could not have pie- 
 vented sin without destroying the moral agency 
 of his creatures; in other v/ords, he could not 
 have prevented all sin in a moral system. Thus 
 Mr. Fletcher, the distinguished advocate of the 
 Wesleyan system, represents the Divine Being as 
 saying, " I foresaw, indeed, that by such a final 
 contempt of my grace, many would bring de- 
 struction upon themselves ; but having wisely 
 decreed to make a world of probationers and 
 free agents, I could not necessarily incline their 
 will to obedience without robbing them of free 
 agency, without foolishly defeating the counsel 
 of my own v.-ill, and absurdly spoiling the work 
 of my own hands." Thus also, the author of 
 the " Errors of Ilopkinsianism," (an avowed Ar- 
 
130 ORIGIN AND I'ROGRESS 
 
 minian,) says, " No doubt but God sought the 
 greatest good of the universe, consistently with 
 liis own nature, and the nuture of man ; and con- 
 sistently with these natures, the greatest good is 
 obtained, because man refuses to have more. A 
 part of the human race choose death in the error 
 of their ways; and to have made man a neces- 
 sary agent, would have been to make him any 
 thing besides an intelligent creature. 
 
 The principle assumed by both of these wri- 
 ters, (and the same is true of Arminians gener- 
 ally,) is, that God could not have prevented the 
 existence of sin, without robbing man of free 
 agency, and making him a necessary agent. 
 The same ground is taken by the New Haven 
 divines. 
 
 Should it be said, that those who maintain 
 that God foreordained the existence of a moral 
 system with the foreknowledge that sin would be 
 necessarily incidental to it, do virtually maintain 
 that he decreed the existence of sin — I reply : 
 This view of the divine decrees, Arminians have 
 always been ready to admit ; but they have not 
 understood this to be the Calvinistic doctrine, 
 nor has it been so understood by Calvinists them- 
 selves. The doctrine which Calvinists have 
 maintained is, that the present system, is the best 
 conceivable system — that it is the very system 
 which God preferred to all others — and that not- 
 withstanding the sin and misery which it includes, 
 it will result in a higher display of the divine glory, 
 than any other system of which the infinite mind 
 could conceive. They have never supposed that 
 God was unable to secure universal holiness in 
 his moral kingdom ; but have uniformly main- 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 131 
 
 tained that he permitted sin to exist, because he 
 saw that he could so ov errule it, and counteract 
 its tendencies, as to render it conducive to the 
 highest good of the universe. They believe that 
 he can bring good out of evil, and light out of 
 darkness ; and that he will make the wrath of 
 man to praise him, and restrain the remainder. 
 They believe that his character is perfect — that 
 his plan is perfect — that his work is prefect, and 
 that nothing will ever be permitted to exist, which 
 was not included in his eternal purpose, and 
 which will not be rendered subservient to his 
 great and glorious designs. 
 
 Yours affectionately. 
 
LETTER, XIV. 
 
 Jlaich 23, 1837, 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 In ray last letter, i attempted to show the wide 
 difference between the views of the New Haven 
 divines and those of the standard orthodox wri- 
 ters of New England, in relation to the govern- 
 ment of God over the moral universe. The dif- 
 ference is no less palpable in regard to Original 
 Sin and Native Depravity, 
 
 The New Haven divines maintain that man- 
 kind come into the world with the same nature in 
 kind as that with which Adam was created — 
 that there is no natural or constitutional propen- 
 sity to sin; no hereditary corruption of nature 
 which is transmitted from parent to child, and 
 by consequence, that Adam was not the federal 
 head and representative of his posterity. They 
 maintain that infants sustain the same relation to 
 the moral government of God as brute animals ; 
 that they are in no sense sinners, and that death, 
 in their case, is not on account of sin. To be 
 consistent, they must, of course, maintain that 
 they do not need redemption or regeneration. 
 
NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 133 
 
 In proof of this statement, I refer to the fol- 
 lowing passages, out of many that might be 
 quoted : 
 
 ** But Mr. Harvey may retort the question 
 upon us, and ask, whence, upon our principles, 
 does man derive his moral nature? We answer, 
 without hesitation, from the hand of God who 
 made him." '* Every soul, as it enters on exist- 
 ence, is a production of creative power. He 
 who forms it, gives it from the first that nature or 
 constitution which prepares it for action when 
 placed in the appropriate circumstances of its 
 being. And as well might we affirm that it is 
 the nature of a stone to fall, and yet that God is 
 not the author of gravitation, as that nature is 
 itself sinful, and yet that God is not the author 
 of sin." " If Mr. Harvey chooses to maintain 
 that minds are propagated, and that sin is trans- 
 mitted in generation, it will only remove the dif- 
 ficulty one step further back. For, we ask, who 
 established the laws of propagation ? Can a 
 being come into existence of which God is not 
 the author ? Every soul, then, which becomes 
 united to a human body, has either existed from 
 eternity, or has been brought into existence by 
 God, and every thing pertaining to such a soul 
 which is not its * own act,' must of necessity 
 result from the act of the Creator." — Christian 
 Spectator for 1829, pp. 348, 349. 
 
 " Infants die. The answer has been given a 
 thousand times, brutes die also. But Mr. Har- 
 vey replies, ' animals are not subjects of the 
 moral government of God.' Neither are infants 
 previous to moral agency ; for what has moral 
 government to do with those who are not moral 
 12 
 
134 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 agents? Animals and infants, previous to moral 
 agency, do therefore, stand on precisely the same 
 ground in reference to this subject. Suffering 
 and death afford no more evidence of sin in one 
 case than in the other. — Id. p. 373. 
 
 " Did not vehement desire produce sin in 
 Adam's first act of transgression ? Was there 
 any previous principle of depravity in him 1 
 Why then may not strong constitutional desires 
 be followed now by a choice of their objects, as 
 well as in the case of Adam?" — Id. p. 3(56. 
 
 " If no being can sin, without a constitutional 
 propensity to sin, how came Adam to sin? If 
 one being, as Adam, can sin, and did in fact sin, 
 without such a propensity, why may not others?" 
 — Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. vi. p. 13. 
 
 " Mankind come into the world with the same 
 nature in kind as that with which Adam was 
 created." — Id. p. 5. 
 
 *' What influence has the fall exerted on the 
 posterity of Adam ? I answer, that it may have 
 been to change their nature, not in kind, but in 
 degree."— /d p. 12. 
 
 Compare the foregoing with the following ex- 
 tracts : 
 
 President Edwards. *' By original sin, as 
 the phrase has been most commonly used by 
 divines, is meant innate, sinful depravity of the 
 heart. But yet, when the doctrine of original 
 sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly understood in that 
 latitude, as to include not only the depravity of 
 nature, but the imputation of Adam's first sin, or 
 in other words, the liableness or exposedness of 
 Adam's posterity, in the divine judgment to par- 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 135 
 
 take of the punishment of that sin." — Treatise 
 on Original Sin, pp. 1, 2. 
 
 " The natural state of the mind of man is 
 attended with a propensity of nature, which is 
 prevalent and effectual to such an issue ; and, 
 therefore their nature is corrupt and depraved 
 with a moral depravity that amounts to and im- 
 plies their utter undoing. — Id. p. 9. 
 
 " We have the same evidence that the propen- 
 sity in this case lies in the nature of the subject, 
 and don't arise from any particular circumstan- 
 ces, as we have in any case whatsoever ; which 
 is only by the effects appearing to be the same in 
 all changes of time and place, and under all vari- 
 ations of circumstances. — Id. p. 23. 
 
 *' That propensity which has been proved to 
 be in the nature of all mankind must be a very 
 evil, depraved, and pernicious propensity ; ma- 
 king it manifest that the soul of man, as it is by 
 nature, is in a corrupt, fallen, and ruined state." 
 —Id. p. 27. 
 
 "In this place, (Job, xv. 14,) we are not only 
 told how wicked man's heart is, but also, how 
 men come by such wickedness ; even by being 
 of the race of mankind, by ordinary generation. 
 'Tis most plain that man being born of a woman 
 is the reason of his not being clean." " And 
 without doubt, David has respect to this same 
 way of derivation, when he says, (Psalm Ivii : 5,) 
 * Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did 
 my mother coneive me.' " — Id. pp. 191, 195. 
 
 But it is needless to quote from Edwards. 
 Any one who will read attentively his Treatise 
 on Original Sin, will perceive that it is irreconci- 
 
136 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 leably at variance with the system of the New 
 Haven divines. 
 
 Dr. Bellamy. " Adam was created in the 
 image of God ; it was co-natural to him to love 
 God with all his heart, and this v/ould have been 
 our case had he not rebelled against God ; but 
 now we are born devoid of the divine image, 
 have no heart for God, are transgressors from the 
 womb, by nature children of wrath." " We are 
 born into the world, not only destitute of a con- 
 formity to the law, but we are natively, diamet- 
 rically opposed to it in the temper of our hearts," 
 " If any should inquire, ' But can it be right 
 that Adam's sin should have any influence upon 
 us V I answer, it is a plain case that it actually 
 has, and we may depend upon it that the judge 
 of all the earth does right. And besides, why 
 may not God make Adam our public head and 
 representative, to act in our room, as he has 
 since, for our recovery, made his own son our 
 public head and representative." '' If he had 
 kept the covenant of his God, and secured hap- 
 piness to all his race, should we not forever have 
 blessed God for so good a constitution?" ''' And 
 if we should thus have approved this constitu- 
 tion, had Adam never sinned, why might we not 
 as justly approve it now, if \ve would be but dis- 
 interestedly partial ?" — Bellamy^ s ivorks, Vol. 1, 
 pp.201, 221. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins. *' By the constitution and cov- 
 enant with Adam, his first disobedience was the 
 disobedience of all mankind. That is, the sin 
 and consequent ruin of all the human race was, 
 by this constitution, infallibly connected with the 
 first sin of the head and father of the race. By 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY 137 
 
 the divine constitution, the appointment of God, 
 if the head and father of mankind sinned, the 
 whole race of men, all his posterity should sin, 
 and in this sense, it would be the sin of the whole. 
 Accordingly, when the head became a sinner, 
 and moral corruption took possession of the 
 heart, a sure foundation was laid by the constitu- 
 tion under which man was, for the same sin and 
 moral corruption to take place, and spread 
 through all the human race; just as by a divine 
 appointment, or law of nature, the sap of the 
 root or original stock of a tree, passes into the 
 numerous limbs, twigs, and fruit of the tree, as 
 they successively grow out of it." — (See the con- 
 nexion.) — Hopkin's System, Vol. 1, p. 250. 
 
 Dr. Dvvight. The thirty-second sermon in 
 his system of theology is entitled, " Human de- 
 pravity derived from Adam." In this sermon, 
 commenting on Romans v. 12, 19, he says, " The 
 meaning of these passages is, I think, plainly the 
 following : that by means of the offence or trans- 
 gression of Adam, the judgment or sentence of 
 God came upon all men unto condemnation, be- 
 cause, and solely because, all men in that state of 
 things which was constituted in consequence of 
 the transgression of Adam, became sinners." 
 He says also, " It cannot, I think, be questioned, 
 that Moses intended to inform us that Seth was 
 begotten in the moral likeness of Adam after his 
 apostacy, and sustained from his birth a moral 
 character similar to that which his two brothers, 
 Cain and Abel, also sustained. This view of 
 the subject appears plainly to have been adopted 
 by Job, when he asks, ' who can bring a clean 
 thing out of an unclean? Not one.' (Job xiv. 4.) 
 12^ 
 
133 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 By Bildad, when he asks, ' how then can man 
 be justified with God, or how can he be clean 
 that is born of a woman?' (xxv. 4.) By David, 
 when he says, (Psahii, li. 5.) * behold I was sha- 
 pen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother con- 
 ceive me.' And by Paul, when he says, * as we 
 have borne the image of the earthy, (Adam) so 
 we shall also bear the image of the heavenly 
 (Adam) (1 Cor. xv. 49.) But if Seth, Cain, and 
 Abel derived their corruption from the apostacy 
 of their parents, then it is true, not only that 
 their corruption, but that of all mankind, exists 
 in consequence of the apostacy." 
 
 Dr. Smalley. " We are not condemned 
 being innocent. We were born sinners — we 
 were conceived sinners, and as such only are con- 
 demned. We did not make ourselves sinners, 
 it is true, by any bad conduct before we were 
 inclined to sin — but no more did Adam. He 
 was condemned only for being a sinner, and 
 committing sin, and just so is every one of us. 
 Only as, according to a divine constitution, 
 founded in sovereign wisdom entirely, the trial 
 of human nature in innocence was in Adam 
 alone, (either including or exclusively of Eve,) so 
 it may with propriety be said, " By the offence of 
 one, judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
 tion ;" for had he persevered in obedience, the 
 justification of life would have come upon all on 
 account of his righteousness. It is agreeable to 
 common sense, and seems plainly supposed in 
 several texts and doctrines of scripture, that de- 
 pravity of nature must be antecedent to all sinful 
 actions, and the cause of them. But if so, there 
 may be a wicked heart prior to knowledge. There 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 139 
 
 may be a propensity to sinful actions in a child, 
 before it come to years to choose the evil, and 
 refuse the good. This may be in us as early as 
 we have souls." — Smallcy' s Sermons, Sc7'mon 11. 
 (See the whole Sermon.) 
 
 Dr. Griffin. " By the tirst creation or birth, 
 mankind are united to the first Adam, and inher- 
 it the character which he possessed immediately 
 after the fall : until, by a second creation or birth, 
 they are united to the second Adam, and become 
 partakers of his holiness." *' Here is a wonder 
 to be accounted for — sin tainting every individ- 
 ual of Adam's race, in every age, country, and 
 condition, and surviving in every he:;rt, all exer- 
 tions to destroy it. One would think this might 
 prove, if any thing could prove, that sin belongs 
 to the nature of man as much as reason or speech, 
 (though in a sense altogether compatible with 
 blame,) and must be derived, like other universal 
 attributes of our nature, from the original pa- 
 rent, propagated precisely like reason and 
 speech, (neither of which is exercised at first,) 
 propagated like many other propensities, mental 
 as well as bodily, which certainly are inherited 
 from parents, propagated like the noxious nature 
 of other animals." — Park Street Lectiircs, pp. 
 11, 12, 13. 
 
 Andover Confession of Faith. " Adam, 
 the federal head and representative of the human 
 race, was placed in a state of probation, and in 
 consequence of his disobedience, all his descend- 
 ants are constituted sinners, and by nature every 
 man is personally depraved." 
 
 Dr. Woods. — " I inquire whether Adam's sin 
 effects his posterity in this way, viz: that by a 
 
140 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 special divine constitution they are, in conse- 
 quence of his fall, born in a state of moral de- 
 pravity leading to certain ruin; or that, accord- 
 ing to the common law of descent, they are par- 
 takers of a corrupt nature, the offspring being 
 like the parent; and that suffering and death 
 come upon them, not as personally innocent and 
 pure, but as depraved and sinful beings. This 
 opinion is maintained by Calvin, Edwards, 
 Dwight, and orthodox divines generally. And 
 this is the view of the subject which I consider 
 as more conformable to the word of God, and to 
 facts, than any other. As to those who deny the 
 doctrine of native depravity, and the doctrine of 
 imputation, and hold the doctrine of John Tay- 
 lor and the Unitarians, and yet profess to believe 
 that we are depraved and ruined in consequence 
 of Adam's sin, I am at a loss to know what their 
 belief amounts to. They say Adam's sin had an 
 influence, but they deny all the conceivable ways 
 in which it could have an influence and particu- 
 larly the ways which are most clearly brought to 
 view in Rom. v, and in other parts of Scripture. 
 If I am asked whether 1 hold the doctrine of 
 imputation my reply must depend on the mean- 
 ing you give to the word. Just make the ques- 
 tion definite by substituting the explanation for 
 the word, and an answer will be easy. Do you 
 then mean what Stapfer, and Edwards, and many 
 others mean, viz: that for God to give Adam a 
 posterity like himself and to impute his sin to 
 them, is one and the same thing. Then my an- 
 swer is, that God did, in this sense impute Adam's 
 sin to his posterity. This is the very thing im- 
 plied in the doctrine of native depravity. By the 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 141 
 
 doctrine of imputation, do you mean that Adam's 
 sin was the occasion of our ruin; that it was the 
 distant, though real cause of our condemnation 
 and death? I consider the doctrine, thus under- 
 stood, to be according to scripture. Do you 
 mean that we are guilty, that is, (according to the 
 true original meaning of the word,) exposed to 
 suffering on account of Adam's sin ? In this 
 view, too, I think the doctrine scriptural. But if 
 the doctrine of imputation means, that for Adam's 
 sin alone God inflicts the penalty of the law upon 
 any one of his posterity, they themselves being 
 perfectly sinless, then the doctrine, in my view, 
 wants proof There appears to be no such place 
 for such a doctrine, seeing all Adam's posterity 
 are, from the first morally depraved. And if 
 they are allowed to be so, I know not why any 
 one should think that God, makes no account of 
 their depravity, in the sufferings which he brings 
 upon them." — Essay on Native Depravity, pp. 
 186—188. 
 
 It would be easy to multiply quotations — but 
 it cannot surely be necessary. There may have 
 been a shade of difference among New England 
 divines in their views of original sin. But so far 
 as I have known, all who have claimed to be 
 Calvinists, (until the Nev/ Haven divines arose,) 
 have maintained that Adam is the federal head 
 and representative of his posterity, the covenant 
 was made with him, not only for himself, but his 
 posterity, that a condition of the covenant was, 
 that if he persevered in holiness, he should be the 
 progenitor of a holy race, and if he apostatized, 
 he should be the progenitor of an unholy race, 
 and that all mankind come into the world in a 
 
143 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 
 
 State of condemnation, and that none can be sav- 
 ed without regeneration and redemption by the 
 blood of Christ. How widely these views differ 
 from those maintained by the New Haven divines, 
 is sufficiently apparent from extracts from their 
 writings in this, and previous letters. 
 
 Yours affectionately. 
 
LETTER XV. 
 
 April 26, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 The v'ievvs of the New Haven divines in rela- 
 tion to the doctrine of regeneration, differ wide- 
 ly from those which have been maintained by 
 New England Calvinists. They maintain that 
 the term regeneration is to be understood in two 
 senses — the theological and popular sense. In the 
 first sense, it denotes a change in the governing 
 purpose of the mind, and is that act of the will or 
 heart, by which the sinner, prompted by self-love, 
 chooses God as his portion or chief good. In the 
 last, or popular sense, it denotes a process or series 
 of acts and states of mind, and includes all those 
 acts which they denominate " using the means 
 of regeneration." They maintain that antece- 
 dent to regeneration, in the restricted, or theolo- 
 gical sense, the selfish principle is suspended in 
 the sinner's heart, that the sinner then ceases to 
 sin, and is in a state of neutrality, and that in 
 this state, he uses the means of regeneration with 
 motives which are neither right nor wrong — he 
 takes into solemn consideration the question 
 
144 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 whether the highest happiness is to be found in 
 God or in the world — he pursues this inquiry, 
 till it results in the conviction that such happi- 
 ness is to be found in God only. He follows up 
 the conviction with engrossing contemplation, 
 till he discovers an excellence in divine objects 
 which excites him to make desperate efforts to 
 give his heart to God, and in this process of 
 thought, of effort, and of action, he preseveres 
 till it results in a change of heart. Thus they, 
 in fact, represent regeneration as a gradual and 
 progressive work. They also maintain that the 
 sinner may so resist the grace of God, as to ren- 
 der it impossible for God to convert him. 
 
 The following quotations will exhibit their 
 views on this subject. 
 
 " Regeneration considered as a moral change 
 of which man is the subject, giving God the 
 he^rt — making a new heart — loving God su- 
 premely, &/C. are terms and phrases, which, in 
 popular use, denote a complex act. Each, in 
 popular use, denotes what, in a more analytical 
 mode of speaking, may be viewed and described 
 as made up of several particular acts and states 
 of mind, or a series of such acts and states.'^ 
 " When we speak of the means of regeneration, 
 we shall use the word regeneration in a more 
 limited import than its ordinary popular import, 
 and shall confine it chiefly, for the sake of con- 
 venient phraseology, to the act of the will or 
 heart, in distinction from other mental acts con- 
 nected with it, or to that act of the will or heart 
 which consists in a preference of God to every 
 other object, or to that disposition of heart, or 
 governing affection or purpose of the man, which 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 145 
 
 consecrates him to the service of God." *'We 
 proceed to say, then-, that before the act of the 
 will or heart, in which the sinner first prefers 
 God to every other object, the object of the pre- 
 ference must be viewed or estimated as the great- 
 est good. Before the object can be viewed as 
 the greatest good, it must be compared with 
 other objects, as both are sources or means of 
 good. Before this act of comparing, there must 
 be an act dictated, not by selfishness, but by self 
 love, in which the mind determines to direct its 
 thoughts to the objects for the sake of consid- 
 ering their relative value, of forming a judgment 
 respecting it, and of choosing the one or the 
 other as the chief good." " Divine truth does 
 not become a means to this end, until the selfish 
 principle, so long cherished in the heart, is sus- 
 pended ; and the mind is left to the control of 
 that constitutional desire for happiness, which is 
 an original principle of our nature." *' Let the 
 sinner, then, as a being who loves happiness and 
 desires the highest degree of it, under the influ- 
 ence of such a desire, take into solemn consid- 
 eration the question whether the highest happi- 
 ness is to be found in God or in the world ; let 
 him pursue this inquiry, if need be, till it result 
 in the conviction that such happiness is to be 
 found in God only ; and let him follow up this 
 conviction with that intent and engrossing con- 
 templation of the realities which truth discloses, 
 and with that stirring up of his sensibilities in 
 view of them, which shall invest the world, when 
 considered as his only portion, with an aspect of 
 insignificance, of gloom, and even of terror, and 
 which shall chill and suspend his present active 
 13 
 
146 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 love of it ; and let the contemplation be perse- 
 vered in, till it shall discover a reality and excel- 
 lence in the objects of holy affection, which shall 
 put him upon direct and desperate efforts to fix 
 his heart upon them; and let this process of 
 thought, of effort, and of action, be entered upon 
 as one which is never to be abandoned until the 
 end proposed by it is accomplished — until the 
 only living and true God is loved and chosen, as 
 his God forever ; and we say, that in this way the 
 work of his regeneration, through grace, may be 
 accomplished." " God tells the sinner, that it is 
 better to obey than to disobey him. The thought 
 conveyed in the mind of the sinner is an arrow 
 in his sentient nature. It penetrates, it fastens, 
 it is felt. The appropriate tendency of the feel- 
 ings is to the voluntary act of sober, solemn con- 
 sideration. This act the sinner has power to do 
 or to avoid. And here the mental process of us- 
 ing the means of regeneration, either begins or 
 does not begin. If he thus considers, it begins, 
 and nov/ the appropriate tendency of considera- 
 tion is to deepen emotion ; and thus, by the mu- 
 tual influence of thought and feeling, the ten- 
 dency of the mind to that entire mental process 
 which we have described, and the tendency of 
 the process to a change of heart become undeni- 
 able, and conspicuous in human consciousness." 
 —Ch. Spec, for 1829, pp. 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 33, 
 227. 
 
 "As to those who hold to the infusion of 
 something into the soul previous, either in the 
 order of time or of nature, to the first right af- 
 fection, and as a sort of fountain from which 
 such affection is to flow, we would only say, that 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 147 
 
 although we do not impute to them the blasphe- 
 my, yet we cannot wholly acquit them of the ab- 
 surdity of Gibbon, who, in pretending to de- 
 scribe the manner in which the primitive teach- 
 ers of Christianity were inspired, says, they were 
 mere organs of the Holy Spirit, just as a pipe or 
 flute is of him who blows into it." — Ch. Spec, 
 for 1833, p. 3G1. 
 
 " I do not believe that the grace of God can 
 be truly said to be irresistible, in the primary and 
 proper sense of this term. But I do believe that 
 in all cases it may be resisted by man as a free, 
 moral agent." — Dr. Taylor's letter to Dr. 
 Halves. 
 
 " The means of reclaiming grace, which meet 
 him in the word and Spirit of God, are those by 
 which the Father draws, induces, just such sin- 
 ners as himself, voluntarily to submit to Christ ; 
 and these means all favor the act of his immedi- 
 ate submission. To this influence he can yield, 
 and thus be drawn by the Father. This influence 
 he can resist, and thus harden his heart against 
 God."— C/<. Spec, for 1831, p. 637. 
 
 " Free moral agents can do wronor under all 
 possible preventing influence." " What finite 
 being, then, we ask, can know that a universe of 
 free agents, who possess, of course, the power 
 of sinning, could have been held back from the 
 exercise of that power, in every possible con- 
 junction of circumstances, even by all the influ- 
 ences to obedience which God can exert upon 
 them without destroying their freedom." — Ch. 
 Spec, for 1830, p. 563. 
 
 Compare the foregoing with the following ex- 
 tracts. 
 
148 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 President Edwards. *' The nature of vir- 
 tue being a positive thing, can proceed from no- 
 thing but God's immediate influence and must 
 take its rise from creation or infusion by God. 
 For it must be either from that, or from our own 
 choice and production, either at once, or gradu- 
 ally by culture. But it cannot begin, or take its 
 rise from the latter, viz, our choice or volunta-^ 
 ry diligence. For if there exists nothing at all 
 of the nature of virtue before, it cannot come 
 from cultivation ; for by the supposition, there is 
 ■nothing of the nature of virtue to cultivate. 
 The first virtuous choice, or a disposition to it, 
 must be immediately given, or it must proceed 
 from a preceding choice. If the first virtuous 
 act of will or choice, be from a preceding act of 
 will or choice, that preceding act of choice must 
 be a virtuous act of choice, which is contrary to 
 the supposition." " As to man's inability to con- 
 vert himself In them that are totally corrupt, 
 there can be no tendency towards their making 
 their hearts better, till they begin to repent of 
 the badness of their hearts. For if they do not 
 repent they still approve of it, and that tends to 
 maintain their badness and confirm it. The heart 
 can have no tendency to make itself better, till 
 it begins to have a better tendency ; for therein 
 consists its badness, viz. its having no good ten- 
 dency or inclination. And to begin to have a 
 good tendency, or which is the same thing, a 
 tendency and inclination to be better, is the 
 same thing as to begin already to be better." 
 '* The first virtue v/e have, certainly does not 
 arise from virtuous endeavors preceding that first 
 virtue. For that is to suppose virtue before the 
 
OP NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 149 
 
 first virtue. If the answer be, that they are no 
 good endeavors, they have nothing at ail of the 
 nature of the exercise of any good disposition, 
 or any good aim and intention, or of any virtu- 
 ous sincerity ; I ask what tendency can such ef- 
 forts of the mind, as are wholly empty of all 
 goodness, have to produce true moral goodness 
 in the heart?" "Conversion is a work that is 
 done at once and not gradually." "Those who 
 deny infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit, must, 
 of necessity, deny the Spirit to do any thing at 
 all." " The questions relating to efficacious 
 grace, controverted between us and the Armini- 
 ans, are two : 1, whether the grace of God in 
 giving us saving virtue, be determined and deci- 
 sive. 2, whether saving virtue be decisively 
 given by a supernatural and sovereign operation 
 of the Spirit of God." " The dispute about 
 grace, being resistible or irresistible, is perfect 
 nonsense. For the effect of grace is upon the 
 will ; so that it is nonsense, except it be proper 
 to say that a man with his will can resist his own 
 will ; that is, except it be possible for a man to 
 will a thing and not w^ill it at the same time." — 
 EdicarcVs Remarks, pp. 182, 217, 218, 223, 224, 
 255, 275. 
 
 Dr. Dwight. " In regeneration, the very 
 same thing is done by the Spirit of God for the 
 soul, which was done for Adam by the same di- 
 vine agent at his creation. The soul of man was 
 created with a relish for spiritual objects. The 
 soul of every man, who becomes a Christian, is 
 renewed by the communication of the same rel- 
 ish." " The carnal mind, that is the original, 
 natural disposition of man is enmity against 
 13* 
 
150 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 God, not subject' to his law, neither indeed can 
 be. Before this change, therefore, there is no 
 holiness in the character — no relish for spiritual 
 good — no exercise of virtuous volition — no pur- 
 suit of virtuous conduct. AH these things begin 
 to be chosen, and to be practiced, after they begin 
 to be relished, and the first relish for them ex- 
 ists in this renovation of the mind." " This 
 change is instantaneous. This position has been 
 as much controverted as any of those advanced 
 in this discourse ; but, as it seems to me, with 
 no solid support either from reason or revelation. 
 The scheme of those who oppose this doctrine 
 appears generally to be this ; the subject of re- 
 generation is supposed to begin at some time or 
 other, to turn his attention to spiritual concerns. 
 He begins seriously to think on them ; to read con- 
 cerning them ; to dwell upon them in the house of 
 God, in his meditations, in his closet, and in his 
 conversation. By degrees he gains a more 
 thorough acquaintance with the guilt and danger 
 of sin, and the importance of holiness, pardon, ac- 
 ceptance, and salvation. By degrees, also, he re- 
 nounces one sinful practice and propensity after 
 another, andthus finally arrives at a neutral char- 
 acter, in which he is neither a sinner, in the abso- 
 lute sense, nor yet a Christian. Advancing from 
 this stage, he begins, at length, to entertain, in a 
 small degree, virtuous affections, and to adopt 
 virtuous conduct ; and thus proceeds from one 
 virtuous attainment to another, while he lives. 
 Some of the facts here supposed, taken sepa- 
 rately, are real ; for some of them undoubtedly 
 take place in the minds, and lives of those who 
 become religious men. But the whole consider- 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 151 
 
 ed together, and as a scheme concerning this 
 subject, is, in my view, entirely erroneous." 
 " There is a period, in which every man who be- 
 comes holy, at first becomes holy. At a period, 
 immediately antecedent to this, whenever it takes 
 place, he was not holy. The commencement of 
 holiness in his mind was, therefore, instantane- 
 ous : or it bejran to exist at some given moment 
 of time. Nor is it in the nature of things pos- 
 sible, that it should be otherwise." — Dicighfs 
 Theology, Vol 2, pp. 419, 420, 424. 
 
 Dr. Smalley. " Regeneration is such an es- 
 sential change of nature, as supposes something 
 created in a proper and strict sense. It is ex- 
 pressly spoken of under the nanxe and notion of 
 a creation in a number of places. Eph. iv. 24. 
 " The new man which after God is created in 
 righteousness and true holiness." Col. iii. 10. 
 '* The new man which is renewed in knowledge 
 after the image of him who created him." And 
 .2 Cor. v. 17. *' If any man be in Christ he is 
 a new creature." We may also observe, that 
 most if not all other phrases, by which this 
 change is expressed, plainly convey the same idea 
 of it, and of the manner in which it is effected." 
 " If it be true that man is by nature totally de- 
 praved in the spirit of the mind, it is a plain case 
 that the beginning of holiness in him, can be no 
 otherwise than by a new creation. When spirit- 
 ual life is once begun in the soul, in however low 
 a degree, it may be preserved and inci eased by 
 moral means. But the first production of the 
 radical principle of life, can no more be the ef- 
 fect of any second cause, than the first root or 
 seed of any plant or tree, could have been pro- 
 
152 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 duced by rain, sunshine, and cultivation. Those 
 who hold that regeneration is effected by the 
 moral power of light and truth, either leave true 
 holiness wholly out of the account from the first 
 to last, or suppose mankind not totally destitute 
 of it by nature ; or else talk in a manner alto- 
 gether inconsistent." 
 
 Dr. Strong. " Regeneration is that change 
 from which holy exercises proceed, and is there- 
 fore the beginning of spiritual life in the soul. 
 It is the beginning of that moral conformity to 
 God which is the true preparation for heaven 
 and its blessedness." *' It is not the modification 
 of any moral principle, which previously existed 
 in the mind, but the production of one that is 
 new. The heart or the will and affections are 
 the seat of this change ; therefore, the increase 
 of doctrinal or speculative knowledge, be the de- 
 gree ever so great, hath no tendency to regener- 
 ate a person. Doctrinal light hath its seat in the 
 understanding, and it is contrary to all experi- 
 ence, that more knowledge of an object to which 
 the heart or will is, from its very nature oppos- 
 ed, will change the opposition into love. We 
 may know this from the objects of love and ha- 
 tred, which daily occur in the experience of life. 
 If the taste of the mind be opposed to the nature 
 of an object, the more the object is seen, the 
 more an opposing taste will exert itself, the divine 
 action in regenerating an unholy soul is, there- 
 fore, on the heart or will and affections. What 
 we call a new moral principle, may also be called 
 a new taste, relish, temper, disposition, or habit 
 of feeling respecting moral objects and truth." 
 
 Dr. Backus. " From the account of this 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY, 
 
 153 
 
 change which hath been taken from the word of 
 truth, it appears tliat God operateth on the heart 
 by the Spirit, previously to its holy exertions, 
 and that all its exercises are the effects of this 
 divine operation." " The heart or the temper 
 of the mind is changed in regeneration. The 
 design of it is, to restore the holy temper which 
 was lost by the npostacy." " Regeneration is an 
 instantaneous change. There can be no point 
 in which one is neither in a renewed nor an un- 
 renewed state ; and therefore, when the new heart 
 is given, it must be given in an instant." *' The 
 more attentively we examine the doctrine of pro- 
 gressive regeneration, the more fully it will ap- 
 pear that it is built on principles which deny the 
 full extent of man's depravity." — Backus on Re- 
 generation, pp. 15, 20, 25. 
 
 Dr. Griffin. " Yielding then to the point 
 that man is an enemy to God till the change is 
 complete, it may yet be asked, is not that enmity 
 gradually weakened ? It cannot be radically 
 weakened till its cause is weakened, which is su- 
 preme self-love, (or more generally the love of 
 the creature, for the social affections, too, may 
 set up their objects in opposition,) struggling 
 against the law and administration of God. But 
 the love of the creature, in which self-love is in- 
 cluded, cannot be weakened before the love of 
 God is introduced." " In every view, then, it 
 appears that there can be no approaches towards 
 regeneration in the antecedent temper of the 
 heart. The moment before the change, the sin- 
 ner is as far from sanctification as darkness is 
 from light, as sin is from holiness." " What is 
 the character of the natural heart ? And what 
 
154 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 is holiness ? are the two questions, which on this 
 subject must divide the world. For if holiness 
 is a simple principle, and first introduced in re- 
 generation, especially, if it is a principle of su- 
 preme love to God, following supreme selfishness, 
 nothing can be plainer than that the change is as 
 sudden as the first drop that falls into a vessel, or 
 the first ray that penetrates a dungeon." — Park 
 Street Lectures, pp. 93, 97, 101. 
 
 Dr. Woods. " The renewal of sinners is 
 effected by divine power. The scripture teaches 
 this in a variety of ways. It represents that be- 
 lievers are God's workmanship, that they are 
 born of God ; that he quickens them, that he 
 gives them a new heart, turns them from sin, and 
 makes them obedient and holy. It ascribes to 
 God, as the supreme cause, every particular thing 
 which constitutes the character of Christians. 
 This conception of the divine power in regene- 
 ration is plain and simple. We look at holiness 
 in man and ascribe it to God as its cause. The 
 view we take of this new spiritual creation is just 
 as simple and obvious as of the natural creation. 
 The heavens and the earth which once did not 
 exist, but which now exist before our eyes, are 
 effects flowing from the operation of God's pow- 
 er. He created them. They exist in conse- 
 quence of the act of his will. There that which 
 is proclaimed is material, or physical ; in the 
 other case spiritual, or moral ; things in their na- 
 ture altogether different from each other, but 
 equally effects, resulting from the operation of 
 divine power ; so that the honor of renewing 
 sinners is due to God, as really and directly, as 
 the honor of creating the world. This is a prac- 
 
OP NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 155 
 
 tical truth, taught clearly in the scriptures, and 
 impressed upon the hearts of all Christians, and 
 impressed more and more deeply as they advance 
 in the divine life." " How can it be supposed 
 that such a change results from any thing in man 1 
 If we should suppose this, we should quickly 
 find our supposition contradicted by the word of 
 God, and should be taught that our reliance must 
 be, ' not on him that willeth nor on him that 
 runneth, but on God who showeth mercy.' " 
 " The renewal of sinners is exercised in a sove- 
 reign manner. By this is meant that those who 
 are regenerated by divine power, are no more de- 
 serving of the favor bestowed upon them, and of 
 themselves no more inclined to turn from their 
 sins, than those who are left to perish. The rea- 
 son why one man is renewed, rather than others, 
 cannot be found in any attribute of his character, 
 or in any exercise of his understanding, his af- 
 fections, or his will. Unquestionably God, who 
 is infinitely wise, has a good reason for all that 
 he does. But the reason of his conduct in this 
 case, as in many others, lies in his own mind." — > 
 Doctrinal Tracts, No. 19. 
 
 These extracts afford a fair specimen of the 
 views which are entertained by the great mass of 
 New England ministers on this subject. 
 
 Yours affectionately. 
 
LETTER XVI. 
 
 May 16, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 The views entertained by the New Haven 
 divines respecting the influence of self-love, are 
 entirely at variance with what has been denomi- 
 nated New England Divinity. According to 
 them, all moral action, whether holy or sinful, is 
 prompted by self-love, or the desire of happiness ; 
 in other words, every moral being makes his own 
 happiness his ultimate end. Thus they virtual- 
 ly destroy the radical distinction between holi- 
 ness and sin, making them both proceed from the 
 same principle of action. While the sinner 
 chooses the world for his portion or chief good 
 from a regard to his own happiness, the saint 
 chooses God for his portion or chief good for the 
 same reason. The distinction of course between 
 the saint and the sinner, consists, not in their 
 having different ultimate ends, but in their adopt- 
 ing different means to obtain the same ultimate 
 end. Their language is : 
 
 " There is no more difficulty in accounting 
 for the fact, that the yielding sinner supremely 
 loves God, from the impulse of a regard to his 
 
NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 157 
 
 own happiness, than there is in explaining the 
 opposite fact, of his having formerly, under the 
 influence of the same principle, when perverted, 
 supremely loved his idols ; which, though con- 
 trary to his reason and conscience, his heart 
 wickedly preferred as his highest good. The 
 self-love that was previously in servitude to his 
 selfish inclinations, and perverted by their unhal- 
 lowed influence, now breaks away from that ser- 
 vitude, as his soul, under the power of light and 
 motives rendered effectual by the Holy Ghost, is 
 made to see and feel where its true interest lies. 
 And no sooner is this duty seen and felt, through 
 the influence of the Spirit, than the man who is 
 so constituted that he must have a regard to what 
 he views as his own highest good, at once 
 chooses Christ and his service as the means of 
 securing it." — Christian Sjjcctator, fur iSo'^,"^^. 
 357, 35S. 
 
 *' This self-love, or desire of happiness is the 
 primary cause or reason of all acts of preference, 
 or choice, which fix supremely on any object. 
 In every moral being who forms a moral charac- 
 ter, there must be a first moral act of preference 
 or choice. This must respect some one object, 
 God, or Mammon, as the chief good, or as an 
 object of supreme affection. Now, whence 
 comes such a choice or preference? Not from 
 a previous choice or preference of the same ob- 
 ject, for we speak of the Jirst choice of the ob- 
 ject. The answer which human consciousness 
 gives, is that the being constituted with a capa- 
 city for happiness desires to be happy ; and 
 knowing that he is capable of deriving happiness 
 from different objects, considers from which the 
 14 
 
158 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 greatest happiness may be derived, and as in this 
 respect he judges or estimates their relative value^ 
 so he chooses or prefers, one or the other as his 
 chiefgood."— J^./or 1829, p. 21. 
 
 " Of all specific voluntary action, the happi- 
 ness of the agent, in some form, is the ultimate 
 end.'' Id. p. 24. *' In this process, the sinner, 
 from the desire of happiness, turns his thoughts 
 to the decisions and discoveries of eternal truth. 
 He sees and feels that the world, taken as his 
 portion in this life, brings with it eternal torment 
 in the next. Through the dread of the misery 
 connected with it, this object of affection loses 
 its attractions, and is, as the case may be, so 
 overcast with gloominess, that his active love 
 and pursuit of it ceases. Now too, he sees that 
 the supreme good is in God, only ; and there is 
 a desirableness surpassing what belongs to all 
 things beside, in becoming a child and heir of 
 God."— /^. p. 33. 
 
 ** While self-love awakens intense desires to 
 comply with the terms of mercy, while it power- 
 fully and successfully prompts the mind to look 
 toward the only object of supreme affection, that 
 the heart may fix upon it, still the object is too 
 dimly seen — still however it is to be remembered 
 that the sinner, disgusted with the former idols 
 of his heart, and feeling deeply his exposure to 
 the wrath of God, strongly desires, be the ap- 
 pointed means what they may, to escape the 
 dreadful doom ; that he is willing to fix, and does 
 in fact fix the eye of contemplation upon the ob- 
 ject of holy affection, and does with such glimp- 
 ses of its glories as he may obtain, feel their 
 attractions, and summon his heart to that love of 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 159 
 
 God, his Saviour, which is the only condition of 
 his mercy."— /r/. pp. 230, 231. 
 
 Compare these with the following extracts : 
 President Edwards. ** The first objective 
 ground of gracious affections, is the transcend- 
 antly excellent and amiable nature of divine 
 things, as they are in themselves, and not any 
 conceived relation they bear to self or self inter- 
 est. Some say that divine love arises from self- 
 love, and that it is impossible in the nature of 
 things for any man to love God, or any other 
 being, but that love to himself must be the foun- 
 dation of it. But I humbly suppose, it is for 
 want of consideration they say so. They argue 
 that whoever loves God, and so desires his glory, 
 or the enjoyment of him, desires these things as 
 his own happiness ; the glory of God, and the 
 beholding and the enjoying of his perfections, 
 are considered as things agreeable to him, tending 
 to make him happy. And so they say, it is through 
 self-love, or a desire of his own happiness, that 
 he desires God should be glorified, and desires to 
 behold and enjoy his glorious perfections. There 
 is no doubt, but that after God's glory and be- 
 holding his perfections, are becoming agreeable 
 to him, he will desire them as he desires his own 
 happiness. But how came these things to be so 
 very agreeable to him, that he esteems it his 
 highest happiness to glorify God? &c. Is not 
 this the fruit of love? Must not a man first love 
 God, or have his heart united to him before he 
 will esteem God's good his own, and before he 
 will desire the glorifying and enjoying of God as 
 liis happiness? It is not strong arguing, because 
 after a man has his heart united to God in love, 
 
160 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 and, as a fruit of this, he desires his glory and 
 enjoyment as his own happiness, that therefore, 
 a desire of this happiness must needs be the 
 cause and foundation of his love, unless it be 
 strong arguing that because a father begat a son, 
 therefore his son certainly begat him." — Ed- 
 ward's works, Vol. v., pp. 129 — 140. 
 
 David Brainerd. " These things I saw with 
 great clearness when I was thought to be dying, 
 and God gave me great concern for his church 
 and interest in the world at this time. Not so 
 much, because the late remarkable influence 
 upon the minds of the people was abated and 
 almost wholly gone, as because the false religion, 
 the heats of imagination, and wild and selfish 
 commotions of the animal affections, which 
 attended the work of grace had prevailed so far. 
 This was that which my mind dwelt upon day 
 and night, and this to me was the darkest appear- 
 ance respecting religion in the land. For it was 
 this chiefly that had prejudiced the world against 
 inward religion. This I saw was the greatest 
 misery of all, that so few saw any manner of 
 difference between those exercises which are 
 spiritual and holy, and those which have self-love 
 for their beginning, centre and end.'' — JBrainerd' s 
 Life, p. 498. 
 
 Dr. Bellamy. "It is true, many a carnal 
 mind is ravished to think that God loves him, 
 and will save him ; but in this case, it is not the 
 true character of God which charms the heart ; 
 it is not God that is loved. Strictly speaking, he 
 only loves himself. And self-love is the only 
 source of all his affections. Or, if we call it 
 love to God, it is of no other kind than sinners 
 feel to one another. For sinners love those that 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 161 
 
 love them'' — Bellamy's works^ Vol. II. p. 507. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins. "From this scriptural and ra- 
 tional view of disinterested affection, in which 
 all true virtue, piety and charity consist, may.be 
 seen what a great and dangerous mistake they 
 have made who suppose there is no virtue or true 
 religion, but that which consists in self-love, or 
 originates from it, and that no man ever acts, or 
 can act from any other principle, whatever he 
 may think or pretend. Surely, these ' call evil 
 good, and good evil ; put darkness for light, and 
 light for darkness ; bitter for sweet, and sweet 
 for bitter.' They call that virtue and goodness 
 which is directly opposed to all true virtue and 
 goodness, and in which all moral evil consists." 
 — Hopkins's System, Vol. I. p. 477. 
 
 Dr. Smalley. " Selfishness is so universally 
 condemned, and so much is said in the scriptures 
 against self-seeking, that one would think no 
 labored proof were necessary to convince any 
 man who believes the Bible, or any man of 
 common sense, whether he believes the Bible, 
 or not, that self-love cannot be the prima- 
 ry source of all true virtue and religion. Yet,, 
 however strange, so it is, many great philoso- 
 phers, and some learned divines, have been pro- 
 fessedly of opinion that the best actions of good 
 men, and their most virtuous affections, proceed 
 from a mere regard to themselves, as their first 
 principle and last end. They think that a well 
 regulated self-love will influence a man to what- 
 soever things are honest, amiable, or of good 
 report ; though a misguided self-love often leads 
 men into the reverse of all these. That as, 
 whenever we transgress the rule of right, it is 
 14* 
 
162 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 from a wrong idea of our own interest, so when 
 we conform to that rule, it is only with a view to 
 our own interest rightly understood. Accord- 
 ingly they suppose, as one of their poets hath 
 said, ' self-love and social are the same.' And sev- 
 eral systems of divinity widely different in other 
 respects, agree in this, that all religion, at bot- 
 tom, is nothing but self-love." *' Indeed to sup- 
 pose self the primary principle, and only ultimate 
 end of the virtuous and good, is obviously to con- 
 found all real distinction between the best and 
 the worst of characters. All men, and undoubt-. 
 edly devils, also, have self-love enough ; and are 
 capable of all those actions and affections which 
 have this only for their basis. If therefore, this, 
 were the bottom principle in the virtuous ancJ 
 good, it is plain there would be no essential dif-^ 
 ference of character between saints and sinners, 
 or between the angels of heaven, and devils in 
 hell. All the difference woxAdhe circumstantial ; 
 arising from the different conditions in which 
 they are placed, the different treatment they re- 
 ceive, and the different ideas they have of the 
 disposition of other beings towards them, or of 
 their own interest." — Smallci/'s Sermons, pp. 115, 
 116, 118, 119. 
 
 Dr. Griffin. " While the wicked place their 
 whole happiness in gratifying affections which 
 terminate in themselves or a limited circle, the 
 right things, in which the good place their high- 
 est happiness, (I suppose it will not be denied,) 
 are the glory of God, and the prosperity of his 
 kingdom. Now I ask, is the satisfaction which 
 they hope to derive to themselves from that good, 
 or the good itself, their supreme object? Do they, 
 rejoice more in the reflection that they (rather 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 163 
 
 than others,) shall enjui/ the sight of God's 
 glory, than that God will be glorified ? If so, 
 they no longer place their supreme happiness in 
 his glory but in their own gratification — a gratifi- 
 cation, more refined indeed than the grosser 
 pleasures of sense, but still personal and private. 
 To say that they place their supreme happiness in 
 the glory of God, and yet make their own happi- 
 ness the highest object, is a plain contradiction. 
 To place their supreme happiness in the glory of 
 <jod, necessarily implies that they love and value 
 his glory more than any other object. — Parh- 
 .$treet Lectures, pp. 80, 81. 
 
 Dr. Porter. '* Deliberately to admit that 
 .■self-love must be the primary ground of moral 
 ■affbction, is to supersede all intelligent discussion 
 about regeneration, or any of the kindred doc- 
 trines of grace. This one principle sweeps the 
 whole away. There remains no radical distinc- 
 tion of character between the saint and the sin- 
 ner. The most depraved individual on earth, or 
 even among apostate spirits is doubtless the cen- 
 tre of his own aftections. And though he may 
 have perverted views of what is his real interest, 
 he means, notwithstanding to act, and does act 
 froma ' primary' regard to himself. And if this 
 is the highest principle of action to a holy being, 
 then an angel and a devil stand on the same' 
 ground as to moral character ; in other words, 
 there is no distinction between holiness and sin." 
 — Letters on Revivals, pp. 88, 89. 
 
 The views contained in the foregoing extracts 
 are the views which have been maintained by the 
 great body of orthodox ministers in New Eng- 
 land on this subject. 
 
 1 am yours, very affectionately. 
 
LETTER, XVli. 
 
 May 18, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 Another important point of difference between 
 the modern speculations and New England Cal^ 
 vinism, relates to the agency of the Holy Spirit 
 in regeneration. What the precise views of the 
 New Haven divines are, in relation to this point, 
 it is somewhat difficult to ascertain from their 
 writings. They have been extensively under^ 
 stood to discard the doctrine of a direct, imme- 
 diate, divine efficiency ; and to hold, that the 
 Holy Spirit never operates on the mind, but 
 through the medium of truth or motives. This 
 doctrine is explicitly maintained by Mr. Finney 
 in his sermon entitled " Sinners bound to change 
 their own hearts," and has been repeatedly 
 avowed in conversation by Dr. Beecher. I have 
 also heard Dr. Beecher affirm, that Dr. Taylor's 
 views on this subject accorded with his own, 
 That such are the views of the New Haven di- 
 vines, seems to be implied in much which they 
 have written. They say, (Ch. Spec, for 1833, 
 p. 356,^ " Indeed we know of no other effectual 
 
NEW HAVEN TIlEOLOfiY. 1G5 
 
 hold which this divine agent can have on the 
 sinner whom he would turn from the error of 
 his ways, but that which consists in so bringing iX 
 the truths of the Bible into contact with his un- 
 derstanding and moral sensibilities, that he shall 
 voluntarily shun the threatened evil, and choose 
 the proffered good." If this language was not 
 intended to convey the idea, that the only agency 
 which the Spirit exerts in regeneration, is so to 
 bring truth and motives before the mind of the 
 sinner, as to induce or persuade him to turn from 
 the error of his ways ; it is impossible to tell 
 what meaning was intended. All their represen- 
 tations respecting the susceptibilities of unre- 
 newed men to be influenced by the motives of 
 the gospel, and the tendency of truth, when 
 clearly seen, to weaken and suspend the selfish 
 principle, and produce a change of heart, are 
 suited to make the same impression. Still, how- 
 ever, in their review of Dr. Tyler's Strictures, 
 they say, " We have never called in question the 
 doctrine of an immediate and direct agency of 
 the Holy Spirit in regeneration." Whether they 
 meant, by this declaration, any thing more, than 
 that they had never formally, or in so many words, 
 called this doctrine in question ; or v/hether they 
 intended to affirm that it is still an article of their 
 faith, I am unable to decide. Be this however, 
 as it may, the great body of those who profess 
 to adopt the sentiments of the New Haven divines 
 do discard this doctrine. They deny that the 
 more the sinner sees of God, the more he hates 
 his character, and that he invariably resists every 
 motive to holy obedience, till a new moral tem- 
 per is created or implanted in his soul by the 
 
166 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 power of the Holy Ghost. They maintain, with 
 Dr. Beecher and Mr. Finney, that the influence 
 of the Spirit in regeneration, is a persuasive in- 
 fluence exerted through the medium of truth or 
 motives. This, therefore, may be regarded as a 
 prominent doctrine of new divinity. 
 
 That this is utterly at variance with the views 
 of our standard New England divines, is what I 
 shall now attempt to show. 
 
 President Edwards. " Observe that the 
 question with some is, whether the Spirit of God 
 does any thing at all in these days, since the 
 scriptures have been completed. With those 
 that allow that he does any thing, the question 
 cannot be, whether his influence be immediate ; 
 for if he does any thing at all, his influence must 
 be immediate." " The Apostle says, ' In whom ye 
 are circumcised with the circumcision made with- 
 out hands, in putting off'the body of the sins of the 
 flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.' Thisphrase, 
 made without hands, in scripture, always denotes 
 God's immediate power, above the course of na- 
 ture, above second causes." " There are two 
 things relating to the doctrine of efficacious 
 grace, wherein lies the main difference between 
 Calvinists and Arminians as to this doctrine. 
 First, that the grace of God is determining and 
 decisive as to the conversion of a sinner, or a 
 man's becoming a good man, and having those 
 virtuous qualifications that entitle him to an in- 
 terest in Christ and his salvation. Second, that 
 the power and grace and operation of the Holy 
 Spirit in, or towards the conversion of a sinner, 
 is immediate, that the habit of true virtue or ho- 
 liness is immediately implanted or infused ; that 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 167 
 
 the operation goes so far, that a man has habitu- 
 al holiness given to him instantly, wholly by the 
 operation of the Spirit of God, and not gradually 
 by assistance concurring with our endeavors." — 
 Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 170, 182, 187, 
 220. 
 
 Dr. Brllamy. " In regeneration, there is a 
 new, divine, and holy taste and relish begotten 
 in the heart by the immediate influence of the 
 Spirit of God." " That the idea of a natural 
 beauty supposes an internal sense, implanted by 
 our Creator, by which the mind is capacitated to 
 discern such kind of beauty, is clearly illustrated 
 and proved, by a late ingenious philosopher. 
 And that the idea of spiritual sense, communi- 
 cated to the soul by the Spirit of God, in the 
 work of the new creation, is also as clearly il- 
 lustrated and proved, by a late divine, whose 
 praise is in all the churches." *' Are men regen- 
 erated by the law or by the gospel ? If, by re- 
 generated, is meant enabled to see the holy beauty 
 of divine truths, we are regenerated neither by 
 the law nor by the gospel, nor by any external 
 means or instructions whatsoever, but by the im- 
 mediate influence of the Holy Spirit." — Bella- 
 mi/s Works, Vol I. pp. 502, 503, 532. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins. *' The divine operation in re- 
 generation, of which the new heart is the eflfect, 
 is immediate, or it is not wrought by the energy 
 of any means as the cause of it, but by the im- 
 mediate power and energy of the Holy Spirit. 
 It is called a creation, and the divine agency in 
 it is as much without any medium, as in creating 
 something from nothing. Men are not regene- 
 rated in the sense in which we are now consider- 
 
168 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 iiig regeneration, by light or the word of Godi 
 This is evident from what hath been said under 
 the last particular. If the evil eye which is total 
 darkness, and shuts all the light out, be the evil 
 corrupt heart of man, then his corrupt heart 
 must be renewed, in order to there being any true 
 light in the mind, and previous to it. There 
 must be a discerning heart, which is the same 
 with the new heart, in order to see the light ; 
 and therefore this cannot be produced by light." 
 — Hopkins^ System, Vol. 1 , p. 457. 
 
 Dr. Dwight. " The soul of Adam was cre- 
 ated with a relish for spiritual objects. The 
 soul of every man, who becomes a Christian, is 
 renewed by the communication of the same rel- 
 ish." *' It has been extensively supposed, that 
 the Spirit of grace regenerates mankind, by com- 
 municating to them new, clear, and juster views 
 of spiritual objects. The understanding being 
 thus enlightened and convinced, the heart, it is 
 supposed, yields itself to this conviction ; and 
 the man spontaneously becomes, under its influ- 
 ence, a child of God. I shall not attempt here 
 to describe the metaphysical nature of the work 
 of regeneration ; yet it appears to me clear, that 
 the account which I have now given of this sub- 
 ject, is not scriptural nor just. Without a rel- 
 ish' for spiritual objects, I cannot see that any 
 discoveries concerning them, however clear and 
 bright, can render them pleasing to the soul. If 
 they are unpleasing in their very nature, they 
 cannot be made agreeable by having that nature 
 unfolded more clearly. He who disrelishes the 
 taste of wine, will not relish it the more, the more 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 169 
 
 distinctly and perfectly he perceives that taste. 
 Nor will any account of its agreeableness to 
 others, however, clearly given, and with what- 
 ever evidence supported, render the taste agreea- 
 ble to him. To enable him to relish it, it seems 
 indispensable that his own taste should be chang- 
 ed, and in this manner fitted to realize the pleas- 
 antness of the wine. Light is either eviclence, 
 or the perception of it; evidence of the true na- 
 ture of the object which is contemplated, or the 
 perception of that evidence. But the great diffi- 
 culty in the present case is this : the nature of 
 the object perceived is disrelished. The more 
 then it is perceived, the more it nmst be disrel- 
 ished of course, so long as the present taste con- 
 tinues. It seems therefore indispensable, that, 
 in order to the usefulness of such superior light 
 to the mind, its relish with respect to spiritual 
 objects should first be changed." — Dwighfs 
 Theology, Vol. 1. pp. 419, 422. 
 
 Dr. Smalley. "If it be true that man is by 
 nature totally depraved in the spirit of his mind, 
 it is a plain case, that the beginning of holiness 
 in him can be no otherwise than by a new crea- 
 tion. When spiritual life is once begun in the 
 soul, in however low a degree, it may be preserv- 
 ed and increased by moral means ; as well as 
 any plant or animal can be kept alive, and made 
 to grow by natural means. But the first produc- 
 tion of the radical principle of this life, can no 
 more be the effect of any second cause, than the 
 first root or seed of any plant or tree could have 
 been produced by rain, sunshine, and cultiva- 
 tion." " It is easy to conceive that whatever 
 propensities of nature one previously has, may 
 15 
 
170 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 be brought into exercise by arguments and mo- 
 tives adapted to operate upon such propensities. 
 But how to bring into existence a propensity of 
 nature or principle of action radically new, and 
 essentially different from every thing in the na- 
 tive mind of man, is the great difficulty. It is a 
 plain case, I think, that it can never be brought 
 to life, otherwise than by beiiig, in a proper and 
 strict sense, created in them again." — Smalley^s 
 Sermons, pp. 287, 289, 290. 
 
 Dr. Griffin, " How can the motives of re- 
 ligion be the instruments of producing a new 
 disposition, when that disposition must exist be- 
 fore the motives can take hold of the heart? Or 
 the question may be decided by fact. Have not 
 all these motives assailed the heart for many 
 years, without taking away a particle of its oppo- 
 sition ? For months together have they not been 
 set home upon the conscience, without at all 
 weakening the enmity? How comes it to pass, 
 then, that, at length, in one moment, they enter 
 the heart, and rise to supreme dominion ? Have 
 they all at once broken their way through, and 
 assisted in new-modelling a heart, on which, till 
 that moment, they could have no influence ? The 
 decisive question is, was the power applied to the 
 motives to open a passage for themselves, or to 
 the heart to open a passage for them ? Let the 
 event declare — the heart was new before the mo- 
 tives entered." — Park Street Lectures, pp. 157, 
 158. 
 
 Dr. Porter. ''In regeneration, it has been 
 said, the sinner's heart is changed by the influ- 
 ence of truth and motives, presented by God ; 
 just as one man's mind is changed in any case 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. HI 
 
 by the persuasion of another. How does the or- 
 ator persuade his hearers? By appeals to their 
 understanding, conscience, passion, interest, 
 &.C. ; that is, by addressing principles that are in 
 the men already, — principles that are in all men. 
 He operates on their minds by an objective in- 
 fluence ; by the presentation of external motives 
 adapted to sway their purpose. This is all he 
 can do. But is this all that God can do ? 
 He addresses men by the solemn motives 
 of the gospel, through preaching, and other 
 external means of persuasion. But is this all 
 that he can do ? Certainly not ; for besides the 
 presentation of motives, through the instrumen- 
 tality of second causes, he can exert an immediate 
 influence on minds, such as no man has the pow- 
 er of exerting on another man; and_;this is the 
 influence which he does exert in regeneration. 
 To deny this, is to deny special grace. For if 
 regeneration is produced by an influence the same 
 as that employed by one man on the mind of an- 
 other, in common persuasion ; certainly it is not, 
 in any sense, a supernatural work. Jt takes 
 place according to the laws of nature, in the or- 
 dinary course of cause and effect." — Letters on 
 Revivah, pp. 84, 85. 
 
 Such are the views which have been uniformly 
 maintained by New England Calvinists on this 
 subject. The opposite theory is an old Pelagi- 
 an theory revived. 1 do not know of a writer, 
 claiming to be a Calviniet, who ever advanced 
 this theory, till these modern theologians arose. 
 1 am yours, very affectionately. 
 
LETTER XVIII. 
 
 May 18, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Brother : 
 
 Dr. Taylor, in his letter to Dr. Hawes, says : 
 " I believe that all who are renewed by the Holy 
 Spirit are elected or chosen of God from eternity, 
 that they should be holy ; not on account of 
 foreseen faith or good works, but according to 
 the good pleasure of his will." 
 
 This statement, taken by itself in its most ob- 
 vious meaning, would seem to contain a correct 
 view of the doctrine of election, as maintained 
 by Calvinists. But when we compare this state- 
 ment with other statements made by him and his 
 associates, we are compelled to conclude that he 
 must attach to the language a meaning entirely 
 different from that in which it has been commonly 
 received. The grand question at issue between 
 Arminians and Calvinists, on this subject, is, and 
 ever has been, whether election is conditional or 
 unconditional ; in other words, whether God has 
 elected some to everlasting life, because he fore- 
 saw they would comply with the terms of salva- 
 tion or whether their compliance is a consequence 
 
NEW IIAVEX TIIEOLO<JV. KJl 
 
 of their election. The Arminians maintain that 
 God truly desires, all things considered, that all 
 men should become holy and be saved — that he 
 not only offers salvation to all, but does all that 
 he can, consistently with their moral freedom, to 
 induce all to comply with the conditions of par- 
 don. They maintain also, that sinners may 
 effectually resist the grace of God, and thus ren- 
 der it impossible for God to convert them. The 
 purpose of election, according to them, is God's 
 eternal purpose to save those who, he foresaw, 
 would cease to resist his grace, and submit to his 
 authority. 
 
 The Calvinists, on the other hand maintain 
 that such is the depravity of the human heart, 
 that no man will comply with the conditions of 
 pardon, until he is made willing in the day of 
 God's power. They maintain also, that the rea- 
 son why God does not secure the holiness and 
 happiness of all his moral creatures, is not be- 
 cause he is unable to do it, but because he does 
 not see it to be, on the whole, for the best; that 
 for wise reasons, which he has not revealed, he 
 has determined to make some the trophies of his 
 grace, and to leave others to persist in sin and 
 perish. 
 
 That the views of the New Haven divines on 
 this subject are essentially Arminian, is what I 
 shall now undertake to show. And, 
 
 In the first place, they maintain that " God, all 
 things considered, prefers holiness to sin, in all 
 instances in which the latter takes place." If 
 this be so, it nmst be God's choice, all things 
 considered, that all men should become holy and 
 be saved, and his infinite benevolence will 
 15* 
 
174 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 ; prompt him to do all in his power to bring all 
 men to repentance. Accordingly they say, Ch. 
 Spec. 1832, p. 660 : " God, not only prefers, on 
 the whole, that his creatures should forever per- 
 form their duties, rather than neglect them ; but 
 purposes, on his part to do all in his power to 
 promote this very object, in his kingdom." But 
 if God does all in his power to bring all men to 
 repentance, then the distinction between saints 
 and sinners does not result from the sovereign 
 purpose and election of God, but from man's free 
 will. It is not true that God will have mercy on 
 whom he will have mercy, for he would have 
 mercy on all if he could. " He would have 
 prevented all sin in his moral universe, but could 
 not." 
 
 Again. The New Haven divines maintain 
 that sinners may so resist the grace of God as to 
 render it impossible for God to convert them. 
 *' In all cases, it (the grace of God) may be 
 resisted by man as a free moral agent, and it 
 never becomes effectual to salvation till it is 
 unresisted;" that is, till the selfish principle is 
 suspended, and the sinner ceases to sin, and be- 
 gins to use the means of regeneration. " Free 
 moral agents can do wrong under all possible 
 preventing influence. Using their powers as 
 they may use them, they will sin," "We know 
 that a moral system implies the existence of free 
 agents, with power to act in despite of all oppo- 
 sing power. If this be so, what election can 
 there be except what is founded on foreseen 
 repentance and faith? Most certainly, according 
 to this theory, before God could have purposed 
 to save any individuals, he must have foreseen 
 
OP NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 175 
 
 that those individuals would cease to resist his 
 grace, and thus render it possible for him to con- 
 vert them. His purpose to save them, therefore, 
 must have been grounded on the foresight of their 
 submission. 
 
 Again. The statements of this doctrine, con- 
 tained in the Christian Spectator, evidenly pro- 
 ceed on the same supposition. 
 
 " God offers the same necessary conditions of 
 acceptance to all men ; desires from the heart 
 that all men, as free agents, would comply with 
 them and live ; brings no positive influence upon 
 any mind against compliance ; but, on the con- 
 trary, brings all those kinds, and all that degree 
 of influence in favor of it upon each individual, 
 which a system of measures best arranged for 
 the success of grace in a world of rebellion 
 allows; and finally, saves, without respect of kin- 
 dred, rank, or country ; whether Scythian, Greek, 
 or Jew, all who, under this influence, accept the 
 terms, and work out their own salvation, and rep- 
 robates alike all who refuse." — Christian Specta- 
 tor, 1831, p. 635. 
 
 According to this representation, the purpose 
 of election is simply God's determination to save 
 those who, he foresaw, would accept the terms of 
 pardon. This is still more explicitly expressed 
 in the following passage : 
 
 " The means of reclaiming grace, which meet 
 him in the word and spirit of God, are those by 
 which the father draws, induces just such sinners 
 as himself voluntarily to submit to Christ; and 
 these means all favor the act of his immediate 
 submission. To this influence he can yield, and 
 thus be drawn of the Father. This influence he 
 
176 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 can resist, and thus harden his heart against 
 God. Election involves nothing more, as it re- 
 spects his individual case, except one fact — the 
 certainty to the divine mind, whether the sinner 
 will yield to the means of grace, and voluntarily 
 turn to God, or whether he will continue to hard- 
 en his heart till the means of grace are with- 
 drawn." — Id. p. 637. 
 
 Now, what is this but the Arminian view of 
 election founded on the foresight of faith and 
 obedience? God employs the best means which 
 his wisdom can devise to bring all men to repent- 
 ance. He draws, induces them to submit to 
 Christ. Every sinner can yield to these means, 
 or he can resist them. Election involves nothing 
 more, except one fact, the certainty to the 
 DIVINE MIND ; that is, the divine foreknowledge, 
 " whether the sinner will yield to the means of 
 grace, &c." In other words, the purpose of elec- 
 tion is God's purpose to save all who he foresaw 
 would obey the gospel. This is the very doctrine 
 which the Arminians have always maintained. 
 They say again : 
 
 ** The purpose of election, rightly interpreted, 
 then, in our view, brings the God of justice and 
 grace into immediate contact with our rebellious 
 world, staying the execution of justice, and urg- 
 ing gracious terms of reconciliation on men, on 
 purpose to bring the matter to a speedy issue, 
 and to gain whom, in the methods of his wisdom 
 he can, over to his authority and kingdom." — Id. 
 p. 638. 
 
 Here again we are brought to the same point. 
 God's purpose of election, is his purpose to gain 
 as many of the human race as he can. But what 
 
OP NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 177 
 
 election is this, if God did, all things considered, 
 desire the salvation of Judas as much as the sal- 
 vation of Peter, and if he did all in his power to 
 secure the happiness and holiness of Judas, how 
 can it be said that Peter was elected in distinc- 
 tion from Judas ? Who made them to differ ? 
 
 That this view of the doctrine of election dif- 
 fers widely from that which has been maintained 
 by the orthodox divines of New England, might 
 be shown by abundant quotations from their wri- 
 tings. I shall give only a few specimens. 
 
 President Edwards. *' It is most absurd to 
 call such a conditional election as they talk of, 
 by the name of election, seeing there is a neces- 
 ary connection between faith in Jesus Christ and 
 eternal life. Those that believe in Christ must 
 be saved according to God's inviolable constitu- 
 tion of things. But if they say that election is 
 only God's determination in the general, that all 
 that believe shall be saved, in what sense can 
 this be called election ? They are not persons 
 that are here chosen, but mankind is divided into 
 two sorts, the one believing, and the other unbe- 
 lieving, and God chooses the believing sort ; it is 
 not election of persons, but of qualifications. 
 God does, from all eternity choose to bestow 
 eternal life upon those who have a right to it, 
 rather than upon those who have a right to dam- 
 nation. Is this all the election we have an ac- 
 count of in God's word ?" " God, in the decree 
 of election, is justly to be considered as decree- 
 ing the creature's eternal happiness antecedently 
 to any foresight of good works, in a sense where- 
 in he does not in reprobation decree the crea- 
 ture's eternal misery, antecedently to any fore- 
 sight of sin ; because the being of sin is suppo- 
 
178 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 sed in the first place in order to the decree of 
 reprobation, which is, that God will glorify his 
 vindictive justice, and the very notion of reveng- 
 ing justtce^ simply considered, supposes a fault to 
 be revenged. But faith and good works are not 
 supposed, in the first place, in order to the de- 
 cree of election." — 3IisccL Obs. pp. 150, 162. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins. "The elect are not chosen to 
 salvation rather than others, because of any moral 
 excellence in them, or out of respect to any fore- 
 seen faith and repentence, or because their moral 
 characters are in any respect better than others. 
 The difference between them and others^ in this 
 respect, whenever it takes place, is the fruit and 
 consequence of their election, and not the ground 
 and reason of it. All mankind are totally sin- 
 ful, wholly lost, undone, in themselves infinitely 
 guilty and ill deserving. And all must perish 
 forever, were it not for electing grace ; were they 
 not selected from the rest and given to the Re- 
 deemer, to be saved by him, and so made vessels 
 of mercy prepared unto glory." — Hopkins' Si/s- 
 tem, Vol II, 143, 151. 
 
 Dr. Smalley. " The scripture doctrine of 
 election I understand to be this ; that a certain 
 number of mankind, including all who will actu- 
 ally be saved, were chosen of God to salvation 
 from all eternity ; in such an absolute manner, 
 that it is impossible any one of them should 
 finally be lost." " It is a wrong notion of the 
 doctrine of election, to suppose that God's choice 
 of persons as the heirs of grace and glory, was 
 grounded on his foreknowledge of their faith and 
 works." " If he foresaw that any number of 
 them would cordially believe and obey the gos- 
 
OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 179 
 
 pel, it must be because he determined to put such 
 an heart in them. Consequently, his electing 
 them to eternal life, could not be grounded on his 
 foreknowledge of their doing the things requir- 
 ed, in order to their salvation; but his foreknowl- 
 edge that they would do these things, must have 
 been grounded on his purpose to give them effec- 
 tual grace, working in them to will and to doj of 
 his good pleasure." — Snialhy's Sermons, ^t^. 260, 
 264, 266. 
 
 Dii. Griffin. *' The only question is, what 
 does God perform? What does he accomplish 
 by positive power? What does he permit? If 
 it is a fact that he changes one sinner, and per- 
 mits another to take his course to ruin, he always 
 intended to do the same." " The doctrine of 
 election, thus necessarily deduced from that of 
 regeneration, is abundantly supported by the word 
 of God. There we are distinctly taught that 
 God eternally elected a part of mankind, not on 
 account of their foreseen holiness, but to holi- 
 ness itself." — Park Street Lectures, pp. 174, 175. 
 
 Dr. Woods. "Whenever God first makes 
 men holy, he must do it without regard to any 
 goodness in them. He can look at no works of 
 righteousness which they have done, but must 
 act from the impulse of his own infinite love. 
 And W'e are to view the purpose of God in rela- 
 tion to this subject, as in all respects corres- 
 ponding to his acting. It geems then perfectly 
 clear, that God did not determine to regenerate 
 men or make them holy, from any foresight of 
 repentance, faith, or good works, as conditions 
 or causes moving him thereunto. The first pro-- 
 duction of holiness cannot surely have respect tQ 
 
180 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 
 
 any previous holiness." — Reply to Dr. Ware, p 
 157. 
 
 I might easily multiply quotations. But these 
 may be regarded as a fair specimen of the views 
 which have been uniformly entertained of this 
 doctrine by New England Calvinists. 
 
 And now, my dear brother, having protracted 
 this series of letters much beyond my original 
 intention, I propose, for a season at least, to re- 
 lieve your patience, and that of your numerous 
 readers to whom they have been given through 
 the press. My object has been to give you a 
 plain, unvarnished narration of facts relating to 
 matters of great interest at the present day. 
 The story is, in many respects, a painful one, 
 but it seems important that the truth should be 
 known. I have stated nothing as fact, of which 
 I have not either personal knou^ledge, or inform- 
 ation from sources in which I repose the fullest 
 confidence. Should it hereafter appear that I 
 have fallen into any mistakes, I shall esteem it 
 not only a duty but a privilege to correct them. 
 While I have felt it my duty to speak freely of 
 the opinions of living men, I have intended to do 
 it with kindness and candor. I certainly am not 
 concious of any unfriendly feelings towards those 
 brethren from whom I differ in opinion. My 
 prayer is that we may yet see eye to eye, and 
 again lift up our voices together in defence of 
 the faith once delivered to the saints. 
 
 Yours very affectionately. 
 
Date Due 
 
 S^i^fefe*^-^ 
 
 
 
 
 mmm 
 
 im^ 
 
 
 
 **^^^JB^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -— " '- 
 
 
 
 
 ^'■^ „.*»*«* 
 
 ^.. 
 
 
 
 •UMlkeimi 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 "'^» — -i^-- 
 
 
 
 ■*rmmi^ 
 
 ^^ii: 
 
 
 
 IfflP^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A. 
 
 
I'm rni n,Y.°,H'.'"' Sfminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01145 2648