► JUL 2 1968 
 
 3X7148 
 .C8T7 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV. LEONARD BACON, 
 
 IN KEPLY TO HIS ATTACK ON THE 
 
 PASTORAL UNION AND THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 / 
 By Rev. GEORGE A. CALHOUN, 
 
 Pastor of the Church in North Coventry, Conn. 
 
 HARTFORD. 
 FOR SALE BY ELIHU GEER, 26* S T AT E . ST R E E T. 
 
 HDCCCXL. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 raft. 
 LETTER I. — Occasion of the Correspondence. Letter to tlie Editor of the New Haven 
 Record. Editor's reply. The Pastoral Union arraigned for trial by Mr. Bacon. Mr. B. 
 responsible for the discussion. Striking resemblance between him and the anonymous 
 correspondent of the Record. Mr. Bacon's method of promoting harmony ; viz. by attack- 
 ing Dr. Nettleton and the Pastoral Union. . . . . . . .3 
 
 LETTER II. — General Association. Anonymous censure of its members justified by Mr. 
 B. New School Assembly. Reason of Mr. B's forgetfulness of what occurred at Dan- 
 bury. Unjust to make persons responsible for what they disclaim. Mr. B's charge of 
 Jacobinism. Sneer at the name of Edwards. Mr. B's charge of prayerful calumny 
 against the Ministers of the East Windsor Convention. . . • • T 
 
 LETTER III.— Pastoral Union. Grew out of an attempt to subvert N. E. Calvinism. Its 
 object important, its measures peaceable and Scriptural. Mr. B's protest against the Pro- 
 test, fails of disclosing "the root and essence of existing difficulties." Difference between 
 the New Haven divines and their opponents, not trifling. So thought Griffin, Cornelius, 
 and others. Mr. B's awkward apology for Dr. Taylor ; viz. The more he writes, the more 
 sure he is to be misunderstood. A luminary shedding darkness ! No apology for theolo- 
 gical error, that it springs from speculative dogmas. The most destructive heresies have 
 been defended in this way. Proof that Dr. Taylor regards the differences between new and 
 old divinity, of great importance. He represents the sentiments of the orthodox as involv- 
 ing by legitimate consequence the worst of heresies. His remedy for existing evils ; viz. 
 that the orthodox give up their principles. . . . . • • .12 
 
 LETTER IV.— Had the Pastoral Union a right to protest? This right claimed by Mr. 
 Bacon and Dr. Taylor. The N. H. divines, friends to free discussion on one side only. 
 Dr. Taylor at Philadelphia. Why the Protest was not made by the Gen. Association. If 
 the Gen. Ass. neglected their duty, no reason why the P. U. should neglect theirs. The 
 Protest. Errors specified prevail extensively. Dr. Taylor not understood ! ! ! Questions 
 answered by questions. Art. 1st. of the Protest vindicated. The error condemned relates 
 to the power of God. The real question stated. Can God so govern moral agents as to 
 secure universal holiness ? Dr. Taylor thinks the affirmative involves univcrsalism, infi- 
 delity and atheism. Evasion exposed. Dr. Griffin's opinion of this error. . . 19 
 
 LETTER V. — Art. 2d. Concerning the native character of man. The N. H. divines hold 
 that infants and brute animals, in regard to moral character, stand on the same ground. 
 Their history of an infant from birth, (a long period.) to the commencement of its native 
 depravity ! ! Propensities to sin, shown not to be innocent propensities. Infants with no 
 moral character, do not need redemption or regeneration. Dr. Emmons, Dr. Hopkins, 
 and Dr. Wood's shown not to have maintained the sentiments imputed to them by Mr. B. 
 Art 3J. The principle and end of human actions. Not strange that the language of the 
 N. II. divines should be understood to teach that every man acts from supreme self love. 
 Brainerd's alarm at this doctrine. Absurd ideas on this subject noticed by Edwards. . 27 
 
 LETTER VI.— Art. 4th. Change of heart. Dr. Taylor's account of regeneration by self- 
 love. Prof. Stuart's comment on the same. The orthodox not to be shaken by sarcasm. 
 Art. 5th. Agency of the Spirit. Mr. B's impeachment of Dr. Tyler's veracity. The doc- 
 trine of direct divine efficiency. According to the N. H. divines there is no change of 
 principle, or internal motive, in regeneration. Art. 6th. Special grace. A calumniou* 
 insinuation repelled. Mr. B. fails to sustain his views by an appeal to Dwight. . . 36 
 
 LETTER VII.— Art. 7th. Election. Equivocal language employed by those who adopt 
 the new divinity. They hold that God does not make all holy and happy, because he 
 cannot. Mr. B's disrespectful treatment of Dr. Dana. Errors subversive of the faith of 
 the churches prior to the formation of the Pastoral Union. Reminiscences of consulta- 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 tions at Andovjr in 1829 and 183Q. Dr. Wood's questions to Dr. Taylor. Mr. B. called 
 upon to answer them. Changes rung on the term ''heretic." Pastoral Union not to be 
 held responsible for what tiiey disapprove. . . . . . . .44 
 
 LETTER VIII. — Mr. B's attack on Dr. Ncttlcton. His charges shown to be groundless. 
 A brief view of Dr. N's labors from 1811 to 1822, when he was brought to the borders of 
 the grave by typhus fever. His early dissatisfaction with the N. H. theology. His convic- 
 tion of its tendency to corrupt revivals and produce spurious conversions. His expostu- 
 lations with the N. H. divines. His testimony against their errors. Means used to destroy 
 his influence. Threat to hew him down. Noted slander at Enfield examined. Dr. N's 
 labors from 1825 to 1835. His opposition to new measures. Testimonial of Drs. Beecher, 
 Hawcs, and others. .......... 52 
 
 LETTER IX.— Correspondence with the Editor of the Record. Theological Department 
 of Yale College. Alleged proceedings of the Corporation. Doubtful parentage of a cer- 
 tain anonymous document. The Theological Institute closely allied to the churches. 
 Members of the P. U. friends to Yale College. Questions touching the theological depart- 
 ment of Yale College. Its party aspect. Creeds. Why a new one was adopted by the 
 P. U. Comparison between their creed and that of the church in Y. College. Disparage- 
 ment of creeds by friends of new divinity. Why was the confession of Mr. B's church 
 altered ? Their old one not conformed to new divinity. Religious periodical press in 
 Conn. Till recently in favor of sound theology. Religious Intelligencer. Christian 
 Spectator. Connecticut Observer. Proof that there was an organized party in the State 
 before the P. U. was formed. . . . . . . . .61 
 
 LETTER X. — Tract Society. Evangelical Magazine. Conference at Hartford. Conven- 
 tion at East Windsor. How called. Constitution of P. U. and Theol. Institute. Why 
 membership by election. Corporation of Yale College. Reasons for establishing the 
 Theol. Institute. The Institute connected with the churches, . . . .71 
 
 LETTER XL— Gen. Association at Vernon. Notice of the Theological Institute. Cen- 
 sure of the Middlasex Association. Proposal to reprint the Saybrook Platform. Opposi- 
 tion to the proposal. Gen. Association at Enfield. Reply to Mr. B's questions. P. U. not 
 formed for the purpore of "putting down" any of their brethren. New school does not 
 embrace a majority of pastors in the State. Alleged tendency of the P. U. to division. 
 Extract of a letter to Dr. Sprague. Extract from Dr. Tyler's Inaugural Address. What 
 ought to be done ? . . . , , t , t m .80 
 
 N. B. The letters of Mr. Bacon, to which the following are a reply, first appeared in the New 
 Haven Record, but have since been published in a pamphlet. The "first eight of these letters 
 were also published in the same paper. The remainder are now for the first time given to the 
 public. The reasons why they have not appeared in the Record, will be stated at the beginning 
 of the ninth letter. 
 
Uttttv *♦ 
 
 Rev. Leonard Bacon, — 
 
 Dear Sir — In your letters addressed to me, through the medium of the 
 Record, you have taken such an extensive range, and introduced so many and 
 various topics to the consideration of your readers, that it seems needful we 
 should return to the immediate occasion of this discussion. And for this pur- 
 pose I introduce the following letters. 
 
 " To the Editor of the New Haven Record. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — It appears that a correspondent of your paper, in the number 
 issued the next after the late meeting of the General Association of Connec- 
 ticut, has professed to give an account of the discussion which occurred in the 
 Association, on the reception of delegates from the General Assembly of the 
 Presbyterian Church. I have read with deep regret portions of that article, 
 which have been quoted by the New York Evangelist, and the Connecticut 
 Observer. Will you be so good, Sir, as to send me a copy of the number of 
 your paper containing that article? And I shall be obliged, if you will in- 
 form me whether, (if it should be desired,) a reply to that article, with the 
 name of the writer, can be inserted in the Record, on the condition, that it shall 
 not be answered, except with the name of the person answering it. 
 
 As you must be fully aware, Sir, your correspondent has not only brought 
 against me and the worthy brethren who voted with me in the General Asso- 
 ciation, very serious accusations, but he has thrown out insinuations calculated 
 to prejudice the public mind against the Theological Institute of Connecticut, 
 I think the cause of Christ demands that the writer of that communication 
 should be known, that there may be, (should it be judged expedient,) a private 
 correspondence with him. Will you inform me who wrote that article ? I 
 should have written you, on this subject, at an earlier date, but did not know, 
 till recently, that such an account of the discussion in the General Association 
 had been published. " I am yours respectfully, 
 
 " GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 
 " Coventry, July 26, 1839." 
 
 " New Haven, July 30, 1839. 
 " Rev. George A. Calhoun, — 
 
 " Dear Sir — Yours of the 26th was duly received. With this, in reply, 
 I shall at the same time put in the mail the No. of the Record which you re- 
 quested might be sent, together with the No. for last week, which contains a 
 reply to some remarks in the Congregationalist. I entertain the hope, that, 
 after seeing the whole of the first article, together with the explanations in 
 the second, you will find that it is not what you have supposed it to be. If, 
 however, it should appear to you that there is in the account any mis-state- 
 ment of facts, or any misrepresentation injurious to yourself, or those who 
 
4 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 acted with you at the meeting of the Association, I shall most willingly pub- 
 lish any correction which you may think necessary. Or, if you should wish 
 to make a statement of the views under which you acted, in pursuing the 
 course you did, I should not object to having the Record made the medium of 
 such explanation. Any communication confined to these objects, and within 
 reasonable bounds as to length, will be cheerfully inserted. 
 
 " I am authorized by the writer of the article in question to say, that if a 
 reply, with the name of the writer, should be published in the Record, he 
 would not answer it except under his own name, if desired ; and if, after 
 reading the articles already published, you should think it best to have a pri- 
 vate correspondence with him, his name will be given for that purpose, at 
 your request. For myself, I shall endeavor to do whatever impartial justice 
 may require in the case, and should certainly be very loth to be any way un- 
 necessarily the means of aggravating the disagreement which unhappily ex- 
 ists among the ministers and churches of our denomination in this State. 
 " Respectfully yours, 
 
 "SAMUEL PORTER, 
 
 " Editor of the New Haven Record." 
 
 The restriction imposed on me, to confine my communication to the cor- 
 rection of " mis-statement of facts," " misrepresentation injurious," and to an 
 explanation " of the views under which I acted " in the Association, I did not 
 consider unreasonable, nor was it unwelcome. I suppose, that while the Ed- 
 itor of the Record would " endeavor to do whatever impartial justice might 
 require in the case," he designed to prevent his paper from becoming the me- 
 dium of a protracted, agitating, and painful controversy ; and that he would 
 by no means suffer it to be the instrument of attack on a large body of Pas- 
 tors of Connecticut churches, or institutions dear to many of the friends of 
 God, and on private character. The course which I thought he was marking 
 out for himself, I highly approved. 
 
 As a member of the Pastoral Union, I should rejoice to have a knowledge 
 of the formation of that body, and of all their subsequent acts, diffused through 
 the land. And notwithstanding the intimations you have given to the 
 contrary, none of their proceedings have been concealed from the public view. 
 And though they dispute your authority, on Congregational principles, to ar- 
 raign them for trial, putting " questions " to them " earnestly," and demand- 
 ing " uneqivocal answers "; yet, I am persuaded, they would esteem it a 
 privilege to have their conduct more extensively and correctly understood by 
 the Christian public. But to me the present appears to be an unfavorable 
 time for commencing a newspaper discussion, of the character of the one now 
 begun, which of course will be but a review and revival of the controversies 
 of our denomination for fifteen years past, and may in the result increase, 
 rather than diminish, existing difficulties. Aside from theological differences, 
 the ministry and the churches are agitated with various and weighty topics of 
 public interest ; the influence of the Holy Spirit, as manifested in the convic- 
 tion and conversion of sinners, is in a great measure withdrawn, and the stand- 
 ard of practical religion is quite depressed : could not this debate, on subjects 
 so various and exciting, have been avoided ? At least, could it not have been 
 confined principally to "the schools," and found only on the pages of quarterly 
 periodicals, and not have been introduced to the consideration of all the read- 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 5 
 
 ers of a religious newspaper? That there are differences existing between 
 the Congregational ministers and churches of Connecticut, and differences 
 which many great, good and holy men believe to be radical, can not be de- 
 nied. In this respect the frowns of God are upon us, and we have reason to 
 fear that evils which these differences have produced, will not be remedied 
 for generations to come. Yet could not this discussion have been avoided ? 
 Brethren of the New Haven school, will doubtless continue to take their own 
 course in promulgating their peculiar sentiments, and they, who do not harmon- 
 ize with them in theological views, will probably continue to feel, that they 
 must obey the dictates of their consciences. And why could we not suffer 
 it thus to be, without the disturbance, which the present discussion must pro- 
 duce ? 
 
 The correspondent of the Record, in giving his account of the proceedings 
 of the General Association at Danbury, must needs anonymously attack, (and # 
 in the judgment of disinterested persons, and persons too whose theological 
 sympathies are with him.) severely attack, members of that body. As one of 
 the oldest thus assailed, in self-defence, and in defence of the worthy brethren 
 who acted with me, I considered it my duty, with my name annexed, to cor- 
 rect the mistakes of that writer. And you, my brother, came forward with 
 great promptness — even before my manuscript was published — not only to 
 justify that attack, but to seize on the occasion which it offered, for arraigning 
 before the public all the members of the Pastoral Union ; and to secure the 
 attention, and to interest the feelings of all the Congregational ministers of 
 Connecticut, I understand copies of the Record, containing your letters, were 
 forwarded to them gratuitously. In your first letter, you say : " The occa- 
 sion seems to me favorable for commencing a discussion, which I hope will be 
 conducted not only with mutual kindness and good temper, but with an earnest 
 desire on both sides to remove misunderstanding, and unite the ministers of 
 Connecticut more strongly than ever, in those ties which seem in danger of 
 disruption." And in the second letter you say : " I ask these questions, (res- 
 pecting the Pastoral Union,) because I think it high time they were asked 
 earnestly, and answered unequivocally. I ask these questions, because I fear 
 that some of the founders and leaders of that organization have not sufficient- 
 ly considered what they are doing." 
 
 And now, Dear Sir, in however many particulars we may entertain 
 different views, in this one we are surely agreed ; that you have assumed the 
 responsibility of commencing this discussion. And should it result in restor- 
 ing to the ministry and churches even of Connecticut former agreement in 
 sentiment, holy living, and harmonious action, you shall be recognized as an 
 honored instrument in the hand of God. On the other hand, if it should oc- 
 casion an unprofitable diversion of our brethren in the ministry from their 
 appropriate work in winning souls to Chrst ; if it should agitate and distress 
 the churches more than they have yet been agitated and distressed ; if it 
 should inflict wounds on individuals and augment existing alienations ; if it 
 should contribute to the accomplishment of that disruption of which you 
 speak : you must not shrink from an endurance of the weighty and solemn 
 responsibility which you have assumed. This discussion was not commenced 
 by the " East Windsor brethren," and if the peace of the ministry and the 
 churches is more disturbed in consequence of it, they must not be represented 
 as disturbers of the peace. And it will be borne in mind, that it was not com- 
 menced by myself. So far from desiring a newspaper debate of this descrip- 
 tion, it is but recently that I was constrained to feel it my duty to make any 
 
fl LETTERS TO THE 
 
 reply to the Letters addressed to me. And allow me to state, that for the 
 reply which I make, I am alone responsible. 1 am not authorized to write as 
 the organ of the Pastoral Union, and desire that no one but myself be held 
 accountable for what I communicate. 
 
 If it is indeed "high time that questions" respecting the Pastoral Union 
 " were asked earnestly, and answered unequivocally ;" I rejoice that we 
 have the name of the interrogator, though his signature should give much 
 additional influence to his communications. This is as it should be. The per- 
 son, who accuses publicly should make himself known to the public, and to 
 the public stand accountable for his accusations. And permit me to inquire, 
 would it not have been more honorable had the correspondent of the Record 
 published his name with his censures of his brethren '( And when he was in- 
 formed, that he had given offence, and that his name was requested ; had he 
 • allowed it to be published without delay, would it not have been more con- 
 sonant with the precepts of the Gospel and a Christian spirit, than to have 
 authorized the Editor to say : " Should you think best to have a private 
 correspondence with him, his name will be given for that purpose at your re- 
 quest." You, sir, inform me, " you shall not put yourself in the place of the 
 correspondent of the Record." And I shall not put you there. But your 
 very prompt, and efficient efforts to sustain him — justifying him in every par- 
 ticular, except the selection of one word — and the striking resemblance be- 
 tween him and yourself in style of writing, in remembrance of facts, in sen- 
 timents, in sympathy are such ; you will pardon me, if through inadvertence, 
 I should fail to distinguish in all cases the productions of the one from those of 
 the other. 
 
 The hope has been expressed, that this discussion might be " conducted not 
 only with mutual kindness and good temper, but with an earnest desire on 
 both sides to remove misunderstanding." To me it is doubtful whether this 
 hope will be realized. Persons conducting such discussions are strongly 
 tempted to the exercise and expression of unkindness and ill-temper. And 
 should it be judged, that you have been delivered from the temptation thus 
 far, you surely would have occasion for gratitude. How I shall succeed in 
 this particular, I cannot predict, much less promise. 1 am not like yourself, 
 accustomed to the circumstances in which I am placed, as I have never ap- 
 peared before the public in the character of a controversialist. And you are 
 aware that your communications have presented an unpleasant aspect to the 
 persons against whom they were directed, and that the author of them was 
 not in so great danger of irritation, as the person is, who answers them. 
 And should I err in some small degree by manifesting a wounded spirit, I beg 
 that, among others, the following provocations may bo duly considered. 
 
 1. The Rev. Asahel Nettleton is a brother with whom I have long been inti- 
 mately acquainted ; for whom, on account of his knowledge of the revealed will 
 of God and the character of the human heart, I have great, respect ; — in whose 
 judgment in religious concerns, prudence, conscientious regard to principle. 
 and self-denying spirit I have great confidence ; and who is highly esteemed 
 by those who harmonize with him in their views of divine truth. That minis- 
 ter of Jesus Christ, that friend endeared to me by many considerations, you 
 have held up to public view, as the great agitator of the Congregational and 
 Presbyterian denominations, the preeminent disturber of the peace of Zion. 
 "Whether one member suffer all the members suffer with it." Must not the 
 friends and brethren of Mr. Nettleton feel the wound ? 
 
 2. In August last, friends and patrons of the Theological Institute, to aid 
 
UKV. LEO.\ARU BACOX 
 
 that Seminary, commenced the enterprise of raising fitly thousand dollars. 
 Success exceeded their expectations. And no sooner was the project, and 
 the favor with which it was countenanced, announced to the public, than you 
 was led to " think it high time these questions (relating to the Pastoral Union 
 to whom the Institute belongs,) were asked earnestly and answered unequiv- 
 ocally." Is not this a singular interference ? When it was resolved to raise 
 one hundred thousand dollars for the benefit of Yale College, would the 
 friends of that institution have been pleased with a like interference ? When- 
 ever Amherst College, or the Theological Seminary at Andover, have appeal- 
 ed to the public for pecuniary aid, has there been a like interference ? When 
 Williams College and Amherst College, were somewhat rival institutions, did 
 one thus interfere with the concerns of the other ? And when the friends of 
 the Theological Department in Yale College, a few years since, were about to 
 raise funds for the use of that department, did members of the Pastoral Union 
 just then " think it high time," through the medium of the press, " to ask ques- 
 tions earnestly and demand that they be answered unequivocally "? If in this 
 or future communications, you should discover some indication of feeling, or 
 some expression of severity, pardon the offence, and believe me as ever, 
 
 Your friend and brother, 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 Coventry, November 19, 1839. 
 
 Hetter O- 
 
 j) ear Si r _ It is feared that a new era in the history of the General Asso- 
 ciation of Connecticut commenced last June. Though " the Norfolk Resolu- 
 tions " which were drafted by Br. Beecher, introduced by yourself, and 
 passed and published by the Association in 1836, were severely censured by 
 some presses in this country and in Great Britain ; never before this year, to 
 my knowledge, were members of that body selected, and for their delibera- 
 tions and actions made the objects of a partial and public animadversion. And 
 are our brethren hereafter, when they act in the Association, to have their 
 liberty of free discussion abridged by the presence of anonymous writers, who 
 will color and publish for party purposes what is said ? It is doubted whether 
 a person for any purpose possesses a right, without permission, to communi- 
 cate to the public the acts, much less the debates of a clerical or ecclesiastical 
 body • especially of one, who themselves publish their proceedings. The 
 communications of the correspondent of the Record respecting the meeting at 
 Danbury have caused much evil. They have, without any apparent benefit, 
 deeply wounded a large number of the ministers of this State. And though 
 the correspondent may say, " the conduct of the East-Windsor brethren in 
 the late General Association does not look well on paper ; hence this dissatis- 
 faction with the narrative which I thought it my duty to give ;" yet the 
 wound is not so easily healed. And, in my opinion, great injustice has been 
 experienced by the General Association collectively in consequence of these 
 anonymous articles ; and still more, Sir, by your justification of them. On 
 reading what has been recently published respecting the late meetings of the 
 General Association, especially of the one in June last ; what must persons 
 unacquainted with the facts in the case, think of the Congregational ministers 
 
8 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 of Connecticut ? What must be their impressions respecting our annual meet- 
 ings, and of our qualifications of heart to perform the solemn services allotted 
 us as ministers of Jesus Christ ? 
 
 Although there are, unhappily, great differences between us ; although I 
 can not, after the sober reflection of months, approve of the course pursued 
 by the majority, or of expressions employed by some members ; yet I rejoice 
 in saying that, in no deliberative assembly engaged in animated debate, 
 have I ever witnessed more Christian courtesy, or less in manner which was 
 censurable And as I have an opportunity for defending myself, and those 
 who acted with me, from unmerited reproach ; so I feel myself bound to 
 express great respect and esteem for those brethren, who strenuously opposed 
 what I deemed the better way ; and to assert that our discussions have not 
 diminished, but, in relation to individuals, increased that respect and esteem. 
 The General Association of Connecticut, though painfully divided, and now 
 perhaps in some danger of being rent asunder, has thus far exhibited a char- 
 acter, in most respects worthy of imitation. And since so much has been 
 injuriously published relating to the meeting at Danbury ; were I sure my 
 " silence would not be construed into acquiescence," I would pass without 
 notice what you have written on that subject. In replying to your First 
 Letter, therefore, I do not expect to occupy much time or space respecting 
 that meeting ; and hence I shall omit statements which might be corrected. 
 
 In' the account of the discussion in the meeting at Danbury, which you, 
 sir, volunteered to defend, the minority of the Association were accused of 
 "resisting to the utmost the least act of courtesy toward the body represented 
 by Dr. Cox ;" and this too when they were desirous he should sit and delib- 
 erate in the Association as a corresponding member, and had united with oth- 
 ers in giving him the invitation. In defence of this serious and groundless 
 accusation you say : " The invitation to Dr. Cox to sit with the Association 
 as a corresponding member, was in my judgment at the time a frivolous thing." 
 But in the decision of this question whose judgment is to be regarded 1 — 
 Yours, or that of the Association ? In their judgment it was not " a frivolous 
 thing." They do not allow themselves to be engaged in what they consider 
 " frivolous things." The invitation was moved by one of the majority, and 
 it was designed to be an act of courtesy toward Dr. Cox and the body 
 which he represented ; and the Association were harmonious and cheerful in 
 voting it. 
 
 So soon as the minority discovered in the majority symptoms of a disposi- 
 tion to treat in all respects, and in view of all the circumstances of the case 
 both Assemblies alike, and conduct in a way, which it was hoped would be 
 offensive to neither ; they conceded. — In opposition to this declaration you 
 assert : " That the fact was, those resolutions were opposed by one of the 
 most active in the minority expressly on the ground that they did treat both 
 assemblies alike." Were this the fact, it would not disprove the correctness 
 of the declaration. The argument of an individual, during a protracted dis- 
 cussion, would not decide what was the action of the minority. But I am 
 much mistaken if you have not erred in stating the fact. In 1838 the Asso- 
 ciation as " usual appointed three Delegates to the General Assembly, 
 with instructions to attend its session, provided the General Assembly shall 
 have been previously ascertained by a legal decision." Mr. Cleaveland of 
 New-Haven to whom you doubtless refer, expressed his belief that, the Gen- 
 eral Assembly had been ascertained by a legal decision. And he also stated 
 the opinion of an eminent jurist of this State that, " the Presbyterian case" 
 
UEV. LEONARD BACON. V 
 
 xvould not 1x5 farther prosecuted. He hence opposed the resolutions because 
 they did not treat both Assemblies alike, when consistency with the course 
 adopted in 1838, would demand a recognition ol' the old school as the General 
 Assembly. It would be strange indeed, sir, if the minority could not deter- 
 mine as accurately their principles of action as one, who was a mere " spec- 
 tator of the proceedings at Banbury." 
 
 You say : " In the third specification, the words which you have under- 
 scored are words of which I have no recollection." — "As to the [fourth] 
 specification, the only circumstance not distinctly mentioned in the first article 
 which appeared in the Record, is that two of the majority declared they would 
 abandon the Association forever, if the minority were permitted to record 
 their dissent. I do not clearly remember what you refer to." As you have, 
 in the one case no recollection, and in the other not a clear remembrance ; 
 probably you was absent when the words referred to were uttered. It is 
 doubted, therefore, whether you can so well understand their import, as can 
 persons who heard and recollected them. 
 
 You ask me : " Were the minority oppressed ? Was any one of their 
 rights infringed I Were they denied the privilege of entering a protest ? 
 Was there any cote that the yeas and nays should not be taken V — No wil- 
 lingness to grant the minority the privilege of entering a protest was express- 
 ed. After the adoption of the resolutions, the vote was reconsidered, " in 
 order to make room for a proposal to take the question by yeas and nays." 
 A long and animated debate ensued, during which two members of the major- 
 ity declared distinctly, they would abandon the Association forever, if the 
 minority were permitted to record their dissent. And the privilege was de- 
 nied the minority by a vote, if I mistake not, of sixteen to twelve. By that 
 vote they felt themselves oppressed, and that their rights were infringed. I 
 did not favor a reconsideration of the vote adopting the resolutions, because I 
 preferred to the record of the yeas and nays a protest, in which we might 
 state the reasons of our dissent, and which, if it was not permitted to be pub- 
 lished in the Minutes of the Association, we might dispose of according to our 
 pleasure. It was easy to perceive, that there would be more objections, on 
 the part of the majority to a protest, than to a record of yeas and nays. 
 
 But, sir, I have yet to learn, what are the real objections to taking the yeas 
 and nays on important questions, when properly demanded, in the Associa- 
 tion more than in other deliberative assemblies. And I do not fully under- 
 stand why brethren who feel and act with you, are so sensitive whenever the 
 subject is introduced. Majorities must govern ; but have minorities no rights? 
 Must they at all events be made accountable to the public for sentiments and 
 practices which they conscientiously oppose ? They have rights, and these 
 rights are protected in well organized civil and ecclesiastical bodies. And 
 one of the rights specified is that of recording their dissent on important ques- 
 tions. And does our Association alone possess the right of passing resolutions, 
 and publishing them abroad, and making large minorities, who are in con- 
 science opposed to such resolutions, responsible for them? Were Abolition- 
 ists to constitute a majority of the Association, and adopt resolutions denun- 
 ciatory of the Colonization Society ; would Colonizationists, who composed a 
 large minority, and who opposed these resolutions, believe they had no rights 
 infringed by being made responsible for them to the public? Were the Gen- 
 eral Association of Connecticut, at their meeting in your church next June, to 
 adopt resolutions denouncing the Theological Department of Yale College, 
 and the Pastor of the First Church in New-Haven, as heretical and unworthy 
 
10 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 of confidence, and publish these resolutions, as if they were their unanimous 
 decision, while a large minority opposed their adoption ; is there not one man 
 who would feel himself oppressed, and let the world know it, if he were not 
 allowed to record his dissent ? Would Rev. Leonard Bacon, as one of that 
 minority, and in such circumstances, tell us that voting by yeas and nays was 
 " unprovided for by the wisdom of those fathers who formed the rules of 
 order"? — (and formed them when there was not a religious newspaper in 
 existence, when they did not publish their proceedings, and when they trans- 
 acted the business of the Association perhaps in the parlor or study of a 
 brother.) — " that it was contrary to the genius and habits of our ecclesiasti- 
 cal meetings, which operate by conference and debate, rather than by vote"? 
 — " that the reasons which exist for such a practice in legislative and repre- 
 sentative bodies, do not exist in the General Association"? — and "that the 
 only tendency of such a system, when introduced, must be to draw a public 
 line of demarkation between parties, and to make each man publicly responsi- 
 ble to his copartizans"? Would you, Sir, in these circumstances, employ 
 such reasoning as this against an imperious demand of justice ? It is wrong, 
 it is oppressive, to make persons responsible to the public for sentiments, and 
 practices not their own ; and much more so to make them thus responsible for 
 sentiments and practices which they have conscientiously opposed. And men 
 who fear God will not long silently submit to such injustice. 
 
 I regret to find in your letter the following respecting Mr. S. of the Wind- 
 ham Association. 
 
 " You say that this good brother, whom I have known and loved for nearly 
 twenty years, is one of the last men who should be compared with a Jacobin 
 legislator. True he is one of the last men of whom such a thing would have 
 been expected. But if good men and modest men act like Jacobin legisla- 
 tors, is there any wrong in saying so ? " — " When I saw that good and ami- 
 able brother stand up to read his 'instructions,' I was ashamed ; and I have 
 yet to learn that the correspondent of the Record was guilty of any misrep- 
 resentation in intimating that by that act the brother, and those who had 
 instructed him, were sanctioning and applying to our ecclesiastical affairs, one 
 of the most dangerous principles of political Jacobinism." — " The Windham 
 Association did not merely express their opinion, they instructed their dele- 
 gates how to vote. ' Instruct' was the word. I felt it like a wound." 
 
 In 1838 the General Association, as " usual appointed three delegates to 
 the General Assembly, with instructions to attend its sessions, &c." Who 
 first sanctioned and applied " to our ecclesiastial affairs one of the most dan- 
 gerous principles of political Jacobinism" ? You, my brother, was present at 
 Norwalk when delegates were appointed " with instructions to attend its 
 sessions," &c." Was you not ashamed ? And when you have read in the 
 minutes of the General Association the word " instructions" have you not felt 
 it like a wound ? Yet the public have not heard of your shame and wound, 
 which this transaction occasioned. 
 
 This public attack upon Mr. S. and those who commissioned him. has 
 lately been brought before the Windham Association, and in a free conversation, 
 they unitedly, and without distinction of party, condemned it as a misrepre- 
 sentation of their conduct, and ill treatment of their delegate. 
 
 But what was the high offence committed ? Why, the Windham Associ- 
 ation with great unanimity, adopted a resolution expressing their deliberate 
 judgment, that it would be for the peace of our churches to nave the corres- 
 pondence between the General Association and both branches of the Presbv- 
 
RKV. LEONARD BACON. 1 I 
 
 terian Church by interchange of delegates, suspended until the differences in 
 the latter denomination were farther adjusted. Mr. S., their delegate, as he 
 accorded in judgment with the brethren of his Association, advocated the sus- 
 pension of the correspondence with ability and meekness. But alluding to 
 this resolution of his Association, he happened to say, instructed, instead 
 of saying, requested. His old friend, brother in Christ, and brother 
 in the ministry, who had "known him and loved him for nearly twenty 
 years," sitting as a spectator in some part of the house, " was ashamed ;" and 
 he felt the word instruct, •' like a wound." Mr. 8. by the use of that word, 
 and his Association were " sanctioning and applying to our ecclesiastical 
 affairs one of the most dangerous principles of political Jacobinism." And in 
 a religions newspaper, and by a ministerial brother, who had known him and 
 loved him so lung, he is published as acting like a Jacobin legislator. 
 
 You ask me: " If good men and modest men act like Jacobin legislators, is 
 there any wrong in saying so ?" Had Mr. S. conducted as you represent, and 
 had you, ashamed and wounded as you was, reproved him in private, there 
 would have been no wrong in the case ; and doubtless satisfaction would 
 have been gained. " If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell 
 him his fault between t/iee and him alone.'' But after a considerable period 
 was spent in his presence at Danbury, an article was deliberately prepared 
 and published, in which he is compared with a Jacobin legislator. Is this 
 right ? Is this in accordance with the spirit. or precepts of the gospel? Who, 
 according to your representation of his conduct, has committed the greater 
 offence 1 Who has introduced into our ecclesiastical affairs a principle most 
 dangerous ? I am persuaded, sir, that this act of yours is not in accordance 
 with your preaching, nor in accordance with your gene?'al conduct. 
 
 Your defence of what you are pleased to call a " playful allusion to a little 
 piece of folly perpetrated by the Pastoral Union," while it exhibits a rare tact 
 at self-defence, contains some things quite exceptionable. Can you believe 
 that * the Pastoral Union to link the name and perhaps the spirit of Edwards 
 forever with the institution which they were founding, sought out the old door 
 step of the house in which Jonathan Edwards' father lived, and laid it with 
 solemn pomp as the corner stone of their building " ? This you assert without 
 qualification : but by what way you ascertained the alleged fact, or on what 
 authority you make the assertion, we are not informed. 
 
 I would not err in my interpretation of the following sentence. 
 
 " You can tell perhaps whether there was any thing of that devout and 
 prayerful calumny in the convention six years ago, of which you speak so 
 fervently." — Am I to understand you as intimating to the public that, the 
 forty ministers, who composed the convention at East- Windsor six years ago, 
 hypocritically engaged in devotional services for the guilty and base purpose 
 of calumniating their brethren more effectually ? Has the time come, when 
 the earnest supplications of Congregational ministers in Connecticut are rep- 
 resented as a cover to calumny ; not by an infidel, or a scoffer ; but by a 
 distinguished minister of Christ — the Pastor of the first Church in New- Ha- 
 ven ? I am unwilling to put the obvious construction on that passage of your 
 letter, and I lament that, in your haste and party zeal, such a sentence should 
 have fallen from your pen. t 
 
 You inform inc. that 1 spoke "in the name of the minority," and that I 
 undertook " to represent their actual sentiments towards what is called the 
 new school Assembly." — Of this I was not acquainted till the receipt of your 
 First letter. And did I possess all the qualifications for that service, which 
 
12 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 you ascribe to md, 1 should not attempt such a representation. I said what- 
 ever may have been their views and feelings on these and cognate subjects 
 relating to the controversy in the Presbyterian Church, &c. It is possible 
 vou arc acquainted with writers, who sometimes put the construction which 
 suits them best on paragraphs of their opponents, and then say : "If we mis- 
 understand you here', we pray you to correct us." 
 
 While I have found in your Letter before me some things unpleasant and 
 even painful ; I rejoice in the opportunity of reciprocating the delight you 
 express in its last paragraph. — Let me conclude," you observe, " by saying 
 how much I am gratified by the closing sentence of your letter. You are in 
 principle opposed to anonymous articles, except of a specific character. 
 Good ! How long have you been grounded on that principle ?" — For a long 
 period. Even before the earliest date to which you refer, I have "been so 
 grounded on that principle " that, I have never written one anonymous article 
 attacking the character or wounding the feelings of persons. During my 
 whole life I have never written even an anonymous letter. Can you say the 
 same, my brother ? That you can scarcely express the gratification you feel, 
 on account of this principle which I have adopted, affords me great pleasure 
 for two reasons. 
 
 1. I had supposed myself to be very much alone in the adoption of this 
 principle. 
 
 2. It was supposed that you was accustomed to this mode of warfare, 
 and was quite expert in wielding its weapons. But you are now with me. 
 And being " grounded on that principle," and acting in accordance with it, I 
 trust your usefulness will be much increased. Hereafter there will be annexed 
 to articles of your authorship no fictitious signatures ; but Leonard Bacon, a 
 name of which its owner need not be ashamed. 
 
 I am affectionately your brother, 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 Coventry, December 6, 1839. 
 
 H e 1 1 1 v X IE I ♦ 
 
 Dear Sir, — " What is the Pastoral Union ? Wliat is its design ? What 
 are its operations ? To what results is U tending ? — The answers which you 
 have given to these questions, as you predicted, arc not satisfactory. 
 They arc far, it is believed, from making a correct impression on the minds of 
 your readers. And had you not intimated to the contrary, I should have sup- 
 posed them designed to sever for ever the clerical and ecclesiastical relations 
 existing between the Congregational ministers and churches of this State. 
 According to your representations, on the part of the friends of" New Haven 
 theology " there have been no errors in doctrine or in practice. All have 
 been as they should be, except that there has been too long delay in the pub- 
 lication of a treatise "on the nature of mind and of moral agency, &c." 
 "Vj^ule on the other side there has been manifested, from the beginning, a con- 
 timiacious spirit, which has urged on its possessors in a uniform course of un- 
 christian and dishonorable conduct. Will such a representation "tend to unite 
 the ministers of Connecticut more strongly than ever in those ties which 
 seem in some danger of disrepution." 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 13 
 
 When the Pastoral Union was organized I was present, and I have taken a 
 part in all the deliberations of that body. And to the four questions which 
 you have made the prominent topics of your letters, I will give brief answers 
 which, it is believed, will be approved by those who are best acquainted with 
 the facts, and which will be sanctioned at the great day. 
 
 1. What is the Pastoral Vnioti ? — It is an association of ministers in Con- 
 necticut, who maintain the doctrines of the Fathers of New England, and who 
 arc dissatisfied with the recent speculations by which the peace and harmony 
 of the churches have been disturbed. 
 
 2. What is its design ? — Its design is to secure union and concert among 
 the friends of New England Galvanism, and in this way to promote the cause 
 of truth, and the interests of Christ's kingdom-. 
 
 3. What arc its operations ? — By- the Pastoral Union the Trustees of the 
 Theological Institute are annually appointed. It also exercises a general su- 
 pervision over the concerns of the Institute, appoints annually a committee 
 to attend the examinations, receives their report, and also a report from the 
 Trustees ; — and deliberates on the best means of promoting the interests of 
 the .Seminary. The Pastoral Union, also, like other clerical and ecclesiastical 
 bodies, attends to such other business, relating to the kingdom of Christ, as 
 may from time to time be brought before it. 
 
 4. To what results is it tending ? — The results of other organizations, and 
 the perversion of the original design of other institutions, admonish us not to 
 speak with too much confidence in answer to this question. We cannot look 
 into futurity. If those who belong to the Pastoral Union, had not believed 
 that the results". would be favorable to truth and righteousness, they would not 
 have joined it. And if they did not still believe it tended to good results, 
 they would doubtless abandon it. But, so far as I know, there is no disposi- 
 tion on the part of members to forsake it. They express their belief that it 
 has already accomplished great good ; and that Providence designs it to be a 
 blessing to the church in future ages. 
 
 And now where is the offence in organizing the Pastoral Union ? For five 
 or six years after the New Haven divines commenced the discussion in which 
 you say " the Pastoral Union appears to have originated, I avoided expressing 
 an opinion on the subject, and in the small circle of my influence, I did all in 
 my power to quiet alarm and prevent division ; indulging the groundless hope, 
 that the controversy would cease before it would be allowed to agitate the 
 churches. And it was not till it had been brought, by the preachers of the 
 New Haven School, sustained by the Christian Spectator, into our ministers' 
 meeting, into my pulpit, into my bible-class, and to my fire-side, and was so 
 enforced upon me that I coukl not remain silent longer, that I manifested my 
 dissatisfaction. Interest, predilection, and every extrinsic consideration, dis- 
 posed me to hope and believe, that nothing dangerous was advocated in the 
 new sentiments, and that no party organization existed, until evidence to the con- 
 trary as indisputable as it was painful, was pressed upon me. And so soon as I 
 disclosed ray dissatisfaction with the new theological views which were urged 
 upon the Christian community in all directions, and my regret on account of 
 the course pursued at. New Haven, an extraneous influence was exerted, 
 which was well calculated to diminish my peace and usefulness with the peo- 
 ple of my charge, and in the vicinity where I dwell. And thus it was with 
 many of the ministers whom you censure so severely. They were not allowed 
 to retain their views of divine truth, and discharge their ministerial duties, as in 
 former years, without intefcrence from abroad. And convinced as they were 
 
14 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 that sentiments subversive of the faith of the Fathers were inculcated with 
 great zeal and efficiency,and that there existed,to all intents and purposes, a pow- 
 erful organization, with many facilities for promulgating their sentiments, and 
 revolutionizing the churches ; might they not attempt to secure union and 
 concert among the friends of New England Calvinism, and in this way en- 
 deavor to promote the cause of truth and the interests of Christ's kingdom ? 
 By thus doing, whose privileges have they invaded ? Whose commands have 
 they disobeyed ? Have they not a right to think, to speak, and to act for 
 themselves ? Have Congregational ministers more than one Master ? If 
 these convictions were according to truth, on being thus convicted, were they 
 not solemnly bound to adopt measures for defending " the faith once delivered 
 to the saints "'? And if the peace of the ministry and of the churches is 
 disturbed, who are responsible for this consequence, they, or their opponents ? 
 
 Dear Sir, allow me to say here, what I may hereafter attempt to prove, 
 that, notwithstanding your individual, protracted, and solemn protest against 
 the " Protest of the Pastoral Union," you have not yet come " to the root and 
 essence of our existing difficulties." The great questions to be settled, before 
 harmony can be restored to the ministers of this State, are : 1. Previous to 
 the organization of the Pastor-al Union, were there not sentiments inculcated 
 and promulgated, which were believed to be subversive of the established faith 
 of our churches ? — 2. Did there not, previous to that period, exist in this State, 
 to all intents and purposes, a powerful organization with many facilities for 
 the promulgation of those sentiments and the revolution of the churches 1 As 
 you earnestly desire that misunderstanding may be removed, you will permit 
 me to occupy some time and space in relation to these questions. 
 
 " For half a century," you truly say, ; ' the Congregational ministers of 
 Connecticut had been a remarkably united and harmonious body." Soon af- 
 ter, you observe, " such was the state of things before the commencement 
 of the discussion in which the Pastoral Union appears to have originated." 
 From these declarations, may we not infer, that our existing difficulties orig- 
 inated in the peculiar sentiments of the New Haven school ? and that the 
 Congregational ministers of Connecticut might have remained the same " uni- 
 ted and harmonious body," had not the instructors of that school, adopted new 
 theological opinions, and urged them upon the religious community, to the 
 great dissatisfaction of many ministers of the Congregational and Presbyterian 
 denominations. Such ministers regarded the theological views of these men 
 as differing widely from those maintained by " the orthodox," (this is the appel- 
 lation which you have given us,) and they were alarmed. But you think 
 there was no occasion for this alarm, and, in your examination of the senti- 
 ments against which the Pastoral Union protested, you represent the differ- 
 ences between the New Haven divines and their opponents as relating to 
 philosophical speculations which are of no great importance, If it is so, " I 
 ask earnestly," and I pray that I may be " answered unequivocally," why are 
 these peculiar views inculcated and promulgated with so much zeal and effi- 
 ciency, and to the hazard of such weighty and solemn interests ? A full and 
 satisfactory answer to this inquiry, would afford a grateful relief to many 
 minds. 
 
 It is well known, that your brethren of the Pastoral Union, ministers in all 
 the New England States, in all parts of our country, and in Europe, regard 
 these differences as relating to matters of vital consequence : among these 
 ministers there are not a few distinguished theologians. How were these 
 speculations regarded by such men as Dr. Ebenezer Porter, Dr. Griffin, Dr. 
 
HEY. LEONARD BACON. 15 
 
 Hyde, and Dr. Cornelius, while they were living ? They were not permitted 
 to die, till they had publicly and solemnly testified against them. Dr. Porter, 
 not long before he was taken to heaven, expressed it as his deliberate opin- 
 ion, that it would require one hundred years to repair the wastes which these 
 speculations were bringing upon our Zion. Dr. Griffin was so deeply impressed 
 with the importance of these differences, that he determined to write his 
 treatise on the Doctrine of Divine Efficiency — a book which remains to this 
 day unanswered — though it should cost him his life. How did Jeremiah 
 Evarts — a name associated with the greatest and dearest interests of the 
 church — feel on this subject ? How are these speculations now regarded 
 by such men as Dr. Woods, Dr. Richards, Dr. Dana, and Dr. Humphrey ? 
 not to mention the Princeton Professors, and many other eminent divines, 
 both in the Congregational and Presbyterian denominations. If the contro- 
 versy respects only minor points — " mere shades of difference " — how are 
 we to account for the disregard manifested toward the views and feelings of 
 such men, and the peace and prosperity of the churches ? 
 
 You observe ; " It is enough to say that, if I understand the case, the real 
 differences between the parties are differences of a philosophical, rather than 
 of a directly theological nature. Nothing is more manifest to me, through the 
 whole, than that Dr. Taylor holds a different system of intellectual and moral 
 philosophy from that held by his opponents." " The original error with the 
 controversy on both sides, that which made it impossible to arrive at any con- 
 clusion or common understandi g, was, that Dr. Taylor, instead of publish- 
 ing his views respecting the nature of the mind, of moral agency, of moral 
 government, abstractly from any application of them to theological science, 
 began with the discussion of vexed theological questions, — with the attempt 
 to solve old difficulties and to meet old objections to the doctrines of the gospel, 
 by reasonings, the conclusiveness and intelligibleness of which depend too 
 much on ideas and principles with which he is familiar, but which his adver- 
 saries in argument habitually overlook. The consequence is, that the more 
 he writes on these topics of theology, the more certainly and completely is he 
 misunderstood by a portion of his readers, who look at what he says through 
 the colored and refractory medium of their own philosophy." These extracts 
 from your Second Letter 1 accompany with the following remarks : 
 
 1. It is not easy to perceive, how "the original error of the controversy" 
 could be " on both sides," since it consisted in Dr. Taylor's not first " publish- 
 ing his views respecting the nature of the mind, of moral agency, &c." Are 
 his opponents responsible for the manner in which he began the controversy? 
 Did he not adopt his own method ? And if this was the original error, was 
 it not his alone ? According to your reasoning, is not Dr. Taylor alone ac- 
 countable to his brethren, to the churches, and to God, for all the evils of the 
 controversy ? 
 
 2. You represent this original error of Dr. Taylor as being great, and 
 attended with most unhappy consequences ; — an error, " which made it im- 
 possible to arrive to any conclusion or common understanding," so that, " the 
 more he writes on these topics of theology, the more certainly and completely 
 is he misunderstood by a portion of his readers." Why has not the error 
 before this late period been corrected ? Why is the world kept thus long in 
 hopeless darkness ? Why arc the fears and distresses perpetuated, which 
 his publications have occasioned in the hearts of thousands ? If the publica- 
 tion of Dr. Taylor's philosoplucal views of the nature of the mind, of moral 
 agency, <fec. would make every thing luminous, satisfy his brethren, and 
 
16 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 restore peace, the book should be forthcoming. A great multitude would hail 
 it with extacics of joy. 
 
 3. Many persons may be interested to know, by what process brother 
 Bacon has been led to discover the facts, which he announces ; — that the 
 opponents of Dr. Taylor cannot understand him, because he has not publish- 
 ed •• his views respecting the nature of the mind, of moral agency, &c." — and 
 that the differences under consideration are philosophical. They are confi- 
 dent that they do understand him ; that the differences are so far from being 
 merely philosophical, that they relate to matters of vital interest ; and that 
 the injurious effects on the theology and experimental religion of the churches, 
 though now seen, will hereafter be more fully discovered. If there is an 
 insuperable barrier in the way of their arriving at the truth in this case, how 
 did brother Bacon gain possession of it 1 
 
 4. Does this reference to Dr. Taylor do him justice as a theological teacher? 
 " The more he writes on these topics of theology, the more certainly and 
 completely is he misunderstood by a portion of his readers." And who are 
 among this portion of his readers ? Men distinguished for their powers of 
 discrimination, and who have for a long period been devoted to theological sci- 
 ence. " Our orthodox community/' wrote the late Dr. Porter of Andover, 
 " for near a century, had been but little disturbed, till this luminary appeared, 
 and volunteered to shed darkness on the world. He wrote, and talked, and 
 talked and wrote ; and what has been the result T' Does Dr. Porter, or your- 
 self, sir, exhibit the person introduced in a more favorable light ? 
 
 5. It yet remains to be proved, that the differences under consideration, 
 "are differences of a philosophical, rather than of a directly theological nature." 
 Should it be granted, that they originate in the new and unpublished philoso- 
 phy of Dr. Taylor, does he not interpret scripture, and explain the doctrines 
 of the gospel, in accordance with his philosophy ? Suppose he professes to 
 believe the Calvinistic formulas, does he not attach to the language in which 
 they are expressed a meaning entirely different from that which they hav eusu- 
 ally been received 1 And is a man's faith determined, by the terms in]which it 
 is expressed, or, by the sense in which he uses those terms ? Suppose these 
 differences do originate in philosophy, it is no matter where they begin, we 
 are to look at their results. The errors of Pelagius and Arminius began in 
 philosophical speculations respecting moral agency, and the moral government 
 of God. And where have most of the great errors, which have infested the 
 church originated 1 Has it not been, in first laying down certain principles, 
 which were supposed to be sanctioned by reason, and common sense, and 
 then interpreting the Bible according to these principles ? 
 
 The trinity in the Godhead, according to the philosophy of the Unitarians, 
 is an absurdity. Hence passages of scripture, which teach the doctrine of 
 the trinity must be explained away. It is inconsistent with the philosophy of 
 the Universalists, that a just and benevolent God should punish his creatures 
 eternally. Hence all texts of scripture, which teach the doctrine of endless 
 punishment must be made to submit to the dictation of this philosophy. Ac- 
 cording to the philosophy of some divines, moral agents can sin in despite of 
 all opposing influence, which God can employ to prevent it. From this was 
 interred the doctrine, that sin could not be entirely prevented in a moral uni- 
 verse. This point being settled, as supposed, all those passages of scripture, 
 which obviously teach God's absolute control over the moral actions of his 
 creatures, must be explained away. According to the philosophy of some, no 
 being can possess a moral character, till he has formed it himself by actual obe- 
 
KEV. LEONARD BAC05. 17 
 
 dience, or disobedience, to known law. Hence those texts of scripture, which 
 teach, or seem to teach, that, God created Adam a holy being, and that, his 
 posterity come into the world with a sinful nature, must, instead of their obvi- 
 ious import, receive a philosophical interpretation. According to the philoso- 
 phy of some, self love is the cause of all moral action. Hence every thing in 
 the Bible, which teaches, or seems to teach, that Christians are actuated by 
 higher motives, must be explained in accordance with this philosophy. Are 
 theological errors, then, to be regarded of no importance, because they orig- 
 inate in philosophy ? I have yet to learn, how to separate philosophy from 
 theology, when it is applied to the interpretation of the scriptures, and to an 
 explanation of the doctrines of the gospel. Has the Bible often been mis- 
 interpreted, except in connection with a false philosophy? Has the church 
 of Christ ever been scourged with a destructive heresy, but in connection 
 with philosophy ? And, at this period, my brother, when there are so many 
 apologists for deviations from the long established faith, when so much is 
 said, respecting differences being unimportant, because they are claimed to 
 be philosophical ; should we not seriously regard the voice from heaven, which 
 says to us : — •■ Beware, lest any num. spoil you, through philosophy, and vain 
 deceit ; after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not 
 after Christ." 
 
 But, sir, you seem to think, that the differences between Dr. Taylor and his 
 opponents cannot be of great importance, because they relate to philosophy 
 rather than theology. Do the Association of Gentlemen, by whom the 
 Christian Spectator was conducted, think so ? Does Dr. Taylor himself think 
 so ? If this is his opinion, why then does he represent the sentiments of the 
 orthodox, as leading, by legitimate consequence, to the " most destructive 
 errors, and the very worst of heresies ?" Let any person examine the contro- 
 versy between him and Dr. Woods and Dr. Tyler, and judge whether he 
 treats the points at issue, as " minor points," and " shades of difference." He 
 charges Dr. Tyler with maintaining theories, which involve the positions, that 
 "sin is a good thing" — "good in itself" — "the only real good \o man" — 
 that " to sin is the very end of man's creation, the highest end of his being, 
 the chief end of man ; " — " that God is the responsible author of sin " — that 
 '• man is doomed to sin by a natural and fatal necessity" — that "the terms 
 of salvation and the exhibition of motives to comply with them, are a delusive 
 mockery ;"' — " that man as he is constituted by his Maker is like a stone or a 
 corpse " — that " the divine lawgiver is a deceiver " — that " God is a crim- 
 inal tempter" — that "in no respect is Satan more truly criminal as a tempter 
 than God is" — that "we ought to praise God for all the sin. which we and 
 others have ever committed" — that "we ought to take pleasure in other 
 men's sins, and do what we can to forward the commission of them " — that 
 " those who are lost are doomed to sin and everlasting burnings, that the 
 smoke of their torment may end' ar heaven to the saved " — that "celestial 
 spirits, if they utter truth in their songs, praise God, not that he vindicates his 
 iaw, and sustains his throne by the punishment of beings who have violated 
 any will of his ; but, for exactly fulfilling the sole purpose of their creation : 
 they praise God for that peculiar delight, these higher and exquisite raptims, 
 which they could enjoy only by means of the agonies of others in everlasting 
 pain;" — that "the worst kind of moral action is the best" — that "man- 
 kind are bound to believe, that they shall please and glorify God better by sin, 
 than bv obedience, and therefore to act accordingly " — and much more 
 3 
 
18 LETTERS TO TUB 
 
 to the same effect. He also charges Dr. Tyler with maintaining theories 
 which " lead, by legitimate consequence, to Universalism, Infidelity, and to 
 Atheism." 
 
 I need not inform you, sir, that the above extracts are taken from an article 
 which was published in the Christian Spectator, September, 1832 ; that "im- 
 mediately after its publication, Dr. Tyler wrote to the Editor, inquiring 
 whether he might be permitted to reply to it in the Christian Spectator, and 
 was informed, that no reply could be admitted, unless it was a short letter of 
 a page or two accompanied by such remarks as the Editor might see fit to 
 append to it ;" that, though Dr. Taylor has been publicly called upon to 
 retract or substantiate these charges ; yet, to this day, he has not deigned to 
 do either. Allow me to ask, with the expectation of receiving an explicit ?n- 
 swer — Am I right, or am I wrong, in saying that Dr. Taylor, in writing that 
 article " the Association of Gentlemen " in approving of its publication, and 
 the Editor in denying to the accused an opportunity of self-defence, in the 
 periodical which had been pledged " to advocate that system of doctrines 
 which has generally prevailed in the Congregational and Presbyterian 
 churches," and in which the charges were preferred ; did design a solemn 
 protest against theories of the orthodox, as tending, by legitimate consequence, 
 to the most shocking heresies? Dr. Taylor, you know, in the same commu- 
 nication, says, that " the principle advocated by Dr. Tyler and others, is the 
 very same which in the hands of Voltaire and other enemies of the gospel, has 
 spread infidelity and atheism to such a fearful extent throughout Europe ;" 
 and that it is " inconsistency which saves those who maintain this theory, 
 from being the verij worst of heretics." While we remain, by public charges, 
 associated with "Voltaire and other enemies of the gospel," as having em- 
 braced the very same principle which " has spread infidelity and atheism 
 to such a fearful extent through Europe ;" do you think that we shall be 
 convinced that there are only "some shades of difference" between us and 
 our accusers ? If, as it is said, there is only an "inconsistency" which sep- 
 arates between us and " the very worst of heretics" is it calculated "to re- 
 move misunderstanding ;" is it of any use ; is it consistent ; is it right in the 
 sight of God, or in the sight of men, — to represent the differences between 
 us and brethren of the New Haven school, as respecting " minor points ?" 
 
 But will you say that Dr. Taylor did virtually retract these charges, by 
 affirming, in a subsequent article, that he and Dr. Tyler were perfectly agreed ? 
 No, sir, Dr. Taylor did not retract these charges. He only represented Dr. 
 Tyler as having abandoned his principles, when he had not ; and I am author- 
 ized to say that he has not to this day abandoned a principle which he main- 
 tained in the discussion. Here allow me to add, that nothing which has been 
 published in this unhappy controversy, has been read with more surprise, 
 than the article to which I allude ; nothing has inflicted a deeper wound. 
 How Dr. Taylor, after having brought such charges of heresy against Dr. 
 Tyler, without retracting any thing himself, or showing that his opponent had 
 retracted any of his principles, could affirm conscientiously, that they were 
 perfectly agreed, is what many persons find it difficult to see. Here is a mis- 
 understanding, which demands attention, and by the removal of which, to 
 the satisfaction of the aggrieved, you will perform an important service. 
 
 It is true Dr. Taylor says, that "if his representation is ivoundin^, let the 
 theory that justifies it be abandoned, and the wound will be healed." But 
 what theory is it necessary for the orthodox to abandon ? What principles 
 are to be given up that the wound may be healed." Why, principles which 
 
M.V. LEONARD BACOH. 19 
 
 are embraced in the confession of faith to which Dr. Taylor assented when 
 he was inducted into office as Dwight Professor of Diadactic Theology in 
 Yale College ; principles which have been embodied in every orthodox creed 
 which has been formed since the Reformation. And does he demand such 
 an abandonment of principle, before the wound can be healed ; and, at the 
 same time, docs he consider the difference between him and his orthodox 
 brethren as merely philosophical ? Were they, in his estimation, merely phi- 
 losophical, would ho not, long ago, have retracted the solemn charges which 
 he brought against Dr. Tyler, and consequently against the great body of 
 evangelical ministers and churches? 
 
 I have now presented you some of the reasons why I can not believe that 
 the differences under consideration, are differences of a philosophical rather 
 than of a theological nature. 
 
 Your friend and brother, 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 
 Coventry, December 13, 1839. 
 
 He t te r IE JT. 
 
 Dear Sir — Before noticing the contents of some of your earlier communi- 
 cations, I will come directly to a consideration of the Protest of the Pastoral 
 Union, by which you appear to be greatly disturbed. An important question, 
 in relation to which we are at issue is first to be settled. Had the Pastoral 
 Union a right to protest against sentiments which they deemed to be erroneous? 
 You seem to deny them that right ; and I ask, on what do you ground the 
 denial ? Have you not occupied the public attention for nearly four months 
 past, and about thirty columns of a religious newspaper, in protesting against 
 the supposed errors of the Pastoral Union ? I do not deny you the right of 
 occupying, in this way, as much time and space as you think proper. But, 
 have your brethren of the Pastoral Union no rights ? Must they, as a mat- 
 ter of course, endorse all the opinions which you and your associates are 
 pleased to publish? And have they committed a great offence, by ex- 
 pressing, in a few sentences, their views of sentiments made public ? Does not 
 every man claim the right of testifying against that which he considers wrong, 
 in sentiment or practice ? The conductors of the Christian Spectator, for a 
 course of years, protested against what they regarded errors, and pointed out 
 their supposed evil tendencies. The writer, even of a newspaper paragraph, 
 claims the right of expressing his views of published documents. And surely 
 this right, possessed by individuals, should not be denied to bodies of men, act- 
 ing in their collective capacity. What bodies of men are there, who do not 
 claim the right of expressing their united opinions on subjects properly brought 
 before them ? Have medical conventions assumed a right not their own, in 
 testifying against the use of intoxicating drinks ? Do political conventions 
 dream of infringing the rights of others, when they express their opposition to 
 political sentiments ? And have not they, who are watchmen on the walls of 
 Zion, a right to protest against what they sincerely believe to be erroneous 
 doctrines ? And are members of the Pastoral Union alone to be denied this 
 right, and to be made responsible for opinions which they feel bound in con- 
 science to oppose ? Where, then, are our religious liberties ? I claim that 
 the Pastoral Union possess a right, not to be questioned by any man, or any 
 
20 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 association of men, to protest against those sentiments, which they regard as 
 erroneous. 
 
 You say, " This protest was originally designed to be a solemn contradic- 
 tion to the testimony which Dr. Taylor had recently given to the General 
 Assembly of the Presbyterian Churches." And what if it was ? Was not 
 the " testimony which Dr. Taylor had recently given to the General Assem- 
 bly of the Presbyterian Church originally designed to be a solemn contradic- 
 tion " to the known opinions, and often repeated declarations of members of 
 the Pastoral Union ? And if he possessed a right, to state his opinions, at 
 Philadelphia, had not they a right to express theirs, at East-Windsor ? Dr. 
 Taylor said, " The churches are harmonious. I suppose among ministers, 
 there has never been less difference of theological opinion than there is to-day." 
 This statement was read with great surprise ; and I presume there was not 
 a member of the Pastoral Union who did not believe it to be incorrect. And 
 might they not say so ? You appear, my brother., to go on the supposition, 
 that we have not equal privileges with yourself and associates. Certainly 
 there is no privileged order among Congregationalists. 
 
 But you ask, " Why was not this declaration made by the General Asso- 
 ciation ?" — I do not know that it devolves on me any more than on yourself 
 to answer this question ; yet I will refer you to a few facts which may cast 
 some light on the subject. Dr. Taylor did not present, as it is expected of 
 those who have been delegates to foreign bodies, either a written or verbal 
 report of his conduct at Philadelphia ; but merely referred the Association to 
 what was published in the newspapers, as a correct account of his procedure. 
 Members of the Pastoral Union, who were also members of the General As- 
 sociation generally did not know what was published. The member, " from 
 Tolland county," on his way to the meeting of the Association, incidentally 
 learned the course which our delegates to the General Assembly had pur- 
 sued ; and, during the session, he expressed his disapprobation of Dr. Taylors 
 conduct, in engaging in the contentions of our Presbyterian brethren, and in 
 pledging the sympathies of the body which he represented, exclusively to one 
 fragment of this church. But, had Dr. Taylor informed the meeting, of which 
 he was moderator, of what he had said, and done, as their delegate, at Phila- 
 delphia, as a rule of the Association demanded of him ; and thus had prepared 
 the way for an expression of approbation, or disapprobation of his conduct ; 
 even then, what could members of the Association, who were members of the 
 Pastoral Union, have done in bringing him to an account ? — They were given 
 to understand, at an early period of the session, in language unequivocal, .that 
 they would not be allowed the privilege, even of recording their dissent, from 
 any acts of that meeting. " The motion." you say, " might have been made, 
 and when it had been rejected, those who had been voted down, might have 
 protested, either there, or elsewhere, as the case might seem to require." 
 That they could not have protested " there" you and I both know r . The 
 case did seem to require, that they should protest " elsewhere ; " and they 
 have done it, and where is the fault? — I admit, that it would have been 
 proper for the General Association to have made this Protest. But there 
 was in the meeting a large number of Dr. Taylor's students and others of like 
 theological sympathies, sufficient to constitute a small majority, and it was not 
 done. If they neglected their duty, is that a reason why the Pastoral Union 
 should remain silent, and prove themselves recreant to the cause of truth and 
 righteousness ? 
 
 But, you say again, " The Protest appears to have been designed as an ex- 
 
HEV. LEONARD BACON. 21 
 
 press contradiction of the formal testimony of the General Association of 
 1837." You refer to the following statement, in their report on the state of 
 religion. " The churches in connection with the Association are generally 
 peaceful and harmonious. And though among ministers there are shades of 
 difference in theological views, yet they are not such as need to prevent, and 
 we are happy to believe they will not prevent the unity of the spirit in the 
 bond of peace." This, you inform me, was the testimony of the General Asso- 
 ciation of 1837, when the old school brethren had a majority. 
 
 Here, let me remind you of some facts, in relation to this subject, which 
 you seem to have forgotten. The report on the state of religion, from which 
 the above is an extract, was written by the Rev. Mr. Dutton, of Guilford. It 
 was not presented to the Association till just at the close of the session, after 
 some of the brethren had left. There was connected with it another asser- 
 tion to this effect : — that the difference of theological views among ministers, 
 was not greater than it had been for the last fifty years. A motion was made, 
 that the whole be stricken out, and, after much discussion, it was lost, by the 
 casting vote of the moderator, Dr. Porter, of Farmington. There is positive 
 proof that had all the members been present, the motion would have pre- 
 vailed. As it was, a vote was passed, to strike out the assertion relating to 
 thr last fifty years . — As you was a witness of the transactions of that Asocia- 
 tion, and may have mingled in some out-door consultations, can you tell me, 
 why Mr. Dutton presented the report on the state of religion at so late a pe- 
 riod of the meeting ? And, since you have seen fit to represent this testimony 
 to be the testimony of members of the Pastoral Union, equally ivith others, 
 you will not consider me impertinent, if I ask another question : — did not you, 
 and some other gentlemen, who were present as spectators, know, before the 
 report was presented to the Association, that it would embrace the testimony 
 of which you speak, if the sanction of the body could be gained ? I need not 
 ask, whether every member of the Association, and every spectator present, 
 did not then know, that all " the orthodox " members bore their decided testi- 
 mony against each of these assertions, as false, and calculated to mislead the 
 public mind. You have surely presented a striking case of injustice, to a mi- 
 nority of a body, whose records of dissent are not allowed. 
 
 But, sir, I know not, that the Pastoral Union at the time of adopting the 
 Protest, thought of this testimony of the General Association. To my knowl- 
 edge, not a word was said in relation to it. But, suppose they did call this tes- 
 timony to mind ? And what if it was, as you assert, their design to protest 
 against this testimony 1 I know not that there was any impropriety in it. In 
 the Association, they had borne witness against it ; as, in their opinion, false, 
 and injurious ; and, when they had afterwards been made responsible for it to 
 the public, had they not a right to protest " elsewhere ?" 
 
 But, do the errors against which the Pastoral Union have protested, exist, 
 and extensively prevail in the State ? — That they exist, and have been pub- 
 licly maintained, there can be no question: for they are mostly taken verbatim, 
 or nearly so, from periodicals, and pamphlets, which have been printed, and ex- 
 tensively circulated in the State, within the last few years. You admit, that 
 they consist mostly of extracts from published writings ; but you assert, that 
 " the errors as stated consist chiefly of misconstrued extracts from the writings 
 of Dr. Taylor." Misconstrued extracts I ! The Pastoral Union, knowing, 
 that the New Haven brethren had reiterated the complaint, that their senti- 
 ments were misstated, and misunderstood ; adopted a course which they sup- 
 posed no person could censure. And do you mean to say, that the Pastoral 
 
23 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 Union have misconstrued these extracts ? This appears to be your meaning ; 
 tor you insist upon it, that they attach to the language of these extracts a 
 meaning, which it was not intended to convey. I must deny the odious 
 charge ; and I entertain the hope, that you will consider it your duty and 
 privilege to retract it. Are these extracts misconstrued, by merely quoting 
 them, without note or comment ? The Pastoral Union have not told you, what 
 meaning they attach to the language of these extracts ; and you have no 
 right to charge them with giving to the language any other meaning than that 
 which it obviously expresses. The language is simple, and its import, it is be- 
 lieved, is easily discovered. There are in the Pastoral Union, men who have 
 received the highest honors of Yale College, others who have been employed 
 as instructors in that venerable institution, some who have sat for years at 
 the feet of Dr. Taylor, as theological students, and others, still, who have min- 
 istered acceptably to the intelligent congregations of New-Haven : — are 
 there not then men in the Pastoral Union who are capable of understanding 
 their own mother tongue ? My dear sir, what is the matter at Neiv Haven ? 
 Is it true, after all the attempts which Dr. Taylor, and his learned friends, 
 have made, for the last ten years, to give an exposition of his language, that it 
 is even now impossible for his brethren in the ministry to understand him ? 
 Or can not members of the Pastoral Union, who were educated and honored 
 at Yale College, understand plain English ? 
 
 The following reasons may have led the Pastoral Union to conclude, that 
 these errors extensively prevail. 
 
 1. They have been taught, and defended, in pamphlets and periodicals, 
 which have been widely circulated, and highly commended. 
 
 2. They have been maintained, and zealously propagated, by men whose 
 soundness in the faith has been extensively vindicated. 
 
 3. They have proceeded, principally, from a theological school, where many 
 young men have been trained for the ministry, a large proportion of whom, 
 profess to agree with their teachers. 
 
 4. Those who have maintained and defended these errors, have themselves 
 claimed, that their views were extensively adopted, not only in this State, but 
 in other parts of the country. One witness to the truth of this declaration, 
 whose knowledge of facts in the case, and whose veracity you will not ques- 
 tion, may be sufficient for the present. I present you with an extract of a 
 letter from a distinguished gentleman among yourselves, addressed to one of 
 the trustees of the Theological Institute of Connecticut, and dated about the 
 time that seminary went into operation. 
 
 " If the East Windsor Institution is right in the contest, how large a part of 
 the best men and institutions in the country are wrong '( Two of the most pop- 
 ular Professors of Andover — Dr. Beecher with his overwhelming influence 
 at the Lane Seminary and in the West — Jacksonville College in Illinois and 
 all its officers — the Theological Seminary of Tennessee (Dr. Anderson's) — 
 with such men as Dr. Hawes. Dr. Porter, Mr. Dutton, Mr. McEw r en, Mr. 
 Hickock, Mr. Andrew, and a very great number more in this State. Mr. 
 Barnes of Philadelphia, Dr. Wisner, Mr. Winslow, and Mr. Linsley of Boston, 
 and hundreds of others in every part of our country must all share in the same 
 condemnation with ourselves." 
 
 Now, Sir, I submit it to your decision, whether the reasons suggested, were 
 not. sufficient to lead the Pastoral Union to believe, that these errors do ex- 
 tensively prevail. If, however, it should be found, that in this respect, they 
 have been mistaken, I assure you, none will rejoice more sincerely than them- 
 selves. 
 
HEY. LEONARD BACON. 2S 
 
 Again, you ask, " Ought such errors as these charges speak of, to be toler- 
 ated in the ministry, or within the communion of the churches ? If a man 
 holds '• radical " and "dangerous errors," — if he advocates " errors subver- 
 sive of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel," — if his doctrines are " at 
 war with God's word and fraught with imminent danger to the peace and 
 prosperity of Zion," — if he holds and advocates doctrines which can not be 
 countenanced in our churches" without incurring "the frown of a justly of- 
 fended God," — " if he boldly and perseveringly assails " those scriptural doc- 
 trines " which are " the basis of the peace and purity of our churches," — 
 ought he not to be dealt with as an offender ? Can you recognize such a man 
 as a minister of the gospel ? Can you hold communion with him as one who 
 has " obtained like precious faith " with yourself? Is there not a regular way 
 under our ecclesiastical system, to deal with such errorists ? What is that 
 regular way ? Is it the way which the Pastoral Union have taken in this 
 Protest?" 
 
 Churches and associations of ministers are prone to laxness in the discipline 
 of their members. Whether the Pastoral Union, in this case, have been too 
 lenient and forbearing, I shall not attempt to decide. However this may be, 
 I doubt not that you will perceive that all your questions may, with great pro- 
 priety, be put back to my correspondent. Call to mind, sir, the terms in 
 which the sentiments maintained by the Pastoral Union have been character- 
 ized. Dr. Tyler, whose doctrinal views, it is well known, accord with those 
 of the Pastoral Union generally, as they do with those of the great body of 
 Calvinistic ministers, stands publicly charged with adopting principles which 
 involve the positions, that " sin is a good thing" — "good in itself," — that 
 " when men sin they do the very best thing they can do," — that " God is the 
 responsible author of sin," — that " the Divine lawgiver is a deceiver," — that 
 " God is a criminal tempter," — and that "in no respect is Satan more truly 
 criminal as a tempter than God is." He has also been charged with main- 
 taining theories which " lead by legitimate consequence to universal ism, to 
 infidelity and to atheism." Moreover, it has been asserted, that " the princi- 
 ple advanced by Dr. Tyler and others is the very same, which in the hands 
 of Voltaire and other enemies of the gospel, has spread infidelity and atheism 
 to such a fearful extent throughout Europe." 
 
 Now, allow me to interrogate, in your own language. " Ought such errors 
 as these charges speak of, to be tolerated in the ministry, or within the com- 
 munion of the churches ?" If a man holds errors " respecting matters of (such) 
 vital importance" — errors which are not only "subversive of the fundamen- 
 tal doctrines of the gospel," but which " lead by legitimate consequence to 
 universalism, to infidelity, and to atheism ; — if he holds and defends princi- 
 ples, which involve the blasphemous sentiments, that " God is the responsible 
 author of sin " that the divine lawgiver is a deceiver — that God is a criminal 
 tempter, as truly so as Satan himself — if he asserts that " sin is a good 
 thing," and perseveringly maintains what implies that '• when men sin they do 
 the very best thing they can do ;" — and if a principle which he advances, " is 
 the very same which in the hands of Voltaire and other enemies of the gospel, 
 has spread infidelity and atheism to such a fearful extent throughout Europe ;" 
 — " ought he not to be dealt with as an offender ?" Can you hold communion 
 with him as one who has "obtained like precious faith" with yourself? Is 
 there not a regular way, under our ecclesiastical system, to deal with such 
 errorists ? What is that regular way ? Is it the way which " any of your 
 party have taken ?" Is it the way which you have adopted in commencing 
 this correspondence ? 
 
24 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 But further, still, if the members of the Pastoral Union have been guilty of 
 the unchristian and disorderly conduct, which you impute to them, ought they 
 not on that account to be dealt with as offenders ? If they have slandered 
 their brethren, and adopted measures tending " to jealousies, alienation, and 
 schism in our ecclesiastical commonwealth," ought they not to be called to an 
 account ? Why is it so, that at this late period, they have not been dealt with ? 
 " Why is it, that no pretence of an attempt has ever been made to bring one 
 of these offenders to a trial before the proper tribunal ?" Why is it, that you 
 have not been employed in arraigning these erring brethren before their re- 
 spective Associations, instead of publishing the weighty accusations against 
 them which are contained in your Letters ? " It is a serious question, my 
 brother ; give us a manly answer." " In the name of those who are more 
 immediately aimed at in the aspersions" of your Letters, " in the name of the 
 ministers and churches of Connecticut, whom as a body," your Letters hold 
 "up before all Christendom as" unchristian and disorderly in conduct, — "in 
 the name of our fathers, who framed our ecclesiastical constitution, distinctly 
 providing that every pastor accused of ' unchristian or disorderly conduct ' 
 shall be brought to account fairly and openly ; — nay, in the name of our com- 
 mon Master, Head over all things to the church, who, if these charges are 
 true, is 'justly offended,' and who, if they are not true, shares in the wrong 
 done to his servants, — I entreat you, tell us frankly, why these subverters of 
 the ' peace and order of our ecclesiastical community,' are permitted to re- 
 tain their standing not only in the communion of our churches, but in the 
 ministry." 
 
 I will now consider your remarks on the first error against which the Pas- 
 toral Union protested. It is set forth as follows : 
 
 " I. Concerning the Power of God." — " That free moral agents can do wrong under every 
 possible influence to prevent them, and that it is a groundless assumption that God could have 
 prevented all sin, or at least the present degree of sin in a moral system." 
 
 You admit, that this error is expressed in the identical language, which 
 has been used and defended in the recent discussions respecting the moral 
 agency of man, and the moral government of God ; but you insist, that it has 
 not been used in the sense given to it by the Pastoral Union. Allow me to 
 ask again, for the authority you have to make this declaration. The Pastoral 
 Union have not explained the language. They have barely quoted it. They 
 may have considered it so explicit as to need no exposition. That they de- 
 signed to express the very sense, which they who had used this language 
 intended, there is abundant proof. And how is it known, that they do not 
 understand this language in precisely the same sense in which you understand 
 it yourself? That they do, can you have the shadow of a doubt? But you 
 say, they call it an error " concerning the power of God ;" whereas you con- 
 tend, if it is an error, it is not an error ' concerning the power of God,' but 
 concerning moral agency, and moral government. The point at issue, then, 
 if I understand you, is not whether the extract contains a dangerous error ; 
 but whether it is an error " concerning the power of God." But where is 
 the inconsistency, I would ask, in supposing, that an error relating to moral 
 agency and moral government, may relate also to the power of God ? What 
 was the question in debate, between Dr. Taylor and his opponents, to which 
 this language refers ? Did it not relate to what God can, and what God can 
 not do, in the government of moral agents ? What is the doctrine commonly 
 received, which Dr. Taylor called in question ? Was it not this, that God 
 can so govern moral agents as to secure universal holiness in a moral system ? 
 
KEV. LEOAARD BACOn. 25 
 
 And did not Dr. Taylor contend, that to suppose God able to do this, is a 
 groundless assumption ? Furthermore, did he not affirm, in a very solemn 
 manner, that to suppose God able to secure universal holiness in a moral sys- 
 tem, " leads by legitimate consequence to universalism, to infidelity, and to 
 atheism '7 Please to ' notice some of Dr. Taylor's statements. — He says, 
 " Dr. Tyler maintains, that God can secure the holiness and happiness of all 
 his moral creatures. It follows therelbre that God will secure the holiness 
 and happiness of ail his moral creatures. Of course all men will be saved.** 
 — Christian Spectator, 1838, page 432. Has the question, then, no refer- 
 ence to the power of God ? Dr. Taylor here expressly affirms, that if God 
 can secure the holiness and happiness of all his moral creatures, he certainly 
 will do it. And what is this but saying, that nothing but the want of power 
 on the part of God prevents him from rendering all his moral creatures holy 
 and happy ? And will you still say, that the question has no relation to the 
 power of God ? Consider also the following statement. " God not only 
 prefers, on the whole, that his creatures should forever perform their duties 
 rather than neglect them, but purposes, on his part, to do all in his power to 
 promote this very object in his kingdom." — Christian Spectator, 1832, page 
 66'J. Why does not God secure universal obedience among his moral crea- 
 tures ? If this statement is correct, it is because he has not power to do it ; 
 for we are assured, that he purposes to do all in his power to secure this very 
 object in his kingdom. And, still, has the question under consideration no 
 relation to the power of God ? You will permit me to advert to one or two 
 other statements. "We know that a moral system necessarily implies the 
 existence of free agents with the power to act in despite of all opposing 
 power. — Christian Spectator, 1831, page, 67. Does not all opposing power 
 include the power of God 1 " Would not a benevolent God, then, were it 
 possible to him in the nature of things have secured the existence of universal 
 noliness in his moral system ?" — Dr. Taylor's Concio, page 28. Why then 
 does not God secure the existence of universal holiness in his moral system ? 
 Because, according to this statement, it is not possible for him to do it. And 
 will you, sir, yet tell me, the question has no relation to the power of God ? 
 Let us read the language, quoted in the Protest, in connection with the fore- 
 going extracts. — " That free moral agents can do wrong under every possible 
 influence to prevent them, and that it is groundless assumption that God 
 could have prevented all sin, or at least the present degree of sin, in a moral 
 system." Can there be any doubt as to the meaning of this passage ? After 
 all which has been published on this subject, do you really believe, that the 
 very point in dispute is not yet understood I Does not every intelligent man, 
 who has attended to this discussion, know what this passage means; and 
 know too, that the Pastoral Union understands its import, and have not mis- 
 construed it ? 
 
 Like some modern preaching, with which godly persons have been afflicted, 
 your reasoning on this subject seems to imply, that in your view, the power 
 of God has nothing to do in governing moral agents, and preserving them in 
 a state of holiness, any more than it has in causing a thing to be and not to be 
 at the same time ; or in preventing an equilateral triangle from being equilan- 
 gular ; or in doing any other thing which implies a contradiction. How then 
 do you interpret these passages of Scripture: — "Now unto him that is able 
 to keep you from falling," &c. " Who are kept by the power of God through 
 faith unto salvation." 
 
 Admit the question in dispute to b* as you represent it, — "Whether to 
 
 4 
 
20 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 suppose God able so to govern mora! agents as to secure universal holiness 
 in his moral kingdom, implies a contradiction 1" Still the question relates to 
 the power of God. It resolves itself into another question, (viz.) whether 
 thus to govern moral agents is an object of divine power ? If it is an object 
 of divine power, and does not imply a contradiction, do not those who affirm 
 the contrary, " err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God "? And 
 since the Pastoral Uniim do believe, that God's omnipotence implies power to 
 exercise absolute and unlimited control over the moral universe, have they 
 commitcd any oiience in denominating the opinion of those who call this sub- 
 lime doctrine in question, an error ''concerning the jmver of God"? 
 
 Suppose a person should say to you, — It is a groundless assumption, that 
 God could have created one more particle of matter than he has created. 
 Suppose he should go farther, and say, — If God could have created more 
 matter, he certainly would have done it, and to suppose he could, " leads by 
 legitimate consequence to universal 'ism, to infidcliti/, and to atheism." — You 
 say to him, you seem to advance principles, which are inconsistent with God's 
 omnipotence. No, he answers, — This is a slanderous accusation. " I hold 
 and teach that the power of God is absolutely infinite, and that no addition to 
 the power of God can by any possible stretch of the imagination be conceived 
 of. And, on the other hand, I hold that omnipotence itself can not do a contra- 
 diction." " What I mean is, to suppose God able to create another particle 
 of matter would be a contradiction, as much as to suppose him able to cause 
 two and two to be five, or to prevent an equilateral triangle from being equian- 
 gular." Would you be satisfied, my brother, with this reasoning ? After all, 
 would you not be strongly inclined to believe, that this man was in some error 
 " concerning the power of God "? 
 
 In reference to the practical importance of this error, I will give you the 
 opinion of one, whose praise has long been in the churches, and whose memory 
 is exceedingly precious now that his body has returned to the dust. 
 
 " If God could not prevent sin in the universe, he cannot prevent believers 
 from fatally falling ; he cannot prevent Gabriel and Paul from sinking at once 
 into devils, and heaven from turning into hell. And were he to create new 
 races to fill their vacant seats, they might turn to devils as fast as he created 
 them, in spite of any thing which he could do, short of destroying their moral 
 agency. He is liable to be defeated in his designs, and to be as miserable as 
 he is benevolent. — This is infinitely the gloomiest idea that was ever thrown 
 upon the world. It is gloomier than hell itself. For this involves only the 
 destruction of a part, but that involves the wretchedness of God and his 
 whole creation. And how awfully gloomy as it respects the prospects of 
 individual believers. You have no security that you will stand an hour. And 
 even if you get to heaven, you have no certainty of rema ; ning there a day. 
 All is doubt and sepulchral gloom. And where is the glory of God ? Where 
 the transcendent glorv of raising to spiritual life a world dead in trespasses 
 and sins ? Where the glory of swaying an undivided sceptre and doing 
 his pleasure ' in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth'?" 
 — Griffin on Divine Efficiency, pp. 180, 181. 
 
 In conclusion, my brother, why may we not be permitted now to unite 
 with the apostle, in saying, "Now unto him that is able to do exceeding 
 abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that ivorketh 
 in us ; unto him be the glory in the church, by Christ Jesus, throughout all 
 ages, world without end. Amen." Your friend and brother, 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 
 Coventry, December 20, 1839. 
 
RBV. LEONARD BACON. 27 
 
 Setter 2F , 
 
 Dear Sir, — The next article in the Protest of the Pastoral Union is thus 
 stated : 
 
 "II. Concerning tup. Native Character op Man." — "That mankind conic into the world 
 with the same nature in kind as that with which Adam was created ; that men have no natural 
 sinful propensities; that there is a period subsequent to birth, during which they have no moral 
 character, and are not subject to the mural government of" God, and that animals and infants, 
 previous to this supposed beginning of moral agency stand in precisely the same relation to this 
 subject." 
 
 In commenting on this article you say, " The statement of the Protest under 
 this second head is a statement partly of propositions which none of our min- 
 isters hold in the sense in which the Pastoral Union imputes them, and partly 
 of propositions which, if erroneous, are still sanctioned by names which the 
 Protesters themselves w r ould be the last to treat with disrespect." 
 
 This assertion embraces two questions for discussion. 
 
 I. Have these propositions been maintained by any of our ministers ? — 
 Compare them with the following quotations and then judge. 
 
 Dr. Taylor in his reply to Dr. Tyler in the Spirit of the Pilgrims Volume vi. 
 page 5, says, "I did admit, as he says, that mankind come into the world w r ith 
 the same nature in kind as that with which Adam was created," In the Christ- 
 ian Spectator for 183*2, pp. 548, 549, we have the following remarks from the 
 pen of Dr. Taylor, " on Dr. Tyler's theory respecting human depravity." Dr. 
 Tyler had asked, " what inconsistency is there in supposing that there is in 
 man, a native propensity to evil, propagated from parent to child like other 
 natural propensities?" To litis the Reviewer replies — "On this theory, 
 then, we would offer the following remarks." 
 
 "1. It exhibits God as the responsible author of sin. We suppose Dr. Tyler 
 believes, as others who have advanced the same theory maintain, that tiiis 
 propensity to sin, is itself sinful, or as another writer affirms, ' is the essence 
 of sin; Now who will deny, that God is the responsible author of that 
 which he produces, whether by direct creation, or by the physical laws of 
 propagation ? — God therefore, according to this theory, is the responsible 
 author of that in man, in which the essence of sin consists, and actually 
 damns the soul, for being what he makes it, or causes it to be by physical 
 laws." 
 
 " If Dr. Tyler should say, that the propensity to sin of which he speaks, is 
 innocent, still man as he comes into being, is doomed to sin by a natural and 
 fatal necessity — with such a propensity, nfan has not a natural ability to 
 avoid sin. This is alike true, whether this propensity be supposed to be sin- 
 ful or innocent." 
 
 In the Christian Spectator for 1829, we find the following statement. "In- 
 fants die. The answer has been given a thousand times ; brutes die also. — 
 But Mr. Harvey replies, ' animals arc not subjects of the moral government 
 of God.' Neither are infants, previous to moral agency : for what has moral 
 government to do with those who are not moral agents." "It has been 
 shown that infants stand on precisely the same ground with animals as far as 
 the present question is concerned. For neither of them are moral agents, nor 
 subject to moral government." — "Animals and infants previous to moral 
 agency, do therefore stand on precisely the same ground in reference to this 
 subject." page 373. 
 
 Again : " A child enters the world with a variety of appetites and desires, 
 
28 letters to tub 
 
 which are generally acknowledged to be neither sinful nox holy. Committed 
 in a state of utter helplessness to the assiduity of parental fondness, it com- 
 mences existence, the object of unceasing care, watchfulness, and concession, 
 to those around it. Under such circumstances it is, that the natural appetites 
 are first devolved ; and each advancing month brings them new objects of 
 gratification. The obvious consequence is, that self indulgence becomes the 
 master principle in the soul of every child, long before it can understand that 
 this self indulgence will ever interfere with the rights, or entrench on the 
 happiness of others. Thus by repetition is the force of constitutional propen- 
 sities accumulating a bias towards self-gratification, which becomes incrediblv 
 strong before a knowledge of duty or a sense of right or wrong, can possi- 
 bly have entered the mind. That moment — the commencement of moral 
 agency, at length arrives. Does the child now come in a state of perfect 
 neutrality, to the question, whether it will obey or disobey the command, 
 which cuts it off from some favorite gratification ?" pp. 386, 367. 
 
 Mark the assertion ; " self-indulgence becomes the master principle in the 
 soul of every child long before it can understand," &c ; that is, long before 
 moral agency commences. 
 
 Now, sir, compare the above extracts with the statement in the Protest. 
 Can you indeed say, that the propositions protested against, have not been 
 maintained by any " of our ministers ?" But you afnrm, that " they have not 
 been held " in the sense in which the Pastoral Union imputes them." The 
 sense in which the Pastoral Union imputes them ! Pray, what is that sense ? 
 Can you mean to intimate, that the Pastoral Union are men of such obtuse 
 intellects that they cannot understand the plainest propositions ? Or do you 
 mean to be understood, that the writers of these extracts intended to express 
 what they did not believe ? The Pastoral Union have published no commen- 
 tary on this language ; and they doubtless felt that none was required. The 
 error against which they protested is that which is clearly expressed by the 
 language itself understood in its obvious meaning, taking into view the con- 
 nection in which it is used, and the explanations which have been given by 
 the writers themselves. And how is it that you are led to the conclusion, that 
 the Pastoral Union do not understand the language which they have quoted, or 
 that they have designedly misconstrued it ; when they have merely quoted it 
 without a word of explanation ? There certainly can be no doubt as to the 
 meaning of any of the propositions in their statement, unless it be the first 
 one, viz. " That mankind come into the world with the same nature in kind 
 as that with which Adam was created." And the meaning of this, when we 
 take into consideration, the connection in which it is used, the object of the 
 writer, and the scope of his reasoning, is quite apparent, — and what is its 
 meaning ? You say ; ; ' The proposition when fairly construed, is one which 
 you yourself believe. The nature with which Adam was created, was simply 
 and completely human nature ; the nature with which mankind come into the 
 world, is simply and completely human nature ; both are the same in hind 
 with that nature which Christ assumed, and in which he died. If any man 
 in the Pastoral Union denies this, ask him to give us the text of scripture 
 which declares, either that Adam in Paradise was not a human soul in a human 
 body, or that his posterity do not come into the world human souls in human 
 bodies." This construction of the proposition, I confess, was new to me, and 
 Itthink it must have been new to most of your readers. But, my dear sir, do 
 you mean to say, that the great point at issue in the controversy between 
 J)r. Taylor and his opponents in relation to this subject was, whether the 
 
RET. LEONARD BACON. 29 
 
 posterity of Adam have human souls in human bodies ? Do you honestly 
 believe, that this is all which Dr. Taylor meant by the declaration, that "man- 
 kind come into the world with the same nature in kind as that with which 
 Adam was created V What bearing would such a statement have upon the 
 points under discussion ? Call to mind the question in dispute. It was, as 
 you know, whether there is in man, a natural hereditary propensity to sin. 
 The supposition that mankind have such a natural propensity, is a sentiment 
 which Dr. Taylor represents as leading to the most horrible and blasphemous 
 consequences — as making God the responsible author of sin, &c, Sic. It 
 was in opposition to this sentiment that Dr. Taylor asserted, that " mankind 
 come into the world with tin same nature in kind as that with which Adam 
 was created.'" His meaning therefore without doubt was, that mankind come 
 into the world as free from depravity, or from any natural propensity to sin, 
 as Adam was when he was created. If this was not his meaning, his asser- 
 tion had no relevancy to the point under consideration. 
 
 You inquire whether " this proposition affirms any thing respecting the 
 native character of man ?" Allow me to ask, was it not intended to affirm 
 that man has no "native character?" or, in other words, that he comes 
 into the world without any moral character ? Do you not know, that those 
 who have maintained this proposition, have held that Adam was created with- 
 out a moral character ? 
 
 You say, " I believe that the distinction between moral character and phy- 
 sical constitution, is recognized by all of us — by the members of the Pastoral 
 Union as well as by others." — The correctness of this remark depends on 
 the meaning which you attach to the expression "physical constitution." " The 
 term physical," President Day observes, " when taken by itself, is a word of 
 very vague signification. — But when combined with another ambiguous term, 
 it forms a compound, the meaning of which is still more multifarious" — "It 
 is one of those pliable words, which may be made to mean one thing, or another, 
 any thing, or nothing, as occasion may require." Your term, therefore, 
 should have been defined. If you mean by physical constitution, man's bodily 
 organization, or the substance of the soul, or the possession of intellectual 
 powers ; it is doubtless true that no one considers these things as constituting 
 moral character. But if by " physical constitution," you mean all that is nat- 
 ural to man, all which he inherits from his ancestors, there are those who do 
 not recognize your distinction. There are those who believe man has a moral 
 nature, as well as a corporeal nature, and an intellectual nature — that he 
 possesses a heart, or disposition, as well as an understanding. They believe 
 that man is so constituted, that when objects are presented to his mind, he 
 does not view them with indifference ; but he likes or dislikes, loves or hates 
 them. — They believe with President Edwards, that "human nature must 
 be created wiih some dispositions ; a disposition to relish some things as good 
 and amiable, and to be averse to other things as odious and disagreeable. — 
 Otherwise it must be without any such thing as inclination or will. It must 
 be perfectly indifferent without preference, without choice or aversion towards 
 any thing as agreeable or disagreeable. But if it had any concreated dispo- 
 sitions at all, tiny must be either right or Wrong, either agreeable or disagree- 
 able to the nature of things. If man had at first, the highest relish of those 
 things that were most excellent and beautiful, a disposition to have the quickest 
 and highest delight in those things that were worthy of it, then his dispositions 
 were morally right, and amiable, and never can be decent and excellent in a 
 higher sense. But if he had a disposition to love most things that were inferior 
 
30 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 and less worthy, then his dispositions were vicious." Treatise on Original Sin, 
 page 157. 
 
 You will observe that President Edwards says, " Human Nature must 
 be created with some dispositions," and, "if it (i. e. human nature) had any 
 concreated dispositions at all, they must be right or wrong. It was the 
 opinion of Edwards therefore that the nature with which Adam was created 
 was holy ; and that mankind do not come into the world with the same nature 
 in kind as that with which Adam was created. According to President 
 Edwards, Adam was created with " dispositions morally fight and amiable ;" 
 but his posterity come into the world with dispositions that are " vicious." — 
 Can you, my dear sir, subscribe to these views ? Are they adopted " by all 
 of us — by members of the Pastoral Union," and " by others ?" Please to 
 give us an explicit answer to these inquiries. 
 
 You ask, " Do not these brethren of yours (brethren of the New Haven 
 school) hold that the character which men have by nature, is corrupt, only 
 corrupt, entirely alienated from God ?" That this is the character of men so 
 soon as they have a moral character, I am aware they hold. But how they can 
 consistently maintain that this is their " native character," that they are 
 " sinners by nature" I have never been able to discover. Was Adam by 
 nature a sinner 1 Wats the child Jesus by nature a sinner 1 But mankind, 
 we are told, come into the world with the same nature in kind, — "human 
 souls in human bodies," — as that with which Adam was created, and with 
 which the child Jesus was born. How then are they by nature sinners ? — 
 What has their nature to do with the fact of their becoming sinners ? Be- 
 sides, according to this supposition ; what connection is there between the 
 sin of Adam and that of his posterity ? Jf Adam had never sinned, would 
 not his posterity have come into the world with the same nature in kind, — 
 human souls in human bodies, — as that with which they are now supposed to 
 be born. What influence then, has the apostacy exerted upon the human 
 race '! How is it true that, " by one man's disobedience many were made 
 sinners ;" and that "by the offence of one judgment came upon all men unto 
 condemnation ?" 
 
 The proposition " that men have no natural sinful propensities " you observe, 
 " may be understood as a denial of the doctrine of physical depravity." But 
 what do you mean by the doctrine of physical depravity ? Is it the doctrine, 
 that sin is a part of the substance of the soul ? And does the unpublished 
 philosophy of your school teach, that propensities constitute a part of the 
 substance of the soul ? If I understand you, you admit, (though in opposition 
 to Dr. Taylor, as is evident from the above extracts,) that men have natural 
 propensities to sin, which are innocent. Do you consider them as constituting 
 a part of the substance of the soul ? If not, why should it be thought that 
 sinful propensities, if they exist, must constitute a part of the soul's essence ? 
 Or why should it be thought that natural propensities are a part of the sub- 
 stance of the soul, any more than acquired propensities 1 But you say, " The 
 brethren here never use the word natural in this connection." You also say 
 to me, "You make a distinction between that natural depravity which you 
 hold, and that physical depravity which you reject." No sir, you are mistaken. 
 We never use the word physical in this connection. It is too " vague " and 
 "pliable" a word. 
 
 You ask, " When you assert the doctrine of natural, or native depravity, 
 do you not mean that men are by nature sinners : — that in their nature as prop- 
 agated from Adam there are propensities to evil, never failing in their opera- 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 31 
 
 tion on the moral character, never cured or effectually resisted but by the 
 grace of God V Most certainly we do. And we believe also that these 
 propensities are not innocent but sinful . If they are not sinful, what grace 
 would there be in curing or subduing them 1 Grace is favor to the guilty. 
 What grace, then, can there be in subduing the innocent propensities of an 
 innocent being I 
 
 You speak of an innocent propensity to sin. Is not this strange language ? 
 Were 1 to say, that a certain person is innocently bent on mischief — that he 
 has an innocent propensity to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and to murder, 
 would you not think I used quite extraordinary language ? If a man has a 
 propensity to steal, do you not call it a thievish propensity? If he has a 
 propensity to malice, do you not call it a malicious propensity ? If he has a 
 propensity to avarice, do you not call it an avaricious propensity? Why 
 then should you hesitate to call a propensity to sin, a sinful propensity ; and 
 to regard it as such ? 
 
 Allow me to inquire still farther. In what does regeneration consist, if not 
 in changing man's propensity to sin ? But does that which is innocent need 
 to be changed ? What sort of a change must that be, which only removes an 
 innocent propensity ? Is it amoral, or physical change ? Is it such a change 
 as the scriptures denominate the new birth ? Is it such a change as the follow- 
 ing language describes — " A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit 
 will I put within you : and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, 
 and I will give you an heart of flesh." — Is an innocent propensity denomina- 
 ted a heart of stone? You will not think it strange my brother, if the difference 
 between a sinful propensity and a propensity to sin, as it has a direct bearing 
 on the vital doctrine of regeneration, is considered by some of your brethren 
 of no trifling importance. 
 
 But permit me to ask, with what consistency can you maintain, on your 
 principles, that those who die in infancy must be born again, and must be 
 redeemed by the blood of Christ, in order to be saved ? If infants have no 
 moral character, if they have no sinful propensities, — no corrupt nature, 
 why do< they need to be renewed ? I might ask, how is it possible, that 
 they should be regenerated ? Do you not hold that regeneration is a 
 moral change? And can a creature, who is not a moral being, aiid who 
 sustains no other relation to the moral goverment of God than brute animals, 
 be the subject of a moral change ? What is the change wrought in the 
 infant mind in regeneration ? According to your principles, it cannot be a 
 change of character ; for the child has no moral character. It cannot be a 
 change from sin to holiness; for if the child is not a moral being it is not 
 sinful and cannot be made holy. How then, according to your principles, is 
 it possible for the infant to be born again: .' And for what do those who die 
 in infancy need regeneration ? Do they need to be born again to prevent 
 them from b^cominjj sinners? And did Adam when he was created, need to 
 be born aijain '. Did the Angels need to be born again? Did the child 
 Jesus need to be born ajrain ? And were these holy beings regenerated after 
 they began to exist, and before they possessed a moral character I 
 
 Again, — How can von consistently maintain, that those who die in infancy 
 are redeemed by the blood of Christ ! From what are they redeemed ? — Not 
 from sin ; for they have none. Not from the curse of the law ; for they have 
 not fallen under the curse of the law. From what then are they redeemed ? 
 Do you say, as a writer in the Christian Spectator has said, that it is " from 
 the future existence and consequences of sin 1* Is this redemption ? Are all 
 
32 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 those redeemed, who are prevented from becoming sinners, and from being 
 exposed to the curse of the law ? Were the angels redeemed by the blood 
 of Christ ? Was Jesus himself redeemed by his own blood | What was the 
 object of Christ's mission ? He came "to seek and to save that which was lost." 
 "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." "We thus judge, that 
 if one died for all, then were all dead." 
 
 Your assertion in reference to the following propositions, introduces the 
 second question for discussion : — " That there is a perio.l subsequent to birth, 
 during which men have no moral character, and are not subject to the moral 
 government of God ; and that animals and infants, previous to this supposed 
 beginning of moral agency, stand in precisely the same relation to this subject." 
 — You do not deny that these propositions are held by the New Haven 
 divines ; but you tell us, that, " if erroneous, they are still sanctioned by 
 names which the Protesters themselves would be the last to treat with 
 disrespect." 
 
 The Pastoral Union, I trust, are not disposed to treat any of their brethren 
 with disrespect, though they feel it their duty to bear their testimony against 
 what they consider erroneous sentiment, by whomsoever it may be maintained. 
 You refer to Drs. Emmons, Hopkins and Woods, as divines in New England, 
 who have sanctioned the above propositions. I have been astonished at the 
 use which you have made of these names, (and I doubt not many others have 
 been thus affected.) and especially at the use which you have made of the 
 names of Hopkins and Woods. — Do you believe, Sir, and will you affirm, 
 that these men have sanctioned the above propositions? Do you not know 
 that a passage cannot be quoted from their writings, in which they have 
 expressed the belief, that " there is a period subsequent to birth, during which 
 men have no moral character, and are not subject to the moral government 
 of God, and that animals and infants, previous to this supposed beginning of 
 moral agency, stand in precisely the same relation to this subject "? 
 
 Have Drs. Emmons, Hopkins and Woods sanctioned these propositions ? 
 1. Has Dr. Emmons expressed the opinion, that "there is a period 
 subsequent to birth, during which men have no moral Character, and are 
 not subject to the moral government of God " ? I have not at command the 
 sermon of Dr. Emmons, to which you refer, and must hence rely on the 
 account which you give of it. You say, " Dr. Emmons, in his sermon on 
 native depravity, asserts, as his doctrine of native depravity, ' that mankind 
 begin to sin as soon as they become capable of sinning.' In the second divis- 
 ion of the sermon, he attempts ' to show when men become capable of sin- 
 ning.' He asserts'that they are not capable of sinning before they become moral 
 agents.' " You think that " his whole argument takes it for granted that men 
 become moral agents after they begin to exist." " Accordingly in his improve- 
 ment of the subject," you say, " he avows the opinion, ' that if children die 
 before they become moral agents it is most rational to conclude that they are 
 annihilated.'" It appears, from your account of this sermon, that in it the 
 author has not expressed the opinion, that men become moral agents at a period 
 subsequent to birth. You think his " whole argument takes it for granted." 
 But in this are you not mistaken? The following is an extract from his ser- 
 mon oh conscience : — " For the Bible represents infants as sinful, guilty crea- 
 tures, as soon as then arc born ; which plainly implies, that they are moral 
 agents. In a word, scripture, reason, observation and experience, are all in 
 favor of the moral agency of infants. And if we do not admit that moral 
 agency commences in infancy, it is impossible to determine, or even to form a 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 33 
 
 probable conjecture, when it does commence." This extract is the conclusion 
 of an argument to prove " that infants are moral agents as soon as they are 
 agents." And the conclusion is, that they are moral agents as soon as they are 
 born. In your representation of Dr. Emmons' opinion on this subject, have 
 you done him justice ? 
 
 2. Has Dr. Hopkins sanctioned these propositions ? What is his language ? 
 — He says, " It seems proper, if not necessary, that if moral corruption be 
 derived from Adam to his children, by a fixed law or constitution, it should 
 take place from the beginning of their < >',slcnce. If, by being his child- 
 ren, they become corrupt, they must of consequence be corrupt as soon as 
 they exist, or become his children." Agreeable to this, the scripture represents 
 all mankind as sinful from (lie beginning of (heir existence. The same idea 
 is repeatedly expressed, in different forms, throughout the whole discussion of 
 the doctrine of native depravity. But did he not say, that men begin to sin 
 " as soon as they begin to act as moral agents ? He did. But when, did he 
 suppose, they begin to act as moral agents ? At the " beginning of their 
 existence." This he has most explicitly and uniformly affirmed. Has Dr. 
 Hopkins, then, sanctioned the opinion that " there is a period subsequent to 
 birth, during which men have no moral character, and are not subject to the 
 moral government of God " ? 
 
 3. Has Dr. Woods sanctioned these propositions ? Please to read again 
 his treatise on native depravity. Is it not the very object of that work to 
 prove that man is morally depraved from his birth ? i. e. that he has a sinful, 
 and, of course, a moral character from his birth. But you refer to his con- 
 troversy with Dr. Ware, and quote the following passage : " It seems to me 
 as unreasonable and absurd to say, that human beings are really sinners before 
 they are moral agents, as to saf that birds and fishes are sinners." But does 
 he express the belief that there are any human beings who are not 
 moral agents ? He says, in one place, " I make it no part of my object, in 
 this discussion, to determine when moral agency begins." Yet it is apparent, 
 from the whole discussion, that his belief was that men are moral beings, 
 or moral agents, from the commencement of their existence. He certainly 
 has no where expressed a contrary belief. When he says, " Dr. Ware's 
 position is mine, that men are sinners so soon as they become moral 
 agents" he attempts to show that Dr. Ware virtually admits that men are 
 moral agents from their birth, Titus, Dr. Ware had said, " by their natural 
 birth, men become reasonable and accountable beings." "This," says Dr. 
 Woods, - is as much as to say. they become moral agents? Hence he infers 
 that Dr. Ware has virtually admitted the orthodox doctrine, viz. that " all, by 
 their natural birth, are moral agents, and as soon as they are moral agents, 
 they are sinners." " To this representation of Dr. Ware," says Dr. 
 Woods, " I fully accede." In the very paragraph, therefore, to which you 
 have referred, Dr. Woods informs us, that the orthodox doctrine to which he 
 accedes, is that men arc moral agents and sinners from their birth. And has 
 he then sanctioned the position, that " there is a period subsequent to birth, 
 during which men have no moral character," &c. ? No, Sir, I do not hesitate 
 to say, that our venerable instructor has never given his sanction to such an 
 opinion. You never heard the expression of such an opinion from his lips in 
 the lecture room, nor have you seen it in his published works ; and to repre- 
 sent him as having done it, is doing him manifest injustice. 
 
 In this place, you will allow me to ask ; if the views of Dr. Woods, on 
 5 
 
34 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 the subject of native depravity, as expressed in his controversy with Dr. 
 Ware, accord with those of Dr. Taylor, as 3-011 seem to intimate, why did Dr. 
 Taylor express such strong dissatisfaction with this part of the discussion ? 
 Why did he fay to one brother, that on this subject Dr. Ware had the better 
 of the argument : and to another that Dr. Woods had put back the contro- 
 versy with Unitarians fifty years. You cannot be ignorant of the decided 
 and marked disapprobation, which your New Haven brethren have often ex- 
 pressed of the views of Dr. Woods on this subject, as exhibited in his essay 
 on native depravity, and in his controversy with Dr. Ware. Will you not, 
 my dear Sir, review what you have written on this topic, and ask yourself 
 whether it is right, or fair, or honorable, to bring forward the names of dis- 
 tinguished divines, to sanction sentiments which we all know they do not 
 adopt, but repudiate ? 
 
 I will now consider your remarks on the next article in the Protest, which 
 is thus stated : 
 
 "III. Concerning the Principle and End of Human Actions. — That self-love, or the 
 desire of happiness, is the primary cause or reason of all acts of choice which fix supremely on 
 any object ; and that of all specific voluntary action, the happiness of the agent, in some form, is 
 the ultimate end." 
 
 In regard to this error, you say, " I cannot but regret that the framers of 
 the Protest, in making this particular statement, did not declare more distinct- 
 ly what the error is which is here aimed at." — I do not know how it could 
 have been possible for them to have declared this more distinctly than they 
 have done. They say it is an error " concerning the principle and end of 
 human actions ;" and then quote the language in which it is expressed. And 
 is not this language definite and plain ? Does it not clearly state, what in 
 the view of the writer is " the principle and*end of human actions ?" — But 
 you say, "Thousands, doubtless have been lead, by this vague statement to 
 regard your new school brethren as holding the preposterous doctrine, that 
 every man may and must make his own happiness his only and ultimate object 
 in all that he does, and that all benevolence and self-denial, all justice, truth, 
 purity, and mercy, are merely mercenary and differ from selfishness only in 
 name." But how do you suppose thousands have been lead to adopt this 
 conclusion, unless the conclusion is warranted by the obvious meaning of the 
 language ? The Pastoral Union have surely made no such representation, 
 unless it is made by the language which they have quoted verbatim, and with- 
 out note or comment, from the Christian Spectator. If this language has 
 produced in the minds of thousands the conviction of which you speak, do 
 you wonder that the Pastoral Union should regard it as containing a funda- 
 mental error, and that they should publicly and solemnly protest against it? 
 And is it not high time for you and your associates to publish a like protest ? 
 
 You inquire how we " understand the words primary cause or reason, in 
 the first part of the proposition, and the words ultimate end, in the last 
 part." — I answer, we understand them in their obvious meaning. And were 
 we to attach to them that which was not their obvious meaning, would you 
 not censure us ? Turn to the Christian Spectator, and look at the connection 
 in which the "first part of the proposition," or rather the first proposition is 
 used. 
 
 " The self-love or desire of happiness, is the primary cause of reason of all 
 acts of preference or choice which fix supremely on any object. In every 
 moral being who forms a moral character, there must be a first moral act of 
 preference or choice. This must respect some one object, God or Mammon, as 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 35 
 
 the chief good, or as an object of supreme affection. Now whence comes 
 such a choice or preference I Not from a previous choice or preference of 
 the same object, for we speak of the first choice of the object. The answer 
 which human consciousness \ the being, constituted with a capacity 
 
 for happiness, desires to be able of deriv- 
 
 ing happiness from differ from which -the greatest happi- 
 
 ness may be derived ; and as, in this i uztes their rela- 
 
 tive Value, SO HE CHOOSES Oii PREFERS THE ONE OR THE OTHER AS HIS 
 
 chief good." — Christian Spectator 1829, page 21. 
 
 Is there any obscurity in tins language I Is it possible to misunderstand it ? 
 If the meaning of the words, primary cause or reason" is not made evident 
 by the context, pray tell me how it can be made evident. — And so of the 
 other proposition ; "Of all specific voluntary action, the happiness of the 
 agent, in some form, is the ultimate end." — Is there any thing vague, or 
 ambiguous, or obscure in this language ? Should I not insult my readers to 
 intimate, that they could not understand a proposition so simple as this ? It 
 is my full belief, that you and I understand it, and that the writer understands 
 it, exactly as it is understood by the Pastoral Union. 
 
 I agree with you, that " a voluntary agent must be influenced by motives ; 
 and that every objective motive, in order to be a motive, must appeal to some 
 sensibility or desire of the mind that is to be moved by it, while the subjective 
 motive is nothing else than the awakened desire moving the mind to choose." 
 But I do not believe, that all moral beings, whether sinful or holy, are influen- 
 ced by the same subjective motives ; that is, have the same ultimate end in 
 view in their moral conduct. My belief is, that the grand distinction between 
 the saint and the sinner, lies in the subjective motives by which they are actu- 
 ated — that while the sinner makes his own happiness his ultimate end ; the 
 saint makes the glory of God his ultimate end. It is my solemn conviction — 
 a conviction, which in connection with what I have witnessed in years past, 
 has occasioned me much distress — that those who are influenced by no higher 
 motive than self-love, whatever may be their outward or visible character, 
 are strangers to the religion of the gospel. What was it which filicd 
 the mind of the pious Brainerd with such deep distress at a period when he 
 viewed himself near the close of life ! 
 
 He says, " These things I saw with great clearness when I was thought to 
 be dying, and God gave me great concern for his church, and interest in the 
 world at this time. Not so much, because the late remarkable influence 
 upon the minds of the people was abated and almost wholly gone, as 
 because the false religion, the heats of imagination, and wild selfish com- 
 motions of the animal affections, which attended the work of grace, had 
 prevailed so far. This was that which my mind dwelt upon day and night, 
 and was to me the darkest appearance respecting religion in the land. 
 For ft was that winch prejudiced the world against inward religion. This 
 I saw was the greatest misery of all, that so few saw any measure of 
 difference between those exercises which are spiritual and holy, and those 
 which have self-love fob theib beginning, center, and end." — Brainerd's 
 Life, page 498. 
 
 You say, " Ask any obedient and holy mind, on earth or in heaven, Why 
 do you obey God, why do you devote yourself to his praise and service, why 
 employ your faculties and powers in this course of benevolent action? — 
 Must not the answer be, Because I love it, — because I delight in it, because 
 it is my blessedness, my highest good." — You seem, my brother, to overlook 
 
36 I/ETTERS TO THE 
 
 a very important distinction, which is thus happily expressed by President 
 Edwards. 
 
 u The first objective ground of gracious affections, is the transcendently 
 excellent and amiable nature of divine things as they are in themselves ; and 
 not any conceived relation they bear to self, or self-interest." " Some sav 
 that all love arises from self-love ; and that it is impossible in the nature of 
 things, for any man to have any love to God or any other being, but that love 
 to himself must be the foundation of it. But I humbly suppose, it is for the 
 want of consideration they say so. They argue, that whoever loves God, 
 and so desires his glory, or the enjoyment of him, he desires these things as 
 his own happiness ; the glory of God, and the beholding and enjoying his 
 perfections, are considered as things agreeable to him, tending to make him 
 happy. And so they say, it is through self-love or a desire of his own happiness 
 that he desires God should be glorified, and desires to behold and enjoy his 
 glorious perfections. There is no doubt but that after God's glory and behold- 
 ing his perfections are become so very agreeable to him, he will desire them 
 as his own happiness, But how came these things to be so agreeable to him, 
 that he esteems it his highest happiness to glorify God, &c. Is not this the 
 fruit of love ? Must not a man first love God, and have his heart united to 
 him before he will esteem God's good his own, and before he will desire the 
 glorifying God as his happiness ? It is not strong arguing, that because after 
 a man has his heart united to God in love, and as a fruit of this, he desires 
 his glory and enjoyment, as his own happiness, that therefore a desire of his 
 own happiness must needs be the cause and foundation of his love ; unless 
 it be strong arguing that because a father begat a son, therefore his son 
 certainly begat him." — Edwards' Works, Volume, iv. page 172. 
 I am, Sir, with great respect, yours, truly, 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 
 Coventry, December 27, 1839. 
 
 SLttttt ©X. 
 
 Dear Sir, — The fourth error set forth in the Protest relates to a change 
 of heart. The language in which it is stated, is taken from an elaborate 
 treatise on the means of regeneration, published in the Christian Spectator 
 for the year 1829; in which the theory is maintained that antecedent to 
 regeneration, the selfish principle is suspended in the sinner's heart, that he 
 then ceases to sin, and, prompted by self-love, begins to use the means of 
 regeneration with motives which are neither sinful nor holy. The passage 
 quoted in the Protest, describes the process, through which the writer sup- 
 poses the sinner to go, after the suspension of the selfish principle, and while 
 using the means of regeneration. Let it be read in connection with the con- 
 text, and with other passages in the same treatise. The passage quoted by 
 the Pastoral Union is included in brackets in the following extract. 
 
 "We have already said, that the sinner is the subject of that constitutional 
 desire of happiness, called seif-love, to which no morai quality pertains. Let 
 the sinner then, as a being who loves happiness and desires the highest degree 
 of it, under the influence of such a desire, take into solemn consideration the 
 question whether the highest happiness is to be found in God or in the world ; 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 37 
 
 let him pursue the inquiry, if need be, till it result in the conviction that such 
 happiness is to be found in God only ; — [and let him follow up this conviction 
 with that intent and engrossing contemplation of the realities, which truth 
 discloses, and with that stirring up of his sensibilities in view of them, which 
 shall invest the world, when considered as his only portion, with an aspect of 
 insignificance, of gloom and even of terror, and which shall chill and suspend 
 his present active love of it ; and let the contemplation be persevered in, 
 till it shall discover a reality and an excellence in the objects of holy affection 
 which shall put him upon direct and desperate efforts to fix his heart upon 
 them ; and let this process of thought, of effort, and of action be entered 
 upon as one which is never to be abandoned, until the end proposed by it is 
 accomplished, — until the only living and true God is loved and chosen, as his 
 God forever ; and we say, that in this way the work of his regeneration, 
 through grace, may be accomplished."] "Whence then the necessity to the 
 sinners regeneration, of those acts which are dictated by the selfish principle? 
 Is it that the acts now described are impossible ?" — " Is not this indeed sub- 
 stantially the actual process in every instance of regeneration ? Without 
 affirming, what we shall have occasion to prove hereafter, that the transition 
 from sin to holiness, without this mental process, is physically impossible, we 
 say, that all the preliminary mental acts and states which are necessary to 
 regeneration may be as rationally accounted for, by tracing them to self- 
 love, as by tracing them to selfish principle." — Christian Spectator,1829, p.32. 
 
 Such is the process through which this writer supposes every sinner to pass 
 who is born again. First, the selfish principle is suspended, and self-love 
 takes its place ; all opposition to God and aversion to holiness, for the time 
 being, ceases. The sinner becomes favorably inclined, has sincere desires 
 after holiness, and is disposed to exert himself to the utmost to do his duty. 
 He sees a reality and excellence in the objects of holy affection, which puts 
 him upon direct and desperate efforts to fix his heart upon them. And all 
 this, let it be remembered, while he is still totally depraved and dead in tres- 
 passes and sin. Some of the absurdities involved in this scheme are thus 
 graphically described by a distinguished theologian. 
 
 " This is on the whole just such a journey as I should expect a supremely 
 selfish man and totally depraved sinner would make in his own strength from 
 sin to holiness. T reading selfishness under his feet with a heart caring for 
 nothing but himself ; panting with ' truly sincere desires — for acceptance 
 with God,' while blind to his ' excellence ' and caring for nothing but to shield 
 himself from punishment ; — completely detached from the world, and just 
 prepared to give his heart to God as soon as he can obtain clear, just and 
 vivid views of his glories, the precise things that were never seen but by holy 
 eyes ; but upon using the means of regeneration when the act cannot possibly 
 preceed regeneration itself. If this is the road travelled by the self-determin- 
 ing power, surely ' the way of transgressors is hard.' " — Griffin on Divine 
 Efficiency, page 52. 
 
 You well know, Sir, that the treatise on the means of regeneration from 
 which the above is an extract is taken, was read by many in the Christian 
 community with great distress. It was extensively regarded, as containing 
 principles " at war with God's word," and inconsistent with all genuine 
 Christian experience. My limits will not allow me to point out all the partic- 
 ulars in it which are considered quite exceptionable ; you will therefore 
 permit me to refer you and the reader to Dr. Tyler's Strictures and Vindi- 
 
38 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 cation. — When the Strictures were published, Professor Stuart thus wrote 
 to Dr. Ebenezer Porter, who was at that time in Charleston, S. C. — " Dr. 
 Tyler has published his pamphlet, a noble one too — which has made an end 
 of the matter, as to brother Taylor's regeneration by self love, — a full end : 
 there is no redemption. All the fog is blown away, and we have at last, a 
 clear and sheer regeneration of the natural man by himself, stimulated by 
 self-love, made out to be the scheme of brother Taylor ; there is no getting 
 aside of it. Brother Taylor must sing his TrxXoia^ or go farther and plunge 
 deeper. I hope for the 5r«A<v»JV but I fear the <^«t^/3jj." Dr. Porter's Me- 
 moirs, page 222. 
 
 Now can you be surprised, that views of the great and cardinal doctrine of 
 regeneration, which Professor Stuart felt himself authorized to speak of in 
 this manner, should excite great fear and distress in the Christian Community, 
 especially considering the source from which they emanated ? My brother, 
 the conviction is deep and solemn, that great errors have been and still are 
 maintained and propagated among us. You may make light of this convic- 
 tion, — you may regard it as the result of weakness and ignorance. — you 
 may treat it with ridicule and sarcasm, — you may call it " prayerful calumny," 
 — you may look down with disdain upon those who indulge in it; but" if 
 you expect in this way to remove it, let me assure you, you have greatly 
 mistaken the character of the brethren with whom you have undertaken to 
 deal. 
 
 The next article in the Protest is thus described. 
 
 "V. Concerning the Agency of the Spirit in Regeneration." — "That the Spirit, in Re. 
 generation, does not by direct efficiency change the heart, and thus produce holy affections — 
 that there is no other effectual hold which this divine agent can have on the sinner whom he 
 would turn from the error of his ways, but that which consists in so bringing the truths of the 
 Bible into contact with his understanding and moral sensibilities, that he shall voluntarily shun 
 the threatened evil and choose the proffered good, and that there is no more difficulty in account, 
 ing for the fact that the yielding sinner supremely loves God from tin: impulse of a regard to 
 his own happiness, than there is in explaining the opposite fact, of his having formerly, under 
 the influence of the same principle, when perverted, loved his idols." 
 
 In commenting upon the first proposition in this statement, you seem to 
 manifest an unusual degree of excitement, and to speak with a good deal of 
 warmth. If I do not misunderstand you, you pretty clearly intimate your 
 belief, that the Professor of Theology at East Windsor has been guilty of a 
 deliberate falsehood in this matter. I extremely regret this intimation, and 
 that you have imposed on me the duty of repelling it as calumnious. In the 
 closing paragraph of your last letter, you say ; " If I have spoken harshly, if I 
 have judged unkindly, reprove me, and pardon me as a brother." In this case 
 I think you have " spoken harshly " and "judged unkindly ;" but be assured I 
 " pardon you as a brother." But why is it you are led to believe, that the 
 Professor of Theology at East Windsor is guilty of this gross delinquency ? 
 Because he is a member of the Pastoral Union, and because the Pastoral Un- 
 ion have protested against the doctrine that " the Spirit in regeneration does 
 not by direct efficiency chang-e the heart and thus produce holy affections ;" 
 and because Dr. Taylor in his controversy with Dr. Tyler said, " we have 
 never called in question, the doctrine of an immediate or direct agency of the 
 Spirit on the soul, in regeneration." But my dear sir, how does this prove 
 that Dr. Tyler has been guilty of falsehood ? Have you not gone much too 
 fast in coming to this painful conclusion? Do you know that Dr. Tyler did 
 not object to that article of the Protest ? If he objected to the insertion of 
 this proposition in the Protest, where is the delinquency with which you 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 39 
 
 charge him? Is it not an unwarrantable assumption that _Dr. Tyler is re- 
 sponsible for all the acts of the Pastoral Union? Without first learning how 
 a member of Congress has acted in a given case, would you make him respon- 
 sible for the action of th" Legislature in that case, and en the assumption of 
 such a responsibility charge him with the guilt of falsehood? Would not this 
 be speaking ' harshly" and judging "unkindly ?" 
 
 But what has the Pastoral Union done ? Have they charged Dr. Taylor 
 with holding the doctrine which he has disclaimed ? You remark, " 1 need 
 not say, that this Protest is understood to describe, or that it was designed to 
 describe the opinions of the Theological Professors at New-Haven, and partic- 
 ularly the opinions of Dr. Taylor." But pray tell me, how is this understood? 
 The Pastoral Union have given no such intimation. They have protested 
 against errors which they supposed to prevail. But they have not said or 
 even intimated, that all the errors against which they have protested are 
 taught at New-Haven. What if Dr. Taylor has not denied the direct effic- 
 ieuci/ of the Holy Spirit in regeneration : — has no one denied it ? Are there 
 not those who maintain that the Holy Spirit never operates upon the mind, 
 except through the medium of truth or motives? Dr. Porter, in his Letters 
 on Revivals, speaks of this as a prevalent error, and one which is maintained 
 by " religious teachers of considerable name." Why do you not charge him 
 with a gross delinquency ? 
 
 But are you quite sure that this sentiment is adopted by none of the minis- 
 ters of Connecticut? It will give joy to the members of the Pastoral Union 
 to be well assured of this fact. They doubtless did suppose that this error did 
 exist in the State ; but they have not charged Dr. Taylor with maintaining it ; 
 nor do I find that Dr. Tyler has brought against him any such charge, since 
 the disclaimer to which you refer. In his vindication, after quoting the dis- 
 claimer of Dr. Taylor, he says, " I am happy to be informed that his views on 
 this point have been misapprehended." What ground is there then, for the 
 insinuation that there is between Dr. Tyler and Dr. Taylor, in reference to 
 this subject, -a plain falsehood, for which one of them must give account to the 
 God of truth." "In the name of charity, and as sincerely desirous to put the 
 best construction upon this matter," I entreat you not to bring before the pub- 
 lic another such insinuation. 
 
 It is true, as it appears from his Strictures, that Dr. Tyler did understand 
 Dr. Taylor to maintain, in his treatise on the means of regeneration, that the 
 Divine Spirit operates not directly on the mind, but only through the medium 
 of truth or motives. This principle he supposed to be invc lved in the whole 
 tenor of his reasoning respecting the suspension of the selfish principle, and 
 to be distinctly avowed, when he said; " II* there were no other way to 
 overcome this strong man, [the selfish principle,] but by direct assault, then 
 for aught we can see, the moral transformation of the soul were hopeless, 
 even to Omnipotence." By direct assault, Dr. Tyler doubtless understood 
 Dr. Taylor to mean the direct efficiency of the Holy Spirit, (and what else he 
 could mean I do not know that he or any other person has ever informed us.) 
 But when Dr. Taylor disclaimed any such meaning. Dr. Tyler said : "lam 
 happy to be informed that his views on tlii-; point have been misapprehended." 
 
 But although neither the Pastoral Union nor Dr. Tyler have imputed to 
 Dr. Taylor the sentiment that the Spirit operates on the mind in regeneration 
 only through the medium of truth or motives ; if I have been correctly 
 informed there are those who have represented him as holding this sentiment ; 
 and those too who profess to be well acquainted with his opinions, and who 
 
40 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 have been claimed as belonging to your party. If therefore there have been 
 any false representations on this subject, you can judge from what quarter 
 they have come. 
 
 But after all, do the New Haven divines maintain the doctrine of direct 
 divine efficiency, in the sense in which that doctrine has been maintained by 
 our standard orthodox divines ? A direct and full answer to this question 
 will much oblige me, and doubtless many of my readers. — What is that doc- 
 trine, as held by our standard writers ? If I have correctly understood it, it 
 is this, that the Holy Spirit, by a direct, efficacious, invincible energy, creates 
 in the sinner a new heart, and a new spirit ; — i. e. a new disposition, or new 
 moral affections, communicating a relish for spiritual and holy objects, and 
 causing the soul to delight in what before it viewed with aversion and hatred. 
 
 Thus President Edwards says ; " The nature of virtue being a positive 
 thing, can proceed from nothing but God's immediate influence, and must take 
 its rise from creation or infusion by God." 
 
 Dr. Bellamy says ; " In regeneration, there is a new, divine and holy taste 
 and relish begotten in the heart by the immediate influence of the Spirit of 
 God." 
 
 Dr. Hopkins says ; " The divine operation in regeneration of which the 
 new heart is the eifect, is immediate, or it is not wrought by the energy of 
 any means as the cause of it, but by the immediate, power and energy of 
 the Holy Spirit. It is called a creation, and the divine energy in it is as much 
 without any medium as in creating something from nothing." 
 
 Dr. Smalley says ; " Regeneration is such a spiritual change of nature, as 
 supposes something created in a proper and strict sense." 
 
 Dr. D wight says ; " The soul of man was created with a relish for spiritual 
 objects. The soul of every man who becomes a Christian is renewed by the 
 communication of the same relish." 
 
 Tell me, my brother, do the New Haven divines hold this doctrine ? I had 
 verily supposed that they considered such an influence upon the mind as is 
 described in the foregoing extracts, to be inconsistent with moral agency, and 
 that they were in the habit of representing those who entertained these views 
 as virtually holding the doctrine of physical regeneration. If I have been 
 deceived on this point, you will be so good as to correct me. 
 
 There is another difficulty which you will allow me to state. If the New 
 Haven divines admit the doctrine of a direct divine efficiency in genera- 
 tion, how comes it to pass that they have called in question the doctrine of 
 God's absolute control over the moral universe, and his ability to prevent ali sin 
 in a moral system ? If he can and does, by a direct efficiency, renew the hearts 
 of obdurate rebels, and transform them into meek and humble disciples of 
 Jesus, without impairing their moral agency ; can he not, by a direct influence 
 upon the minds of holy beings, preserve them from apostacy. If God can 
 create holiness in totally depraved hearts, can he not uphold and preserve it 
 in those hearts in which it already exists ? It appears to me, that the theory 
 of the New Haven divines respecting the divine permission of sin, rests on 
 the assumption, that God never does exert such a direct efficiency on the 
 minds of men in regeneration, as Calvinists have uniformly maintained. 
 Please to relieve my mind from this difficulty. 
 
 But let us proceed to the consideration of the next proposition in the article 
 of the Protest: — "that there is no other hold which this Divine Agent can 
 have on the sinner whom he would turn from the error of his ways, but that 
 which consists in so bringing the truths of the Bible in contact with his under- 
 
REV. LEONARD BACOX. 41 
 
 standing and moral sensibilities, that he shall voluntarily shun the threatened 
 evil and choose the proffered good." This is quoted from the Christian 
 Spectator, for 1833, page 356. What is the meaning of this language? Will 
 you not, Sir, look at it a little more particularly than you seem to have done? 
 According to this representation, what does the Holy Spirit do in regeneration ? 
 He brings the trutlis of the Bible into contact with the understanding and moral 
 sensibilities of the sinner, in such a manner that he is induced (or persuaded) 
 voluntarily to shun the threatened evil and choose the protfered good. This, 
 we are given to understand, is all which the Holy Spirit can do in renewing 
 the heart. " We know of no other effectual hold which this Divine Agent can 
 have on the sinner, whom he would turn from the error of his ways." Pray 
 inform me, is this the doctrine of direct divine efficiency, as it has been main- 
 tained by Calvinists ? Can you solemnly affirm that it is ? How is it that 
 a person, believing in that doctrine, should write in this manner ? 
 
 The remaining proposition in the Protest under this head is as follows : — 
 " There is no more difficulty in accounting for the fact that the yielding sinner 
 supremely loves God, from the impulse of a regard to his own happiness, 
 than there is in explaining the opposite fact, of his having formerly, under 
 the influence of the same principle, when perverted, loved his idols." This 
 is from the Christian Spectator, for 1833, page 357. That it may be fully 
 understood, it is important to notice what immediately follows. " The self- 
 love that was previously in servitude to his selfish inclinations, and perverted 
 by their unhallowed influence, now breaks away from that servitude, as his soul 
 under the power of light and motives rendered effectual by the Holy Ghost, 
 is made to see and feel where its true interest lies. And no sooner is this duly 
 seen and felt, through the influence of the Spirit, than the man who is so con- 
 stituted that he must have a regard to what he views as his highest good, at 
 once chooses Christ and his service as the means of securing it." — Are we 
 not here clearly taught, that regeneration implies no change in the internal or 
 subjective motive bv which man is influenced, — that the yielding sinner " acts 
 under the influence of the same principle" as that by which he was '• influen- 
 ced when he supremely loved his idols ?" in other words, that he has the same 
 ultimate end, viz. a supreme regard to his own happiness. And what, accord- 
 ing to this representation does the Holy Spirit do in regeneration ? He brings 
 M light and motives" before the mind of the sinner, so that he sees and feels 
 where his true interest lies. This we are given to understand is all which it is 
 necessarv for the Spirit to do : for " no sooner is this duly seen and felt, than 
 the man who is so constituted that he must have a regard to what he views 
 as his highest good, at ovice chooses Christ and his service as the means of 
 securing it." I ask vou, Sir. is this the Calvinistic doctrine of a direct divine 
 efficiency in regeneration? What do the New Haven divines mean when 
 they speak of a direct efficiency of the Holy Spirit in regeneration ? I ask for 
 li<rht on this subject, and your remarks on this article in the Protest do not 
 emit the light demanded. They are not at all satisfactory. Indeed what 
 liwht do they give on this subject ? You have pretty plainly intimated that a 
 father of high standing in the ministry, who is also a theological professor, 
 has been grossly delinquent ; you have asked me to name the men among the 
 Congregational ministers of Connecticut who teach or hold this proposition 
 of the Protest ; and you have inquired whether the apostle James is a heritic. 
 And what else ? — My dear Sir, you must be aware, that not a few, regard 
 the above description of regeneration aa utterly inconsistent with all genuine 
 
42 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 religious experience, and as eminently suited to lead sinners to deceive them- 
 selves with a hope of salvation which will not abide in the day of trial. 
 
 I have only to add in reference to this topic ; the Pastoral Union have not 
 charged the New Haven divines with denying the doctrine of a direct divine 
 efficiency in regeneration. Nor do I charge them with denying it. How 
 they can maintain it consistently, you will perceive by the preceding remarks, 
 is what I am wholly unable to see. I proceed to the next article. 
 
 "VI. Conckkning Special Grace." — "That if it is a known and revealed truth that the sinner 
 under a present call to duty, will not act, unless God do mjrc than he is now doing, then it is 
 reasonable that the sinner wait until God does more ; and that in all cases, the grace of God may 
 be effectually resisted." 
 
 I was not a little surprised by the following declaration. " You know how 
 widely it has been reported, and by whom it has been reported, that the Pro- 
 fessor of Didactic Theology in Yale College, in personal conversation with his 
 friends, denies the doctrine of special grace in the conversion of sinners, and 
 is keeping back a public denial of the doctrine only till the public mind shall be 
 prepared for it." No Sir. You mistake. I do not possess the information on 
 this subject which you say I possess. I know no man, by whom such a report 
 has been circulated. I do know who has been charged with circulating such 
 a report. The charge was brought four years ago, against Dr. Nettieton. It 
 was then promptly denied, and his accusers were called upon to exhibit the 
 Droof. But no proof has yet been adduced. That the charge should again be 
 preferred, without a particle of proof, is to me a matter of astonishment. I 
 now call upon you, either to retract the charge, or to substantiate it by proof. 
 I am authorized by Dr. Nettieton to say, that he is not conscious of having 
 ever charged Dr. Taylor With denying special grace, in any other sense than 
 that in which Dr. Taylor has charged Dr. Tyler with being a universalist, 
 an infidel, and an atheist. He has expressed his belief, as many other persons 
 have done, that Dr. Taylor has in his published writings, maintained positions 
 which lead by legitimate consequence to the denial of special grace. And Dr. 
 Taylor has charged Dr. Tyler with maintaining positions which lead by legiti- 
 mate consequence to universalism, to infidelity, and to atheism. Now suppose 
 that I should affirm thatDr. Taylor has caiied Dr Tyler a universalist, an infi- 
 del, and an atheist; wou'd you not repel such an assertion as false and slanderous ? 
 The language referred to by the Pastoral Union, which is supposed to 
 involve, by legitmate consequence, the denial of special grace, is taken from 
 Dr. Taylor's treatise on the means of regeneration. This language you think 
 "is perfectly equivocal —no Delphic Oracle could surpass it." (No great 
 compliment to the writer.) But, Sir, I see nothing equivocal or obscure in 
 passage. It appears to me, a Delphic Oracle would far surpass it. I believe 
 it will admit of but one interpretation, without doing violence to the lan- 
 guage. Just look at it again. "Common sense decides, that, if it is a known 
 and revealed truth that the sinner, under a present call to duty, will not act," 
 (i. e. will not do his duty.) " unless God do more for him than he is now doing, 
 then let the sinner wait" (i. c. he has a good reason for waiting) "till he does 
 more." This certainly, as it appears to me, is very plain language. I know 
 not how to express my views of this passage better than to copy the follow- 
 ing remarks from Dr. Tyler's Vindication. 
 
 " According to this statement, the sinner is authorized to believe, not only that he can, but also 
 that there is no certainty that he shall not perform his duty ; even if God should do no more for 
 him than he is now doing ; or else he is authorized to believe, that be has a good and sufficient 
 reason for persisting in disobedience. Now every sinner under genuine conviction of sin, fully 
 
UEV. LEONARD BACON. 43 
 
 believes, that he neve.- shall do his duty unless God does more for him than he is now doing ; aud 
 every sinner who <1ol.s not believe this, bet -ays consummate ignorance of hi* own heart." 
 
 " Besides — if sinners are authorized to Believe, that there is no certainly that they shall not 
 repent, even if God does no more for them than he is now doing ; then Christians may believe that 
 wiien they repented, God did no more for them than he had previously don.', and no more than he 
 did tor others, who never have repented. Who make Ui thee to differ ? Again — If sinners are 
 authorized to believe as ;;b >ve, then Christians may believe that sinners will repent and turn to 
 God, although God should do no more for them than he is now 6<>m^. Suppose they should 
 express this sentiment in prayer : ' Lord, we do believe that sinners will repent and he converted, 
 even if thou shouldst withhold \'..y special grace, and do no more for them than thou art now 
 doing.' But says the Reviewer, 'The grace that may ait. nd any present call to duty, may be 
 given in greater measure than any which preceded it.' Be it so. f>till the grace which is neces- 
 sary to secure repentance, has not yet been given to the sinner, who is now impenitent ; and if it 
 is a revealed truth, that the sinner will not repent without that grace, then, according to the 
 Reviewer's statement, he has a good and sufficient reason to wait t:il that grace be given." This 
 reasoning, so far as I know, has never been answered. There is as it appears to me, but one 
 alternative ; the position must be given up, or the doctrine of special grace must be abandoned. 
 
 " Thai in all cases, the grace of God may be effectually resisted." — On 
 this point you ask, " Do tiie Pastoral Union believe in the irresistible grace 
 which Dr. Dwight so distinctly and earnestly denies ? Do they protest 
 against Dwight's Theology as boldly assailing those scriptural doctrines which 
 constitute the long acknowledged basis of the peace and purity of the church- 
 es ? Do they insist that his error on this point is subversive of the fundamen- 
 tal doctrines of the gospel, and suited to deceive many with false hopes of 
 salvation ?" Not quite so fast, brother Bacon. You exceed the speed of 
 modern improvements. Stop, and point me to the passage in which Dr. 
 Dwight has thus affirmed that '• in all cases the grace of God may be effectu- 
 ally resisted." If he has thus affirmed, I am certainly ignorant of the fact. He 
 did indeed object to the phrase •' irresistible grace." as many others have done, 
 who fully admit the doctrine which was thus denominated by the old divines. 
 President Edwards says, " The dispute about grace being resistible or irresiti- 
 ble, is perfect nonsense. For the effect of grace is on the will : so that it is 
 nonsense, except it be proper to say, that man with his will can resist his own 
 will ; that is, except it be possible for a man to will a thing and not will it at 
 the same time." 
 
 The doctrine of Calvinists on this subject is, that the agency of the Holy 
 Spirit in regeneration is effectual, efficacious, invincible, decisive, unfailing, in 
 producing the desired effect : in other words, that sinners never so resist the 
 grace of God as to render it impossible for God to convert them. Has Dr. 
 Dwight denied this doctrine t Certainly not, for he has said in the very par- 
 agraph to which you have referred, " That the Spirit of God can do 
 
 ANV THING WITH MAN', AND CONSTITUTE MAN ANY THING WHICH HE PLEASES, 
 
 cannot be questioned." If this declaration of Dr. Dwight is true, the 
 Holy Spirit can transform any sinner that he pleases into a saint, and it is not 
 true that the grace of God may be in all cases effectually resisted. Do the 
 Pastoral Union, then. - protest against Dr. Dwight's Theology, as boldly 
 assailing those scriptural doctrines which constitute the long acknowledged 
 basis of the peace and purity of the churches ? Do they insist that his error 
 on this point is subversive of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and 
 suited to deceive many with false hopes of salvation ?" Had there been no 
 departure from Dr. Dwight's Theology, would yno, my brother, have been so 
 much troubled with a Protest of the Pastoral Un : on ? Dr. Dwight does 
 not sanction the doctrine against which the Pastoral Union have protested. 
 
 That unrenewed men do always resist the Holy Ghost, is unquestionably 
 true. But the point at issue is, may they in all casts effectually resist the 
 Spirit, and thus prevent their conversion ? If every sinner may effectually 
 
44 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 resist, and thus frustrate the grace of God which attempts to convert him ; 
 then, it may be that not another sinner will ever be converted. You know 
 who it is that has said, " Free moral agents can do wrong under all possible 
 preventing influence ; using their powers as they may use them, they will 
 sin ; and no one can show that some such agents will not use their powers as 
 they may use them. This possibility that free agents will sin, remains, 
 (suppose what else you will,) so long as moral agency remains ; and how can 
 it be proved that a thing will not be, when for ought that appears, it may be!" 
 How can it be proved, then, that every sinner will not effectually resist the 
 grace of God and perish ? Has Dr. Dwight maintained any such doctrine ? 
 Allow me to quote again his declaration, that it may be easily compared with 
 the above. — " That the Spirit of God can do any thing with man, and consti- 
 tute man any thing he pleases, cannot be questioned." On this important point 
 in theology, do the New Haven divines agree with Dr. Dwight ? Meet this 
 question fairly, without quibbling or evasion. Do not say that the words 
 " may be denote no uncertainty ; for you know that the passage is found in 
 a train of reasoning in which the writer is attempting to prove that if God 
 created a universe of moral agents, there could be no certainty that all would 
 persevere in holiness — that no preventing influence which God could use, 
 would make it certain that some of them would not rebel. You will not 
 deny, that this was the object of the writer ; and if his argument proves any 
 thing to his purpose, it proves equally that sinners may effectually resist the 
 grace of God and render it impossible for God to convert them. 
 
 After adding another letter in reply to your remarks on the Protest, I shall 
 proceed to notice the contents of some of your communications which have 
 thus long been passed in silence. Be patient, my brother ; you know it 
 requires less time to ask, than to answer questions. 
 
 Respectfully and affectionately yours in the gospel. 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 
 Coventry, January 4, 1840. 
 
 littler Wll. 
 
 Dear Sir, — I proceed now to notice your remarks on the last errors set 
 forth in the Protest of the Pastoral Union, which is thus stated. 
 
 " VII. Concerning Election. — That election is God's purpose that those should repent aud 
 believe whom he foresaw, under the most wise distribution of the means and agencies by 
 which he could operate upon the subjects of his moral kingdom, he could induce to obey th» 
 gospel." 
 
 u On the doctrine of election," you say, " it seems to me that there is at the 
 most as little occasion for dispute or difference between the Pastoral Union 
 and their brethren, as on any other of the points named in this Protest." This 
 may be, and yet there may be occasion for no inconsiderable difference. If I 
 understand you, you S3e in this article of the Protest nothing objectionable ; and 
 you seem to be filled with wonder that the Pastoral Union should take excep- 
 tions to it. You make a number of statements on this subject, in which you 
 think all must agree. But, sir, I have learned that two persons may agree in 
 admitting a certain general proposition, when they differ widely as to the sense 
 in which the proposition is to be understood. I will illustrate my meaning. 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 45 
 
 Not long since, as I was informed by one who was present, a candidate for a 
 license to preach the gospel was examined by one of our associations. During 
 the examination he was asked what he understood by election. He replied, 
 " It is God's purpose to convert, and save only a part of the human race." 
 To this statement no one of the association was disposed to object. And who 
 would object to this statement ? Do you think any minister of the Pastoral 
 Union would object? Would Edwards, Bellamy, Hopkins, Smalley, D wight, 
 or Strong have objected ? But being asked again, why God did not purpose 
 to convert and save all men, his reply was, " we have no evidence that he was 
 able to do it." — " I believe," said he, " that God will save as many as he can." 
 Do you not believe, sir, that members of the Pastoral Union will object to this 
 view of the doctrine of election ? Do you not believe that Edwards, Smalley, 
 Hopkins, Bellamy, D wight, and Strong would have objected to this ? Now 
 it is to this view of the doctrine of election, that we do object. 
 
 Do you say that the sentiment here advanced is not adopted by any of our 
 ministers ? But, if I am correctly informed, a part of the association referred 
 to, expressed no dissatisfaction with the answer of the candidate. Again, if I 
 am correctly informed, the following is an article of faith adopted, within a 
 few years past, by one of the Congregational churches of New-Haven ; — 
 " That the present system of God's moral government is the best that he could 
 adopt to promote his own glory, and the highest good of his intelligent crea- 
 tures ; and that he has from eternity chosen to salvation every sinner that he 
 can sanctify and save under this system." Is not the view of the doctrine of 
 election expressed by the candidate alluded to, and in this article of faith, sub- 
 stantially that which has been maintained in publications which have been 
 circulated among us ? Has not the doctrine been maintained and strenuously 
 defended, that God would make all his moral creatures holy and happy, if it 
 were possible to him in the nature of things ? Look at the following state- 
 ments : " Would not a moral universe of perfect holiness be happier and better 
 than one comprising sin and its miseries ? And must not infinite benevolence 
 accomplish all the good it can ? Would not a benevolent God, then, had it 
 been possible to ki?n in the nature of things, have secured the existence of uni- 
 versal holiness in his moral kingdom ?" Again — " Dr. Tyler maintains that 
 God can secure the holiness and happiness of all his moral creatures. It fol- 
 lows, therefore, that God will secure the holiness and happiness of all his 
 moral creatures. Of course all men will be saved." Again — "How is it that 
 God says, Isaiah v. 4, that he has done all that can be done to bring sinners 
 to repentance, when he could do mjre if he would." Now suppose the 
 question to be asked, why did not God purpose to convert and save the whole 
 human race ? What must the answer be, to accord with the foregoing state- 
 ments ? Again — look at the following proposition which has been often 
 repeated and vindicated : " God prefers, all things considered, holiness to 
 sin, in all instances in which the latter takes place." — If this declaration is 
 true, why does not God prevent sin, by securing holiness in its stead in all 
 instances ? Just answer that question, without evasion, or equivocation. 
 You know that there can be but one answer ; and that is, that he is not able 
 to do it : for certainly God. must be disposed to secure that which he on the 
 whole prefers. This you can not, you will not deny. What, then, becomes 
 of the doctrine of election ? Why has God purposed to sanctify and save 
 only a part of the human race ? It is of no use to attempt to put an orthodox 
 gloss upon the subject, and thus endeavor to satisfy a portion of your readers, 
 by saying, " Whomsoever God elects to be renewed and saved, them he elect* 
 
48 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 because he foresees that it will be wise and consistent with his universal 
 scheme for him to put forth those acts which shall secure the renovation and 
 salvation of those individuals. — Whomsoever he passes over in his purpose 
 of election, them he passes over because he foresees that it will not be wise, 
 not consistent with his great scheme, for him to put forth those acts which 
 shall secure their renovation and salvation." — According to the doctrine of 
 the New Haven school, why would it not have been wise for God to purpose 
 to make all his moral creatures holy and happy ? Simply because, he foresaw 
 tiiat he could not do it. This is taught in language too plain to to be mis- 
 understood. 
 
 You, Sir, doubtless expect me to say something in reference to your remarks 
 on " Dr. Dana's Letters to the Rev. Professor Stuart." You say, — " In Dr. 
 Dana's » Letters to Professor Stuart ' — a pamphlet of which I may say that 
 I cannot read it but with thankfulness that no Connecticut Doctor is capable 
 of producing such a series of weak misrepresentations — I find this version 
 of the supposed error of ' the new theory ' respecting election, namely that it 
 ' subverts the doctrine of election, by resolving it into a mere certainty in the 
 mind of God whether the sinner will voluntarily turn, or voluntarily persist in 
 impenitence.' Can it be — I asked myself — can it be that this is what the 
 Pastoral Union mean to charge their brethren with believing ? No — I 
 replied — they certainly know better. Dr. Dana lives a great way off; 
 and to him, looking through a glass darkly, all things may seem distorted and 
 misplaced, and even the sun light may be gloomy ; — but these brethren, who 
 live among us, and with whom we have often taken sweet counsel, — they 
 cannot so misunderstand, on such a subject, the opinions of their neighbors." 
 
 In the first place, allow me to say, that I was not a little surprised at the 
 contemptuous manner in which you speak of a pamphlet which has been so 
 favorably received by the Christian public, and so highly commended by the 
 periodical press, both in New England and elsewhere. I refer to the notice 
 taken of it in the Christian Mirror ; the Boston Recorder ; the Congregation- 
 alist ; the Biblical Repository ; the Presbyterian ; and the Watchman of the 
 South. In all these journals it is highly commended. It is also favorably 
 noticed in the Philadelphia Observer, and particularly commended for the 
 excellent spirit which pervades its pages. You, my brother, I believe have 
 the honor of being the first man, who has publicly spoken of it with contempt. 
 
 In the second place, permit me to say, that while Dr. Dana has long been a 
 learned, able, humble, faithful, and successful minister of Christ ; he has Jong 
 been in the habit of writing for the Christian public, very much to the edifica- 
 tion of the churches ; and though he has aided the sight of his eyes by the 
 use of glasses ; yet I am by no means certain, that his '■ vision of the supposed 
 error of the new theory respecting election " is so far from the truth, as you 
 would have us to believe. According to him the new theory " subverts the 
 doctrine of election by resolving it into a mere certainty in the mind of God, 
 whether the sinner will voluntarily turn, or voluntarily persist in impenitence." 
 This you affect to regard as a gross misrepresentation. But, my dear Sir, just 
 compare it with the following extract from the Christian Spectator for 1831, 
 page 637. " The means of reclaiming grace which meet him in the word 
 and spirit of God, are those by which the Father draws, induces just such 
 sinners as himself voluntarily to submit to Christ ; and these means all favor 
 the act of his submission. To this influence he can yield, and thus be drawn 
 of the Father. This influence he can resist and thus harden his heart against 
 God. Election involves nothing more as it respects his individual case, except 
 
LETTERS TO THE 47 
 
 one fact, the certainty to thp divine mind, whether the sinner will yield 
 to the means of grace, and voluntarily turn to God, or whether he will con- 
 tinue to harden his heart till the means of grace are withdrawn." — Read over 
 this statement — ponder upon it — and ask yourself what must he its import, 
 if fairly interpreted. God employs the best system of means which his 
 wisdom can devise to bring sinners to repentance. lie annex, indiices them 
 to submit to Christ. Every sinner can yield to this influence, or he can resist 
 it. " Election invoices nothing more, as it respects his individual case, except 
 one fact, the certainty to the divine mind," — that is, the divine fore- 
 knowledge, whether the sinner will yield to the means of, grace, and volun- 
 tarily turn to God, or whether he will continue to harden his heart. 
 
 Now I ask you. Sir, is not this the very view of election which Dr. Dana 
 has described ? I ask also, whether it is possible to put a different construc- 
 tion upon the language quoted above, without doing violence to all legitmate 
 rules of interpretation ? And, I ask again, are you quite certain, "that no 
 Connecticut Doctor is capable of producing such a series of weak misrepre- 
 sentations" as are found in Dr. Dana's pamphlet 1 
 
 But farther : If all men may effectually resist the grace of God, then cer- 
 tainly before God can purpose to renew and save any individuals, he must 
 foresee that those individuals will cease to resist his grace, and thus render it 
 possible for God to convert them. According to this scheme therefore, elec- 
 tion must be founded, not only on God's foreknowledge " of what it will be 
 wise and best for him to do ;" but on his foresight of what men will do. I see 
 not therefore, but it must be resolved, as Dr. Dana has said, " into a mere 
 certainty in the mind of God, whether the sinner will voluntarily turn or 
 voluntarily persist in impenitence." 
 
 Although " Dr. Dana lives a great way off," and although he has become a 
 venerable father in the ministry, I am not. sure that he has looked at this sub- 
 ject " through a glass darkly." He has doubtless read the Christian Spectator 
 attentively, and I am not yet fully convinced, that he is not as capable of un- 
 derstanding what he reads, as the brother, who, (though greatly his junior in 
 years,) is disposed to treat him with so great disrespect. 
 
 As you have seen fit to express so freely your views of Dr. Dana's Letters 
 to Professor Stuart, may I not, in the third place, express the opinion, that the 
 learned Professor, consulting his ease and reputation, may be led to maintain 
 a dignified silence, in relation to that pamphlet. 
 
 With this review of your remarks on the Protest of the Pastoral Union, I 
 submit to you and the reader, one of the great questions to be settled, before 
 harmony can be restored to the ministers of this State, viz ; — Previous to 
 the organization of the Pastoral Union, were there not sentiments 
 inculcated and promulgated, which were believed to be subversive 
 of the established faith of our churches ? 
 
 In your last letter you say " Let me add a few words of explanation, and I 
 have done with this Protest for the present. First I am far from denying 
 that there are differences between East Windsor and New Haven, or that 
 these differences are important in respect to the illustration and defence of the 
 doctrines revealed in the gospel. I will not now attempt to tell what the 
 real differences are, and how they bear upon revealed truth. — Perhaps at some 
 future stage in this discussion, I may attempt such a statement." In coming 
 " to the root and essence of our existing difficulties," it is to be deeply regretted 
 that you did not, in the first place, " tell what the real differences are, and hdw 
 they bear upon revealed truth." — Would not this have been the most success- 
 
48 REV. LEONARD BACON. 
 
 fill method, which could have been adopted, " to remove misunderstanding and 
 to unite the ministers of Connecticut more strongly than ever in those ties 
 which seem in some clanger of disruption ?" But have not the communica- 
 tions with which you have honored me been well adapted, I do not say design- 
 ed, to cast a dark cloud over the eyes of your readers, and hide from their 
 view the real differences "between East Windsor and New Haven, and how 
 they bear upon revealed truth ?" But you intimate that there are to be future 
 stages in this discussion, and that " at some future stage " you " may attempt 
 such a statement." I beg you to do it. Do it fully, do it faithfully, do it in 
 the fear of God. And do it at as early a stage in this discussion as possible. 
 — Let minor subjects of dispute be passed in silence, until you have brought 
 distinctly to view what, in your opinion, are the real theological differences 
 between our brethren of the New Haven School and the members of the 
 Pastoral Union. Tell us how important you conceive these differences to be, 
 " in respect to the illustration and defence of the doctrines revealed in the 
 gospel," and " how they bear upon revealed truth." And in doing this, it seems 
 needful, and if I mistake not, there are obvious reasons, why you should answer 
 the questions publicly propounded to Dr. Taylor by Dr. Woods in 1830, and 
 which Dr. Taylor was earnestly requested to answer. 1. These questions 
 respect the " root and essence of our existing difficulties." 2. They have not, 
 to this day, so far as I know, been answered. 3. You have volunteered your 
 services, and taken the lead in this discussion, for the professed purpose of 
 removing " misunderstanding, and to unite the ministers of Connecticut more 
 strongly than ever." There is misunderstanding on theological points, between 
 the ministers of Connecticut, which will not, in my opinion, be fully removed 
 until these questions are satisfactorily answered. 4. In commencing this 
 discussion, you have put yourself in the place of Dr. Taylor, and may we not 
 expect you to act his part in this particular. 5. In the autumn of 1829, the 
 day after the anniversary of the Andover Seminary, Drs. Beecher, Taylor, 
 Goodrich, Nettleton, Church, Cornelius, Hewitt, Spring, Porter, Woods, Pro- 
 fessor Stuart, and some other gentleman, met in Dr. Porter's study, for a 
 conference on the subjects of controversy, on which they and others entertain- 
 ed different opinions. In the autumn of 1830, not long after Dr. Woods' 
 Letters to Dr. Taylor were published, in which are the questions alluded to, 
 there was at the same place a similar meeting. The following gentlemen, and 
 some others, were present : Drs. Day, Beecher, Porter, Hewit, Nettleton, 
 Church, Pond, Stowe, the four Professors of Andover Seminary, Rev. Leonard 
 Bacon, Rev. E. Beecher, Rev. Parsons Cooke, Rev. George Howe, and Rev. 
 Amos Blanchard. Dr. Beecher stated, " that, the object of the meeting was, 
 to deliberate on some practicable mode of discussing the subjects of contro- 
 versy, on which evangelical ministers are supposed to entertain different 
 opinions." And now, my brother, is the printed document spread out before 
 me correct in asserting, that " after various remarks made by different gentle- 
 men, on the evils of controversy, a new turn was given to the whole subject, 
 and the following resolution was offered by Mr. Bacon, and seconded by Dr. 
 Beecher : — " Resolved, as the sense of this meeting, without wishing to control 
 the judgment of individuals concerned, that it is desirable that all farther 
 controversy, by means of pamphlets books and periodicals, respecting the 
 topics which have recently divided the opinions of the evangelical ministers of 
 New England, cease, from this time, on both sides." It is further asserted, 
 irf the document before me, that you advocated the adoption of this resolution, 
 and that it was passed, the gentlemen not assenting to it, having previously 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 49 
 
 retired from the meeting 1 . Whether you offered that resolution as an apology 
 tor Dr. Taylor's not answering Dr. Woods' questions, or, as I am quite disposed 
 to believe, merely to prevent the evils of controversy ; since Dr. Taylor has 
 not answered those questions, and since you have now entered the field of 
 public discussion, and have commenced debates by asking questions, because 
 you think " it is high time that they were asked earnestly, and answered 
 unequivocally ;" yon will not, you can not object to answering yourself the 
 questions which Dr. Woods propounded to Dr. Taylor. What I wish you to 
 do I will express in a quotation from Dr. Woods' Letters to Dr. Taylor, pp. 
 103-4-5-0. 
 
 "As to the subjects of discussion introduced in these Letters, I hope you will take care not to 
 overlook the main points. Whatever labor you may bestow upon smaller things, be careful not 
 to pass by those which arc of primary importance. — You will excuse me if I mention some of 
 them, and suggest to you what I suppose to be necessary on your part, to meet the circumstances 
 of the case, and the wishes of the community. 
 
 " As to the two positions, then, which you call ' common but groundless assumptions,' I wish 
 to ask, what you take to be the real sentiments which your brethren mean to express by these 
 positions : and whether you deny them in the sense in which they affirm them ; or if not, in what 
 sense you do deny them ; and whether you hold the opposite; or if not, whether your belief 
 really stops with the mere negative of the common belief? 
 
 " In regard to the second position, my question is. whether your theory implies that God could 
 have prevented all sin, or the present degree of it ? The question relates to moral agents actually 
 existing ; and to answer it by savin:;, yes, God could have prevented all sin, or the present 
 degree of it, by not giving existence to moral beings, — would be a mere shufHe. According to 
 your theory, was God able to prevent sin in the literal sense, (which is the first 6ense I have given 
 of power.) — that is, was he able to do it, if, on the whole he had chosen to do it ? 
 
 " As you appear to hold that God could not prevent sin, in tho third sense I have given, will 
 you inform us wherein you suppose the impossibility or absurdity consists ? also whether you 
 consider it impossible or absurd in all cases alike for God to prevent sin ? and if not, then what 
 makes the difference ? And if the prevention of sin is impossible in this sense, that is, absurd 
 and contradictory ; then in what sense is such prevention of sin an object of God's desiro or 
 choice ? 
 
 " Will you inform us distinctly what you mean by the nature of things, and in what sense and 
 degree you suppo.se the power of God limited by it? 
 
 " As the nature of moral agency is much concerned with this discussion, will you give us your 
 views of it verv particularly ? Do you consider it to be such, that it is wholly or in part beyond 
 the power of God to direct and control it as he chooses ? If you say, partly, but not wholly ; 
 then tell us whv it is not as really an infringement upon moral agency for God to control it in 
 part, as wholly ? If you hold that God cannot control moral agency in all cases, though he can 
 in some ; then, why not in all, as well as in some ? Also, how far does God direct events in the 
 natural, social and civil world ? 
 
 "You will gratify us, by showing very clearly and particularly, what that is in the nature of 
 moral agents, which you suppose makes it impossible for God to form their characters and direct 
 their actions according to his own pleasure ? Is it any particular faculty or attribute, or their 
 whole nature taken in one general view ? 
 
 " If God can exert no influence on the minds of men, except by rational motives, can he make 
 that influence effectual to sway their hearts, when he pleases ? 
 
 " We shall wish to know, whether your theory implies, as many have supposed it does, that 
 God has so made moral agents that they arc independent of him, as to their moral feelings and 
 actions ? If you hold that moral agents, as such, are dependent on God ; then, how far, and iu 
 what respects are they so ? 
 
 " As this discussion is intimately connected with the doctrine of divine influence; we shall be 
 gratified to know what your theory is in respect to that doctrine. You speak of the influence of 
 the Spirit in regeneration, as supernatural. Will you inform us in what sense you use the word, 
 supernatural f why such influence is necessary ? and whether the Spirit of God in regeneratio» 
 has a direct influence on the mind itself? 
 
 " As many have understood you, as agreeing substantially with the Pelagians, and particularly 
 with Dr. John Taylor, in regard to the natural 6tate of man, free will and conversion ; will you 
 inform us whether, and bow far, this is the case ? 
 
 " And as many havs doubted whether you maintain *.he doctrine cf divite decree* and divxa* 
 sovereignty, in trip Sens* in which it i« commonly maintained by the orthodox, will you inform u* 
 «n this subject '.' 
 
 * 
 
50 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 " Is your theory of moral agency the same as that which Edwards maintained in his treatise on 
 the Will ? 
 
 •• I have understood you as holding, that God could not have done better than he has for any 
 individual moral agent, and of course that he could not have converted any more sinners, than 
 he has converted. Have I under.-tood you right ? If God pleased, ~nd saw it to be on the whole 
 best, could he convert any one, and every one, who is not converted? If not ; what is the hindrance? 
 And is that hindrance greater here, than has in other instances been overcome by the power of the 
 Holy Spirit ? 
 
 " If you see faults in the reasoning in Letter VI, or if you suppose that, you have been misun- 
 derstood on the points there discussed ; you will particularly inform us. — Could God, according 
 to your theory, preserve any of his creatures in a state of holiness, without the influence arising 
 from thn existence and punishment of sin ? 
 
 " Docs your theory imply that the only choice which God had, was between the present moral 
 system, including so much evil, and no moral system at all ? or does it admit that there might 
 have been other systems, and some of them excluding all evil, which were conceived by the mind 
 of God, to which ho preferred the present system ? 
 
 " As the subjects treated of in Letter VII arc of a practical nature, I hope you will express 
 your views of them with all possible plainness, not overlooking the questions found in the para- 
 graph beginning at the lower part of p. 87. The same as to the several articles in the present 
 Letter, in which I have shown what I apprehend to be the natural influence of your theory, 
 compared with the common one. 
 
 " But it will be quite unnecessary for me to go over the whole ground of the discussion in order 
 to show what. I consider to be the main points. You will see what they are, and will doubtless 
 notice them. And I earnestly hope, that you will do all in your power to remove the dissatisfaction 
 and disquietude of your brethren, far and near, and to allay their honest fears in regard to tha 
 nature and consequences of your speculations." 
 
 Before concluding this communication, it seems proper that I should offer 
 a few remarks : 
 
 1. On your use of the words, heresy and heretic. I have marked the 
 places in your Letters where these words are used, but they are too numer- 
 ous to be quoted. It is sufficient to say, that you have " rung the changes " 
 on these words long and loud. We know very well, that it is easy to excite 
 sympathy for men, and especially for those, who occupy important stations 
 in the church, and are reputed good men, by holding them up to public view 
 as having been denounced as heretics. And we know too, that it is no difficult 
 matter, in this way, to bring upon those, who conscientiously refuse to coun- 
 tenance error, much public odium. Now I do not take upon myself the 
 responsibility of saying, that there are no persons in community, who believe 
 that downright heresy is inculcated at New Haven, and that the opinion has 
 not been expressed by high authority out of the Pastoral Union and out of 
 the ministry, that the charter of Yale College has been endangered by pro- 
 ceedings ill connection with the theological department in that institution ; but 
 have I called my brethren of the New Haven school heretics, or denominated 
 their peculiar sentiments heresy ? No — never. Neither am I, or the Pastoral 
 Union accountable for the opinions or expressions of individuals ; and it is with 
 me and the Pastoral Union, as a body, that you have undertaken to deal. And 
 may not an association of ministers of Christ express their dissent from, and 
 even solemnly protest against doctrines publicly maintained and zealously 
 propagated, without being thus subjected to public indignation ? Should the 
 popular feeling be thus addres?ed? My dear sir, can you not defend your 
 cause without a resort to such measures ? 
 
 But will you say, although the Pastoral Union have not used the words, 
 heresy and heretic, they have done that which amounts to the same thing. 
 Allow me to say, the Pastoral Union in their Protest merely quoted and 
 published, without note or comment, the language of their opponents, and I 
 think you would have done better had you copied their example in this partic- 
 ular. — But what are heretics? Dr. Watts has given us the following 
 answer : " When a papist uses the word, heretics, he generally means protest- 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 51 
 
 ants; when a protestant uses the word, he means any persons wilfully and 
 contentiously obstinate in fundamental errors."' Have the Pastoral Union in 
 any of their acts represented their brethren of the New Haven school as 
 " wilfully and co/dentioiisli/ obstinate in fundamental errors. V For aught I 
 know, there may be individuals in the Pastoral Union, who would not hesitate 
 to denominate the errors described in the Protest, heresy. There may be 
 others who would hesitate to apply to them that epithet. In the view of some 
 it is proper to denominate any sentiment heretical, which by legitimate conse- 
 quence subverts any of the fundamental doctrinces of the gospel. Others 
 apply the term only to such errors, as are in their view damnable — that is, 
 such errors as can not be believed by real Christians. Now, sir, in commen- 
 ting on the Protest of the Pastoral Union, it is obviously unjust to make them 
 responsible, as a body, for the language which they have not used, and have not 
 sanctioned. 
 
 2. The vote of the Pastoral Union declaring it to be inconsistent to license, 
 ordain, tfce. those who hold the errors described in the Protest, you con- 
 sider as interfering with the rights and prerogatives of the district Associations 
 and ordaining councils. You ask, " Is it right, is it orderly, is it — in the 
 phrase of your resolution — ''consistent " for certain ministers, coming togeth- 
 er in a society, unknown to our ecclesiastical system, to forestall in that one- 
 sided societv the discussion of a question which belongs to the Association? 
 Is it right, is it orderly, for those ministers, after such an exparle discussion, to 
 commit and bind themselves by resolutions, and then to attempt to make those 
 resolutions more binding — if not on the conscience, at least on the weakness 
 of those brethren who are afraid of being "inconsistent" — " by publishing 
 them to the world?" Here, my brother, permit me to ask you one question. 
 " Is it right, is it orderly, is it — in the phrase of the resolution — consistent, 
 for certain ministers" to be zealously engaged in teaching and propagating 
 sentiments which are believed to be subversive of the established faith of our 
 churches and Associations, and then demand of their brethren, who are known 
 to be conscientiously opposed to those sentiments, that they set to them their 
 most solemn seal of approbation? This is requiring too much. We are 
 willing that our New Haven brethren should think, speak, and act for them- 
 selves" We would not infringe their right of embracing such doctrines as 
 they please, and of adopting all suitable means for propagating their senti- 
 ments ; but if they go farther and demand of us that we become responsible 
 for doctrines which we believe to be erroneous and dangerous, they infringe 
 our rights of conscience, and they transcend the limits of justice. And what 
 I am about to say, you will not receive as a menace, — no such thing is inten- 
 ded, — nor as expressing otherwise than my private judgment ; if you and 
 your associates insist upon members of the Pastoral Union becoming respon- 
 sible for doctrines which they repudiate, you will meet with decided, open, 
 unyielding opposition. This opposition will be sustained by the claims of reli- 
 gious liberty, by the demands of justice, by the dictates of conscience, and by 
 the fear of God. We are willing to act on the principle of reciprocity, 
 granting to you the privileges, which we claim for ourselves. And if we are 
 not recreant to our vows, Task you, sir, can we act on a more liberal principle ? 
 
 Allow me here to remark, that you greatly mistake the object of the Pasto- 
 ral Union, if you suppose they intended, by the vote referred to above, to 
 interfere with the Associations, or any of our regular ecclesiastical bodies. 
 This vote is an expression of their opinion, on the subject of licensing candi- 
 dates, and ordaining and installing pastors. And have not the members of 
 
62 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 the Pastoral Union a right to express their opinion on this, as well as on any 
 other subject ? Must they first gain permission before they express their 
 thoughts on this grave subject ? If so, to whom shall they apply for permis- 
 sion ? If you should publicly affirm, that it would be improper to license men 
 to preach the gospel, who had not pursued a course of theological studies, or 
 who were destitute of natural or acquired abilities, or who embraced certain 
 erroneous sentiments ; should you suppose you were interfering with the 
 prerogatives of our district Associations by the expression of such an opinion ? 
 And if the Association of Gentlemen, who conducted the Christian Spectator, 
 had made a similar declaration, tell me. would they have been considered as 
 having done what they had no right to do? Suppose the members of some 
 one of our ministers' meetings, should express the opinion and publish it to the 
 world that it would be inconsistent for Congregational ministers to license 
 those to preach the gospel, who deny the doctrine of infant baptism, or who 
 hold the system of. doctrines maintained by the Wesley an Methodists ; would 
 they be considered as interfering with the rights and prerogatives of our 
 Associations ? And suppose on the publication of this opinion a Baptist, or 
 Methodist minister should say, '* The question now before the public is not 
 whether the" Baptists and Methodists "are right in their speculations," — but 
 whether they are so far gone in error as to justify the measures "which have 
 been adopted, and the representations which have been uttered " — " whether 
 in the attempt to break them down, and denounce them to the country and 
 to posterity as heretics," the Christian community " of Connecticut, heretofore 
 so rich in blessings for the world, shall be rent in fragments and exhaust their 
 energies upon party conflicts ;" would you not think, sir, that this Baptist or 
 Methodist minister was, in rather a questionable manner, attempting to secure 
 
 Popular sympathy ? — My dear sir, I think I have already shown, that the 
 'astoral Union had a right to protest against what they deemed to be errone- 
 ous sentiments ; and had they not a right to state, what they considered to be 
 their own duty in reference to licensing, ordaining, &c. those who maintain 
 these sentiments ? Let those who believe the doctrines against which the 
 Pastoral Union protested, assume the responsibility of disseminating them ; 
 but why should they wish to make their brethren accountable for sentiments 
 ■which they do not believe, and for acts which they do not approve ? 
 Affectionately and sincerely, 
 
 your friend and brother. 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 Coventry, January 11, 1840. 
 
 Hetter &XSX. 
 
 Dear Sir, — I quote the following extracts from your second Letter. 
 
 " But it was not thought best to leave truth and argument to do their own work. From th» 
 beginning of the controversy, and from before the beginning, one man has continually labored to 
 bring other forces to bear on the result, and especially to spread far and wide the most dreadful 
 impressions respecting ' the New Haven heresy.' To this end — being exempted by circumstan. 
 •«■ from the necessity of any other labor, — he has employed, with great zeal, all the powers of 
 his mind, and all the personal influence which he had acquired by labors once performed in a very 
 different service. I mean the Rev. Asahel Nettleton, whose career for the last fifteen years has 
 been, to me, a sad illustration of the impolicy of encouraging in any circumstances, such a 
 functionary as a professional revivalist. — The men who were his best friends in the days of his 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 53 
 
 real and toil for the conversion of sinners to Christ — the men who took him by the hand and 
 helped him to rise, when others thought lightly of him — the men by whose aid, and in whose 
 parishes he gained the reputation which gives him more than half his influence, have found that 
 influence turned against themselves, to make them first suspected, then odious, and to cause their 
 names to be cast out as evil. I speak not of that brother's motives, I bring no accusations against 
 him — to his own master let him stand or fall ; I speak only of facts not to be disputed. He 
 himself will be the last to deny that his influence has had more to do with what I esteem the 
 disastrous bearing of this controversy than any other human influence. Had the revivals, under 
 the ministry of Dr. Taylor, at New Haven, and Dr. Beccher, at. Litchfield, been conducted 
 without the aid of an itinerant evangelist, the ecclesiastical history of Connecticut, and of the 
 Presbyterian church in the United States, for these few years past., would have been materially 
 different. — Other men, doubtless, felt, and might have felt without his aid, the necessity of 
 forming a party, and of adding to the force of argument, the force of party combination, and the 
 force of reports and whisperings scattered by epistle and personal conference over all the land ; 
 but no man having the charge of a parish, no travelling agent even, having on his hands the work 
 of the institution which employs him, could accomplish much in this way under our ecclesiasti- 
 cal organization. — Only such a man as he whom I have named — travelling from one end of 
 the country to another, and going beyond the Atlantic, to instil prejudice into every credulous or 
 unguarded mind ; gathering up reports wherever they could be found, and scattering them 
 wherever they were likely to take root ; establishing confidence and correspondences that have 
 grown into telegraphic communicutions of common fame, and devoting himself to the work with 
 the zeal of an apostle — could have brought to pass that, of which you and I and all of us are 
 witnesses." 
 
 Speaking of the convention held at East Windsor — September, 1834; 
 you ask, " Did not Mr. Nettleton unfold his treasure of reports and opinions, 
 gathered from east and west, north and south, all implicating the character 
 of brethren who were not there to plead, either guilty or not guilty, to things 
 thus brought against them ?" 
 
 Your attack on Dr. Nettleton, my brother, has inflicted a deeper wound on 
 the feelings of many of your readers, than you are probably aware. That 
 minister of Christ has numerous friends to whom his reputation is as dear as 
 their own, and sure I am that there are thousands in New England " who will 
 consider that in defending him, they defend the cause in one of its most vital 
 points." 
 
 " One man has continually labored lo bring other forces to bear on the result, 
 and especially to spread far and wide the most dreadful impressions respecting 
 the New Haven heresy." 
 
 What evidence have you, that Dr. Nettleton has ever called the New Ha- 
 ven Divinity heresy, or the New Haven divines heretics ? He has no recol- 
 lection of ever having used such language, and his most intimate friends assure 
 me, that they have never heard him use it. That the New Haven Divines 
 have, in their published writings, advanced great and dangerous errors, errors 
 which are suited to corrupt revivals, promote spurious conversions, and thus 
 exert a disastrous influence on the cause of evangelical religion, in his honest 
 belief. This belief he has not hesitated to express on all suitable occasions. 
 But he has never represented their errors in such a shocking light as they 
 have represented the sentiments of their brethren. He has never said, that 
 nothing but their " inconsistency saves them from being the very worst of her- 
 etics." He has never charged them with asserting that " sin is a good thing ;" 
 and with maintaining theories which make " God the responsible author of 
 sin " — "a deceiver " — and a " criminal tempter." He has not charged them 
 with maintaining a principle which "by legitimate consequence leads to 
 universalis*!, to infidelity, and atheism;" and "which in the hands of 
 Voltaire and other enemies of the gospel has spread infidelity and atheism to 
 such a fearful extent throughout Europe." No sir, he has made no such 
 representation — nothing like it — nothing to be compared with it. What 
 do you mean then by the sweeping charges that he has " continually labored 
 
54 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 — to spread far and wide the most dreadful impressions respecting the New 
 Haven heresy ?" Suppose he has expressed his belief that some of the 
 principles advanced by the New Haven divines, do inevitably lead to Armini- 
 an, or Pelagian conclusions ; and that they are the very principles maintained 
 by Dr. John Taylor, and other opposers of the Calvinistic system ; — do you 
 consider Arminianism and Pelagianism to be worse than universalism, infidelity 
 and atheism ? And is it worse, in your estimation, to be ranked with Dr. 
 John Taylor, than with Voltaire and other infidel philosophers ? Who is it, 
 my dear sir, that has spread far and wide the most dreadful impressions re- 
 specting the opinions of his brethren ? * 
 
 That Dr. Nettleton has from the beginning been greatly distressed on 
 account of the speculations of the New Haven brethren, is true. It has 
 been his solemn conviction, that these speculations are calculated to do great 
 injury to the cause of Christ. This conviction, I am assured, he has again 
 and again expressed to the New Haven brethren themselves. He has expres- 
 sed it to others. He has felt it his duty to bear his testimony against what he 
 regards dangerous sentiments, and to exert what influence God has given him 
 to promote the cause of truth and righteousness. And has he not a right to 
 do it ? Is he not solemnly bound to do it 1 
 
 And what " other forces " than, " those of truth and argument," has he 
 brought " to bear on the result ?" Has he undertaken to sway the minds of 
 his brethren in any other way than by addressing their understandings, and 
 presenting to them such considerations as are suited to produce conviction ? 
 And if he has exerted one fourth part of the influence which you attribute 
 to him, (and that his influence has been great I shall not deny.) what but truth 
 and argument have given him this power ? Who are the men, whom you 
 represent as being under his influence ? — Are the} 7 men of no understandings 
 
 — men who do not think and reason for themselves ? Are they men who are 
 governed by a blind impulse, and who bow implicitly to the dictation of a 
 single individual ? Are you aware, sir, what imputations you cast upon a large 
 portion of the ministers of Connecticut ? 
 
 But to return to Dr. Nettleton. What has he done ? If he is to be 
 arraigned before the public, let us have specific allegations, and not general 
 and indefinite charges which no one can answer. It is easy to charge any 
 man with having been, for a course of years, engaged in nothing but mischief; 
 but who can meet such a charge ? Let us have the facts and the proof of 
 them ; or some of them at least ; for surely if the general allegation is true, 
 they must be abundant, and can be easily specified. 
 
 You speak of " party combinations " — of " reports and whisperings scat- 
 tered by epistle and by personal conference over all the land — of travelling 
 from one end of the conntry to the other, and going beyond the Atlantic, to 
 instil prejudice into every credulous or unguarded mind ; gathering up reports 
 wherever they could be found, and scattering them wherever they were 
 likely to take root." — Now what does all this mean ? What " party combi- 
 nations" has Dr. Nettleton formed? What " reports and whisperings" has 
 he " scattered by epistle and personal conference over all the land ?" Has 
 he circulated any false reports? If so, what are they? He has doubtless 
 written letters to his friends, and had personal conference with them as 
 opportunity afforded. Is this a crime ? If there has been any thing impro- 
 per in his communications, any thing deserving of public reprehension, let us 
 know what it is. He has no doubt expressed freely to his friends, both in 
 conversation and writing, his theological opinions, and his dissatisfaction with 
 
 * See an article by Dr. Taylor in the Christian Spectator for Sept., 1832. 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 55 
 
 publications which he regards as containing erroneous sentiments ; and has 
 he not a right to do it I Have others a right to speak from the pulpit and 
 the press, and to scatter their sentiments over the "land ; and is he bound to be 
 silent ? Suppose he has travelled into different parts of the country, and even 
 beyond the Atlantic. — What then ? Was that of course a crime ? Must 
 he necessarily have been influenced by some sinister motive ? Could he have 
 had no other object in view than to slander his brethren, and " to instil preju- 
 dice into every credulous, or unguarded mind V, What proof is there that 
 such has been "his object ? Away, my brother, with all such evil surmises. 
 Give us facts and proofs. Is a minister of the gospel to be publicly arraigned 
 and condemned on general and indefinite charges, without one single specifi- 
 cation, or one particle of proof '? Would you, sir, be willing to have your 
 character thus assailed ? It is my sincere desire, that it may never be thus 
 assailed. 
 
 You ask, " Did not Mr. Nettleton, (in the convention at East Windsor,) 
 unfold his treasure of reports and opinions, gathered from east and west, 
 from north and south, all implicating the character of brethren who were not 
 there to plead, either guilty or nof guilty to the things thus alleged against 
 them P Why do you ask this question ? You profess to be entirely ignorant 
 of what transpired in the convention. W T hy then do you throw out the 
 insinuation which this inquiry implies ? Suppose you had been present in a 
 meeting of ministers of whose proceedings I had no knowledge. Suppose 
 one of your brethren who was there also had publicly spoken of it as a very 
 interesting meeting — that the time was spent in " solemn deliberation and 
 prayer, and that the brethren appeared to act in the fear of God and for the 
 honor of Christ." — And suppose I should come forward in the public prints, 
 and should put to that brother this question : Did not Mr. Bacon occupy 
 much of the time, in bringing false and slanderous accusations against " breth- 
 ren who were not there to plead, either guilty or not guilty to the things thus 
 alledged against them P What would you say to such an interrogation, and 
 such "an insinuation, made confessedly without any evidence to sustain it T 
 Instead of answering such a question, would you not be likely to demand the 
 reason why it was put ? Although I feel under no obligation to answer such 
 questions, yet I am willing to say, that Dr. Nettleton made no statements in 
 the convention about absent brethren which he had not often made to them, 
 or which he is not willing to make to them in the presence of the whole world. 
 You say, — 
 
 " The men who were his best friends in the days of his zeal and toil for the conversion of sinners 
 to Christ — the men who took him by the hand and helped him to rise when others thought 
 lightly of him — tho men by whose aid and in whose parishes he gained the reputation which 
 gives him more than half his influence, have found that influence turned against themselves, to 
 make them first suspected, then odious, and to cause their names to be cast out as evil. — Had 
 the revivals under the ministry of Dr. Taylor, at New Haven, and Dr. Beecher. at Litchfield 
 been conducU-.i without tlio aid of an itinerant evangelist, the ecclesiastical history of Connec- 
 ticut, and of the Presbyterian church in the United States for these few years past, would have 
 been materially different." 
 
 On this statement you must allow mc to make several remarks. 
 
 « When other* thought lightly of him." By whom was he thought lightly 
 of at the period to which you refer? He was indeed, ridiculed, reproached, 
 and slandered by universalists, infidels and scoffers ; but by the ministers and 
 churches of his own denomination, so far as they were acquainted with him, 
 he was universally esteemed. Dr. Porter thus speaks of him in his Letters 
 on Revivals : " About the close of the period which I attempted to describe 
 
56 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 in former letters, the Rev. Asahel Nettleton devoted himself to the work of 
 an evangelist. With his eminent qualifications for this work, and usefulness 
 in it, I presume you to be well acquainted. The fact, however, which is es- 
 pecially to my present purpose to mention, and which probably many of 
 you do not know, is that this distinguished itinerant, found no difficulty to 
 labor, as an assistant of stated pastors, without making himself their rival. 
 If in any instance he could not conscientiously coincide in the views, or co-op- 
 erate in the measures of a pastor, among whose charge he was invited to 
 labor, he did not sow dissention in that church, nor seek to detach their affec- 
 tions from their ministers ; but quietly withdrew to another place. The 
 consequence was, that the visits of this devoted servant of Christ were 
 always sought, and never dreaded nor regretted by ministers or churches." 
 
 " Itinerant evangelist" — How came Dr. Nettleton to be an evangelist ? It 
 was his purpose, for some time before he became a preacher, to be a mission- 
 ary to the heathen. Accordingly, after he was licensed to preach, not expect- 
 ing to remain long in the country, he commenced laboring in waste places. 
 His labors were immediately attended with signal success. Whereever he 
 went, revivals of religion soon commenced. His brethren in the ministry, 
 witnessing his success, persuaded him to relinquish the idea of a foreign mis- 
 sion, at least for a time, and devote himself to the work of an evangelist at 
 home, under the conviction that God had called him to this department of 
 ministerial labor. Still it was always his purpose to labor in destitute con- 
 gregations and waste places, and it was not without solicitation, as many will 
 testify, that he consented to labor as an assistant to settled pastors. He was 
 never complained of for thrusting himself into parishes where he was not 
 wanted ; but the complaint continually was, that it was so difficult to obtain 
 him. And here allow me to remark, that Dr. Nettleton himself seems to have 
 been the first man to discover the evils which would be likely to flow out of 
 the system of maintaining an order of evangelists, as assistants to settled pas- 
 tors. Accordingly when the General Association in 1820 appointed a com- 
 mittee, of whom Dr. Beecher was chairman, to take into consideration the 
 subject of increasing ministerial labor in the several congregations in our 
 connection, and when that committee met the September following, at the 
 house of Dr. Taylor, in New-Haven, Dr. Nettleton was invited in, and con- 
 sulted as to the expediency of introducing and supporting an order of evan- 
 gelists. He was asked whether he would consent to act as an evangelist for 
 the State, and was told, if he would locate himself at New-Haven, in that 
 capacity, it was believed the churches would guarantee him an ample support. 
 He remarked that he never had yet received a dollar from any benevolent 
 society or public association, and that he did not choose to labor in this way. 
 He moreover gave it as his opinion, that it would be inexpedient to undertake 
 to introduce and support an order of evangelists. He foresaw the evils which 
 would be likely to grow out of the system, if it were made a permanent thing ; 
 and they were the very evils which were afterwards so strikingly realized in 
 some parts of the country. Through his influence, if I am correctly informed, 
 the project was abandoned. 
 
 " The men who took him by the hand and helped him to rise." It should be 
 remembered, that Dr. Nettleton had been laboring almost constantly in revivals 
 of religion, for about four years, and was extensively known as a successful 
 minister of the gospel, before he became associated with Dr. Beecher and Dr. 
 Taylor, or to use your language, before they " took him by the hand." How 
 much he was indebted to them for his subsequent usefulness, I shall not un- 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 57 
 
 dertake to decide. Whatever may have been his obligations to them, I trust 
 he is not unmindful of them. Of one thing, however, I am certain ; the time 
 has been when they, as well as many other men of distinction, have been willing 
 to acknowledge themselves greatly his debtors. If Dr. Beecher and Dr. 
 Taylor made Dr. Nettleton what he was, as has been claimed, why have they 
 not raised up other men equally distinguished ? Why was Dr. Nettleton, in 
 1825, urgently requested to come to New-llaven for "the purpose of teaching 
 a young pastor " to be an accomplished revival man "? Why did not Dr. 
 Taylor undertake the work? And why did a distinguished man of New-Ha- 
 ven, in 1824, request Dr. Nettleton to take under his instruction a young brother 
 in the ministry, and particular friend of his, that he might " learn the great art 
 of doing good," adding, " almost all that I know on this subject, I learned from 
 you "? Why did he not apply directly to the men who had taught Dr. N. this 
 great art, or who had made him what he was ? Besides — did your predeces- 
 sor ever witness any revivals of religion among his people till he was assisted 
 by Dr. Nettleton? If he did not, how shall we account for the fact, if Dr. N. 
 learned the art of doing good from Dr. Taylor and Dr. Beecher ? He had for 
 four years been laboring almost constantly in revivals. I should not ask these 
 questions, had not the representations which have gone abroad rendered it 
 necessary. My dear sir, no man — no set of men, niade Dr. Nettleton what he 
 was. It was the remark of John Newton, that " none but he who made the 
 world, can make a minister of the gospel." This remark is pre-eminently true, 
 of such a minister as Dr. Nettleton. For all the success which has attended 
 his labors, let God only be praised. 
 
 " The men by lohose aid, and in whose parishes, he gained the reputation which 
 gives him more than half his influence." ■ It is true, that the labors of Dr. Net- 
 tleton were attended with great success, in repeated instances, both in Litch- 
 field and New-Haven. But they were equally successful in many other 
 places, both before and after his visit to those towns. He commenced preach- 
 ing in 1811. From that time to 1822, (when he was brought to death's door 
 by the typhus fever, and when standing by his bed of death, as it was supposed, 
 I heard from his lips facts respecting his labors and wants, which would have 
 interested your feelings much,) he was almost constantly in revivals of religion, 
 and so abundant were his labors, that to many of his brethren it was a wonder 
 that his constitution could sustain them. Have you never heard of the reviv- 
 als in South Salem, N. Y., in Danbury, in Monroe, in North Lyme, in Had- 
 lyme, in Chester, in Bloomfield, in Turkcyhills, in Salmon Brook, in Bolton 
 and in Litchfield South Farms ? These occurred previous to his first visit 
 at New-Haven, in 1815. During the same period he preached occasionally 
 in many other places, and in almost all instances some sinners were awakened 
 by his preaching. Subsequent to this period, have you not heard of the reviv- 
 als in Salisbury, (where nearly three hundred were supposed to have experi- 
 enced religion,) in Bridge water, in Torrington, in Watcrbury, in Middletown 
 Upper Houses, in Rocky Hill, in Ashford and other towns adjoining, and a^am 
 in Bolton? All these occurred between the latter part of the year 1815*^x1 
 the summer of 1819. Have you never heard of the remarkable work of God 
 in Saratoga county, N. Y.,in 1819 and 1820, extending into many towns and 
 into Union College, in which, according to the account written by Dr. McAu- 
 ley, not less than 2000 souls were supposed to have been made subjects of 
 renewing grace ? Have you never heard of the very powerful revivals in 
 Nassau, N. Y., in North Killingworth, in North Madison, and in Wetherafield, 
 8 
 
58 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 which occurred in 1820 ? Have you never heard of Dr. Nettleton's labors in 
 1821, at Farmington and the adjoining towns ; also in Massachusetts, at Pitts- 
 field, Lenox and Lee ; and in 1822 at Somers and Tolland, and North Coventry 
 and South Wilbraham, Mass. ? My dear Sir, if you had been as well acquaint- 
 ed with the history of Dr. Nettleton as some of your older brethren, I do not 
 believe you would ever have affirmed that it was in L'tchfield and New-Haven 
 that he "'gained the reputation which gives more than half his influence." His 
 labors in those places, it is true, (and especially when we take into consideration 
 the revivals in Yale College, which occurred in connection with his labors in 
 New-Haven.) constitute an interesting portion of his history ; but still it is 
 comparatively but a small portion. 
 
 " Had the revivals under the ministry of Dr. Taylor, at New-Haven, and Dr. 
 Beecher, at Litchfield, been conducted without the aid of an itinerant evangelist, 
 the ecclesiastical history of Connecticut, and of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States, for these few years past, would have been materially different.''' 
 
 As you do not tell us in what respects it would have been materially different, 
 we are left to infer your meaning from the train of your reasoning. If I under- 
 stand it, it is this; — that the controversy and division which exist among the 
 ministers of Connecticut, and in the Presbyterian Church, is to be traced, in a 
 great measure, at least, to the fact that Dr. Nettleton preached for a season in 
 New-Haven and Litchfield, some eighteen, twenty, and twenty-five years ago. 
 Truly Dr. Taylor and Dr. Beecher little thought what they were doing, when 
 they invited and urged that brother to assist them in their labors. And I very 
 much doubt whether they ever would have known, if you had not informed 
 them, that so much evil was connected with this imprudent step of theirs. 
 According to your representation, they certainly have much to account for. 
 
 "The men by whose aid, and in whose parishes he gained the reputation 
 which gives him more than half his influence, have found that influence turned 
 against themselves, to jnake them first susjjected, then odious, and to cause their 
 names to be cast out as evil." 
 
 How has his influence been turned against them ? What has he done ? He 
 has indeed refused to embrace, or to countenance, sentiments which he honestly 
 believes to de false and dangerous. And has any man a right to require him 
 to do it 1 I have the best reason for believing, that Dr. Nettleton highly prized 
 the friendship of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Beecher, and that he would gladly have 
 made any sacrifice to retain it, but a surrender of conscience. But this 
 sacrifice he could not make. His oblisraiions to the Great Head of the church 
 were paramout to all other obligations. When he found that his brethren 
 were embracing and abetting sentiments, which he could not approve, in a 
 friendly and faithful manner he expostulated with them, both in private 
 conversation and by letters. Thus in 1821, he wrote to Dr. Taylor, " with 
 all my love and respect for brothers Taylor, Goodrich, and Beecher, I must 
 say, that neither my judgment, nor conscience, nor heart can acquiesce ; I can 
 go with you no farther." And at a later period, in 1829, when Dr. Beecher at- 
 tempted to persuade him, that if he could not approve of the New-Haven senti- 
 ments, he would, at least, hold his peace, and not express any dissatisfaction 
 with them, he said to him, " you might as well ask me to cut off' my conscience 
 and throw it away." He said also, " such is my conviction of the tendency of 
 all these sentiments to corrupt revivals and produce spurious conversions, that if 
 New-England should go over, I should prefer to stand alone." Such being 
 hi9 convictions, what was it his duty to do ? Is moral principle to be sacrificed 
 on the altar of friendship ? Is he indeed worthy the name of a friend who 
 demands such a sacrifice ? 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 59 
 
 If Dr. Nettleton has manifested an unchristian spirit, or if he has resorted 
 to anv dishonorable means to promote what lie believes to bo the cause of 
 truth, let it bo shown. lias he treated his brethren with unkindness ? Has he 
 impeached their motive-: — depreciated their talents — or aspersed their 
 character ? What then has he done to render them odious, and to cause their 
 names to be cast out as evil :*' ufttess it be to bear testimony against the errors 
 which they have published to the world I 
 
 That the influence ofDr. Nettli t m has b i m greatly feared by the abettors 
 of the New Divinity, 1 am fully aware. I am also aware that great pains 
 have been taken to neutraliz i and destroy his influence. And allow me to ask, 
 whether no '-other forces," but those of "truth and argument," have been 
 brought to bear on this result ? Have not opprobrious epithets been employed 
 to stigmatize his character? Has it not been asserted in the public prints, 
 that "Nettleton and a few others must bear the sin and shame of what would 
 have disgraced any age of papal power and bigotry ?" Has not he been 
 called by grave divines, '• a heresy hunter," — " a busy body," — "a mischief 
 maker," — "a gossip ?" Has not the story been circulated from one end of the 
 land to the other, that, " he has lost his mind," and is "partially deranged?" 
 (strange that such a man should exert such a powerful and extensive influence !) 
 To deter him from expressing his honest convictions, has he not been plied 
 with flattery and with threats ? Did not a gentleman tell him to his face in 
 
 1829, " and I have made you what you are, and if you do not behave 
 
 yourself, we will hew you down ?" And did not that gentleman mention this 
 threat to the one whom he associated with himself, and did not the latter 
 gentlempn mention it to Dr. Plummcr, of Virginia, and thus make it public, 
 when Dr. Nettleton had never mentioned it even to his most intimate friends ? 
 Did not the former gentleman also mention this threat to a clergyman now 
 residing is New Hampshire, who informed a minister of this State of the fact 
 not long since ? Is it not true, that from that time to the present, stories have 
 been industriously circulated in every quarter, injurious to the reputation of 
 Dr. Nettleton? Do you not know, Sir, that at the time of the meeting of the 
 General Association in Enfield, in 1835. a gentleman said in the house of the 
 late Mr. Dixon, that " Mr. Nettleton had forsaken his calling, and that God 
 had forsaken him? and that "he lutd done nothing but mischief for the. last ten 
 years V And do you n )t know, that use was made of this identical language, 
 and that there is abundant proof of the fact which can be adduced? Now I 
 ask, has Dr. Nettleton done any thing like this to oppose the influence of" the 
 men who took him by the hand, and helped him to rise?" Has he threatened 
 to "hew them down .'*' lias he declared in the public prints, that they'- must 
 bear the sin and shame of what would have disgraced any age of papal power 
 and bigotry V Has he spread far and wide the report that they " have lost 
 their minds," and " are partially deranged ?" Has he applied to them low and 
 degrading epithets? Has he asserted that they " have forsaken their calling, 
 and that God has forsaken them," and that for a course of years they '• have 
 done nothing but mischief?" I ask you, has Dr. Nettleton done any thing like 
 this I — any thing to be compared with it ? 
 
 Allow me to call your attention a moment to the ten years, during which 
 it was affirmed, that Dr. Nettleton had done nothing but mischief; — that is, 
 from 1825, to 1835. Arc you acquainted with his history during that period? 
 Perhaps I can inform you of some facts, a knowledge of which you do not 
 now possess. I have already mentioned, that in 1822, Dr. Nettleton was 
 brought to the borders of the grave by typhus fever. From that sickness 
 
CO LETTERS TO THE 
 
 he has never recovered, so as to enjoy sound health for a single day. Much 
 of the time he has been unable to labor at all. Some part of the time he has 
 been able to preach only once on the Sabbath, and to perform very little 
 extra labor. At no time has he been able to engage in a systematic course 
 of labor, such as he pursued during the first ten years of his ministry, even 
 for a week, without entirely prostrating him. Yet feeble as he was during 
 the period which has been specified, he was not altogether idle, and whether 
 he was forsaken of God you may judge after considering the following facts. 
 In 1825 there was a very interesting revival under his preaching, in two 
 parishes, in Taunton, Ms. In 1826 his labors were greatly blessed in Jamaica, 
 L. I., and the vicinity. In 1827 he labored successfully in Albany Durham, 
 and Lexington, N. Y. In 1828 and 1829, his labors were greatly blessed in 
 Virginia, and some other parts of the Southern States. During'his labors in 
 Virginia Dr. John H. Rice, in a letter to Dr. Alexander, speaks of him and 
 
 the revival as follows: "When Mr. Nettle ton had strength to labor, he 
 
 soon was made instrumental in producing a considerable excitement. This 
 has extended ; and now the state of things is deeply interesting. Five law- 
 yers, all of very considerable standing, have embraced religion. * * * 
 This has produced a mighty sensation in Charlotte, Mecklenburg, Nottoway, 
 Cumberland, Powhatan, Buckingham, and Albemarle. The minds of men 
 seem to stand a tiptoe, and they seem to be looking for some great thing." 
 " Mr. Nettleton is a remarkable man, and chiefly, I think, remarkable for his 
 power of producing a great excitement without much appearance of feeling. 
 The people do not either weep, or talk away there impressions. The preacher 
 chiefly addresses Bible truth to their consciences. I have not heard him utter 
 as yet a single sentiment opposed to what you and I call orthodoxy. He 
 preaches the Bible. He derives his illustrations from the Bible." In 1829, 
 also, a great revival commenced under his preaching in Monson, Mass. In 
 the winter of 1830 and 31, he labored for a considerable time in an interesting 
 revival with the Rev. Baxter Dickinson, in Newark, N. J., and for some time 
 with Doctor Snodgrass and Dr. Spring in the city of New York. In 1831, 
 in very feeble health, he took a voyage to Europe. While in England, which 
 was a little more than a year, he preached in various places, and not without 
 some success. Since his return he has received letters from not a few who 
 were awakened by his preaching, and who regard him as their spiritual father. 
 Is this true of all American clergymen who have visited England within the 
 last few years ? In 1833 there was an interesting revival under his preaching 
 in Enfield, when two members of Mr. Dixon's family, in whose house the above 
 declaration was made, became hopefully pious. He preached, also, during 
 the period of which I have been speaking, with more or less success, in many 
 other places. And now, Sir, just look at this brief and very imperfect sketch. 
 Remember, that during this whole period, Dr. Nettleton was in very feeble 
 health — much of the time confined a portion of each day to his bed — never 
 able to engage in arduous labor. And yet to what minister in New England 
 can you point me, who was during these ten years, instrumental in the con- 
 version of so many souls ? Now this is the man of whom in 1835 it was said, 
 and you, Sir, know by whom it was said, that " he had mistaken his calling, 
 and that God had forsaken him," and that he had done nothing but mischief 
 for the last ten years." This was surely " speaking harshly," and it was 
 "judging unkindly." My brother, no earthly consideration would have indu- 
 ced me to make such a declaration. 
 
 But further. It was during this period of ten years, that Dr. Nettleton 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. ttl 
 
 breasted the storm of "new measures" which was coming in from the west 
 He took a stand against Mr. Finney and his supporters. In 1827 he publish- 
 ed his review of Mr. Finney's Sermon, and his letter to Mr. Aikin, and in oth- 
 er ways did ail in his power to check the spirit of fanaticism, which was com- 
 ing in like a flood. In all this, I am aware, some supposed he was doing noth- 
 ing but mischief. When it was found that his name could not be used to sanc- 
 tion M new measures," the most unwearied pains were taken to destroy his 
 reputation. " All their remarks," said a distinguished divine, " are brought to 
 a focus in the spirit of unrelenting hostility which is directed against Nettle- 
 ton, and which, as I know, will destroy or neutralize his influence if it can." 
 Some of the same stories were circulated about him, that are circulated now. 
 It was said, " he has lost his mind" — " he is not the man he once was" — " his 
 character has sunk wonderfully" — " he is under the frown of God," *kc. &c. 
 I know not, Sir, but you at that time sympathized with his opposers, and ver- 
 ily thought he was doing nothing but mischief. But there were those who 
 entertained a different opinion, some of whom, at least, I trust you would not 
 be willing to treat with disrespect. 
 
 The following testimonial was published in the New York Observer : 
 
 " Boston, November 8, 1827. 
 " It having been represented to some of the subscribers, that we disapproved of the procceed. 
 inge of the Rev. Mr. Nettleton, in reviewing a sermon preached at Troy, March 4th 1827, and 
 in opposing the sentiments and practices which it seemed intended to vindicate and extend, we 
 regard ourselves as called upon by a sense of duty to say, that the proceedings of Mr. Nettleton 
 appear to us to have been characterized with great intellectual vigor, correct and comprehensive 
 views of the interests of the church, and by distinguished wisdom, fidelity, firmness and benevo: 
 lence, well adapted to promote the interests of pure religion throughout the land." 
 Signed, 
 
 Lyman Beeciier, Wm. R. Weeks, Justin Edwards, C. J. Tenney. 
 A. S. Norton, H. R. Weed, Heman Humphrey, J. Hawes. 
 
 My dear Sir, I do not claim that Dr. Nettleton is faultless. He is a man. 
 And no man is without his failings. But I do regard him as eminently a wise, 
 prudent, conscientious and devoted servant of Jesus Christ ; and I cannot 
 but think, that upon mature deliberation, you will most deeply regret what 
 you have written and spoken against him. 
 
 Your friend and brother, 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 Coventry, January 17, 1840. 
 
 Hettcr XX. 
 
 Dear Sir — After my eighth letter had been sent to the Record, I received 
 a note from the Editor, giving me to understand, that impatience had been 
 manifested among some of his subscribers, on account of the length to which 
 the correspondence had been protracted, and requesting me to bring it to a 
 close on my part, as soon as I could "consistently with doing justice to (my) 
 cause, and with answering all the questions which (you) would expect (me) to 
 reply to." I immediately informed him, that I had designed to add to my 
 series of letters four more, making twelve in all ; but, that I would, if possible, 
 in accommodation to his wishes, finish with the addition of two. In a few 
 days I received from him another letter, in which he said, " We have heard so 
 much complaint from our subscribers, that my friends think it will cause a con- 
 siderable diminution of our subscription list, to have your series proceed 
 
62 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 further. I regret I did not forsee how it would be, so as to give you earlier 
 notice." In the same letter he stated, " It has been suggested, that an extra 
 sheet might be printed for you, if you will be responsible for the expense, which 
 could be sent to all our subscribers, and to whomsoever else you might wish." 
 I declined this proposal, on the ground, that if the remaining letters were 
 printed entirely at my expense. I should choose to consult my own convenience 
 as to the place and manner of their publication. I accordingly requested the 
 Editor to inform his readers, that it was at his own direction my letters were dis- 
 continued in that, paper, and that they might possibly receive them through 
 another medium of communication. I, at the same time, requested him to ac- 
 commodate me, at my expense, with the names and residences of those persons 
 to whom your letters had been sent. After a considerable time, I received 
 another letter from the Editor, in which, after giving an account of the " loud 
 and alarming complaints," which my letters had occasioned, he said, " After 
 having considered the matter, and consulted with others, I have concluded, if 
 you will forward the two last letters as you propose, making them as brief as 
 possible, to have them published, and distributed." He said also, "As I may 
 think it best to issue the letters in an extra, at my individual expense, I shall 
 be obliged to you to make them as brief as possible." To this proposition, I 
 could not accede for the following reasons : 
 
 1. I did not wish to be restricted to two short letters. 
 
 2. I had not obtruded myself upon the Record, and I was not willing to 
 occupy its columns any longer than my communications were admitted 
 readily and cheerfully ; and especially, after having been given to understand, 
 that they were exceedingly wounding, causing " loud and alarming complaints," 
 and threatening seriously to injure the interests of the paper. It seemed to me, 
 that no man of any delicacy of feeling, or sense of propriety, would be willing 
 to write for a paper under such circumstances. 
 
 3. I could by no means consent to subject the Editor to the trouble and 
 expense of publishing an extra sheet solely for my accommodation. 
 
 I have deemed it proper to state the foregoing facts and reasons, that the 
 readers of our correspondence may understand why this and the following 
 letters have not appeared, like the preceding ones, in the New-Haven Record. 
 
 I design, Sir, to answer directly or indirectly your questions respecting the 
 organization of the Pastoral Union, and the founding of the Theological Insti- 
 tute of Connecticut ; and I indulge the hope, that my answers will be in a good 
 degree satisfactory ; at least, that they will correct some of your misappre- 
 hensions, and lead you to think more favorably of the conduct of your orthodox 
 brethren, than you have done for years past. You are aware, that an intel- 
 ligent judgment cannot be passed upon their proceedings in associating together 
 and in establishing a new theological seminary, without first considering the 
 circumstances in which they were placed. That mistakes may be corrected, 
 and the condition of our ecclesiastical commonwealth rightly understood, allow 
 me to call your attention, for a short time, from the Pastoral Union and 
 Theological Institute of Connecticut, and to occupy it with some other topics 
 which are intimately connected with the professed object of this discussion. 
 
 1. The Theological Department of Yale College demands our consideration. 
 If I am correctly informed, the first indications, discovered only by a few 
 persons, that the New-Haven divines were beginning to adopt opinions at 
 variance with those which commonly prevailed among the orthodox, appeared 
 in 1820, '21 ; and the project of reorganizing and enlarging the Theological 
 
REV. LEONARD B&COIf. G3 
 
 Department of Yale College wot started in May, 1S22. You say, " The 
 course taken by the Corporation of Yale College, twelve years before [the 
 fhstitute was founded] when the Theological Department of that institution 
 was reorganized and placed upon its present footing, was referred to [at 
 Vernon.] as showing what might have been expected in a parallel case ; the 
 corporation, before proceeding to any decisive measures, brought the proposal 
 not only to the General Association, but to every one of the District Associa- 
 tions, for advice and approval, and waited till the churches through their 
 pastors had given their approbation to the proposed arrangement." That this 
 subject was brought before our associations, I do not doubt; but that ''the 
 corporation waited till the churches, through their pastors, had given their 
 approbation of the proposed arrangement," is not so evident. 
 
 Are you quite sure, that the Corporation of Yale College brought this subject 
 before the Associations, or that the Associations would have approved of 
 the plan, had they known what theological sentiments would be inculcated in 
 that department? Could they have foreseen what has taken place, I do not 
 believe an Association in the State would, at that time, have sanctioned the 
 procedure. You, doubtless, believe, that this subject was brought before the 
 Associations by the Corporation, and I will not say that it was not ; but I have 
 before me a certified copy of the document which was sent to the Associations, 
 and in answer to which they communicated their views respecting the proposal. 
 This document is dated at Yale College, May G, 1822 ; but does not appear to 
 have been prepared, or forwarded, in the name, or by the authority, of the 
 Corporation of Yale College. It has attached to it no name. And do the 
 Corporation, when they submit proposals to clerical bodies, and " wait till the 
 churches through their pastors have given their approbation," send anonymous 
 communications ?* Was not this application to the Associations "for advice 
 and approval," made by gentlemen at New-Haven, some of whom, at least, 
 are now connected with the Theological Department of Yale College ; and 
 made, too, before the Corporation had acted on the subject of re-organizing 
 and enlarging the Theological Department of that institution ? And was not 
 the duty of approving of this design, in personal address, urged upon one or 
 more of the Associations, by one or more of those gentlemen 1 Permit me to 
 quote a few extracts from the document referred to : — 
 
 " In soliciting the co-operation of the clergy and the donations of the religious public for the 
 accomplishment of this great design, it is thought proper respectfully to state some of the reasons 
 which demand its adoption." — " 1. The primary design of the College deserves consideration." 
 — " 2. The continuance of the Theological Department on an enlarged scale cannot interfere with 
 existing Theological Institutions." — " Winn it is considered, that most of the literary institu- 
 tions of our country are in New England, that here revivals of religion arc placing increasing 
 multitudes of youth at the disposal of the churches, that all other parts of the United States are 
 looking to us as the Seminary >■( the churches in the country, it will not be thought too strong 
 to am/in, that one 011 twj Theological Institutions cannot long be adequate to the just 
 demands of Providence on the piktv and talents of New England. Nor finally will this 
 Department interfere at all with the funds of other Institutions. For as to students, an increase 
 of their number in charity students, is but a consumption of their funds, and in other btudents is 
 but a bare repayment of expenses ; and as to the community, they look to a different portion of it 
 for pecuniary aid from that on which ice must rely for the extension and support of this Depart- 
 ment." 3. The facilities for supporting a Theological Department in Yale College are deserving 
 of consideration." "4. The literary and moral iurluenco of a Theological school will be highly 
 salutary on the undergraduates." 
 
 • The Rev. Dr. Chapin in reply to an inquiry of mine on this subject, writes as follows : — 
 " Anonymous communications by the Corporation of Yale College ! ! ! I know not but they havs 
 sent a million — but I do not believe they have sent odc. Why should they ? " 
 
64 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 Now, by whomsoever this application to the Associations was made, what 
 was its design, and what responsiilibties did the Associations assume in approv- 
 ing of the proposed arrangement ? It has been more than once intimated, that 
 the Theological Department in Yale College was the legitimate child of the 
 Associations, and that they were bound to support it ; and as the Theological 
 Institute of Connecticut was founded without the formal approval of the 
 Associations, though a number of them unsolicited passed resolutions in its 
 commendation after it was established, it has been said that it ought not to be 
 respectfully noticed by those bodies, and that its founders should be considered 
 as having acted a disorderly part. What then was the object of those, who, 
 in an anonymous communication, appealed to the Associations in behalf of the 
 Theological Department in Yale College, in making the appeal ? Was it to 
 make the Department a child of the Associations, to put it under their super- 
 vision and control, and to have them responsible to the public for its manage- 
 ment ? Nothing like this is intimated in their communication. " In soliciting 
 the co-operation of the clergy and the donations of the religious public [they] 
 thought proper respectfully to state some reasons which demand its adoption." 
 Does it not appear, that the simple and only object was to secure the influence 
 " of the clergy and the donations of the religious public, in re-organizing and 
 enlarging that department," to be entirely independent of the pastors and 
 churches of this State ? I ask you, Sir, as a member of the Corporation of 
 Yale College, could the Corporation themselves have proposed to the Associ- 
 ations to take this theological school under their supervision and control ? Is 
 not all authority which can be exercised over it in the possession of the Cor- 
 poration? And are they not bound by law to retain that authority in their 
 own possession 1 Can they delegate any measure of power to individuals or 
 associations to act in relation to that concern ? What then have the pastors 
 and churches of Connecticut to do with the Theological Department in Yale 
 College ? Can they by authoritative action exert the least influence in the 
 management of its affairs'? Have the Associations, or Consociations, of this 
 State ever been, at least in our day, consulted by the Corporation relative to 
 the appointment of professors, or respecting any other transactions of that 
 board ? Did the Corporation ever submit to the consideration of the churches, 
 or pastors of the churches an official report of their proceedings ? And do 
 you believe that the Associations, in approving of the establishment of that 
 school, thought of binding themselves and successors to sustain it at all events ? 
 Perhaps two-thirds or more of the present pastors of our churches have been 
 settled since 1822, when this application was made, and know nothing of the 
 " advice and approval " of which you speak ; and are they obligated to cast 
 out, as illegitimate offspring, all other theological institutions and cleave to that 
 of Yale College as the only child of promise ? No, Sir. The Theological 
 Department in Yale College is not so much the child of the Associations, as is 
 the Theological Institute. The former is under the exclusive control of a 
 Corporation composed of eight officers of our State government, and ten 
 clergymen invested with power to fill all vacancies in the clerical part of the 
 body ; the latter is the property and under the control of a large proportion 
 of the pastors of our churches and members of our Associations who annually 
 appoint the trustees of the Institute ; the former is allied to the State ; the 
 latter is closely allied to the churches. 
 
 Yale College has ever been a favorite object with the Congregational 
 ministers of Connecticut. They founded it and they have patronized it as 
 their own institution. And, so far as I know, as a literary institution, it is still 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 65 
 
 dear to them ; and to none is it more so, than to members of the Pastoral 
 Union. The ministers of this State, you will cheerfully acknowledge, have 
 afforded important aid in roaring that seminary to the elevated station which 
 it now occupies among the literary institutions of the country. Its influence 
 is felt in every city, town, village, hamlet, and sequestered neighborhood in 
 Connecticut, and extensively in other parts of the land. The man who 
 can avail himself of this influence, may increase an hundred fold his power of 
 controling the views and feelings of the community. Universities in Europe, 
 with one, at least, in this country, as they have been the means of corrupting 
 churches, and of spreading moral desolations around them, solemnly admonish 
 us, that a few men, aided by the influence of such an institution as Yale 
 College, in connection with the press, can easily revolutionize the theological 
 sentiments of an extensive region, unless they are openly, boldly, persevenngly, 
 and with a spirit of self-denial opposed. And now, Sir, is it to you surprising, 
 that when the Theological Department in Yale College was put into operation, 
 and strange doctrines came from it to the ears of the religious public, that 
 many intelligent persons were alarmed and filled with anxiety? And, if there 
 teas no design to change the features of our New England orthodoxy, and if in 
 the opinion of the New-Haven divines, there was no great difference in the theo- 
 logical views between them and their brethren, would not effectual measures have 
 been adopted, by the appointment of Professors, or otherwise, to diminish, if not 
 to remove entirely all occasion of solicitude ? But allow me to ask the following 
 questions, with an earnest request that you will, if possible, give satisfactory 
 answers. 
 
 " When the Theological Department was re-organized and put upon its 
 present footing;' were not its Professors on the side of what has been denom- 
 inated " new divinity ?" Have not all the gentlemen who have been elected 
 Professors in that Department since its re-organization, been of the same type 
 in theology, and disposed to cast their influence on that side ? Has not that 
 theological school been made a powerful engine in promulgating the peculiar 
 sentiments of the New-Haven divines ? For years past, has any gentlemen 
 been elected a clerical member of the Corporation, who did not favor those senti- 
 ments ? Can any minister, who is conscientiously and openly opposed to the 
 peculiar views of the New-Haven divines, be considered a candidate for 
 membership in the Corporation, or for office in the Theological Department ? 
 What safeguard have the public on this subject ? Be not displeased, my 
 brother, that in your own language I interrogate still farther. What is this 
 Theological Department ? "Is it not an organization ? — the organization of 
 a party ? — organized for party ends ? — organized to accomplish ends to 
 which mere argument was inadequate, and which could not be reached by the 
 working of our ecclesiastical system ?" And since your brethren of the 
 Pastoral Union did suppose, that they and all who harmonize with them in 
 their views of divine truth, were effectually excluded from all participation in 
 the management of that seminary, and that they were driven to the painful 
 necessity of providing for themselves ; have they indeed committed a great 
 offence in establishing a new theological institution, as they believe, on better 
 principles, with an improved organization, and far more congenial to the spirit 
 of Congregationalism. 
 
 2. The subject of creeds deserves consideration. — In your second letter you 
 say ; " The convention at East Windsor adopted a new confession of faith, now 
 known as the creed of the Pastoral Union. If any convention, or permanent 
 9 
 
CQ LETTERS TO THE 
 
 society of ministers on the other side of this controversy, had formed a new 
 confession of faith, how many inferences unfavorable to their orthodoxy would 
 have been derived from the fact ; and how would the fact with the inferences 
 have been proclaimed throughout the land. I will not attempt to derive from 
 your new confession any inferences unfavorable to your orthodoxy. I will 
 only ask you to inform the public why a new confession was thought necessary ? 
 The attempt has been made of late, you know, by some of your associates, to 
 produce the impression on the public mind, that the Savoy Confession, assented 
 to by the Synod at Saybrook in 1708, is now the standard of orthodoxy among 
 us ; and that^t is to be taken, not as embodying a certain ' system of doctrine/ 
 but as binding in every word. I do not impute that notion to you, for I have 
 heard you declare publicly the contrary ; but I may ask you, whether those 
 who co-operated in forming this new confession, and in making it the basis of 
 the Pastoral Union, did not at the time take the same ground which you take 1 
 Why a new creed, if the Savoy Confession is our standard ? — Perhaps it will 
 not be thought impertinent if I ask, in what respect the new creed is better 
 than the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly, that old and familiar 
 summary of Christian doctrine. It is shorter than the Catechism, and in that 
 respect it is better, if it is to be imposed, as a creed, word for word, upon 
 posterity. It is a very respectable formulary, one which, if I understand it 
 aright, I should be ready to subscribe ; but wherever it differs from the 
 Catechism either in arrangement or in statement, I think the Catechism is by 
 all means to be preferred." 
 
 "If any convention or permanent society of ministers on the other side of 
 the controversy, had formed a new confession of faith," I do not believe, that 
 " many inferences unfavorable to their orthodoxy would have been derived 
 from the fact," provided the confession was fully and explicitly orthodox, and 
 its framers were known to be deeply convinced of the importance of maintain- 
 ing the sound doctrines which it embraced. Do you believe, Sir, that 
 inferences unfavorable to orthodoxy would be derived from an exchange of 
 creeds, provided the former were vague and indefinite, and the latter full 
 and lucid in expressing the doctrines of grace 1 Suppose the church in Yale 
 College should become dissatisfied with their present " Confession of Faith," 
 and should exchange it for the " Articles of Agreement," adopted by the 
 Pastoral Union ; what inferences in relation to orthodoxy would be derived 
 from the fact ?" That you and the reader may judge, allow me to quote these 
 formularies. 
 
 "THE CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE CHURCH IN YALE COLLEGE. 
 
 You, [and each of you] solemnly profess your belief that there is but one God, in three persons, 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; self-existent, independent, eternal, unchangeable ; infi- 
 nite in power, wisdom, holiness, goodness, and truth : — that by him all things were made ; and 
 are governed according to his own most wise, holy and good pleasure : and that you arc his crea- 
 tures, and under the most righteous and solemn obligations to serve and glorify him with all your 
 powers while you live. You also profess your belief, that the scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testament are the Word of God ; revealed to mankind by the spirit of truth ; and containing 
 every rule of faith, and practise which is obligatory on the consciences of mankind. — Thus you 
 profess and believe." 
 
 " ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT OF THE PASTORAL UNION. 
 
 1. That there is one, and but one, living and true God. 
 
 2. That the word of God, contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, is the 
 only perfect rule of faith and practice. 
 
 3. That agreeable to these rcriptures, God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in 
 his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. C7 
 
 4. That in the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and 
 that these three arj one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. 
 
 5. That God created man after his own image, consisting in knowledge, righteousness, and 
 holiness. 
 
 6. That the glory of God is man's chief end and the enjoyment of God his supreme happi- 
 ness. And that this enjoyment is derived solely from conformity of heart to the moral character 
 and will of God. 
 
 7. That God, according to the counsel of his own will, hath foreordained whatsoever comes 
 to pass, and that all beings, actions, and events, both in the natural and moral worlds, are subject 
 to his providential direction ; and that God's purposes perfectly consist with human liberty, God's 
 universal agency with the agency of man, and man's dependence with his accountability ; that 
 man has understanding and natural strength to do all tiiat God requires of him, so that nothing 
 but the sinner's aversion to holiness prevents his salvation. 
 
 8. That it is the prerogative of God to bring good out of evil, and that he will cause the 
 wrath of men and devils to praise him, ant! that al! the evil which has existed, and will forever 
 exist in the universe, will eventually be made to promote a most important purpose, under the 
 wise and perfect administration of that Almighty Being who will cause all things to work for his 
 own glory, and thus fulfil all his pleasure. 
 
 9. That Adam the federal head and representative of the human race, was placed in proba- 
 tion, that he disobeyed the divine command, fell from holiness, and involved himself and al! his 
 posterity in depravity and ruin. And that from the commencement of existence, every man is 
 personally depraved, destitute of holiness, unlike and opposed to God, and that, previously to his 
 renewal by the Holy Spirit, all his moral actions are adverse to the character and gloiy of God ; 
 and that, having the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, he is justly exposed to all the 
 miseries of this life, and to eternal damnation. 
 
 10. That sin consists in the moral corruption of the heart, the perversencss of the will, and 
 actual transgressions of the divine law. 
 
 11. That God from eternity, elected some of our fallen race to everlasting life, through sancti- 
 fication of the Spirit and belief of the truth, not for any foreseen faith or obedience in the subject 
 of election, but according to his own good pleasure. 
 
 12. That the only Redeemer of the elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being God, became 
 man, and continues to be both God and man, in two distinct natures and one person furevcr. 
 
 13. That except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ; that repentance, 
 faith, and holiness are the personal requisites of salvation in the Gospel scheme; that the right- 
 eousnes of Christ is the only ground of the sinner's justification ; that this righteousness is receiv- 
 ed by faith, and that this faith is the gift of God ; so that our salvation is wholly of grace ; that 
 no means whatever can change the heart of a sinner and make it holy ; that regeneration and 
 sanctification are the effects of the creating and renewing agency of the Holy .Spirit ; and that 
 supreme love to God constitutes the essential difference between saints and sinners. 
 
 14. That the atonement made by Christ, in his obedience and death, is the only ground of 
 pardon and salvation to sinners, and that this ground is sufficiently broad for the offer of pardon 
 to be sincerely made to all men. 
 
 15. That as it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe, the 
 gospel is adapted to the moral agency and the wants of sinners, but not conformable to their 
 dispositions, and that the object of preaching the Gospel is to display the glory of God in tho 
 redemption of sinners. 
 
 1G. That all true believers arc kept, by tl.c power of God, through faith unto salvation. 
 
 17. That the special ordinances of the gospel, Baptism ai:d the Lord's Suppi r, are designed 
 for those onlv who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and unite themselves to 
 his visible church ; and that professing believers, who have households, are to bring them also to 
 the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 18. That a Christian Church ought to admit no person to its holy communion, before he has 
 time to exhibit, by hi* fruits, credible evidence of h ; s pi< 
 
 19. That there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust, and that 
 all must stand before the judgement-seat of Christ, to give an account of the deeds done in tho 
 
 body. 
 
 20. That the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life 
 eternal." 
 
 Were the Pastoral Union to exchange these " Articles of Agreement," for 
 the "Confession of Faith of the Church m Yale College." I do not know but 
 there might be inferences unfavorable derived from the fact; but were that 
 church to abandon their present "Confession," and adopt these "Articles," in 
 the place of it, do you really believe, that '• many inferences unfavorable to 
 their orthodoxy would be proclaimed throughout the land ?" 
 
68 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 You request me " to inform the public why a new Confession was thought 
 necessary." — Were a company of professing Christians organized as a distinct 
 church, would it not be singular to request them " to inform the public why a 
 new Confession was thought necessary V s I presume your brethren when 
 about to form the Pastoral Union, believed that agreement in sentiment was 
 the only stable bond of their contemplated association, and that they owed it 
 to each other and to the Christian community to make an explicit declaration 
 in their own language of their views of the doctrines of the Gospel ; and espec- 
 ially as they contemplated the establishment of a new Theological Seminary. 
 Respecting the opinions of ministers in this State in regard to the Savoy 
 Confession being the standard of orthodoxy among us, 1 do not know that 1 
 have any information which you do not possess. 
 
 Since you, Sir, have introduced the subject of creeds, and have been free in 
 your remarks respecting that of the Pastoral Union, you will allow me to ask, 
 now it has happened, that writers of a certain school have of late years so 
 frequently assailed creeds and confessions as standards of orthodoxy or guards 
 against error ? When Unitarianism was beginning to infect many of the 
 churches in Massachusetts, creeds and confessions, as standards of orthodoxy, 
 or guards against error, were represented as worse than useless. So it has 
 been of late, to some extent, among us. As a specimen of what has been 
 published on this subject, I quote the following : — 
 
 M Among the ordinary uses of creeds and confessions, the following may be enumerated : 
 
 1. They are used as forms in making a public profession of faith in the Gospel. Such i» 
 their customary use in our churches ; and to such a use, provided the form is not exceptionable, 
 I know not how any reasonable man can object. 
 
 2. They arc used as terms of communion ; — as when the position is taken, no man shall be 
 received into our church, who will not subscribe or assent to our formulary. In respect to this it 
 ought to be remembered that no formulary which is designed for such a use, ought to include 
 any thing beyond those points, the understanding and belief of which is essential to a credible- 
 profession of Christianity. 
 
 3. They arc used as standards of orthodoxy and guards against error, and securities for uni- 
 formity of belief in the ministry or among churches. As to the utility of creeds, when employed 
 for such a purpose, I must be allowed to express a doubt." — " A Manual for Young Church 
 Members. By Leonard Bacon, p. 175." 
 
 It appears, then, that you would have all our churches adopt confessions of 
 faith which would present no barrier to membership to hopeful Christians 
 whatever may be their religious tenets ; and you would dispense with all 
 creeds as standards of orthodoxy, or guards against error. Permit me to 
 inquire, whether it was in conformity to these opinions, that, a few years since, 
 the " Confession of Faith," adopted by the First Church in New-llaven was 
 exchanged for the present " Profession of Faith ?" That intelligent and highly 
 respectable church will not consider me, in making this and some other inquiries, 
 impertinent, inasmuch as their pastor has felt it his duty to express his views 
 of the creed of the Pastoral Union, and to propose questions in relation to it. 
 
 May I not request you " to inform the public, why a new confession was 
 thought necessary." And will you allow me to ask, whether the present 
 "Profession of Faith" of your church is not more in accordance with the 
 peculiar views of the New-Haven divines than the formulary for which it was 
 exchanged ? I understand, that copies of this " Profession of Faith " have been 
 extensively circulated, that it has already been adopted by a number of 
 churches, and that by a portion of the religious community it is considered a 
 specimen of what a church creed should be. You will hence permit me to 
 examine it in connection with the old confession, in some of its particulars. 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON- 69 
 
 Before the exchange alluded to, persons on making a profession of religion 
 and uniting with your church, I conclude, publicly assented to the following 
 among other declarations. 
 
 "You believe — "that (God) preserves and governs all his creatures, and 
 overrules all their actions for his own glory; and that in whatsoever comes to 
 pass, he is accomplishing his eternal purposes, according to the counsel of his 
 own will" Is not this a direct contradiction of the theory, that God could not 
 prevent all sin, or the present degree of it, in a moral system ? Is not this in 
 the new " Profession of Faith" intentionally evaded by saying, that God's "pur- 
 poses extend to all events /" And again, that " he exercises a righteous moral gov- 
 ernment over all his intelligent creatures!" And may not a temporal king over 
 his subjects, or a father over his children ; and yet be defeated, and utterly 
 unable to control or govern their actions ? 
 
 " You believe t ha t (rod created nam upright. 11 ' The modern theory, if I un- 
 derstand it, is, that God cannot create holiness, — that the image of God, in 
 which Adam was created, means simply that, he was constituted a moral 
 agent, — and that holiness and sin are alike acquired ? Hence in the new creed, 
 it is said ; " You believe thai man was originally upright" How he became so, 
 whether by his own, or God's act, or both, or neither, we are not told. 
 
 " You believe that God in his mercy has not left, all mankind to perish forever, 
 but out of his mere good pleasure, has from eternity elected some to everlasting 
 life." The doctrine of election from eternity is not included in the new " Pro- 
 fession of Faith "! 
 
 " You believe that without a change of heart, wrought in the unregenerate by 
 the special divine agency of the Holt/ Spirit, who is very God, no man can bean 
 heir of eternal life ; and that the soul which, is once made partaker of renewing 
 and saving grace, will never be permitted so to fall away, as finally to perish" 
 The words " dead in sin" and " regeneration" found in the old confession are 
 omitted in the new. The special agency of the Holy Spirit, and the filial per- 
 severance of the saints, so clearly expressed in the " Confession" are neither 
 expressed nor implied in the "Profession"! 
 
 ■ You believe that baptism is to be. administered to unbaptiseel adults, wlw pro- 
 fess their faith in Christ, and to the. infant children of any, who are members of 
 the church." Infant baptism is omitted in the new creed ! 
 
 " Thus in the presence of Almighty God, you solemnly profess and believe." 
 " Perhaps it will not be thought impertinent, if I ask in what respect the new 
 creed is better than [the old one, or] the Shorter Catechism of the Westmin- 
 ster Assembly, that old and familiar summary of Christian Doctrine. It is 
 shorter than the Catechism, in that respect it is better ; — but wherever it dif- 
 fers from the Catechism in arrangement and statement, I think lh.3 Catechism 
 is by all means to be preferred." I doubt not, sir, that there are hundreds and 
 thousands of intelligent members of our churches, who would deeply regret to 
 have the doctrines above noticed expunged from the Confessions of Faith to 
 which they assented "in the presence of Almighty God." But why this ex- 
 change o( creeds, which has obtained of late in some of our churches? Can 
 you present a clearer evidence of a change in theological views, than to have 
 long established formularies set aside? In this, is there not evidence of the 
 working of an organization designed to change the features of our orthodoxy ? 
 3. The eircumslances and character of our religious periodical press demand 
 consideration. Seldom has there been a large body of clergymen, who were 
 so evangelical, and so harmonious in their views of divine truth, and in their 
 operations, as the Congregational ministers of Connecticut, for a considerable 
 
70 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 period before the commencement of our present unhappy dissensions. The 
 Connecticut Evangelical Magazine first published in 1800, and the succession 
 of comparatively pure and powerful revivals of religion, which began about 
 the dawn of the present century, together with less prominent instrumentali- 
 ties, were greatly blessed to the ministry and to the churches of this State. 
 At the time of my ordination, twenty-one years ago, differences in sentiment, 
 or in practice among our brethren were scarcely known. When any con- 
 cern of a public nature came before them, they examined it faithfully and kind- 
 ly ; and if it met with their approval, for obvious reasons they committed it 
 principally to the management of the ministers at Hartford and New Haven 
 as occupying central stations ; and cordially co-operated with them. This har- 
 mony in views, and union in efforts, were clearly manifested in relation to the 
 religious periodical press. I need not tell you. that the first periodical of this 
 character in the form of a newspaper was the Religious Intelligencer, publish- 
 ed in New Haven first in 1816 ; that for a number of years it received the 
 general, if not universal support of the Congregational ministers and churches 
 of Connecticut; and that for a considerable time before it was discontinued, 
 its influence was decidedly in favor of" New Haven theology." The Chris- 
 tian Spectator, a monthly publication, was first issued in 1819. I have always 
 supposed, that there was perfect harmony among the ministers of this State 
 in originating, and in supporting it, till it changed its theological character ; 
 that, as it was originally designed, to use its own language, to " inculcate" what 
 " are termed the doctrines of grace which have ever prevailed in the great 
 body of the Congregational and Presbyterian churches," they regarded it as 
 their own organ of communication to the religious public . and considered 
 themselves obligated to sustain the Association of Gentlemen by whom it was 
 conducted. They patronized the work, as far as practicable circulated it 
 among their people, and many of them enriched its pages with their produc- 
 tions. Often were they applied to, as its friends and supporters, to augment 
 its list of subscribers. And conducted with ability as it was, it in process of 
 time exerted a great influence on the ministry and the churches. But as it 
 was entirely or principally under the control of gentlemen at New Haven, they 
 improved it, and the influence which it had attained, for the promulgation and 
 defence of their peculiar views of theology ; till at length, when it assumed the 
 quarterly form, it was, if I have been correctly informed, and as its pages clear- 
 ly intimate, closely shut up against communications in opposition to " New Di- 
 vinity." In connection with the operations of the Theological Department in 
 Yale College, it became a powerful engine in diffusing far and near the opin- 
 ions which have distinguished that Department. 
 
 The Connecticut Observer, in 1825, was originated by a convention of our 
 brethren, who appointed a committee to select an Editor, and exercise a super- 
 vision over it. As it was designed to be a religious newspaper for the church- 
 es of this State, the worthy brother who was its Editor until the last year, 
 considered it his duty to maintain a neutral position in relation to existing con- 
 troversies. This paper was supported principally by present members of the 
 Pastoral Union and their congregations, till they made an unsuccessful applica- 
 tion to the Committee and Editor for the privilege of occasionally occupying a 
 place in its columns in defence of those principles of our Fathers' which were 
 constantly assailed. Whether the Committee at a subsequent period main- 
 tained the same regard for neutrality, and the wishes of the former Editor of 
 the paper, the present readers of the Connecticut Observer may decide. 
 
 You know, my brother, there was a period previous to the organization of 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 71 
 
 the Pastoral Union, when the religious periodical press in Connecticut, under 
 the control of Congregationalists, was much employed in disseminating " New 
 Haven theology," and that your orthodox brethren could gain access to no re- 
 ligious periodical in this State where they might defend what they deemed to 
 be truth of vita! importance against assaults of dangerous error. And you 
 know too, that in our day when periodicals are so numerous, they who are 
 driven to the necessity of communicating to the public through the medium of 
 pamphlets are well nigh denied the liberty of the press. I ask you Sir, was 
 not this the case with the ministers whom you have arraigned before the pub- 
 lic, as having become partizans without sufficient ground of provocation ? Did 
 not you and your associates control the press of our denomination in Connect- 
 icut, and improve it to your oum party purposes ? And did not Dr. Pond, the 
 worthy Editor of the Spirit of the Pilgrims, published at Boston, meet with in- 
 terference, from the same quarter, in conducting that work? 
 
 In speaking of the meeting of the General Association, at Vernon, in 1834, 
 you ask ; " Was it not then evident, for the first time within your memory, that 
 there were parties in the General Association of Connecticut ? Was it not 
 manifest that the Pastoral Union was an organized party, and that its first and 
 most powerful tendency was to compel all those who agreed in not belonging 
 to it, and in not going along with its measures to act as another party ?" 
 
 I ask you, whether, without proceeding farther, I have not furnished con- 
 clusive evidence, that, previous to the formation of the Pastoral Union, 
 
 THERE HID EXIST, IN THIS STATE, TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, A POWERFUL 
 ORGANIZATION, WITH MANY FACILITIES FOR THE PROMULGATION OF PECULIAR 
 SENTIMENTS, AND FOR THE REVOLUTION OF THE CHURCHES ? Look at the TheO- 
 
 logical Department in Yale College, — look at the alterations in the confessions 
 of faith, — look at the circumstances and character of our religious periodical 
 press, — and look especially into the Christian Spectator, for 1833, pp. 104, 
 105. 
 
 When you made the interrogations relative to the meeting at Vernon, had 
 you forgotten, that you and your associates had already recognized, and pub- 
 lished yourselves to the world as a party. In the review of the Works of 
 Leighton, you took for granted the existence of parties among us, and offered 
 your advice to each party. That you and those who sympathize with you had 
 long constituted a party, and had long been engaged in the accomplishment of 
 party purposes, there is much reason to believe. Whether the Pastoral Un- 
 ion should be viewed in the light of a party, may be thought worthy of farther 
 consideration. 
 
 Your brother in the faith and hope of the Gospel. 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 
 Coventry, February 10, 1840. 
 
 better X ♦ 
 
 Dear Sir — I will now proceed to answer indirectly many of your inquiries 
 by a simple statement of facts. The systematic, efficient, and combined op- 
 erations of the Theological Department in Yale College, the periodical press, 
 and other causes, had tor a considerable time excrled a powerful influence on 
 the ministry and churches, especially of Connecticut, in favor of " New 
 Divinity ;" when, in 1831, a few of our brethren associated together for the 
 
72 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 purpose of circulating Doctrinal Tracts. This attempt to rear a feeble barrier 
 in defence of orthodoxy, was, as I suppose, unsuccessful, and few, if any, tracts 
 were circulated. In the spring of 1832 there was a proposed arrangement to 
 resuscitate the Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, with the doctrinal charac- 
 ter which it formerly maintained and without a controversial aspect. Persons, 
 who had as yet kept themselves aloof from the controversy, were for two 
 reasons induced to favor the proposed arrangement. 1. They approved of 
 the sentiments and spirit of the Magazine, and they believed that the circum- 
 stances of the churches demanded the influence of such a periodical. 2. They 
 were aware that a portion of their brethren felt themselves oppressed, and, as 
 they judged, not without reason ; and believing the reaction would be in pro- 
 portion to the pressure, they thought by the resuscitation of the Magazine a 
 necessary relief might be afforded, and an unhappy explosion prevented. They 
 also indulged the hope, that pastors of your opinion and feeling, under the 
 then existing circumstances, might approve of its circulation among their 
 people. In this, however, they were disappointed. From that quarter the 
 proposal met with decided disapprobation and opposition. By individual 
 enterprise the Magazine, however, was recommenced with a limited circulation 
 and was conducted to the general satisfaction of its patrons, and, so far as I 
 know, without increasing the opposition first manifested toward it. 
 
 You say ; " The attempt had been previously made, without success, to 
 form a new organization, by the name of Pastoral Union, in each associational 
 district, with a general union, constituted by delegation from the several dis- 
 tricts. A new creed, designed to be the basis of this organization, was formed 
 by a committee or convention, assembled at Hartford, and was sent to some 
 individual supposed to be trusty in each district, who was to obtain signatures 
 to the creed, and to take other measures to complete the arrangement. This 
 attempt was in January, 1833, but the project in that form and at that time, 
 appears to have failed. The ministers, taken at home in their parishes, and in 
 their habitual intercourse with their brethren, would not embark in a scheme 
 which implied nothing less than a separation of the Congregational churches 
 of Connecticut into two contending and contemptible sects." 
 
 I trust, my brother, you will be gratified in having the prominent mistakes 
 in the above extract corrected. This I will do by a communication of facts 
 so far as they came within my personal knowiedge, and so far as I retain them 
 in memory. In January, 1833, a conference of ministers on the state of our 
 churches, at the suggestion and earnest request, (as I was informed at the 
 time,) of the venerable Dr. Perkins, was invited at Hartford. Two pastors 
 from each district association in this State, and a few from the vicinity in the 
 State of Massachusetts, were requested to meet together on that occasion. 
 The senior pastor of the church in Ellington, (whom you notice so particularly,) 
 and the pastor of the church in North Coventry, were selected from Tolland 
 County Association. The reason why the former did not attend, he has never 
 told me. About twenty ministers, one or more from all, or nearly all, the 
 district associations, if I mistake not, were present. After prayer and a free 
 conversation on the condition of the churches, they resolved, that in their 
 judgment it was expedient to follow the example of our brethren in Massa- 
 chusetts, in organizing for this State a Pastoral Union. Articles of agreement, 
 as the basis of such an organization, were presented and adopted. A com- 
 mittee was appointed to prepare documents on this subject to be laid before 
 the district associations, and to adopt those measures for the accomplishment 
 of the object, which they might deem needful and proper. A brother in each 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 73 
 
 association was requested to receive the documents when prepared, and present 
 them to the consideration of the association to which he belonged. I have yet 
 to learn that this conference of ministers did not desire and hope that all our 
 brethren would be embraced in this contemplated Union, who could ex animo 
 subscribe a Confession of Faith like the one said to have been drafted by 
 Governor Treadwell and published by the Connecticut Missionary Society 
 for the benefit of our new settlements ; or like the creed of the Andover Sem- 
 inary. At least this was my desire and expectation. The practice lately 
 approved by some of subscribing creeds " for substance of doctrine," was not 
 then before my mind. Indeed when I had contemplated it in the established 
 church of England, I did not imagine that it would be adopted and defended 
 among us Congregationalists. The documents I received, and, in simplicity of 
 heart, presented them for the consideration of our association. So soon as 
 presented, a brother, who prefers the theology of New-Haven to that of East 
 Windsor, stated to the association, that he had been informed the design of the 
 contemplated organization was to divide the churches. Surely brethren 
 most opposed to "New-Haven theology," " would not embark in a scheme 
 which implied nothing less than a separation of the Congregational churches 
 of Connecticut into two contending and contemptible sects." The majority 
 of the association did not suppose the scheme implied any such thing, or that 
 any such thing was intended by it. When I found that the motives of the 
 ministers who composed the conference at Hartford were thus impugned and 
 their conduct thus misunderstood and misrepresented, I moved, that the 
 subject be indefinitely postponed, and did not advocate a farther consideration 
 of it ; and the association, while they were disposed to treat the proposal, and 
 those who made it with much respect, in view of the feelings and representa- 
 tions from a certain quarter, finally judged it expedient to waive the subject. 
 A similar scene was acted in some other associations. An impression was 
 made on many minds in different parts of the State, that nothing less was 
 designed by this proposed organization than a division of the churches into two 
 sects. And the consequence was, that the documents were not laid before 
 some of the associations. Hence, as you say, " the project in that form and 
 at that time appears to have failed." But its failure in this way, together with 
 the opposition manifested to the circulation of doctrinal tracts, and the resusci- 
 tation of the Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, and other occurrences, which 
 need not be mentioned at this time, led your aggrieved brethren to feel, that as 
 you and your associates occupied the field for controling the religious public, 
 you designed to retain it exclusively, and that if they acted at all in self-de- 
 fense, they must have some farther action by themselves. 
 
 The committee appointed by the conference of ministers at Hartford, in 
 discharging the duties of their appointment, invited, as I have been informed, 
 about fifty pastors of churches in different parts of the State to meet in conven- 
 tion at East Windsor on the 10th of September, 1833. In making the 
 selection they doubtless designed to have the convention composed of ministers, 
 who believed that dangerous errors were disseminated among us, and that 
 there existed in this State, to all intents and purposes, a powerful organization 
 designed to disseminate some of these errors ; and probably they intended to 
 secure a representation from each association. Though I doubt not their 
 intentions were good, yet I think they erred in not inviting a larger number. 
 And this error may have resulted in part, at least, from the fact, that they did 
 not know that so manv of their brethren were aggrieved and alarmed, as it 
 10 
 
74 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 afterwards appeared. I think it probable they had been misinformed respecting 
 the views and feelings of " good Father Bartlett," and I know they had been 
 respecting the views of some other ministers who are now members of the 
 Pastoral Union, and efficient friends of the Theological Institute. 
 
 You inform me : " The preparations and arrangements for this meeting 
 were all made with the profoundest secrecy." And soon after you say : 
 " You know more about this than I do. for you were one of the actors, as 1 
 suppose, and I have never had the privilege even of hearing about it from one 
 who was there." Pray tell us then, how you learned that " the preparations 
 and arrangements for the meeting were all made with the profoundest secre- 
 cy ?" I did not know till the receipt of your second letter, that the prepara- 
 tions for the meeting, or the meeting itself was designed to be a secret. And 
 that you and some others did not gain earlier information of these transactions, 
 may it not be imputed to the fact that we had no control, at that time, of the 
 religious press in Connecticut 1 We are not so much surprized at mistakes 
 in your account of this meeting, as that you should venture to publish an 
 account of it, when you was not there, and " never had the privilege even of 
 hearing about it from one who was there." 
 
 You ask : " Were there none present in the convention but pastois V Ac- 
 cording to my recollection there were none present as members of the 
 convention, but ordained ministers of the gospel, and but one without a pastoral 
 charge in Connecticut.* Again you ask : " Was not some part of those two 
 days of deliberation occupied with disclosures and developments about brethren 
 who were not there to answer for themselves, and for whom there was no 
 voice to speak one word ? Were not those absent brethren charged with the 
 rejection of great truths which they had again and again professed, in every 
 form of profession ? Were they not charged with keeping back their real 
 opinions, in order to prepare the public gradually for the reception of errors 
 which as yet could not be broached with safety ?" " Would you not have 
 acted more wisely and becomingly, if you had acted with a little more open- 
 ness ?" " Would you not have been quite as likely to secure not only the 
 approbation of the churches, but the blessing of God on your proceedings, if 
 you had at least permitted those men, upon whose condemnation as errorists 
 and deceivers all your proceedings rested, to hear what was alleged against 
 them, and to be heard in explanation and defence ?" " If any of these questions 
 imply ignorance and misapprehension on my part, I pray you remember that 
 the secrecy in which those proceeding were enveloped, will excuse my igno- 
 rance and may apologize for some misapprehension." 
 
 I cannot conceive, Sir, " that the secrecy in which those proceedings were 
 enveloped will excuse your ignorance," much less will it apologize, ignorant as 
 you acknowledge yourself to be, for your propounding publicly these and 
 similar questions. If you have not confidence in your brethren sufficient to 
 authorize the belief, that they " acted wisely and becomingly," can you not 
 believe they avoided the commission of those offences with which they are 
 implicated by your inquiries 1 I should consider myself justified in passing 
 in silence all questions of this character ; but lest from my silence it should be 
 inferred, that I would evade a reasonable inquiry, I will say, that in that 
 meeting there was no " prayerful calumny" — no slandering of absent brethren 
 — according to my remembrance, no unkind expressions — and I presume not 
 
 • The iimc letter missive was sent to one other who had not a pastoral charge, viz. President 
 Day. 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 
 
 75 
 
 a word was uttered respecting any individual, which the person who uttered 
 it would not be willing to repeat to the individual himself. I do not know 
 whether we should '• have been quite as likely to secure not only the appro- 
 bation of the churches, but the blessing of God on our proceedings," had we 
 adopted different measures ; the approbation of the churches and the blessing 
 of God on our proceedings have been thus far secured beyond our expectations 
 at that time. 
 
 In giving an account of the proceedings of this Convention, I shall copy from 
 an official document. 
 
 After the meeting was constituted; "A committee of six Vere appointed on the subject of 
 
 organizing a Pastoral Union for the State, who reported in favor of such an organization, with 
 the recommendation of a Constitution and Articles, of Agreement, as the basis of the Union. 
 The resolution proposed by the Committee was adopted unanimously, and the Constitution brought 
 in by them, after mature deliberation, article by article, was unanimously adopted — which is in 
 the following words, viz : 
 
 Art. I. The name of this Association shall be the Connecticut Pastoral Union. 
 
 Art. II. The object of this Union shall be the promotion of ministerial intcrcourse,fcllowship, 
 and pastoral usefulness, — the promotion of re^vals of religion, — the defence of evangelical 
 truth against prevailing errors in doctrine or practice, and the raising up of sound and faithful 
 ministers for the supply of our churches. 
 
 Art. III. The Articles of Agreement, adopted by our brethren, convened at Hartford, Janu- 
 ary 9th, 1833, and which, as amended, shall be the doctrinal basis of this Union. 
 
 Art. IV. Those pastors of the state, who have already subscribed these Articles, or may at tha 
 present meeting subscribe them, shall be members of this Union. And subsequently to the first 
 annual meeting, no persons may become members but by nomination of some member and a voto 
 of two-thirds of the members present, at any annual meeting, and by signing the Articles of 
 Agreement ; except such as may be invited by the Committee of Arrangements previous to tho 
 first annual meeting. 
 
 An?. V. The Union shall meet annually at such time and place as shall be designated in tha 
 By-Laws, for the election of officers, and the transaction of necessary business. 
 
 Art. VI. At each annual meeting, a Moderator, Scribe, and Committee of Arrangements 
 shall be chosen by ballot, who shall continue in office till others arc chosen. 
 
 Art. VII. A Recording Secretary shall also be appointed, who shall hold his office till another 
 ie chosen, and who shall keep a faithful and accurate record of the Constitution, the members, 
 and acts and votes of the Union. 
 
 Art. VIII. Special meetings may be called by the Moderator, or Recording Secretary, at the 
 request of the Committee of Arrangements, or any five members, by publishing a notice in soma 
 periodical publication, or by personal notice to each member, at least one month previous to the 
 proposed .neeting. And no meeting which is not thus notified, except the annual or adjourned 
 meetings, shall be considered regular. 
 
 Akt. IX. The Union may at any time adopt such measures respecting the establishment of 
 seminaries or periodical publications, as they shall judge will conduce to the general objects of 
 this Union. 
 
 Art. X. This Constitution, with the exception of the Articles of Agreement, may be altered 
 or amended at an annual meeting of the society, by a vote of two-thirds of the members present, 
 such alteration or amendment having been proposed to the Union, and left with the Recording 
 Secretary, a year previous to its adoption." 
 
 " The exocdiency of establishing a manual labor Theological Institute, came up next in order, 
 and having keen long and solemnly discussed and submitted to God in prayer, the question was at 
 length taken, and the resolution unanimously adopted, that it is expedient to establish a manual- 
 labor Theological Institute in this State.*' 
 
 The convention having adjourned without day, the Pastoral Union was 
 organized by the appointment of the officers prescribed in the constitution. 
 A committee, previously appointed on this service, reported a plan for the 
 regulation of the contemplated Theological Institute, which, after a careful 
 consideration of each article separately, was adopted, and is as follows : 
 
 Art. I. The seminary shall be called the Theological Institute of Connecticut. 
 
 Art. II. It? primary object shall be the education of pious young men for the ministry of the 
 Gospel, in connection with which there may be a department for teaching the sciences prepara- 
 tory to, or conntcted with, a collegiate course of study. 
 
76 LETTERS TO TJIE 
 
 Art. III. The general management and oversight of the seminary shall be vested in a Board 
 of Trustees, to consist of at least twelve Ministers and eight Laymen, who shall be appointed 
 annually by the Pastoral Union of Connecticut. A majority of the Trustees shall be a quorum 
 to transact business at any meeting duly notified. 
 
 Art. IV. After the requisite funds shall be obtained, the seminary shall be furnished with a 
 President, and such Professors, and distribution of labor as the Trustees shall deem expedient. 
 
 Art. V. The candidates for admission to the Theological Department shall be persons of 
 accredited piety, and members of some Congregational or other evangelical church. They shall 
 have a diploma from some college, or furnish evidence of literary and scientific attainments, 
 ■atisfactory to the Trustees, or to their Committee, in connection with the Faculty of the Semi- 
 nary. The qualifications for admission to the Literary Department shall be a fair moral character. 
 
 Art. VI. The Board of Trustees shall be authorized to determine the location, of the Institu- 
 tion ; and to obtain, if practicable, a Charter of Incorporation, enabling them to hold property 
 and possess the other powers of a corporate body. They shall make the necessary purchases ; 
 prepare accommodations, as they may be needed ; appoint officers ; and solicit, or appoint agenta 
 to solicit, funds for the accomplishment of the objects of the Institute. They shall be authorized 
 to appoint a Librarian and make the necessary By-Laws for the regulation of the Library, and 
 the Institution generally. They shall also appoint a Treasurer for the Institute, who shall give 
 satisfactory bonds for the faithful performance of his official duties. 
 
 Art. VII. The members of the Institute shall be examined semi-annually, by the Faculty, 
 in their several studies, and onee a year in the presence of the Trustees, or a Committee appoint- 
 ed for that purpose. The annual examination shftll bo held week in 
 
 Art. VIII. Every Trustee and officer in the Institute, shall, on entering upon his duties, 
 Subscribe the creed of the Pastoral Union of Connecticut. He shall also declare his full assent 
 to it every year during his continuance in office. The Faculty shall make this declaration to the 
 Trustees, and the Trustees to the Pastoral Union. And in default of such declaration, their office 
 ■hall be considered vacant, and such vacancies shall forthwith be filled, according to the provis- 
 ions of the Constitution. 
 
 Art. IX. The Trustees are authorized to call special meetings of the Pastoral Union, if they 
 judge that the interests of the Seminary require such a measure. The Faculty and Trustees 
 ahall also report annually the state of the Institute to the Pastoral Union. 
 
 Art. X. This Constitution may be altered or amended by a vote of three-fourths of the mem- 
 bers present at any annual meeting, provided such alteration or amendment shall have been laid 
 over from a previous meeting." 
 
 After the adoption of this constitution, the trustees of the Institute for the 
 then year ensuing- were chosen, a board of commissioners were appointed for 
 the purpose of doing any preparatory business touching the Theological 
 Institute ; to appoint the first meeting of the trustees, and make report to 
 them of their doings ; and the meeting was adjourned. 
 
 This account of the proceedings of the convention at East "Windsor was 
 
 Eublished in 1833 ; but it appears that you did not know of the fact till you 
 ad published your second letter. You verily thought that the constitution 
 of the Pastoral Union was " as much unknown to the public as e. masonic 
 chapter." And you appear, from your frequent allusion to our supposed 
 secrets, to think, that the concerns of the Pastoral Union and of the Theological 
 Institute are conducted with "the profoundest secrecy." Before you commence 
 another series of letters, accusing us of improperly withholding information, 
 be so good, my brother, as to examine what we have spread before the public. 
 You will find in the Connecticut Evangelical Magazine forty-eight pages filled 
 with this matter. The Inaugural Address of the President, and the Address 
 of Mr. Riddel at the laying of the corner-stone, both of which were published, 
 will afford you information respecting our proceedings. The columns of the 
 Watchman and the Congregationalist contain a history of our transactions for 
 a few years past. Reports of the trustees have been annually published both 
 in the newspaper and pamphlet form, giving in detail, (even to all the money 
 received and how expended,) an accurate account of their proceedings. 
 While the Pastoral Union, and the trustees of the Institute have not obtruded 
 themselves on the public, they have been particular in unfolding to public 
 view their acts and their plans of operation. If, after consulting public docu- 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 77 
 
 ments, you should still be suspicious that there are some things yet to be 
 revealed, please to meet me at the Theological Institute, and I assure you we 
 will find out the secrets if there are any. But do not again impute to us the 
 delinquency of withholding information to which the jreligious public are 
 entitled. It is an ungenerous imputation. 
 
 In speaking of the constitution of the Pastoral Union you say, " One feature 
 of that constitution, however, is well known. Membership in the Pastoral 
 Union is by election. Why is this ? Why was a principle so novel, and so 
 fitted to produce unkind and party feelings introduced into the constitution of 
 the Pastoral Union ? Why do you not set open your doors to every Congre- 
 gational pastor who may be willing to subscribe your constitution and standards 
 of orthodoxy ? If your object is to establish and perpetuate a party — if your 
 object is to divide the Congregationalists of Connecticut completely and for- 
 ever — this principle is, in respect to such an end, a wise one. On what other 
 ground it can be vindicated, I am yet to learn." 
 
 Is membership by election in organized bodies a novel principle ? Please 
 to examine farther the constitutions of such bodies. While you condemn the 
 Pastoral Union for introducing into their constitution this principle, many 
 other associations may fall under the same condemnation, some of which I 
 doubt not are very dear to you. The Pastoral Union of Connecticut, elect 
 the trustees of the Theological Institute, who are a corporate body entrusted 
 by the churches with property and sacred and weighty interests. The Fellows 
 of Yale College are a corporate body, composed of eight officers of our 
 State government, and ten clergymen, not elected by nearly a hundred 
 pastors. But how are they elected ? It is well known that vacancies in the 
 clerical part of the corporation, are filled by the corporation itself. Suppose 
 I should now interrogate you in your own language. " Why is this ? Why 
 was a principle so novel, and so fitted to produce unkind and party feelings 
 introduced into the constitution " of Yale College ? " Why do you not set 
 open your doors to every Congregational pastor who may be willing to 
 subscribe your constitution and standards of orthodoxy," if you have any? 
 
 Do you believe, that there is a pastor of a Congregational church in the 
 State, who is desirous of co-operating with his brethren in accomplishing the- 
 objects of the Pastoral Union, that has been denied the privilege ? Do you= 
 believe any such pastor ever will be refused ? And why should those minis- 
 ters, who manifest their disapprobation of the Pastoral Union, and who would 
 not belong to it if they could, complain because membership is by election ? 
 Why do not those persons in community, who will not be associated with any 
 ecclesiastical society, complain that membership in these societies is by elec- 
 tion ? My dear Sir, you are one of a small number who lave a theological 
 seminary under their exclusive control ; and can you not entrust the supervis- 
 ion and control of the Theological Institute to a large number )f your brethren ? 
 
 You say, " when I wrote that letter, [your second letter,] it was my im-. 
 pression, confirmed by the opinion of the only member of the Pastoral Union 
 on whom I could call for information.that the constitution of the Pastoral Union 
 and that of the seminary at East Windsor had never beer, published. Since 
 that time there has been put in my hands a pamphlet of eight pages, printed 
 in 1833, containing some extracts from the minutes of the convention which 
 formed the Pastoral Union, together with some extracts from the minutes of 
 the Pastoral Union and the Board of trustees of the Theological Institute. 
 Among the extracts I find the constitution of the Pastoral Union and the 
 constitution of the Theological Institute. But I look in vain for an exposition 
 
78 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 of the reasons why the new organization was deemed necessary, or why a 
 new theological seminary was wanted in Connecticut." Did you expect to 
 find in these constitutions, or extracts, " an exposition of the reasons why the 
 new organization was deemed necessary, or why a new theological seminary 
 was wanted in Connecticut " ? I do not know that it is customary to accom- 
 pany such documents with an exposition of the reasons why they were 
 adopted. But were not reasons why a new theological seminary was wanted 
 in Connecticut, early given to the public, and have they not met your eye? 
 In another place you allude to an Appeal to the Public by the Trustees of the 
 Institute. Allow me to quote a few extracts from that Appeal. 
 
 " We do not deny, that there exists serious dissatisfaction in relation to the Theological School 
 at New Haven ; and that this is among the reasons which have given rise to the new Institution. 
 The grounds of this dissatisfaction, we now feel ourselves called upon frankly to state. 
 
 "1. Many have been dissatisfied, that the Theological School at New Haven, has no more 
 connection with the ministers and churches of the State. Being an appendage of the College, it 
 is under the entire control of the Corporation ; a Board which, as at present constituted, is deem- 
 ed altogether unsuitable to be guardians of a Theological Seminary." " We do not complain of 
 the manner in which this Board is constituted, so far as it relates to the Academical Department 
 merely : but only in reference to the Theological School. The principle for which we contend, 
 i6, that a Theological Seminary ought to be under the control of a distinct Board of Trustees, 
 composed of ministers and members of churches, who are amenable to some ecclesiastical body. 
 The Trustees of the Institute are appointed by the Pastoral Union, and are amenable to them. 
 TheYe is of course, a connection between the Seminary and the ministers and churches, 
 which would not exist, were it under the control of an independent and irresponsible Board. 
 
 " 2. Another ground of dissatisfaction, with the New Haven School, as at present organized, 
 is the want of sufficient security against the introduction of heresy. 
 
 " 3. The Theological views maintained by the Professors, have given great and extensive 
 dissatisfaction. 
 
 "4. Another ground of dissatisfaction, is, the great importance which the Professors have 
 attached to their peculiar views, and the charges of dangerous error, which they have brought 
 against their brethren. 
 
 " But while we frankly acknowledge, that the facts which we have stated, are among 
 the reasons which led to the establishment of the Theological Institute ; we wish the public to 
 understand, that there ire other considerations by which we are influenced in the prosecution of 
 our enterprise. 
 
 " The growing demand for ministers of the gospel, and the rapid increase of theological stu- 
 dents, occasioned by the efforts of education societies, and by frequent revivals of religion, seem 
 to us to call for an increased number of Theological Institutions. 
 
 "We believe also, that as there is a liability in such institutions to become corrupt in doctrine, 
 their number ought to be so increased, that they shall operate as a check upon each other, and that 
 no one shall become overgrown. If there were but one such seminary in New England, and if 
 with its large endowments, and extended patronage, it should become the seat of heresy, who 
 can estimate the evils of which it would be instrumental. And here we cannot but advert to the 
 fact, that the history of all ages admonishes us, that large and overgrown institutions are peculiarly 
 liable to corruption. By increasing the number, we diminish the danger from this source, and 
 throw around the churches, additional safeguards against the inroads of destructive error. 
 
 " There is still another consideration which has had no small weight in our minds. Until 
 recently, the subject of physical education has received but little attention ; but its importance ia 
 beginning now to be ceeply and extensively felt. Facts have been disclosed, which go to show, 
 that the destruction oflit'e and health in our literary and theological seminaries, occasioned by the 
 neglect of bodily excrtise, is truly appalling. 
 
 " It appears from tic testimony of a large number of the most respectable teachers in our 
 country, that of those who deserve the character of close students, full one half, if not more, 
 injure themselves by an injudicious neglect of exercise ; and that of these, full one-fourth, if not 
 a third, lay a foundatior for feebleness and disease which go with them through life, and greatly 
 diminish both their usefulness and enjoyment. This evil surely calls for a remedy, and we know 
 of no remedy which promises to be more successful than that provided by manual labor institu- 
 tions. Such is the Institution under our care ; and if the plan shall succeed according to our 
 wishes, it will possess the two-fold advantage, of contributing to preserve the lives and health of 
 the students, and of cnibling them at the same time, to defray, in part, at least, the expenses of 
 their education. Is not this part of the plan worthy of encouragement ?" 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 79 
 
 With the document from which these extracts are taken before you, did you 
 M look in vain for an exhibition of the reasons why the organization was deemed 
 necessary, or why a new theological seminary was wanted in Connecticut " ? 
 With this document at command were you authorized to assert, that "all 
 (our) proceedings " rested on the u condemnation " of brethren " aserrorists and 
 deceivers"? The trustees do not profess to assign all "the reasons which 
 have given rise to the new institution." Reasons not mentioned, are known 
 to have had much influence on the minds of some of the founders of the In- 
 stitute. In the communication dated at Yale College, May 6, 1822, and 
 addressed to the associations in behalf of the theological department of that 
 institution, it is said, " // will not be thought too strotm /<> affirm, that one or two 
 theological institutions cannot long be adequate to the just <!< mands of Providence 
 on the piety and talents of New-England? This sentiment, which was pub- 
 lished at New-Haven, in 1822, was acted upon at East-Windsor in 1833. 
 Some members of the Pastoral Union were confident that the number of 
 theological seminaries in New-England ought to be increased and that it 
 would be increased ; and that the valley of the Connecticut in which is the 
 centre of as dense a " population of evangelical churches as is found in the 
 eastern states, would sooner or later be favored with a school of the prophets. 
 And they considered themselves called upon by the providence of God to aid 
 in the establishment of such a school." 
 
 " But how the Institute, or the Union," you say, " is more connected with 
 the churches than other voluntary associations, I am yet to learn." If you 
 mean by " voluntary associations," our Missionary, Bible,and Tract Societies, I 
 do not know why you institute the comparison. But if you.by " other voluntary 
 associations," mean, as I conclude you must, some other Congregational theo- 
 logical seminaries, it appears to me, that it is very easy to discover the differ- 
 ence. The churches select their pastors, and they may prefer to select, as a 
 number of churches in the State have recently done, pastors who will be 
 members of the Pastoral Union. Members of the Pastoral Union annually 
 elect the trustees of the Institute, which are to consist of at least twelve min- 
 isters and eii;ht laymen. In the board of trustees the churches must always be 
 represented 1 >v. at least, eight of their members. And in the annual election 
 of that board," the churches act " through their pastors." The faculty of the 
 Institute are responsible to the trustees, and the trustees are amenable to the 
 Pastoral Union, and the Pastoral Union, by virtue of their pastoral relations, 
 are accountable to the churches. And is the theological seminary under your 
 control thus connected with the churches? Have the churches any lay-rep- 
 resentation in the corporation ? Are the lay-members of the corporation 
 necessarily members of our churches ? Are they necessarily of our denomin- 
 ation ? Are they necessarily believers in divine revelation? And in the 
 election of the clerical members of the corporation," the churches — what can 
 they do ?" " The ministers — what minister of Connecticut, as such, has any 
 thing to do with it." Is not the body which controls this seminary independent 
 of the churches, and irresponsible to them ? And how does it comport with 
 the spirit of Congregationalism, to have an independent, irresponsible, self-per- 
 petuated body to manage the dearest and most momentous interests of the 
 churches ? Pardon us, my brother, if we are wrong in believing that there 
 is a better way. 
 
 Your friend and brother. 
 
 " GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 
 Coventry, February 25, 1810. 
 
80 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 He tier XL 
 
 Dear Sir, — You ask me " to observe, historically, the bearing of the Pasto- 
 ral Union, and of the Theological Institute, on our ecclesiastical affairs." 
 
 You say; the first meeting of the General Association, after the memorable 
 convention of September, 1833, was held at Vernon, (June, 1834,) a few miles 
 from East Windsor. Instantly it appeared that a new era had commenced. 
 The meeting was signalized by an attempt to make the General Association 
 endorse implicitly, and without a particle of official information, the doings of 
 the East Windsor Convention." — " The brethren who had been concerned in 
 establishing the new institution, and who were desirous to have the Gene- 
 ral Association sanction their doings, were invited and entreated to come for- 
 ward, then and there, with a frank exposition of the reasons which had moved 
 them to set up a new theological school in Connecticut, and of their plan, their 
 intentions and their hopes. Reference was made to the fact that Dr. Tyler 
 the president of the new institution, was in the house, and it was requested 
 that he, as one competent to testify, would make such a statement in behalf of 
 the institution as might enable the Association to take cognizance of it, and to 
 form an opinion of its merits." — " And did not the Pastoral Union party — I 
 know not by what better name to call it — submit to that faint, cold notice of 
 their great enterprize, rather than expose their plan, their hopes, and their rea- 
 sons, to the judgment of their brethren ?" 
 
 Since the publication of your third letter I have applied to a number of gen- 
 tlemen residing in different parts of the State, who were present in the meet- 
 ing at Vernon, and most of them members of the Association, for their recollec- 
 tions of what transpired on that occasion ; and their letters, in reply, are now 
 before me. And allow me to say, 
 
 1. I think you must be incorrect in asserting, that " the meeting was signali- 
 zed by an attempt to make the General Association endorse implicitly, and with- 
 out a particle of official information, the doings of the East Windsor conven- 
 tion." Will you affirm that such an endorsement was requested by any per- 
 son ? Or do you claim, that a recognition, in the " Report on the state of Re- 
 ligion," of the existence and circumstances of the Theological Institute, is vir- 
 tually an endorsement of the doings of the East Windsor convention ?•'? Has 
 it been so considered for five years past when the Institute has been annually 
 thus noticed by the General Association ? Do you say that members of the 
 Pastoral Union endorse " the doings" of the Theological Department in Yale 
 College, when they vote a respectful notice of that Department as inserted in 
 our " Reports on the state of Religion ?" No Sir, a recognition of the existence 
 and circumstances of the Theological Institute, does not imply an endorse- 
 ment of " the doings of the East Windsor convention." And the brother who 
 moved an amendment of the report, which you had drawn up, by inserting a 
 notice of the Institute, informs me, that he " wished no commendation of the 
 Institute, but insisted that it ought to be mentioned in the report as it was." 
 M Without a particle of official information" — Previous to this period, official 
 information of the origin, design, and circumstances of the Institute had been 
 given to the public and extensively circulated. In relation to it, various arti- 
 cles had appeared in the public prints, and the Legislature had granted it a 
 charter of incorporation ; and do you say, that there was " an attempt to make 
 the General Association endorse implicitly, and without a particle of official in- 
 formation," &c. ? Do you claim, that the Trustees of the Institute should have 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 81 
 
 communicated directly to the General Association respecting their seminary in 
 order to make the information official? Has the corporation of Yale College 
 to this day ever communicated to the General Association respecting the The- 
 ological Department in that Institution ? Am I right or am I wrong in saying, 
 that at Windsor, in 1823, the Theological Department in Yale College was 
 first introduced to the notice of the General Association, without official au- 
 thority, by a member of that body', as was the Theological Institute at Vernon, 
 in 1834, and that there would have been no more unpleasant excitement in the 
 one case than in the other hid it not been for the warm opposition of a few indi- 
 viduals at Vernon? Or do you claim that information caunot be official, unless 
 it comes to the General Association through the medium of a District Associ- 
 ation ? The Theological Institute is located within the limits of the North As- 
 sociation of Hartford county, and since 1834, it has been respectfully and kind- 
 ly noticed annually by that body in the report of the state of religion within 
 their bounds which they have sent up to the General Association ; and at 
 Vernon the delegates from that District Association assured the General As- 
 sociation, that the omission that year was through inadvertance, and they re- 
 quested that the seminary might be respectfully noticed in the general report. 
 It appears to me that here arc found many particles of official information. 
 
 2. Dr. Tyler, the President of the new Institution, was in the house and 
 was competent and ready to give any official information which could be rea- 
 sonably required ; but he was not invited to do it ; and the reason why mem- 
 bers of the Association, who were also members of the Pastoral Union did not 
 claim for him <he privilege of doing it, was not because they preferred to 
 " submit to that faint, cold notice of their great enterprize, rather than expose 
 their plan, their hopes and their reasons, to the judgment of their brethren." 
 They had already -'exposed their plan, their hopes, and their reasons, to the 
 judgment of their brethren ;" and they would have rejoiced to have done it 
 again " then and there," had a suitable opportunity been afforded. 
 
 That this meeting of the Association was of an unpleasant aspect, is not to 
 be denied ; but who contributed most to give it that aspect, is now the point 
 at issue, since you have at this late period come out as an accuser of your 
 brethren. Did not a delegate from New Haven West Association contribute full 
 his part? You may wish to publish for the edification of the churches a more 
 complete account of the proceedings of this meeting; and therefore allow me 
 to direct your attention by way of inquiry to a few transactions of that occa- 
 sion, which you have not noticed. 
 
 1. Was not the meeting signalized by an extraordinary and unsuccessful at- 
 tempt to make the General Association censure the Middlesex Association, for 
 noticing in their report of the state of religion within their limits, disorders 
 which had occurred among them ? Was not the language of censure designed 
 to be passed in substance as follows: From one of the Associations a gloomy 
 and desponding picture of the state of religion is given : but if our brethren 
 will have confidence in God. erase their complaining, and labor with diligence 
 for the conversion of souls, they will not have an occasion to send up such a 
 report. Were not the harmony and serenity of the meeting much disturbed 
 by this attempted censure?: And who was forward in making the attempt ? 
 
 2. Was not the meeting signalized by a successful opposition to a proposal 
 to reprint the Saybrook Platform, which was then out of print? As an ob- 
 jection to reprinting that book, did no member of the Association say, that the 
 Savoy Confession contained doctrines in which he did not believe? Did no 
 
 11 
 
82 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 member in substance say, I did not know that this Association had a Confes- 
 sion of Faith, I thought the Bible was our confession ? To avoid sanctioning all 
 the doctrines embraced in the Savoy Confession, was it not proposed by one 
 of your associates, to print the Heads of Agreement without the Confession ? 
 Did not this decided opposition to reprinting and circulating the Constitution 
 of our churches, occasion much alarm and disturbance in the meeting? Was 
 not the disturbance so great as to induce a member of the Pastoral Union who 
 had advocated the motion to reprint the Platform to move its indefinite post- 
 ponment ? And who was forward in this opposition ? 
 
 3. Was not the meeting signalized by a formal vote to erase from the 
 Minutes of the Association all clerical titles ? Was not much time occupied, 
 as it has proved, unprofitably, in the discussion of this subject ? And who was 
 forward in the discussion ? 
 
 4. On the day in which the meeting at Vernon terminated, was not the 
 prophesy uttered, that the Pastoral Union would collect funds sufficient to en- 
 dow one professorship, that that endowment would be transferred to Yale 
 College, and that their Theological Institute would become a Grammar school ? 
 And who was the prophet ? 
 
 Previous to the publication of your account of this meeting, my brother, I 
 expressed to you my opinion, that evil and only evil would result from calling 
 up to remembrance unpleasant scenes which long ago transpired, and making 
 them matters of record and of public notoriety. If justice to members of the 
 Pastoral Union who were members also of the Association at Vernon, would 
 have allowed, I should have suffered all you have written respecting this meet- 
 ing to pass in silence. 
 
 The short discussion in the Association at Enfield, in 1835, on the subject 
 of noticing the Theological Institute in the Report on the state of Religion, I 
 do not think worthy of a place in the history of our polemical transactions. I 
 was surprised that some of the friends of the Institute were not satisfied with 
 the notice of it which the Report contained, more at the remarks made in re- 
 ply to them, and most of all that any spectator should express a desire to take 
 part in the discussion. 
 
 I will now proceed to a consideration of the questions with which you con- 
 clude your Letters. Full, and may I not hope, satisfactory answers have al- 
 ready been given to some of these questions, and it will not be necessary for 
 me to refer to them at this time. 
 
 You inquire ; " Was not the Pastoral Union formed for the purpose of put- 
 ting down the "New School brethren" by other means than argument, be- 
 cause argument was felt, to be inadequate to the end ?" — No Sir, the mem- 
 bers of the Pastoral Union, I trust have a more important object in view than 
 that of "pitting daum" their brethren. Their object is to promote the cause 
 of truth and the interests of Christ's kingdom. Because they feel it to be 
 their duty to bear testimony against what they deem to be errors in doctrine, 
 must they necessarily be influenced by a desire to put down those by whom 
 these errors are embraced?" Is it your desire to put down every man from 
 whom you differ in opinion, and against whose errors you feel it your duty to 
 protest? If so, then it would seem, that the object of your Letters is to put 
 down all the members of the Pastoral Union. Argument has not been " felt to 
 be inadequate" to the refutation of the peculiar views of the " New school 
 brethren." On the contrary, it is fully believed by the members of the Pas- 
 toral Union, that these views have been triumphantly refuted by those who 
 have been engaged in the recent theological discussions. While arguments 
 
REV. LEONARD BACON. 83 
 
 and books of your orthodox brethren remain unanswered, is it not untimely for 
 you to talk of our resorting to " other means than argument, because argu- 
 ment was felt to be inadequate to the end." Why has not Griffin on Divine 
 , Efficiency been answered before this late period f . Why has not Dr. Wood's 
 Letters received another reply besides that ill-tempered caricature of an an- 
 swer published as an anonymous article in the Christian Spectator ? Why has 
 not Mr. Dow's Pamphlet been answered? And why have many other publi- 
 cations of like character been passed in silence ? 
 
 You ask ; " If your party had been able to control the General Association, 
 are you certain that the Pastoral Union would ever have been called into be- 
 ing?" I have yet to learn, that the Pastoral Union could not have controlled 
 the General Association, had they in the appointment of delegates to that body 
 abandoned the principle of rotation and adopted that of election. As yet suf- 
 ficient evidence has not been adduced to convince me, that a majority of the 
 Congregational ministers of Connecticut have adopted the " New Haven the- 
 ology ;" and that the Theological Institute has not among the ministers of this 
 State as many friends as the Theological Department in Yale College. The 
 members of the Pastoral Union have no wish to make their brethren, who 
 differ from them, responsible for opinions and acts which they do not approve. 
 Consequently had they been sure of always being a majority in the General 
 Association, they would not have wished that body to establish a new Theo- 
 logical Seminary in opposition to the views and feelings of a large and respect- 
 able minority. 
 
 You inquire ; " Has not the uniform tendency of the Pastoral Union, thus 
 far, been towards division ?" So soon as the orthodox began to act in self-de- 
 fence and in defence of the theological sentiments of our Fathers against the 
 systematic and efficient exertions of their " New School brethren" to change 
 the features of New England Calvinism ; the cry of" division of the churches" 
 was raised. That cry of " division" has often been heard since, and you, Sir, 
 in your Letters, have given the conjectured "division" of our " churches into 
 two contending and contemptible sects," a prominent place. Allow me to ask, 
 why were not thoughts of division entertained at an earlier date? And permit 
 me to ask again, what do you mean by this question ? What have the Pasto- 
 ral Union done ? Have they said any thing about division ? Have they taken 
 any steps toward division? Am I to understand you, that if the members of 
 the Pastoral Union do not abandon the ground which they have taken, their 
 " New school brethren" are determined either to secede from them, or cast 
 them out of their ecclesiastical connection ? Is this your meaning ? And is 
 this the determination of your brethren ? If so, let us distinctly understand it. 
 If you do not yet understand the views which the Pastoral Union entertain on 
 the subject of a division of the churches into two sects, you may learn them 
 from the following : 
 
 Extract of a letter from a Trustee of the Theologictd Institute to the Rev. Dr. 
 Sprague of Albany, dated Nov. 1 1, 1833. 
 
 " It has been falsely reported, that the ground which we took in establishing a new Seminary, 
 was to withdraw all fellowship with ministers of the New Haven school, and to call on the 
 churches to separate themselves at once, and to treat them in all respects as we do the Unitari- 
 ans, in our Christian intercourse. But I need not say, that this is a misrepresentation, designed 
 to raise a prejudice in the public mind, with the hope of defeating the object. Others have heard, 
 that a certain anonymous pamphlet was distributed at that Convention [Convention at East 
 Windsor] containing the sentiments which form the basis of their proceedings. It is true that 
 pamphlet was distributed at the close of the Convention, as it was since at the close of the Con- 
 sociation of Hartford North ; but the contents of that pamphlet had no more to do with the pro- 
 ceedings of the one than of the other. And I doubt very much, whether many of the members of 
 
84 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 that Convention knew a word of its contents until after they had returned to their homes. What- 
 ever may be the private opinion of individual members of 'that Convention, concerning the doc" 
 trines of the New Haven school : the ground which they have taken in establishing the new Senu 
 inary is this— tbat the ministers whose doctrinal views are expressed in the Confession of Faith 
 published by the Pastoral Union of Connecticut, have the same right to establish a Theological • 
 Seminary, and to educate young men for the ministry, and to publish their own sentiments, as 
 they have at New Haven, Andover, and Princeton. We claim only the same privilege of do'in? 
 our own business in our own way, as the founders of other Theological Seminaries have done be- 
 fore us. Nothing more, nothing less. If they ask for 'jur motives, each member is of age and 
 will answer for himself." 
 
 An extract from Dr. Tyler's Inaugural Address. 
 *' Our object is not, as has been supposed, to rend the churches, or to break up any of the exist, 
 ing ecclesiastical relations in the State. And why should it be thought, that our enterprise has 
 any necessary tendency to such a result ? Has it come to this, that we cannot maintain and in- 
 culcate our opinions without alienating our brethren from us, and forfeiting their confidence ? 
 Must we sacrifice our principles, and surrender what we believe to be the truth of God, or cut in 
 sunder the bonds of Christian fellowship ?" 
 
 Such, so far as I know, has been the uniform testimony, not' only of the Trustees of the Insti- 
 tute, but of the members of the Pastoral Union; and I have discovered no intimation of change 
 in views and feelings on this subject. I presume it is the present expectation of every member of 
 the Pastoral Union to continue connected with a District Association, and related to the General 
 Association so long as he is an inhabitant of Connecticut. I express it as my deliberate opinion, 
 that if the division of which you have so frequently spoken, takes place, it will be effected by your 
 seceding from us, or by your casting us out of your ecclesiastical connection. But you ask ; 
 " Has not the uniform tendency of the Pastoral Union, thus far, been toward division "? "l deeply 
 regret the want of harmony which exists among us, and I fear what may be its results. «' But 
 if our religious community is divided into parties, on whom does the responsibility lie, of having 
 caused divisions ? On those who adhere to the views maintained by the Fathers, or those who 
 have introduced innovations ?" 
 
 You say ; " Since the date when the Pastoral Union was formed, there has been in Connecticut 
 no doctrinal discussion between " New School" and " Old School;" yet has there not been an in- 
 crease of party alienation, more painful, and far more rapid, than when the controversy was in 
 progress ?" You will recollect, that the Pastoral Union was formed in the autumn of 1833. In 
 June, 1837, your own party in the General Association of Connecticut declared ; " The churches 
 in connection with the Association are generally peaceful and harmonious. And though among 
 ministers there arc shades of difference in theological views, yet they are not such as need to pre- 
 vent, and we are happy to believe they will not prevent the unity of the spirit in the bond of 
 peace." In 1838, Dr. Taylor made, in the New School General Assembly, the following state- 
 ment; "The churches (of Connecticut) are harmonious; I suppose, among ministers there has 
 never been less diffeiencc of theological opinion than theve is to-day. I know we are considered 
 abroad as differing widely, and there arc those among us who think differently ; but I give you 
 this as my opinion. What are called shades of difference are being considered of less importance 
 among us." When in 1839 you asked the question ; " Since the date when the Pastoral Union 
 was formed — has there not been an increase of party alienation, more painful, and far more rapid, 
 than when the controversy was in progress ?" Had you forgotten the above statements ? And 
 had you forgotten the solemn manner in which yeu had, in your third Letter, called the Pastoral 
 Union to account, and the severe censure which you had inflicted upon them for contradicting 
 these statements. 
 
 In the close of your last Letter you ask ; What ought to be done ? This is a very serious ques- 
 tion. I did intend to suggest a few thoughts in reference to it ; but I have concluded it is best 
 for the present only to repeat your own declaration : " Over this question let us meditate and pray, 
 as men to whose weakness and blindness are entrusted in the mysterious providence of God, inter- 
 ests of eternal moment." And may God guide us in our meditations, and answer our prayers. 
 
 Your brother in Christ. 
 
 GEORGE A. CALHOUN. 
 
 Coventry, March 4, 1840. 
 
 The reader will make the following corrections. — Page 13, line from bottom 20th, for origina- 
 ted read originated" ; p. 15, b. 8, for to any, r. at any ; p. 16, t. 21, for on r. over ; p. 28, b. 5, for 
 devolved r. developed ; p. 34, b. 4, for The &c. r. That self-love or the desire of happiness, is the 
 primary cause or — p. 35. t. 11, for primary r. " primary ; p. 37, b. 11, for but r. put ; p. 40, b. 17, 
 for generation r. regeneration ; p. 42. b. 13, insert the before passage ; p. 44, t. 6, for will r. may ; 
 p. 53, t. 24, for 1834, r. 1833 ; do. b. 14, for in r. is ; p. 58, t. 7, after gives, insert him ; do. b. 
 21, for de r. be ; do. b. 4, insert all before N. England ; do. b. 5, the word all should be erased ; 
 65, b. 21, gentlemen, r. gentleman ; 69, t. 21, before eternity insert all. 
 
Princeton Tneok><;ic.il Sm«MJ»-?KX , 1 iVfi ii? 
 
 1 1012 01082 0258 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S. A.