PI] i iiii; |Ej||[]jTjf riHlfiiJ^ THE LIBRARIES COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY i |[5i ruTJ[rin3rRnilrinJnmlffml[^ I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i THE CATASTROPHE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, IN 1837, INCLUDING A FULL VIEW OF THE RECENT THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES IN NEW ENGLAND. BY ZEBULON CROCKER, DELEGATE FROM THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1837. NEW HAVEN: B. & W. NOYES. 1838. <=!3^.i 1 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1838, By ZEBULON CROCKER, in the Clerk's office of the District Court of Connecticut. Printed by B. L. Hamlen. PREFACE, The author of this work, on his return from the General Assembly of 1837, proposed to publish in a religious newspaper, a brief history of the Plan of Union, and the causes of its abrogation. He was advised, however, to adopt the pamphlet form, or make use of the pages of some periodical of a more permanent character. On proceeding to investigate the subject with this design, he found it so exten- sive as not to be easily compressed within the nar- row limits commonly assigned to articles in religious magazines ; and he finally concluded to give to the public, a small volume, in which the recent contro- versies in New England, should be fully exhibited. In presenting this part of the subject, two modes occurred, each of which appeared to possess pecuUar advantages as well as disadvantages. The one was, to give a concise statement, entirely in his own lan- guage, of the positions maintained by different wri- i Q^-^' \-i ') v^ ■M- *>.! IV PREFACE. ters in the discussion j the other was, to exhibit more fully, not only the main positions, but the arguments by which they were supported, with copious extracts from the original articles. The latter mode is the one principally pursued in this volume. While this mode is less concise than the other, and often makes it necessary to repeat the statement of the points in debate, it will be found to have an important advan- tage, in giving the reader an extensive acquaintance with the subject. It has not been thought advisable in all instances to denote by marks of quotation, parts of sentences and expressions, introduced from the different writers. In stating their opinions, free use has been made of their language, without particular marks to denote it. The author has had no desire to conceal his own views on the controverted topics. Having read with attention the writings on both sides, and having in general, as he thinks, succeeded in understanding them, he has been frank to express what are his own convictions, whenever truth seemed to require him to do it. The difference, however, between the New Haven divines and their opponents, he regards as trivial, compared with the great doctrines of the gospelj all of which they hold in common ; nor does PREF ACE. V he see the least cause, on the ground of theological sentiment, for strife or alienation. In expressing his opinion of the measures of the majority of the last General Assembly, and of the opposers of New Haven in Connecticut, and in estimating the argu- ments of different writers, rank, and age, and influ- ence in the church, and acknowledged worth, have not been prominently before his mind ; but the qual- ity of the measures and arguments themselves. Nor does he feel much concern respecting the manner in which this volume shall be received, by any por- tion of the public. He is content to know that it contains historical truth, and to believe, that it is important for the future peace and prosperity of the church, that the subjects on which he has written, should be presented in a more condensed form, than they are found in the voluminous documents, which he has been obliged to consult, in preparing this volume for the press. Middletown, Con., April, 1838. CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. Page. Proceedings of the Assembly of 1837, awaken general interest — Their importance to the Congregational churches — Exscinding and excluding resolutions, .... 1 CHAPTER H. HISTORY OF THE PLAN OF UNION. Origin of the Plan of Union— Settlement of the Western States— Union of Congregationalists and Presbyterians- Early Missions to the New Settlements — The Plan of Union — It is a compact — It is binding — It respects churches in the new settlements — Illustrated by a marriage contract, . 6 CHAPTER III. ABROGATION OF THE PLAN OF UNION. Reasons assigned for the abrogation — Alledged unconstitu- tionality of the Plan of Union — Plan of Union not constitu- tional rules — Duty of the Assembly to send down the Plan — No advantage to be taken from the neglect — The Plan if un- constitutional is not to be abrogated — Abrogation morally reprehensible, 21 CHAPTER IV. ABROGATION OF THE PLAN OF UNION. Second reason for the abrogation considered — General As- sociation not a voluntary association — An incorporated Mis- sionary Society — Competent to be a party — Legal qualifica- tions not necessary to moral obligation — General Assembly contradicts its own practice, 31 Vlll CONTENTS. CHAPTER V. ABROGATION OF THE PLAN OF UNION. Page. Third reason assigned for the abrogation — Plan of Union alledged as a cause of irregularity — What they mean by irreg- ularity — The reasons for abrogation insufficient — Liberality of the General Association — Good effects of the Plan of Union — True reasons for the abrogation, .... 38 CHAPTER VI. ORIGIN OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. Adopting act — Two parties in the Presbyterian church — The church divided— College of New Jersey— Reunion of the synods — Parties the same, 47 CHAPTER Vn. CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY OF THE ASSEMBLY. Causes classified — Slavery and Abolition — General As- sembly on slavery — Testimony of the Biblical Repertory — Assembly of 1836 on slavery — Presbytery of Harmony — Sy- nod of Virginia — Exscinding synods — Synod of Cincinnati — Action of the Assembly on slavery deprecated — Mutual un- derstanding on the subject — Not discussed in the Assembly ofl837, 55 CHAPTER Vni. ENCROACHMENTS ON HIGH CHURCH PREROGATIVES FEARED. The church in her distinctive character — The standards of the church, how regarded — Difference among Old School, 71 CHAPTER IX. DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. Adam the head of our race — Nature and extent of the Atonement — Man's inability — Doctrinal belief of the New School — Connection with Adam — Unlimited atonement — Man an accountable agent — Progress of the New School CONTENTS. IX Page, opinions — Alarm of the Old School — Mr. Barnes's Sermon — Proceedings respecting his call — Sermon tried — Case before the Assembly — Duffield on Regeneration — Examination by presbytery — Errors reported — Book condemned — Mr. Duf- /o CHAPTER X. ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. Matters of complaint — Errors testified against — Resolu- tions of the Assembly of 1834 — Act and Testimony — Meas- ures recommended — Biblical Repertory — Pittsburgh con- vention — Assembly of 1835 — Resolutions on doctrinal er- rors — Old School party encouraged, 92 CHAPTER XI. TRIALS OF REV. ALBERT BARNES AND LYMAN BEECHER, D. D., FOR HERESY. Charges against Mr. Barnes — His acquittal by the presby- tery — His trial by the Synod — Suspension and restoration by the General Assembly — Trial of Dr. Beecher — His admis- sion to the presbytery of Cincinnati opposed — He is accused by Dr. Wilson — Charges preferred — His defense and acquit- tal — Effects of these trials — Philadelphia Convention — Me- morial to the Assembly of 1337 — Proceedings of the Assem- bly, 101 CHAPTER Xn. THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY. The Presbyterian church affected by discussions in New England — Reputed errors introduced by the Plan of Union — Prof Fitch's Sermons — Their doctrines — Review in the Christian Advocate — Inquiry and reply — Moral disposition resolvable into immanent preference, .... 113 CHAPTER XIII. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR AND MR. HARVEY. What occasioned the Concio — Its doctrines — Mr. Harvey's review — His views of depravity, and the permission of sin — X C ONTENT S. Review of Taylor and Harvey — Reasons why unguarded statements are made on the subject of depravity — Mr. Har- vey's second pamphlet — He abandons his original ground — His views of moral agency — Dr. Dwight regards sin as con- sisting in preference — Mr. Harvey's new doctrine of deprav- ity — The cause of the universal sinfulness of man, . . 121 CHAPTER XIV. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. Review of Spring on Regeneration — Regeneration not a physical change — Suspension of the selfish principle — Use of means — The performance of duty practicable — Positions maintained by Dr. Tyler — Sinners never use the means of regeneration — Selfish principle not suspended — Sin and ho- liness — Dependence and obligation — Queries proposed by Dr. Tyler — He charges Dr. Taylor with inconsistency — Review of the strictures — Doctrines explained — All actions dictated by self-love — Dr. Tyler's second pamphlet — The reply, 138 CHAPTER XV. CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. His statement of Dr. Taylor's theory — His views of the permission of sin — Sin the necessary means of the greatest good — His grounds of alarm — His questions to Dr. Taylor- Review of Dr. Woods's Letters — Dr. Woods misstates Dr Taylor's position — Has conceded it — His scheme inconsis tent — He confounds several things and evades the points in debate— The fallacy of his reasonings— His invidious remarks — What Dr. Taylor maintained — Failure of Dr. Woods's ar- gument to meet the position, 15Q CHAPTER XVI. SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER, Dr. Taylor's letter to Dr. Hawes — His creed — Dr. Tyler charges him with subverting the doctrine of decrees — ofori- CONTENTS. XI Page. ginal sin — of Regeneration — of Election — The charges re- futed by Dr. Taylor — Review of Dr. Tyler's theories of de- pravity and the permission of sin, 174 CHAPTER XVII. DISCUSSION BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER CONTINUED. Dr. Tyler's explanation of his theories — Dr. Taylor's let- ter to the Editor of the Spectator — He claims that he and Dr. Tyler are now agreed — Dr. Tyler disclaims such agree- ment — The nine points of difference — All unimportant — These differences explained, 193 CHAPTER XVIH. DISCUSSION ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE PURPOSES. Review of Fisk — Point at issue — Predestination consistent with freedom of volition — Doctrine of Election respects men as sinners — Includes the purpose to produce holiness in the elect — Dr. Lee's letters — Griffin on Divine Efficiency — His interpretation of the New Haven doctrines — His misstate- ments of them — In regard to God's controlling power — The work of the Spirit — Self-determination — Views of Dr. Griffin and the New Haven divines compared — On divine efficien- cy — ^Moral agency — Permission of sin — Predestination and Election, 202 CHAPTER XIX. DR. SPRING AND DR. WOODS ON NATIVE DEPRAVITY. How Dr. Spring regards the New Haven views — His opin- ion of infants — He considers all sin voluntary — He misstates the New Haven divines — His treatise reviewed — He differs from Calvinists in general — Dr. Woods's Prize Essay — Its doctrines — Propagated sinfulness — Depravity voluntary — In- fants suffer because guilty — How Dr. Woods differs from the New Haven divines — The Theological opinions of New Haven spread in the Presbyterian church — Mr. Lord's "Views in Theology" — Mr. Nettleton and Mr. Finney — New Measures, 217 Xll CONTENTS. CHAPTER XX. MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. Page. Doctrinal Tract Society organized — Evangelical Magazine — Letters of *' An Edwardean" — Hartford Convention — East Windsor Convention — "Address by an Observer" — Theo- logical Institute — Mr. Dow's Report — Proceedings in the Corporation of Yale College — Statement of the Theological Professors — Their doctrines — Appeal of the Trustees of the Theological Institute — Their grounds of dissatisfaction — Second statement of the Professors — Their remarks on the doctrines said to be subverted — Measures for restoring har- mony, 234 CHAPTER XXI. DR. TVLER's letters TO DR. WITHERSPOON. The authorship, how discovered — Are they a true history — Their misrepresentations of doctrines — Their omissions — Their insinuations — They give a false impression respecting differences of opinion — Their appeal to names — Why were they written, 269 CHAPTER XXII. CONCLUDING REMARKS. Brief view of the subjects discussed — The two points of inquiry — Different positions respecting the nature of man — What is the nature of infants — The certainty that mankind will become sinners — The nature of regeneration — The turn- ing point of the controversy — Second topic of discussion — How does God govern the moral universe — Is he not disap- pointed and unhappy — Treatment of the New Haven di- vines — Wonderful results of the controversy — The cause — Restoration of confidence — Suggestions to the Congregation- al churches and younger ministers, 284 APPENDIX. List of publications in reference to the Unitarian controversy, 298 Do. do. on the New Haven controversy, . . 299 CATASTROPHE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN 1837. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. Proceedings of the Assembly awaken general interest. The proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in 1837, have awakened an in- tense interest in the pubhc mind. The transactions of no other ecclesiastical body convened in the Uni- ted States, have probably excited so general atten- tion, or Ccilled forth so strong an expression of feeling from all classes of the community, as those of that Assembly. Scarcely a man, woman, or child, in this nation, at all acquainted with passing events, has re- mained so indifferent a spectator of the acts in ques- tion, as not to have passed judgment upon them, and to have sympathized with one or the other of the parties in the contest. The reason is obvious. The Assembly of 1837 used its unrivaled authority in such a manner, as to affect the rights, the privile- 1 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. Their importance to the Congregational churches. ges, and the opinions, of a large portion of the inhabitants of this nation. In addition to the dis- memberment of its own body, it struck a blow at benevolent institutions, long cherished and highly valued by multitudes, who had made them the channel of communicating blessings to their fel- low-men ; and it aimed, not only to destroy existing relations in the churches under its care, but to sever the bonds of union, which, for many years, had ex- isted between itself and other ecclesiastical bodies, as the ground of friendly intercourse and cheerful cooperation in the work of spreading the gospel. No wonder, then, that its proceedings have caused a deep sensation in many minds ; no wonder that they have agitated the mass of the people, and pro- duced an uncommon excitement throughout the length and breadth of the land. To the Congregational churches of New Eng- land, the measures adopted by the General Assem- bly of 1837 are so directly important, as to demand, on their part, a careful investigation. The acts of that body are calculated, in some degree, to embar- rass and limit the operations of their benevolent so- cieties, and deeply to affect the numerous churches already planted by their agency, and, by agreement, brought into ecclesiastical connection with the Pres- byterian church. The foundation of their confi- dence has thus been shaken, and they are left in INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 6 Exscinding and excluding Resolutions. suspense in regard to the proper method of prose- cuting, in future, the work of domestic missions among their brethren at the west. Should these acts be persisted in and enforced, the result would be a lasting sense of injury and injustice in the hearts of those whose reliance has been misplaced, and who, in consequence, are compelled, with some disadvantage, to change their mode of action. Intelligent Congregationalists in New England, therefore, cannot but feel a deep interest in the measures referred to ; nor will they be satisfied till they have investigated the whole subject, in order to discover whether there existed any good and sufficient reasons, why these measures should be adopted. The principal acts of the Assembly of 1 837 claim- ing attention, are those which relate to the abroga- tion of the Plan of Union of 1801 ; the excision of the synods of Utica, Geneva, Genesee, and the Western Reserve ; and the exclusion of the Ameri- can Home Missionary Society and the American Education Society from the bounds of the Presby- terian church. The history of these acts is already written in detail, and so widely circulated, through the medium of the religious periodicals, as to be in the possession of the great mass of readers. For the sake of easy reference, however, the ex- scinding and excluding resolutions will here be 4 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. Exscinding and excluding Resolutions. given. The act of abrogation will be inserted in another place. " Resolved^ That, by the operation of the abro- gation of the Plan of Union of 1801, the Synod of the Western Reserve is, and is hereby declared to be, no longer a part of the Presbyterian church in the United States of America." " Resolved^ That while we desire that no body of christian men of other denominations should be prevented from choosing their own plans of doing good, £ind while we claim no right to complain, should they exceed us in energy and zeal, we be- lieve, that facts too familiar to need repetition here, warrant us in affirming, that the organization and operations of the so called American Home Mission- ary Society, and American Education Society, and its branches, of whatever name, are exceedingly in- jurious to the peace and purity of the Presbyterian church. We recommend, accordingly, that they should cease to operate within any of our churches." " Be it resolved hy the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of Amei^- ica, That in consequence of the abrogation, by this Assembly, of the Plan of Union of 1801, between it and the General Association of Connecticut, as utterly unconstitutional, and therefore null and void from the beginning, the Synods of Utica, Gene- INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 5 Exscinding and excluding Resolutions. va, and Genesee, which were formed and attached to this body, under and in execution of said '' Plan of Union," be, and are hereby declared to be, out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, and that they are not, in form or in fact, an integral portion of said church."* * Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, pp. 440, 442, 444. 1* CHAPTER II. HISTORY OF THE PLAN OF UNION. Origin of the Plan of Union. The several acts of the General Assembly, which were named in the preceding chapter, are closely connected, being parts of a scheme intended to ac- complish a general object. That object will be fully developed in the following pages of this work. As the abrogation of the " Plan of Union" was a leading act, and the basis of the subsequent meas- ures of the Assembly ; and as the Congregationed churches of Connecticut, especially, and those of other parts of New England, generally, are inter- ested in the subject ; this Plan, and that part of the Assembly's proceedings which relate to it, will be more particularly discussed in the former part of this volume : while the latter part will be princi- pally devoted to an inquiry respecting the causes which have operated to produce the late catastrophe of the Presbyterian church. To understand the origin of the Plan of Union, it is necessary to refer to the condition of the coun- try some time previous to its adoption. Till to- wards the close of the last century, the western part PLAN OF UNION. Settlement of the Western States. of New York, and the States lying north of the Ohio river, were almost a wilderness without white in- habitants. The oldest town in Western New York was settled in 1784, and the first settlement in the State of Ohio was made four years later. In 1800, the population of Indiana was less than 5000, and that of Illinois was only 215. The first settlers of Western New York and of Ohio were emigrants from New England. With them, other emigrants mingled from the southern and middle States, and from Europe. The New Englanders Avere mostly Congregation alists ; some members of churches, and all educated in the prin- ciples and practice of their puritan ancestors. They of course carried with them to their new residences, predilections for Congregationalism ; while the emi- grants from regions where Presbyterianism pre- vailed, having imbibed views of church govern- ment according to that system, retained their at- tachment to the pecuHarities of their own church. On all the great doctrines of the gospel, such as are essential to salvation, Congregationalists and Presbyterians held a common faith ; and the cir- cumstances of the new settlers were calculated to mitigate sectarian feelings, and remove partialities and prejudices in regard to questions merely of or- der and discipline. PLAN OF UNION. Union of Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Still attached to the institutions of religion, but deprived of the privileges which they once enjoyed : too few and feeble to provide separately for the sta- ted ministrations of the word, and unable by any means to procure the requisite supply of ministers ; they were prepared to lay aside all contention about minor differences of opinion, and, for the general good, to unite, under a modified system of disci- pline, in the bonds of a common fellowship. In the mean time, the pious relatives and friends of the emigrants, in the land of their nativity, were not unmindful of their spiritual wants. The sym- pathy and prayers of christians followed into the wilderness, whither they had gone, these voluntary exiles from the temples and homes of their child- hood. Missionaries, both Congregational and Pres- byterian, began to visit the new settlements, and to seek out, in their scattered habitations, those who were destitute of the bread of life. The subject of missions to the new settlements engaged the attention of the General Association of Connecticut, as early as the year 1788. Previous to this time, some of the district associations had delegated individuals of their own number to labor, for the period of a few months, in the destitute re- gions of the West, where members of their own churches resided ; and the pulpits of those delegated, during their absence, were supplied, in rotation, by PLAN OF UNION. Early Missions to the New Settlements. the Other members of the association. This prac- tice the General Association of 1788 approved, and recommended its continuance. In 1792, it took the subject into further consideration, and petitioned the legislature for authority to make collections annu- ally for missions, in the congregations throughout the State. The petition was granted, and a resolve was passed, authorizing collections in the month of May, for three successive years. This resolve was several times repeated ; and the contributions made in accordance with it, were, for a long time, the principal pecuniary support of this branch of the missionary enterprise. In 1798, the General Association of Connecticut organized itself into a missionary society, the object of which was, " to christianize the heathen in North America, and to support and promote christian knowledge in the new settlements within the Uni- ted States." In 1802, the trustees of the society were incorporated by the legislature of Connecticut ; and under the charter then received, its operations have ever since been conducted. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, also, was early interested in the subject of domestic missions. It was not, however, till 1801, that it appointed its first standing committee on mis- sions, and was incorporated as a missionary society, by the legislature of Pennsylvania. In its report on 10 PLANOFUNION. Early Missions to the New Settlements. the State of religion, at its session in 1801, it uses the following language. " The new settlements on our frontiers appear very desirous to have the gospel preached among them, and our missionaries who have visited them, do not appear to have labored without success. Good impressions have not un- frequently been made, and churches are rapidly forming, which will soon need settled pastors," In this manner, missionaries were sent into the same field to preach the gospel of Christ, by two ecclesiastical bodies who agreed in doctrines essen- tial to salvation, and, though differing in their form of government, were on terms of friendly inter- course with each other. In such a state of things, it appeared unnecessary and undesirable to form sep- arate churches, merely on the ground of order and disciphne ; and those best acquainted with the subject deemed it practicable, on some plan of ac- commodation conformed in a measure to the predi- lections of both parties, to bring the Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the new settlements into an amicable union. Dr. Edwards, then president of Union College, feeling a deep interest on this subject, proposed it to the General Assembly of 1801, and, as chairman of a committee, consisting, in addition to himself, of Drs. McKnight, Woodhull, and Blatchford, late of Lansingburgh, and Mr. Hutton, a ruling elder of PLAN OF UNION. 11 The Plan of Union. the presbytery of Troy, reported the '' Plan of Un- ion between Presbyterians and Congregationahsts in the new settlements," which was adopted by the Assembly with great unanimity, and sent by their delegates to the General Association of Connecticut, for its acceptance. The Association agreed to the plan as proposed ; and thus ratified, it became a standing regulation, between the two ecclesiastical bodies, in conducting their missionary operations. The Plan of Union being an important document, in its connection with the history of the times, it is here inserted. *• Jl Plan of Union between Preshyth-ians and Congregationalists in the JVew Settlements, adopted in 1801.* " The report of the committee appointed to con- sider and digest a plan of government for the church- es in the new settlements, was taken up and con- sidered ; and after mature deliberation on the same, approved, as follows : '■'■ Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in America, and by the General Association of the State of Connecticut, (provided said Association agree to them,) with a view to prevent alienation and promote union and harmony, in those new settlements which are com- posed of inhabitants from those bodies. * From the Assembly's Digest, page 297. 12 PLAN OF UNION. The Plan of Union. 1st. "It is Strictly enjoined on all their missiona- ries to the new settlements, to endeavor, by all proper means, to promote mutual forbearance and accommodationj between those inhabitants of the new settlements who hold the Presbyterian and those who hold the Congregational form of church government. '' 2d. If in the new settlements, any church of the Congregational order shall settle a minister of the Presbyterian order, that church may, if they choose, still conduct their discipline according to Congrega- tional principles, settling their difficulties among themselves, or by a council mutually agreed upon for that purpose. But if any difficulty shall exist between the minister and the church or any mem- ber of it, it shall be referred to the presbytery to which the minister shall belong, provided both par- ties agree to it ; if not, to a council consisting of an equal number of Presbyterians and Congregation- alists, agreed upon by both parties. " 3d. If a Presbyterian church shall settle a min- ister of Congregational principles, that church may still conduct their discipline according to Presbyte- rian principles ; excepting that if a difficulty arise between him and his church, or any member of it, the cause shall be tried by the Association, to which the said minister shall belong, provided both parties agree to it ; otherwise by a council, one half Con- PLANOFUNION. 13 The Plan of Union. gregationalists and the other half Presbyterians, mutually agreed on by the parties. " 4th. If any congregation consist partly of those who hold the Congregational form of discipline, and partly of those who hold the Presbyterian form ; we recommend to both parties, that this be no ob- struction to their uniting in one church and set- tling a minister : and that in this case, the church choose a standing committee from the commimi- cants of said church, whose business it shall be, to call to account every member of the church, who shall conduct himself inconsistently with the laws of Christianity, and to give judgment on such con- duct : and if the person condemned by their judg- ment be a Presbyterian, he shall have liberty to ap- peal to the presbytery : if a Congregationalist, he shall have liberty to appeal to the body of the male communicants of the church : in the former case, the determination of the presbytery shall be final, unless the church consent to a further appeal to the synod, or to the General Assembly : and in the latter case, if the party condemned shall wish for a trial by a mutual council, the cause shall be referred to such council. And provided the said standing com- mittee of any church, shall depute one of them- selves to attend the presbytery, he may have the same right to sit and act in the presbytery, as a ruUng elder of the Presbyterian church. 2 14 PLANOFUNION. The Plan of Union a Compact. *' On motion J Resolved, That an attested copy of the above plan be made by the stated clerk, and put into the hands of the delegates of this Assem- bly to the General Association, to be by them laid before that body for their consideration ; and that if it should be approved by them, it go into imme- diate operation." " The delegates to the last General Association of Connecticut, reported, that they all attended the Association during the whole of their sessions, and were received and treated with great cordiality and friendship : That the regulations submitted by the last As- sembly, respecting the establishment of churches in the frontiers, consisting of members partly of the Presbyterian and partly of the Congregational de- nominations, were unanimously adopted by the As- sociation." This Plan of Union is primarily an agreement or compact between the General Assembly of the Pres- byterian church and the General Association of Connecticut, acting as missionary societies. They stipulate, that their missionaries shall endeavor to promote forbearance and accommodation between Congregationalists and Presbyterians in the new settlements, with a view to the ultimate connec- PLAN OF UNION. 15 Plan of Union binding. tion of the churches formed by their joint labors, with the Presbyterian church. For the better at- tainment of this object, they provide for the settle- ment of Presbyterian ministers over Congregational churches, and Congregational ministers over Pres- byterian churches, leaving the churches to practice their own mode of discipline ; and proposing such a method of adjusting difficulties between the pas- tors and churches, as would secure to each party the application, as far as practicable, of its own sys- tem of discipline. The most important stipulation, however, is that which relates to the churches com- posed of both Congregationalists and Presbyterians, The Assembly and Association recommend, that such churches appoint in the place of ruling elders, a standing committee, who shall issue all cases of discipline, their decision being subject to an appeal, at the option of the individual concerned, either to the presbytery or to the male communicants of the church ; and who shall have the right to depute one of their number to sit and act in the presbytery as a ruling elder of the Presbyterian church. By the terms of agreement in the Plan of Union, the General Assembly and General Association were mutually bound to each other to carry its provisions into effect, so far as they had power to do it. They were under obligation, in the first place, to instruct their missionaries " to promote forbearance and ac- 16 PLAN OF UNION, Plan of Union respects churches in the new settlements. commodation," as stipulated ; and then to exert their influence upon the members of their respective churches in the new settlements, to lead them to adopt the plan proposed. In fulfillment of these ob- ligations, the General Association, acting through the trustees of the Connecticut Missionary Society, has ever instructed its missionaries to organize churches according to the articles of union, and counseled the members of Congregational churches in the new settlements to conform to these regula- tions. The General Assembly acted in a similar mamier ; and in 1806, " Resolved, that the com- mittee of missions cause a number of copies of this plan to be printed, and delivered to the missionaries who may be sent by the Assembly among the peo- ple concerned." So far, the original parties acted with mutual good faith. But the Plan of Union had respect to the churches in the new settlements ; not, indeed, that it was binding on them without their consent ; but it held out to them proposals, which, when voluntarily ac- cepted, were the ground of rights and privileges to be conferred on them by the General Assembly. Whenever any church assents to the terms of union, and connects itself, by the attendance of one of its standing committee, with a presbytery, then it be- comes subject to all the liabilities, and entitled to all the immunities, of membership in the Presbyte- PLAN OF UNION. 17 Plan of Union illustrated by a marriage contract. rian church. An obhgation rests upon all the judi- catories of the church, from the lowest to the high- est, to respect the rights of this member and to treat it as a constituent part of the Presbyterian body. Every church organizing itself according to the Plan of Union, virtually becomes a third party to that compact. The General Assembly of the Pres- byterian church has no right to take away its priv- ileges or membership, without its consent ; nor can it do this, without both violating its solemn en- gagements to that church, and departing from the principles of courtesy and good faith towards the General Association of Connecticut. This latter body exerted its advisory power over Congregation- alists, to induce them to become in a certain form Presbyterians, on the ground of the supposed ad- vantages which would accrue to the churches or- ganized in the new settlements, through the en- gagement of the General Assembly to receive them into connection with the Presbyterian church ; and the violation of that engagement in any manner, is a wrong to the party who thus acted in view of it. For an illustration of these positions, suppose a certain father residing in Philadelphia, undertakes to negotiate a treaty of marriage for his son, with a certain father residing in the city of Hartford^ whose daughter is now absent in the state of Ohio. These parents engage to employ suitable persons to 2* 18 PLANOFUNION. Plan of Union illustrated by a marriage contract. introduce the parties to each other, and gain their consent to the union. The parent of the son enters into an agreement with the other parent, that the daughter, in case the proposed marriage is consum- mated, shall be received into his family, and enjoy all the rights and privileges of one of his own daugh- ters ; and particularly, in the event of her husband's death, shall continue with him and be an heir to his estate. The proposals agreed upon between the two parents are communicated to the children. They accept them and assume the marriage rela- tion. In doing it, they become parties to an agree- ment by which the wife comes into possession of valuable privileges and immunities. Here, then, is a compact like that of the Plan of Union, in which two parties stipulate that other persons in whom they feel a mutual interest, shall, upon certain con- ditions, become entitled to certain benefits. The original parties agreed to use their influence to pro- duce a given result, on account of the benefits that would accrue to a third party, in consequence of that result. Now suppose that the party who had stipulated to receive his daughter-in-law into his house and make her an heir to his estate, should utterly refuse to fulfill his part of the compact, and should declare the instrument by which he had bound himself, null and void. Suppose on the death of his son he should drive her from the home PLAN OF UNION. 19 Plan of Union illustrated by a marriage contract. that was pledged, and deprive her of the promised inheritance ; what obligations would he violate ? In the first place, he would violate an important ob- ligation to the parent, who, in view of the benefits which his daughter was to derive, used his influ- ence to procure her marriage. And in the second place, he would violate his obligations to his daugh- ter-in-law, by depriving her of all the enjoyments of a home and casting her upon her own resources. The world would consider this treatment of her as cruel and unjust ; and that of her father as uncourte- ous and unchristian. But how analogous to the com- pact supposed, is the Plan of Union : how analo- gous to the declaring of that compact null and void, is the act of abrogation ; and how analogous to the exclusion of the daughter-in-law from her home and privileges, is the excision of the churches that have been received, according to the Plan, into the Presbyterian church. But let not a hasty judgment be passed u}X)n the doings of so venerable a body as the General As- sembly of 1837. Let its acts be impartially can- vassed and decided on, only after due consideration. In the mean time let it be remembered, that the Plan of Union is a compact between the General Assembly and the General Association, in which the latter was pledged to instruct its missionaries to plant and build up churches of a certain kind. 20 PLANOFUNION. Plan of Union illustrated by a marriage contract. and to influence Congregationalists to join them, in consideration of a promise on the part of the former, that these churches shall be taken under the care of the Assembly, and enjoy the privileges of mem- bership with the Presbyterian body. Let it be fur- ther remembered, that the obligations of the Gen- eral Assembly are two-fold : 1st, to the General As- sociation of Connecticut ; and 2d, to the churches which have accepted the conditions agreed upon by the two original p£irties, as proposed to them ; for whom, on their consenting to the union, and thus becoming a third party, the benefits of the compact were chiefly intended. 21 CHAPTER III. ABROGATION OF THE PLAN OF UNION. Reasons assigned for the Abrogation. If the interpretation of the Plan of Union given in the preceding chapter is correct, the way is now prepared for a more particular inquiry respecting its abrogation by the General Assembly of 1837. The following is the resolution on the subject passed by that body. '' As the Plan of Union adopted for the new settlements in 1801, was originally an uncon- stitutional act on the part of that Assembly, these important standing rules having never been sub- mitted to the presbyteries ; — and as they were to- tally destitute of authority as proceeding from the General Association of Connecticut, which is in- vested with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not within her limits ; and as much confusion and irregularity have Eirisen from this unnatural and un- constitutional system of union, therefore, it is re- solved, that the Act of the Assembly of 1801, en- titled "A Plan of Union," be, and the same is hereby abrogated."* * Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, p. 421. 22 ABROGATION OF THE Alledged unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union. In this resolution three reasons are assigned for the act of abrogation, each of which claims a brief examination. The first is, the unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union. It is denied that the Gen- eral Assembly has constitutional right to form these important standing rules without the approbation of a majority of the presbyteries, as specified in Chap. XIT, Sec. 6th, of the form of government. This section provides, " that before any overtures or regulations proposed by the Assembly to be es- tablished as constitutional rules, shall be obligatory on the churches, it shall be necessary to transmit them to all the presbyteries, and to receive the re- turns of at least a majority of them, in writing, ap- proving thereof." The question then arises, are the provisions of the Plan of Union, such constitutional rules as are here contemplated ? If this should be answered in the affirmative, then another question would arise, have they ever been approved by the presbyteries, in the manner prescribed by the constitution ? However the former question may be determined, the latter may be dismissed ; for it cannot be claim- ed, that the presbyteries have acted in that formal manner, required for the adoption of constitutional rules. In deciding whether the Plan of Union falls under the provision of the section quoted from the form of government, it must first be settled, who PLANOFUNION. 23 Plan of Union, not constitutional rules. are the proper judges in the case ? The Presbyte- rian church has no court especially appointed to issue constitutional questions. Reference must, therefore, be had to her judicatories acting under the most favorable circumstances to judge impar- tially ; and to the whole body of her members, pass- ing judgment, directly, by an expression of their opinions, or, impliedly, by their acquiescence in the case. If it can be shown, that, for a period of years, all her judicatories from the highest to the lowest, as well as the whole body of the church, have re- garded the Plan of Union as not unconstitutional, this fact will go far towards deciding, in the nega- tive, the question whether the plan is of the na- ture of '' those constitutional rules," which are re- quired to be sent to the presbyteries, and to be, by a majority of them, approved, before it can be of binding force. On the question of the constitutionality of the Plan of Union, it is proper to remark, that the As- sembly of 1801, which was composed of some of the wisest and best of the ministers and elders of the Presbyterian church, did not regard the articles of agreement, which it adopted and proposed to the General Association of Connecticut, of the kind contemplated in the article of the constitution just quoted. With this opinion, all succeeding General Assemblies till the last, concurred ; having uni- 24 ABROGATION OF THE Plan of Union, not constitutional rules. formly acted on the ground that the Plan of Union was constitutional. Nor can it be asserted with truth, that this uniformity of action and approval WcLs a mere oversight, occasioned by inadvertence. For, before several Assemblies, the question came up directly in one form and another for considera- tion ; and before them all, questions were discussed cedculated to call the attention to the subject. This, especially, was the case in the Assembly of 1806, which ordered the printing of the Plan of Union, for the use of its missionaries in the new settle- ments ; with that of 1808, which considered and approved the Plan of Union adopted by the Synod of Albany in 1807; with that of 1821, by whose act the presbyteries of the Associate Reformed Sy- nod were united with the Presbyterian church ; and that of 1835, which in its action on the Plan of Un- ion directly, never questioned its constitutionality. By thirty five successive Assemblies was its consti- tutionality conceded, and the act virtually sanc- tioned, by receiving commissioners from the pres- byteries constituted on the Plan of Union. The same interpretation has been given by the presbyteries, to the Act of the Assembly of 1801. From that time to the present, they have uniformly acknowledged the Plan as not unconstitutional. On all occasions they have acquiesced in it and been silent ; and in 1821, when they adopted the amend- PLANOFUNION. 25 Plan of Union, not constitutional rules. ed constitution, they not merely acquiesced, but virtually expressed their assent; for, it is hai'dly conceivable, that, with a full knowledge of its exist- ence and operation, and with the belief that it was unconstitutional, they would have proceeded to rat- ify the constitution, without an effort to correct so great an abuse of its powers. Thus the Presbyte- rian church as a body, and all its judicatories from the lowest to the highest, have for thirty five years and more, decided that the Plan of Union of 1801, was not of such a nature as to require the written assent of a majority of the presbyteries, to render it a constitutional and binding act. It was left to the majority of the Assembly of 1837, under a special emergency, to pronounce a contrary decision ; and the question is, which de- cision is valid? That of the whole body of the church and of the General Assembly for so long a period ? Or, that of a small majority, of a divided and excited Assembly ? No unbiased mind can be at a loss for an answer. If then, as was stated, the interpretation given to any particular act of Assem- bly, in respect to its constitutional bearings, pro- ceeds from a legitimate source, only when it can be regarded as an expression of the opinion of the chm*ch and her judicatories, for a sufficient length of time and under circumstances to admit of a de- liberate consideration and judgment ; what is the 3 26 ABROGATION OF THE Duty of the Assembly to send down the Plan. conclusion to be derived ? The former decision be- ing of this kind, while the latter was wholly desti- tute of these requisites, the point regarding the con- stitutionality of the Plan of Union was settled, be- fore the action of the General Assembly of 1837 ; nor can the doings of that body on the subject, un- settle it and bring it again into dispute. But there is another view of this subject which is important. Grant that the Plan of Union should have been sent down to the presbyteries for their approval. To whom must the fault of the neglect to do it, be attributed ? Not, surely, to the General Association of Connecticut, nor to the churches which were organized under its provisions. They could do nothing in the case. The fault was charge- able solely to the General Assembly of the Presbyte- rian church, which neglected to perform a duty en- joined upon it by its own constitution. And can the Assembly of 1837, take advantage of a neglect of duty on the part of preceding Assemblies, and on this ground set aside a compact which has long been acknowledged as binding on all parties ? Suppose a treaty had been made thirty five years ago between France and the United States, in which the latter stipulated, on certain conditions, to confer on a number of the subjects of the French king, the rights £ind privileges of American citizens. Suppose, through the neglect of the president and PLAN OF UNION. 27 No advantage to be taken from the neglect. of congress, the treaty failed to be ratified by the senate of the United States, but was uniformly ob- served in good faith by all the parties concerned. When the American government sees cause to dis- like the provisions of that treaty, shall it take ad- vantage of its own neglect, to annul it and declare that all, which has taken place under it, is set aside ? No government, nor body of men, nor individuals, can take such advantage of their own acts. No principle is plainer or better established than this. If the General Assembly neglected its duty by not sending the Plan of Union to the presbyteries, it has no right now to say, that it is unconstitutional, and therefore void. But this is not all. There is still another view of the subject which ought to be presented. It is this. — ^Let it be admitted for the sake of argument, that the Plan of Union was originally unconstitu- tional, that is, wholly inconsistent with the princi- ples of Presbyterian government embodied in the constitution of the church. It was, nevertheless, proposed by the General Assembly of 1801, and ac- cepted by the General Association of Connecticut ; — and, for a long period, it has been acted upon by the churches in the new settlements. Important interests have grown up under it. The right of property in many instances depends on the question, whether these churches belong to the body with 28 ABROGATION OF THE The Plan, if unconstitutional, is not to be abrogated. which they have supposed themselves connected. If they have mistaken the constitution, they have been led into the error by the Genera] Assembly. Now, shall that body, under these circumstances declare, that the instrument by which they claim their rights is unconstitutional, and null and void ; and, as a consequence, that they are out of the Pres- byterian church ? Can any such abrogation of the Plan of Union be made, as will affect the standing and interests of those who have come, constitu- tionally, or unconstitutionally, into the Presbyterian church ? This view of the subject may well be illustrated by a reference to the treaty, by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States. If it be claimed that the act of cession was unconstitutional, and this point should be granted, could either the Uni- ted States or France abrogate that treaty ? After its constitutionality has been sanctioned for thirty five years by the American government, and the whole body of the people have virtually assented to it and confirmed it, would even the Supreme Court of the United States, if the question was referred, adjudge the treaty unconstitutional and void? Would it declare the states which have come into the Union in consequence of it, to be out of the Union ? No such decision would be made. The treaty would be sustained, and the rights and PLANOF UNION. 29 Abrogation morally reprehensible. privileges of the states in question, would be con- firmed. A contrary decision would strike at the foundation of society, and leave in doubt and jeop- ardy, some of the most important interests of man- kind. And can the General Assembly of the Pres- byterian church abrogate the Plan of Union, and not violate the principles which bind christian com- munities, and ecclesiastical bodies ? Can it do this, and follow out its act, as it has attempted to do, in the excision of synods, without disregarding the most sacred rights. Can it resort to the mere tech- nicalities of a constitution to justify such proceed- ings ? Reason and conscience answer no, and the principles of the gospel forbid it. There are laws in binding force above all constitutions and all forms ; and it is painful to hear an appeal to the latter, in justification of acts, which will not bear the test of the former. From the view of this subject which has now been given, it appears that the General Assembly of 1837, took upon itself the power, not merely to repeal the act of a former Assembly, which it might in some cases very properly have done, but it rever- sed the decisions of the whole Presbyterian church and of all her judicatories for the last thirty-six yeais, on a subject involving the relations, and in- terest, and welfare, of a multitude of her churches. It set aside a compact as binding as any constitu- 3* 30 ABROGATION, &C. Abrogation morally reprehensible. tion could be, on the plea of its unconstitutionality, and that, when the most important consequences were involved. It did this, not only without the consent, but in opposition to the known wishes of both the other parties concerned. It must therefore be regarded, in whatever aspect its measures are contemplated, to say the least, as having transgres- sed the spirit of its constitution, in its unwarranta- ble zeal to maintain the letter. 31 CHAPTER lY. ABROGATION OF THE PLAN OF UNION. Second reason considered. The second reason assigned, in the resolution of the Assembly, for the abrogation of the Plan of Union, is, that the General Association of Connec- ticut had no authority to act as a party in the agree- ment ; 1st, because, ^' it is invested with no power to legislate in such cases," and 2d, because, it can- not " enact laws to regulate churches not within its limits." Such reasons sound strangely to the Congregationalists of Connecticut ; and must sound equally strange to all who are acquainted with the facts in the case. The General Association of Connecticut is an ecclesiastical body of long stand- ing ; and for nearly half a century has acted as a missionary society. If it were a mere voluntary association, it would be authorized in common law, to transact business in reference to the welfare of Christ's kingdom. Engagements lawfully entered into by it for this purpose, would be recognized, by civil courts, as binding on all the parties concerned. It has been decided, in one instance at least, that a voluntary association, organized for a specific be- 32 ABROGATION OF THE General Association not a voluntary association. nevolent object, is capable of acting for the accom- plishment of that object in such a manner as to be- come a legal party ;* and the same principle would apply to the General Association of Connecticut as a missionary society, though it had no act of incor- poration, and its existence had never been acknow- ledged by any legislature. It is, certainly, on this view of the subject, a very singular position to be taken by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, that a kindred ecclesiastical body and a missionary society, has no power to "legislate" in respect to its missionaries and the churches to wHich they are sent. But the General Association of Connecticut is not a mere voluntary association. Since 1708, when the legislature of Connecticut approved the " regulations in the administration of church disci- pline," (fcc, agreed upon by the elders and messen- gers of the churches assembled at Saybrook the same year, it has been a body known and estab- lished by law ; and, therefore, legally capable of transacting such business as falls within its nature and design.f Its existence as a missionary society, had been, for several years previous to the adoption of the Plan of Union, sanctioned by the acts of the * Case of the Burr legacy to the American Tract Society, t Saybrook Platform, edition of 1810, p. 136. P L A N O F U N I O N . 33 General Association an incorporated Missionary Society. legislature, authorizing it to collect funds from the inhabitants of the State, and to use them for mis- sionary purposes : and in 1802, soon after the agree- ment with the General Assembly, it was regiilai'ly incorporated by receivmg a formal charter. Such being the General Association of Connecti- cut, the question is, did it fall within the scope of its powers, to enter into compact with the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, in regard to the provisions of the Plan of Union ? Wcis it ade- quate to agree, on its part, that its " missionaries to the new settlements, should endeavor by all proper means to promote mutual forbearance and accom- modation between those inhabitants of the new settlements, who hold the Presbyterian and those who hold the Congregational form of church gov- ernment ?" Had it power to agree with the As- sembly, to recommend to Congregationahsts and Presbyterians in these settlements, to unite together into churches according to the mode prescribed in the Plan of Union ? Who can doubt that it pos- sessed powers of this kind even in law, so that if questions of property were to arise from the agree- ment, legal titles might be established ? Who can doubt, that, if the possession of a house of worship depended upon the question, whether the General Association of Connecticut had power to perform all that it assumed to do in the Plan of Union, a court 34 ABROGATION OF THE The General Association competent to be a party. of justice would at once decide on the ground of the adequacy of these powers ? In regard to the power of the Association " to enact laws to regulate churches not within its lim- its." it is sufficient to remark, that no such power is assumed in the agreement under consideration. Both individuals and churches were left by the Plan of Union free to act as they pleased ; and in case they adopted its recommendation, then, by their own voluntary act, and not by any act of the General Association, they entered into connection with the Presbyterian church. The Association neither used nor claimed to use, any power but the influence of advice. Why is so obvious a fact en- tirely lost sight of, in the resolution of the General Assembly ? Why is the voluntary action of the churches, in accepting the proposals made them, left entirely out of the account, and the General Association of Connecticut represented as disposing of them, by its own authority, to the General As- sembly, when such a representation is wholly with- out foundation ? The argument as now presented, may seem to admit the necessity of legal qualifications in the parties concerned, to form a compact, like that of the Plan of Union, which shsill be mutually bind- ing. No such admission, however, is intended. There are moral obligations above all human laws, PLANOF UNION. 35 Legal qualifications not necessary to moral obligation. which are binding on ecclesiastical bodies and asso- ciations of christians in all their engagements with each other. They are bound to act in good faith, though no human laws exist, to enforce such ac- tion. When they attempt to evade their obliga- tions, by a resort to mere legal forms, or constitu- tional rules, they show dishonesty of intention, and bring upon themselves deserved reprobation. It is really painful to see a body of men, like the major- ity of the General Assembly of 1837, composed of ministers and elders of the Presbyterian church, so forgetful of the basis of christian obligation, as se- riously to assign in the face of the world, as a rea- son for abrogating the Plan of Union, that the Gen- eral Association of Connecticut wanted power to do all that it did as a party to that compact. But the consistency of the act appears to no bet- ter advantage than its moral aspect. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church has, for a long period, acknowledged the General Association of Connecticut, as a body capable of forming compacts for purposes of mutual good and the advancement of Christ's cause. In 1792, the two bodies respectively agreed to a standing com- mittee of correspondence, and to an interchange of delegates ; and in 1794, they mutually agreed that these delegates should vote as other members of the respective bodies. When the General Assem- 36 ABROGATION OF THE General Assembly contradicts its own practice. bly became dissatisfied with the latter regulation, it proposed its discontinuance ; and the General As- sociation readily assented. The Assembly of 1835 adopted a similar course in regard to the Plan of Union. It '' resolved that our brethren of the Gen- eral Association of Connecticut, be, and they hereby are respectfully requested to consent that said Plan shall be, from and after the next meeting of that Association, declared to be annulled."* Thus, from 1792 to 1837, the General Assembly has uniformly recognized the General Association of Connecticut, as invested with power to act for the good of the churches under their mutual care ; and has acknowledged the moral obligation to ob- serve in good faith the agreements entered into * This resolution was never presented to the General Associa- tion of Connecticut. The fact was stated to the Assembly of 1837, by one of the delegates from the General Association of Connecticut, and his statement was confirmed by the reading of the report of the delegates to the Association from the Assembly of 1835. No copy of the resolution, and no instructions were forwarded them. Therefore, neither they, nor the General As- sociation, acted on common fame. Yet in the circular letter to all the churches, signed by the Moderator, to whom the above statement was addressed, and by the Clerk, who read the report, it is said : " The General Assembly of 1835, respectfully re- quested the General Association of Connecticut to consent that the Plan of Union in question should be annulled. Having now waited two additional years in vain for any favorable action in the case, on the part of our brethren in Connecticut," &c. PLANOFUNION. 37 General Assembly contradicts its own practice. by the parties. By what logic the last Assembly came to the conclusion, that the General Associa- tion wanted authority to act in the Plan of Union, and that the agreement is therefore null and void, it is difficult to determine. 38 CHAPTER V ABROGATION OF THE PLAN OF UNION, Third reason assigned. The third reason assigned in the resolution for the act of abrogation is, that " much confusion and irregularity have arisen from this unnatural and un- constitutional system of union." To discover what is here intended, it will be necessary to look beyond the face of the resolution. There is no occasion, however, to travel far in search of evidence. This is found ready prepared in the " Testimony and Memorial of the convention of 1837," as embodied in the report of the committee of the Assembly on that Memorial.* The limits of this work will allow only an abstract to be given. The confusion and irregularity in question are presented in ten specifications. These relate to the formation of presbyteries without territorial limits ; the refusal of presbyteries to examine applicants for admission, as to their soundness in the faith ; the licensing and ordaining of such as adopt the stand- ards only for substance of doctrine, and even of many who deny fundamental doctrines ; the for- * Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, p. 471. ABROGATION, &C. 39 Plan of Union alledged as a cause of irregularity. mation of a variety of creeds ; the ordination of a multitude of men to the office of evangeUst ; the disuse of the office of ruhng elder in portions of the church ; the electing and ordaining ruling elders for a limited time ; a progressive change in the sys- tem of presbyterial representation in the General Assembly ; the influence of voluntary and irrespon- sible societies ; and the unconstitutional decisions and violent proceedings of several General Assem- blies. These, j^in substance, are the irregularities and disorders which are complained of, in the me- morials, and no doubt, intended in the resolution ; and which the General Assembly of 1837 charges upon " the unnatural and unconstitutional system of union." In its pastoral letter to the churches under its care, are found the following expressions. '' The contentions which distract the chm-ch evidently arose from the Plan of Union formed in 1801, be- tween the General Assembly and the Association of Connecticut." " We believe that the attempt, by this Plan of Union, to bring Congregationalists and Presbyterians into the same denomination, has been the principal cause of those dissensions, which now distract and rend the church to pieces." " This has been the source of all our present evils ; — the raising up of presbyteries and synods out of men who had at least as much of the Congregational as the Presbyterian character, has scattered the ele- 40 ABROGATION OF THE Plan of Union alledged as a cause of irregularity. ments of discord through all our regions, and torn our afflicted church to pieces. These indeed were consequences not perceived from the beginning ; it required the light of experience to teach us, that the amalgamation of such bodies as the Congrega- tional and Presbyterian, would produce a ferment sufficient to agitate the whole American nation." In the opinion, therefore, of the majority of the last General Assembly, the Plan of Union '' has had the slow but inevitable effect to subvert the order and discipline of the Presbyterian church." To enable the reader to decide correctly on this subject, some knowledge is requisite of the past history of the Presbyterian church in the United States. For a period of twenty years from the for- mation of its first presbytery, viz. that of Phila- delphia, it had no bond of union but the bible, and a general agreement in respect to its plan of sal- vation. The ministers of that time declared them- selves " willing to admit to fellowship in sacred or- dinances, all such as they had grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of Heaven." Congregationalists and Presbyterians were on terms of perfect friendship and equality, notwithstanding any difference of views respecting church govern- ment. Whether churches were constituted with ruling elders or not, was regarded as a point of mi- nor importance, and was never brought into con- PLANOFUNION. 41 What they mean by " irregularity." troversy. By degrees, however; the fabric of Pres- byterian ism grew up. A form of government was adopted, in which churches with ruUng elders, and presbyteries and synods, and, at length, a General Assembly, were recognized ; and a rigid adherence to this system was claimed by the advocates of strict Presbyterianism. Such, however, has been the liberality of views in the great body of the church, that no efforts of this party have ever been successful in establishing a high church policy in regard to discipline. Indeed, it is but a very short period, since any such attempts have been made. When the Plan of Union was adopted, and for many subsequent years, the introduction of Con- gregationalists into the Presbyterian denomination, whether ministers, or laymen, or churches, was re- gai'ded on all sides with favor and approbation. The confusion and irregularity which the last As- sembly have attributed to the Plan of Union and made a reason for its abrogation, would then have been considered as no confusion and irregularity at all, nor as threatening the least evil to the church or to the cause of Christ. The real question on the subject of disorders now is, shall Congregationalism, in any shape, be tolera- ted in the Presbyterian church? This question embraces nearly the whole ground of complaint on this subject, and divides the church into two 4* 42 ABROGATION OF THE The reasons for abrogation insufficient. great parties. The majority of the last Assembly have decided it in the negative, and proceeded to abrogate the Plan of Union. In carrying out that decision, with the same object in view, and as a professed consequence of that act, they have at- tempted to exscind the four synods of Utica, Ge- neva, Genesee, and the Western Reserve ; to dis- solve the third presbytery of Philadelphia ; and to exclude the American Home Missionary and the American Education Societies, from the bounds of the Presbyterian church. Such are the reasons alledged in the resolution, for abrogating the Plan of Union, and now let the reader pause and ask, are they good and sufficient ? Do they convince an enlightened christian of un- biased mind, whose great object is to advance the kingdom of Christ ? Are they reasons which the Redeemer himself will accept in justification of the measure, on the great day of account ? Can any man believe that the Plan of Union is such an unconstitutional act, that a solemn compact with the General Association of Connecticut establishing it, is not morally binding on the other party to the agreement ? Can any man believe that the Asso- ciation is a body incapable of entering into such a compact, in any such sense, that the other con- tracting party is under no obligation to fulfill its en- gagements ? Can any one believe, that the evils PLANOFUNION. 43 Liberality of the General Association. of " this unnatural and unconstitutional system of union," as it is called, are such as to require the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, in the conscientious discharge of its duty, to declare it abrogated? It scarcely seems possible, that any man should be brought into the sober belief of these things. The Plan of Union was adopted by all parties with good intentions, and has been the cause of blessings neither few nor small, to those for whose benefit it was intended. The General Association of Connecticut acted, at the first, with the most liberal feelings, and has, ever since, maintained a course in accordance with such feelings. The min- isters and churches of Connecticut, in this matter, had no sectarian designs. They gained neither power, nor wealth, nor fame, except the deserved and lasting reputation of christian benevolence. The only boon they sought, was the satisfaction of doing good in giving the bread of life to their des- titute brethren in the west, and the rewards prom- ised the faithful and obedient servants of Christ. They, in fact, shut the door against the enlarge- ment of the Congregational denomination, which, but for the Plan of Union, might have been greatly increased in numbers and influence, through the labors of their missionaries in the new settlements. They were content to sow the field, from which 44 ABROGATION OF THE Good effects of the Plan of Union. their brethren of another denomination, should gather the harvest. We may challenge the world to show an example of more disinterested benevo- lent action. If an accession of numbers, and wealth, and piety, and moral influence, is to be regarded as a blessing to any denomination of christians, the Presbyterian church, in the language of one of her distinguished ministers, "owes an everlasting debt of gratitude to the Connecticut Missionary Soci- ety." As the result of the joint action of its mis- sionaries and those of the General Assembly, on the basis of the Plan of Union, up to the year 1828, more than six hundred Presbyterian churches, in New York and Pennsylvania, and the states and territories lying west of them, had been organized. Many others have been subsequently added to the number. Thus the waste places were built up, the Plan of Union, for thirty-six years, being a bond of fellowship, between Congregationalists and Presby- terians in the new settlements, and the source of peace and harmony to the infant churches of the west. Those that were organized under it, from the Hudson to the Mississippi, appreciated its bless- ings ; and not a murmur of complaint was uttered against it by those who had seen its operations and experienced its effects. Indeed, all parties were satisfied, till various causes came into existence to PLANOFUNiON. 45 True reasons for the abrogation. change the views of a certain portion of the Pres- byterian church. A proper understanding of these causes will lead to the conclusion, that the true rea- sons for the abrogation of the Plan of Union, were not its unconstitutionality, nor the all edged evils resulting from its operation. These are a mere sub- terfuge ; a plausible pretext for the measures pur- sued. If its operation had been to increase the power of a particular party, the constitutional ques- tion might still be at rest, and the harmless Plan might go on, accomphshing the good for which it was designed. These assertions may call forth from some the chai'ge of an improper impeachment of motives ; but the right is claimed of speaking freely, provided it is done in a christian spirit, of the motives of men, when openly avowed, or clearly deducible from their acts. This right will be freely exercised in the following pages, under a sense of responsibility to God for the intentions of the wri- ter, and for the effects which his writings are cal- culated to produce. The next step will be to unfold the real causes of the abrogation of the Plan of Union ; and if suc- cess attends this undertaking, much also will be done to reveal the causes of the subsequent acts of the last General Assembly ; — the excision of the synods, the dissolution of the presbytery, and the exclusion of the Home Missionary and Education 46 ABROGATION, &C. True reasons for the abrogation. Societies^- — for these acts were all aimed at one general object. That object was the removal of New England opmions and influence from the Pres- byterian church. The correctness of this state- ment has been questioned ; but its truth cannot reasonably be denied, by any who are acquainted with the history of parties in that church from its beginning to the present time. 47 CHAPTER VI. ORIGIN OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Adopting Act. The Presbyterian church in the United States WEis originally composed of Presbyterians from Scot- land and Ireland, and Congregationalists chiefly from New England. The Congregationalists were at first the majority, and, as has already been remark- ed, the two denominations united on the common ground of a belief in the great doctrines of the bible, and of saving faith in Jesus Christ. This union was continued for a period of twenty-five years, without any written confession or form of govern- ment. In 1729, the synod of Philadelphia, then composed of four presbyteries, and embracing the whole body of Presbyterian ministers, passed an act, not however without considerable opposition, adopt- ing the Westminster confession of faith with the Assembly's larger and shorter catechism, " as be- ing in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words, and systems of christian doc- trine."* By this act, a declaration of assent to the confession and catechisms was required '^in all the * New York Observer, 1831, p. 97. 48 ORIGIN OF THE Adopting Act. essential and necessary articles," by members of the synod and candidates for the ministry ; at the same time it was provided, that, " in case any minister of this synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said confession or catechisms, he shall, at the time of his making said declaration, declare his sentiments to the presbytery or synod, who shall notwithstanding admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds and to ministerial communion, if the synod or presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be about articles not es- sential and necessary, in doctrine, worship, or gov- ernment." " The synod also do solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those that differ from us in those extra es- sential and not necessary points of doctrine ; but treat them with the same friendship, kindness and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such sentiments." The members of the synod, " after proposing all the scruples any of them had against any articles and expressions of the confes- sion of faith, and larger and shorter catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, unani- mously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said confession and catechisms to be the confession of their faith ;" only disown- ing the "controlling power of the civil magistrate," PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 49 Adopting Act. with respect to the exercise of the ministry, and the rights of conscience. The synod also " unanimously declared, that they judged the Directory for worship, disciphne, and goverimient of the church, commonly annexed to the Westminster confession, to be agreeable to the word of God and founded thereupon, and therefore do earnestly recommend it to all their members to be by them observed, as near as circumstances will allow and christian prudence direct." Two facts are strikingly exhibited in the adopt- ing act, from which these quotations are made. One is, that diversity of sentiment existed in the members of the synod of 1729 ; the other is, that in the exercise of a catholic spirit, they were ready to overlook minor differences of opinion, and make an agreement, in substance of doctrine, the basis of union. They declared, that " we do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon other men's consciences; but do profess our just dissatisfaction and abhorrence of such impositions, and utterly disclaim all legislative power and au- thority in the church, being willing to receive one another as Christ has received us, to the glory of God; and to admit to fellowship in sacred ordi- nances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heav- en." For nearly twenty years, the Congregation- 5 50 ORIGINOFTHE Two parties in the Presbyterian church. alists and Presbyterians thus united, maintained general harmony ; a liberal construction of their ar- ticles of faith, and the exercise of christian Catholi- cism, preventing serious contentions and unhappy divisions. A difference of views, however, respect- ing presbyterial order and ministerial qualifications, distinctly marked two parties in the church ; and so widely did they differ in sentiment and feeling, that there was needed only a sufficiently exciting cause to produce a separation. That cause was fur- nished by the labors of Mr. Whitefield, in connec- tion with whose ministry, glorious and extensive revivals of religion took place, in the Presbyterian church and in New England. The strict Presby- terians, called at that time the Old Side, regarded Mr. Whitefield and his friends as "ignorant and extravagant enthusiasts." The other party, called the New Side, or New Lights, viewed their oppo- nents as "Pharisaical formahsts."* Animosities in- creased, until the synod of Philadelphia, after a vio- lent controversy, was rent asunder, and two rival synods were formed, viz. New York and Philadel- phia. The members of the former synod were al- most unanimously the friends and coadjutors of Mr. Whitefield; while those of the latter were, gen- erally, if not universally, his decided opposers. * Miller's Life of Rodgers. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 51 College of New Jersey. The separation which thus took place, was not strictly marked by geographical limits ; but the members of each synod, to a considerable extent, were scattered over the whole ground occupied by the Presbyterian church. In New Jersey, however, there was not a single clergyman who belonged to the synod of Philadelphia. The whole Presbyte- rian population of the province, was zealously at- tached to the interests of the New York synod. This rendered it in the view of that synod, a proper field for the location of a seminary, designed, in part, by the education of youth for the christian ministry, to advance the interests of its own party. With this view, the college of New Jersey was founded ; and the Rev. Jonathan Dickinson, a na- tive of Massachusetts, and a warm friend of Mr. Whitefield, was appointed its first president. His successor was the Rev. Aaron Burr, a native of Con- necticut, a great admirer and friend also of Mr. Whitefield. Then succeeded the Rev. Jonathan Edwards, whose friendship for Mr. Whitefield, and whose active labors in the revivals of his time, are well known. Of the same stamp, were the Rev. James Lockwood, of Wethersfield, Conn., who weis elected to the presidency, but declined ; and presi- dents Davies and Finley, the former of whom, with the Rev. Gilbert Tennent, was deputed by the Board of Trustees, in the infancy of the college, to 52 ORIGINOFTHE Reunion of the Presbyterian church. raise funds in Great Britain ; and the latter, was once carried out of the colony of Connecticut as a vagrant, under a law enacted by the legislature of the colony, at the instigation of the enemies of re- vivals and the opposers of Mr. Whitefield. Thus the college of New Jersey originated with the New Lights, and for many years was in the hands of the Congregational party, from whom it received its chief support.* The synods of New York and Philadelphia, after remaining divided for seventeen years, at length, in 1758, were united. The evils which they had experienced by division, taught both parties salutary lessons respecting forbearance and toleration ; but diversity of opinion on many important subjects was not removed. Party feelings and distinctions were not wholly laid aside ; much less did the original parties undergo a complete amalgamation. The Scotch and Irish Presbyterians and their descend- ants, in general, were Old Side still ; while those of New England origin and sentiments were New Side, and almost as distinctly marked as ever. These two parties, with a slight change in name, and an alteration in the position of a few individ- uals, from various causes, have formed the basis of the two great parties which now divide the Pres- * Quarterly Register, Aug. 1834, p. 42. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 53 Parties the same. byterian church. The Old School and New School, are the Old Side and New Side, the old divinity and new divinity men of former times. The nu- cleus of each of the present parties, not only existed in 1704, but has ever since existed the same thing as ever, and now essentially determines the char- acter of the agglomerated mass. In the lapse of years, indeed, under the operation of various at- tracting and repelling influences and disturbing causes, some important changes have taken place, and elective affinities have resulted, for which it may be difficult, on common laws, to account ; but no one can reasonably doubt, that strict Presbyte- rianism, on the one hand, distinguishes the Old School now, as formerly ; and that on the other, liberal Presbyterianism, as at the first, cheiracterizes the New School. Liberal Presbyterianism being of New England origin and wearing the impress of New England sentiments, is the object of attack with the Old School party ; and hence the present struggle in the Presbyterian church relates prima- rily to New England opinions and influence. For the suppression of these opinions, and the removal of this influence, the majority of the General As- sembly of 1837, adopted their revolutionary meas- ures. Here is found the cause of the abrogation of the Plan of Union, and the proceedings connected with that act. Here was the supposed enemy 6* 54 Parties the same. against which, from a diversity of interests and motives, the forces of the Old School were ralUed, and marched in mibroken columns. No person who has read the debates in the Philadelphia con- vention, and in the Assembly of 1837, and espe» cially the pastoral and circular letters proceeding from the majority of the Assembly, can require any other evidence of the fact. Much less should any deny it who voted to print those letters in their minutes, and lay them before the world as their official acts. 55 CHAPTER VII. CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. The causes classified. The immediate object of the abrogation of the Plan of Union having been pointed out in the pre- ceding chapter, it is well worth while to inquire after the various interests which operated to unite the majority of the Assembly of 1837, in the measures designed for the attainment of their end. For this purpose, the history of events cormected with the subject, for a number of years past, must be ex- amined, that it may be seen through what com- bined influences unison in feeling and action, in re- gard to the measures in question, was produced. The causes referred to, may, for the sake of con- venience, be thus classified and arranged, 1. The recent excitement in diflerent parts of the church in respect to slavery and abohtion. 2. The fear of encroachment upon the supposed prerogatives of '' the church in her distinctive char- acter." 3. The judicial proceedings of the church, grow- ing out of real diversity of doctrinal views ; and, 4 The late theological controversies of New England, and especially of Connecticut. 56 CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. Slavery and Abolition. The order in which these causes are named, is chosen, not with reference to their supposed im- portance, but for the sake of disposing of the former two with a brief notice, and of entering more fully into an investigation of the others. 1. The recent excitement in different parts of the United States, and in the Presbyterian church, on the subject of slavery and abolition, has had an influence in causing the proceedings of the General Assembly of 1837. It has been denied by some that slavery had any influence on the proceedings of that body. By oth- ers it has been maintained, that the abolition move- ments at the north, and opposition to them at the south, were a principal cause of the excision of the synods, and of the other acts of the Assembly de- signed to exclude New England sentiments from the Presbyterian church. The truth probably lies between these two opinions, though nearer the former than the latter. The majority of the As- sembly was, no doubt, increased by the addition of some southern votes which would not have been given, as they were, irrespective of the slavery question. It was suspected that New School men, as a body, were leaning towards abolitionism more than the opposite party ; and that their predomi- nance in the church would increase the moral in- fluence of the north against the system of slavery. CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. 57 Slavery and Abolition. It was even feared that the General Assembly, un- der certain contingencies, would again officially condemn some features of the system, as practiced by members of the church, if not the system itself, as unscriptural and anti-christian. On the other hand, there was reason to believe, that so long as an Old School majority prevailed, there would be no direct action on the subject in the highest judi- catory of the church. The mind of Dr. Baxter, the president of the Philadelphia convention, and the defender of slavery as a scriptural institution, was filled with anxiety on the subject ; and he was chiefly induced, it would seem from his own state- ment, to become a member of the convention that he might feel the pulse of the northern abolitionists of the Old School party. This he foimd to beat in a manner denoting a healthy state, there being no indications of disease except in one or two, and in these, very little appearance of febrile action. This state of things in the convention no doubt ex- cited the hope in some, of protecting " the domestic institutions of the south," by crushing a northern influence in the General Assembly. To under- stand how the question of slavery and abolition may have operated in the manner here stated, it will be necessary to attend to the positions in which this question has stood at diflerent times before the General Assembly ; and to the different views which 58 CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. General Assembly on slavery. are at present entertained in different sections of the Presbyterian church. The synod of New York and Philadelphia, in 1787, being then the supreme judicatory of the church, adopted the following "judgement," af- ter taking into consideration an overture concern- ing slavery. " The synod do highly approve of the general principles in favor of universal liberty that prevail in America, and the interest which many of the states have taken in promoting the abolition of slavery. They earnestly recommend it to all the members belonging to their communion, to give those persons who are at present held in servitude, such good education as to prepare them for the bet- ter enjoyment of freedom. And they moreover re- commend that masters, whenever they find ser- vants disposed to make a just improvement of that privilege, would give them a peculium, or grant them sufficient time and sufficient means of pro- curing their own liberty at a moderate rate ; that thereby they may be brought into society, with those habits of industry that may render them use- ful citizens. And finally, they recommend it to all their people to use the most prudent measures, con- sistent with the interests and the state of civil so- ciety in the countries where they live, to procure eventually the final abolition of slavery in America." CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. 59 General Assembly on slavery. In 1794, the General Assembly adopted the fol- lowing comment on 1 Tim. 1 : 10, in a note ap- pended to the 142d question of the larger cate- chism. '' The law is made for man-stealers. This crime among the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment ; and the apostle here classes them with sinners of the first rank. The word he uses, in its original import, comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery or in retaining them in it. Hominum fureSj qui servos vel liheros ahducunt^ retinent, ven- duntj vel emunt — Stealers of men are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or buy them. To steal a freeman, says Grotius, is the highest kind of theft. In other instances, we only steal human property ; but when we steal or retain men in slavery, we seize those who in common with ourselves, are constituted by the original grant, lords of the earth." In 1815, the question was proposed to the As- sembly, whether a person who views slavery as a moral evil, highly offensive to God and injurious to the interests of the gospel, ought to hold commun- ion with those who concur with him in sentiment, on the subject upon general principles, yet for par- ticular reasons hold slaves and tolerate the practice in others ? Upon this question the Assembly re- solved, " that as the same difference of opinion with 60 CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. General Assembly on slavery. respect to slavery takes place in sundry other parts of the Presbyterian church, notwithstanding which, they live in charity and peace, according to the doctrine and practice of the apostles ; it is hereby recommended to all conscientious persons, and es- pecially to those whom it immediately respects, to do the same. At the same time the General As- sembly assure all the churches under their care, that they view with the deepest concern any ves- tiges of slavery which may exist in our country ; and refer the churches to the records of the General Assembly published at different times," as express- ing their present views on the subject. In 1816, the Assembly resolved, " that the note connected with the scripture proofs in answer to the question in the larger catechism, ' what is for- bidden in the eighth commandment,' in which the nature of the crime of man-stealing and slavery is dilated upon, he omitted.'''' In 1818, the Assembly made a full expression of its views on slavery. Amongst other things it de- clared, that " we consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the himian race by another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature ; as utterly inconsistent with the law of God which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves ; and £is totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ, which CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. 61 General Assembly on slavery. enjoin, that all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do- ye even so to them." After stating the great evils inseparably connect- ed with slavery, the Assembly says, that "from this view of the consequences resulting from the practice into which Christian people have most in- consistently fallen, of enslaving a portion of their brethren of mankind, it is manifestly the duty of all christians, when the inconsistency of slavery with the dictates of humanity and religion has been demonstrated, and is generally seen and acknow- ledged, to use their honest, earnest, and unwearied endeavors, as speedily as possible to efface this blot on our holy religion, and to obtain the complete abolition of slavery throughout the world." This brief notice of the action of the highest ju- dicatory of the church on the subject of slavery du- ring the thirty one years, from 1787 to 1818, will serve to shew, that even in that period the subject was surrounded with difficulties, and liable to pro- duce great excitement whenever brought forward for discussion. It will also be seen, that as the church extended and increased in numbers in the slave-holding region, to calm the feelings of the south, the Assembly was obhged to modify and soften down the language condemnatory of slavery; and it is owing no doubt to the increased difficul- ties in which the subject has since been involved, 6 62 CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. Testimony of the Biblical Repertory. and the tendency to undue excitement always man- ifested, whenever it has come up, that no official act of the Assembly has been passed upon it for the last nineteen years. The following extract from an article in the Princeton Biblical Repertory for January, 1832. as- cribed to Dr. Alexander, in which the writer pro- poses and recommends a reorganization of the Pres- byterian church, presents a correct view of the man- ner in which this subject has agitated the ecclesi- astical judicatories. '' We shall advert," says the writer, '•' to another consideration which in our opinion strongly recom- mends the organization now proposed. In a large extent of country over which our church is spread, domestic slavery exists and is practiced by church members, under the impression, that in existing cir- cumstances it is lawful, and authorized by the pre- cepts and practice of the apostles. But those parts of the church where slavery is not tolerated, view the whole thing with abhorrence, and cannot exer- cise, in many cases at least, charity towards the holders of slaves. This subject has been threaten- ing to disturb and divide the Presbyterian church, almost ever since it had an existence ; and the evil has only been prevented by great prudence in the General Assembly. They have commonly con- trived to evade this agitating subject j but this CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. 63 Assembly of 1836 on slavery. course has not satisfied all, and, before long, it must come up in such a form as greatly to disturb, if not rend the church asunder. But by the proposed plan of arrangement, all the churches in the slave- holding states, will be separated from those of the non-slaveholding states, and there will be no op- portunity of their coming into collision in the eccle- siastical judicatories." If any further proof is wanted of the agitating na- ture of the slavery question, we may gather it from the proceedings of the General Assembly of 1836. The discussion of the subject in that body produ- ced a great ferment. On the one hand it was con- tended, that the Assembly had no right to pass judgment in regard to slavery, or even to discuss the subject ; that by its former action, abolitionism and Presbyterianism were completely identified throughout the south ; and that they should be compelled to abandon Presbyterianism, or seek pro- tection under a separate organization. On the other hand it was maintained, that the buying, selling, or holding hmnan beings as property, is in the sight of God a heinous sin, demanding the censure of the church ; and that the General Assembly ought to bear its decided testimony against it. And to such a pitch did the excitement arise, that the indefinite postponement of the whole subject could only al- lay it. 64 CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. Presbytery of Harmony on slavery. But we shall become better acquainted with the views at present entertained in the different parts of the Presbyterian church on the subject of slavery, by referring to some of the resolutions of different presbyteries and synods. In Oct. 1836, the pres- bytery of Harmony, South Carolina, resolved among other things, ''that the church has no right to pre- scribe rules and dictate principles which can bind or affect the conscience in reference to slavery ; and any such attempt would constitute ecclesiastical tyranny ; that slavery has existed from the days of those good old slave-holders and patriarchs, Abra- ham, Isaac, and Jacob ; that the existence of slavery is not opposed to the will of God, and whosoever has a conscience too tender to recognize this rela- tion as lawful, is righteous over much, is wise above what is written, and has submitted his neck to the yoke of man, sacrificed his christian liberty of con- science, and leaves the infallible word of God for the fancies and doctrines of men." The resolu- tions from which the above is extracted, were re- ported by Dr. Witherspoon, the Moderator of the General Assembly of 1836, and a slave-holder ; but they are doubtless a correct expression of the sen- timents of many southern ministers and members of the Presbyterian church. The synod of Virginia, in Nov. 1836, passed an act on the state of the church, which was ordered CAUSES UNITINGTHE MAJORITY. 65 Exscinded Synods on slavery. to be printed in the Southern Religious Telegraph, aiid which contained a request to every pastor within the Umits of the body, to read it to his charge. In this document they say, "one thing which presses with peculiar force on the Presby- terian church in the south, is the spirit of abolition as lately developed in some parts of our country ;" and after arguing to shew that slavery is recognized in scripture and not unlawful, they solemnly affirm, " that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church have no right to declare that relation sinful, which Christ and his apostles teach to be consistent with the most unquestionable piety." They add, " the likelihood of the necessity of a geographical division, through the operation of this fanaticism, is not so great as it was some time ago ; yet on this subject, be the danger great or small, a vigilance corresponding with the exigencies of the times is our manifest duty." In opposition to sentiments like these, northern presbyteries and synods declare themselves fully against the system of slavery. Three of the ex- scinded synods, if not the whole number, have passed resolutions on the subject. In Oct. 1835, the synod of Genesee adopted the following preamble and resolutions ; " Whereas synod believes slavery to be a great and growing evil and sinful in the sight of God, afflicting to the 6* 66 CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. Synod of Cincinnati on slavery. soul of the christian and alarming to the fears of the patriot ; and considering it our duty as chris- tians to seek, by all christian measures, the utter extinction of slavery from the church ; therefore, resolved, that we deem it proper respectfully to re- quest, and we do hereby request, the General As- sembly of the Presbyterian church to take order on this subject, and to devise such measures as in their wisdom shall be judged safest and best to effect the extinction of the evil in our own church, at as early a day as possible." The synod of Western Reserve also expressed its opinion, "that slavery as it exists in the United States is a sin against God ; a high-handed trespass on the rights of man ; a great physical, political, and social evil, which ought to be immediately and universally abandoned." The synod of Utica de- clared its belief, that " slavery as it exists in these United States, is repugnant both to the letter and spirit of the gospel ; a flagrant violation of the law of love ; a sin against God and man." The synod of Cincinnati also resolved in 1836, " that the presbyteries and churches circulate ex- tensively, petitions to the next General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, to enjoin it on all the presbyteries and church sessions under their care, to exclude from the communion of the church all persons who shall claim the right of property in their fellow-men." CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. 67 Action of the Assembly on slavery deprecated. The resolutions now quoted, show the opposing sentiments between the north and the south, on a subject, in which the feehngs of men for the last three or four years have been strongly excited; and there are various considerations which show, that slavery had some connection at least with the doings of the General Assembly of 1837. In those quarters, in which a division of the church was threatened on account of abolition, there was less of threat, as there was more of prob- ability, that an Old School majority would be gained in the General Assembly. Take the language of the synod of Virginia before quoted, that " the like- lihood of the necessity of a geographical division of the church through the operation of this fanati- cism is not so great as it was, some time ago;" and what, in connection with other facts, does it go to prove ? The action of the Assembly, decla- ring " slavery sinful," and impeaching the christian character of any man because he is a slave-holder, was a thing especially deprecated. This was what threatened a division of the church. But how was the likelihood of this diminished in the view of the synod, in Nov. 1836 ? No doubt by the prospect of a majority in the General Assembly, who would be content, at least, to let the matter of slavery rest. This was the ground which Princeton would take, and on which the Old School would agree ; and 68 CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. A mutual understanding on the subject. hence the votes of the synod of Virginia, which, in 1834, were with two exceptions, given against the memorial to that Assembly, were in 1837 given unanimously in favor of the principal measures re- commended by the Philadelphia convention. There appears £ilso to have been a tacit agreement on the part of the majority of the Assembly of 1837, that the subject of slavery should not come before that body. All the papers relating to it were retained in the hands of the committee till a late period of the session, when they were returned to the house without report ; and on motion of the chairman of that committee, the whole subject was unceremo- niously Igiid on the table. Can this be satisfactorily explained, except on the supposition of a mutual imderstanding between the abolitionists of the Old School and their southern brethren of the majority, that, letting this exciting topic alone, they should march in unbroken ranks against heresy ; while the south would in a measure gain its object, by excluding New England influence from the Pres- byterian church. But the strongest evidence of the influence of slavery in uniting the dominant party in these measures, is derived from the fact, that the subject had been agitated in nearly all the ecclesiastical bodies in the land, and was occasioning more ex- citement throughout the country than any other ; CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. 69 Slavery not discussed in the Assembly of 1837. and that southern members of the Presbyterian church are anxious to prevent even its discussion in the General Assembly. The supposition caimot be easily reconciled with the laws of the human mind, — that a subject awakening such intense and general interest, should have had no place in the views, and feelings, and motives, which actuated ministers and elders from the slave-holding region, in giving their votes on questions of the nature of those which came before the Assembly of 1837. They knew that the great mass of northern chris- tians, are in principle opposed to the system of slavery. They entertained serious alarm respect- ing the movements of northern abolitionists. They were desirous to prevent all interference of the north with their "domestic institutions," and with the laws and customs relating to them. Many were unwilling to tolerate even the expression of an opinion unfavorable to the rights of masters or the condition of slaves. And what more probable, than that under such circumstances they should be in- duced to sustain measures which a few years ago they would have rejected ? Says Dr. Baxter, presi- dent of the convention of 1837, in justification of the measures of the Assembly, '' another advantage of the course pursued, if it be sustained and carried out by the churches, is, that it will put an end to the abolition question and disturbance in the Pres- 70 CAUSES UNITING THE MAJORITY. Slavery not discussed in the Assembly of 1837. byterian church." — "I have no doubt, that if the separation begun should be carried out, the Presby- terian church, by getting clear of the New School, will at the same time get clear of abolition.* Can it be doubted that under impressions like these, such men as Dr. Baxter, and other advocates of slavery as a scriptural institution, would vote for measures of reform, which, if in their view discon- nected entirely from that subject, they would cor- dially disapprove ? And did not some of the major- ity of the General Assembly of 1837, act under pre- cisely such impressions ? But undue weight must not be given to slavery and abolition as a cause of the proceedings of the Assembly. Other causes will be developed in the progress of this work, which will, it is believed, make the influence of that now considered, appear of minor importance. * New York Observer, 1837, p. 110. 71 CHAPTER VIII. ENCROACHMENTS ON HIGH CHURCH PREROGATIVES FEARED. The church in her distinctive character. A SECOND cause of the abrogation of the Plan of Union and of the subsequent acts of the General Assembly of 1837, may be found in the fears, en- tertained by some, of encroachments upon the sup- posed prerogatives of the church in her distinctive character. There are, in the Presbyterian church, those who not only look upon her form of government as a perfect ecclesiastical system, but as appointed by divine authority. Her ministers, and elders, and deacons, are the bishops, and elders, and deacons of apostolic days ; and her church sessions, and pres- byteries, and synods, and General Assembly, are es- sentially judicatories divinely constituted. Hence the church in all matters of morality or religion, must act in her distinctive character. In her capa- city as a church of Jesus Christ, she must, through her own judicatories, fulfill the commands of the gospel. Others, who do not come quite up to the standard of this high church orthodoxy, look upon 72 ENCROACHMENTS FEARED. The standards of the church how regarded. the Presbyterian organization as one of unrivalled excellence, and to be maintained according to the letter of her constitution. Her confession of faith and form of discipline must be adopted, not as a system from which there may be dissent in some particulars of minor importance, as was the usage at first ; but they must be received as true to the letter, and as being in every word and expression, neither more nor less than the faith of him who adopts them. Indeed, the standards of the church seem to be, in the estimation of some, almost para- mount to the bible, as a means of correct doctrinal instructions and a safeguard against error. Their ap- peal is to the standards of the church, and the least deviation in sentiment or phreiseology from them, is in their view little better than heresy. Hence their opposition to the principles of accommodation in the Plan of Union, and to voluntary associations. Elders set apart by ordination, must be the only lay members of judicatories. Delinquents must be called to account by church sessions, and go through all the process of discipline prescribed in the con- stitution. Any mixture of Congregational princi- ples of government can by no means be tolerated. How much these high church notions depend upon the present position of parties in the Presbyterian body, it is not essential to determine ; but that the ideal perfection of pure Presbyterianism, as it exists ENCROACHMENTS FEARED. 73 Difference among the Old School. in the minds of many, has had its influence in urging them on to a course of bold and decided measures for reform, there can be no reasonable doubt. There is, however, among the Old School par- ty, a dilTerence of opinion, in regard to voluntary associations. Some seem disposed to tolerate, if not support, those which are not concerned in in- troducing New England theology and Congrega- tionalism into the Presbyterian church. Others would discountenance the American Board of For- eign Missions, and even the American Temperance Society, because they are not church organizations. The church in her distinctive character, they think, must have the control of all benevolent opera- tions in which her members are engaged, lest she should lose her power and influence, and open a door for the introduction of disorder and heresy. But not to attribute too much to the influence of these high chm-ch notions in forming the majority of the Assembly of 1837, it ought to be understood that the opposition to voluntary associations, manifested in the acts of discountenancing the American Home Missionary and American Education Societies, is not to be ascribed wholly or chiefly to a preference of church organizations, in themselves considered. The scruples of most, in regard to conducting be- nevolent operations on the voluntary plan, might 7 74 ENCROACHMENTS FEARED. Difference among the Old School. probably have been lulled to sleep, if the proscribed societies had not been supposed to exert an influ- ence in spreading opinions disliked by the Old School, and to have had a practical efiect in chang- ing majorities in the church judicatories. The strength of opposition to the different societies pa- tronized by portions of the Presbyterian church, is manifestly proportioned to the extent in which they are believed to diminish the relative power of the dominant party ; as appears from the degree of fa- vor bestowed on some in comparison with others. Enough has now been said to exhibit in its due weight the influence of the cause here considered, in contributing to form a majority in the Assembly for abrogating the Plan of Union and for adopting the consequent measures. 75 CHAPTER IX. DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. Adam, the head of our race. A THIRD cause concerned in uniting a majority of the General Assembly of 1837 in the measures adopted by that body, may be found, as already stated, in the judicial proceedings of the church, growing out of a real diversity of doctrinal views. In order to unfold the operation of this cause, it will be necessary to shew, in what the diversity consists ; and to give some account of the proceed- ings to which reference is here made. The dif- ference of theological sentiment between the Old School and New School parties, is, in many re- spects, of a marked character. It may not, how- ever, be easy to exhibit their views on controverted points, so as to make visible every shade of distinc- tion ; but it will not be a difficult matter to draw the prominent features of the two schemes, in such a manner as to make them duly recognized, and render their difference apparent. It is a favorite doctrine of the Old School, that God constituted Adam properly and truly, the head 76 DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY Nature and extent of the atonement. and representative of our race, and,- with him, as such, entered into covenant ; that our first parent, acting in behalf of all his posterity, involved them in the guilt of his transgression, so that, for his act, they became justly liable to eternal death. Some explain this participancy in guilt and liability to punishment, to be by imputation ; on the ground, that God might appoint Adam to act for his de- scendants, and hold them really responsible for his acts, and treat them according to his deserts. Oth- ers maintain, that his posterity acted with him in his transgression, and thus involved themselves in the ruin of his fall. Closely allied to the doctrine just stated, is an- other respecting the nature and extent of the atone- ment. God, say they, entered into covenant from eternity with his son Jesus Christ, to save a part of our race, on condition that he should suffer the pun- ishment due to their sins ; Christ, in making an atonement, literally bore the penalties of the law in his own person, and, by the full payment, in an ad- equate amount of suffering, of the debt due to di- vine justice, purchased the redemption of the elect : they alone were embraced in the covenant of grace, and his righteousness becomes, by imputation, really and truly theirs, through faith. Some who adopt this view of the nature and extent of the atone- ment, admit its sufficiency for the iion elect, if so BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. 77 Man's inability. intended ; but as they are not included in the cove- nant, the atonement can be regarded in no proper sense, as being made on their account. They can- not, therefore, share in the regenerating grace of God, nor partake of the benefits of Christ's death. Another sentiment nearly connected with the doctrine first mentioned, is, that mankind, having lost the divine image in their transgression and fall with Adam, and being born into the world with a constitution morally depraved, have no ability, m any sense, either to obey the command of God, or to comply with the conditions of salvation in the gospel. The power to right moral action having been destroyed by the fall, is communicated only by sovereign grace. Hence, regeneration is an effect of the Spirit's operations, in which man is entirely passive ; as much so as in his original crea- tion. This scheme of course embraces peculiar views respecting moral agency. It makes man responsi- ble for actions not his own, and lays him under ob- ligation to do, what he is acknowledged to have no ability to perform. It also affects the nature of di- vine influence. Man being physically depraved, un- dergoes, in regeneration, a physical change, which is wrought by creative omnipotence. It likewise resolves the moral government of God into a system of divine operations, having their reasons in divine 7* 78 DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY Doctrinal belief of the New School. sovereignty, without a suitable regard to the nature of moral beings, and to the moral relations which exist in the universe. Its practical tendency is, m some measure, that of Antinomianism, in regard to the obligation and duty of sinners, and the influ- ence of truth on the mind. This representation of the doctrines which dis- tinguish the Old School, it is believed, will cor- rectly apply to the majority of that party in the Presbyterian church, who regard the New England doctrines as heretical, and who, for the last few years, have been actively engaged in exposing and eradicating, what they consider, fundamental error. Their system of orthodoxy, if correctly understood, includes, as essential, the three principal points above stated, with their explanations ; and also, by implication, the other views subjoined. The sys- tem, however, is differently modified by different individuals. Points of fundamental importance in the view of some, are by others regarded less im- portant; while there is considerable diversity in the mode of explaining doctrines, amongst those who agree in the manner of stating them. The doctrinal belief of the New School may be learned from the writings of distinguished individ- uals of that class of divines, as well as from docu- ments drawn up in the form of articles of faith, and from statements and explanations made before the BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. 79 Connection with Adam. — Unlimited atonement, judicatories of the church. Perhaps, however, no better abstract of their doctrines can be given, than one taken from the protest of the minority of the Assembly of 1837, on the subject of doctrinal er- rors.* In respect to our connection with Adam they hold, that he was so constituted "the head and representative of the race, that, as a consequence of his transgression, all mankind become morally cor- rupt, and liable to death, temporal and eternal." Thus the posterity of Adam have " a natural bias to evil resulting from the first apostacy, which leads invariably and certainly to actual transgression;" but '' the sin of Adam is not imputed to his pos- terity, in the sense of a literal transfer of persond qualities, acts, and demerit." In regard to the atonement they hold, that the sufierings and death of Christ were truly vicarious, or a suitable substitute for the punishment due to transgressors ; and, though not the literal penalty of the law, were in the view of infinite wisdom a full equivalent, so that by virtue of Christ's atoning sacrifice, overtures of mercy 2ire sincerely made to the whole race, and salvation secured to all that believe, solely on the ground of the righteousness of Christ. * Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, p. 484. 80 DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY Man, an accountable agent. They also hold, that " sinners have all the fac- ulties necessary to a perfect moral agency and a just accountability ;" but such is their love of sin and opposition to God and his law, that, "they never will comply with the commands of God, in- dependently of the renewing influence or almighty energy of the Holy Spirit ; and that by His special operations in regeneration, the will of the sinner is determined to that which is good, so that he freely embraces the gospel." This scheme is substantially that of Edwards and the New England divines * It acknowledges man as a moral agent, and views him as so acting under the government of God, that, though natu- rally inclined to evil, his voluntary disobedience to the divine law, is the only just ground of his con- demnation ; and that no violence is ofl*ered to his will in any divine influences which are exerted * Edwards held in a different sense the doctrine of imputation. *' The imputation of Adam's first sin," he regarded as " the lia- bleness or exposedness of Adam's posterity, in the divine judg- ment, to partake of the punishment of that sin.'' (Works, Edi- tion 1809, vol. vi, p. 130.) He accounts for the justice of their punishment, on the ground, that they were one with Adam, as the branches with the root, or the members with the head. " The first existing of a corrupt disposition in their hearts," is, as it were, " the extended pollution" of his first act, or " the inhe- rence of the sin of the head" in the members, in their consent and concurrence with the head in that first act. p. 437. The Princeton divines, as well as the New School, reject this view of imputation. BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. 81 Progress of the New School opinions. upon him. It is easy to see that the difference of views between the Old and New School, on the points of doctrine which have now been referred to, will, in various respects, modify their whole creed ; and it is not surprising, that under certain excitements, it should occasion in the Old School serious apprehensions for, what they regard, " the faiith once delivered to the saints." On the other hand, it is not to be wondered at, that they who hold the tenets of the New School should attack, with warmth, the peculiar dogmas of that theology which teaches a limited atonement, participancy in the guilt of Adam's sin, and natural inability to love aiid obey God. The discussion of these subjects in past yeajrs, has resulted in the progress of the theological views maintained by the New School. The publication of the Triangle, whatever may be thought of its spirit and mode of attack, did much in the city of New York and elsewhere, to render the doctrines which it opposed unpopular, and to advance New England sentiments. The preaching and writings of several distinguished ministers of New England origin, together with the introduction of others into the Presbyterian church, were productive of simi- lar results ; and there was a gradual approach to- wards a transfer of power and influence, from one to the other side in the controversy. So long, how- 82 DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY Alarm of the Old School. — Mr. Barnes' sermon. ever, as the Old School party experienced no such sensible diminution of relative numbers as to cause them to fear the loss of their ascendency, they ex- ercised a good degree of patience and forbearance towards their brethren of the New School. But when the control of affairs was likely to pass from their hands, they became greatly alarmed for their peculiar orthodoxy. The importance of their dis- tinguishing tenets became magnified in their own minds, and the reputed errors of their opponents, which were once tolerated, now assumed the fright- ful form of dangerous and hideous heresy. The faith once delivered to the saints must be defended, in such a manner as to secure the desired pre-emi- nence. The first Presbyterian church in Philadelphia, ranking in theological sentiment with the New School, occupied a commanding position, and was an object of importance to be gained, if possible, to the other side. Its pastor, the Rev. James P. Wil- son, D. D., was about to retire from the field of his labors, and a successor was needed. The eyes of the congregation were turned to the Rev. Albert Barnes, of Morristown, New Jersey, whose ministra- tions had recently been attended by one of the greatest reviveds of religion ever known in this coxmtry. Mr. Barnes had preached a sermon enti- tled " The Way of Salvation," which, in the be- BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. 83 Proceedings of the Presbytery respecting his call. ginning of the year 1830, was printed, and soon after circulated among the electors of the first church, by some of the members who designed to call him to become their pastor. The sermon was reviewed by a member of the presbytery of Philadelphia of opposite views, who urged objec- tions against its doctrines. Dr. Wilson wrote in its defense ; and, in several articles published on each side, the doctrines of the discourse were fully dis- cussed. In the mean time, the first Presbyterian church proceeded to give Mr. Barnes a unanimous call ; and the question then came before the presbytery of Philadelphia, whether the call should be allowed to be prosecuted before the presbytery of Eliza- bethtown, of which Mr. Barnes was a member. The sermon was made the sole ground of opposi- tion, and after nearly four days were spent in dis- cussion, the presbytery decided by a large majority in favor of prosecuting the call. These proceed- ings took place in April, 1830. In June following, Mr. Barnes presented to the presbytery of Philadel- phia, a certificate of dismission and recommendar. tion from the presbytery of Elizabethtown. His opponents being frustrated, as has been shewn, in their first attempt, were not satisfied, but undertook to prevent his admission to the presbytery, and his installation over the church to which he had been 84 DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY Mr. Barnes' sermon tried. unanimously called. An unsuccessful effort was made to procure the postponement of a motion to admit him a member, until he. had been publicly examined in regard to his disputed doctrinal senti- ments. A written statement of his views, however, was presented to the presbytery, designed to satisfy those who were suspicious of his orthodoxy ; and, af- ter much discussion and one previous adjournment, he was finally received by a vote of nearly two- thirds in his favor. On the 25th of June, Mr. Barnes was inducted into his present charge. His opponents preferred a complaint to the synod of Philadelphia against the proceedings of the presbytery, aiid were referred back with an injunction to the presbytery, ^' to hear and decide on their objections to the or- thodoxy of the sermon of Mr. Barnes, and to take such order on the whole subject, as is required by a regard to the purity of the church and its ac- knowledged doctrines and order." The friends of Mr. Barnes in the presbytery, insisted that the com- plainants were accusers, and, therefore, were not to be judges in the matter referred by the synod. On the other side it was claimed, that the sermon was the subject of complaint, and that no process was instituted against its author. On this ground the presbytery proceeded, and a majority adopted a minute as the " final decision," severely censuring the sermon, and reflecting on the theological senti- BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. 85 Case brought before the General Assembly. merits of Mr. Barnes. They also appointed a com- mittee to communicate to him the result of the de- liberations of the presbytery, and to converse with him, with the view of procuring a renunciation of his alledged errors. The proceedings were com- plained of by the minority, to the General Assem- bly of 1831, and the subject was referred to a com- mittee of that body, of whom Dr. Miller was the chairman. The committee recommended the adop- tion of resolutions in substance as follows : that the presbytery of Philadelphia were not actuated by improper motives in their proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes, and that his sermon contains a num- ber of unguarded and objectionable passages ; yet, especially after the explanations given by him of those passages, the presbytery ought to have suf- fered the whole to pass without further notice ; and ought now to suspend all further proceedings in the case ; and that, for the promotion of peace, reg- ular steps should be taken to divide the presby- tery.'* The report of the committee was adopted by nearly a unanimous vote, and the Assembly immediately united in an act of special prayer and thanksgiving, in view of the happy result. * The presbytery was divided by an act of the Assembly of 1832, the synod having refused to do it. 8 86 DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY Duffield on regeneration. The auspicious termination, as it was believed, of this unhappy affair, gave the friends of peace san- guine expectations of union and harmony ; or, at least, of forbearance and christian charity. But the contest begun, had too much of principle involved in it, to say nothing of other motives by which the leaders may have been actuated, to allow the Old School to settle down in quiet and make no further resistance to New School men and their theology. The progress of reputed error must be arrested, or consequences would follow greatly to be deprecated by a party in the Presbyterian church. No one was yet prepared to come forward directly, in the man- ner prescribed in the constitution, as the accuser of his brethren. The object aimed at was to ob- tain a condemnation of the theological opinions of such men as Mr. Barnes, through their published writings, public sentiment not now being prepared to sustain a process of discipline against the indi- viduals themselves. In February or March, 1832, the Rev. George Dufiield, pastor of the Presbyterian church in Gar- lisle, published a book, entitled '' Spiritual Life or Regeneration, illustrated in a series of disquisitions, relative to its Author, subject, nature, means, &c.'* Extensive and powerful revivals of religion had pre- viously occurred in a large number of the churches within the bounds of the presbytery of Carlisle, in- BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. 87 Examined by committee of presbytery. eluding that under the care of Mr. Duffield. The work on Regeneration was occasioned, in part, by this circumstance, and contained an exhibition of the doctrines, which, in New England and else- where, have been made, through the operations of the Spirit, a means of the conversion of sinners. Immediately after the appearance of the book, ex- tracts and comments were published simultaneously in a political paper in Carlisle, and in '' The Presby- terian. " The sentiments advanced were represented as Socinian, Pelagian, Arminian, Pantheistical, Athe- istical, &c. In April, 1832, '' Duffield on Regen- eration," was introduced to the consideration of the presbytery of Carlisle, and a committee was ap- pointed to examine the work, and to make report on its doctrines. The committee reported various errors, such in substance as the following : that Adam stood in the relation of a parent only to his posterity, and not as their federal head and repre- sentative ; that there is no imputation of legal pun- ishment on account of Adam's first sin, and that the death of infants is the mere natural result or consequence of his sin, in virtue of their connection with him as a parent only ; that there is no princi- ple of holiness or sin inherent in the soul, which is the proper cause of moral action, and that all holi- ness or sinfulness is actually acquired by an exer- cise of the will ; that infants have no moral char- 88 DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY Errors reported. acter ; that the inability of sinners to believe, re- pent, &c., is wholly that of the will, and does not consist in a depravity of nature propagated from Adam to his posterity, which renders man miable to perform holy exercises, " till some new princi- ple or power of action is commmiicated to the mind itself, in regeneration, by the Holy Ghost, so curing the depravity of his faculties ;" that regeneration consists in a voluntary act of faith under the influ- ence of moral suasion only, and that the soul is ac- tive^ not passive^ in regeneration; that election is nothing else than the actual conversion of men to God ; and that the human nature of Jesus Christ, possessed no personal characteristic holiness, irre- spective of, or previous to, his moral acts and exer- cises. Other errors were imputed to the book, and to some of those above specified, worse features were given than is here represented ; but the reader will correctly perceive from this specimen, what was the character of the doctrines condemned.* The presbytery received and acted upon the report of the committee at an adjourned meeting in June. It " declared the doctrines contained in the book, as presented in the report of the committee, to be * Extracts from the report of the committee as published in a pamphlet, entitled " A cursory examination of the Carlisle Pres- bytery's Review of Duffield on Regeneration." BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. 89 Book condemned. erroneous, and contrary to the doctrines of the bible and the standards of the church," and solemnly wai'ned its ministers, elders, and people, '' to guard against such distracting and dangerous errors." Mr. Duffield opposed the process against the book, and carried up a complaint to the synod of Philadel- phia, in Oct. 1832. The synod entertained the complaint, and acted on it so far as to read the doc- uments and hear the parties ; and then, on motion of Dr. Junkin, dismissed the case with an injunc- tion to the presbytery of Carlisle, to commence pro- cess against Mr. Duffield. The presbytery imme- diately met, and appointed a committee to prepare charges, after which it adjourned to November. The committee being unwilling to take the respon- sibility of personal accusers, instituted process on the ground of common fame and the injunction of the synod. The charges consisted of ten specifica- tions, embracing the errors set forth in the report of the former committee of the presbytery, but ex- pressed in amended language and more guarded terms. At length, in April, 1833, the case came on for trial, and the accused put himself on his de- fense. Mr. Duffield challenged several members of the presbytery, but it decided that all its mem- bers present were competent to sit as judges. Against this decision, Mr. Duffield entered an ap- peal to the General Assembly. After preliminary 8* 90 DIFFERENCE IN THEOLOGY Mr. Duffield accused and tried. matters were adjusted, the trial went on j and, as the result, the presbytery decided that the accused was guilty of eight out of the ten specifications. The highest vote in the affirmative was twelve, the presbytery consisting, as first constituted for the trial, of thirty-seven members. The final de- cision in the case was, '' That presbytery at present do not censure him any further than warn him to guard against such speculations as may impugn the doctrines of our church ; and that he study to main- tain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." Complaints and appeals were entered on both sides to the General Assembly of 1833, but they were never prosecuted. Mr. Duffield was determined, for the sake of peace, to let the subject rest, unless compelled to do otherwise, where the presbytery had left it. The synod of Philadelphia, on account of the dangerous illness of Mr. Duffield at the time of its next meeting in October, 1833, omitted to review the doings of the presbytery in his case ; but the subject was taken up the following year, and cen- sure passed upon the presbytery for the lenity of its final decision. It hardly need be said, that the charges against Mr. Duffield's book, in various respects misrepre- sent his reed sentiments. This was abundantly shewn in the course of the proceedings against him, BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. 91 Mr. Duffield accused and tried. and will appear from an examination of the book itself. His views are not different, in general, from those of his brethren of the New School, whose system of doctrines has already been described; nor from those of most of his Congregational breth- ren in New England. 92 CHAPTER X. ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. Matters of complaint. To the General Assembly of 1834, was presented " A memorial on the present state of the Presby- terian church." The circular which accompanied this memorial was signed by nineteen ministers and twenty-three elders, mostly belonging to the synod of Cincinnati. The memorial had been adopted in whole or in part, by eight or ten pres- byteries and as many sessions ; and was signed by about twenty ministers and one hundred elders. Its complaints related to the Plan of Union of 1801 ; the adoption of the standards with the right of ex- planation or for substance of doctrine ; the ordain- ing of men by presbyteries to preach and adminis- ter the ordinances in other parts of the church ; the countenance and support given by the General As- sembly to the American Home Missionary Society and other voluntary associations ; and the proceed^ ings of the Assembly of 1831, in the case of Mr. Barnes, and of that of 1832, in dividing the pres- bytery of Philadelphia. It also remonstrated and testified against the following errors, declared to be ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. 93 Errors testified against. held and taught within the bounds of the Presby- terian church. '' 1. That Adam was not the covenant head or federal representative of his posterity, and sustained no other relation to them than that which subsists, between every parent and his offspring. ^' 2. That we have nothing to do with the first sin of Adam more than with the sin of any other parent ; and that it is not imputed to his posterity. " 3. That infants have no moral character ; that they are neither sinful nor holy. " 4. That all sin consists exclusively in volun- tary acts or exercises, and consequently that there is no innate, inherent, or derived corruption in the souls of fallen men. *• 5. That man in his fallen state is possessed of entire ability to do whatever God requires him to do, independently of any new power or ability im- parted to him by the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit. " 6. That regeneration is essentially a volmitary change which the soul is active in producing, and that the Holy Spirit acts only mediately in the way of moral suasion by the presentation of motives. " 7. That Christ did not become the legal substi- tute of sirmers ; did not pay the debt of his people or endure the penalty of the law in their behalf. 94 ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. Resolutions of the Assembly of 1834. '' 8. That the Atonement is merely an exhibition of the wrath of God against sin ; an expedient for enabUng God to forgive sin consistently with the welfare of the universe, of itself not securing the salvation of any one, and not satisfying divine jus- tice : and " 9. That the Atonement is general, made for all men alike, as much for the non-elect as the elect." In proof of the existence of these sentiments, re- ference was made to Barnes's sermon on the Way of Salvation, to DufReld on Regeneration, and to sermons of Drs. Beecher and Beman. The Memorial was referred to a committee who reported a series of resolutions, in general, opposed to the views of the memorialists. The resolutions, amongst other things declared, that this Assembly cannot sanction the censure contained in the Memo- rial against proceedings and measures of former Gen- eral Assemblies : That -it bears solemn testimony against publishing to the world, ministers in good and regular standing, as heretical and dangerous, without being constitutionally tried and condemned : and " That it is deemed inexpedient and undesirable to abrogate or interfere with the Plan of Union be- tween Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the new settlements, adopted in 1801." On the sub- ject of doctrinal errors, the following resolution was proposed ; " that in the opinion of this Assembly, to ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. 95 Act and Testimony. take up and try and condemn any printed publica- tion as heretical and dangerous, is equivalent to con- demning the author as heretical ; that to condemn heresy in the abstract, cannot be understood as the purpose of such a trial ; that the results of such trial, are to bear upon and seriously to affect the standing of the author ; and that the fair and imquestionable mode of procedure is to institute process against the author, and give him a fair and constitutional trial."' The report of the committee was adopted by a considerable majority of the Assembly, The mi- nority were greatly dissatisfied with the action up- on the Memorial, as well as with other proceedings of the Assembly. A meeting was called in Phila- delphia, to which all those ministers and elders were invited, who sympathized with the minority in their opinions and feelings. The result of this meeting was the publication of the "Act and Testimony," addressed to the ministers, elders and private mem- bers of the Presbyterian church ; a document which in the ecclesiastical history of the times, has obtain- ed great notoriety. It represents the church as having arrived at a solemn crisis, in which the minority axe constrained to appeal to its members *4n relation to the alarming errors which have hitherto been connived at, and now at length have been countenanced and sustained by the acts of the supreme judicatory of the church." It testifies 96 ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. Measures recommended. against various alledged errors in doctrine, similar to those condemned in the case of Duffield, and com- plained of in the Memorial to the Assembly ; against the compromising spirit, and laxity in administering discipline, manifested in the judicatories of the church ; and against various departures from Pres- byterial order and church government, extensively practiced, and sanctioned by the highest authority. In conclusion, the Act and Testimony recommends to the churches, " to refuse to give countenance to ministers, elders, agents, editors, teachers, or to those who are in any other capacity engaged in rehgious instruction or effort," who hold "the her- esies" which it condemns ; to subject such persons, especially if they are ministers, to the just exercise of discipline by the proper tribunal ; to use all proper means to restore the discipline of the church, and to prevent the introduction of new principles into the system. To carry these objects into effect, it re- commends that the judicatories of the church and its officers, who approve of the Act and Testimony, give a public expression of their adherence to it ; and that a convention of ministers and elders, be held in Pittsburgh, previous to the next session of the General Assembly, to be composed of two dele- gates, a minister and elder, from each presbytery or from the minority of any presbytery who may con- cur in its sentiments. This document produced ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. 97 Biblical Repertory on the subject. much sensation throughout the Presbyterian churchj and except by the party from whom it originated, was regarded with strong disapprobation. An article appeared in the Bibhcal Repertory, said to be from the pen of one of the professors at Princeton, in which decided ground was taken against it. '"We have now performed," says the writer in conclusion, " a painful, though as we think an imperative duty. We have come out open- ly against brethren in whose doctrinal views we coincide, whose persons we love, whose character and motives we respect, with whom we have ever been associated and fondly hope ever to be united." The convention met at Pittsburgh as was re- commended. It was composed of forty-seven min- isters and thirty-eight elders. Its President was Rev. Ashbel Green, D. D., and its Vice President, Rev. John Witherspoon. As the result of their deliberations, a memorial was presented to the General Assembly of 1835, setting forth their grievances and earnestly petition- ing for redress. The errors and irregularities com- plained of by the memorialists, were, with some ad- ditions, substantially the same with tliose which were presented to the preceding Assembly, and which were before noticed. The General Assembly of 1835, contained a ma- jority of Old School members. The Memorial of 9 98 ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. Assembly of 1835. — Resolution on doctrinal errors. the convention was received and referred to a com- mittee of which Dr. Miller was chairman. The report of the committee embraced resolutions some- what in accordance with the views of the memori- alists, but did not, however, recommend all the measures by them proposed. The committee de- clared it to be the first duty of the Presbyterian church to sustain her own Boards, yet that it is not expedient to attempt to prohibit within her bounds, the operations of the Home Missionary Society, or of the Presbyterian Education Society, or any other voluntary association, not subject to her control. They also recommended the repeal of the Plan of Union of 1801, and on the subject of doctrinal errors, proposed the following resolution ; " That while this General Assembly has no means of ascertain- ing to what extent the doctrinal errors alleged in the memorial to exist in our church, do really pre- vail, it cannot hesitate to express the painful convic- tion that the allegation is by no means unfounded, and at the same time to condemn all such opinions, as not distinguishable from Pelagian and Arminian errors, and to declare their judgment that the hold- ing of the opinions referred to is wholly incom- patible with an honest adoption of our confession of faith. Against the doctrinal opinions therefore above alluded to, the Assembly would solemnly lift a warning voice, and enjoin upon all our presbyte- ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. 99 Resolutions passed. ries and synods to exercise the utmost vigilance against the introduction of such pestiferous errors," The proposed resohitions, having received sev- eral important modifications and amendments, were adopted ; and the decisions of the former Assembly in regard to some of the leading points in contro- versy, were reversed. The right of presbyteries to examine those who apply to them for admission, with credentials from other presbyteries, and of ju- dicatories to censure printed books, without process instituted against their authors, was acknowledged ; the principle of elective affinity in the formation of presbyteries and synods was condemned ; the repeal of the Plan of Union, was proposed for the consent of the General Association of Connecticut, and above all, the doctrinal errors alleged to be preva- lent in the church, were pronounced to be of a dan- gerous and pestiferous character. The Old School party believing themselves to have gained a signal triumph in the General Assem- bly, confidently expected to make a successful use of it in suppressing the sentiments which the high- est judicatory of the church had virtually branded with the nauTie of heresy. The leaders in the ranks of opposition to New School theology, hoped now to be able to carry through severe measures of dis- cipline against the prominent advocates of these views ; and by this means to check the alarming 100 ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS MEMORIALS. Old School party encouraged. progress of the doctrines and prevent their ascen- dency. For several months, the Rev. Lyman Beecher, D. D., President of Lane Seminary, had stood ac- cused of heresy, &c. in charges tabled against him by the Rev. Joshua L. Wilson, D. D., and was awaiting his trial before the presbytery of Cincin- nati. Mr. Barnes had also been arraigned before the second presbytery of Philadelphia, by Rev. George Junkin, D. D., President of La Fayette College, late the sole member of one of the presby- teries of the Associate Reformed Synod ; now one of the foremost defenders of high church orthodoxy in the Presbyterian church. He too was soon to be tried, and the result of these two cases seemed about to settle the question whether New England sentiments, or New School theology, should any longer enjoy toleration. The trial of Dr. Beecher commenced the 9th of June, 1835, and that of Mr. Barnes on the 30th day of the same month. That the reader may under- stand the precise points at issue in these cases, the several charges will be given in the next chapter, and a general view of the proceedings presented. The trial of Mr. Barnes will be first noticed. 101 CHAPTER XI. TRIALS OF REV. A. BARNES, AND REV. L. BEECHER, D . D ., FOR HERESY. Charges against Mr. Barnes. In the prosecution against Mr. Barnes, he was charged with maintaining , " That all sin consists in volimtary action ; that Adam was ignorant of his moral relations to such a degree, that he did not know the consequences of his sin v/ould reach any- further than to natural death; that unregenerate men are able to keep the commandments and con- vert themselves to God ; and that faith is an act of the mind and not a principle, and is itself imputed for righteousness." He was also charged with de- nying , "that God entered into covenant with Adsim, constituting him a federal or covenant head and representative to all his natural descendants ; that the first sin of Adam was imputed to his posterity ; that mankind are guilty, i. e. liable to pimishment, on account of the sin of Adam ; that Christ suffered the proper penalty of the law, as the vicarious sub- stitute of his people, and thus took away legally their sins and purchased pardon ; and that the right- eousness, i, e. the active obedience of Christ to th^ 9* 102 TRIALS OF REV. A. BARNES, AND Acquittal of Mr. Barnes. law, is imputed to his people for their justification, so that they are righteous in the eye of the law and therefore justified." The Notes to the Epistle to the Romans were made the ground of these charges. To these charges Mr. Barnes replied, that some of the doctrines in question he held and some he did not ; but that he held and taught nothing contrary to the word of God, and denied none of the truths taught in the scriptures. His defense shews, that he holds the system of doctrines which were before ascribed to the New School. He regards man as an agent, capable of obeying the law of God, and sin as a transgression of that law. He considers the inability of man not as physical but as moral, consisting in a total aversion of the will to that which is good ; an aversion so strong as never to be overcome but by the influences of the Holy Spirit. He maintains, that in consequence of the sin of Adam, the whole race become sinners, and that on account of the atonement of Christ, alone, they who believe are justified through faith. But it is unnecessary to enter into a more particular ex- planation of his views. However they may be misrepresented by his accusers, they will not be misunderstood by New England divines. The presbytery, after a full hearing of the case, judged the charges not sustained, and acquitted Mr. Barnes of having taught dangerous errors or 103 Trial before the synod of Philadelphia. heresies, contrary to the word of God and the stand- ards of the church. The vote was fifteen to three, the latter number inchiding one minister and two elders. From the judgment of the presbytery Dr. Jun- kin appealed to the synod of Philadelphia, which met in Oct. 1835. By an act of the preceding As- sembly, the synod of Delaware, to which the pres- bytery belonged, had been dissolved, and the pres- bytery annexed to the synod of Philadelphia. Re- garding this act as unconstitutional, the presbytery refused to yield up its records to the synod ; and though Mr. Barnes professed himself ready for trial on his part, he coi^ld not consent to put himself on his defense while the proper documents in the case were wanting. The synod, therefore, proceeded with his case without his appearance as a party. It reversed the decision of the presbytery, adjudged Mr. Barnes to be guilty of heresy, and suspended him from the exercise of all the functions proper to the gospel ministry. On the resolution for suspen- sion, one hundred and sixteen voted in the affirma- tive, thirty-one in the negative, and eight were not included. Mr. Barnes gave notice of an appeal, and the case went up for final adjudication to the Gen- eral Assembly of 1836. In the mean time, he sub- mitted to the decision of the synod, and suspended his appropriate labors as a christian minister. The 104 TRIALS OF REV. A. BARNES, AND Trial of Dr. Beecher. Assembly, after a full hearing of the parties, sus- tained the appeal and reversed the decision of the synod suspending Mr. Barnes, by a vote of one hun- dred and forty-five in the affirmative and seventy- eight in the negative, eleven members declining to vote. Some account will now be given of the proceed- ings against Dr. Beecher. At the time of his call to the presidency of Lane Seminary, and to the professorship of theology in that institution, in Feb- ruary, 1831, he was pastor of the Bowdoin street church, in Boston. To the church and congrega- tion under his care, a letter was addressed by a com- mittee of the board of trustees, urging his pecu- liar qualifications for the station to which he was called, as a reason for his dismission from his charge and removal to Cincinnati. Of this committee. Dr. Joshua L. Wilson was chairman, and the letter bore his signature. In September, 1832, Dr. Beecher was dismissed from his pastoral charge, and soon proceeded to the west, to enter his new field of labor. He left New England, in possession of the affection, confidence, and good wishes of his brethren, which he had so long enjoyed. On arriving at Cincinnati, he found that suspicions had been excited, and that he was likely to encounter opposition from a quarter in \vhich it might least have been expected. Instead REV. L. BEECHER, D. D. 105 Opposition to his being received by the presbytery. of meeting that cordial reception from Dr. Wilson which he had anticipated, he found him prepared to withhold his confidence and cooperation. Dr. Wilson, it seems, had miited with the trustees of Lane Seminary in giving him the call, with the belief that he would not accept the appointment ; but being disappointed in the result, he resigned his seat in the board, and, on Dr. Beecher's arrival, was prepared to oppose his being received by the presbytery of Cincinnati. He, however, was re- ceived as a member ; but the presbytery was soon called upon to take up charges against him, on the ground of general rimior respecting the unsound- ness of his theology. But the existence of com- mon fame was denied, and the subject was not ta- ken up. The presbytery was next called upon to appoint a committee to examine his printed sermons, and report whether they contained doctrines at va- riance with the standards of the church. The pres- bytery refused to adopt this measure, and complaint was made to the synod of Cincinnati ; but the synod dismissed it, on the ground that the presbytery was not obliged to act without a responsible prosecutor. Dr. Wilson then appealed to the General Assembly of 1834, but the judicial committee cast out the ap- peal, because he was not one of the original parties. Failing to procure in this way the condemna- tion of Dr. Beecher's sentiments, Dr. Wilson, in No- 106 TRIALS OF REV. A. BARNES, AND Dr. Wilson accuses Dr. Beecher. vember, 1834, commenced a prosecution against Dr. Beecher, on charges of heresy, slander, and hypo- crisy ; and in June, 1835, as before mentioned, the case was finally brought to trial. The charge of slander related to his misrepresenting the doctrines of the whole church on the subject of ability, as constituting the ground of obligation and guilt, and to his casting odium on the reformers and on those who adhere strictly to the standards of the Presby- terian church. That of hypocrisy related to his professing to adopt the standards of the church, while he disbelieves and impugns important points of doctrine. The points of doctrine on which the accusation of heresy was based, correspond in gen- eral with those before mentioned in the case of Mr. Barnes. The charges were, that he propagates doctrines contraiy to the word of God and the standards of the church, on the subject of the de- praved nature of man, and on the subjects of total depravity and the work of the Holy Spirit in re- generation ; and that he teaches the doctrine of per- fection. The following are among the specifica- tions. He teaches that the depravity of man is voluntary, and that the first sin of every man is free, and might have been and ought to have been avoided ; that man is rendered capable by his Ma- ker of obedience ; that ability to obey is indispen- sable to moral obligation, and that to be able and REV. L. BEECHERj D.D. 107 Specification of doctrinal errors. — Grounds of defense. unwilling to obey God, is the only possible way in which a free agent can become deserving of con- demnation and punishment ; that all the Holy Spirit accomplishes in regeneration, is to make the sinner willing to submit to God ; and finally, that perfec- tionists derive several cogent arguments from these doctrines. Dr. Beecher in his defense maintained, that it is the doctrine of the confession of faith and of the bible, and has been the received doctrine of the church in all ages, that man is a free agent, in pos- session of such natural powers as are adequate to a compliance with every requirement of God, and that he lies under that impotency of will which consists in aversion from God, and is entirely de- pendent on the influence of the Holy Spirit, to be- gin, continue, and consummate the work of con- version ; and that in consequence of Adam's sin, all his posterity, from the commencement of their moral existence, are destitute of holiness and prone to evil, so that the atoning death of Christ and the special renovating influence of the spirit, are indis- pensable to the salvation of any human being. In holding these views, therefore, he is not guilty of believing or teaching any thing contrary to the word of God or the standards of the Presbyterian church. After a full hearing of the case, the presbytery voted by a majority of nearly two thirds, that the 108 TRIALS OF REV. A. BARNES, AND Result of these trials. charges were not sustained. From this decision, Dr. Wilson appealed to the synod of Cincinnati. The synod on hearing of the case, acquitted Dr. Beecher of entertaining views to justify any suspi- cion of unsoundness in the faith, and expressed the belief, that nothing insuperable existed to prevent his usefulness, or impair confidence in him as a minister of the gospel in the Presbyterian church. An appeal from this decision was taken by the pros- ecutor to the General Assembly of 1836, but was finally withdrawn at the earnest solicitation of many of the friends of Dr. Wilson. The result in the two cases of discipline whose history has now been given, as well as other pro- ceedings of an Assembly in which the New School had a majority, awakened new alarm in the ranks of the Old School party. The raeasures of disci- pline on which they had relied to suppress the re- puted errors, had in a great measure failed. The doings and influence of the Assembly of 1835. were in a degree counteracted, something decisive must be accomplished in this crisis of affairs. The mi- nority protested against the decision of the Assem- bly in the caise of Mr. Barnes, and against most of its proceedings in reference to the subjects on which a diff'erence of sentiment exists. They also took other measures to redress their grivances. A com- mittee was appointed to correspond and deliberate REV. L. BEECHER, D.D. 109 Philadelphia Convention. — Its memorial. on the course proper to be pursued by them, in the present crisis of the Presbyterian church. After holding " extensive correspondence with ministerial and lay brethren in all parts of the church," such of course as were favorable to the views of the party, the committee recommended '' that presbyte- ries friendly to the doctrines and institutions of the church, instruct their commissioners to the next General Assembly, to meet in Philadelphia on the 'second Thursday of May, together with such dele- gates as may be appointed by minorities of presby- teries, in order fully and freely to compare views, and to unite upon such constitutional measures of remedying existing evils, as it may be judged ex- pedient to submit to the consideration of the As- sembly." In accordance with this recommenda- tion, the convention of 1837 held its meeting the week previous to the session of the Assembly, and prepared its '' testimony and memorial" to that body. The subjects of complaint presented were three ; doctrine, church order, and discipline. In relation to doctrine, the same errors were testified against, which had been the burthen of similar documents from the same quarter. To these, however, some new specifications were added, such as the fol- lowing : '• That God would have been glad to pre- vent the existence of sin in our world, but was not able without destroying the moral agency of 10 110 TRIALS OF REV. A. BARNES, AND Action of the Assembly. man ; or, that for aught that appears in the bible to the contrary, sin is incidental to any wise moral system ; that God has done all that he can do for the salvation of all men, and that man himself must do the rest ; that God cannot exert such an influ- ence on the minds of men as shall make it certain that they will choose and act in a particular man- ner, without impairing their moral agency ; that the reason why some difier from others in regard to their reception of the gospel is, that they make themselves to differ." Most of these statements are intended to oppose a theory in regard to the per- mission of sin, which will be more particularly con- sidered in another place. They show, however, that the theory in question was greatly misappre- hended by the memorialists. The other specifica- tions, for the most part, have been already sufl[i- ciently exhibited. This memorial was the basis of the proceedings of the General Assembly of 1837. That body hav- ing a majority of the Old School party, many of whom were members of the convention, carried through the measures of reform recommended. The history of these measures it is not necessary here to repeat. They were sufficiently dwelt upon in the preceding chapters of this work. Nor is it necessary again to state the objects which they were designed to accomplish. With these, the im- REV. L. BEECHER, D. D. Ill Action of the Assembly. partial reader is sufficiently acquainted. They were undertaken as a last resort, after other expe- dients had failed ; as a desperate attempt to com- pass the various ends at which the majority aimed. With many, the suppression of heretical opinions ; at least, opinions deemed heretical, because differing in some important respects from their own, was the leading design ; which no one will doubt, after be- coming acquainted with the proceedings of the va- rious judicatories of the church in relation to these opinions. The excited feelings occasioned by the collision of many minds in controversy on the dis- puted doctrines ; the party documents circulated through the church at different times during a re- cent period ; the continual newspaper warfare,which kept alive suspicion and fanned the flame of dis- cord ; the defeats and victories gained on one side and the other, and especially the failure to sustain the measures of the Assembly of 1835, and to fix the stigma of heresy on the sentiments of the New School, through the condemnation of their reputed errors, and to discipline and cast out of the church, Dr. Beecher and Mr. Barnes ; these things com- bined, exerted a mighty influence in consolidating the ranks of the majority, and preparing even mod- erate men, to adopt the violent measures of the General Assembly of 1837. It required years of discipline, on the field of theological and ecclesias- 112 Action of the Assembly. tical combat, to marshal the forces, and bring them to act with unity, energy, and decision, in accom- pUshing the work, which, through misapprehen- sion, and prejudice, and passion, and the love of power, many perhaps thought themselves called upon in the providence of God, to undertake, and^ without regard to consequences, to prosecute to its final and disastrous consummation. 113 CHAPTER XII. THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY. Theological controversy in New England The reader of the foregoing pages, has not failed to notice the intimate connection, which has sub- sisted between Presbyterians and Congregational- ists, in the United States, from the earUest period of their history, down to the present time. Indeed, so closely have they been associated, that their names, in the minds of many, are not distinguished from each other. In New England, it is not un- common to hear Congregationalists called Presby- terians, and the doctrines and sins of the latter, char- ged upon the former, not by miputation, but on ac- count of their supposed oneness as a denomination of christians. In consequence of this intimate connection, the doctrinal discussions which have from time to time existed in New England, have found their way to a greater or less extent into the Presbyterian church. This circumstance has not only rendered the Old School men , in that communion, suspicious of the opinions and influence of their Congregational breth- ren ; but has made them guard with watchful and 10* 114 THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY, affects the Presbyterian Church. jealous care against the introduction, from this quar- ter, of supposed heresy. Hopkinsianism, at one pe- riod, excited their alarm to such a degree, as to re- ceive the condemnatory sentence of a large and influ- ential church judicatory ; and, for the last eight or ten years, there has been an increasing suspicion and alarm, respecting certain alledged peculiarities of sentiment, advocated by some of the Professors of Yale College, and other divines, in various publica- tions, particularly the Christian Spectator. The errors imputed to the New Haven school, they have regarded as in a high degree heretical, and their prevalence in the Presbyterian church, as peculiarly subversive of her creed and destructive to her purity. These errors, they believed, were in- troduced through the Plan of Union, the American Education Society, and the American Home Mis- sionary Society ; and were rapidly extending, to the great prejudice, if not to the utter destruction, of Old School orthodoxy. Hence a fourth cause of the abrogation of the Plan of Union and of the oth- er measures of the General Assembly of 1837, con- nected with it, may be found in the late theologi- cal controversies, which had their origin in Con- necticut, and have prevailed throughout New Eng- land. That several of the errors which the Assembly condemned, proceeded, in the view of the majority, THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY. 115 Reputed errors of New Haven introduced by the Plan of Union. from this source, is abundantly proved by their own testimony. In the Memorial of the Convention of 1837, is found the following declaration. '' It needs but a glance at the general character, the personal affinities, and the geographical relations of those who are antagonists in the present contest, to be satisfied that our present evils have not originated within, but have been brought from without." Again, ''towards the churches of New England which stand fast in the faith once delivered to the saints, towards the distinguished and excellent brethren in the Lord in those churches which are testifying against the errors which are troubling them^ as they are troubling us, we entertain the most fraternal esteem and affection." These sen- timents are reiterated by the speakers of the major- ity in the Assembly, and echoed forth to the world in their circular letter addressed to all the churches. Hence it is evident, that the errors agciinst which the convention testifies and which the Assembly condemns, are referred to New England origin, and are supposed to originate with the New Haven school. That this subject may be properly under- stood, it is necessary to give a general history of the late theological controversies of New England. Soon after the establishment of the present The- ological department of Yale College, some dark sur- misings and suspicions were found to be afloat, that 116 THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY. Professor Fitch's Sermons. — Sin consists in voluntary action. the Professor of Didactic Theology in that institu- tion, was unsound in the faith. It was whispered, in a certain quarter, that his views were tending to Unitarianism. These rumors produced httle imme- diate impression, but served in some degree to awaken jealousy, and prepare the way for the belief of more serious and specious charges. In 1826, the Professor of Divinity in Yale Col- lege, preached and published two sermons on the nature of sin, in which the doctrine is maintained, " that sin, in every form and instance, is reducible to the act of a moral agent in which he violates a known rule of duty." According to this statement, as explained by the author, sin lies in some actual choice, some real vo- lition, some definite use of his powers by a moral agent, in violation of his duty. A violation of duty implies a knowledge of the rule of duty violated, or a capacity in the agent of possessing such knowl- edge. By "the act of a moral agent," the author does not however mean merely those imperative or ex- ecutive acts of choice which immediately precede outward action. He considers it as embracing per- manent states of the will, and regards these states or controlling purposes of the soul as constituting moral dispositions ; or, in scriptural phrase, " the heart of man." In applying the doctrine in its bearing on THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY. 117 Our race not disconnected from Adam, related truths, it is maintained '' that, in the con- nection of Adam with his posterity, no sin of his is reckoned theirs ;"* and that although man may be so affected at his origin in his constitution, as to ren- der certain his commencing moral agency in sinful action, yet that nothing can with truth be called his original sin, but his first moral choice or prefer- ence being evil ; which original determination of will or moral purpose, operates in addition to origi- nal susceptibilities, as a ground of his succeeding acts being sinful. While this view of sin denies, that we are, in the proper sense of these terms, guil- ty of Adam's sin, or punished on that account ; it by no means disconnects our race from Adam, or rep- resents the consequences of the fall to have been confined to our progenitor. The author on the con- trary perfectly agrees with his illustrious predeces- sor. Dr. Dwight, in maintaining that the results of Adam's sin have come down to all his descendants, involving the whole race, as a certain consequence, in utter apostacy from God, and their total depravity from the commencement of moral action. The mode in which the nature of sin was pre- sented in these discourses, was at the time some- what new to a part of the clergy of New England, and was at first received by many, in all its bearings * Page 22. 118 THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY Interest awakened by the sermons. — Reviewed. and relations, with considerable hesitation. None, however, came forward publicly to controvert these opinions. A spirit of inquiry only was awakened, which led to careful investigation ; and the result was, more definite views on the subjects of which they treated, than before prevailed. In March and April, 1827, the sermons were re- viewed in the Christian Advocate, published in Phil- adelphia, and edited by Dr. Green. This anony- mous review has been by some ascribed to the edi- tor, but by others to Dr. Alexander, of Princeton. The reviewer denies the main position of the discourses, and labors to set aside the arguments by which it was supported. He contends that the na- ture of the soul, from which a continual succession of sinful acts proceeds, is itself sinful, and that this nature consists in " a state, or temper, or disposition of soul," previous to any voluntary action. When the law of God requires love, he says, " it virtually requires that state or temper or disposition of soul from which love proceeds, as a stream from its foun- tain." He correctly states, that the author of the dis- courses agrees with him in maintaining, that the posterity of Adam have undergone a change in their constitution, in consequence of his fall, which ren- ders their sinning certciin ; and that the single point in debate is, whether "the causes of the sinful THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY. 119 Reply of Professor Fitch. choices which exist in the disposition or temper of the soul itself, are sinful."* The reviewer express- es much concern for the interests of truth and reli- gion in Yale College, laments that a system is promulgated there, by men called orthodox, subver- sive of the radical principles of Edwards, and insin- uates that the institution is in danger of surren- dering itself to the power of heresy. This review was soon followed by a pamphlet from the pen of Professor Fitch, containing a full and clear exposition of the doctrines advocated in the discourses, and an able defense of the positions which he had taken. The writer states his object to be, " simply an inquiry into the nature of that in man which constitutes the foundation of guilt, and that all the questions fairly at issue, are only three ; viz. Is moral disposition in man, resolvable into im- manent preference ? Does preference involve the the knowledge of obligation between moral oppo- sites ? Is there morality in any cause which lies back of moral preference, occasioning the certainty why the being chooses as he does ?"t To the first two of these questions, he maintained an affirmative, to the latter a negative answer, and in establishing^ his positions thus, triumphantly vindicates, it is be- * Christian Advocate, 1827, pp. 162, 163, 164. t Inquiry into the Nature of Sin, p. 9. 120 THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY. Moral disposition resolvable into immanent preference. lieved, the doctrines of the discourses from the ob- jections of the reviewer. For, if moral disposition consists in immanent preference, then, that disposi- tion which is the cause of all the subordinate or im- perative acts of the will, is itself the act of a moral being ; and if preference involves a knowledge of moral obligation between moral opposites, as surely it must, then a wrong preference is a violation of known law ; and if, whatever be the causes of moral preference, occasioning the certainty of sin, there is nothing of a moral nature lying back of this pref- erence, then it follows that all sin is reducible to the acts of a moral agent in which he violates known rules of duty. The reader will here observe how the controver- sy, at the very commencement, went out into the Presbyterian church, and the suspicion of unsound- ness in the faith was attempted to be excited against the New Haven school. 121 CHAPTER XIII. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR AND MR. HARVEY. What occasioned the Concio ad Clerum. In 1828, the Dwight Professor of Didactic The- ology in Yale College, preached his Concio before the clergy, assembled in the chapel on the evening of commencement. The circumstances in which that discourse originated were the following. The Rev. Hubbsird Winslow, now of Boston, being em- ployed as an agent to collect funds for the Profes- sorship of Sacred Literature, presented the subject of his agency to the congregation in Fairfield, Ct. Mr. Winslow occupied the pulpit on the morning of the Sabbath. Rev. Nathaniel He wit, (the former pastor of the church,) being present, was, by invita- tion, to preach in the afternoon ; and at the close of the services, a collection was to be taken up, for the object that had been presented in the morning. Mr. Hewit in his discourse, made heavy charges against Dr. Taylor, and the theological school un- der his instruction. He represented him as hereti- cal, respecting the nature and extent of depravity, and respecting regeneration, divine influence, de- ll 122 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN What occasioned the Concio ad Clerum. crees and election, and held him up as a Pelagian and Arminian. He represented the theological de- partment as injurious to the college, and as a nui- sance which ought to be removed. He commented on the discourse of Mr. Winslow, for the purpose of illustrating the heresy of the school. These repre- sentations he used as arguments to dissuade the people from contributing in aid of the Professorship of Sacred Literature; without, however, the de- signed effect. Dr. Taylor was informed of these proceedings, and was requested by a leading member of the con- gregation, to occupy the pulpit for his own vindica- tion and that of his pupils, one of whom was then preaching as a candidate in Fairfield. He prepared the sermon, afterwards preached as the Concio ad Clerum, and first preached it in Fairfield ; expressly for the purpose of declaring his sentiments, by way of defense, against the unprovoked attack which had been thus publicly made upon him, and the department in which he instructed. These facts are mentioned, to shew the origin of the discourse which has occasioned so much controversy. It originated in the necessity of defense, and not in a disposition to provoke discussion or to attack the theological opinions of others. It was preached on the evening of commencement, in the place of another previously prepared for the occasion, with DR. TAYLOR AND MR. HARVEY. 123 Depravity, man's own act. the hope and expectation on the part of the author, that this full and frank exhibition of his views, would prevent all further misunderstanding of his theological opinions. The subject of the sermon is the native depravity of mankind. It is the design of the author to show, firsts in what the moral de- pravity of man consists ; and, secondly, that this depravity is by nature.* By the moral depravity of mankind, he intends generally the entire sinful- ness of their moral character ; that state of the mind or heart, to which guilt and the desert of wrath pertains. For the sake of being expHcit, he states negatively, that depravity does not consist in any essential attribute or property of the soul, — not * In 1823, the same views of depravity as here maintained, were presented by Dr. Taylor, in a review of Professor Norton's Views of Calvinism ; and they then met, as far as is known, the entire approbation of his brethren. His statement of the Cal- vinistic doctrine of depravity, in which he supposes Calvinists to agree, is as follows : " that all men, though complete moral agents, do, unless divine grace intervene, commit sin in their first and in every subsequent moral act." In accordance with this statement, Dr. Taylor represented president Edwards, when he speaks of propensity, tendency, proneness, liability, &c., as carefully limiting the import of the language to the single idea of that in the nature of man which will be certainly followed by gin. He does not assert that this propensity is in itself sinful and deserving of punishment, but simply, that it tends to, or is followed by, those moral acts, by which the subject becomes ill-deserving. 124 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Results from the nature of man. — The moral condition of infants. in any thing created in man by his Maker. Nor does it consist in a sinful nature which mankind have corrupted by being one with Adam, and by acting in his acts ; nor in any constitutional, L e. physical propensities of their nature ; nor in any degree of excitement in those propensities not re- sulting in choice ; nor in any disposition or ten- dency to sin which is the cause of all sin ; but that it is Tnari's own act, consisting in a free choice of some object rather than God, as his chief good ; — or a free preference of the world and wordly good, to the will and glory of God.* This depravity is by nature ; not that the nature, i. e. constitution of the soul, is itself sinful, or the physical or the efficient cause of men's sinning ; but such is their nature that they will sin, and only sin, in all the ap- propriate circumstances of their being.f He ex- pressly declares, however, that sin cannot be prop- erly traced to these circumstances, but to the nature of man in any and all the circumstances appropriate to his existence. This should be particularly re- marked, as his views on this subject were, subse- quently, as well as before, very often misunder- stood and misrepresented. In the remarks which follow the discussion of the doctrine, some inquiry is made respecting the moral condition and salvation of infants. It is * Concio ad Clerum, pp. 5, 6, 7, 8. t Do. page 14. DR. TAYLOR AND MR. HARVEY. 125 Mr. Harvey's review. maintained that they sin as soon as they are moral agents, or as soon as they can sin, whether any one can tell the precise moment of the commence- ment of moral agency or not ; and that, belonging to a race who in all the circumstances of their im- mortal being, without the grace of redemption, will sin, they may receive the supernatural grace of God's spirit, and be saved through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.* In a note appended to the ser- mon, the difficulty of reconcihng the depravity of mankind with the moral perfection of God, is at- tributed to two very common, but groundless as- sumptions ; viz. that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, and as such, so far as it exists, is preferable on the whole to holiness in its stead; and that God could, in a moral system, have pre- vented all sin, or at least the present degree of sin.f The Concio ad Clerum produced, at the time of its delivery, a lively interest amongst the clergy who heard it ; and after its publication, some Con- gregational ministers who were accustomed to a diflferent phraseology, or who attached a meaning to the language different from that of its author, regarded its sentiments with suspicion, as a depar- ture from orthodoxy. At length, the Rev. Joseph Harvey, then pastor of a church in Westchester, * Coacio, pp. 23, 24. t Concio, p. 29. u* 126 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Mr. Harvey's view of depravity and the permission of sin. Ct., published a review of the sermon, in which he, fii^st, considers the nature of sin ; and, secondly ^ the reason of its permission. As to the nature of sin, he maintains, in opposition to Dr. Taylor, that there is sin in man which is not his own act, i. e. native, sinful depravity, not consisting in choice or preference, and which is the efficient cause of all actual sin.* This he argues, first, from the fact, that every effect must have a cause, and the assump- tion that every efficient cause must be of the same nature with the effects which it produces; and, secondly, on the ground that infants, though inca- pable of actual sin, or the transgression of known law, are regarded in the scriptures, and treated by God, as sinners, guilty, and deserving of punish- ment. In regard to the permission of sin, the reviewer attributes to Dr. Taylor the sentiment, that sin is on the whole a defect and an evil in the moral sys- tem of Jehovah, which he could not prevent. As- suming this to be Dr. Taylor's position, he goes on to argue that, as God prevents sin in some moral agents, he can in all without destroying their moral agency; and that the present system (including sin) is the best possible, and as such, was preferred by God to any conceivable system without sin.f * Review, pp. 14, 17, &c. t Review, pp. 32, 35, 37. DR. TAYLOR AND MR. HARVEY. 127 Review of Taylor and Harvey. As this subject will be more fully exhibited in an- other place, it would be superfluous here to present the points at issue in the question, or the arguments by which they are maintained. In the Christian Spectator, for June, 1829, the Concio ad Clerum and the pamphlet of Mr. Harvey were ably reviewed.* The writer first takes up Mr. Harvey's position, that there is " sin in man which is not his own act," and inquires what it is of which men are thus guilty ? Of the act of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit ? This he presumes Mr. Harvey will not say. Of the act of God in making him what he is, antecedent to, and inde- pendent of, his own actions ? This, no one will venture to affirm. What then remains ? He can- not be charged with guilt or criminality for what others have done, nor for the bare fact of being what God has made him. It must, then, be for actings and for his own act too, that any mord be- ing can possibly be considered as guilty.f * Some misrepresentations have been made respecting the au- thorship of this article. The facts are these. Dr. Porter, of Farmington, Ct., wrote a notice of the Concio for the Spectator, and before its publication, Mr. H.'s review appeared. Dr. P. be- ing then occupied, requested of the editor of the Spectator, that a suitable notice of Mr. H. might be embodied in the review of the Concio. Prof G. therefore inserted this part, and shaped the article accordingly. t Christian Spectator, 1829, p. 347. 128 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Unguarded statements respecting depravity. The writer then institutes an inquiry, as to the reasons why some Calvinistic divines, even of the present day, are betrayed into unguarded state- ments, Uke those of Mr. Harvey, on this subject. The principal reasons assigned, are the use of lan- guage belonging to an exploded theory ; viz. that our whole race were in the view of God one with Adam, and that his sin in eating the forbidden fruit was the sin of each one of his descendants ; the ambiguous use of the words, source, fountain, dis- position, etc. which are sometimes used to denote constitutional properties of the soul and sometimes moral dispositions ; the unfounded assumption that the cause of a given effect must have the same moral qualities or attributes as the effect itself, so that the certainty of man's entire sinfulness from the commencement of moral agency cannot be ac- counted for, without supposing a sinful nature or constitution of the soul. Mr. Harvey's reasonings are shewn to be based in these errors, and his ar- gument for a sinful nature, aside from sinful action, is thus confuted. After briefly considering Mr. Harvey's argument from scripture and from the condition of infants, the reviewer next paisses to that part of the subject which relates to the theories respecting the permis- sion of sin. To the question raised by Dr. Taylor in the note to his sermon ; viz. for what reason has DR. TAYLOR AND MR. HARVEY. 129 Theories accounting for the permission of sin. God permitted sin to enter the universe ? he sug- gests three possible answers. '' 1. God could not prevent its existence. " 2. Moral beings must, from the nature of the case, have the power of sinning ; and there is no evidence that God could have overruled that power and entirely withheld them from its exercise, by a direct interposition of his providence, and yet have sustained a moral system in existerice. Thus sin as to God's preventing — not our committing it, — is a necessary incident to a moral system. " 3. God chose that sin should enter the universe as the necessary means of the greatest possible good. Wherever it exists, therefore, it is, on the whole, better than holiness would be in its place. On this ground God permits its existence."* The first solution is attributed to Dr. Taylor by Mr. Harvey, but without the least foundation. The whole tenor and reasoning of his note, shews that he was aiming at another point. The third solution is the theory of Mr. Harvey, which the reviewer considers as having had no small share in creating the universal scepticism that prevailed in Europe, towards the close of the last century. The second solution is that which is sug- gested by Dr. Taylor as a possible, if not a satisfac- * Christian Spectator, 1829, p. 378. 130 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Mr. H.'s second pamphlet. — He abandons his original ground. tory mode of accounting for the permission of sin. In comparing the two latter theories it is shewn, that they both admit the omnipotence of God, and his universal providence, agency, and government ; and while both acknowledge the necessary exist- ence of sin, so far as God's prevention of it is con- cerned, that they differ in one important respect ; viz. the one places the ground of the necessity in the relation of sin as a means of the greatest good ; and the other in the relation of a moral government to moral beings, who must of course be governed by motives, and be free to choose, in view of them, either good or evil. On the one theory, God chooses sin as a means of good, rather than holi- ness in its stead ; on the other, he permits it to take place as incidental, in respect to divine prevention, to the best system possible to him. In the one case, sin is to be regarded as a good, because pro- ductive of good ; in the other, as an evil which God sincerely desires should be prevented by the voluntary obedience of his subjects. About the time of commencement in Yale Col- lege, in 1829, an anonymous pamphlet appeared, entitled *' An Examination of a Review of Dr. Tay- lor's sermon, and Mr. Harvey's Strictures on that sermon." This has been commonly ascribed to Mr. Harvey, and the authorship has never been denied. In this he abandons the ground he had before ta- DR. TAFLOR AND MR. HARVEY. 131 How mankind are sinners from their birth. ken respecting the nature of sin. He says that the doctrine of native depravity, does not involve or im- ply the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. It only regards the fact, that, in consequence of his transgression, all his posterity commence their ex- istence in sin, being created in his moral likeness.* Accordingly he maintains, that mankind come into the world with "a voluntary state of the will" which is sinful, and which is derived by propaga- tion from Adam. It is this " voluntary state of the will" which constitutes them sinners, and makes them deserving of punishment. Thus he now as- cribes depravity to the will, and not, as formerly, to something lying hack of it, in the structure of the soul itself. He assures us, that when Mr. Harvey asserted that nature is itself sinful, he only meant " that the moral state of man is sinful from his birth, "t He also says that the period of existence in man, which is previous to a knowledge of law, is what is to be understood by the term nature, in the present discussion ; and that the simple ques- tion is, whether, during this period, there is moral depravity in the human character.| On a compari- son of these statements, therefore, it would appear, that, when Mr. Harvey before contended for "a nature which is itself sinful and the efficient cause * Ex. pp. 6, 10. t Ex. p. 11. I Ex. p. 12. 132 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN His views of moral agency. of sin," he meant that the period in infancy inter- vening between birth and a knowledge of law, is itself sinful and the efficient cause of sin; or, if the proposition were to be expressed in more intel- ligible language, he meant, perhaps, that previous to the commencement of moral agency, the will is in "a voluntary state" of transgression which is sinful, and that this state of the will is the cause of all subsequent and actual sin. Mr. Harvey next examines what he calls the theories of Dr. Taylor and the reviewer, in respect to moral agency, the nature of sin, and the divine government. He understands them to mean by a moral agent, a being who has not only a rational soul with its essential attributes, but who has acted from a sense of right and wrong, or a knowledge of duty in the mind.* In opposition to this view of moral agency ascribed to them, he gives a definition, which, in all essential points, agrees with their real meaning. It is this. A moral agent is one who, possessing moral powers, can or does exercise those powers. Mr. Harvey, however, in his own mind evidently excludes one thing w^hich is essential to moral agency. He appears not to regard the ca- pacity of knowing a rule of duty, as necessary to the existence of complete powers of moral action. * Ex. p. 30. DR. TAYLOR AND MR. HARVEY. 133 Dr. Dwight's view of the nature of sin. Accordingly he maintains that, previous to such knowledge, mankind are sinners by having from their birth a wrong "voluntary state of the will." Of course, in his mind, sin is not the preference of some other object to God as the chief good. Such an act of the will, in his view, cannot constitute a permanent depravity and occasion moral conduct uniformly sinful. There must be some state of the mind or will, not consisting in choice or prefer- ence, to control the volitions and uniformly produce wrong moral action. On the divine government, Mr. Harvey still un- derstands Dr. Taylor and the reviewers, notwith- standing their explicit statement to the contrary, to teach that God wants natural power to prevent sin, and that moral agents are independent of his control. He, therefore, considers them as limiting the omnipotence of Jehovah. Simultaneously with this pamphlet, appeared an- other, entitled, " An inquiry into the natiu-e of sin, as exhibited in Dr. Dwight's Theology, by Cleri- cus." This was from the pen of Dr. Taylor, and his design was to shew the agreement between himself and Dr. Dwight, in regard to the nature of sin. Their agreement on this subject, is founded in the fact, that both resolve all sin into preference. Dr. Dwight says, " sin universally is no other than selfishness, or a preference of one's self to all other 12 134 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Mr. Harvey's new doctrine of depravity examined. beings, and of one's private interests and gratifica- tion, to the well being of the universe ; of God and the intelligent creation."* '' Selfishness consists in the prefei^ence of ourselves to others, and to all oth- ers ; to the universe and to God. This is sin ; and all that in the scriptures is meant by sin."f " Man is the actor of his own sin. His sin is therefore wholly his own, chaigeable only to himself; chosen by him unnecessarily, while possessed of a power to choose otherwise ; avoidable by him ; and of course guilty, and righteously punishable."} Other statements of his in regard to disposition as a cause of moral action ; in regard to the moral image of God in which man was created ; the natural ability of man to obey or disobey the law of God ,• and the nature of regeneration ; properly interpreted, do not contradict the preceding declarations respecting the nature of sin. He is therefore to be under- stood, as agreeing on this subject with Dr. Taylor himself. Such is the main argument of the pam- phlet under consideration. To this was added a Postscript, in answer to the second pamphlet of Mr. Harvey. In this it was claimed that Mr. Harvey had abandoned the ori- ginal ground of controversy, in maldng the main * Ser. 100, Vol. Ill, p. 464. t Ser. 80, p. 162. X Ser. Vol. I. p. 460. DR. TAYLOR AND MR. HARVEY. 135 Mr. H. admits a necessity for the existence of sin. inquiry now to be, not whether there is in man a nature itself sinful, and the efficient cause of sin ; but whether mankind are voluntary transgressors from their birth ? This being the ground which he assumes, the difference of opinion now relates to trivial matters, and cannot long divide the parties who are opponents. The one maintains that in- fants sin, as soon as they can sin, and the other, that they can sin and do sin, as soon as they come into the world. It is also shewn that all which has ever been claimed by Dr. Taylor, in regard to the divine permission of sin, is, that it cannot be proved that God could, in a moral system, prevent a greater degree of sin than the present, by adopting a differ- ent system of influences from that which he adopts ; a fact which is conceded by Mr. Harvey. He, however, represents Dr. Taylor as asserting that God could not prevent sin, in a moral system, with- out destroying the power to sin ; and that moral agents, therefore, who possess the power, are inde- pendent of controlling influences exerted by God. Thus far, the object has been, not only to state the principal topics which have been discussed, but to exhibit at considerable length, the arguments employed by the respective parties in the contro- versy. This has been done for the purpose of exhi- biting to the reader, who has not had opportunity to examine the subject, the commencement, pro- 136 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN The point mainly discussed. gress and state of the controversy as it existed, when the original champion in opposition to Dr. Taylor, retired from the field. From the view which has been taken, it appears, that the discussion hitherto has related mainly to a single point of doctrine, viz. what is the nature of sin ? The Professor of Divin- ity in Yale College maintained, " that sin, in every form and instance, is reducible to the act of a moral agent in which he violates a known rule of duty." The Dwight Professor of Didactic Theology, car- ried out this doctrine in his investigation of the na- ture of the moral depravity of man. He referred it to man's own act, consisting in 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. He shewed that this preference is a permanent sinful disposition, leading to all other acts of transgression. The conductors of the Chris- tian Spectator, in defending these views, entered into the discussion of the question, what is the oc- casion of the universal preference in men of worldly good to God ? They attributed it to the constitu- tional propensities of our fallen nature, not them- selves sinful, which, in all the appropriate circiun- stances of our being, universally and invariably in- fluence the mind to a choice of the wrong objects, as a chief good, and result in the entire moral de- pravity of mankind. These doctrines the Christian DR. TAYLOR AND MR. HARVEY. 137 New topics of discussion. Advocate and Mr. Harvey opposed. They main- tained that there is sin which does not consist in the transgression of known law, but in the nature which the race derives from Adam. With one ar- ticle the Christian Advocate gave over the contro- versy ; and in a second, Mr. Harvey virtually yield- ed the point, and entered upon the new inquiry, whether men are sinners from their birth ? The doctrine originally under discussion, therefore, seem- ed likely to be finally settled between Dr. Fitch, Dr. Taylor and the Christian Spectator on the one hand, and Dr. Green and his coadjutors and Mr. Harvey on the other. Whether the doctrine was thus settled, remains to be seen. Two questions of secondary importance, as there will be occasion hereafter to shew, assumed the prominent place and became the chief subject of dispute ; viz. when do mankind begin to sin ? and, what is the reason of the divine permission of sin ? Before a further ac- count of the discussion of these points is given, some notice must be taken of the commencement and progress of another branch of the controversy, which enlisted other pens in opposition to the New Haven sentiments. 12* 138 CHAPTER XIV. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. Review of Spring on the means of regeneration. In the successive numbers of the Christian Spec- tator for 1829, was pubUshed a review, by Dr. Tay- lor, of Spring on the means of regeneration.* After a favorable notice of the work in general, the re- viewer expresses his regret that the author of the dissertation, has not rendered more apparent the consistency between the inculcation of immediate repentance, which he recommends, and the doc- trine of the sinner's dependence ; and states it as his object to exhibit this consistency, for the pur- pose of overthrowing the standing objection of many unrenewed men, that they have nothing to do, be- cause all they shall do will be either vain or sinful ; and of bringing the obligation and practicability of immediate duty, clearly before their minds. A brief statement of the principal positions main- tained in the review, is necessary to a proper exhi- * A considerable part of this article, containing the fundamen- tal principles of the discussion, it is understood, was read before its publication, to Dr. Spring, who expressed his opinion, thftt it ought to be published. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN, &C. 139 Regeneration not a physical change. bition of the succeeding controversy. The follow- ing are the main points insisted on. The term re- generation, when used in respect to man as the sub- ject of it, in a popular and general sense, includes all the acts of the understanding and of the will, which take place in the conversion of a sinner to God. In a restricted sense, as used by standard theological writers, and in which it is used by the reviewer, it is confined simply to the act of the will or heart, which consists in the preference of God to every other object, in distinction from the mental acts which are connected with it, and which in the order of nature, though not of perceptible time, pre- cede it. This preference is the act of the sinner transferring, in view of truth and the motives which he contemplates, his affections from the world to God, as the object of his supreme regard ; and is the result of the operation of the Holy Spirit on the mind. The change therefore, effected in regenera- tion, is not of a physical nature, but of a voluntary character ; one in which man is active, as a moral agent, choosing in view of motives, God as his su- preme good. This act, or exercise of the will or heart, constitutes a permanent and controlling mo- ral disposition. The sinner in preferring the world to God, is a being supremely selfish. While the selfish principle remains the predominant and con- trolling disposition, the acts which are commonly 140 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Use of the means of regeneration. considered as constituting the use of the means of regeneration, are themselves sinful, and never do, and in the nature of things, never can produce the change. The selfish principle, however, is capa- ble of being suspended ; so that under the prompt- ings of self-love, or the desire of happiness, which is an ultimate principle of our nature, neither sinful nor holy, the sinner contemplates God and the world as objects of choice, '' substantially as they would be contemplated by a being who had just entered on existence, and who was called upon, for the first time, to select the one or the other as his supreme good." In other words, the supreme love of the world ceases, for the instant of time previous to the act of preferring God to the world, to confine thought and feeling exclusively to its object ; and the constitutional desire of happiness influences the mind to a contemplation of truth and motives, which properly considered, are the means of regeneration in the limited signification of the term, as used by the reviewer. Those acts which are thus dictated by self-love or the instinctive desire of happiness, and which are prior to that act of the will or heart which is called regeneration in the restricted sense, constitute the sinner's using the means of grace. When these means are thus used, they become, in an indivisible moment, according to the laws of moral action, the occasion of a right act of the will DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 141 How the immediate performance of duty is practicable. or affection of the heart. The suspension of the sel- fish principle does not change the moral character, or produce a state of neutrality ; for, it is not till the affections are placed on God, by the last act in the process of regeneration, (when the term is used in its popular meaning, to include the entire series of of acts,) that such a change takes place. The men- tal acts, also, which constitute using the means of regeneration, and the moral act which is the result, are separated by no measurable duration ; so that whenever regeneration is spoken of in the popular sense, the term includes the whole series of acts de- scribed, both mental and moral. This view of the subject, the reviewer claims, shews the way, and the only way, in which the immediate performance of duty is practicable by the sinner ; and secures to the doctrine of dependence, its true practical in- fluence on his mind. Thus the propriety of ex- hortations to immediate duty, in view of the sin- ner's dependence on the grace of God, is mani- fested ; and the objection is removed, that he has nothing to do, because all he shall do, will be either vain or sinful. On this review, " Strictures" were pubhshed by the Rev. Bennet Tyler, D. D., then pastor of a Con- gregational church in Portland. The main body of this pamphlet was written before the appearance of the concluding article of the review. The au- 142 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Dr. Tyler's Strictures. — Positions maintained. thor in his preface professes to believe that th« writer of the review, though he " has not formally denied any one doctrine of the orthodox system, has adopted principles, in his statements and expla- nations, which will lead, by inevitable consequence, to the denial of important doctrines ; and that his speculations will pave the way for the gradual in- flux of error upon the American churches, disas- trous to the interests of evangelicsd religion ; and declares, that nothing but the dangerous tendency of these speculations, and the necessity of some counteracting influence, could have induced him to appear in this manner before the public." In his introduction, though he says that he does not intend to insinuate, that the writer of the re- view has gone over to the ranks of Arminianism, he expresses his conviction, that there is no middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism ; and intimates his serious apprehensions, that the re- viewer has departed from the radical principles of the former, and is approximating to those of the latter. It is important that these statements be borne in mind by the reader, as he proceeds in the history of the discussion between Dr. Tyler and the writer of the review. The positions attempted to be maintained in the Strictures, will now be ex- hibited. The leading point contended for is, that sinners properly speaking, never use the means of DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 143 Means of regeneration never used by sinners. regeneration ; that is, that no acts performed by the sinner antecedent to a change of heart, are means of effecting this change. The brief argument by which this point is decided, is the following. " If sinners use the means of regeneration they must use them with a holy heart, or an unholy heart, or no heart at all ; that is, with right motives, or wrong motives, or no motives at all. If with right motives, the change is already effected, and the end precedes the means ; — if with wrong motives, their actions are sinful, and sin is the means of ho- liness ; — if with no motive at all, they act without design, and cannot be using means for the accom- plishment of an end." " How, then," it is asked, as the conclusion, " can this scheme be maintained, without first denying the entire depravity of the unrenewed heart, and thus striking at the founda- tion of the doctrines of grace ?"* Thus making motives synonymous with heart, which he uses to denote a voluntary state of the mind. Dr. Tyler, in a single syllogism, aims to overthrow the funda- mental doctrine of the review ; and to establish the position, that sinners never use the means of regen- eration. He then proceeds to an examination of what he calls the theory of the reviewer, in regard to the sinner's using the means of regeneration. He * Page 8. 144 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Selfish principle not suspended. first expresses his dissatisfaction with the use of the term regeneration, in its restricted sense, as used hy Dr. Taylor, claiming that it should be used to de- note the divine operation in renewing the heart.* He, however, siftervvards says, that "in its popular import it denotes an instantaneous change ; as in- stantaneous as the transition from darkness to light, or from death to life ; as instantaneous as any vol- untary act of the mind can be supposed to be ; and in its theological import it cannot be understood in a more restricted sense, "f He next attempts to point out a mistake of the reviewer, in regard to the nature of selfishness. He supposes that it con- sists in the supreme love of self; a principle of the heart which leads an individual to regard himself more than God ; and his own interest and happi- ness more than all the universe beside ; while the reviewer considers the principle here spoken of, as being itself the preference of the world to God as our chief good. J He then passes to his main ob- ject, the examination of the reviewer's theory in respect to using the means of regeneration. This he asserts, rests on a hypothesis unsupported by evidence, and contradicted by facts and the word of God. The hypothesis is, that the selfish princi- ple is suspended antecedent to regeneration ; and » pp. 11, 12. t pp. 13, 14. t pp. 14, 15. DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 145 Distinction between sin and holiness. that certain acts, dictated by self-love, constitute using the means of regeneration. He argues that there can be no such thing as the suspension of the selfish principle antecedent to regeneration ; be- cause the sinner is a selfish being, and no act dicta- ted by selfishness has any tendency to subdue or to suspend selfishness. ' He then points out what he thinks a grand mistake of the reviewer, as to the radical distinction between holiness and sin. He understands him to maintain, that self-love or the desire of happiness, is the ultimate end of action in all moral beings. He considers this as destroying the radical distinction between holiness and sin ; because both may be traced to the same principle of action. Holiness, he says, consists in benevo- lence or disinterested love ; sin in supreme selfish- ness. In a holy being self-love is not a controlling principle ; with the sinner it is ; the former does not regard his own personal happiness as his ulti- mate end ; with the latter, his ultimate end is his own personal happiness.* Next, he attempts to shew that the reviewer has mistaken the true way of reconciling the doctrine of the sinner's dependence on God, and the obliga- tion of immediate repentance. According to his view, the real difficulty with the sinner is a denial pp. 20, 21. 13 146 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Queries proposed by Dr. Tyler. of his obligation ; and this is removed by convin- cing him of his natural ability to repent, and shew- ing him that the fault lies in the perverseness of his will. According to the reviewer, the sinner, even after admitting his obligation, derives another ob- jection from his dependence, viz. the hopelessness of success in the effort ; and this objection can be removed only by shewing, that with a proper use of the means of regeneration, the work Tnay he ac- comphshed. Otherwise, the sinner must despair. In the conclusion of the Strictures, Dr. Tyler proposes and discusses, with a view of deciding in the affirmative, the following queries ; whether, ac- cording to the representations of Dr. Taylor, regen- eration is not a progressive work ; whether his the- ory does not involve the inconsistency of supposing that the heart is changed antecedent to regenera- tion ; whether the sinner's conviction of sin, while using the means of regeneration as described, would not cease ; whether this scheme does not dispense with the necessity of the divine influence in regen- eration ; whether it does not represent the sinner as laboring under a natural inability to do his duty ; whether it does not deny the doctrine of sovereign, distinguishing grace ; whether, if drawn out in de- tail and inculcated by the teachers of religion, it hEis not a tendency to stifle conviction of sin and produce spurious conversions. To these are added DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 147 Dr. Taylor charged with inconsistency. — Review of the Strictures. a few remarks, in which Dr. Taylor is represented as teaching that the Spirit never operates directly on the mind, but only through the medium of truth or motives ; and in which he is censured for what he has advanced respecting the manner of preach- ing the gospel. The pamphlet closes with an appendix, designed to defend the positions before maintained by the writer against the final statements and explanations of Dr. Taylor, as made in the concluding part of the review, which was published after the main body of the Strictures was written. In this ap- pendix, Dr. Tyler charges the reviewer with the inconsistency of maintaining, at one time, that re- generation is a gradual work, and again limiting it to an indivisible moment ; that sinners cease to sin during the suspension of the selfish principle, and again, that during this period they still go on to sin. He further discusses the question in regard to the ultimate end of action, and insists more at large on the method of meeting the sinner's objec- tion Eigainst the immediate performance of duty ; but as no new positions of importance are taken, it is not necessary to give this part of the pamphlet a more particular notice. The Strictures were reviewed by Dr. Taylor, in the Christisin Spectator, for March, 1830. In main- taining his former positions, he shews that it is the 148 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN How sinners use the means of regeneration. current language of theologians to speak of using the means of regeneration, and that the writer of the Strictures is peculiar and alone, in his denial of any such use. He examines the arguments by which Dr. Tyler attempts to overthrow this gen- erally received doctrine. Dr. Tyler had attempted to show, by a three-fold impossibility, that sinners cannot use the means of regeneration. Dr. Taylor replies, then is moral agency subverted ; since he who has neither a sinful heart, nor a holy heart, nor any heart at all, cannot be a moral agent. He con- cedes that sinners never use the means of regene- ration with a holy heart, nor with an unholy or sinful heart ; but denies that they do not use them with any heart at all. On the contrary, when they are required to love God with all their heart, it is to be done with a real heart, consisting in those powers and properties of moral agency, which qual- ify its subject to exercise moral affections ; and in- stead of using them with a right or a wrong heart, they act from a constitutional susceptibility to the good in the object of right affection, or from a de- sire of happiness.* This Dr. Tyler admits, when he says, that, ''there can be no volition without motive," " no act of choice without some object perceived by the mind ;" and that regeneration in * Christian Spectator, 1830, p. 150. DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 149 The term regeneration used in a restricted sense. its restricted sense, is "the first moral act of the new-born soul." For, on these principles, this first act must take place through the mind's perception of some object regarded as good, and consequently under the impulse of a desire for happiness. So, when he says that the sinner is able to do his duty, he admits the same thing ; for, the sinner cannot do his duty with wrong motives, nor with no mo- tives at all ; nor can he from right motives, except as he uses truth and motives with his constitutional powers, from the impulse of his constitutional de- sires. Next Dr. Taylor examines the Strictures in re- gard to the use and application of terms ; and shews that the best theological writers, and the scriptures themselves, authorize the use of the term regene- ration to denote the moral change in man produced by the Holy Spirit ; and that they sometimes speak of this as a complex act, including both an act of the understanding and of the will, and sometimes employ it to denote the latter in distinction from the former. He also justifies the use which he has made of the terms self-love and selfishness ; the former denoting the constitutional desire of happi- ness, common to all moral beings ; and the latter, the moral 'preference of other objects to God, as the supreme good. Self-love therefore is not a supreme affection, as he is represented to teach by Dr. Tyler, 13* 150 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Self-love distinguished from selfishness. who confounds the primary cause or reason of such an affection with the affection itself, and so denies, that it has any cause. Hence, to represent, that if all actions are prompted by self-love or the de- sire of happiness, there is no distinction between sin and holiness, is to refer moral distinctions to the essential attributes or constitutional propensities of our being, instead of referring them to the choice of the mind. Besides, is it selfish and sinful to desire, and thus to choose, the very happiness in kind, by which God would induce us to choose him as our portion ? Is there no difference, between choosing this kind of happiness from the desire of it, and choosing that lower kind of happiness which the world proffers ? And yet in each instance the choice would be prompted by the desire of happi- ness. To deny, then, that self-love, or the desire of happiness, is the principle from which the first right moral affection or choice springs, is not only to subvert all moral distinctions, but to deny the existence of motives in a change of heart ; and is thus to deny the possibility of moral action, and consequently to destroy moral agency. The re- viewer then considers the objections brought for- ward by Dr. Tyler in the Strictures ; and shews that they are founded on a false philosophy respect- ing the nature of moral agency, and an inadequate view of the rapidity and comprehensiveness of the DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 151 Mistakes about moral agency. mental operation in the complex act of turning to God. The mistake in regard to moral agency is, that there is in man no principle of voluntary ac- tion, except the selfish principle ; consequently, there is no possibility of his acting, except under its influence, till he is physically changed. In re- gard to the complex act in regeneration, the first error consists in supposing, that the act occupies a considerable period of time ; whereas it is a process or series of acts only in the order of nature, and not of time ; and given only by that mental analy- sis by which we distinguish the thought of an ob- ject from the choice of it. These acts, or rather this complex act, therefore, no more occupies a meas- urable duration, than the complex act of thought, feeling, and volition, in which one, meeting a lion in his path, should instantaneously choose to avoid the danger, and fly to a refuge at hand ; or than that in which a sinner, like the Psalmist, should * think on his ways, and turn to God.' Ps. 119 : 59. The second error respects the question, whether it is possible in the nature of things, that man should choose God, or any other object, without first think- ing of and desiring that object as a good ; or wheth- er, as Edwards says, ' the will is as the greatest ap- parent good?' Dr. Tyler denies this distinction; Dr. Taylor affirms it. From these mistakes have originated the queries and charges of contradiction which occupy the concluding part of the Strictures. 152 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Dr. Tyler's 2d pamphlet. This review, together with a pamphlet signed Evangehcus Pacificus, and written by the Rev. Hubbard Winslow, called forth another pamphlet from the pen of Dr. Tyler, in vindication of his Strictures. As this contains little more than a rep- etition, in a variety of forms and with some am- plification, of the principles and arguments of his former publication, it will not be necessary to enter very minutely into its details. The following ac- count will be sufficient. Dr. Tyler says that he has no dispute with Dr. Taylor, as to what consti- tutes a free moral agent ; nor in regard to the dis- tinction between self-love and selfishness. He maintains, however, that in holy beings self-love is a subordinate principle under the control of univer- sal benevolence ; but in moral beings, destitute of benevolence, self-love becomes the controlling prin- ciple, and is the same as selfishness. He also says, that if the reviewer, " when he says that self-love is the primary cause of moral action, and that of all specific voluntary action the happiness of the agent in some form is his ultimate end," only means that man " could incline to nothing and will noth- ing," unless things are either " pleasing or displeas- ing, agreeable or disagreeable to him," then he has no dispute with him.* Yet he maintains that, if 20. DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 153 Admits that happiness is the ultimate end of action. personal happiness is the ultimate end of pursuit, the character is selfish ; and that the distinction of moral character does not lie merely in the choice of diiferent objects. He then states the turning point of the whole discussion to be, " whether the selfish principle is suspended in the sinner's heart antecedent to regeneration ? This he considers as identical with the question, whether the last sinful act is immediately followed by the first holy act, without the intervention of a series of acts and states of mind which are neither sinful nor holy. He affirms, that giving a heart of flesh is the sEime as taking away the heart of stone ; that putting on the new man is the same as putting off the old j and that beginning to be holy, is ceasing to be sin- ful.* In support of this view, he maintains, that the intellectual apprehension which is essential to an act of choice is not a voluntary act, nor distinct from the act of choice itself; but that the percep- tion of the divine character is included in the act of preferring or loving God ; and that there can there- fore be no series of acts and states of mind which constitute using the means of regeneration. He then discusses at length the question, whether Dr. Taylor's theory does not involve the doctrine of progressive regeneration ; and by numerous passa- *p. 27. 154 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN Regeneration instantaneous. — Reply to Dr. Tyler's 2d pamphlet. ges from the review, in which the mental acts are described that constitute using the means of regen- eration, attempts to show that the statements con- template a period of measurable duration, rather than an indivisible moment of time. A re-examina- tion of the grounds of the sinner's obligation to do his duty, and of the manner of meeting his objec- tions on account of his dependence, principally oc- cupy the concluding pages of the " Vindication." A brief notice of the pamphlet was published in the Spectator for June, written, in the absence of Dr. Taylor, by the Editor, Professor Goodrich. He first shows that Dr. Tyler, when he admits, " that man could will nothing, unless things are either pleasing or displeasing to him," virtually concedes, all that Dr. Taylor maintains, when he says, that the happiness of the agent is the ultimate end of all action. He shows that Dr. Tyler, throughout his whole argument, has confounded two great depart- ments of human agency, viz. that of constitutional properties or propensities, and that of choice or vol- mitary action. These are perfectly distinct, and easily distinguishable ; the former being founded in the desire of happiness, and the latter consisting in acts of choice, to which alone, as implying power to the contrary, can pertain the quality of right and wrong. Into this error, in one instance. Dr. Tyler falls, in denying the distinction between self-love DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 155 He: confounds constitutional propensities, and moral action. and selfishness in unrenewed men. When he as- serts that in moral beings destitute of benevolence, self-love becomes the controlling principle, and is then the same as selfishness, he makes a constitu- tional desire, which is the primary cause of moral action, moral action itself ; both cause and effect! So again he falls into the same confusion when he denomices, as destroying the distinction between sin and holiness, the statement, that the ultimate end aimed at in every act of choice, is happiness. He thus makes blame attach to constitutional pro- pensities, while it is predicable only of voluntary acts. He also denies, that there is any moral dif- ference between choosing God on account of the kind of happmess to be obtained by the choice of this glorious Being ; and choosing the world on ac- count of the kind of happiness to be obtained from the choice of this inferior object. And yet in each case, as the reviewer shows, happiness would be chosen. The happiness to be found in God, is one object. The happiness in the world, is the other. How wide the difference ! What is a holy choice, if not the former ? What a sinful choice, if not the latter ? So in like manner, when he denies the suspension of the selfish principle, he confounds motive, in the sense of moral intention, with motive in the sense of constitutional impulse ; and in con- sequence, makes the choice of God, (in regenera- 156 CONTROVERSY, &C. '' Motive" used in two senses. tion,) as the supreme portion of the soul, either to proceed from selfishness, or to take place without a cause. This brief notice of Dr. Tyler's second pamphlet, ended the discussion in regard to the means of re- generation. It evinced in a short compass, and in a most lucid manner, that the main positions of Dr. Tyler in opposition lo Dr. Taylor, in his review of Spring, were founded in error and confusion, re- specting the faculties of a moral agent, in the exer- cise of which his moral actions are performed. 157 CHAPTER XV. CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. Dr. Woods' statement of Dr. Taylor's theory. To preserve the regular succession of events in the history of the controversy, it will be necessary in this place to notice a pamphlet from the pen of the Rev. Leonard Woods, D. D., on the subject of the divine permission of sin. The theories account- ing for the introduction of sin into the moral uni- verse, were matter of discussion between Dr. Tay- lor and Mr. Harvey, as has been already noticed in its proper connection. The discussion was resumed in the pamphlet here referred to, which appeared in 1830, in the form of Letters addressed to the Pro- fessor of Didactic Theology in Yale College. Li these letters, Dr. Woods lays down the two following propositions, as the opinion of Dr. Taylor : ^^ firsts that sin is not the necessary means of the greatest good, and as such, so far as it exists, is not, on the whole, preferable to holiness in its stead ; and second^ that in a moral system God could not have prevented all sin, nor the present degree of it."* The latter of these propositions he first con- * Page 24. 14 158 CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. Dr. Woods' statement of Dr. Taylor's theory. troverts. He considers that the phrases which de- note power, or the want of it, are used in three senses : a literal sense, when ability or inability to do a thing that is chosen or willed, is spoken of ; a metaphysical or moral sense, when disposition or inclination is spoken of, without regard to power in its primary sense ; and a third signification, when there is reference to the nature of things, as render- ing an act possible or impossible. Thus it is said literally, God has power to raise the dead ; 77ieta" physically, he has not power to do an act of injus- tice J and in the third meaning, he cannot cause a part of a thing to be greater than the whole. The proposition " that, in a moral system, God could not have prevented all sin, or the present de- gree of it," he understands to assert a want of pow- er in the literal sense ; and thus he ascribes to Dr. Taylor the sentiment, that sin has entered the mor- al imiverse, because God had no kind of power, no ability in the literal and absolute sense, to prevent its existence. When Dr. Taylor speaks of the na- ture of things, he supposes him to intend the nature of man, as a free agent ; and hence to affirm that such is the nature of free moral agency, that God wanted power, literally and absolutely, to exclude sin from the universe, by wholly preventing the perversion of moral agency.* * Letter II. CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. 159 God, able to prevent sin. This sentiment he thinks is supported by no vaUd proof; and argues against it substantially in the following manner. If the impossibility of God's preventing sin exists solely in the nature of moral agency itself, it relates equally to all moral agents, and takes from God the power of controlling any : but if it exists in the nature of moral agency in connection with the circumstances in which mo- ral agents are placed, God could have ordered those circumstances in a different manner ; otherwise he is not almighty in his providence. On both suppositions his power is limited in respect to the conversion of sinners. Facts, moreover, so far as known, go to prove that God could pi^event all sin. Before the first apostacy in heaven, moral agents were made holy, and kept in obedience ; and by the same power they might have been preserved from sin, without any influence derived from the existence and punishment of sin. God preserved some in holiness, while others fell ; he has renewed sinners the most obstinate and rebellious ; and the consciousness of every one who has been renewed by the Holy Spirit, may be cited as evidence that the highest exertion of divine power does not de- stroy moral agency.* He also examines the more specific statement, which he ascribes to Dr. Taylor, * Letter III. 160 CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. Sin the necessary means of the greatest good. that God could not prevent the present degree of sin, and that he could not do better than he has done, for any individual. This he understands to mean, that God could not have prevented any indi- vidual sirmer from sinning ; nor have caused him to sin less than h"^ has sinned. Of this he main- tains that there is no proof from fact, nor from the nature or circumstances of sinners ; but that there is proof to the contrary, from the divine omnipo- tence ; from the conversion of other sinners ; from the fact that we are required to pray for their con- version ; and from the representations of scripture, that their conversion depends on the will and pleas- ure of God. What has now been presented is, of course, but a general and imperfect view of the manner in which the author of the letters has argued against the supposed theory of Dr. Taylor ; but it will ex- hibit to the reader the main positions of Dr. Woods, and furnish a correct outline of his argument. He next considers the theory, " that sin is not the necessary means of the greatest good, and that as such, so far as it exists, it is not preferable, on the whole, to holiness in its stead." In as much as this theory is the opposite of the common one, which his opponent has called a groundless assumption, he represents it as adopted by him and held as his belief. CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. 161 Sin the necessary means of the greatest good. His first object is to shew that Dr. Taylor has contradicted himself, in his note to the Concio ad Clerum ; in the first part denying and in the second affirming, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good. The proof of this rests on ques- tions in the note like the following : ^' As we know of no creature of God whose holiness is secured without the influence which results, either directly or indirectly, from the existence of sin and its pun- ishment ; how can it be proved from facts, that God could secure any of his moral creatures in holiness without this influence ? If God could prevent all sin without this influence, why has he not done it ? Who is competent to foretell the consequences of the least iota of change, in the present system of influence to produce holiness ?" These questions, it is asserted by Dr. Woods, express the opinion, that all the sin which exists, is absolutely necessary to the greatest good. A few remarks are then added to shew, that the fact of sin and its punishment be- ing used as a means of preventing other sin, does not prove that the latter could not be prevented by other means; and though God will undoubtedly secure higher happiness in his moral kingdom by means of moral evil, than could have been secured without it ; yet this does not imply that he could not exclude sin entirely from a moral system. 14* 162 CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. Objections against the theory examined. Dr. Woods next examines the objections urged against the common position of the "orthodox," as he styles them, "that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good." These objections are made on the gromid that the theory in question is inconsist- ent with the benevolence and sincerity of God; with his commands and invitations ; and with the duty of sorrowing for sin. In answer to these, he maintains, that, as the divine law respects sin as wrong and hurtful in its own nature and tendency, it must be forbidden and punished ; that it is, only when so forbidden and punished, the means of good ; that for God to forbid what is in itself evil, though on the whole for the best, implies no insin- cerity ; and that he who commits sin is to sorrow for it, as a thing evil in itself, without regard to the good that may result from it. Nothing in partic- ular is said, in regard to the inconsistency of the theory with the divine benevolence. The concluding letter is principally devoted to a comparison of the practical influence of the theory ascribed to Dr. Taylor, and that of the ^^ ortho- dox ^^^ that sin is the necessary means of the great- est good ; and to suggestions, counsel, and queries, for the consideration and benefit of the opposite party in the discussion. In the comparison, the lat- ter theory is represented as possessing great advan- tage, in respect to the following particulars. It as- CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. 163 Practical influence of the theories in question compared. cribes to God unlimited power in respect to the ac- complishment of good ; while the former implies that God cannot do the good he desires and chooses ; and is thus an obvious limitation of his power. It ascribes to God infinite and perfect blessedness; while, on the other, his benevolence fails of being perfectly satisfied. It represents the present system as the best conceivable by the infinite mind ; while the other admits that a system without sin, would be better. It gives to God unlimited dominion; while the other limits his control over moral beings. It favors the happiness of the good ; while the other leaves them to regret the evils of the moral system of God. It furnishes a ground of entire voluntary submission to the government and providence of God ; while the other, in respect to the evils of the system, produces only the submission of necessity. It encour2iges prayer for all things consistent with infinite wisdom and goodness; while the other leads us to feel, that we are in danger of asking fa- vors which God has not power to bestow. And finally, it leads to humility and entire dependence on divine grace ; while the other cherishes a feel- ing of independence and self-sufficiency. Such are Dr. Woods' representations of the comparative prac- tical efiects of the two theories. Next, come the suggestions, and counsel, and queries, with which the letter is concluded. It is suggested that there 164 CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. Grounds of alarm suggested. — Questions proposed to Dr. Taylor. is ground for serious disquietude and alarm, in re- lation to the orthodoxy of the professor to whom the letters are addressed. It is intimated that, on the subject of moral agency, free will, depravity, di- vine influence, &c., he agrees with Arminians and Pelagians ; on several controverted subjects holds the opinions of Unitarians ; and in regard to human dependence, the divine power, and the existence of moral evil, adopts the language of Rousseau and the French infidels. The New Haven professor is then counseled not to shew excitement, in regard to the manner in which he is treated by his opponents ; to aim at great plainness and perspicuity in his writings ; to exhibit perfect fairness and impar- tiality in stating his agreement with Calvinistic wri- ters ; and to avoid protracted discussion, by bring- ing the whole of his sentiments out in one pam- phlet under his own name ! Finally, sixteen ques- tions are propounded to him ; in regard to his belief respecting the theories in question, the nature of things, of moral agency, of divine influence, and of the doctrine of divine decrees; in regard to his agreement with the Pelagians respecting the natu- ral state of man, free will, and conversion ; and with Edwards respecting moral agency ; and in re- gard to various other topics more or less connected with the main points of controversy. CONTROVERSY Wl TH DR. WOODS. 165 Review of Dr. W. 's letters - -Dr . W. mistakes Dr. T. 's position. These letters were reviewed in the Christian Spectator, for September, 1830, in an article ap- pended to the review of Bellamy on the divine per- mission of sin. This part of the article is supposed to have been written by Dr. Taylor. The review, in the first place, shews that Dr. Woods' statement of the question at issue is palpably incorrect. He has changed the fundamental position on which the whole discussion turns, into another and different one, which was never maintained by Dr. Taylor. His position was that the two eissumptions, first, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, and as such, so far as it exists, is preferable, on the whole, to hohness in its stead ; and secondly^ that God could, in a moral system, have prevented all sin, or at least the present degree of sin, are ground- less assumptions. Instead of meeting this position with proof, to shew that they are not groundless assumptions. Dr. Woods makes him to hold, not only that sin is not the necessary means of the greatest good, and so far as it exists is not prefer- able to holiness in its stead ; but that God could not, in a moral system, have prevented all sin, nor the present degree of sin; which things he had never affirmed ; but only maintained that the above assumptions cannot be proved. The reviewer next shews that Dr. Woods has, in the fullest terms, conceded the great principle 166 CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS* Inconsistencies of Dr. Woods' scheme. maintained by his opponents ; viz. that no man can shew the theory, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, to be true. This Dr. Woods has done by affirming, that man cannot know, and that God only knows, the reasons for the permission of sin. Dr. Taylor rephes, then Dr. Woods does not know them. Dr. Woods affirms that all the an- swer which the case admits, is ' because it seemed good 'to God not to prevent sin.' Why then does Dr. Woods assign a further reason, viz. that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good? Dr. Woods adopts the very statement of those whom he opposes, when he asks, might not God actually prefer and fix upon the present method of adminis- tration, which, though it would not entirely ex- clude evil, would ultimately raise his kingdom to a higher degree of holiness and happiness, than any other ? He thus asserts, not that sin, but that the present system may be the necessary means of the greatest good — the very position of Dr. Taylor. The reviewer next points out some inconsisten- cies in the scheme maintained in the letters of Dr. Woods. One is, that God prefers holiness to sin, in itself considered, and at the same time prefers sin to holiness, all things considej^ed; it being a con- tradiction, to suppose any being to choose opposites at the same time. Another is, that sin, in its na- ture and tendency, is evil ; but when prohibited CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. 167 Evasions of the points in debate. and punished, possesses a salutary influence. This is the same as saying that a thing, in its nature wholly evil, is good as a means of producing good. He then notices the manner in which several things are confounded in the letters. That God has not prevented sin, because it seemed good in his sight not to prevent it, is called a theory instead of a doctrine ; and is improperly confounded with the theory, that sin is the necessary means of the great- est good. Hence the act of God in permitting sin, which is a good act, is confounded with the act of man in sinning, which is evil. The overruling of a thing which is evil for good, is confounded with the thing itself, as a necessary means of good. Thus the sin of the crucifiers of our Savior is represented as the necessary means of the greatest good, when, in fact, the overruling of it was the means of good, and shows, that sin is not the means of good. To say, that that which is overruled and counteracted in all its tendencies is the necessary means of good, is a contradiction. What may be a necessary means, on the part of God, of preventing more sin, also is confounded with what may in no degree be ne- cessary, on the part of his subjects. The present amount of sin with its punishment, for example, may be necessary, so far as God is concerned, for the prevention of greater evil ; but by no means ne- cessary, on the part of moral beings, who are able to do their duty without it. 168 CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. Evasions of the points in debate noticed. The reviewer then proceeds to notice some of the evasions of the points in debate, with which the letters abound. An illustration, introduced by Dr. Taylor to shew that God may regard holiness as preferable to sin in its stead, and yet decree the ex- istence of sin as incidental, in respect to divine prevention, to the best system, is treated by Dr. Woods as if designed to shew that God has no more -power over the minds of men, than a father has over the minds of his children. When it is as- serted by Dr. Taylor that the nature of moral agency is such, that it may he true, that God can- not prevent all sin under a moral system ; the po- sition is met by Dr. Woods, as if it were main- tained, that God cannot prevent sin in any instance in which moral agency exists. When it is said that it may he true, that free agents, who can sin, will sin, notwithstanding all preventing influences ; it is represented as a denial that God can do what he pleases. When the question is, who can prove that the requisite intervention of God for the pre- vention of any past sin, would not result in a vast increase of sin in the universe ; it is met as though it were, who can prove that it would ? When it is inquired, whether they who maintain that God could have secured universal holiness, but would not, do not limit the goodness of God ; it is an- swered by the question, how does it limit the good- CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. 169 Fallacy of Dr. Woods' reasoning exposed. ness of God to say that he governs his conduct by the highest reasons, and refrains from doing what he sees to be on the whole best not to do ; while the real point is, are these the highest reasons ; is it on the whole for the best, that sin should not be prevented, if possible, by holiness in its stead ? These, with other evasions, are shown to make a large part of the apparent arguments of the letters, and to be entirely irrelevant to the subject in de- bate. The next step of the reviewer is to exhibit the fallacy of the reasoning which these letters con- tain. The arguments intended to support the po- sition, that God could have prevented all sin in a moral system, are wholly inconclusive. That God is omnipotent is no proof: for there may be an impossibility involving a self-contradiction ; and so the thing to be accomplished may not lie within the power of omnipotence : that God has a per- fect control over all the circumstances of his crea- tures, and therefore could have prevented all sin in a moral system, is only a begging of the question ; the fact that God has converted sinners in the most unfa- vorable external circumstances, and those who were the most obstinate and rebellious, does not shew, and even the conversion of the whole human race would not shew, that God could prevent all sin in a moral universe. The point to be proved is, that 15 170 CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. The two theories equally limit the power of God. God could have kept all sin, or the present degree of sin, out of a universal moral system. This, the very thing which Dr. Woods was bound to prove, so far from being proved is virtually denied by Dr. Woods. He says, " that from the moment in which God created a moral world, he has been exerting his influence upon it, in every conceivable manner, and in the highest possible degree ;" and what more could God have done ? The reviewer then shews, that the reasoning which is designed to prove the unlimited power of God, in respect to the preven- tion of sin in a moral universe, owes its entire plau- sibility, to the denial of the moral agency of crea- tures. It is based on the false position, that, to moral agents belongs no power of resisting moral influen- ces, any more than to inert matter, of resisting om- nipotence ; and thus denies to them, the essential quality of moral agency ; power of choice in all conceivable circumstances. He also shews that the scheme advocated by Dr. Woods, is a limitation of the pov:er of God, in substantially the same manner, as that which he opposes. The latter scheme supposes that God may not be able to se- cure the greatest good in his power to secure, with- out free agents, some of whom will sin ; the scheme of Dr. Woods asserts, that God cannot secure the greatest good, without sin as the necessary means of the result. On both schemes, there is then an CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. 171 Invidious remarks complained of. — The argument summed up. impossibility ; on one, the impossibility results from the nature of moral agency; on the other, from the nature of sin. The reviewer finally comments on the personal and invidious remarks with which the letters abound. They hold up to view two parties, the one dignified with the name " Orthodox," and the other their opponents who are identified to an indefinite extent with Arminians, and Uniteirians, and Pelagians, and French infidels. A great number of questions are proposed, which necessarily convey the insinuation, that Dr. Taylor and his friends are radically un- sound in the faith, and guilty of dishonesty and de- ception. At the same time, they are addressed to Dr. Taylor, with the shew of great kindness and affection. These things are complained of as cast- ing odium on brethren who hold the fundamental doctrines of the gospel ; and against whom no spe- cific charge of a departure from the orthodox belief, has ever been made. This general view of the Letters of Dr. Woods, and the review of them in the Christian Spectator, is designed to present such a statement of the points at issue, and the arguments employed on each side in their support, as will prevent the necessity of en- tering largely into the subject hereafter. The sub- stance of what has here been given may be present- ed in few words. Dr. Taylor intimated in the note 172 CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. What Dr. T. maintained. — How Dr. W. met hia positions. to his Concio ad Clerum, that two very common assumptions respecting the existence of sin are groundless. These assumptions are, jirst^ that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, and as such, so far as it exists, is preferable on the whole to holiness in its stead ; and secondly^ that God could in a moral system have prevented all sin, or at least the present degree of sin. By calling these "groundless assumptions," Dr. Taylor intended that they were entirely without proof; and he left it for those by whom they were adopted, to support them, if they were disposed, and if they could. After thus setting aside these theories of the permis- sion of sin, he suggested another as a possible solu- tion of the difficulty. It is this : God may prefer holiness to sin, in all instances in which the latter takes place. At the same time, he may prefer the existence of sin, to the non-existence of the best system possible to him. In choosing, therefore, a moral system, he may have purposed the existence of sin as unavoidably incidental to it, so far as his power of prevention is concerned, if he adopted the system. This supposition resolved the difficulty into the nature of a moral system, in which agents are to act freely under a moral government. Dr. Woods entirely misunderstood and misrepresented the positions of Dr. Taylor. He attributed to him the theory that God had no power to control moral CONTROVERSY WITH DR. WOODS. 173 Failure of Dr. Woods' argument. agents, so as to prevent their sinning, even though he chose to do it. The whole of his reasoning on the subject, therefore, fell to the ground. To have accomplished any thing, he must first have shewn, that what Dr. Taylor assumed as a possible solu- tion of the diificulty in question, could not he tjme. He must have shewn, that the reason of the exist- ence of sin, is 7iot that God could not keep out all sin from a moral universe ; in other words, that God could create and govern through eternity, a moral universe, without permitting sin. This Dr. Woods could not do. He was equally unsuccess- ful, it is believed, in his attempt to support the the- ory, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good. In the explanations which he made, he abandoned the theory itself, and sometimes advo- cated the one suggested by Dr. Taylor, that sin, in respect to divine prevention, is incidental to the best system possible to God. No one, it is believed, who understands the whole controversy on this subject, can fail to see that these Letters of Dr. Woods, so far as it regards the real question in debate, left it where they found it. They established no important point, and over- threw no position maintained by Dr. Taylor. 15* 174 CHAPTER XVI. SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN DR. TAY- LOR AND DR. TYLER. Dr. Taylor's letter to Dr. Hawes, It now becomes necessary, in pursuing this his- tory, to notice another branch of the controversy, as it was renewed by Dr. Tyler. In Jan. 1832, the Rev. Dr. Hawes, of Hartford, addressed a letter to Dr. Taylor, requesting a full statement of his views on some of the leading doctrines of the gos- pel. Dr. Taylor's reply appeared in several news- papers and periodicals ; and was also published in a pamphlet form. The following extracts will ex- hibit the system of doctrine which he holds. ^' I readily comply with your request, and submit to your disposal the following statement of my be- lief on some of the leading doctrines of the gospel. I believe, '' 1. That there are three persons in one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. <' 2. That the eternal purposes of God extended to all actual events, sin not excepted ; or, that God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, and so exe- cutes these purposes as to leave the free moral agency of man unimpaired. SECOND DISCUSSION, &c. 175 Dr. Taylor's creed. "3. That all mankind, in consequence of the fall of Adain, 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. "4. That an atonement for sin has been made for all mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ ; that this atonement was necessary to magnify the law, and to vindicate and unfold the justice of God in the pardon of sin ; and that the sinner who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, is freely justified on the ground of his atoning sacrifice, and on that ground alone. " 5. That the change in regeneration is a moral change, consisting in a new holy disposition, or gov- erning purpose of the heart, as a permanent princi- ple of action ; in which change the sinner transfers the supreme affection of his heart from all inferior objects to the living God, chooses him as the por- tion of his soul, and his service and glory as his su- preme good ; and thus in respect to moral charac- ter, becomes a neio r)ian. " 6. That this moral change is never produced in the human heart by moral suasion^ i. e. by mere influence of truth and motives, as the Pelagians af- firm ; but is produced by the influence of the Holy Spirit, operating on the mind through the truth, 176 SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN Dr. Taylor's creed. and in perfect consistency with the nature of moral action, and laws of moral agency. " 7. That all men, (in the words of the article of your church,) may accept the offers of salvation freely made to them in the gospel, but that no one will do this, except he be drawn by the Father. " 8. That the necessity of the influence of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, results solely from the voluntary perverseness of the sinner's heart, or dis- inclination to serve God, which, while it leaves him a complete moral agent, and without excuse for neglecting his duty, suspends his actual salvation on the sovereign will of God. " 9. That the renewing grace of God is special^ (in distinction from that which is common, and re- sisted by the sinful mind,) inasmuch as it is that which is designed to secure, and does infallibly se- cure, the conversion of the sinner. *' 10. 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 fore- seen faith or good works, but according to the good pleasure of his will. '' 11. That all who are renewed by the Holy Spirit, will, through his continued influence, perse- vere in holiness to the end, and obtain eternal life. " Such is my faith in respect to some of the lead- ing doctrines of the gospel. DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLEB. 177 Dr. Taylor's explanations. " These doctrines I preach ; these I teach in the Theological department of this Seminary ; these I have repeatedly published to the world. With what truth or justice any regard me as a ' teacher of The- ology introducing heresy into our churches,' the candid can judge." In respect to comparatively minor points, and philosophical theories, and modes of defending the Calvinistic system of doctrine, about which there has always been a diversity of opinion and freedom of discussion simong Calvinists, Dr. Taylor then briefly states, in the following manner, what he does, and what he does not believe. '' I do not believe that the posterity of Adam are, in the proper sense of the language, guilty of his sin ; or that the ill-desert of that sin is truly theirs ; or that they are punished for that sin. But I do believe, that by the wise and holy constitu- tion of God, all mankind in consequence of Adam's sin, become sinners by their own act. '•I do not believe that the nature of the human mind, which God creates, is itself sinful ; or that God punishes men for the nature which He creates ; or that sin pertains to any thing in the mind which precedes all conscious mental exercise or action, and which is neither a matter of consciousness nor of knowledge. But I do beheve that sin univer- sally is no other than selfishness, or a preference of 178 SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN Dr. Taylor's explanations. one's self to all others — of some inferior good to God ; that this free voluntary preference is a per- manent principle of action in all the unconverted ; and that this is sin, and all that in the scriptures is meant by sin. I also believe, that such is the na- ture of the human mind, that it becomes the occa- sion of universal sin in men in all the appropriate circumstances of their existence ; and that there- fore they are truly and properly said to be sinners by nature. *' I do not believe that sin can be proved to be the necessary means of the greatest good, aind that as such, God prefers it on the whole to holiness in its stead ; or that a God of sincerity and truth pun- ishes his creatures for doing that which he on the whole prefers they should do, and which as the means of good, is the best thing they can do. But I do believe, that holiness as the means of good, may be better than sin ; that it may be true that God, all things considered, prefers holiness to sin in all instances in which the latter takes place, and therefore sincerely desires that all men should come to repentance, though for wise and good reasons he permits^ or does not prevent the existence of sin. I do not believe that it can be proved, that an om- nipotent God would be unable to secure more good by means of the perfect and universal obedience of his creatures, if they would render it, than by means DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 179 Dr. Taylor's explanations. of their sin. But I do believe that it may involve a dishonorable limitation of his power to suppose that he could not do it. '' I do not beheve that the grace of God can be truly said to be irresistible, in the primary import of this term. But I do beheve, that in all cases, it may be resisted by man as a free moral agent, and that when it becomes effectual to conversion, as it infalUbly does in the case of all the elect, it is unre- sisted. "I do not believe that the grace of God is ne- cessary, as Arminians and some others maintain, to render man an accountable agent, and responsible for rejecting the offers of eternal life. But I do be- lieve, that man would be such an agent and thus responsible, were no such grace afforded, and that otherwise, ' grace would be no more grace.' '' I do not believe that it is necessary that the sinner in using the means of regeneration, should commit sin in order to become holy. But I do be- lieve, that as a moral agent he is qualified so to use the means, i. e. the truth of God when present to his mind, as to become holy at once ; that he is authorized to beheve, that through the grace of the Holy Spirit, this may be done ; and that except in so doing, he cannot be truly and properly said to use the means of regeneration. 180 SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN Discussion in the Spirit of the Pilgrims. " I do not believe that we are authorized to as- sure the sinner, as Arminians do, and some others also, that the Holy Spirit is always ready to con- vert him. But I do believe, that we are authorized to assure any sinner, that it may he true^ that the Holy Spirit is now ready to convert him, — ' that God peradventure will now give repentance,' and that thus, in view of the possible intervention of divine influence, we remove what would otherwise be a ground of fatal discouragement to the sinner, when we exhort him to immediate repentance." The letter closes with an expression of his views respecting the mode of exhibiting the sinner's obli- gation, in connection with his dependence on the sovereign grace of God, resulting from his volun- tary perverseness in sin. In the Spirit of the Pilgrims for June, 1832, an article under the signature of Dr. Tyler was pub- lished, containing remarks on Dr. Taylor's letter to Dr. Hawes. To this Dr. Taylor replied in the num- ber for August. This was answered by Dr. Tyler, who was again replied to by Dr. Taylor. The dis- cussion in this publication, after a year's continu- ance, was at length concluded with a letter to the editor from Dr. Tyler. This letter, with remarks on two articles in the Christian Spectator on the same subject, afterwards appeared in the form of a pamphlet, with which this part of the controversy DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 181 The doctrine of decrees subverted. was finally terminated. The details of this volu- minous discussion will not here be given. The leading points, maintained in the several articles referred to, will simply be stated; and any who desire to pursue the subject, can easily consult for themselves the original documents. It is fully admitted by Dr. Tyler, that Dr. Tay- lor's theological views as embodied in the eleven articles of his creed are correct ; but fears are ex- pressed that his theories, carried out into their le- gitimate consequences, may lead to a renunciation of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. Dr. Tyler maintains, that these theories are subversive of some of the most prominent articles of the creed ; particularly of the doctrine of decrees, of original sin, of regeneration, and of election. 1st. The doctrine of decrees. ''If it be true," says Dr. Tyler, " 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 whatsoever comes to pass. The two statements involve a contradiction. Again, if it be true that sin cannot be proved to be the ne- cessary means of the greatest good, in the sense of being on the whole for the best, it cannot be proved that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Again, it cannot be supposed that God, for wise and good reasons, permits or does not prevent the exist- 16 182 SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN The charge denied and refuted. ence of sin, and yet all things considered prefers holiness to sin, in all instances in which the latter takes place. And again, it involves a contradiction to say, that God could not prevent all sin, or the present degree of sin, in a moral system, and yet that he foreordained whatsoever comes to pass."* To this it is in substance replied, by Dr. Taylor, that no theory which is either novel or anti-orthodox has been propounded, and that no theory whatever has been advanced as assigning the actual reason of the decree of God respecting the existence of sin. All that has been asserted by him is, that the theory which affirms that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, cannot be proved to be true, and that there are unanswerable objections against it ; and that there may be another reason why the existence of sin is purposed, viz. that in respect to the divine prevention, sin may be incidental to the best possible system. There is no contradiction in saying, that God prefers that all his moral subjects, in every instance in which they commit sin, should do their duty and be holy, and yet by giving exist- ence to that system, in which they as moral agents transgress his law, should purpose the existence of sin, in preference to the non-existence of that system which is the best possible to him. Again, there is * Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. V, pp. 327, 328, 509—519. DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 183 The doctrine of original sin subverted. no inconsistency in maintaining that sin may not be, on the whole, for the best, as the necessary means of the greatest good ; and yet maintaining that God foreordained or purposed all events, the existence of sin not excepted. For, holiness may on the whole be for the best, and sin, so far from being the neces- sary means of the greatest good, be only evil and destructive of good ; and its existence be purposed, not for its own sake, but in preference to a greater evil, viz. the non-existence of the present system. Again, all things considered, God may prefer that his morsd subjects should in every instance do their duty, and thus prefer holiness to sin in every in- stance ; and yet, for the wise and good reason that the existence of sin is a less evil than the necessary intervention on his part to prevent it, permit its ex- istence. And as to the fourth specification, it has never been affirmed that God carmot prevent sin in a moral system ; and that this sentiment should be still imputed, after having been unifonnly disclaim- ed, is just cause of complaint and grief* 2d. Dr. Tyler maintains, that Dr. Taylor by his theories subverts the doctrine of original sin. Ac- cording to Dr. Tyler, this doctrine embraces two facts : first J that mankind are sinners by nature ; and second, that this nature is the result of Adam's * Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. V, pp. 425, &c. 669, &c. 184 SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN Dr. Taylor's reply to the charge. sin and in consequence of the connection between him and his posterity. To be sinners by nature, is to possess some hereditary propensity to evil ; a native bias or tendency to sin propagated from pa- rent to child. But Dr. Taylor, he says, maintains, that the moral nature of all accountable beings is alike, and the very nature which God has given them ; that the posterity of Adam have the same nature as that with which Adam was created, and that which the man Christ Jesus possessed ; and that the fact of their sinning is therefore owing, not to the constitutional propensities, or a nature which they possess different from what they would have possessed if born of holy parents, but entirely to the circumstances of temptation in which they commence their moral existence.* To this it is replied by Dr. Taylor, that if by nature is meant that constitution of being by which the man Christ Jesus and Adam and his posterity are truly and properly human beings, then they possess the same nature in kind, though not in de- gree. The constitutional propensities of the de- scendants of Adam may be much more susceptible to excitement by worldly good, in consequence of his sin and their connection with him, than those of Adam in a state of innocency or of the child * pp. 329, 330, 545, &c. DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 185 Dr. Taylor's reply to the charge. Jesus ; and their greater strength constituting a dif- ference in degree^ though not in kind^ may be the cause of their universally becoming sinners. The proper idea of nature, is that which constitutes a thing what it is in the appropriate circumstances of its existence ; and it is this nature of man in the appropriate circumstances of his existence, and not the circumstances themselves, to which the sinful- ness of mankind is to be traced.* In regard to what is called a hereditary propen- sity to evil, a native bias or tendency to sin propa- gated from parent to child, it must be supposed to be one of three things : either a constitutional pro- pensity for sin as sin, like the propensity for food or drink ; or a sinful choice or preference of the mind ; or a constitutional propensity for the natural good to be obtained by sinning. If the first, then we are conscious of no such propensity to sin, nor is there any good in sin as sin, which can be the object of propensity. If the second, then it being a wrong act of the will, it is itself sin ; and to as- sign such a propensity as the cause of all sin, in- volves not only the absurdity of propagated acts of transgression, but also the absurdity of making sin the cause of all sin — a sin before the first sin. If the third, then Dr. Taylor admits and asserts it ; * pp. 428, 429, &c. 16* 186 SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN The doctrine of regeneraiion subverted. i. e. he affirms, that all men have a propensity, bias, or tendency to sin, which results from their consti- tutional propensities to natural good, in all the ap- propriate circumstances of their being. The ques- tion is not, whether mankind are born with a prch pensity to sin ; but what is this propensity ? — is it a propensity for sin as sin ; or is it a sinful propensity ; or is it a propensity for natural good, which leads to, and universally results in, sin, as soon as men be- come moral beings ? While Dr. Taylor has under- stood, and correctly understood, Dr. Tyler and oth- ers to maintain a propagated propensity to sin in the two first senses, he has maintained a propagated propensity to sin in the last sense, from the begin- ning of the discussion. 3d. Dr. Tyler claims that, though Dr. Taylor's creed in respect to the doctrine of regeneration is unobjectionable, yet he has adopted theories which tend to sap the foundation of the doctrine. In proof of this, he represents Dr. Taylor as hold- ing that sinners have power to resist any measure of divine influence, and consequently to make it impossible for God to convert them ; that they choose or prefer different objects, as their chief good, according as they estimate their relative value in view of the happiness to be derived from them, and consequently, that nothing more is necessary to ef- fect their conversion, than to convince them that DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 187 Charge of subverting regeneration refuted. they have mistaken the true way of securing their highest happiness ; and that they cease to resist divine grace antecedent to regeneration, and conse- quently, need no special influences of the Holy Spirit for their conversion. To this Dr. Taylor replies, that, though sinners as moral agents have natural power to resist divine influences, and therefore that the grace of God in their conversion is not irresistible in the primary import of the term, yet this does not deny to God complete power over the minds of sinners, so that his grace may become efficacious, in producing their voluntary submission. Nor, when it is said that the sinner prefers the world to God as his chief good, according to his estimate of the higher pres- ent happiness to be derived from it, is any thing more intended, than that the will is as the greatest apparent good. To represent this preference as a mere mistake of the judgment, so that nothing more is necessary to effect the conversion of a sin- ner than to convince him that he has mistaken the true way of securing his highest happiness, is to overlook the whole character of the previous dis- cussion on this subject, and to confound the state or affection of the mind in viewing a thing as now most agreeable, with a dictate of reason, or sober judgment, or decision of the miderstanding. 188 SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN The doctrine of election subverted. In respect to the last specification, Dr. Taylor re- plies, that he has never maintained that the sinner ceases to resist divine grace before regeneration in the popular import of the term, but merely, in the restricted sense of the word, as denoting the act of loving God, in distinction from the mental acts that precede it ; and then, only in the order of nature and not of time, he ceases to love the world su- premely before his affections are given to God ; or in other words, before he chooses God as his por- tion. So far is this representation from denying the necessity of divine influences in regeneration, that the selfish principle is never suspended ante- cedent to the choice of God, except through the in- fluences of the Holy Spirit. 4th. Dr. Tyler says, that in his creed. Dr. Tay- lor has made a full and satisfactory statement of the doctrine of election, but that this statement is utterly inconsistent with the principles which he has adopted. It is inconsistent with his views in respect to God's preference, all things considered, of holiness to sin, in all instances in which the latter takes place. For if God prefers, all things considered, holiness to sin in every instance, he will of com-se do all in his power to make every individual holy. Instead then of electing any to life, he saves all that he can ; so that there is no election. And ac- DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 189 Alledged inconsistency on election refuted. cording to the theory, that the grace of God may in all cases be resisted by man as a free moral agent, there can be no purpose to bring to repentance cer- tain individuals, for those individuals may resist his grace and thus render their conversion impossible in the nature of things. To this it is replied by Dr. Taylor, that the po- sition in respect to God's preference of holiness to sin above stated, is a substitute for the one which he maintains, viz. that God prefers, all things con- sidered, that all men should become holy rather than continue in sin under the present system. This does not imply that he does all he can for the conversion of every sinner, but what is best under the present system ; so that he may prefer that only a part should be holy, rather than change the sys^ tern. And the determining who this part shall be, is his purpose of election. He says further, that in regard to the inconsistency of the doctrine of election, with the natural possibility of a free moral agent's resisting the grace of God ; if there is any, it lies in the fact that God cannot foreknow the actions of such an agent. It is therefore an incon- sistency between moral agency and the divine fore- knowledge. This general exhibition of the main points of discussion, in that part of the controversy now con- sidered, will enable the reader to understand the 190 SECOND DISCUSSION BETWEEN Review of Dr. Tyler's theories. real points of difference, and the principal argu- ments by which the different views are supported. Before this branch of the subject is dismissed, it will be proper briefly to refer to the two articles be- fore mentioned, in the Christian Spectator, written by Dr. Taylor, and to Dr. Tyler's letter to the Ed- itor of the Spirit of the Pilgrims, with his remarks on those articles. The first article in the Spectator contains a full examination of Dr. Tyler's theories respecting hu- man depravity, and the divine permission of sin. The former theory is thus represented. The nature of man since the apostacy differs as really from his nature before 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. Dr. Taylor shews that this theory is encumbered with many difficulties. Amongst other things, it ex- hibits God as the responsible author of sin ; ac- counts for all sin in men by asserting a previous sin as its cause ; is inconsistent with the doctrine of natural ability, and of course with the moral agency of man ; makes regeneration a physical change, and the exhibition of motives entirely useless ; sup- ports the Arminian doctrines of a self-determining power of the will, and of the necessity of grace to restore moral agency to man. DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER. 191 Dr. Tyler's theory respecting the permission of sin considered. The theory respecting the divine permission of sin is next considered. This theory, which is " that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good," Dr. Taylor maintains, involves absurdities and con- tradictions ; is inconsistent with the scriptures ; represents the worst kind of moral action as the best ; and if carried out into its legitimate conse- quences, leads to universalism, to infidelity j and to atheism. In his letter to the Editor of the Spirit of the Pilgrims, Dr. Tyler denies that he has maintained, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good in any such sense as is imputed to him. The po- sition which he maint£iins is, " that God will so overrule all the sin which exists, and so counteract its tendencies, as to bring to pass a greater amount of good than would have been realized, if sin had never existed." He believes, " that the wrath of man shall praise God, and that the remainder of wrath he will restrain ;" that is, that God will over- rule all the sin that ever has existed or that ever will exist, in such a manner as to get glory to him- self ; and that all the sin which he sees could not be thus be overruled he will restrain or prevent. He says also, that they who are represented as hold- ing that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, maintain that the possible alternative pre- sented to the divine mind, being the existence of 192 SECOND DISCUSSION, &C. Dr. Tyler's explanation of his theories. sin on the one hand, and on the other the non-ex- istence of the best system, God chose the present system, because, notwithstanding the evil which it contains, it is the best system. He also claims, that his views on the subject of depravity are entirely misrepresented. When he maintained that the nature of man since the fall diflfers as really from his nature before that event, as the nature of the lion differs from that of the ox, he did not maintain that it differed in the same sense, nor has he undertaken to tell in what the native, hereditary propensity to evil, which he at- tributes to mankind, consists. Nor ought such a construction to be put upon his language, as to attribute to him the position that man cannot sin, without a constitutional propensity to sin. He has no where denied that the posterity of Adam might sin, without a constitutional propensity to sin. 193 CHAPTER XVII. DISCUSSION BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR AND DR. TYLER CONTINUED. Dr. Taylor's letter to the Editor of the Spectator. After the publication of the last mentioned let- ter, Dr. Taylor addressed a letter to the Editor of the Christian Spectator, the object of which was "to shew, that, on the basis of Dr. Tyler's last state- ments and explanations, all controversy between them might be terminated in an entire agreement on the chief points at issue." The design of the com- munication was conciliatory. Instead of inquiring what Dr. Tyler had maintained, with a view to ex- pose his inconsistency and shew a departure from his original ground, as might have been done, Dr. Tay- lor waved this mode of reply, and presented the evidence of an agreement between them which he believed now actually existed. He accordingly considers Dr. Tyler as having removed, in his last communication, every obstacle to an entire agree- ment of opinion between them, firsts in regard to his theory respecting the divine permission of sin ; and secondly, in regard to human depravity. Respecting the permission of sin, Dr. Tyler is understood now to disclaim the sentiment, that sin is 17 194 DISCUSSION BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR Agreement on the ground of Dr. Tyler's last statements. in any sense good in its tendencies, or is in itself a means of good. He is understood to reject the posi- tion that God, all things considered, prefers sin to holiness in all instances in which the former takes place. He says that sin is an evil, and tends to evil and to evil only. He maintains that sin under the government of God, is the means of good simply as an antecedent^ the good itself being exclusively de- pendent on divine agency. It is only the occasion of good when overruled by God. He admits that God prefers, all things considered, that all men should become holy rather than continue in sin ww- der the present system. He rejects the inferences which have been drawn from the statement that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good ; such £is, that those who die in their sins, were cre- ated for the purpose of displaying the divine attri- butes, and by their sins and sufferings, of becoming the means of the highest happiness of others ; and that God could not be satisfied with the perfect ho- liness and perfect happiness of his moral creatures ; but introduced sin into his system, for the sake of raising some to a higher conceivable perfection of happiness by the eternal agonies of the damned. He also positively affirms, that the hypothesis which had been exhibited as the peculiarity of Dr. Taylor's scheme, viz. the possible alternative presented to the divine mind may have been, the AND DR. TYLER CONTINUED. 195 Dr. Tyler's statements, a basis of agreement. existence of sin on the one hand, and on the other, the non-existence of the best system, is the very doctrine which he maintains.* These considera- tions, in the opinion of Dr. Taylor, shewed conclu- sively that he and Dr. Tyler then £igreed, in all that is essential respecting the divine permission of sin. Dr. Taylor also regarded aill ground of further debate on the subject of human depravity, as remo- ved by Dr. Tyler. Dr. Tyler is now understood to deny, that there is in the human mind a constitu- tional propensity to sin. He explicitly disclaims the opinion, that there is in man a propensity to sin, which leads him to disobey God by the same phy- sical law, as that by which the lion is led to feed on fiesh ; and says, he has not undertaken to tell in what the propensity to sin consists, nor does he pretend to be able to tell. He has by no means affirmed, that the change which human nature has undergone in consequence of the apostacy, is a change in the physical structure of the mind. Dr. Tyler also disclaims the opinion, that the propen- sity to sin in the human mind, is itself sinful. He represents the imputation of this sentiment to him as groundless, and as neither just nor candid. He is understood to agree, however, with Dr. Taylor, that there is what may truly and properly be called * Christian Spectator, 1833, pp. 449—459. 196 DISCUSSION BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR Dr. Tyler disclaims a constitutional propensity to sin. a bias, or propensity, to sin in all men. But they concur in believing with Edwards, that the ground or reason of the universal sinfulness of mankind, instead of being a disposition to sin which is volun- tary and sinful, or a constitutional propensity of the mind, is simply a tendency, liableness, or proclivity to sin, resulting from constitutional propensities which were in man in innocence. Dr. Tyler, is also understood to admit, that man- kind come into the world with the same nature in KIND, as that with which Adam was created ; to maintain that mankind not only may he, but are sinners hy nature, without a constitutional propen- sity to sin ; and that the only reason that the pos- terity of Adam do not exhibit the same moral char- acter which Adam exhibited, is not that they have a different nature in kind, but that they have stronger propensities to natural good, and are placed in dif- ferent circumstances. Thus Dr. Taylor considered Dr. Tyler as now agreeing with him, in the views which he had always maintained of the doctrine of depravity by nature.* Hence it seemed to him, not only unnecessary, but impossible, to protract the debate. The subject, however, was viewed differently by Dr. Tyler. He published his letter to the Edi- * pp. 459-467. AND DR. TYLER CONTINUED. 197 Dr. Tyler's nine articles of disagreement. tor of the Spirit of the Pilgrims, and subjoined re- marks denying the supposed agreement between himself and Dr. Taylor. To shew that their views do not harmonize, he made the following nine spe- cifications, in which he claims that his opponent differs in sentiment from himself. Dr. Taylor maintains, he says, contrary to his belief: 1. That God could not have prevented all sin in a moral system ; 2. 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 ; 3. That God, all things considered, prefers holiness to sin in all in- stances in which the latter takes place ; 4. That mankind come into the world with the same nature in kind as that with which Adam was created; 5. 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 different natiu:e, but that they are placed in different circum- stances ; 6. That selfishness does not consist in making our own happiness our ultimate end, but in love of the world, or in preferring the world to God as our portion or chief good ; 7. That self-love is the primary cause of all moral action ; 8. That sin- ners may so resist the grace of God, as to render it impossible for God to convert them ; and, 9. That 17* 198 DISCUSSION BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR Examination of the nine articles. antecedent to regeneration the selfish principle is suspended in the sinner's heart ; that he cesises to sin ; and uses the means of regeneration with mo- tives which £ire neither right nor wrong.* Here, then, are exhibited in Dr. Tyler's own language, the sentiments of his opponent, on the points on which he regards him as differing from himself. Lest these statements should pass from the mind of the reader, or should not be duly compared with the previous history of the discussion, a few re- marks will be bestowed upon them before proceed- ing farther. 1. Not one of the alledged points of difference, even admitting that they are correctly stated, re- lates to a single important doctrine of the gospel. They have reference to abstract theories and specu- lations, which, whether true or false, do not touch the facts embraced in the fundamental articles of the Calvin istic faith. 2. Of the nine specifications, the first and fifth are entire misstatements of Dr. Taylor's views. So far from maintaining that God could not have pre- vented all sin in a moral system, he has merely as- serted that it may be true, that sin is a necessary incident, so far as God's prevention is concerned, to the best moral system ; and instead of attributing * Pamphlet, pp. 36—39. AND DR. TYLER CONTINUED. 199 Dr. Taylor's views misstated. — Ambiguity of the language used. the present sinful character of man to his circum- stances, and not to his nature, he expressly ascribes it to his nature, which is such, in consequence of his connection with Adam, that he sins, and only sins, in all the appropriate circumstances of his be- ing. The second and third specifications are liable to be misunderstood. When it is maintained by Dr. Taylor, that sin is not, on the whole, for the best ; that greater good than the present would be secured by the holiness of all God's creatures ; and that, all things considered, God prefers in every instance ho- liness to sin ; a part of " the whole," and of " all things to be considered," is the voluntary obedi- ence of all sinners to the divine law, under the present system, which is preferable to sin and mis- ery in its stead. The fourth specification is also liable to be mis- understood. By the same nature, in kind, some may suppose that the same, m all respects, is intend- ed ; whereas all that is meant, is that the posterity of Adam have a soul possessed of the same powers and susceptibilities as that with which he was cre- ated ; so that, like him, they are human beings and moral agents. At the same time, their propensities to inferior good may be stronger than his in a state of innocency, and be the occasion of sin in all our race. 200 DISCUSSION BETWEEN DR. TAYLOR The power of God to convert sinners not denied. The sixth and seventh specifications are ambigu- ous, and owing to their ambiguity, Dr. Tyler has been led not only into much useless discussion, but into several inconsistencies. The ambiguity lies in the terms ultimate end and self-love. The former is sometimes used to denote the external motive or object of choice, in which sense Dr. Tyler uses it ; while Dr. Taylor means by it, the constitutional desire of happiness, called also self-love, which is the internal motive or cause of all action. In one sense, the ultimate end of the miser is wealth ; in the other, the pleasure or happiness to be gained by its possession and pursuit. The term self-love, in some minds, is the same as selfishness ; and it is difficult for them to detach from it a bad significa- tion, and use it as synonymous with a simple desire for happiness. There is also another difficulty in the case ; that of bringing some to think what fits man to act at all, viz. the feeling of pleasure, or the happiness proposed to the mind by action ; which distinguishes them, in respect to their capacity for action, from inanimate things. If Dr. Tyler had these things in mind, he would be agreed, it is pre- sumed, with Dr. Taylor, in respect to these specifi- cations. Indeed, he has admitted all that has ever been maintained on this subject by Dr. Taylor. The eighth specification contains a mis-statement. It has never been maintained, that it is impossible AND DR. TYLER CONTINUED. 201 How the selfish principle is suspended. for God to convert any sinner or all the sinners be- longing to the human race ; but only that sinners have natural power of resisting divine grace, when they yield to it and it becomes effectual to their conversion ; in other words, that a moral being, in choosing God, has, at the same time, power of con- trary choice. If he has not this power, then in his conversion he ceases to be a moral agent. The last specification contains one mis-statement, and the whole is calculated to mislead those not familiar with the controversy. All that is maintain- ed by Dr. Taylor is, that the active love of the world ceases to predominate in the sinner's mind, the in- divisible moment of time that, under the promptings of a constitutional desire of happiness, he thinks of God as an object of preference, before, in the order of nature, he places his supreme affections on him. This indivisible moment, the sinner does not cease to sin ; for he does not love God supremely, until the final choice or preference of him is made. Thus, the nine points of difference, when exam- ined, are found to exist principally in Dr. Tyler's misapprehension of Dr. Taylor's sentiments ; owing in part to the ambiguity of language, and partly to his own confused ideas respecting the two distinct departments of moral agency, the will and the in- voluntary constitutional propensities. 202 CHAPTER XVIII. DISCUSSION ON THE DOCTRINE OF DIr VINE PURPOSES. Review of Fisk. — Point at issue stated. The history of the discussion between Dr. Tay- lor and Dr. Tyler being now brought to a close, it remains to notice some other writings on the same general controversy. In doing this, a scrupulous regard will not be had to the order of time in which these writings appeared ; but they will be taken up in such order as will best preserve the unity of the particular topics, and the connection of the whole subject. The discussion on the doctrine of the di- vine purposes will first be noticed. In the number of the Christian Spectator, for Dec. 1831, was published a review written by Pro- fessor Fitch, of Yale College, of a sermon by Dr. Fisk, President of the Wesleyan University, on Predestination and Election. The point at issue, as stated in the sermon, the reviewer understands to be, " whether God does, or does not produce^ by his efficient energy, those volitions of moral beings for which he holds them accountable?" This, however, is not the question between Calvinists DISCUSSION, &c. 203 How predestination is consistent with freedom of volition. and Arminians. It is, whether or not God deter- mined that the events which take place, should take place, in the very manner in which they do, and for the very ends. This is a question of fact, and does not depend on the mode in which the determined events are accomplished. Calvinists generally be- lieve, that it is in such a manner that '' thereby God is neither the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures ; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. The only points against which the resisoning in the sermon has any force, are these two : first, that God produces, by his direct omnip- otence, the volitions of his accountable creatures ; and secondly, that he prefers the existence of sin (where it occurs) to holiness : neither of which po- sitions is maintained by the great body of Calvin- ists.* The reviewer then shews that God may, in his eternal purpose concerning his own works, pre- determine the particular train of events which shall occur in his kingdom, without producing the voli- tions of his moral subjects by any direct and imme- diate acts of his creative omnipotence. Man being created and upheld by God as an intelligent and voluntary agent, is the efficient cause of his own volitions ; and his moral actions may be pre-deter- * Christian Spectator, 1831, pp. 598—605. 204 DISCUSSION ON THE Doctrine of election respects men as sinners. mined in the purpose or choice of God to create and govern the moral universe to which he belongs, by that system of means and influences, under which he, as a moral agent, has his existence. It may be true also, that God prefers in every in- stance in which sin occurs, holiness in its stead, and yet has determined the existence of sin. He may have purposed its existence, because he preferred it, in connection with the system which he has chosen, to the non-existence of a moral kingdom. Thus, in purposing to create, uphold, and govern a moral kingdom, he may have purposed the sinful actions of a portion of his subjects, without laying them under any compulsion to sin, or doing any thing directly and efficiently, with the design of se- eming their wrong moral action ; and he may, in every instance in which they sin, prefer their obe- dience. The particular doctrine of election is a purpose of God that respects mankind, as sinnei-s : a pur- pose to save a part of those, who he foreknew would sin ; not on account of any foreseen faith or good works on their part, but on account of the good to be secured by the divine interposition in their be- half. Each individual chosen is ordained to ever- lasting life ; and in fulfilling his electing purpose towards him, God, having in due time provided a way of salvation, secures his compliance with the DOCTRINE OF DIVINE PURPOSES. 205 Includes the purpose to produce holiness in the elect. terms, by the various means which he employs ; particularly the sanctilication of the Spirit ; and keeps him by his mighty power through faith unto salvation. Thus, the purpose of election includes, the purpose to produce holiness in the elect, and to secure his perseverance in it to the end. In the accomplishment of this purpose, the elect himself, as a moral being, voluntarily yields himself to Christ through the belief of the truth, and works out his salvation with fear and trembling, while God, at the same time, though without compulsion, works in him both to will and to do of his own good pleasure. Such is the general scheme of the reviewer of Fisk on Predestination and Election. The article of course met the disapprobation of the Hopkin- sians and others, who hold that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good and preferable to holi- ness in its stead ; of the supralapsarians, who main- tain that God by an eternal decree determines the destinies of men for his own glory, and without regard to their voluntary agency ; of those who hold the "taste scheme;" and of all others who consider God, as controlling the actions of his moral subjects by the mere exercise of creative omnipo- tence, without regard to means adapted to their moral agency. In 1833, two works appeared, de- signed to oppose the views advocated by the New 18 206 DISCUSSION ON THE Dr. Lee's Letters, — Griffin on Divine Efficiency. Haven divines ,- and particularly to support the doc- trine of divine efficiency. One of these was from the pen of Chauncey Lee, D. D., of Connecticut ; the other was by Dr. Griffin, then President of Will- iams College. The former writer considered him- self called upon, by the efforts at present made to disseminate '' the pernicious doctrines of Arminius," to undertake the defense of the truth. He advo- cates the supralapsarian views of Predestination and Election ; asserting " that God had no motive out of himself" for electing some to everlasting life. In regard to divine efficiency, he maintains that God produces the volitions of men, and converts sinners by an act of physical omnipotence and irre- sistible power ; so that in regeneration, " the crea- ture is no more active than in his original creation." The work of Dr. Griffin professes to be a defense of the doctrine of divine efficiency, against certain modern speculations. He first examines " the the- ory exhibited" in the review of Fisk, which he says " is one half of the way pure Arminianism ; and the other half it assumes the high language of Calvinism, with an Arminian meaning two thirds of the way, and for the other third a Calvinistic meaning wholly at variance with the rest of the system." He next examines " the theory of Dr. Taylor" as exliibited in the review of Spring, on the means DOCTRINE OF DIVINE PURPOSES. 207 How Dr. Griffin interprets the New Haven doctrines. of regeneration. He regards him as every where denying divine efficiency and Umiting the agency of the Spirit to the mere presentation of motives ; and of course he considers that his views of pre- destination and election agree with those of Dr. Fitch, and are essentially Arminian. In order to exhibit the difference of views be- tween Dr. Griffin and the New Haven divines, it will be necessary first to point out some errors in his statement of their doctrines, and then to pre- sent, side by side, the sentiments of both on the controverted topics. 1. Dr. Griffin misrepresents (not intentionally it is presumed) the New Haven divines, in asserting that they deny the controlling power of God over the minds of all his moral subjects in this world. His error on this subject results, no doubt, from a failure to perceive how such control can be main- tained, without the direct application of physical power, which destroys the capacity of resistance in the being upon whom it is exerted. He seems to imagine that the application of divine influence, m such a manner as to leave the power of contrary choice in the moral agent, though the result is the certain voluntary action of that agent in obedience to the influence employed, can never secure infal- libly the accomplishment of the divine purposes. Hence, he understands those whom he opposes, to 208 DISCUSSION ON THE Dr. Griffin misstates the New Haven divines. deny, that God is able absolutely to control his creatures in this world. 2. Dr. Griffin misrepresents the New Haven di- vines, in imputing to them the sentiment " that all God can do is to throw truth upon the understand- ing and conscience of men by his illuminating Spirit ;" and that the Spirit thus operates on the truth in making it effectual to their conversion. They affirm that God operates on the minds of men, and that men act in view of truth and motives in yielding to divine influence. The error that Dr. Griffin falls into in regard to their belief on this point, is to be traced to his own views of efficiency. His philosophy is that of Dr. Burton. He believes *' in a temper or nature anterior to exercise." *' No motives, great or small, will prevail, unless adapted to the existing temper." Hence, antecedent to any influence of truth or to any moral action in view of motives, the hearts of men must be changed by a direct physicsd efficiency. Yet, when it is said ''that God efficiently causes the mind to see the truth in such a light that it infallibly falls in with it," he does not object to the statement. He says, " if the divine power is applied directly to the mind to make truth seen, attended to and felt, it is all we ask."* If he had admitted also that when truth is * Divine Efficiency, p. 99. DOCTRINE OF DIVINE PURPOSES. 209 Dr. Griffin misstates the New Haven divines. thus seen, attended to, and felt, the sinner in regen- eration chooses God in view of it, he would have admitted all that is contended for on this subject by the New Haven divines. 3. Dr. Griffin misrepresents the New Haven di- vines in ascribing to them the belief ''that God does the best he can by his Spirit for every indi- vidual, and therefore, as much for one as another." They, on the contrary, believe that God can do much more than he does for any individual and for every individual of our race, when they are con- sidered as individuals, and without relation to all the subjects of the divine kingdom and for eter- nity ; in other words, they only believe with Dr. Griffin himself, " that God does the best he can for each, consistently with the highest good of the universe." And in regard to their believing that he does as much for one as another, this is only an inference from a mis-statement of their views, for which there is no authority in any of their writings, and which is no part of their doctrines. 4. Dr. Griffin misrepresents the New Haven di- vines in regard to their views of a self-determining power. He seems to suppose that they hold the Arminian doctrine of the freedom of the will, that the soul in willing, determines itself absolutely and independently by its own act. In opposition to this doctrine, it is maintained by Edwards, that the will 18* 210 DISCUSSION ON THE Views of Dr. Griffin and the New Haven divines compared. is as the greatest apparent good ; in other words that the mind's estimate of the greatest good determines the choice, the power of contrary choice notwith- standing. This is also the doctrine of the New Haven divines. When the question is, what de- termines the will in every specific volition ? their answer is, the greatest apparent good as perceived and estimated by the mind, previously but proxi- mately to the act of choice. In this they agree with Edwards, in opposition to the Arminian doc- trine which he controverts in his treatise on the will. But if the question is, why does the will act at all ? here again, they agree with Edwards, that it is because the soul has the power or faculty of choosing in view of the motives which determine it to choose in a particular manner. Other particu- lars might be mentioned in which Dr. Griffin mis- represents the views of the New Haven divines ; but the instances referred to are sufficient for the present purpose. Some of the views which he maintains, will now be compared with those which he opposes, by bring- ing them into juxtaposition. 1. The doctrine of divine efficiency. This he defines to be " the effectual power of God immedi- ately applied to the heart to make it holy."* This * p. 6. DOCTRINE OF DIVINE PURPOSES. 211 On divine efficiency and moral agency. power he considers not only exerted on men in in their regeneration and sanctification, but on holy beings like the angels. All holy volitions are pro- duced by the immediate power of God. This effi- ciency is exerted by a direct action on the mind independently of motive, and without the power of resistance or contrary choice. Such is understood to be the divine efficiency, advocated by Dr. Griffin. The New Haven divines might adopt his defini- tion, but with a different meaning. Divine influ- ence they consider " effectual" and " applied imme- diately to the mind," causing in the subject of it right moral action ; but not in such a manner as to preclude motives, or as to destroy the power of con- trary volition. Hence, they oppose that view of divine efficiency which moves moral beings like matter, as inconsistent with the laws of moral agency. 2. Dr. Griffin and the New Haven divines differ in regard to moral agency. In his view, a moral agent is one who has the faculties of a rational soul, but who is not necessa- rily independent in the exercise of those faculties. The volitions of moral beings are the immediate result of divine efficiency, so that it is not their mo- r£d depravity that makes the Spirit's operations ne- cessary in respect to men ; but the want of power in themselves as agents, to exercise holy affections 212 DISCUSSION ON THE On mora] agency. — On the permission of sin. independent of the action of God upon them. The New Haven divines regard man as a complete agent in himself, and the author or efficient cause of his own moral acts. He is a cause of action out of God, created and upheld by him, but free in his volitions, though always acting in view of motives, and under the influences which God is pleased to exert upon him. They regard not merely, the ex- ercise of the will in voluntary acts, but the power of choosing and refusings under all circumstances, essential to moral agency. Such agents, however, are under the complete control of God according to his eternal purpose ; but the manner in which he controls them must be in accordance with the laws of their being. Man deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps. 3. Dr. Griffin and the New Haven divines differ in regard to the divine permission of sin. Dr. Griffin maintains that God can prevent sin in all the moral agents whom he has created, in all circumstances and in all duration ; and that he has purposed its existence for his own glory. For this end the highest exhibition of himself, involving the display of all truth, the punishment of sin, and the work of redemption, is necessary. He considers sin, therefore, a necessary means of the highest dis- play of the divine perfections, and as answering great and important purposes under the government DOCTRINE OF DIVINE PURPOSES. 213 On the permission of sin. of God. He, however, admits that the greatest dis- play of the glory of God is necessary to the highest general holiness, and that he does for each of his creatures, the best that he can, consistently with his glory ; but denies that the difficulty of doing more, for securing the holiness of all, lies in the nature of a moral system. The New Haven divines maintain, that God acts for the highest happiness of the universe, and chose the present system as the best possible to him for this end ; that holiness is preferable, for this end, to sin, in all instances ; and that the reason of the divine permission of sin, may he, that such is the nature of moral agency, that, in a universe of moral beings, the entire prevention of wrong moral action through eternity, may be inconsistent, so far as God is concerned, with the best system possible to him. Dr. Griffin and the New Haven divines agree, therefore, that God has chosen the present system, because it will result in the highest holiness and happiness possible to him to secure ; and they agree, that in doing this, he acts for his own highest glory. They agree also, that the display of his perfection is necessEiry to the accomplishment of the highest good in the universe, and that the admission of sin into his moral kingdom, was in some sense neces- sary to him. When the question is, why is its ad- mission necessary ? Dr. Griffin answers ; As a means 214 DISCUSSION ON THE On the doctrine of predestination and election, of the greatest good, by furnishing the occasion for God to display his perfections : they answer, There may be difficulties in the nature of the best moral system, which make sin necessarily, in respect to divine prevention, incidental to that system. At the same time both are agreed as to the fact, that God does all he can, consistently with his own glory and the highest good, for the holiness and happiness of all his creatures. 4. Dr. Griffin differs from the New Haven di- vines, in respect to the doctrine of predestination and election. He maintains, that God decreed from eternity that the actions of a part of his creatures should be holy, and that a part of the inhabitants of this world should repent, by determining to exert his own effi- ciency to produce in them holiness and repentance ; that he decreed the sinful actions of others, by de- termining to withhold that efficiency which he was able to exert, and which was necessary to secure their holiness ; and that in these decrees he acted for his own glory. The New Haven divines main- tain, that God, from eternity, foreseeing all things possible and conceivable, determined on the present system of the universe, which involved the exist- ence of sin, as the best possible to him, and for the sake of the happiness which he could secure by it ; that in determining this, he purposed to exert his DOCTRINE OF DIVINE PURPOSES. 215 On the doctrine of predestination and election. own agency in creation, and in the administration of his government, in the best manner possible for securing the highest good of the whole ; and that thus he foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Hence, he determined all his own acts in regard to every moral being, choosing from the whole those whom he would retain in holiness, and electing from mankind such as he would bring to repent- ance ; for wise reasons, permitting others to go on in sin, under such influences as he determined to exert upon them. Thus, their diff'erence of views consists, not in the facts which constitute the doc- trine of predestination and election, but in respect to the reasons of the divine purposes, and the mode of accomplishing them. From this examination of Dr. Griffin's work on divine efficiency, it is apparent, that his sentiments do not altogether accord with those which have been held by the standard New England writers, and that he has, on most of the essential points in controversy, greatly misunderstood and misrepre- sented the opinions which he designed to oppose. The foundation of his mistakes lay in his philoso- phy of moral agency, which led him virtually to deny to man the power of originating his own voli- tions. From his high worth and great influence in the churches, his work was calculated to excite, in some quarters, no small distrust of the theology 216 DISCUSSION, &c. Influence of Dr. Griffin's work. which he was understood to oppose. It had its influence in the Presbyterian church, and was, in some degree, no doubt, concerned in producing the mistakes and misapprehension, which have resuhed in its present unhappy divisions. 217 CHAPTER XIX. DR. SPRING AND DR. WOODS ON NATIVE DEPRAVITY. Dr. Spring on native depravity. It has already been shewn, that Mr. Harvey, in his second pamphlet, entirely changed the original ground of controversy, which related to the nature of sin, into the question whether mankind are sin- ners from the instant of their birth ? It was then intimated that the discussion of this question, which afterwards assumed a prominent place in the con- troversy, would again be referred to, and more fully exhibited. Some important events, of a previous date, being for the present passed by, for the sake of concluding in this place, the account of the doc- trinal discussion, two or three articles will now be noticed, which have maintained the sentiment, that mankind sin at and in the moment of their birth. In 1833, Dr. Gardiner Spring published a dis- sertation on native depravity, the object of which was to combat the error of the New Haven School. The first assault upon the doctrine of native de- pravity, he says, was from them, and in their own covered way to the field. He represents them as at first delicately and modestly hinting, in conver- 19 218 DR. SPRING AND DR. WOODS Infants, sinners the moment of birth. sation, at the error in question, and suggesting doubts as to what the Bible taught in relation to the native character of our fallen race. " But this period of hesitation and scepticism," he says, " has gone by. The scriptural doctrine of native deprav- ity is now boldly denied. For a considerable time past it has been unhesitatingly maintained, that all mankind are born destitute of moral character, and are neither holy nor sinful ; that, though they are destitute of original righteousness, they are free from sin, and have no moral corruption of nature, or propensity to evil ; that they are perfectly inno- cent ; that they have no more moral chsiracter than animals ; and that they come into existence in the same state in which Adam was before his fall, and in which the holy child Jesus was, when he was born in the manger."* For proof of these state- ments he refers to the Christian Spectator, and Stu- art on the Romans. In opposition to these views, his object in the dissertation is to shew, that infants are simiers. Sin, he says, is a positive existence and a moral evil, consisting in the transgression of law by intelligent beings. He defines the disposi- tion, moral feelings, or inclinations of the soul, which constitute sin, to be a supremely selfish spirit. " There is no other sin in the empire of Je- * Page 4. ON NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 219 All sin voluntary. hovah but this. When we say that men are sin- ners, we mean to say that they are doers and per- petrators of this foul deed.''* The question wheth- er infants are capable of moral character, is synony- mous with the question, whether they have a ra- tional and immortal soul ? Such a soul they pos- sess from their birth ; and it consists in natural faculties and moral dispositions. The former are independent of the will, and belong to the intel- lectual character. The latter are the internal op- erations or emotions of the mind, which can be compared with a rule of action. These are both essential to the soul's existence, and belong to the infant of a day old, as really as to a man of eighty. The law which the infant transgresses as soon as he is born, is conscience, which is one of the natu- ral faculties of the soul. Accordingly, as soon eis he is born, the infant puts forth moral emotions or exercises of the will, which he judges to be wrong, and knows to be violations of conscience ; or rather, according to Dr. Spring's philosophy, as the moral dispositions are properties essential to the soul's ex- istence, the soul is created in a state of transgres- sion to the law of conscience. The doctrine of na- tive depravity, thus explained, he defends by a re- ference to various texts of scripture, and by argu- * Page 9. 220 DR. SPRING AND DR. WOODS Misstatement of the New Haven doctrines. ments deduced from the rite of circumcision and baptism, as applied to infants ; from the necessity that their salvation should be through the atone- ment of Christ, and that they should be subjects of regeneration; and from the fact that they suffer and die. In regard to Dr. Spring's statement of the senti- ments of the New Haven School, it is proper to re- mark, that the language which has been quoted from him on the subject, gives a very unfair repre- sentation of their opinions. On the minds of many, it will unavoidably have the impression, that they hold that infants are in all respects such as they would have been, if mankind were not sinners ; and that there is no ground of certainty laid in the con- stitution with which they are born, that they will sin as soon as they are capable of moral action. In respect to the reasoning on which Dr. Spring relies for the support of his doctrine of native de- pravity, it is not necessary here to enter into an ex- amination of it. It is substantially the same, as that which Mr. Harvey and others have often used on this subject, and which has been examined and replied to by those who think themselves unable to prove from reason or scripture, that infants, the in- stant of their birth, are voluntary transgressors of known law. ON NATIVE DEPRAVITST. 221 Review of Spring on native depravity. This dissertation on native depravity was re- viewed in the Christian Spectator for June, 1833, by Dr. Taylor. The reviewer shews that Dr. Spring differs from the old Calvinists, from the ad- vocates of physical depravity, and the standards of the Presbyterian church, in making all sin consist in voluntary action, and rejecting the doctrine of original sin • that he differs from New England di- vines, who make all sin consist in mental exercise or action, in his affirming that moral agency com- mences at birth ; but differs least of all from his New Haven brethren, who neither affirm nor deny the precise time when moral agency commences ; while they agree with him in regard to the nature of sin. Thus he stands alone, none agreeing with him in maintaining that voluntary transgression commences at the instant of birth ; yet he denoun- ces those from whom he differs least, as Pelagians, and sets up his own individual opinion as the stand- ard of orthodoxy.* * Since the review was written, it is believed that Dr. Spring's views on this subject, have been to some extent adopted by a cer- tain class of writers in New England. The Evangelical Maga- zine, the organ of the party in Connecticut opposed to the New Haven divines, has sometimes seemed to advocate these views; though at other times it has appeared to favor the doctrine of an innate sinful depravity back of all moral action. Dr. Woods ap- pears to adopt the views of Dr. Spring, though he is by no means so explicit in his statements. 19* 222 DB. SPRING AND DR. WOODS Dr. Woods' prize essay. — Difficulty of interpreting his language. Ill 1835, Dr. Woods published his prize essay on native depravity.* As this work owes its ex- istence no doubt to the New Haven controversy, and has reference to one of the principal subjects of that controversy, it would be improper to pass over it here in silence. The examination of it however must be brief. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the exact meaning, on nice metaphysical points, of a writer like Dr. Woods. Instead of laying down his main positions, in clear and dis- tinct propositions, he involves them in such cum- brous explanations, and suggestions, and reasonings, sometimes apparently inconsistent with each other, that there is occasion often, in interpreting his lan- guage, to resort to comparisons of different passages and to the general current of thought, and then by inference arrive at his meaning. Such being the fact, it is not easy in all cases to avoid mistake. The following, however, are believed to be the leading doctrines of the Essay on Native Depravity. 1. The depravity of which he treats relates to man's moral character, and means the same as sin- fulness. 2. It is an innate, hereditary disposition or pro- pensity to sin, consisting in a want of conformity * It is proper to remark that considerable matter was added to the work, after the prize was awarded. ON NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 223 How he represents native depravity. — Propagated sinfulness. to the divine law ; it is in itself sinful, and the cause of all actual transgression. 3. It is predicable of all the descendants of Adam at the moment of their birth, and is the ground of their being justly treated by God as sinners. The first of these specifications is the substance of his definition, (p. 54,) and needs no particular notice. The other two will require some remarks, by way of explanation and proof. To the ques- tion, is depravity propagated ? Dr. Woods answers, (p. 207,) "human beings Eire propagated, and are propagated as they are, fallen, corrupt." " Adam begat a son in his own likeness." " This includes the whole doctrine, if likeness includes, as un- doubtedly it does, likeness in regard to moral dis- position and character." Now, as Adam was an actual transgressor of the law of God, and had in consequence a sinful moral character. Dr. Woods, it would seem, must mean that mankind come into the world transgressors of the law of God, and have in consequence a sinful moral character. This view of his meaning is confirmed by what he says in other passages. He says, (p. 144,) "the fact is, that moral good and evil, virtue and vice, lie m the affections or mental acts themselves, considered in their own nature. It were easy to prove that this is the case, and that on any other principle, there can be no such thing as virtue or vice, hohness or 224 DR. SPRING AND DR. WOODS Depravity voluntary. — The cause of actual transgression. sin, in the universe." Again, (p. 135,) "sin is not the product or effect of wrong exercises of mind, but lies in them ; they themselves are sin." In these passages he evidently teaches, that sin con- sists in wrong moral affections and exercises. And what are these but acts of the will ? What, but transgressions of the law of God ? That he con- siders this state in which mankind are born itself sinful, appears from the following considerations. He says, (p. 75,) "Adam's sin does not bring death and condemnation upon his posterity, they them- selves being sinless. None of them suffer penal evil in consequence of his sin, without being sinful themselves.''^ He says also, (p. 77,) "we must con- clude that among intelligent moral beings, sin is co-extensive with suffering." The inference there- fore is, (and this he insists on as a ground of argu- ment,) that as infants suffer and die as soon as born, they come into the world with a sinful, guilty char- acter. Dr. Woods also in direct terms discards the idea that infants may suffer for the sin of Adam, without being guilty, by their own act. That sin- ful depravity or disposition with which mankind are born, he considers the cause of all actual sin. He speaks of "a period of life which precedes any sinful exercises," and of a disposition the nature of which is determined from the nature of the exer- cises and actions to which it leads. He speaks too ON NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 225 Infants suffer because they are guilty. of the absurdity of regarding a propensity or dis- position, as not partaking of the same moral quality with the transgression to which it leads ; and of the necessity of ascribing the universal sinfulness of man to an adequate cause. Hence, it is evident that he regards, what he calls the moral Ukeness or disposition with which mankind are born, as the cause of all their subsequent acts of transgression. More need hardly be said, to evince that the third proposition correctly exhibits the doctrine of the essay. This follows from what has already been said. But a single quotation may not be amiss. Dr. Woods inquires, (p. 204,) '^whether the pos- terity of Adam, by a special divine constitution, are, in consequence of his fall, born in a state of moral depravity leading to certain ruin ; or, accord- ing to the common law of descent, are partakers of a corrupt nature, the offspring being like the parent ; and whether suffering and death come upon them not as personally innocent and pure, but as depraved and sinful beings. The affirmative answer to this inquiry he regards as the orthodox opinion, and he declares himself at a loss to know what the belief of those amounts to, who hold that mankind are depraved and ruined in consequence of Adam's sin, without coinciding in this view of native de- pravity. It would indeed be easy to interpret much of Dr. Woods' language, so as to make him teach 226 DR. SPRING AND DR. WOODS How Dr. Woods and the New Haven divines differ. the doctrine of a depraved physical constitution, itself sinful and the cause of all sin ; but when his letters to Dr. Ware are considered, as well as his other writings, it is believed the view which is here given of his sentiments, is that which a candid and just interpretation demands. If so, he agrees with the New Haven divines, in making all sin consist in the transgression of known law, and in ascribing the occasion of the universal sinfulness of our race to their connection with Adam. He dif- fers from them in respect to the nature of the cause in man, which lies at the foundation of the entire sinfulness of the race. He represents this as a propagated, guilty moral state or character. They regard it as consisting in a propensity to sin, not however in itself sinful or deserving of punishment, but such as in all cases determines mankind to sin in their first moral acts. He also differs from them in respect to the moment of time in which man- kind become guilty or deserving of punishment for their sins. He maintains that they are guilty of sin the instant they are born. They maintain, that they sin as soon as they can sin, and that they no sooner sin, than they fall under condemnation as transgressors. Dr. Woods, therefore, is wiser in respect to the moral state of infants than the New Haven divines. ON NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 227 Sin evil and only evil. Dr. Woods, in this essay, while meeting the ob- jection that the doctrine of native depravity is in- consistent with the divine benevolence, reasons on the supposition that the permission of sin may be incidental to the best system possible to God. He says, (p. 128,) "clearly God is the guardian of the interests of that universe which he has created and which he has destined to exist forever ; his benevo- lence will lead him to adopt those measures which he knows to be most beneficial to those great inter- ests, though not beneficial in the highest conceiva- ble degree to the interests of a particular part." " If the highest welfare of the whole intelligent crea- tion through all ages to come requires an arrange- ment less favorable to some part of the creation, or, for the present, less favorable to the whole, than some other arrangement might be ; that arrange- ment will certainly be chosen by a God of love." Man's sinfulness, in itself, he regards as altogether and in the highest degree undesirable and deplora- ble. It is only by being overruled by the Almighty Governor of the world, that it will be the occasion of promoting the blessedness of God's moral empire. Such language, taken in its connection, clearly implies the possibility that God cannot prevent sin in his moral universe without diminishing its bless- edness, and that sin itself is an evil which he ab- hors, and which he permits only because it is, in 228 DR. SPRING AND DR. WOODS These discussions affect the Presbyterian Church. respect to divine prevention, a necessary incident to the best morcd empire ; a thing which he so over- rules that on the whole it results in his own glory and in good to the universe. If this is Dr. Woods' theory, how does he differ on this point from the New Haven divines ? If in any thing, it must be in this single point. He perhaps would say, that a be- nevolent God chose the sin, which he regards '' as altogether, and in the highest degree, undesirable and deplorable," for the sake of exhibiting his own perfections in bringing good out of evil ; and this, when he could have created and governed a perfectly holy and happy universe, without sin. They would deny the truth of this position, and maintain that God may have permitted the existence of sin, be- cause, though he regards it as altogether and in the highest degree undesirable and deplorable, he pre- ferred its existence to the non-existence of the pre- sent system, which is the best possible to him. The theological discussions, an account of which has now been given, were not confined to New England. They entered the Presbyterian church at the beginning, continued to awaken more and more interest in their progress, and in the end, com- bined with other causes, produced the explosion which has shaken the whole fabric of Presbyteri- anism in the United States. The rapidity with ON NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 229 Alledged prevalence of New Haven views. which, if the testimony of Old School men may be credited, the views of the New Haven divines spread in that commmiion, can hardly be accounted for, without supposing some peculiar preparation of mind for their reception. The controversial writings of New England were, indeed, widely circulated amongst its ministers; its own publications more or less entered into the controversy ; and some of high standing and influence in it, both clergy and laity, early favored these sentiments. By the Old School party, they were denounced and warmly opposed, and this had the elFect to turn public at- tention to them, and magnify their importance. The judicial proceedings also, which have been as- signed as one principal cause of the measures of the General Assembly of 1837, came in as a means of further enlisting the feelings of the christian com- munity. These things exerted a combined influ- ence, favorable to the spread of the theology of common sense and the bible. But all these con- siderations seem scarcely suflicient to account for the extensive prevalence, in so short a time, of views pronounced by many high in station and in- fluence, to be heretical and dangerous. May there not have been a peculiar preparation of mind for such a result, occasioned by the benevolent opera- tions of the day ; by an increased attention to the word of God and less regard to technical theology, 20 230 DR. SPRING AND DR. WOODS Mr. Lord's "Views in Theology." — Against physical depravity. in consequence of the great increase of biblical in- struction ; and by the revivals of the present cen- tury, which have turned the thoughts of ministers from theological systems to the practical truths of Christianity, and to the best modes of explanation in order to vindicate the ways of God to man ? It seems proper, before concluding this chapter, to bestow a few passing remarks upon one publica- tion, of a periodical character, which for a num- ber of yesirs was issued in New York, and proving unsalable, was gratuitously circulated among min- isters. The work referred to is entitled "Views in Theology," and proceeded from Mr. David N. Lord, a merchant in New York, who was once a licensed preacher of the gospel. It is difficult to determine what amount of influence, if any, this periodical exerted upon the results of the contro- versy in question ; but as its author afterwards be- came a leading patron of the party in Connecticut which opposed the New Haven divines, it is well just to show, what theological opinions he has, at different times, condemned and advocated. Mr. Lord first attacked the doctrine of physical deprav- ity ; arraigned the great body of divines, from John Calvin down to Dr. Griffin, as guilty of teaching this error ; and himself advocated the sentiment, that nothing which pertains to the constitution of man, " constitutes a tendency to sin," or " forms ON NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 231 Against creeds and physical regeneration. any more certainty or probability that he will exer- cise that species of actions which is evil, than that which is morally excellent^* He next condemned the doctrine, that " God prefers sin to holiness in its stead," and maintained the position, that God in all instances prefers that men should yield obe- dience, and that it is best that they should obey in the circumstances in which they act.f Another subject that underwent his animadver- sion, was " the doctrines of the Princeton Theolo- gical Seminary, respecting creeds and confessions." Dr. Spring's Dissertation on the means of Regene- ration also called forth an article, in which he charged the author and others with teaching, con- trary to the doctrine of the word of God, that " the Holy Spirit regenerates the mind by an immediate or physical agency, wholly exclusive of the instru- mentality of moral means. "J In other articles, Ed- wards, the Christian Advocate, and the Biblical Repertory, were severally convicted of inculcating erroneous views on the subject of depravity, while the views of Professor Fitch on the same subject were highly applauded, and those of Dr. Taylor censured, only on the following grounds : that he attributes the cause of all sin to the nature of man- kind, " in contradistinction to the moral influence * No. I, p. 56. t No. II, p. 19. I No. V, p. 7. 232 DR. SPRING AND DR. WOODS Controversy between Mr. Nettleton and Mr. Finney. exerted on them," and maintains that no change in their appropriate circumstances will prevent their sinning ; and that he represents that a disposition or bias to sin, exists in the nature of man antece- dently to the commencement of his agency, which is the cause of his becoming a sinner. As Mr. Lord advanced in his " Views in Theology," he left Ed- wards, and Hopkins, and Dwight, and others, with their "physical depravity," and "sin the necessary means of the greatest good," and commenced, with great violence, a warfare against Dr. Taylor and the writers in the Christian Spectator, who hap- pened to go counter to some of his own opinions. They stood the shock, silent and unresisting ; and the assailant, in due time, appeared in the ranks of their opponents in Connecticut. There is yet another fact, of some weight, as con- nected with the causes of the revolutionary move- ments in the Presbyterian church, and with topics soon to be brought into view, which having remain- ed unnoticed, may properly be referred to in this place. The controversy between the Rev. Asahel Nettleton and the Rev. Charles G. Finney, in regard to new measures, will be recollected by all. Much feeling was elicited at the time, and afterwards, " new measures" became a kind of watchword with a certain class of men in New England. The stigma of "new measure men," was attempted to be fixed ON NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 233 New measures. upon those who would not come out and pubUcly condemn Mr. Finney, and take sides in the contro- versy against him. As Dr. Taylor and his friends did not care to do this, in a body, they were repre- sented as '-'new measure men," and pains were taken to identify them with Mr. Finney and his supporters in the Presbyterian charch. A potent charm for some minds was found to exist in the sound of words, to bring about a union between the opposers of New Haven and the opposers of what were called " new measures" in the Avest. Changes were rung on "■ New Haven theology," "Finneyism," ^^new measures," and "spurious re- vivals," till, by the laws of mental association, many believed merely because they had heard it so often with the hearing of the ear, what was destitute of all evidence. How much effect was produced in the south with these magic words, by the professor elect, who was at first engaged in the controversy on the subject, in his long and mysterious journey- ings in that land of promise, it may now be diffi- cult to determine. 20* 234 CHAPTER XX. MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. Meeting to organize a Doctrinal Tract Society. The history of the doctrinal discussions in New England, in its general outlines, being concluded, it remains to give some account of the measures adopted in Connecticut, by the opposers of what has been called '' New Haven Theology," for the purpose of arresting the progress of reputed error. It will be necessary in doing this, to go back in the order of time to the 12th of October, 1831, when a select meeting of invited ministers was held at Nor- wich, with the professed design of organizing a Doctrinal Tract Society, to act in defense of the so called orthodoxy of the state. The place of this meeting was but half a mile distant from that in which the Consociation of New London county held its session, which was adjourned at noon of the same day ; and yet so profound was the secrecy observed respecting the whole movement, that more than two months elapsed before the uninitiated members of the Consociation, were apprized of the fact that such a meeting was held ; and then it was MEASURES, «&C. 235 Object of the Evangelical Magazine. disclosed only through the inadvertence of one who attended it. The result of this meeting was the organization of the contemplated society, and the adoption of a constitution, one article of which was, that all members, in future admitted, should be nominated by a committee and elected by the so- ciety. From the consultations and measures of this meeting originated a new publication, called the Evangelical Magazine, which was commenced in July, 1832. The object of this periodical, which was continued four years, and then superseded by the Hartford Watchman, though not highly bel- ligerent in its character, was to oppose the views of the New Haven divines, and advocate the senti- ments of their opponents. It reviewed, with un- qualified approbation, the essays of Dr. Spring and Dr. Woods on native depravity, and contended for sinful depravity from the moment of birth. It also reviewed with like approbation the letters of Dr. Lee, and the work of Dr. Griffin on Divine Effi- ciency. On the permission of sin, it supported the views of Dr. Tyler and Dr. Woods, in opposition to the theory which they attributed to the New Haven divines. The same year, "Letters on the present state and probable results of Theological speculations in Connecticut," by one styling himself an Edward- eauj made their appearance. This pamphlet, with 236 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Letters of " An Edwardean." another that followed it the next year, styled, " An Address to the Congregational Churches in Con- necticut, by an Observer," have been commonly, and no doubt correctly, ascribed to Dr. Harvey, the present Editor of the Hartford Watchman, who published in his paper of June 24th, 1837, that the former ''pamphlet was read in manuscript to a meeting of some eight or ten leading orthodox min- isters of Connecticut, and by them unanimously approved, before its pubhcation ;" and that both " were published by the express approbation of lead- ing orthodox ministers of that State." Whoever these " leading orthodox ministers " were, it is now too late to expect that they will claim the honor of giving counsel in this matter. The Letters of " An Edwardean," want even the name of the printer, and of the place of publication. In this pamphlet, it was proclaimed to the world in unqualified terms, '' that Dr. Taylor arid others were verging to Pela- gianism," and that " the system advocated by him is Arminian in its tendencies, and decidedly Armin- ian, in all who come under its influence." The establishment of the Theological department of Yale College, was ascribed to a design to propagate heretical opinions ; and it was attempted to cast on the Professor of Didactic Theology, the odium of disturbing the peace and harmony of the churches. It was predicted, that if our theological affairs go TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 237 Letters of " An Edwardean." on as they have for ten years past, Congregational- ism in Connecticut will be rent in twain, no more to be united ; and that the question, who will abide by the faith of their fathers, must be decided by a separation from all who seek its subversion. '' Noth- ing," says the writer, "can be more certain than a separation of the Congregational churches of Con- necticut, if the present state of things continues much longer. This is unavoidable, if the friends of Dr. Taylor insist on obtruding upon us, him and his doctrines. Acquiescence in his theology is ut- terly out of the question, and the crisis is rapidly approaching, when there wall be a final division of the churches and ecclesiastical bodies in this State. And if Yale College continues to be environed with this influence, the friends of sound doctrine in the State, will soon seek other seminaries for their chil- dren, and Yale will become in Connecticut what Harvard is in Massachusetts."* This pamphlet, with all its misrepresentations of the views of Dr. Taylor and his friends, and with all its bitterness and denunciation, was not without effect. It in- creased jealousies and suspicions at home, and gave cm-rency abroad, to the widely circulated rumors of heresy, and an extensive and lamentable defection among the ministers and churches of Connecticut. * Page 41. 238 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Hartford Convention. Though it was without any responsible name, and none except those in the secret could tell whence it issued, yet it was adduced in a far distant church judicatory, as evidence against a distinguished min- ister, whose character it aspersed. A second meeting of the self-styled orthodox was convened in Hartford on the 8th of January, 1833, by letters missive of several months' previous date, signed by the Rev. Joseph Harvey, who was " in- structed to inform" of their appointment, those whose " attendance was requested." The meeting was composed of " a representation from each dis- trict association in the State," selected by the lead- ers of the party concerned, and the object was sta- ted by Mr. Harvey to be, '' to consult on measures which it may be proper and necessary to adopt, in the present posture of our theological concerns." The measures here concerted " for the defense of truth and the suppression of heresy," were the adoption of a creed, and the appointment of a com- mittee in each of the district Associations, to obtain signatures to it, with the design of organizing what was called a district Pastoral Union, within the limits of each Association. These were to com- pose, when properly organized, a Pastoral Union for the State. This plan, however, it is believed, proved a failure, as the contemplated Union was not organized till several months afterwards, and TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 239 East Windsor Convention. in a different manner. Of these proceedings, the great body of ministers in Connecticut were kept, as much as possible, in ignorance ; and matters were secretly concocted for a meeting of ministers to consider the subject of establishing a new theo- logical institution in Connecticut. When the bu- siness was duly prepared, this exparte convention assembled at East Windsor, on the 10th of Sep- tember, 1833 ; and so covertly was the plan con- certed £ind the arrangements made for the meeting, that very few, except those to whom the subject was confided, knew that such a thing was pro- jected. Even the pastor of one of the Congrega- tional churches in the town in which the conven- tion was held, gained the first knowledge of it, by incidentally passing the place of its session. Not a minister, friendly to the New Haven views, and able to state and defend them, was on the ground ; nor is it known that such a one received an invita- tion to attend. Many of the men who were there, had had their feelings strongly enlisted in the con- troversy, and none, in the circumstances in which they were then assembled, were in a state of mind to take a candid and impartial view of things. Their proceedings of course, though undertaken no doubt with a deep religious solemnity, were such as, in other circumstances, would have presented to them a very different aspect. The meeting re- 240 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Address by " An Observer." suited in an organization, called the Pastoral Union, to which members were to be added only by elec- tion ; and the appointment of a Board of Trustees, for the purpose of establishing a new theological institution. Such was the origin of the East Wind- sor Institute, over which Dr. Tyler was called to preside, and to fill the chair of Professor of Chris- tian Theology. Simultaneously with the convention at E. Wind- sor, " The Address to the Congregational Churches of Connecticut," sprung armed into being, out of the brain of the same parent whose legitimate off- spring has just been contemplated, in " The Letters by an Edwardean." These two productions were ^ar nohile sororum, though the younger much ex- ceeded the elder, in its boldness of attack and reck- less disregard of consequences. In this the writer assumed a still more undaunted tone, and called more loudly than in the first, for a separation of the churches. He not only set forth the " new divin- ity" in a most alarming attitude, but threw upon those who favored it, the responsibility of ^' new measures," spurious revivals, and a train of evil con- sequences, that threatened moral desolation to the land. He threw out the insinuation of artifice and dishonesty, against the advocates of the New Haven sentiments ; censured the churches for their apathy on the subject of the alledged errors,- and ccdled TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 241 Theological Institute founded. on the professors in Yale College, who entertained these views, to resign their places. He, indeed, denounced the College, and attempted to dissuade parents from sending their sons for education to that institution. He advised the churches no longer to depend on its theological department for a supply of pastors, and urged an entire and immediate sepa- ration of all the "orthodox," from ''those infected with new divinity and new measures." This pam- phlet found few in Connecticut, whose jealousy and party zeal ran high enough to give it countenance. Men of moderation and candor generally, regarded it with disapprobation. It was considered as evi- dence of a design, on the part of some, to rend the churches asunder. It thus brought up the momen- tous question. What is the value of the union ? and excited the feeling, It is best to stop and consider consequences. Reflection, once awakened, perform- ed its office, and inclined the great body of ministers to forbearance and peace. Thus the object of the pamphlet was in a great measure defeated. On the 13th of May, 1834, the corner stone of the building for the Seminary at East Windsor was laid, and the president and professor of ecclesias- tical history were inducted into office. The inau- gural address of the President, and the other ad- dresses on the occasion, contained allusions to the reputed errors of New Haven, as the ground of es- 21 242 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Theological Institute patronized in New York. tablishing the Institute. " That the speculations to which I have aUuded," says Dr. Tyler, " are of dangerous tendency, is our honest beUef. It is our solemn conviction, that they tend to sap the foun- dation of the gospel, and that if not checked in their progress, they will lead to fundamental error. In this we may be deceived ; but while these are our convictions, we cannot but regard with deep concern, the efforts which are made to disseminate these views ; nor can we with a good conscience lend our influence to promote their dissemination."* An important step had now been taken by Dr. Ty- ler and his party in Connecticut. The Rubicon was passed, and the friends of the new Seminary were committed before the public, to sustain their cause. Numbers were already enlisted on their side in New England, and from various causes, some in the Pres- byterian church were strongly enlisted in their fa- vor. In the city of New York, they found a num- ber of influential supporters and liberal patrons, without whose aid their project would probably nev- er have been undertaken; or if attempted, would have failed of being accomplished. Among these were Dr. Spring, who had himself been engaged to some extent in the controversy ; some members of his church ; and especially, Mr. David N. Lord, who * Inaugural Address, page 20. TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 243 How the Institute should be regarded. in his " Views of Theology," had at first fought so hard ao-ainst some of the very doctrines which were controverted by Dr. Taylor, and which brought the East Windsor Institute into existence. By various means, considerable impression was made in that city, in favor of the new Seminary. From differ- ent sources, sufficient patronage was received to en- courage the trustees to prosecute the enterprise, and in May, 1834, the Institute nominally went into op- eration. In May, 1835, the trustees reported sixteen students; and the number on the catalogue has since been increased to thirty-six. In May, 1837, the trustees reported the sum of thirty-one thousand seven hundred dollars, contributed in money to the funds of the Institution ; besides donations to the Ubrary, and articles of furniture and clothing for the use of the students. This sum has been gathered from numerous churches and individuals, and contains the widow's mite of twenty-five cents, as well as the contribu- tions of the more wealthy. Whether it has been expended in the best manner possible for the glory of God, and the good of mankind ; and whether the talents and energies of the men, who compose the faculty of the institution, and of others whose la- bors are devoted in different ways to the same gen- eral cause, are employed in a manner to advance, in the highest possible degree, the kingdom of Christ, 244 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Mr. Dow's report to the Corporation of Yale College. are questions which different individuals, at the pres- ent time, will decide differently ; but they will be correctly decided at the judgment of the great day. That the East Windsor Institute was needed, for increasing the facilities of theological education, with Bangor, and Andover, and New Haven, and Princeton, and Auburn in view, it is difficult to be- lieve ; and that the cause of truth demanded it, will not, it is presumed, be the judgment of posterity. That those who established it regarded the meas- ure as " the necessary means of the greatest good," cannot be questioned ; and those who regard it as an " evil all things considered," can yet unite with them in praying, " that God will overrule it for his own glory," and the advancement of the Redeem- er's kingdom. In April, 1834, Rev. Daniel Dow and Rev. Abel McEwen, members of the corporation of Yale Col- lege, attended as a committee appointed for this pur- pose, the examination of the students in the theo- logical department. Mr. McEwen prepared and signed a report to the corporation, which met in the succeeding August, commending in general terms the examination which he had witnessed. In this Mr. Dow refused to concur, and presented a sepa- rate report to the corporation, in which he expressed his cheerful concurrence with the statements of his colleague, in part ; but said, " it appeared, that in TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 245 Statement of Professors in the Theological Department. the branches of moral philosophy and theology, the doctrines which are taught and inculcated in this department are not in accordance with the articles of faith on which this College was founded, and are equally repugnant to the Holy Scriptures. To un- derstand what the objectionable sentiments are, ref- erence may be had to what the professors have pub- licly preached, and also exhibited in the volumes of the Christian Spectator." On the presentation of this report, the corporation appointed a committee to inquire into the usage of the institution respecting assent to articles of faith ; and invited the professors of the theological depart- ment to a conference on the subject thus brought before them. At this conference, the D wight Pro- fessor of Theology, against whom the charges were particularly directed, exhibited his views at large on various points of doctrine, and made a statement respecting an assent to articles of faith in the insti- tution. The committee appointed by the trustees also made report, confirming the statement of Dr. Taylor ; and from, these two documents the follow- ing facts are gathered. An assent to a religious for- mulary in Yale College was first required in 1722, at which time the confession of faith in the Say- brook Platform was adopted, and the officers elect were required to give satisfactory evidence of their belief in the system of doctrine therein contained. 21* 246 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Usage of the College respecting assent to articles of Faith. In 1753, owing to the religious controversies then existing in consequence of the preaching of White- field and others, the officers and trustees of the Col- lege were required to declare their belief in the As- sembly's Catechism and Confession of Faith, for all the sentiments thei^ein contained. In 1778, on the accession of President. Stiles, who could not give his assent to the Saybrook Platform in the unquali- fied sense which the existing laws required, the form was changed, and he simply signed the fol- lowing declaration : " I do hereby give my assent to the confession of faith and rules of ecclesiastical discipline, agreed upon by the churches of this state, in the year 1708." This form of subscription, under the circum- stances in which it was made, must be understood to be for substance of doctrine contained in the Platform. When Dr. Dwight came into office in 1795, after a free conference with the Corporation respecting his theological opinions, he gave the same assent, and always explained it to be for sub- stance of doctrine. The Dwight Professor of Di- dactic Theology, in 1822, signed the declaration in the established sense, and also presented to the Cor- poration the following creed, which was accepted by them as showing, satisfactorily, his substantial agreement in doctrine, with the Saybrook Platform. TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 247 Dr. Taylor's creed, presented to the Corporation in 1822. '' I believe in one only living and true God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; who is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, power, knowledge, wisdom, hohness, jus- tice, goodness, and truth ; that it is the duty of all his intelligent creatures to worship him in spirit and in truth ; that he created all things ; that he preserves and governs all his creatures, and over- rules all their actions for his own glory ; and that while all the actions of men, with all the events of his providence, ultimately subserve his wise de- signs, man is a free agent, and justly accountable for all his actions. " I believe, that God created man upright, that our first parents freely sinned and fell, and thai all their posterity come into the w^orld in such a state, that without the renewing grace of God, they con- tinually sin in all their moral actions, and are justly exposed to all the miseries of this life, and to end- less punishment in the world to come. " I believe, that God in his mercy has not left all mankind to perish forever, but out of his mere good pleasure has chosen some to everlasting life ; and that he will deliver them from sin and miser}'-, and bring them into a state of salvation by a Re- deemer. "I believe, that the only Redeemer of men, is the Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and man, and 248 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Dr. Taylor's creed, presented to the Corporation in 1822. that in our nature he suffered and died on the cross ; that he arose from the dead and ascended into heaven, where he ever hveth to make intercession for them that beheve ; that he alone has made atonement for sin, and that without an interest in that atonement, there is no salvation. " I believe, that without a change of heart, wrought by the agency of the Holy Spirit, who is God, no one can be an heir of eternal life ; and that the soul that is once made partaker of his renewing grace, will never be permitted so to fall away as finally to perish. ^' I believe, that there will be a general resurrec- tion of the righteous and the wicked, and a general judgment, at which all the righteous shall be ad- mitted to everlasting happiness, and eJI the wicked sentenced to misery without end. " I believe, that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments of the New Testament. . "I believe, that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, are given by inspiration of God, and are the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice." The committee, after exhibiting the usage on this subject, say " We come then to the conclusion, as one most entirely warranted by the archives of this institution, that, excepting the period from 1753 to 1758, it has been an established principle, TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 249 Proceedings in the Corporation. that the assent to the Confession of Faith in ques- tion, is to be understood as only an assent to ' the substance of doctrine therein contained.' This principle was avowed in the churches of New Eng- land, so early as 1637, by the framers of the Cam- bridge Platform ; the same principle is now adopted throughout the Episcopal and Presbyterian church- es, in this and in other countries ; and on no other principle do we believe, that any single formula of human devise and of considerable extent, could be adopted by any large number of men and for any long period of time." The corporation unanimously insisted, that Mr. Dow " be regarded as an accuser of the Professor of Didactic Theology, and proceed to support the charges against him contained in his report, unless the report be withdrawn. Mr. Dow urged a delay for a year, that he might prepare and substantiate his charges. Every facility and assistance requisite to proceed immediately, if he was so disposed, were offered him; and the corporation "voted, That Mr. Dow be requested to inform the board, whether he intended to prepare charges against Dr. Taylor, as contained in his report, or whether he voluntarily withdraws the report, and is satisfied that there is no foundation for those charges, or for any other, going to disqualify him for his place as Professor of Didactic Theology." Mr. Dow replied to this vote 250 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Mr. Dow withdraws his report. as follows : " I withdraw the report which I laid before the corporation; and would farther state, that on the ground of explanations given by the corporation of what subscriptions to articles of faith the laws of college require, no charges are preferred against the Didactic Professor." Mr. Dow pubUsh- ed in the Connecticut Observer, an explanation, in which he designed to vindicate his course on this subject, and soon after gave to the public his pamph- let, entitled " New Haven Theology, alias Taylor- ism, alias Neology," consisting of garbled extracts from different writers of the New Haven views, in- terlarded with his own expositions of their senti- ments.* After these proceedings in the corporation of Yale College, the professors of the theological depart- ment laid ouf the result before the pubhc. In their " statement," they express their full and unquali- fied belief of the following doctrines. " The entire depravity and ruin of mankind by nature as the result of the sin of Adam ; — Justification by faith through the atonement of Christ to the exclusion of all merit in the recipi- ent; — The necessity of regeneration by the special or distinguishing influences of the Holy Spirit ; — * Mr. Dow is a member of the board of trustees of the Theo« logical Institute. TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 251 What doctrines the Professors maintain. The eternal and personal election of a part of our race to holiness and salvation ; — and The final perseverance of all who are thus chosen unto eternal life." The professors then say, that these, taken in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity ; of the eternal punishment of the finally impenitent ; and of the divine decrees and election, constitute the primary doctrines of the reformation, and that all of these doctrines receive their unqual- ified assent. Some of the secondary or explanato- ry doctrines, found in the writings of the reformers, are the following : The imputation of Adam's sin to all his descendants, in such a manner as to make them guilty and punished in the operation of strict justice on account of his act ; — The imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, as the ground of his participating on the same principles of strict justice in the benefits of his death ; — The doctrine of particular redemption, or the limitation of the atonement to the elect ; — The doctrine of man's entire want of power to any but sinful actions, as accounting for his depend- ence on God for a change of heart, &c. These secondary or explanatory doctrines have always been subjects of free discussion, among New England divines ; and however strongly the feel- ings of those entertaining different views in respect 252 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Doctrines which they disclaim. to them, have at times been engaged, they have yielded at last to sentiments of confidence and af- fection. The professors then disclaim certain opinions which have been frequently charged upon them. They say, " We do not maintain, nor do any of our senti- ments imply the self-determining power of the will. We do maintain, however, that man is truly an agent, though not on that account the less depend- ent on his Maker ; and we see no alternative but this doctrine, or Pantheism. '- We do not deny, but on the contrary maintain that there is a tendency to sin in the nature of man. We do not suppose it however to be a specific con- stitutional propensity like hunger or thirst ; but £is Edwards states, a general tendency to selfish and vicious indulgences." "We do not maintain, (as injuriously charged,) that sin consists in a mere mistake as to the means of happiness, and that regeneration is the correction of that mistake. We hold that sin is seated, not in the understanding, but in the heart or will ; and consists in voluntary opposition to God, and prefer- ence of inferior objects, in defiance of known in- terest and duty. And we maintain, that the change in regeneration is a radical change in the supreme affections of the hearty or settled purpose of the will, TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 253 Doctrines which they disclaim. which constitutes, we believe, what is meant by moral disposition." " We do not hold that the Spirit in regeneration acts merely by presenting the truth ; but we believe that he operates on the mind itself , in some un- known manner, though in perfect consistency with the moral nature of this change. " We do not deny, but affirm, that God wills or purposes the existence of sin, and overrules moral evil for the advancement of his glory. We do in- deed deny, (on the ground of his sincerity as a law- giver,) that He ever prefers sin to holiness in its stead. We maintain therefore that in choosing the existence of sin he must do it in preference to some- thing else than holiness ; and that this something else may he ' the non-existence of the best moral system.' " We have never affirmed that God could not exclude sin from a moral universe. We have sim- ply denied, that he decreed its existence, as essen- tial to the perfection of our system ; — or, £is ' the necessary means of the greatest good.' When pressed with the inquiry, on what other ground he could have permitted it, we have stated as a possi- ble supposition, that sin, (as to God's prevention,) may have been a necessary incident to the existence of a moral system." 22 254 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, They protest against the charge of error. The professors moreover declared, that they felt themselves bound most solemnly to protest against the assumption, that the department under their care had become the seat of dangerous error ; or that there was any cause, as had been alledged, on this ground, for the establishment of a second the- ological seminary. To such an assumption they opposed the decision of the President and Fellows of Yale College ; and the decision of the very men who founded the new seminary, as given to the world in their own creed. This instrument con- tains not a single sentiment, to which they cannot give their full and cordial assent. It neither rejects nor censures one of those principles, which have been charged with a tendency to dangerous error, viz. that man is truly an agent^ with power to the contrary in every act of choice ; that he has natu- ral susceptibilities, which capacitate him to be moved by the invitations of the gospel ; that he is active, as well as acted upon, in regeneration ; and that God must have decreed the existence of sin for some other reason, than his preferring it to holi- ness as a means of perfecting his universe. Had it been framed with the intention of excluding, as un- essential, all the points so long in controversy, it could hardly have received a better form for the at- tainment of such an end. TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 255 Appeal of the Trustees of the Theological Institute. The " statement " of the Professors of the Theo- logical department of Yale College, called forth '' An Appeal to the Public in behalf of the Theological Institute of Connecticut," from the Trustees of that seminary. The document appeared in the Con- necticut Courant, a political newspaper, published in the city of Hartford. The principal grounds of dissatisfaction with the theological department of Yale College, as stated by the Trustees, it is proper here to exhibit, accompanied by such explanations as the case requires. " Many have hp.ptrt dissatisfied," say the Trustees, " that the Theological School at New Haven has no more connection with the ministers and church- es of the State. Being an appendage of the Col- lege, it is under the entire control of the Corpora- tion, a Board, which, as at present constituted, is deemed altogether unsuitable to be guardians of a theological seminary." The theological department was founded with the advice of the General Association of Connecti- cut, and entirely in accordance with the design of the founders of Yale College, to provide the means of instruction for a succession of evangelical min- isters. No one educated in the seminary can be licensed in this State to preach the gospel, without the approbation of one of the district iVssociations, or of a committee by them appointed ; and no one 256 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Grounds of dissatisfaction with the Theological Department. can be ordained as a pastor over any Congregational church, without the action of an ecclesiastical body, duly constituted for that purpose. It is, therefore, entirely in the power of the ministers of Connecti- cut, to sanction or condemn the doctrines taught in the seminary, and if they please, to withhold license from the students, and exclude them from the min- istry. It is not known that any dissatisfaction ex- ists in regard to the Theological Seminary at An- dover, because it is no more connected with the ministers and churches of that State ; and why should there be any more dissatisfaction with that at New Haven ? As to the qualifications of the Corporation of Yale College to be the guardians of a theological seminary, it is presumed that the clerical part are as enlightened and experienced, and as " orthodox " too, as any similar body that could be constituted. They consist of the President of the College, and ten Congregational ministers of Connecticut ; and have power to fill their own vacancies. They thus constitute a permanent majority of the Board ; while the other eight are ex-ofiicio members, con- sisting of the governor, lieutenant governor, and six senators, who are annually chosen by the elec- tors of the State. How such a Board is "alto- gether unsuitable to be the guardians of a theo- logical seminary," it is not easy to perceive. TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 257 Grounds of dissatisfaction with the Theological Department. "Another ground of dissatisfaction with the New Haven School, as at present organized," say the trustees, "is the want of sufficient security against the introduction of heresy. In regard to three of the theological professors, it is not known that they are required to give their assent to any confession of faith, or that the corporation are re- quired, or even authorized, to remove them from office for any heretical opinions whatever." And the professor of didactic theology is only "required to declare his free assent to the confession of faith, and ecclesiastical discipline, agreed upon by the churches of the State in the year 1708." Suppose no subscription to articles of faith, were required of any of the professors of the theological department of Yale College ; would there not be other modes, by which the corporation could equally well satisfy themselves of their theological views ? Could not Paul know, that Timothy and Titus were sound in the faith, without requiring their sub- scription to a creed ? And cannot our associations and ecclesiastical councils know, that the candi- dates whom they license or ordain are sound, mere- ly by their examination? Is not a free inquiry respecting doctrinal sentiments, orally conducted, in fact a much better method of ascertaining the views of any person in theology, than his for- mal assent to a written confession ? Has experi- 22* 258 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Their dissatisfaction with the doctrines of the Professors. ence proved, that a subscription to articles of faith is an antidote against heresy ? But if the trustees of the East Windsor Institute were ignorant on the subject, is it not nevertheless true, that all the pro- fessors of the theological department are required to give their assent to the Saybrook Platform, in the same manner with President Dwight ? And as it regards the power of the corporation to remove them from office, why did the trustees say, that it is not known that the corporation are required or were authorized to do it ? Before making such a statement to the public, they certainly should have informed themselves on the subject. A little inqui- ry would have satisfied them, that the corporation have unlimited power over the officers of the insti- tution, and can, by a simple vote, remove any one of them from his place, even without a charge of her- esy or incompetency. The officer removed could have no other redress, than what would be awarded by a court of law, as pecuniary damages for the in- jury received. " The theological views maintained by the profes- sors," say the trustees, "have given great and exten- sive dissatisfaction. In the first place^ they have advanced positions which seem to us to subvert the doctrine of divine decrees. They maintain that God prefers, all things considered^ holiness to sin in all instances in which the latter takes place ; and TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 259 Dissatisfaction with the doctrines of the Professors. that sin is suffered to exist, because God could not entirely prevent its existence in a moral system." " Again, the professors maintain, that mankind come into the world with the same nature in kind, as that with which Adam was created ; and that the only reason that the posterity of Adam do not exhibit the same moral character which Adam ex- hibited, is not that they have a different nature, but that they are placed in different circumstances." " Again, the professors maintain, that self-love or the desire of happiness, is the grand principle by which all moral beings, whether sinful or holy, are actuated." " They maintain, also, that antecedent to regene- ration, the selfish principle is suspended in the sin- ner's heart, and that prompted by self-love, he uses the means of regeneration with motives which are neither sinful nor holy." They have also "advanced principles, which seem to us to subvert the doctrine of the saints' perseverance. They say, free moral agents can do wrong under all possible preventing influence ; and how can it be proved that a thing will not be, when for aught that appears it may be ?" The trustees however say, " we wish it to be distinctly understood, that we do not charge the professors of admitting the consequences which we have deduced from their principles ; but we cannot 260 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Dissatisfaction with the doctrines of the Professors. conceal our solemn conviction, that the principles which they have advanced, do necessarily lead to those consequences ; and that were we to adopt them, we should feel ourselves compelled to renounce the distinguishing doctrines of the Calvinistic creed." Another ground of dissatisfaction, say the trus- tees, '' is the great importance which the professors have attached to their peculiar views, and the char- ges of dangerous error which they have brought against their brethren." They have charged their brethren with having advanced theories, which lead to the most shocking and blasphemous errors, and which, if carried out into their legitimate consequen- ces, " lead to universalism, to infidelity and to athe- ism." These are the principal reasons which the trustees of the Theological Institute assign, for the establishment of a new seminary. To the remarks of the New Haven Professors on their creed, the Trustees reply : "If they can ex anhno^ and without qualification or reservation, sub- scribe these articles ; and if they intend to teach nothing inconsistent with them, we sincerely re- joice in the fact. But that they can subscribe them consistently J in the sense in which we receive them, and in the sense in which the language has here- tofore been generally understood, we shall find it impossible to beheve, till they have retracted some of their published statements, or explained them in TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 261 Second statement of the Professors. a manner more satisfactory than they have hitherto done." The Professors of the Theological Department of Yale College published a second statement, in answer to this appeal.* They express their astonishment at the manner in which the Trustees of the Institute have now come forward as a body, in their official capacity, to repeat the charges which had previously been made by the president, in his inaugural address, and by one of their number before the Corpora- tion of Yale College. In their recent '' Statement," they had declared their cordial concurrence in every sentiment expressed in the articles of the East Windsor Institute. Their declaration ought to have been satisfactory to the trustees, until they had fairly shewn that the published statements of the professors, were inconsistent with the articles of their own creed. This they had not attempted to do. They had hastily passed over the subject in a single sentence, that seemed to convey the insinua- tion that they were insincere, in making the sol- emn declaration which they had made before the world. " Such are the circumstances," say the * The article appeared in the Connecticut Observer, the New- Haven Religious Intelligencer, the New York Evangelist, and partly in the New York Observer, of the date of Nov. 29, 1834. 262 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Second statement of the Professors, professors, " under which the tmstees have sought to draw off public attention from our appeal to their creed, by an imposing array of inferences from our alledged principles; inferences which, they are compelled to acknowledge, form no part of our ac- tual behef ! But in doing this, have they stated our principles as we state them ? Have they met those reasonings by which we claim to have set aside these inferences ? Have they in short, come up to the question at all^ in its present state ? The farthest from it possible ! They have gone back to the earliest stages of the controversy ; retailed arguments which were answered years ago ; made deductions from principles which we have repeat- edly declared we never held ; urged conclusions which they know we deny to be just, without ever hinting at the reasoning by which we claim to have set them aside, or attempting to meet it ; and all this mass of obsolete argumentation, they have thrown out upon the public, not merely through the ordinary channels of religious intelligence, but in the columns of a political newspaper, to be read by thousands who know nothing of the contro- versy, and by them to be received as incontroverti- ble truth !" The professors then reply to the charges brought against them by the trustees, by simply repeating the answers which had before been given to the same charges. TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 263 Their answer to the charge of subverting decrees. They notice the charge of subverting the doc- trine of decrees, somewhat in the following man- ner. The main argument used by the trustees in support of this charge is this. 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 instances ? Here the phrase, " all things consider ed^^"^ is taken in its widest applica- tion ; whereas the professors expressly confined it to a single case, viz. where there is a choice simply between sin and holiness. This limitation the trustees suppress. They do the same with the phrase, all instances or cases, which was also lim- ited to the single case of a choice between sin and holiness. Let the question be put with their lim- itation, how can God prefer the existence of sin in any instance, where (all things considered) he pre- ferred holiness to sin, and the answer is : He can prefer the existence of sin as compared with some other thing than holiness, (suppose the non-exist- ence of a moral system, ) while yet he does not pre- fer it to holiness, when sin and hoHness are the things compared. A man may prefer the loss of a limb, not for the sake of — but notwithstanding the pain which attends its amputation, and thus decide that the pain shall exist : and so God may have adopted our present system, not for the sake of — 264 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Their remarks respecting the nature of mankind. but notwithstanding the sin which it contains, and ^ in so doing purpose or decree that sin shall exist. The Princeton professors and the great body of Calvinists in our country, reject the position that God, all things considered, prefers sin to holiness, and are therefore equally implicated in the charge of subverting the divine decrees. Even the Presi- dent of the East Windsor Institute once declared, that God chose this system, ^^notwithstanding the evil which it contains." In regard to the charge brought by the trustees respecting the nature with which mankind now come into the world, the professors in substance re- mark, that it applies equally to the President of the Institute as to them. By 7iature they mean the constitution or structure of the mind ; and Dr. Ty- ler has expressly disclaimed the imputation of hold- ing any change in this respect, as a consequence of the fall ; " much less have I affirmed/' he says, " that it is a physical change in the structure of the mind." The trustees have also attributed to them the sentiment, that the difference of character be- tween Adam as he was created, and his posterity, is not owing to a difference in nature, but in circum- stances ; and this charge they have attempted to prove, by quoting a sentence which was professedly a statement of the consequences of one of Dr. Ty- ler's positions ! The professors are very far from saying, that the sin of Adam had no more influence TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 265 Their remarks on disinterested benevolence. on his descendants than that of any other parent. On the contrary, they hold, with Edwards, that as the direct result of Adam's sin, those lower appe- tites which were in man in innocence, being in- creased in strength, and unchecked by the higher principle of love to God, constitute a tendency to evil, which results in the entire depravity of man, from the very commencement of moral agency. In regard to the charge, brought by the trustees against the professors, of setting aside the doctrine of disinterested benevolence, they reply substan- tially as follows : In the words of Dr. Dwight, " dis- interested benevolence is not i^/iinterested benevo- lence." They hold with him that volition or choice is ultimately founded on a desire of happiness. In speaking of an ultimate end, they have intended an end not external to the mind, but that which lies deepest in the soul ; the constitutional desire of hap- piness, which is entirely distinct from selfishness. How can there be an act of choice, without capacity for happiness in the agent, and an adaptation of the object chosen to satisfy the desire of happiness ? Is holiness a cold discharge of duty which aims not at pleasure or satisfaction in the object on which it rests ? Is there any thing selfish or unworthy, in seeking happiness in God, or in enjoying him ? In regard to the charge of making regeneration progressive, — the Professors say, '' The trustees 23 266 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, Their remarks on the saints' perseverance. might as well charge Dr. Brown with denying that sight is instantaneous, because he resolves it into successive acts, as to charge us with holding to pro- gressive regeneration, because, in showing that this change is wrought, ' through the truth,' we analyzed it into acts following each other in the or- der of nature ; though we distinctly said, not of perceptible duration.^^ " The charge of subverting the doctrine of per- severance," say the professors, " is the most extra- ordinary of all ; and is made out certainly by a most original mode of reeisoning. We had said, that no proof can be derived by our opponents from the na- ture of the case, that a being who can sin, will not sin ; and hence the trustees infer, that no proof on this point can be derived from any other quarter ; not even from God's own declaration, that none of his children will utterly fall away !" The professors declare their intention to enter into no further debate with the trustees of the East Windsor Institute. They resign all their share in this controversy into the hands of the Corporation of Yale College. And as they thus preclude them- selves from making any comments on what may be said in reply to their remarks, they make one re- quest of a just and enlightened pubUc. It is, that they will steadfastly insist in their behalf, that who- ever may come out against them, shall meet the issue as it is here stated. TO SUPPRESS NEW HAVEN VIEWS. 267 How the issue should be stated. ''Have we been misrepresented in the manner here pointed out ?" '' Has the President of the Institute abandoned the theory, that God chose our present system, in any sense for the sake of the evil which it con- tains ?" " Does he maintain, that the structure of the hu- man soul is unchanged by the fall, and that there is nothing sinful in man, lying back of moral action?" " Does an agreement in these respects, remove all grounds of difference as to the main points which have been so long in debate ? To these questions we answer, yes. If any man shall hereafter attack us, let him answer, no ; and come forward with his proofs." To this second "statement" of the professors of the theological department of Yale College, the trustees of the East Windsor Institute made no re- ply; nor did one appear from any other quEirter. It seemed to be a general sentiment among the ministers of Connecticut, that it was time to end the controversy, by discontinuing the discussion. Measures were soon undertaken with the design of restoring mutual harmony and confidence, between those who differed in theological opinion. The basis of action on the subject, was an acknowledg- ment of the soundness of both parties, in respect to the essential doctrines of the gospel. The effect of the movement was happy. Excitement was by 268 MEASURES IN CONNECTICUT, &C. Measures for restoring harmony. degrees allayed, and the public mind was restored to its wonted calmness. The feeling prevailed, that peace and spiritual prosperity are better than contention and strife about unessential points of doctrine, which formed no part of the '' faith once delivered to the saints," and respecting which, though of greater or less importance in explaining what has been delivered, Peter and Paul might dif- fer, and still unitedly labor to fulfill the command of Christ, " go, preach the gospel to every creature." With a few exceptions on the part of some vio- lent or prejudiced men, the members of associa- tions and ecclesiastical councils in Connecticut, had uniformly acted on the ground that no difference of sentiment existed, justifying division or alienation amongst ministers or churches. Few individuals, if any, were committed to an opposite course. The obstacles, therefore, to a restoration of confidence, were less, and the more easily removed ; and for nearly three years, both ministers and churches have been approaching towards a state of perfect cordiality and affection. This, if not already at- tained, is so nearly accomplished, that nothing, it is believed, can prevent its final and speedy con- summation. That charity which beareth all things and is kind, will forgive ; and the love of Christ will prevail over all feelings of personal regard and private interest, which have too often had an undue share of influence in theological controversy. 269 CHAPTER XXI. DR. Tyler's letters to dr. with ERSP OON. Letters to Dr. Witherspoon. Another movement, closely connected with the doings of the General Assembly of 1837, and with other parts of the history already written, must now be recorded, — a movement which has caused no in- considerable sensation among the clergy of Con- necticut, and has torn open, as may be feared, some wounds which were supposed to be healed. On the 10th of February, 1837, the president of the Theological Institute, as it now appears, com- menced a series of letters, addressed to the Rev. John Witherspoon, D. D., of South Carolina, which, with notes appended by him, were published anon- ymously in the Southern Christian Herald, under the title of " Letters on the origin and progress of Arminian Views in New England, from a distin- guished New England Minister to one in the South." The whole series of letters consists of eighteen, the last of which bears date the 18th of May, 1837. These letters, as the Editor of the Herald informs the public, were copied into all the 23* 270 DR. Tyler's letters The authorship of these letters how awarded. Old School papers connected with the Presbyterian church. They were also published in the Hart- ford Watchman, and some months afterwards came forth from the press in a small volume, entitled, '' Letters on the origin and progress of the New Ha- ven Theology, from a New England Minister to one in the South." The volume purports to be a history, the object of which "is to give a brief but faithful account of what has sometimes been denominated the New Haven Controversy." The authorship of the letters contained in this volume, caused considerable spec- ulation in Connecticut, and though they contained many marks indicative of the general source from which they came, yet the individual who wrote them was not certainly ascertained, till his name was disclosed by Dr. Woods in a letter to Dr. With- erspoon, dated Aug. 23d, 1837, and published in the Southern Christian Herald. In this manner, the authorship was awarded to Dr. Tyler. To do complete justice to the Letters, would require more space than can be devoted to them on these pages ; yet so directly are they connected with the subject under consideration, they must not be passed over entirely unnoticed. The history of the controversy already given must serve, however, in peu't, as a comment upon them. TO DR. WITHERSPOON. 271 Are they a true history ? The volume may be considered in two parts, the former of which professes to give an account of ^' the New Haven Controversy," and the latter, to shew the points of difference between the New Ha- ven divines and other theological writers. It has been claimed by the author of these letters and his friends, that the history which they profess to give is impartial and true. They are even endorsed by Dr. Woods, as being "written ably and justly." Others regard them as grossly misrepresenting the whole subject, and as being calculated to mislead those who are not entirely familiar with it. It is proper, therefore, to examine their character. To the question, do the letters contain a correct account of the controversy whose history they profess to give ; — no other answer than a negative one can be returned. Whatever may be the belief of Dr. Tyler or of any other person, — to the simple ques- tion of their correctness or incorrectness, there is but one answer. The impression which they are calculated to leave on the mind of a reader who is possessed of no other information, is palpably incor- rect. Some proof of this will now be exhibited. In the first place, great errors are committed in the statement of the doctrines of the New Haven di- vines. The following examples will serve as spe- cimens. Dr. Tyler says, (p. 120,) the New Ha- ven divines have maintained, that God has not a 272 DR. Tyler's letters Their misrepresentations of doctrine. complete control over the moral universe, and that sin exists because God cannot prevent it in a moral system. The quotations which he gives from the Christian Spectator, and from the Concio ad Cle- rum, in support of these statements, correctly in- terpreted, convey no such ideas ; and no passages, it is believed, can be adduced from the writings of Dr. Taylor, or from the pages of the Spectator, to substantiate them. What more complete control can God exercise over the moral universe, than to have created, from all that were possible, just such a system as he pleased ; and then to govern that system, just as from eternity he purposed to govern it, and so as to secure the results which he foresaw and predetermined? Can there be no complete control over moral agents, except by a physical or compulsory influence ? What more complete con- trol, than that which secures the exact accomphsh- ment of all his providential purposes ? Such po- sitions the New Haven divines have uniformly maintained ; and nowhere have they maintained, that sin exists, because God could not prevent it in any individual instance, nor because he has not de- creed its existence. To demand the proof that God could have prevented all sin in a moral system, is a very different thing from affirming that he could not prevent it, or that he has not decreed its exist- ence. TO DR. WITHERSPOON. 273 , Their misrepresentations of doctrine. Again, Dr. Tyler, (p. 132,) charges the New Ha- ven divines with maintaining, that there is no hereditary corruption of nature which is trans- mitted from parent to child ; that infants sustain the same relation to the moral government of God, as brute animals ; and that they are in no sense sinners. Now the New Haven divines have never denied, that there is a hereditary propensity to sin, or what they understand Dr. Tyler to mean by a hereditary corruption of nature, which is trans- mitted from parent to child. What they have de- nied on this subject is, that the ground or occa- sion of the universal sinfulness of mankind, which exists in the constitution of Adam's posterity, in consequence of their connection with him, is itself sinful. They, it will be remembered, make all sin consist in wrong moral action, and represent the nature of mankind to be such, that they will sin, and only sin, in all the appropriate circumstances of their being. Nor have they affirmed, that in- fants sustain the same relation to the moral govern- ment of God as brute animals, nor, that they aie not, in popular language, truly said to be sinners from the first, even as soon as they become moreil agents. Nor can contrary inferences be drawn from a denial, that the death of infants is proof of their being guilty in the sight of God, or sinners in the sense of deserving punishment. 274 DR. Tyler's letters Their misrepresentations of doctrine. Again, Dr. Tyler says, (p. 143,) the New Haven divines maintain, that antecedent to regeneration in the restricted sense, the selfish principle is sus- pended in the sinner's heart, and that he then ceases to sin and is in a state of neutrality ; and he affirms that '' thus they in fact represent regenera- tion as a progressive work." Now such statements of their doctrine on this subject, are very incorrect. They have never maintained that the sinner ceas- es to sin, till he gives his heart to God ; nor that his character is for a moment neutral. Nor have they represented regeneration a progressive work, in any other sense, than that the term denotes a complex act, some parts of which, in the order of nature, though not of time, are previous to others. Dr. Tyler also says, (p. 158,) according to the New Haven divines, every moral being makes his own happiness his ultimate end. They thus virtually destroy the radical distinction between holiness and sin, making them both proceed from the same prin- ciple of action. So, Dr. Taylor replies, it must be according to Dr. Tyler ; for he maintains, that when man becomes holy he does so, to gratify a new created propensity to holiness ; i. e. he becomes holy for the pleasure or happiness there is in being holy. The simple question on this subject is, can a moral being choose either God or the world as his portion, or act at all as a moral being, xmless prompt- TO DR. WITHERSPOON. 275 Their misrepresentations of doctrine. ed to action by a desire of happiness ; and if he cannot, then his moral character must consist in the choice or preference of his mind, and not in a con- stitutional desire of happiness. That Dr. Tyler, after all the discussion on this subject, should persist in charging the New Haven divines, with destroy- ing the radical distinction between holiness and sin, is not easy to be explained. Dr. Tyler represents, (p. 165,) that the great body of those who profess to adopt the sentiments of the New Haven divines, discard the doctrine of an im- mediate and direct agency of the Holy Spirit in re- generation. This certainly is a misrepresentation in regard to the ministers of New England ; and if the doctrinal protest of the minority of the General Assembly of 1837 is any evidence, the same is true in respect to the Presbyterian church. Indeed, very few Congregational and Presbyterian divines of the present day, have even explained the mode of the Spirit's operations in a manner inconsistent with the doctrine of a direct and immediate agency on the mind. Such are some of the misstatements contained in the letters of Dr. Tyler, of the doctrines of the New Haven divines. There are also many statements in the book, made in language liable to be misunderstood by multitudes, for whose instruction the letters were 276 DR. tylee's letters Their omissions. intended. This is illustrated in the following ex- simples. The New Haven divined maintain, says Dr. Tyler, that there is no natural or constitutional propensity to sin ; that mankind come into the world with the same nature in kind, as that with which Adam was created ; and that sinners may so resist the grace of God, as to render it impossible for God to convert them. Dr. Witherspoon and the members of the Phil- adelphia convention, would be led to conclude from these statements, that the New Haven divines deny all propensity or tendency to sin in mankind ; that they consider the posterity of Adam, as coming in- to the world with a nature, in all respects the same, as that with which he was created ; and that ca- ses may occur in which sinners defeat the grace of God; whereas they are the farthest possible from adopting such sentiments. But the correct- ness of a writing depends not merely on the truth of each isolated statement. The omission of what is essential to the proper understanding of a sub- ject, will propagate error with equal effect, as the insertion of what is not true. Such incorrectness abounds in the letters of Dr. Tyler. In his state- ments of the doctrines of the New Haven divines, he omits their qualifications and their explanations ; and reiterates the charges which he had long before preferred, and which had been again and again re- futed. TO DR. WITHERSPOON. 277 Their omissions. His sixth letter consists almost exclusively of extracts from his own remarks on Dr. Taylor's letters to Dr. Hawes, without any account of the contents of it, except a sentence or two for the pur- pose of introducing his own comments. His sev- enth letter, on the other hand, consists of extracts from an article by Dr. Taylor, in which he exam- ines the theories of Dr. Tyler in relation to the de- pravity of man, and the divine permission of sin. By the selection of certain parts, with the help of Dr. Porter's introductory condemnation of the ar- ticle, Dr. Taylor is made to appear as '' unmanly and of unchristian temper." The eighth letter is principally composed of extracts from Dr. Tyler^s pamphlet, shewing in what points of doctrine he differed from Dr. Taylor, with such an introduction and peroration, as to make the latter appear in the absurd predicament of claiming an entire agreement with Dr. Tyler, and at the same time charging him with sentiments which lead to the very worst of heresies. In all these examples, there is great in- correctness of statement, resulting from the sup- pression of what was essential to a proper under- standing of the subject. The book abounds with similar misrepresentations. Thus Dr. Taylor has in no instance charged Dr. Tyler with believing, or holding the revolting inferences, drawn from what Dr. Tyler does hold ; but is careful to say, '' we by 24 278 Their insinuations. no means intimate that Dr. Tyler really embraces the conclusions, which we have deduced from his theories." Dr. Tyler should be the last to complain of the reductio ad ahsurdum. In this mode of reasoning, he commenced his attack on Dr. Taylor, and has pursued it to the last. The letters are also calculated to give a false im- pression, in respect to the whole system of the New Haven divines. Ministers five hundred or a thousand miles distant, on reading them would very naturally conclude, that Dr. Taylor and his friends jire Arminians, Pelagians, and Unitarians. The book begins with insinuations of this kind, which are rendered plausible by numerous quotations from the letters of theological partizans. I must pro- ceed, says Dr. Tyler, to answer your inquiries re- specting " the origin and progress of Arminian views in New England." I suppose you refer to the New Haven speculations. He says not a word to correct the false impression which the language of his cor- respondent is calculated to produce, but proceeds as though the inquiry was properly made. To keep up the impression, he quotes a passage from the late Dr. Porter of Andover, and introduces a doggerel rhyme, the purport of which is that Dr. Taylor was reviving Arminianism. In another place, he quotes from Dr. Fisk, of the Wesleyan University, to show that he claims an agreement with the New TO DR. WITHERSPOON. 279 Their insinuations. Haven divines, and on the authority of Dr. Griffin, represents his claim as just. He also gives extracts from the writings of Noah Worcester, a Unitarian clergyman of Massachusetts, in which he approves of certain doctrines maintained by them, viz. '' that sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law, that there is no such thing as a sinful nature ante- cedent to sinful volition, or moral action," and that sin may be incidental to the best moral system. Many other quotations might be noticed, apparently designed to impress the reader with the belief, that Dr. Taylor and his friends have exchanged Calvin- ism, for one or another system of error. Now was Dr. Tyler so ignorant of the quality of his own writings, that he was not aware what would be their effect ; or did he intend to produce such im- pressions? If the latter supposition is true, why did he not come out with a bold and manly front in Connecticut, put his insinuations into the shape of charges, and meet Dr. Taylor face to face upon them, or at least make them under the signature of his own name ? Such charges could not be sub- stantiated, according to Dr. Tyler's own confession. See page 181. The letters are calculated to mislead, in respect to the difference of sentiment between the New Haven divines and their brethren, both of a former period and the present day. Several letters are oc- 280 DR. Tyler's letters The false impression they give respecting difference of opinion. cupied in shewing the difference of opinion between them and other writers in respect to the govern- ment of God over the universe ; in regard to origi- nal sin and native depravity ; in regard to regenera- tion, the influence of self-love, the mode of the Spirit's operations, and the doctrine of election. On all these important subjects, such sentiments are at- tributed to the New Haven divines, as they utterly discard, and such as the passages adduced as proof, by no means justify. Take, for example, the doc- trine of election. Dr. Tyler would make it appear that they hold the Arminian doctrine on this sub- ject, viz. that God eternally purposed to save those, who he foresaw would cease to resist his grace and submit to his authority, but did not purpose at all to make them holy. This, Dr. Taylor has ex- pressly disclaimed; and the quotations from the review of Fisk on predestination and election, if they furnish any plausible support of the position, convey a different meaning detached, from what they do in their connection in the original article. The self-love also, which they regard as the primary cause of all moral action, is a very different thing from the selfishness so pointedly condemned under the name of self-love, by the writers whom Dr. Tyler quotes. Indeed, among the many passages which he has extracted from the writings of the standard divines of New England, to shew a differ- TO DR. WITHERSPOON. 281 Their appeal to the authority of names. ence of sentiments on the doctrines in question, there is hardly one to which the New Haven di- vines would not cheerfully subscribe. Another thing ought to be noticed in estimating this work of Dr. Tyler's. Extracts are made from the private letters of some New England ministers, as though they expressed the present views and feel- ings of the writers ; whereas these have materially changed within the six or seven years since the let- ters were written. Some have even apologized for the expressions which they had used in free corres- pondence, under a particular aspect of things, and which, without their consent, were published to the world. But what is perhaps the most exceptionable of all is, that appeal to names which composes the chief argument of the book. To enumerate all, living and dead, titled and untitled, which appear on its pages, or to tell how many times each of them is made to speak his sentiments on different subjects, or with what language he clothes them, is not necessary. Bat, is it a correct mode of set- tling points of theology, and especially of meta- physics, to appeal to names, no matter how distin- guished ? Can the opinion of David Brainerd, Asa- hel Nettleton, Dr. Hyde, or even of Dr. Woods and Dr. Tyler himself, whose former writings compose so large a part of the letters to Dr. Witherspoon, 24* 282 DR. Tyler's letters Why were the letters written ? determine the question, whether man is a sinner from the instant he takes a breath of atmospheric air into his kings ; or for what reason God permits sin ? Is the authority of Dr. John Pye Smith, suf- ficient to determine the vaUdity of an argument, without examining more than one side ; or that of Dr. Ebenezer Porter, whose praise is in all the churches, but who confessed himself completely non-plussed to see what Dr. Taylor would be at ? Such, in their general character, are believed to be the Letters on " New Haven Theology," written by Dr. Tyler, President of the Theological Insti- tute of Connecticut. No other president or pro- fessor of a theological institution, it is presumed, ever has written, or under similar circumstances, ever will write another just such book. And why did Dr. Tyler write these letters to Dr. Wither- spoon ? Why did he attempt to write a history of events in which he was a principal actor ? Was it because a person engaged for years in spirited if not prejudiced discussion, would be likely to be an im- partial historian ? And if he undertook to write at all, why did he not subscribe his own name and publish them in Connecticut ? Perhaps it will be said, the letters were written at the request of Dr. Witherspoon. But the inquiry then arises, why did Dr. Tyler undertake to write a series of eighteen letters, when he admits that his corres- TO DR. WITHERSPOON. 283 Why were the letters written? pondent probably expected but one? And why should they be published in the Southern Christian Herald and copied into all the Old School Presby- terian papers, just previous to the meeting of the General Assembly of 1837 ? May not these ques- tions be satisfactorily solved, on the supposition of an alliance of Old School leaders in Connecticut and in the Presbyterian church, on the ground, that " if one fails the other fails, and if one prospers the other prospers?" For whatever purpose they were written, there can be no doubt that they ex- erted a considerable influence in causing the vio- lent proceedings of the Assembly, which immedi- ately followed their publication. They assisted the members of the Philadelphia Convention to make out so accurate a list of errors, as to need, perhaps, no correction from their friends in New England. They emboldened the Assembly to adopt measures which could never have been carried, but for their belief in the existence of wide-spread and prevail- ing heresy in the Congregational churches. The impartial historian of future days, therefore, will award to Dr. Tyler the reputation of having done something to abrogate the Plan of Union, and occa- sion the catastrophe of the Presbyterian church. 284 CHAPTER XXII CONCLUDING REMARKS. The two points of inquiry. The preceding account of the late theological controversy in New England shews, that the two leading points of inquiry have been, firsts what is the nature of sin ; and secondly, for what reasons h£is it been permitted ? In regard to the first point, the New Haven divines have uniformly maintained, that all sin consists in voluntary action, and that men are guilty and deserving of punishment, only as transgressors of known law. Dr. Harvey under- took to controvert this position, and at first main- tained that there is in mankind, back of all moral action, a nature which is the cause of all actual transgression, and is itself sinful. He afterwards explained himself to mean, that this sinful nature is the voluntary state of the mind in which man is born, and is itself a transgression of the divine law. Dr. Tyler at first maintained, that there is in man a native propensity to evil propagated from parent to child, like other natural propensities. He after- wards explained himself to mean, that '^ this pro- pensity is not in the structure of the mind," and CONCLUDING REMARKS. 285 Different positions respecting the nature of man. also to agree with Edwards, that mankind come into the world destitute of those superior principles with which Adam was created, and that this con- stitutes their propensity to sin. Dr. Spring main- tained that all sin consists in voluntary action, and that mankind are born into the world with moral dispositions which are sinful, and an essential part of the soul's existence. Dr. Woods maintained, that mankind are '^ born in a state of moral deprav- ity leading to certain ruin ; or that according to the common laws of descent, they are partakers of a corrupt nature, the offspring being like the parent.'* This statement compared with what he had writ- ten in former years, ought not perhaps to be under- stood as asserting any thing contrary to the doc- trine, " that all sin consists in volunt£iry action, and is a transgression of known law." This doctrine it is believed, the great body of New England di- vines at the present day fully adopt. So did Ed- wards and the old Calvinists. All who have ever held literally^ " that in Adam's fall we sinned all," have maintained, in the language of the Westmin- ster divines, '' that we sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression ;" that is, we trans- gressed in his act the divine command, and are guilty of the sin of eating the forbidden fruit. The doctrine of the New Haven divines on this subject Is denied only by three classes of theologians ; 286 CONCLUDING RE iM ARKS. Subordinate inquiries. — What is the nature of infants : those who hold the doctrine of a physically de- praved nature, which is itself sinful ; those who adopt that view of imputation, which regards man- kind as truly and properly sinners by the sin of Adam, without personal transgression ; and those who maintain, that men are born into the world with a voluntary state of mind, which, without any acts of choice or preference in view of a known rule of duty, involves them in guilt and just con- demnation. Out of the discussions on the nature of sin, sprung several subordinate inquiries. 1. What is the character of infants ? The old divines said they are sinners in Adam, and as soon as they are capable of acting morally, they trans- gress the law of God, and become actual sinners. The believers in physical depravity say, they are born into the world, with constitutional propensities intrinsically sinful, and leading directly to the choice of forbidden objects ; and that under the impulse of these sinful desires they crave sinful indulgence, in the same manner that they crave food and drink. Dr. Spring and others say, they are created with moral qualities no less than with natural faculties, and are actual transgressors from the instant of birth. The New Haven divines say, they are born with such a nature, that they sin as soon as they are ca- pable of knowing right and wrong, which is at a very early period of life, and if not at its commence* CONCLUDING REMARItS. 287 Certainly that mankind will become sinners, ment, the time intervening between birth and mor* al agency is so short, as to claim no special notice ; in other words they sin as soon as they can sin, and it is not important to know the precise moment of their first sinful act. But how can infants be saved, it was asked, if they are not born into the world sinners ? By the redemption of Jesus Christ, it was answered. If they die before actual transgression, they may through the grace of God in Christ Jesus, be saved from the consequences of belonging to a fallen race, and be made holy. Again it was asked, why do they die, if they are not sinners from, their birth ? Why do they die before they are born, it was asked in reply ; and why do animals die ? Death does not in all cases prove sin. Infants Qiiay die, because they belong to a race of beings who, in consequence of Adam's sin, are mortal. 2. Another question growing out of the discus- sion on the nature of sin was, if all sin consists in man's own act, what ground of certainty is there that all mankind will become sinners ? To this it was replied : Adam was created a moral agent, and sinned through temptation presented to his natural appetites ; and man, with the same powers and fac- ulties, may do the same, even though there were no other occasion. But though the human soul has the same powers and faculties m kind^ as Adam had in a state of innocency, yet, in consequence of 288 CONCLUDING REMARKS. What is the nature of regeneration. his fall, the inferior principles of our nature are much more susceptible to excitement from inferior objects, than in him ; and this, as well as a consti- tutional propensity to sin for its own sake, may fur- nish the ground of certainty, that the first moral act of every individual of our race will be sinful. Indeed it is an intuitive truth, that the cause of the first sin in the human mind cannot itself be sin, nor possess any moral quality whatever. 3. Another question arising from the discussion on the nature of sin was, what is the nature of re- generation ? Dr. Taylor and the New Haven di- vines said, that regeneration, when the term is used in its most restricted sense, to denote the change in man, is a moral act, consisting in a transfer of the supreme affections from the world to God. In a more general sense, it includes the intellectual per- ception and comparison of the two objects of pref- erence, God and the world, which are necessary to the choice of God as the portion of the soul. The sinner uses the means of regeneration only in the indivisible moment, while he so compares and esti- mates the two objects, that his supreme affections are given to God. In doing this, the active love of the world is suspended, previous, in the order of time, to the act which in the most restricted sense constitutes regeneration. This change in man is wrought in him as a moral being, by the agency of the Holy Spirit operating on his mind. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 289 What is the nature of regeneration. No, says Dr. Tyler. This view of the subject is incorrect. Sinners never use the means of regene- ration. The active love of the world is never sus- pended, till the heart is changed. If it were, the sinner would then be in a state of neutrality„ If this is a true account of the subject, regeneration is a progressive change ; is man's own work ; and the Holy Spirit only applies the truth to the mind by way of moral suasion. Say the believers in phys- ical depravity, God performs an act of creation in renewing the sinner, as much as when he brought the soul into existence. To consider the change in regeneration an act of the sinner, the mere choice of his mind, is to deny the necessity of the Spirit's operations, and is heretical. There must be an act of divine efficiency, in which God by his physical omnipotence changes the nature and constitution of the soul. Thus the whole debate respecting the nature of sin, might be resolved into the question, what is a moral agent ? Is he a being, capable of thinking, feeling and choosing ? Is he endued with such faculties, that he is capable of knowing right and wrong, and choosing between them, i. e. of making either a right or wrong choice ? Do all men, wheth- er sinful or holy, as moral agents, have the same nature in kind, that is, are they created with the same natural faculties, irrespective of the manner 25 290 CONCLUDING REMARKS. The turning point of the controversy. — Second point of inquiry. in which they afterwards use them ? Is it the ex- erting of these faculties in wrong acts of choice or preference, with the knowledge that they are wrong, and with the power to do otherwise, that constitutes a moral agent a sinner ? Is it the be- ginning to use these faculties aright, that consti- tutes his turning to God ; in other words, is it the preferring of God to the world, the loving of him supremely, with the faculties which he has given, that constitutes the change in regeneration ? and has a moral agent power in all circumstances, and under all influences, to choose right or wrong ? Let these questions be answered in the affirmative, and let this view of moral agency be carried out into all its relations to the doctrines of the gospel ; and physical depravity, and physical regeneration, and the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his posterity, their acting in his act, and the modern dogma of created voluntary transgression in the state of the will with which mankind are born, can no longer have place among the doctrines of the church ; much less, be set up as tests of ortho- doxy. The second point of inquiry in the late theo- logical controversy was, for what reason was sin permitted ? That sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, and that God prefers it on the whole to holi- CONCLUDING REMARKS. 291 Second point of inquiry. ness in its stead, says Dr. Taylor, are groundless assumptions. Dr. Woods and others say, that they do not pretend to tell the reasons why God decreed sin ; yet they argue to prove that the present sys- tem is the best conceivable, and that the degree of sin that exists, is preferred by God as a means of the greatest good. To furnish a resting place to the mind, and to meet the objections of the infidel. Dr. Taylor sug- gested the theory, that the reason of the divine per- mission of sin may Z>e, that it is incidental, in respect to divine prevention, to the best system possible to God, and that he purposes it, not in preference to holiness in its stead, but in preference to the non- existence of the best system. Dr. Fitch advocated this view of the subject in an article in the Chris- tian Spectator, in which he maintained, that the evils that exist in the moral universe may arise from the nature of the moral universe itself ; and he adduced the probabilities in favor of such a sup- position.* Such a theory, said their opponents, limits the power of God. It makes him desirous of preventing sin, but unable to prevent it. God has complete control over every creature, and can keep all his subjects from sinning, and bring all sinners to repentance. They go on to charge the * Vol. iv. (Quarterly Series,) p. 614. 292 CONCLUDING REMARKS. How does God govern the moral universe ? New Haven divines as teaching for truth, what they only suggested as a probable solution of a dif- ficulty, and deduce many alarming consequences from their theory. Out of this inquiry respecting the reasons of the permission of sin, sprung others. 1. One was, the same as that which lay at the foundation of the inquiry respecting the nature of sin, viz. what is the nature of a moral agent? He is one, say the New Haven divines, who has in all possible circumstances the power of choice. This definition, some thought, denied the power of God to control moral agents, overthrew the doctrine of irresistible grace, and made man independent of his Maker. Others said it was the old Arminian doc- trine revived, of a self-determining power of the will. 2. Another question agitated was, in what man- ner does God govern a moral universe ? Not by physical omnipotence, say the New Haven divines, but by an influence consistent with moral agency, leaving the mind free to act otherwise. This their opponents thought was the doctrine of moral sua- sion, and left it uncertain to the divine mind, whether he could keep any in holiness, or secure the perseverance of the saints. 3. Another inquiry was, is not God disappointed and unhappy in the results of his moral universe ? CONCLUDING REMARKS. 293 How the New Haven divines were treated. Some said he cannot do all the good he would, and must therefore be unhappy. Dr. Tyler said, He cannot accomplish his decrees and do all his pleas- ure. The New Haven divines said, He foresaw and purposed all things from eternity, and is not disappointed in the result, but infinitely blessed in his infinite beneficence ; whilst he is indeed " grieved," with the transgression of his law, and desires that all sinners should come to repentance rather than continue in sin. Thus the theory sug- gested as a possible mode of accounting for the per- mission of sin, was carried out in the discussion, through the principal doctrines of the gospel, in a manner to awaken great alarm lest the whole fabric of Calvinism should be subverted. Inconsistencies were charged on the New Haven divines. It was asserted that they had departed from the standard theological writers of New England ; and when they attempted to shew their agreement with them, in all the essential doctrines of the Calvin istic sys- tem, they were suspected of insincerity and accu- sed of self-contradiction. They complained that they were misrepresented ; but they were charged with unintelligibleness in their writings. They claimed that their opponents abandoned their ori- ginal positions, and came to that ground on which there was a virtual agreement ; and they were charged with departing from their own ground, or 25* 294 CONCLUDING REMARKS. Wonderful results of the controversy. — Misapprehension a cause. with insincerity. Their doctrines were continually misstated ; they were charged with errors which they solemnly disclaimed ; they were branded with names of Arminian, Pelagian, and Unitarian, and ranked with those who had been foremost in op- position to ''orthodoxy." Under such circumstances, it is wonderful that the ''New Haven speculations" have prevailed, in so short a time, to such an extent as to require for their suppression, a new theological institution in the state of Connecticut ; the union of a party in New England with the Old School party in the Presb^T'terian church ; and the revolutionary and violent proceedings of the majority of the Gen- eral Assembly of 1837. Especially is it wonderful that such results should have taken place, from the discussion of the question, what is the nature of sin and why is it permitted, when all parties in the controversy are agreed, in all the important ar- ticles of the Calvinistic creed. Yet there can be no doubt, that even the measures of the memorable Assembly of 1837, owe their origin and result to the controversies in Connecticut, more than to any other single cause ; and that they who formerly condemned Hopkinsianism, are now arranged in a party, which receives its chief countenance and sympathy in New England, from Hopkinsians of the highest school ; while they whose heresy is an CONCLUDING REMARKS. 295 The restoration of confidence. object of alarm, agree much more nearly than their opponents, with the old Calvinists.* These won- ders must be accounted for, in part, on the ground of the misapprehensions which prevail in a portion of the Presbyterian church, respecting the doctrines of the New Haven school. The removal of mis- apprehensions has greatly promoted harmony and confidence in New England, and will no doubt one day, do it in the Presbyterian church, whatever may be the issue of the present conflict. If men of all parties would pause and with the humility of little children inquire what is truth, in- stead of asking who shall be greatest ; if in all their theological differences they would be careful to ascertain the exact sentiments of those from whom they differ ; and would acknowledge as truth, all that they regard as such, instead of setting them- selves about convicting their opponents of heresy on trivial grounds ; then theological controversy would not so often result in the alienation of the * So far as "New Haven Theology" differs from the New- England Theology, which Presbyterians used to call Hopkin- sianism, it approaches towards old Calvinism. Hopkinsian dis- interestedness, — God's efficiency in the production of sin, — con- created actual sin, — sin the necessary means, — on all these points the New Haven divines depart from Hopkins towards Calvin and the Westminster divines. The Hopkinsians say that infants suf- fer and die because of their own personal sin ; New Haven and Princeton agree in saying that it is in consequence of Adam's sin. 296 CONCLUDING REMARKS. Suggestion to the Congregational churches. parties, and in unhappy contentions and divisions in the churches. The ministers of Whitefield's day, in too many instances learned wisdom when it was too late to retrieve their errors ; the churches of Connecticut have bought it at too high a price, in the experience which they have gained as the result of their late theological discussions ; and there is great reeison to apprehend, that such will unhap- pily be the result, in regard to the church which is now agitated with party strife and revolutionary movements. May God, in his providence, avert the final catastrophe of disunion. Let the Congregational churches of New Eng- land, from the experience of the past, learn not to give countenance to rumors of heresy, in regard to those who hold and teach the great doctrines on which their faith is founded. Though some in the ministry, should charge their brethren with radical error, on the ground that their theories subvert the doctrines of grace ; and should adduce arguments to prove that " certain speculations," if carried out into their legitimate consequences, would remove the ancient landmarks ; let them not indulge suspi- cion, till they see some evidence of actual defec- tion from the faith. Let them endeavor to discrim- inate between the real sentiments of the accused, and the interpretation and inferences of those who are enlisted in controversy. If '' the speculations" CONCLUDING REMARKS. 297 Suggestions to the younger ministers. in question are too abstruse to be understood by them, though the doctrines are famiUar which it is claimed they subvert ; let them feel safe in the as- surance, that heresy always relates to a denial of doctrines, and not to the mere philosophical theories which are adopted as modes of explanation. Finally, let those who are young in the min- istry, lay it down as a principle to be adhered to during their whole life, that they will receive truth from whatever source it may be derived, and how- ever much at variance with pre-conceived opinions. Let them plant their feet upon that sure foundation of the prophets and apostles, the word of God, and attach no undue importance to creeds and confes- sions, and the commandments of men. Let them prove all things, hold fast that which is good, and contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints ; but let them not imagine that all who dif- fer from them, in philosophical opinions and theo- ries, are heretical, or laboring to bring a flood of er- ror upon the churches. Then may charity, and brotherly love, and confidence unite their hearts, and the kingdom of our Redeemer, through their instrumentality, be greatly advanced. 31 APPENDIX. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ON THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY. Sermon at the Ordination of Jared Sparks. By Wm. E. Chan- ning. Baltimore, 1819, pp- 63. Letters to Dr. Channing. By Moses Stuart. Andover, 1819, pp. 180. Letters to Unitarians. By Leonard Woods. Letters to Trinitarians and Calvinists. By Henry Ware. Cam- bridge, 1820, pp. 150. Reply to Dr. Ware. By Dr. Woods. Answer to Dr. Woods's Reply. By Dr. Ware. Cambridge, 1822, pp. 163. Letters, Reply and Remarks on Dr. Ware's answer. By Dr. Woods. Second Edition, Andover, 1822, pp. 351. Thoughts on true and false religion. By Andrews Norton. Christian Disciple, Sept. and Oct. 1820, pp. 337; also separately. Review of Erskine and Norton. By Matthew R. Dutton. Christian Spectator, May and June, 1822, p. 301. See also, pp. 445,667. Views of Calvinism. By Prof Norton. Christian Disciple, 1822, p. 224 ; also separately. Review of Norton's Views of Calvinism. By Nathaniel W. Taylor. Christian Spectator, 1823, p. 196 ; also separately. Review of Christian Spectator, probably by Rev. Mr. Walker. Christian Disciple, 1823, p. 230. Review of Christian Disciple. By Dr. Taylor, Christian Spec- tator, 1824, pp. 310, 360. Hints on Sin and Free Agency. By Prof. Stuart. Christian Spectator, 1824, p. 97. Edwards's views of Original Sin. By Dr. Taylor. Christian Spectator, 1824, p. 567. APPENDIX. 299 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ON THE NEW HAVEN CONTROVERSY. Two discourses on the Nature of Sin. By Eleazar T. Fitch. New Haven, 1826, pp. 46. Reply to the Churchman's Magazine. By Prof. Fitch. Chris- tian Spectator, 1827, p. 17. Review of Fitch's discourses. By Dr. Alexander or Dr. Green. Christian Advocate, March and April, 1837, pp. 136, 162. Inquiry into the Nature of Sin. By Prof. Fitch. New Haven, 1837, pp. 95. Concio ad Clerum. By Dr. Taylor. New Haven, 1828, pp. 38. Review of Concio. By Joseph Harvey. Hartford, 1829, pp. 40. Review of Taylor and Harvey. Christian Spectator, 1829, p. 343. Examination of the Review. By Mr. Harvey. Hartford, 1829. pp. 53. Inquiry into the Nature of Sin as exhibited in Dr. Dwight's Theology, with a notice of Mr. Harvey's last pamphlet. By Dr. Taylor. New Haven, 1829, pp. 43. Dissertation on the Means of Regeneration. By Gardiner Spring, 1827, pp. 50. Review of Spring on the Means of Regeneration. By Dr. Tay- lor. Christian Spectator, 1829, pp. 1, 209, 481, 691. Strictures on the Review. By Bennet Tyler. Portland, 1829, pp. 64. Review of Dr. Tyler's Strictures. By Dr. Taylor. Christian Spectator, 1830, p. 147. Vindication of the Strictures. By Dr. Tyler. Portland, 1830 pp. 63. Brief notice of the Vindication. By Prof. C. A. Goodrich Christian Spectator, 1830, p. 380. Letters to Nathaniel W. Taylor, D. D. By Dr. Woods. An dover, 1830, pp. 114. Review of Woods's Letters. By Dr. Taylor. Christian Spec lator, J 830, p. 540. Review of Fisk on Predestination and Election. By Prof. Fitch. Christian Spectator, 1831, p. 597. Divine Permission of Sin. By Prof Fitch. Christian Spec tator, 1832, p. 614. Divine Permission of Sin, probably by Dr. Tyler. Evangelical Magazine, June, 1833, p. 433; July, 1833, p. 1. Correspondence between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Hawes. Chris- tian Spectator, 1832, p. 171; Spirit of the Pilgrims, 1832, p. 173; also separately. Remarks on Dr. Taylor's Letter to Dr. Hawes. By Dr. Tyler. Spirit of the Pilgrims, 1832, p. 325 ; also separately. Boston, 1832, pp. 12. 300 APPENDIX. Reply to Dr. Tyler's Remarks. By Dr. Taylor. Spirit of the Pilgrims, 1832, p. 425; also separately. Boston, 1832, pp. 24. Second Article or Rejoinder. By Dr. Tyler. Spirit of the Pilgrims, 1832, pp. 508, 545. Second Reply. By Dr. Taylor. Spirit of the Pilgrims, 1832, p. 669; do. 1833, pp. 5, 65. Letter to the Editor of the Spirit of the Pilgrims. By Dr. Ty- ler, p. 2S4 ; also separately, with remarks on an article in the Christian Spectator. Portland, 1833, pp. 40. Review of Dr. Tyler's Remarks and Dr. Taylor's Reply. By Dr. Taylor, Christian Spectator, 1832, p. 456. Letter to the Editor of the Christian Spectator. By Dr. Taylor. Christian Spectator, 1833, p. 448. The real difference between the New Haven divines and those who oppose them. By Samuel R. Andrew. Christian Spectator, 1833, 657. Letters on the present state and probable results of Theologi- cal Speculations in Connecticut. Attributed to Dr. Harvey. 1832, pp. 44. Address to the Congregational Churches in Connecticut. By the same. Hartford, 1833, pp. 58. Letters from Aristarchus to Philemon. By Chauncey Lee. Hartford, 1833, pp. 221. Review of Dr. Lee's Letters. Evangelical Magazine, April, 1833, p. 375. Divine Efficiency. By Edward D. Griffin. New York and Boston, 1833, pp. 221. The Causal Power in Regeneration, direct upon the mind. By Dr. Griffin, pp. 26. Review of Divine Efficiency and Causal Power. Evangelical Magazine, Dec. 1835, p. 252. Dissertation on Native Depravity. By Dr. Spring. New York, 1833. Review of Spring on Native Depravity. By Dr. Taylor. Christian Spectator, 1833, p. 314 ; Evangelical Magazine, July, Aug. and Sept., 1833, pp. 34, 63, 123. See also, a pamphlet published in New York and recommended by Dr. Brownlee, in which Dr. Spring's opinions are handled rather roughly. Essay on Native Depravity. By Dr. Woods. Boston, 1835, pp. 230. Review of Woods on Native Depravity. Evangelical Maga- zine, Nov., 1835, p. 209. Letters on the Origin and Progress of New Haven Theology. By Dr. Tyler. New York, 1837, pp. 180. Views in Theology. By David N. Lord, passim, if any per- son is disposed to consult them. i> 938.21 C87 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ^ 0035520027 BRITTLE DO Npl! PHOTOCOPY '. /\PR ^- ijoo