•*^ ^ w«-/. > ^^iC. LIBRARY Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. Shilf Bool; _i4J ,; -*.e<;^».ee<^^33<^^?s<:^^9®<^^33'^^'* ' Hor ministry the church had the happiness *' thirty years ago" to enjoy ? Who, that have passed from the stage dur- ing that period, with perhaps the sole exception of Dvvight and Mason, have not left many superiors in knowledge, and equals in fidelity and devotedness ? Or what other conclu- sion can any one form who looks impartially at the more varied and multiplied labours of the ministry at the present day, and the results of their influence in the condi- tion of the church? Are there not as many sermons preached, as many " discourses" delivered, as much extempo- raneous and informal instruction given, as at any former period ? Are not the chief doctrines of Christianity as fre- quently made the theme of discussion in the pulpit ; as just views entertained and exhibited of the great scheme of redemption; and as correct and efi'ective applications addressed to reason Jlnd conscience, of the doctrines and precepts of the gospel ? Is there not as much, and tenfold more scriptural knowledge communicated to the young, through the instrumentaUtyofBible classes, Sunday schools, and the almost infinite multiplicity of books that have been produced for their instruction? And has not the Most High owned and blessed the labours of these ministers as signally, and crowned them with success by eflusions of the Spirit, at least as frequent, as general, and as extraordinary as at any other period ? It is certainly not according to the usual course of things, that, under the action of these stupendous aids and excitements to knowledge, the church should only sink into "ignorance" and "apathy ;" and if such is indeed the fact, it is indisputably one of the most extraordinary of the wonders of the age. Some very important changes havs certainly taken place in respect to the subjects and methods of discussion in the 2 10 pulpit, and in the theoretical views extensively of the church. Different apprehensions are, indeed, to some extent, enter- tained, of the nature of religion itself and its doctrines, but it will scarcely be thought to have arisen from an increase of "ignorance" or "apathy to the truth." There are far fewer now for example than " thirty years ago," who perplex their reason and blunt their moral sensibilities in endeavoring to persuade themselves that they are willing to be " punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe," in order, " if necessary," to glorify his justice; and make that extraordinary sentiment the criterion of doctrinal knowledge and conversion. There are far fewer who waste their days and confound their com- mon sense, in dwelling on the sophisms of Emmons, and struggling to drill themselves into that absurd scheme : and there are, especially, far fewer ministers who pervert their office in the wretched attempt to force the whole gospel of the grace of God within the limits of those near-sighted speculations. The church as a body, has gained juster views of the nature of the truths and duties of religion, and of the legitimate business and ends of the ministry. Is this, however, to be regretted f Is it a crime or calamity that those who thus distorted the gospel, or their suc- cessors, have at length learned their errors, and had the wisdom to abandon them, and become better disciples and teachers of the truth ? or that thousands and tens of thou- sands of Christians who exhausted their sensibiUties on those paradoxes to which I liave adverted, and turned their very religion into a sour and crabbed selfishness, have emerged from that " Siberian bog," and embraced juster views of 11 God and their duty, and entered under their promptings on a career of " chanty so liberal and a benevolence so active ?" That these changes have taken place is beyond all contradiction, and that they will continue to occur until none of that race is left, is equally certain ; and to those who persuade themselves that the whole truth of the gospel, or any portion of it, lies within the compass of those dog- mas, it will doubtless be matter of heartfelt regret ; but the church at large will probably feel but little sympathy with their griefs, and as little respect for the causes in which they have their origin. It is not easy to discover what better grounds he can have had for the " melancholy" representation " that orthodoxy is becoming a term of reproach ; that steadfastness in the faith requires unwonted self-denial ;" that " unbending adher- ence to doctrines has already become a burden well nigh too oppressive to be borne," and that " doctrinal instruction is becoming unpopular, and is already too cold and heart- less for the spirit of the age ;" as happily all this is quite as palpably the reverse of fact. There is no surer or speedier passport to public respect, affection, and influence, than an able, faithful, and consistent inculcation of the great essentials of the gospel, sustained by a corresponding hfe of purity, dignity, and unmixed regard for the welfare of souls. Not a solitary instance can be designated in the history of the last " thirty years," in w^hich a minister who has thus fulfilled the duties of his office, has failed to com- mand either the high confidence and veneration of the church, or of the public at large. Did the late Dr. Wilson of Philadelphia, Dr. Mason of our own city, Dr. Dwight, Dr. Backus, Dr. Strong, or any others of a similar charac- ter, ever have occasion to complain that " unbending --^ 12 adherence to doctrines" had " become a burden well nigh too oppressive to be borne," and find that they had injured themselves in the esteem, or sunk themselves in the confi- dence of the church by the force, fidelity, and " steadfast- ness" with which they preached the great truths of the gos- pel ? Or did those who have been cut off from among us, at their entrance on a career of distinguished usefulness and respect, whose untimely fall filled the community with regret, and over whose sepulchres piety still lingers in tender and sorrowful remembrance ? — the ingenuous and eloquent Whelpley ; the disinterested and devoted Bruen ; the gifted and accomplished Christmas, whose fervor of piety, simplicity and truth of thought, dignity of manners, and eloquence, imparted a reality, elevation, and sanctity to religion, that instinctively disarmed objection, and drew from all hearts the willing homage of respect and love. It certainly was far otherwise with them. Neither these youths nor those elders ever found that their " steadfastness in the faith required unwonted self-denial," nor that their " unbending adherence to doctrines had become a burden well nigh too oppressive to be borne." They were, on the contrary, in their element when announcing the great messages of salva- tion, and enforcing their dread and gracious sanctions with all the fervor of their affections and force of their eloquence. To have held loosely to their doctrines, to have disguised their sentiments, or mutilated their messages, in order to adapt them to the selfish wlsiies of men, and catch their guilty applause, would indeed have rendered their office and themselves an insupportable burthen. But they neither needed, nor were capable of those arts. They did not regard the gospel as so bare of evidence, or destitute of dignity and adaptation to awe the intellect and strike tlie 13 conscience, as to render it a hopeless task to recommend it, at least, to the respect of the " good men" of the church ; but chose the " manifestation of the truth," as the fit, the certain, and the only method of " commending themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." And what was thus true with respect to them, is equally true in respect to all others. Let those be designated who are most dis- tinguished for the wisdom, boldness, consistency and faith- fulness, with which they preach the great doctrines of the gospel, and they will be found to be identically those whom the church regards with the highest esteem, and in whom she reposes the largest confidence. If there are any who find themselves unable to command her respect, they must look for the cause to something else than their " steadfast- ness in the faith ;" and will be much more likely to find it in their dereliction of that duty, or in some obliquity of man- ners, that renders their ministry distrusted and inefficient. But this " spirit" of " apathy to truth" and " criminal indifference to all religious opinions," has extended its blighting influence also it seems to the great charitable en- terprises of the age. "But is it not possible that this zeal for christian enterprize needs the baptism of an orthodox spirit ; and unless it is more deep- ly imbued with it, must not only fail of accomplishing- wliat it might otherwise accomplish, but scatter in wide profusion tares among the wheat ? Combinations of truth and error even in plans of benevolent enterprise, are of very doubtful tendency. Error has always been willing to go with truth, just so far as truth will go witii error ; where- as truth ought to go with error no farther than error will go with truth ; and even in this apparently safe companionship, truth is very apt to become crippled and lame. If I do not survey the signs of the times through a deceptive and gloomy medium, there are dangers in this matter, to which neither the church nor her watchmen are suffi- ciently awake. We sliould not be surprised if in this age of business 14 and ignorance, action and concession, it shonld be found necessary be- fore the expiratiomof many years, for another Whitfield or Edwards, to sound the note of alarm to the Anjerican churches." These benevolent institutions then, instead of being de- voted, as they are usually thought to be, to the dissemina- tion of the gospel in distinguished exemption from all human intermixtures, are little better than mere instruments of scattering " a wide profusion of tares ;" the very " zeal for christian enterprise," in which they have their origin, " needs the baptism of an orthodox spirit," and except it speedily becomes " more deeply imbued with it," the most deplorable efi'ects must inevitably result ; and a special and signal intervention of Providence become necessary to arrest the evil. If " there are dangers" of this character " in this matter," they are certainly alarming, and may well carry anxiety to the hearts of those even, who are not so scrupulous as to demand a pure exemption from error in the conduct of these undertakings, but insist only that "truth ought to go with error no farther than error will go with truth," though " even in this apparently safe companionship, truth is very apt to become crippled and lame !" " The order of things is changed" indeed, " and at the expense of truth," if the " christian" graces themselves, or any one of them, can thus need baptism, and "the baptism of an orthodox spirit." These " are dangers" it cannot be denied, " to which neither the church nor her watchmen are awake." Christian and orthodox belong, it seems in this gentleman's apprehension, to different categories, and his recommenda- tion is that the former should be baptized into the latter ! These passages present an accusation of " the American churches" more grave in its import, aftecting the character pf a larger number of pious, useful, learned and distin- 15 guished individuals, and involving more extensive and important interests than almost any other that has been offered against them. Is it then authorized and so imperi- ously called for ? Where are the facts that can justify it ? Are the eminent individuals whom the church has entrusted with the conduct of these great enterprises, characterized by such an " apathy to truth" and " criminal indifference to all religious opinions," as to merit these sweeping imputa- tions ? Are any proofs of it to be discovered in their public acts ? in the constitutions themselves of the societies, whose objects they are appointed to accomplish ? in their instruc- tions to their agents or missionaries ? in the reports of their operations, or their addresses to the public ? Let then the documents be produced. Have they exhibited any such disregard to the high duties of their station, in the selection of those whom they have sent forth to convey the gospel to distant and perishing nations ; of Hall and Newell, Mills and Judson, Parsons, Fisk, Goodell, or any of the long train who have followed in their steps ? Are any Unitarians, Uni- versalists. Pelagians, Roman Catholics, or any other erro- rists, to be found among them ? Is there a solitary indivi- dual in the long catalogue, who is not utterly above suspi- cion in respect to all fundamental articles of faith, and attachment to truth ? Is there one whom these societies would not dismiss in an instant from their service, if found capable of offering as grievous an injury to the church as is involved in this gentleman's accusation ? Did any of those especially whose names I have recited, whose single- ness of heart, self-sacrifice, and martyr-like constancy, have reflected lustre on the church, and exhibited a happier image of the piety and devotedness of the first ages of Christianity, than had before for a long time been beheld, 16 leAve behind them, when they quit their native shores, any better men than themselves ; more happily " imbued" with truth, fraught with a nobler zeal, a holier self-denial, or a more heroic courage ? Not certainly among those who cannot even sustain the trials of orthodoxy in this land of toleration, ease, and abundance ; to whom the task of " un- bending adherence to doctrines has become a burden well nigh too oppressive to be borne ;" who need the perpetual in- cense of applause to nerve their courage and sustain their fidelity, and wilt at every disappointment of hope, or just rebuke of error. Has it been discovered or surmised that any of these missionaries have ever exhibited a disregard to truth in their instructions to the heathen, or others ? Is it not the universal conviction, that the reverse is most clearly and commendably the fact ? that it is one of the most obvious and happy characteristics of their ministry, that they have employed themselves in the annunciation of the great and essential truths of the gospel, without the intermixture of the metaphysical speculations which are so usual in the re- gions of nominal Christianity ? This is, indeed, from the extreme ignorance of the great mass of those whom they are called to address, almost as much a matter of necessity, perhaps, as of duty. They would exhibit a perverse and pitiable spectacle truly, were they, like some whom they left behind them, to make it the business of their office to drill their unlettered hearers into the belief that the truths of the gospel itself have no adaptation to turn them from sin to holiness, and can have no instrumentality to that end ; or that the essence of revelation lies in the dogma that Gou creates all their actions. In the east, indeed, some of them have found all necessity of inculcating this latter theory, had they otherwise been disposed to dwell on It it, superseded by the speculations of native philosophers, and its belief wherever held, an insuperable obstacle alike to the access of the gospel, and the excitement of an effective sense of obligation. In place of perverting their office, nd disfiguring Christianity by the inculcation of these or kindred errors, they have employed themselves solely in making known the great facts, truths and require- ments of the gospel, — the existence and chafacter of God, the obligations and guilt of men, their destiny to a future being and judgment, the gift of a Saviour, the great evehts of his ministry and object of his death, the mission of the Spirit, the necessity of reconciliation to God, and mode of pardon and acceptance, the duty of penitence, humility, faith, love, prayer, learning the scriptures, observing the sabbath, obedience in short in all things to God and be- nevolence to men. And in thus confining themselves to the simple annunciation of " Christ and him crucified," which they have found to be " mighty to the pulling down of strong holds," and the only effectual instrument of saving men, they have exhibited an example of wisdom and fidelity that should not only shield them from rebuke, but teach a useful lesson to those at large who are employed in the sacred office. One of the great and happy effects, in- deed, that may be anticipated from these enterprises is, a propitious reaction on the church at home, recalling her members to juster views of the nature, and her teachers to wiser methods of enforcing the gospel ; a reverberation under the influence of these powerful causes, of the voice of Christianity from the isles of the Pacific, and the shores of India, freer of the jarring intermixtures of human invention, and discordant accompaniments of sectarian art, that shall atract the ear, not only of our own country, but of Europe, 3 18 and charm by its symphony, their dissonant elements into concord. The observations which he offers to demonstrate the ne- cessity of a purer orthodoxy in the conduct of these bene- volent enterprises, are fraught with a singular incompati- bility with the assumption of that necessity, and are as ab- surd as his imputations on these enterprises themselves are unjust. " Combinations of truth and error," he informs us, " even in plans of benevolent enterprise, are of very doubtful tendency .^^ In place of transcending in this asse- veration, the views that are generally entertained of the importance of truth, he falls immeasurably below them. Not an individual probably can be found among the mul- titudes whom his accusations affect, who does not regard error in all degrees and *' combinations," as, not of *' doubtful" or uncertain " tendency," but necessarily dangerous, and fruitful especially of evil in all enterprises like these, that possibly are to fix the character of churches, and perhaps of nations, for long periods in the regions where they are the instruments of first planting the gospel. Still more difficult would it be to find any among them so lax in doctrine, or indifferent " to all religious opinions," as to subscribe to the extraordinary sentiment that truth may go with error, as far as, according to his account, error is willing to go with truth. " Error has always been willing to go with truth, just so far as truth will go with error ; whereas, truth ought to go with error, no farther than error mil go with truth.^^ How the corrective here proposed, to " a strange apathy to truth," is to remove or diminish the evil, it is a matter of some intricacy to dis- cover. " Truth ought to go with error no farther than error will go with truth." Even his orthodoxy then, it 49 seems, In place of proscribing error, only requires that truth should " go with error no farther than error will go with truth," though " even in this apparently safe com- panionship, truth is very apt to become crippled and lame." To what extent then, it is of the utmost importance to know, is error " willing" to carry this " companionship ?" " Just so far," he assures us, " as truth will go with error." " Error has alioays been willing to go with truth, just so far as truth will go with error." But if truth may go with error as far as error will go with truth, and error is always willing to go with truth as long as the latter will submit to her company ; then clearly truth may " always" go with error ! The " orthodox spirit," with which " this zeal for Christian enterprise" is to be " more deeply imbued," thus turns out to be nothing else than a blank indifference " to all religious opinions." Truth is to relax the conscienti- ousness and delicacy which she has hitherto cherished, and learn to become as little scrupulous of the " companion- ship" of error, as error, which " has always been willing to go with" her, is of the company of truth. This is verily baptising Christianity into orthodoxy. " What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness ?" saith the Spirit of inspiration ; " whereas," saith the preacher, *' truth ought to go with error no farther than error will go with truth," and " error has always been willing to go with truth !" A single example will lift the veil from this doctrine, and develope its full import. The truth that God exists, may go with the error that denies his revelation, as far as this error will go with that truth, and that is into the central regions of deistical unbelief; and the truth that man exists and is a voluntary agent, may go with the error that 20 denies the divine existence, as far as this error will go with that truth, and that is into the bottomless gulf of atheism. Should the time ever arrive when the church at large, or any considerable portion of her ministers shall become ca- pable of uttering, even inadvertently, sentiments fraught with such extraordinary errors as his observations thus in- volve, it will, indeed, need the baptism of a better spirit, and a far mightier intervention from above to arrest the evil, than the gift of an Edwards or Whitfield could re- quire. His readers of course neither will nor can in justice re- gard him as having desigmd to express all the exceptiona- ble sentiments which his representations thus convey, nor as having had any clear apprehension of their import. They dout^tless wiU feel authorised however, to judge from them of his qualifications for the task of criticism and de- nunciation, which he has taken upon himself to discharge, and to determine to what degree of weight his opinions are entitled. They will deem it to have been at all events the part of wisdom, if not an essential requisite, for one who felt himself called on to utter such a philippic against the " ap- athy to truth" and '' ignorance" of the church, to see that his own sentiments were free at least from all such funda- mental objections. But I turn to the more grateful topics, presented by the Discourses, and reflections they are adapt- ed to suggest. It does not fall within ray object to notice minutely the peculiarities of each Discourse, nor to dwell at large on the excellencies of reasoning, sentiment or style with which they abound, or opposite defects from which they are not ex empt, but rather to glance at a few general traits that dis tinguish them, and give them a title to regard. 21 I. They recognise and urge it as a fundannental law of the theological profession, that the business of the religious teacher, whether in the pulpit or professorial chair, is simp- ly to develope, illustrate, and enforce the knowledge that is revealed and sanctioned in the word of God ; and that ac- cordingly all doctrines and speculations put forth under the name of Christianity, should both have their foundation in the volume of divine truth, and lie within the certain and clear limits of inspiration. " Our merciful Creator who has undertaken to be our teacher gives us instruction by his works and by his word. By his works in the material and in the spiritual world, he teaches us those trutiis which constitute JVatural Theology. By his word contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, he casts a clearer light on the truths of Natural Theology, and in addition to this, teaches those doctrines which constitute Christianity, relating chiefly to the sin and ruin of man, and to the character and work of the Redeemer," — ' The proper employment of reason in matters of religion' is ' to learn what God teaches ; to obtain the knowledge of the facts and doctrines which he exhibits, particularly those which he exhibits in his word ; to arrange them in a suitable order, and to apply them to their vari- ous uses.' "-And as our chief concern is with the truths of revelation, our chief business is to apply ourselves, in the proper use of our ra- tional powers, to the study of the holy scriptures.' *' The position which I take on this subject will require that two things in particular should be set aside, as not falling within the pro- vince of reason." " The first is, attempting to originate truth. AH the elements of our knowledge, all the materials on which our reason is to act, are furnished for our use in the works and in the word of God. These simple elements we may combine together with almost endless varia- tions ; but we can never increase them, and should never attempt in any way to change them. To originate any fact or any doctrine, is what does not belong to us, and what human reason, however strong may be its temptation, ought never to undertake. In regard to many parts of the christian religion, the simple doctrines and facts which we learn from the word of God, may prove insufficient to sat- 22 isfy the cravings of curiosity or of 'pride, or they may be liable to objec- tions which we cannot obviate. In such cases, after trying in vain to discover in the sacred volume the additional truth we wish for, we may be inclined to give another direction to our intellectual powers, and to make an effort to originate or produce something, which shall afford the relief we desire. The fertility of the imagination, instead of being directed as it should be to the illustration of truths already known, may be put to the unnatural task of originating some principle, of producing some notion, which may supply or seem to supply the mortifying deficiency of our knowledge." — "After venturing thus beyond the province of reason, the next step is, to meditate often and with complacency, on the imaginary principle, till it assumes the ap- pearance of a reality, and then believe it. And the next step is, to contend for it, though a mere fiction, as a fundamental truth, and to expend immeasurable zeal in support of that which owed its exist- ence to mental fermentation. Now every thing like this, every at- tempt to produce a new moral or religious principle, or to make any addition to the simple doctrines and facts which God has taught us, carries us at once beyond our bounds.'' " The other thing which must be set aside, as not belonging to the province of reason, is, sitting in judgment upon any of the doctrines or facts, which God 7iiakes known." Dr. Woods. This great law obviously lies at the foundation of all authorized theological instruction. To reject it, is to dis- card the volume of inspiration as the rule of faith ; and to transcend it, is to attempt to pass off the devices of human folly, under the sanction of divine wisdom. Whatever then is put forth as a doctrine of God, should be either expressly revealed, or clearly authorized in the volume of inspiration ; and whatever does not enjoy thai sanction, should either not be taught at all, or only exhibit- ed in its proper character as a dictate of reason, a logical probability, or a mere conjecture, that has no pretence whatever to support from the word of God. There are indeed innumerable truths and facts that are presented to us 23* through the works of creation and providence, or immedi- ately conveyed to our consciousness, which are assumed and recognized as already and necessarily known to us, rather than formally taught in the scriptures; such as that we are intelligent beings, and of a nature that fits us to be subjects of such a government as is established over us ; and it is indubitably the province of the theological teacher also, to recognize, unfold and enforce these facts and truths, in their natural connexions, with those which are announced by the voice of inspiration. There is an utter difference, however, between thus recognizing, on the one hand, and tracing out these involved truths, without transcending the limits of divine authority, or the certain facts of consciousness, and attempting on the other, violently to crush the truths that are plainly revealed in the sacred word, into the mould of unauthorized theories. The one is the legitimate use of the works and word of God — the other a fatal abuse of them. It is in truth in determining where the line that separates these opposite methods^ lies, that frequently the first, and often the chief error is committed ; and according as they have erred here, one class has transcended the bounds of revelation, and put forth the fictions of their philosophy as the doctrines of God ; and another circumscribed those boundaries themselves, and denied truths that are clearly recognized and plainly declared in the volume of inspira- tion. In the one instance, they have endeavoured to out- spread the representations of the divine word, over the arti- ficial surface of their theories; in the other, to narrow down its import to the dimensions of their ignorance or wishes. And these are indeed the only modes in which false doc- trines are produced. It is never by the developement of truths that are assumed or implied on the pnges of revela- 24 tion, or the exhibition in their proper connexions with those or other truths of the sacred word, of facts that are taught us by consciousness, or the existence and phenomena of the external universe, that the legitimate bounds of theological instruction are overpassed and error committed. It is not by the intermixture o^ knowledge derived from any other parts of the ways or works of the Most High, with the teachings of inspiration, that his will is misrepresented and the aspect of his government disguised ; but solely by sub- stituting ignorance in place of knowledge, and superseding his wisdom by our presumption and folly. Had this great rule, which thus clearly cannot be disre- garded with any safety to religion, been rigidly observed, how different would have been the history of theology ? How many of the systems which have been put forth as the certain dictates of revelation, at most would only have en- joyed the rank of probabilities or conjectures ; and how many more, that through long periods have fatally dazzled and misled the church, would never have gained even a mis- chievous publicity, but been abandoned at their birth as the hideous offspring of presuming ignorance or daring impiety ? How have they disfigured and perverted Christianity — making her at one time to disown her author, and at another to deny herself; here to contradict her most peculiar and momentous truths, and there to transgress or abrogate her holiest laws ; now to become the forward sanctioner and fosterer of her deadliest enemies, and now the relentless persecutor of her friends. And with what a deluge of evils have they overspread the church ; perplexing the path of piety, obscuring or obliterating the truths that are the guide and support of faith, perverting the affections, adding force to temptation, and misdirecting hope. And what 25 an exh^ustless armory of " darts" have ihey proved to the great adversary of souls, and enabled him to gain over mul- titudes an easy triumph ; beguiling them with false reliances, provoking them to contemn religion, or exasperating their hatred? The mischiefs to which these errors have thus given birth, form a more appalling spectacle than any other that history presents. The bloody conquerors that have so often strode over the nations, and like a flaming whirlwind, crushed them to the earth, have as speedily vanished from the scene, and left them like the prostrate fields to re-erect themselves in strength and beauty, in the calm and sunshine of succeeding peace. The great fountains of knowledge have never been permanently dried up by them, nor poison- ed, nor the intellect chained down by the fetters of lasting error, nor an abiding mist of metaphysics transfused through the atmosphere, so dispersing and refracting the rays of truth, that only faint and distorted images could reach the eye. This worst of despotisms was reserved to those who, usurping the rights of God, have ventured to legislate over the church, and abrogated his government by denying the truths of his word on the one hand, or in^ termingUng their falsehoods with them on the other. The frightful evils which the pride of genius, the pre- sumption of philosophy, and more frequently still, the self- confidence of weakness and ignorance have thus inflicted on the church, should thunder warning on the ear of those who hold the sacred office, against the repetition of such mischiefs, and inspire the church herself with caution against the rash and turbid theorizers who threaten to renew them. II. Their exhibition of the government of the Most High, as established over and adapted to man as he now exists, and of its moral means as fitted to the ends for which 4 26 they are instituted and employed, is a conspicuous charac- teristic of these Discourses. " The christian religion takes human nature as it actually is; and disregarding all adventitious differences, it enters into the inner man, and speaks to all the same language ; addresses in all the same prin- ciples and feelings ; and supplies every where the same wants of this dying, immortal, rational, accountable being. It recognizes his pro- foundest moral feelings, the mighty movements of his spirit, and every thing in him, which loves to grapple with infinity, and rejoices in the thoughts of eternity, and longs after immortality." It "is adapted to all conditions of human existence, and produces, wherever it pre- vails, the same effects." "The founder of Christianity has taken man as a being compounded of matter and mind, with reason, con- science, passion, and appetite, and has treated him according to his natural constitution. It does not exterminate any principle of our nature, or indulge any evil propensity ; but with most consummate wisdom and benevolence it regulates the wonderful machinery of man." — Dr. Rice. "• Every one is conscious of possessing certain original desires, which are inherent in his very nature, and which exist independently of all circumstances ; and in the gratification of which consists his happiness." — " Whatever then is best adapted to meet these original desires, is of course best fitted to promote man's true happiness. Taking the gospel just as we find it, I shall endeavour to show that all these desires are successfully met in it, and in nothing else.'' — Dr. Sprague. " The law of God" " is just in its demands, for these are always commensurate with the capacity of its subjects, never exacting more at any given moment, than what equals the ability of the subject to perform." "It is this eternal correspondence between ability and obligation that manifests his righteousness who made the law, and who thus appeals to our moral judgment — ' are not my ways equal ?'" —Dr. Cox. That the government of the Most High was established over man as he now exists, and is adapted to his present nature, as perfectly as his administration over angels, is fitted to the nature of that order of beings, none who look 27 at the subject with impartiality can doubt. There was no other than the present human nature in existence at the institution either of the law or gospel, or the promulgation of any of the requirements or prohibitions, conditions or promises, which belong to their administration. Whatever may be thought to have been the fact with the first pair before the fall, neither they after that event, nor any of their descendants, at any subsequent period, ever possessed any other nature than that which is now common to the race. If, ti)erefore, the divine government was not established over, and made to correspond to this nature, it of course cannot have had any such relation to any human nature whatever either of that or any subsequent period, and ac- cordingly can never have merited the character of wisdom or justice. The supposition that the government of the Most High was not formed for the nature with which man is now con- stituted, also implies that the chief measures of his adminis- tration are likewise disproportioned to an equal extent and imsuited to each other. The great provisions of the gospel are indisputably instituted for that identical nature which now exists, as it is to that and that only that they are actu- ally applied. It is that nature, and not one that once ex- isted for a short period only in the garden of Eden, and vanished forever from being at the touch of the forbidden fruit, that is the subject of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, of renovation by the Holy Spirit, and exaltation to glory. To suppose, therefore, that all the other parts of the divine government are not instituted with the same reference and adaptation to that nature, is to suppose either that the atonement itself is formed for another than that to which it is applied, or that the law was instituted for a dif- 29 ferent one from timt for which the atoninc^ sacrifice was offer- ed ; which is obviously to subvert all their essential relations, and utterly to deny either the one or the other. But the divine government itself is, in fact, and most manifestly fraught, in all its representations of his faculties, relations and agenc}', its exhibition of his passions, wants, temptations, sufferings and enjoyments, its appointment of his duties, delineations of his character, and provisions for his salvation, with every conceivable mark of exact and intentional coincidence with and adaptation to the present nature of man. It is to this nature that all its laws and promises are addressed, and (his reason, heart and con- science, that its moral means are employed to teach and influence. It is this nature that obeys and transgresses those laws, and this that is saved and lost under that instru- mentalit)'. To deny it, and carry the denial to its fit results, were at a stroke to blot out all revelation to us, and annihilate the divine government; and a clear discernment and full and consistent manifestation of it, is obviously indis- pensable to a proper apprehension and exhibition of the religion of the Bible. This great characteristic of the government of the Most High has obviously hitherto enjoyed but a very inadequate notice from the ministers of religion, and exerted far too slight an influence on their apprehensions and methods of teaching. By multitudes, indeed, it has been formally de- nied ; and not a few of the theories, doctrines and arguments, that are still current in the theological world, are founded on an open or virtual assumption, that many of the impor- tant measures oftiie divine administration, are not suited to the powers and susceptibilities of man as he is now formed, but correspond only to the superior attributes of a nature 29 which is supposed to have been originally possessed by the first pair, and lost forever at the fall. And is not this at least, one among the causes that have contributed to dis- courage and paralyze their labours, and led them to go through their ministry with so little use of "their judgment, or aid from the excitements of hope, fear and sympathy ? What other effect could be expected to result from a deep and settled conviction that their labours not only have no natural adaptation to benefit their impenitent hearers, but that even a supernatural suspension and retroversion of the laws of nature must be accomplished in order to prevent them from exerting a pernicious and fatal influence, and that whenever the Most High vouchsafes to pour out on their people his Spirit, his influence is exerted independentlv and irrespctively of their instrumentality ? But just apprehen- sions of the relations of the means of the gospel to the ends for which they are instituted — the conviction, conversion, and sanctification of men — are obviously adapted to pro- duce precisely the opposite efl'ects, by prompting endeavors at fit and skilful applications of them, exciting a fixed ex- pectation of success when used in their appointed manner, and inspiring a settled reliance on God, for his promised blessing. A clear conviction indeed, that he has appointed them to that instrumentality, that it is through them and nothing else, that he accomplishes those ends, and that he has revealed a gracious purpose of rendering them effica- cious by the influence of his Spirit, is manifestly a fit and natural ground for a full and influential reliance on him for that gift ; and this reliance will naturally rise in strength and efficacy in proportion to the depth and force of that conviction. This great theme presents to the teachers of religion im- perative claims to their gravest consideration. It is clearly 30 a subject of fundamental inijjortance. It enters more or less into every topic of instruction, and the views that are formed of it necessarily impart their character, whether of truth or error, to every branch of a theological system. Mis- takes in respect to it cannot be uninfluential nor harmless, but must be fraught with fatal mischief. Just apprehensions of it are indispensable to a fit and skilful discharge of the commission of ambassadors for God. They cannot inter- pret his will and intentions aright, explain the principles of his administration, vindicate its measures, and enforce its claims, while they only partially comprehend, or essentially misconceive them. They must understand the nature of the government, which it is their business to exhibit and enforce, and the nature of those to whom they address their messages, before they can exert their destined influence, and gain for the gospel a universal prevalence and triumph. They must cease to labour — as has heretofore too often hap- pened— under the paralyzing impression that their means have no possible adaptation to the ends for which they are appointed to employ them, and listen to thejuster teachings of consciousness, reason and inspiration. They will learn from these that their ministry enjoys by the appointment of God, a fixed and essential station among the means through which salvation is conveyed to their fellow-men, and an appointment that has its grounds in their nature as moral .agents ; that the reason that their labours are necessary is, that " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing b}' the word of God," and that as the church and world cannot " hear without a preacher," so they cannot " preach except they be sent" — except, in other words they actually fulfill the office of ambassadors, by exhibiting in all its proper rela- tions that identical message which they are commissioned to deliver. 31 III. The portraiture which these Discourses present of infidelity, as tlie offspring of appetite and profligate princi- ples, aud as resting its hope of popularity on appeals to passion and the shameless avowal of its depravity, is sig- nally just of that which has lately clamoured so fiercely through the land, and is happily adapted to correct the extravagant apprehensions which some have indulged, that It may possibly gain a general prevalence. " Unbelievers are commonly fond of representing their opinions as derived from reason; as the offspring of free and candid inquir;/. But did you ever know an individual of this class who really was in the habit of seriously studying the Bible, or who appeared at all dis- posed to make either the evidences or the doctrines of Christianity the object of close and earnest examination ? Did you ever know an infidel who seemed to become such by serious investigation; by sober argument ; by carefully weighing the testimony which the word of God presents in favour of its lieavenly origin ? I will ven- ture to say, you never did." " Men commonly become infidels by ignorance, by thoughtlessness, by pride, by prejudice, by turning away their minds from the Bible, and from all sober inquiry ; by for- getting God, and by flying from all appropriate reflection on his cha- racter, and the claims which he asserts on his rational creatures." " Thousands of the young, as well as of the aged, have been ma- nifestly drawn into infidelity by their evil passions and their vices. The history of many a youthful victim of unbelief has been in sub- stance, as follows:— He was taught from the cradle to reverence the Bible, and instructed to attach importance to the great sanctions which it unfolds. But when he entered on the gay world ; when false honour began to dazzle, and criminal pleasure to allure; when licentious habits gradually unfolded their attractions, and ungodly companions rendered him fan.iliar with- scenes of profanenoss'' and vice, he was not slow in perceiving that such pursuits were alto- gether inconsistent with the principles of his education. This at first filled him with deep anxiety. T],e conflict, however, in its power, did- not last long. He telt obliged either to abandon the principles of his youth, or to give up his unhallowed indulaences. iJe was resolved not to part with the latter; and, therefore, gave uv 32 the tbniier. At lirst he hesitated ; then he doubted, or rather tt'ied to doubt ; then he disbeheved ; not because he had examined, and found rehgion false ; but because he had made it necessary, for his own peace of mind, to believe it false. He, at length, succeeded in persuading himself that all his former seriousness and scruples were idle dreams ; that he might live as he listed without any fear of an hereafter ; until, in the end, he became prepared to take his stand with the most determined enemies of the gospel, and even to ' sit in the seat of the scornful.' Now can any one doubt that in all such cases, unbelief is the offspring, not of sober inquiry, but of corrupt inclination; not of a sincere and candid search after truth, but of a desire to be liberated from the restraints which the religion of Christ imposes ?" Dr. Miller. These representations are peculiarly true of the propa- gators and disciples of infidelity, who have of late so strenuously endeavoured to give conspicuity to their cause. They are rejectors of the gospel, not from any want of adequate evidence of its divine origin, nor from any legiti- mate objection to its truth, but solely from the impulse of temptations that either have withdrawn them from the just consideration of the subject, embittered them with prejudice, exasperated their passions, or what, perhaps, still more fre- quently happens, from the mere goadings of conscience that cannot be repressed, and clamours of appetite that can- not be indulged with self-complacency, except by extir- pating from themselves all sense and conviction of the truth of Christianity. In the character in which infidelity is at present exhibit- ing itself, it has far less to recommend it to those who re- tain any lingering respect for decency, or desire for repu- tation, than at most former periods. Heretofore it has thought it a matter of policy to put on, as far as practicable, an air of dignity, and maintain a semblance, at least, of some of the qualities which mankind arc disposed to re- 33 spect. It has associated itself with nobility and power, assumed the mask of philosophy, arrogated the sanction of science, and attempted to flutter on the pinions of wit. Of late, however, it presents itself in a somewhat different mien ; offering far less lofty claims to the honours of philo- sophy, and less laboured pretensions to the aids of logic and science. It no longer comes recommended by any splendour of talents or lustre of knowledge in those who are its propagators, nor associated with any refined and lofty sentiments that can yield it dignity, nor wit that can throw over its hideousness a momentary glare. Its wit has sunk down into ribaldry, and its sarcasms into blasphemies that shock the ear of decorum as well as piety. Like the ' last and hopeless struggle which profligacy is sometimes seen to make to keep up its gaiety and attract disgraceful notoriety, rather than sufler oblivion ; weary of its mask, and conscious that its gait is known, it is at length ven- turing forth unveiled, and attempting to catch the crowd by shapelessness and indecency. In this exacerbated form, however, it obviously is as un- friendly to the peace of society, as it is hostile to the inter- ests of religion; and must meet a stern antagonist on the bench of civil justice, as well as in the chair of theological instruction. With not a single prop on which reason can lean, nor a solitary sentiment with which the better sensibil- ities of the heart can sympathize ; with nothing on which it can fasten a hold except the hunger of forbidden appetites, and the recklessness of disgrace and ruin, it cannot propa- gate nor sustain itself, but must meet a speedy end. Such of its disciples as escape the dungeons of justice, or grasp of the halter, will fall victims after a short career to their un- natural excesses. Its utter incompatibility with the very 5 34 nature of man, which, in order even to the gratification of any thing like a far-sighted selfishness, requires personal safety, security to property, and the means and opportiniity of cherishing and enjoying the domestic afl'ections, must in- sure its almost universal rejection. It does not need the self-denial of a martyr, or faith of a christian, to discard a system which would at a stroke annihilate all those forms and means of happiness, and convert the world into a desert. It can never find many disciples among those who have pro- perty to preserve, families to rear, domestic bliss to enjoy and communicate, blessings to diffuse and receive, reputa- tion to sustain, or any hopes of future good to themselves or families fromin dustry, skill or honour ; for with all these it wages as open and unsparing war as with the claims and requirements of religion itself. A more active diff'usion, accordingly, and zealous en- forcement of the great truths of the gospel, is obviously the only proper method of checking and correcting this profli- gacy ; not open attacks and formal attempts at its refutation. It was unwise in public journalists and others to attract the general notice to the Avretched outcasts and wanderers from Europe, who have been the chief instruments of giving it an impulse, by chronicling their movements, and reporting their impious doctrines. They should never enjoy a re- cognition, unless before the civil magistrate. It Hatters them, to be held up to notoriety, if it even be to point at them the finger of scorn, and reprobate their indecency. It con- fers importance on their agency and doctrines, and gives them what is more their object probably, than any thing else — the advantage of conspicuity. Nothing is so utterly fatal to their purposes as general neglect, nor any other punishment so severe as to be thrown back in solitude upon 35 themselves, where reason may have an opportunity to es- cape from the tyranny of passion, and conscience to re-assert her dreaded power. IV. The last characteristic of these Discourses which I have space to notice, is their recognition, in the natureofthe gospel itself, of the views and labours of the church, and the effusions of the Spirit, of causes which not only render it cer- tain that the religion of Christ will continue to sustain it- self in our land, but authorize the fullest assurance that it will acquire a much more general diffusion, and ultimately rise to a far more predominating influence over the popula- tion at large. " We shall endeavour to show that the gospel of Jesus Christ will universally prevail ; from its peculiar adaptedness to gratify the \yants of our sensitive nature; from the intimations in the history of the world, vvhicli the Creator of the universe has given, that such is his determination ; and from the fact that the elements of society have been so combined, that at some time or other, such must be the necessary resuh." Dr. AVayland. The views here exhibited and eloquently enforced in the Discourse from which these sentences are transcribed, are the dictate of sound forecast and philosophy, as well as the fit offspring of christian faith. The apprehensions which some appear to entertain, and suppositions that are often advanced, that religion may ere long become extinct in our land, or that at least the nation at large may turn to open and shameless infidelity, indicate as slight a consider- ation of the great principles of human nature, the constitu- tion of civilized society, and the various causes which act on men in favor of religion, beside a pure attachment to its spiritual character, as they do of the nature of religion 36 itself, and the assurances with whicli we arc presented in the gospel of its perpetuity and universal prevalence. 1 regret to perceive from the last report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, that an organ of that body has sufl'ered himself in so important a paper, to indulge in conjectures or suppositions, as they are perhaps, rather than apprehensions, of this character. It is unsuited to the dignity of that venerable body, to which not only the American church, but the christian world, in a sense, looks up for an example of severe wisdom, long forecast, and superiority to impulse from the transient shocks that dis- turb society, to enter on speculations that have so little of the sobriety of fact, or probability to recommend them ; and unwise to resort to them for motives to excite or sustain an adequate interest in tiie great objects to whose advance- ment that institution is devoted. No nation can ever, at large, become the disciples of infi- delity without adequate causes; and these causes must pbviouslj' work their effect, either by obliterating the know- ledge, or shrouding the evidences of the truth of religion ; or by pouring on the general mind such a tempest of tempt- ation, as to prevent that evidence from exerting its ordinary and natural influence. Christianity, however, is not only sustained by evidences which no human intellect can ever subvert or shake, and which none can even assail, except on principles that sap the foundations of all certainty in history, and all confidence in testimony ; but by proofs so clear, abundant, and convincing, that no ordinary obstacles of ignorance or pride, nor temptations of prejudice, malevo- lence, or enmity, arc adequate to resist their power. The experiment of eighteen hundred years has shown, that wherever it is freely diffused, and enjoys an opportunity of 37 exerting its appropriate influence, it always succeeds in commanding a general assent. Not a solitary exception is recorded on the page of history ; nor an instance in which it has been carried to pagan nations and allowed to make a fair experiment of its powers, that it has not gained a foot- hold ; and won the reason, conscience, heart and hopes of man, to its adoption. It is on the conviction of this great fact indeed, that the society to which I have alluded, and all others, act in their attempts to plant the gospel in foreign lands, and sustain it in our own. If it were not thus known and felt that the gospel carries within itself the adequate and certain means of gaining the assent of the great mass of those to whom it is fairly presented, and that it will always, to some extent at least, prove efficacious through the enforcing'influences of the spirit of grace that attend its annunciation, none would ever be found to enter on so arduous an undertaking. No such uncertainty, however, attends it. It is as well ascertained a fact, as any other in the history of man or the laws of providence, that the gos- pel, when fitly ofiered to comnuniities and nations, invaria- bly produces those effects on large and often prevailing numbers, and it is accordingly as much a matter of settled expectation, as any other effect which the usual course of events has shown always to result from appropriate causes. The question then respecting the probable or possible extinction of Christianity in this land, resolves itself into the simple problem, whether any causes exist or are coming into existence, that can either universally extinguish the knowledge of the gospel, or raise against it such a storm of prejudice and enmity, as totally to disarm it of its power over the general intellect, and cause it to be discarded and proscribed — events, manifestly that are not only without 38 a shade of likelihood, but that cannot easily be believed to lie within the sphere of possibility. Their production would obviously involve a general suspension of education and extinction of its means, an obstruction of all the ordi- nary channels of knowledge, and a total suppression of the freedom of opinion. But these effects could never be pro- duced without not only a total extinction of liberty, but a subjection of the nation — considering its present character, and the arts which now enter into the very fabric of civil- ized society, and are essential to its subsistence — to a more abject slavery than was ever yet experienced. These arts, and the sciences in which they have their origin, cannot be wrenched from the social structure, without a total dissolution of its elements. The press would need to be annihilated, the ministry and evei-y profession exterminated, knowledge extinguished, and the church blotted from existence ; but these could never be swept from the scene, without hurling the whole nation back into the lowest depths of barbarism. The question in effect then is, whether any probabilities exist, that the nation itself will ever suppress, or suffer any other to extinguish within it all the sciences and arts which form the chief means and ornaments of civilized life, the existence and exercise of which, as they necessarily involve the general and free diffusion of knowledge, and the unfet- tered action of the press, must accordingly, while continued, yield the right, and place the means of religious informa- tion within the access of the community at large. No such resemblance subsists between the institutions, condition, and character of this nation, and those of the French of the last century, as to authorize any inference from their history to the probability of similar future events with us. The causes yvhich here ensure the perpetuation 39 of the knowledge and influence of the gospel, had never any prevalent agency or being there, nor have those which produced her general infidelity, any existence here. That nation never enjoyed the blessings of a general education, n well-educated and faithful ministry, a universal diffusion of the scriptures, and a free tofeation of opinion ; and yet though debarred of all these blessings, it required the im- postures, oppression, and accumulated provocations of a thousand years, and the combination of a series of inciden- tal causes, to which, perhaps, no possible conjunction of events could ever again give birth, to push them on to that terrific paroxysm of madness and impiety. The almost entire restriction of religious knowledge to the sacerdotal order, the ignorance and profligacy of a large portion of the clergy, the absurd and demoralizing doctrines and indul- gences of the church, the oppression of a despotic govern- ment, of which that church was alternately the tool and the directress — even these numerous and powerful causes that had accumulated strength and exacerbation through a long tract of ages, were not alone enough to have produced at that period, that frightful convulsion ; and never, perhaps, could have given it existence, had not a sudden and great accession to general knowledge imparted a strong impulse to the public mind ; a class of novel and mighty geniuses been led to combine their agency in assailing Christianity, and finally the eruption of our revolution, poured a glare of political light on the nation at large, and kindled an ardent desire and hope of liberty. Had the destin}' of even a score of the chief champions of infidelity been changed to obscurity by any series of events, it is probable that all other causes would never have wrought that nation up to a public abjuration of Christianity ; and yet that abjuration 40 had passed but a brief period only, before the exigencies of state required as formal a restoration of the form at least of relifirion, to s'i\t force to law, salety to life, and security to property, without which society itself cannot subsist. Had it happened that any one of these principal causes had not been united to the combinjition, that event would probably never have taken place. Had the scriptures, for example, in place of being confined to the hands of a few ecclesiastics, been generally diffused for a series of ages, numerous indi- viduals and famihes would have been found in every de- partment, citv", and village, familiar with their truths, believ- ers of their doctrines, and jox'ful expectants of tlieir promised blessings ; and the leaven of their influence would thus have been transfused through the whole community. The existence and action of these causes would as certainly have given rise to competent and de\oted teachers of die gospel, the organization of pure churches, and the multipli- cation and active use of all the usual instruments of diffusing and enforcing the influence of Christianity ; and had all these been wrought into the structure of societal', exerted their appropriate agency, and shed their redeeming influ- ence over the people, they would as infallibly have prevented the existence, or counteracted the action of all those to which the general atheism of the nation owed its existence, reformed the church, softened and refined the government, diffused and heightened the social and domestic virtues ; and thus precluded from being the provocations and means which igave excitement and power to the malignant efforts of Voltadre, Rousseau, and their coadjutors, in their onset on Christianity'. Those individuals themselves, indeed, enhght- ened by her truths, transformed by her power, imbued with her rectitude and benevolence, and inspired by her hopes — 41 ill place of plotting and fiercely struggling to accomplish her extinction — might then have knelt at her altars among the holiest and most fervid of her disciples, and consecrated the lofty energies of intellect and passion with which they were gifted, to the vindication of her rights, and diffusion of her blessings. No such analogy, therefore, exists between the character and condition of the two nations, as to make the frightful catastrophe of the one, any ground of anticipating a similar career of the other. On the contrary, the general causes which are determining the moral destiny of this nation au- thorize the expectation of precisely opposite results. Our government, in place of being devoted to the aggrandize- ment of the rulers, at the expense of general misery and oppression, is instituted for the sole purpose of enforcing right, and diffusing and maintaining the blessings of liberty. We enjoy a full freedom of opinion, an unfettered press, and extraordinary facilities of acquiring and disseminating knowledge. The population at large is intelligent beyond any other nation, and possessed of juster views of the legiti- mate objects of government, the means and value of national happiness, the rights of conscience, and the relations of re- ligion to civil institutions. Immense numbers of churches are firmly established throughout almost every section of the country, eminently pure in doctrine and practice, and gifted with a ministry distinguished for a knowledge of their pro- fession, and skill and fidelity in discharging its duties, and standing in that relation to the church and society at large, which presents the highest excitements to diligence, faith- fulness and success. A wide and almost universal dissemi- nation gf the Scriptures is enjoyed, and numerous institutions founded and liberally endowed for the purpose of supplying G 4^ whatever wants may still exist of the sacred word, and per- petuating the universal possession of that blessing. A mul- titude of schools and classes are instituted in the church, which carry the knowledge of the gospel, with an energy and success hitherto unknown, to the great body of the young, and which, from the general sentiment in favor of education, and the favorable moral influence which these institutions are seen to exert, have conciliated the approval and engaged the co-operation of the friends of knowledge and good order at large, as well as of religion, and given certainty to their continued support. Societies are formed and extensive provisions made for the aid of youth in pre- paration for the ministry, and theological seminaries esta- blished where means of education for the sacred office are furnished, that insure the distinguished competence and dig- nity of the profession. Here is thus a combination of causes interwoven with the very fabric of our social and civil exis- tence, which, by all the laws of human events, assure to this people, as a body, beyond the possibility of disappointment, the continued knowledge of the gospel, and its free action on their minds, and consequently the perpetuity and perpe- tual progress of its influence over their principles and man- ners. It is then the sober dictate of reason, and no extrava- gance to believe, that none of the causes which have hitherto had a determining sway over the afl*airs of men, can ever intervene to intercept these anticipated blessings, and plunge the nation back into a night of atheism or infidelity. With all these causes are still to be conjoined the mighty, and till the present period, almost unknown influences of the great institutions, which, in sending forth the gospel to foreign lands, and diflfusing its blessings through the desti- tute regions of our own, are developing to the world new 43 features and proofs of the power and benevolence of Chris- tianity, and giving birth to incidents of sublime and over- powering interest, that spread their fame through every gradation of society, and carry attraction to every class of intellect ; and finally, to all these are to be superadded, what is of infinitely greater moment than all other conside- rations, the extraordinary and almost miraculous effusions of the Almighty Spirit that characterize the age, whose ap- proaches no hostile eye can foresee, and whose agency no art can elude nor skill successfully contravene, and who, like a bolt from heaven, instantaneously attracting univer- sal attention to the great themes of religion, imparts to its friends a new and supernatural impulse, and with an invi- sible hand beats down its haughty enemies, and converts them into approvers and co-operators. When all these causes, together with the certain promises of continued and larger gifts of this divine agency, are united in the account, it becomes not only the dictate of sound reason, and the part of christian faith and hope, to anticipate with confi- dence the continuance, more extensive diffusion, and tri- umphant influence of these infinite blessings ; but to doubt respecting it, is scarcely less than infidelity itself — a flagrant distrust in heaven against all the natural and supernatural assurances that can give certainty to our expectations of future events. It were grateful to pursue this theme and sustain these conclusions, by the numerous considerations which lend them confirmation from the history of the past, the favour- able contrast of the present activity, strength, and efiiciency of the church, with its want of combination, its feebleness, and inaction at the commencement of the century, the character of that part of the population which furnishes the 44 chief portion of emigrants to the new regions of tlie country, and various other topics ; but tliey will naturally suggest themselves, and I turn rather to the duties and responsibi- lities that arise from the relations of the present to future generations. An almost boundless moral influence is lodged by the Ruler of the universe in the hands of the present generation, both of real and nominal christians, for weal or woe, to their descendants ; and every step they take in reference to their interests, is fruitful of destiny to unborn millions. No in- dividual can possibly stand neuter, nor escape the responsi- bility of contributing either to the advancement or obstruc- tion of these important concerns. Not those only who take an open and resolute part in the efforts that are making for the support and perpetuation of Christianity, or who deliberately oppose its sway, but all of every other class lend a direct or indirect influence to those ends, by educating their families or neglecting to instruct them, by contributing to the general dissemination of knowledge, or obstructing its difl'usion ; by lending or denying their agency and countenance to the support of good order, and the suppression of whatever endangers personal safety or interrupts the secure enjoyment of domestic and social blessings ; by acting the part of enlightened Iriends to ra- tional liberty, or its enemies, and labouring to give stability and perpetuity to our useful civil institutions, or to subvert them, — all lend a real and palpable influence, whether such is their intention or not, to the cause of Christianity, or throw obstructions in its way ; as all those agencies of the one class, by giving the gospel access to the general mind and room for action on the great principles of human nature, are so many instruments of its diflusion, pcrpetua- 45 linn, and certain success ; and those on tlie other, by ob- structing the channels of its dissemination and Influence, contribute to check its power and limit its triumphs. Those who oppose it, though they cannot accomplish its general overthrow, may yet produce wide spread evils, and incur the guilt of debarring its infinite blessings from many indivi- duals, and calling causes into action that shall involve their final ruin; and those who labor for its advancement, though they may not succeed in achieving all at which they aim, will yet exert a powerful agency that will give birth to great immediate blessings, and transmit a long succession to future generations. It is obviously the duty of the church and community to sustain and advance all the great institutions whose object is to disseminate the blessings of general education, to place the volume of truth in the hands of every family and indi- vidual, to send the living teacher to every destitute village, and dwelling, and to raise up and fit for the future agen- cies of the church, a learned and devoted ministry. To abandon these great objects, were scarcely less than apos- tacy from the cause of Christ ; to oppose them, w ere to wage war on human happiness, as well as his kingdom. No constructive duty was ever clearer than is that of carrying on these enterprises, until their objects are fully accomplished. Their appeals to the church and world for a cordial and ge- nerous support, are so many voices from heaven, proclaim- ing what glory to God in the highest demands, and peace o)i earth and good will to men require. The chief task of sustaining the religion of Christ, and transmitting its blessings to future generations, obviously belongs to the ministers of the gospel ; and they are as obvi- ously to fulfil that high commission chiefly by tiie faithful 46 illsciiarge of the ordinary duties of their several spheres — the just exhibition of its character, and claims to assent and acceptance ; a fit manifestation of its adaptation to the nature, wants, and condition of men; and a direct and instant application of its great and glorious truths to the reason, conscience, and afl'ections. And what lofty and powerful motives urge them to furnish themselves for the momentous enterprise, by all the aids of knowledge and discipline of art, that can give dignity to their office and efficiency to their labours ! To the young, especially, these inducements should address themselves with redoubled force, and prompt them to aim at a thoroughness of prepa- ration and energy of effort, that bear some proper corres- pondence to their responsibilities — at a finished cultivation of their powers, the attainment of just and capacious views, familiarity with large and noble sentiments, and the expectation of great labours, great trials, and great success. Without thus tasking their energies, and entering the field with all the advantages of cultivation, they not only cannot fulfil their high trust, but cannot maintain the dignity of their profession, nor keep pace with the progress of the age ; but with them, and the usual blessing of God, they will sustain the interests committed to their charge, and give triumphant diflusion to all the infinite blessings which are the appointed fruit of their faithful instrumentality. In no other country is religion so dependent for support on public opinion, nor that opinion so largely influenced by the pulpit, as in this ; nor is there any other where so direct and deci- sive an influence is exerted by it, when appropriate means and efforts are employed to render it efficacious. The pul- pit is accordingly the scene where their agency is chiefly to be exerted, and the destinies of the church, so far as they are 47 concerned, are ,o bede.ermined. Let them, then, but fulfill the.r dnty, and with the accustomed favour of heaven the church ,s safe, and the perpetuity and perpetual triumph of the gospel are rendered sure. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THEORETICAL AND CONTROVERSIAL "PLAN' TO WHICH " SIN IS NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL." The theological system of " the Dvvight Professor of Theology in Yale College," is, obviously from the notices of it wiiich have been offered informer numbers, essentially incompatible with the orthodox, and its disciples, if it have any, must naturally form a new and peculiar sect. That efforts are still to be made, at least as zealously as hereto- fore, for its support and dissemination, is sufficiently appa- rent from the tone of his reply to Dr. Woods ; and to be made too, it seems to be a matter of just expectation, without any important modification of its doctrines, or amendment either in the expedients which are relied on for its support, or the spirit by which it has hitherto been characterized. A sufficient period has elapsed since its adoption and jDublication, for his views of it to have be- come thoroughly matured, and ample means and opportu- nity have been enjoyed for a settled decision respecting the validity of the objections which it has been called to en- counter; and he has also, in his numerous and labo^jred discussions, given the public adequate materials for a just 49 judgment respecting himself as a tlieologian and contro- versialist. The character, therefore, both of the system itself, and the means to which it is to owe its dissemination, may be considered as essentially fixed and developed. A brief recapitulation of its principal doctrines in their connexions with each other and relations to the gospel, and retrospect of the expedients which are employed for its de- fense and propagation, will serve still more clearly to de- velope that character, and enable those who are solicited to adopt its principles, to form a just estimate of the process through which they will be required to pass, in order to become its disciples. The first class of its doctrinal points to which I shall ad- vert, is that which relates to the attributes and agency of moral beings ; in which he has united, it will be seen, the opposite doctrines of a self-determining power of the will, and of physical depravity; and intermixed besides several other positions peculiar to himself, that are incompatible alike with those dogmas, the laws of moral agency, and the truths of revelation. The former is presented in the doctrine that from the very nature of voluntary agency, it is impossible to prove, that the Almighty Ruler himself of the universe can exert such an influence through any medium whatever on a moral being, as infallibly to sway him to obedience ; or that the supposition of his being prevented by such an influence fVom sin, will not involve a self-contradiction. But this is to assert that there is no proof that motives have any deter- mining influence on the mind in its choices, or that there is any certain connexion between their influence and the ex- ertion of the volitions which it puts forth under their agency ; and this is to assert that there is no certainty or 7 50 evidence that the mind does not determine itself in every volition wholly independently, and irrespectively of any inducement from the objects of its choice. The identity of these positions with the great essentials of Arminianism, which it was the object of President Edwards to subvert in his Enquiry into the freedom of the Will, is seen from the annexed passages from that work. He exhibits the following as the " notion of liberty" en- tertained by " Arminians, Pelagians, and others who op- pose the Calvinists." '" 1. That it consists in a self-determining power in the will, or a certain sovereignty the will has over itself and its own acts, whereby it determines its own volitions, so as not to be dependent in its dtjter- minations on any cause toithoul itself, nor determined by any thing prior to its own acts. 2. Indifference belongs to liberty in their no- tion of it, or that the mind, previous to the act of volition, be in equilibria. 3. Contiugcnce is another thing that Ijelongs and is es- sential to it ; not in the common acceptation of the word, as that has been already explained, but as opposed to all necessity, or any fixed and certain connexion with some previous ground, or reason of its ex- istence.'''' Edwards's Works, edition, 1830. Vol. ii. p. 39. The theory here stated, of a self-determining power in the will, is thus obviously precisely that of Dr. Taylor, that from the nature of moral agency, no fixed and certain con- nexion can exist between any influence which the Most High can exert on the mind, and the volitions that are put forth under it; but that after he has carried his efforts to determine its actions to the utmost possible extent, its choices may still be directly the reverse of those which he endeavours to excite. The supposition that the powers of moral agency them- s«;lvos form the sole reason of their beinu' exerted in the 51 manner in which they are, which it was President Edwards's object to refute in the following passage, is identically that also which is advanced by Dr. Taylor, and lies at the foun- dation of his hypothesis. " The question is not so much, how a spirit endowed with activity comes to act, as why it exerts such an act, and not another ; or why it acts with such a parlicular delcrminalion ? If activity of nature be the cause why a spirit, (the soul of man for instance) acts and does not lie still, yet, that alone is not the cause wliy its action is thus, and thus limited, directed, and determined. Active nature is a general thing ; it is an ability or tendency of nature to action, generally taken, which may be a cause why the soul acts as occasion or rea- son is given; but this alone cannot be a sufficient cause why tlie soul exerts such a particular act, at such a time, rather than others. In order to this, there must be something besides a general tendency to action; there must also be a parWcu/ar tendency to that individual action. If it should be asked why the soul of man uses its activity m such a manner as it does, and it should be answered, that the soul uses its activity thus, rather than otherwise, because it has activity, would such an answer satisfy a rational man ? Would it not rather be looked upon as a very impertinent one ? " That the soul, though an active substance, cannot diversify its own acts, but by first acting, or be a determining cause of different acts or any different effects, sometimes of one kind and sometimes of another, any other way than in consequence of its own diverse acts, is manifest by this : that if so, then the same cause, the same causal influence, without variation in any respect, would produce different effects at different times. For the same substance of the soul before it acts, and the same active nature of the soul before it is exerted, i. e. before in the order of nature, would be the cause of different effects, viz. different volitions at different times. But the substance of the soul before it acts, and its active nature before it is exerted, are the same without variation. For it is some act that makes the first variation in the cause, as to any causal exertion, force, or influ- ence; but if it be so, that the soul has no different causality, or di- vine causal influence; in producing these diverse effects : then it is evident that the soul has no influence in the diversity of the effect ; and that the difference of the effect cannot be owing to any thing in the soul; or which is the same thing, the soul does not determine the 52 diversity of the effect ; wliich is contrary to the supposition. It is true the substance of the soul before it acts, and before there is any difference in that respect, may be in a different state and circum- stances ; but those whom I oppose will not allow the different circum- stances of the soul to be the determining causes of the acts of the will, as being contrary to their notion of self-determination." — pp. 56, 57. That the theory here opposed by President Edwards, that the active nature of the soul, or its powers of moral agency, may solely determine the mode in which it acts, in defiance of all external influences, is the theory of Dr. Tay- lor, is seen from the following among many of the passages in which it is exhibited. " It will not be denied that free moral agents can do wrong under every possible injluence to prevent it. The possibility of a contradiction in supposing them to be prevented, is demonstratively certain. Free moral agents can do wrong under all possible preventing influence.'' "But this possibility that free agents will sin, remains (suppose what else you willj so long as moral agency remains, and how can it be proved that a thing will not be, when for aught that appears it may be.' When in view of all the farts and evidence in the cas',, it remains true that it may be, what evidence or proof can exist that it will not be.'" Christian Spectator, 1830, p. 565. The doctrine here clearly is, not only that the mind mai/ determine its choices solely by its powers of moral agencj' independent!}^ of every influence from without; but that its nature is such, that the Creator himself cannot possibly prevent Its being determined solely in that manner in its volitions. After this refutation of the hypothesis that the powers themselves of moral agency may alone determine the mode in which they are exerted, President Edwards proceeded in other passages to overthrow tiie doctrine, that the mind cannot, without an infringement of its freedom, be controlled in its volitions by -t moral influence. 53 " That every act of the will has some cause, and consequently, (by what has been already proved,) has a necessary connexion with its cause, and so is necessary by a necessity of connexion and conse- quence, is evident by this, tlfat every act of the will whatsoever is excited by some motive ; which is manifest, because, if the mind in willing after the manner it does, is excited by no motive or induce- ment, then it has no end which it proposes to itself, or pursues, in so doing ; it aims at nothing and seeks nothing. And if it seeks nothing, then it does not go after any thing, or exert any inclination or pre- ference towards any thing. Which brings the matter to a contradic- tion ; because for the mind to will something, and for it to go after something by an act of preference and inclination, are the same thing. " But if every act of the will is excited by a motive, then that mo- tive is the cause of the act. If the acts of the will are excited by mo- tives, then motives are the causes of their being excited ; or which is the same thing, the cause of their existence. And if so, the existence of the acts of the will, is properly the ejfect of their motives. Motives do nothing as motives or inducements, but by their influence ; and so much as is done by their influence, is the effect of them. For that is the notion of an effect, something that is brought to pass by the injlu- ence of something else. And if volitions are properly the effects of their ^motives, then they are necessarily connected with their motives ; every eflfect and event being, as was proved before, necessarily con- nected with- that which is the proper ground and reason of its exist- ence. Thus it is manifest, that volition is necessary, and is not from any self-determining power in the will ; the volition which is caused by previous motive and inducement, is not caused by the will exerci- sing a sovereign power over itself, to determine cause and excite voli- tions in itself. This is not consistent with the will acting in a state of indifference and equilibrium, to determine itself to a preference ; for the way in which motives operate is by biasing the will, and giving it a certain inclination or preponderation one way." p. 86, 87. The doctrine he is here endeavouring to establish, that motives are the causes of tke volitions that are put forth un- der their agency, and accordingly constitute a certainty of the exertion of those volitions, is thus identically the con- verse of Dr. Taylor's system, who teaches that it can never be made a matter of certainty by any moral influence which 54 God can bring to act on the mind, what volitions will be exerted under its agency ; and if President Edwards's state- ments and reasonings are correct, the total error of that hy- pothesis is indubitably certain : for if the motives that act on the mind, are the real and sole causes that it makes the choices which it does, and if there is in every instance an in- fallible connexion between them and the volitions which are put forth under their influence, then ii is clear that God can, by determining the motives that reach the mind, determine with absolute certainty, through their instrumen- tality, the choices also that are exerted under their agency. I add another passage from his Enquiry, in which he traces his opponent's views of moral agency to some of the absurd consequences to which they directly conduct. " One thing more I would observe concerning the inconsistence of Arminian notions of moral agency with the influence of motives. I suppose none will deny, that it is possible for such powerful motives to be set before the mind, exhibited in so strong a light, and under such advantageous circumstances, as to be invincible, and such as the mind cannot but yield to. In this case Arminians will doubtless say liberty is destroyed, and if so, then if motives are exhibited with haU' so much power, they hinder liberty in proportion to their strength, and go half way toward destroying it." p. IGl. Dr. Taylor's doctrine that God cannot exhibit such an array of motives to the mind, as to render it invincibly cer- tain that it will yield to it, without infringing its powers of moral agency, is thus again seen to be a doctrine of Ar- minianism, and one of the articles of that scheme which President Edwards assailed and endeavored to overthrow. It were easy to add further proofs of the coincidence of these systems, by a multitude of other quotations, but these render it sufficiently clear that Dr. Taylor's doctrines on 55 this subject are a mere re-production of the long exploded dogma of a self-determining power of the will, without any other alteration than a change of the terms in which it is expressed. In conjunction however with this doctrine, he likewise holds that the nature of the mind itself, while it remains un- regenerate, forms an absolute certainty that every moral in- fluence that reaches it, will prompt it to sin. Thus it is one of the chief objects of his sermon to show, that men are sinners hy nature, or in other words, that their nature itself is the cause of their sinning, and constitutes a certainty, apart from any consideration of the moral influence by which they are to be excited, that they will uniformly transgress. " Why ascribe sin exclusively to nature? I answer, it is truly and properly ascribed to nature, and not to circumstances, because all mankind sin in all the appropriate circumstances of their being. For all the world ascribe an efFect to the nature of a thing, when no possible change in its appropriate circumstances will change the effect ; or when the efFect is uniformly the same in all its appropriate circumstances." p. 13. This is an express representation that the nature itself of the mind is such, while unregenerate, as to render it invincibly certain that a disobedient volition will be put forth under every motive that can possibly be conveyed to it ; or, in other words, that such a certainty is constituted by its nature, of its sinning universally, that no moral in- fluence that God himself can possibly present to it, can ever prove the instrument of intercepting that result, and leading it to obedience. We are presented with a similar representation also in his statements and reasonings respecting " the selfish priu- 56 ciple" which he ascribes to the mind, and exhibits as laying the foundation of an immutable certainty that every mora! influence that can reach it while that continues in activity, will prompt it to transgression. " So entirely does this principle, while active in the mind, control and direct the thoughts, and modify and check all the constitutional emotions and feelings in subserviency to itself; so entirely does it employ them in the things of earth and time ; so absolutely does it enlist the whole man to secure its own gratification, protection, and perpetuity, that it shuts every avenue of the mind against the sanc- tifying approach of truth. No dungeon was ever more firmly barred, or more deeply dark than all the inner chambers of the soul when under the active tyranny of this principle. Were there no other access to the inner man except through this principle of the heart; were there nothing to which the motives of the gospel could be ad- dressed, but the hardihood of this fell spirit, no way to overcome this ' strong man' except by direct assault, then, for aught we can see, the moral transformation of the soul were hopeless even to Omnipo- tence."' Christian Spectator, 1829, p. 39. This " selfish principle" is thus exhibited on the one hand, as presenting a completely insuperable obstacle to the successful action on the mind of any motive to obedience that can possibly be conveyed to it, and on the other, as rendering it indubitably certain that every temptation will successfully excite it to sin ; or as constituting, in other words, an invincible connexion between every moral influ- ence that acts on the mind, and the exercise of sinful voli- tions under its agency. This, however, as was shown in the remarks on this subject in the sixth number of this work, is nothing else than the doctrine of physical depravity disguised under another name. We have thus the doctrine on the one hand, that the powers of moral agency are such that God can never con- 57 stltUte a ceftainty by any influence that he can exert, that the mind will in any given instance put forth a given kind of volition ; and on the other, that those powers themselves are such as to constitute a certainty that it will exert a given kind of volition in every instance of its agency while unrenewed, so absolutely invincible, that God himself can never, by any influence that he can exert on it, subvert that certainty and prompt a different choice ; and these dogmas are identically those which vi ere opposed and overthrown by Edwards, the sanction of whose name he now claims to sustain his theories ! In connexion with these erroneous and contradictory views of the attributes and actions of the mind, he has ad- vanced several other positions peculiar to himself, that are not less distinguished for inconsistency with trutii and each other. Among them is the representation that the cause from which, according to Dr. Dwight, " volitions flow," and which he employed the terms taste, tendency, and dis- position to designate, is in truth a mere preference of the ^ind, in place of a constitutional attribute, as Calvinists have held, and that accordingly there are leading choices, like that disposition in character and agency, that are perpetually exerted by the mind, as that disposition was held to dwell in it perpetually, and give birtii, like that, to all subordinate volitions that are of the same class ; thus implying that every mind is incessantly directing its atten- tion to innumerable sets of cotemporaneous perceptions, and exerting towards them as many corresponding co- existent sets of distinct and differing volitions ! In conjunction with this theory, he has also put forth the assumption in many of his reasonings, that the purpose with which the mind first directs its notice to an object. 58 determines the moral nature of all the volitions which it exerts during its continued attention to that object ; or, in other words, that there is a fixed connexion between the moral character of the first volition in a series in regard to an object, and that of the whole series ; the first impressing its exact likeness on the next in the chain, and that and each following one conveying it in like manner to its suc- cessor throughout the series. Such arc the main doctrines of this gentleman respecting the powers and laws of moral agency, and which he has made the foundation of most of his long and laboured argu- mentation on the subjects to which they relate. Whether they are any more compatible with the facts of conscious- ness and experience, and the doctrines of revelation, than they are with each other, I leave the reader to judge ; or whether they offer any better promise of " freeing the sub- ject from distressing and groundless perplexity," than those doctrines of Edwards to which they stand-opposed. The next branch of his system which I shall notice, is that which respects the divine agency and purposes. His chief doctrine on this subject, and that on which most of his other speculations in regard to it are founded, is that the nature of moral agency is such, as to render it impossible for God to exert an influence on men that shall constitute a certainty of the mode in which they will act. But this clearly implies that God cannot possess any cer- tainty in regard to the actions of his creatures, and conse- quently can have no knowledge or probability respecting the future history or ultimate results of his kingdom. But if these positions are in accordance with fact, it follows with equal certainty that he cannot have formed any purposes, or cherished any expectations respecting the events of their 59 ag'encv, except, at most, as mere possibilities. Dr. Taylor accordingly openly teaches that the divine plan only in- cludes what God himself does, in distinction alike from the holiness and happiness, and the sin and misery which are its consequences. His representations, therefore, directly deny the omnipotence and omniscience, supreme wisdom and benevolence of the Most High. If he cannot possess any certainty respecting the future actions of his creatures, he clearly cannot foreknow them, and if he cannot fore- know any of the events that are to transpire in their agency throughout their interminable existence, he not only cannot be omniscient, but his knowledge plainly can extend to only a very limited portion of the events that are to take place. But if he gave being to the universe and is main- taining it in existence, without any certainty that its final results are not to be supremely disastrous, it is equally cer- tain that he cannot have been prompted in its creation, nor can be guided in its government by eidier infinite wisdom or supreme benevolence. Dr. Taylor, still, however, professes to believe, that the divine purposes extend to all events, sin not excepted ; and resents the inquiry by Dr. Woods, whether he holds the doctrine of divine decrees in the usual sense, as an outrage for which no excuse or palliation can exist ; and would pro- bably have professed to be equally indignant had a similar inquiry been made respecting the doctrine of election, the perseverance of the saints, tlie truth of the divine promises, threatenings and predictions, or the perfection of the divine wisdom and benevolence ; as he protests while teaching those of his doctrines which are contradictory to these, that " he is not aware of any departure in any article of doc- trinal belief, from his revered instructor, the former Presi- 60 dent of the College." By what expedient, however, hU system on tiiese points is to be reconciled with tliat of Dr. Dwight, whose views are the exact reverse of his, or how the hypothesis that God's plan has no reference to the agency of his creatures, is compatible either with the belief that his purposes extend to all events, or with the doctrine of election, he has not thought pi-oper to inform his readers. Such are some of the chief doctrines of his theological system and their relations to each odier and the word of God. If we turn from these to the methods of teaching them, which he has chosen, and the expedients to which he has resorted for their defense, they will be seen to be equally peculiar and extraordinary. The most important of his views were at first ostenta- tiously put forth as recent discoveries and improvements that were adapted to produce important changes in theo- logy. Representations of this kind were not only uttered in private, and suggested to the pupils of the seminary, who universally seem to have been led to regard the sysiem as widely differing from that of the orthodox, but are distinctly set forth in most of his discussions on the subject. He says of the theory, which it is the object of his note to state and sustain, that it exhibits the only refutation, of which he has any knowledge, of the objection which it is intended to Overthrow, and that it " presents the moral government of God, as no other theory in the view of the writer does pre- sent, in its unimpaired perfection and glory, to deter from sin and allure to holiness his accountable subjects." Intimations of a similar nature are also given in his re- view on the Means of Regeneration, and repeated in his reply to Dr. Woods. 6^ . " He has discarded the dogma, that f3in consists in anj' thing dip- tinct from, or antecedent to vioral action. He has maintained that sinners never truly use the means of regeneration, except at the mo- ment of regeneration itself. He has called in question the theory " that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good ; and demanded the proof of an assumption on which this theory confessedly rests." p. 576. These claims, however, to originahty, have at other times been essentially modified or retracted, according as the pressure has been felt of the new objections which his scheme has been called to encounter, or as its ultimate in- fluence on his reputation has presented itself under " another aspect." Though a portion of his sermon was employed in endeavoring to show that his having adopted its peculiar views, could not with any fairness be ascribed to sinister motives ; thus assuming that its doctrines were essentially unlike those of his hearers ; yet when it was found that they had excited a deep distrust of his orthodoxy, he declared in the preface to the sermon, that he had "«o reason to believe that the views it contains are in any essential respect diverse from those of his brethren who heard it ;^^ that he had " no doubt," " that the general proposition" would " meet with the approbation of all who hold the fundamental doc- trines of the gospel ;" that " in regard to some of the more specific statements, he" supposed " that there is in some limited degree a semblance of controversy, rather than real fi?/'vem/y of opinion," and that he was not " aware o( any change in his own views, on these points, since he entered the ministry ; nor of any departure in any article of doctrinal belief from his revered instructor in theology, the former President of the College." And when he had become aware with what total amazement and distrust these 62 declarations were received, so inconsistent with the apolo- gies contained in the sermon itself, for his adoption of its doctrines, he sent forth his Inquiry for the purpose of show- ing how he imagined it could be made out, that he was fully "justified in disclaiming a departure from Dr. D. in any article of doctrinal belief." The object in like manner of his review of Dr. Bellamy, is to show that " his theory respecting the reasons of the admission of sin into the divine kingdom, instead of owing its origin to himself, as he had intimated in the note to the sermon in which he first gave it publicity," was taught by that writer before him ! Whether it would have been thought necessary to utier any of these protestations, or resort to any of these eflbits to vindicate himself from the suspicion of having abandoned the orthodox faith, had his system been welcomed b}' the clergy and churches, as an essential improvement, and as entitling him to " the praise which our admiration confers on the highest intellectual attainments," the reader must judge. How the statement that " he has discarded the dogma that sin consists in any thing distinct from, or antecedent to moral action," is to be interpreted, it is not easy to see. If the meaning is, that after having himself held and taught the doctrine of physical depravity for many years, he lias at length discarded it from his system ; how is it to be re- conciled with his statement, " that he is not aware of any rhange in his own views on these points since he entered the ministry.''" If the meaning is, that he was the first to dis- card that doctrine, and teach that there is no sin except in volitions, how is it to be reconciled with the fact that this latter doctrine had been taught in Yale College, and was held bv at least most of the class of tlieological students 63 who left that institution one or two years before he began to change his views on the subject ? a fact well known to the officers and graduates connected with the College at that period, and perfectly well known to himself Or how IS it to be reconciled with the fact that it had been for near half a century, though in a diflerent connexion, a prominent article in the theological system taught in New-England i which is usually denominated the exercise scheme ? What however after all, does his rejection of the doctrine of physical depravity amount to ? Nothing of the least sig- nificance beyond a mere change of phraseology. He has simply spread the term "moral action" back over the scheme of a constitutional and permanent cause of sin, and left that cause itself in existence, in all Its strength and ac- tivity, as a universal attribute of human nature ; and has added to this theory, moreover, the dogma of an innumera- ble multitude of permanent volitions in the mind, that pos- sess all the power and exert the agency which were ascribed by Dr. Dwight and President Edwards to the constitution- al cause or disposition from which, according to their theory, volitions flow, and derive their moral character. These are all the " more accurate distinctions," tlfat he has introduced into this subject. The rejection of the dogma of physical depravity is not among the improvements to which he has given birth, nor is the adoption of the doc- trine that sin is an attribute of actions only, in the sense in which it has been advanced in the pages of this work. His representations are as widely variant from that, as is the doc- trine of physical depravity itself. And they who simply re- ject this latter theory, and adopt the doctrine that sin is an attribute of voluntary actions only, no more become thereby the disciples of his system, than they do of the scheme of di- 64 vine efficiency, or any other dogma with which that theory has no necessary connexion. His discussions have been marked from their commence- ment to their close, with a singular absence of every thing like proofs, especially from the scriptures, of the truth of his system. That nothing like a demonstration of any of the er- roneous dogmas which are wrought into his speculations, has been presented by him, was indeed a matter of necessi- ty. It might however have been expected that one who had so thoroughly persuaded himself of their truth, as to ofler them to the public as the dictates of reason or revelation that are more happily fitted than any others to disentangle the subject from " distressing perplexity," and " exhibit the moral government of God in its unimpaired perfection and glory," would have been able to advance something in the shape of reasons for its support. He has scarcely however done as much even as that. The most efficient claims which he has offered in its favor, are founded on the alleged ignorance of those whose views he has assailed, and these claims themselves, as has been seen, and as he indeed ad- mits, are nothing but the "objections" of mere "ignorance" which he has himself pronounced utterly " incompetent" to the task which he has employed it to perform. His views seem not only to have been adopted without any sufficient evidence of their accuracy, but also to have been put forth with but very inadequate apprehensions of the principles on which they are founded, and conclusions to which they are adapted to carry him, and consequently with but a very in- sufficient preparation for the objections with which they have had to contend. And such has been also very obviously at every step of his progress, and still is the fact. No other supposition can explain the extraordinary want of consist- eiuy which has characterised his discussions. 65 Thus he clearly appears not to have been aware that in the second part of his sermon, which was employed in show- ing in what sense he regards men as sinners by nature, he was openly reasserting one of the principal features of the doctrine of physical depravity ; nor that in his reasoning in his note in respect to one of the " groundless assumptions," he was literally and directly disproving his statements and argumentation respecting the other. He was, doubtless, equally unaware that in conjoining his admission that his theory is a mere " hj^pothetical statement," which, for aught he knows at least, is utterly incapable of proof, with the posi- tive assertion that no one can ever prove the truth of the op- posite theory ; he fully conceded to the cavillers at the di- vine conduct whom he was opposing, the impossibility of refuting their objections ; and he was, possibly, equally un^ conscious that in all the great principles of his theory and reasonings for its support, in place of meeting the enemies of " divine decrees and revelation," he was merely " hum- bly" walking in " the broad footsteps" of the great cham- pions of Arminianism, the imputation of whose sentiments to him, he resents as so causeless and unjust. His views of some of the subjects of which he has had oc- casion to treat, seem to have fluctuated very essentially when events have led him to contemplate them " under another aspect." When he had occasion to demonstrate the exact coincidence of President Edwards's views with his own, respecting the nature and cause of sin, he assured us that *' nothing appears" in what Edwards says on that sub- ject " like the doctrine that a propensity or tendency to sin belongs to human nature as a substantial attribute," and that " it is perfectly consistent with his notion of tendency to sin, that it should depend on man's external circumstances, 66 and wholly cease by a change in these circumstances." In hisConcio ad Clerum, however, lie presents precisely the op- posite representation of the Calvinistic doctrine on that subject. " What, then, are we to understand when it is said that mankind are depraved by nature? I answer — that such is their nature, that they will sin, and only sin in all the appropriate circumstances of their being. . " To bring this part of the subject distinctly before the mind, it may be well to remark, that the question between the Calvinists and tiie Arminians on the point is this — whether the depravity or sinfulness of mankind is truly and properly ascribed to their nalure, or to their circumstances of temptation ? And since as it must be confessed, there can no more be sin without circumstances of temptation, than there can be sin without a nature to be templed, why ascribe sin exclu- sively to nature .' I answer — it is truly and properly ascribed to na- ture and not to circumstances, because all mankind sin in all the ap- propriate circumstances of their being. For all the world ascribe an effect to the nature of a thing, when no possible change in its ap- propriate circumstances will change the effect ; or when the effect is uniformly the same in all its appropriate circumstances." p. 13. From these representations it is apparent that unless he regards Edwards as having held the same theory on this subject, as the Arminians whom he was opposing, his views of the Calvinistic doctrine respecting it, have under- gone an entire revolution since he penned the first of these passages ! a singular subject, certainly, for such totally contradictory apprehensions and statements, by one who has made it so frequently the theme of controversy, and who thinks it " proper to remark that he is not aware of any change in his own views on these points since he entered the ministry !" His representations respecting several other topics, have exhibited mental lluctuations and revolu- tions equally extraordinary. Thus, at one time, the schen>c 67 of physical depravity has been exhibited as the prevalent doctrine of New-England, and as constituting a most for- midable obstruction to the influence of the gospel. At another, however, all respectable Calvinistic writers, both there and elsewhere, have been represented as entirely agreeing with him in what he regards as the rejection of that doctrine ; and none, it has been intimated, have ever thought of imputing it to them, except a few orthodox bre- thren who have fallen into " Arminian and Unitarian" er- rors, in interpreting the language in which it is supposed to be expressed. No indications have hitherto been seen that the criticisms to which his disquisitions have been subjected, have proved of any service to him. Each of his discussions on these topics has been made the subject of animadversion ; and to say nothing of the observations on them, which have been offered by myself, a multitude of mistakes in his definitions, statements and reasonings, and many essential errors, have been pointed out by his clerical brethren. Not a solitary topic of importance has passed under his discussion, respecting which it has not been shown beyond confutation, that he has fallen into fatal and palpable mistakes, and involved himself in inextricable inconsistencies. Not the slightest benefit, however, it would seem, has been derived by him from these important aids. Not a solitary concession has escaped him on any of the topics in regard to which he has erred, nor any indication of a wish to avert the injuries which his mis- conceptions are adapted to occasion. In place of gladly correcting the errors of his specula- tions, when pointed out to him, his method has been, in some instances, to pass them in silence, or simply reassert- ing the accuracy of his views, to treat them as though no 68 objections liad been alleged against them ; as in regard to the incompatibility demonstrated by Dr. Woods, of his theory respecting the limitation of divine power, both with the doctrine of God's universal providence, and with induce- ments to prayer : objections obviously of the utmost impor- tance, and utterly unavoidable by any other expedient than the abandonment of his theory. Instead, liowever, of at- tempting to elude them, he has pi-eferred simply to assert, that " the providential government of God" and *' the uni- versality of ins providential purposes are not obscured" by his system : but that they " extend to all events on this scheme, and/orwi ilie same basis for submission and prayer, confidence and joy, under the perfect dominion of God, which exists on the other." In other instances, when urged by " the pressure of new objections," he has chosen to shift his ground, and ascrib- ing new and arbitrary significations to his language, and objects to his reasoning, to affirm that it is only by miscon- cepti( 1 or misrepresentation that they are interpreted in the sense in which they were originally used. A signal exam- ple of this is seen in the pretence that he offered his theory re- specting the admission of sin into the universe as a mere hypo- thesis or conjecture, without pretending positively to express any opinion in respect to its truth ; while at the same time he not only employed it to vindicate the conduct of God from objection, and declared it to be in his judgment the only tiieory which can solve the difficulties of the divine admin- istration, but affirmed that there is no medium between adopting it, and assenting to the dogma which he professes to discard, that " sin is the. necessary means of the greatest good " Another singular measure to which "he has resorted i'or the purpose of shielding his speculations from objection, is 60 aw attempt to siiow that he is fully sanctioned in them |jy most of the distinguished writers of New-England, and the pretense that they enjoy the approval of many of the most conspicuous and popular ministers of the present day. Thus while professing that he " has discarded the dogma that sin consists in any thing distinct from, or antecedent to moral action," and " called in question the theory that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good," he has laboured more strenuously than for almost any other purpose, to de- monstrate, that in place of having deviated on these topics from Calvinistic theologians, the views of Calvin, the West- minster divines, Edwards andDwight on the former, and Bel- lamy on the latter topic, are in coincidence with his OAvn. In order however to give color to these pretenses, he has found it necessary to institute a number of new and extraordinary laws of interpretation, the most important of which is that which he denominates " the true usnsloquendi," which teach- es that the language itself of a writer, should never have any decisive voice in determining what the sentiments are which It is employed to express; but that its interpreters should be wholly guided in their judgment respecting its import, by the views which they themselves entertain of the subject of which it treats ; a rule doubtless well adapted to the exi- gency for which it was devised, and the only one by which he could impart any show of truth to his representations re- specting the doctrines of Edwards, Bellamy and Dwight ; but which would annihilate at once all certainty respecting the meaning of language, and render it as easy to discover any one set of doctrines in an author as any other. When no other expedient has promised an escape from the difficulties of his condition, he has ventured to turn round and boldly disavow his statements and reasonings, and claim that they were solely meant to express the opiniojis of his 70 opponents, in place of liis own. Of this a conspicuous ex- ample is seen in the follovvine; passage. " But wc have one tiling more to add respecting Dr. Taylor's in- quiry, ' Can it be proved from facts that God could secure any of his moral creature? in holiness without this influence?' (i. e. of the pun- ishment of sin.) Dr. Woods supposes Dr. Taylor in this question to affirm that it could not he done. But the contrary is obvious from the whole tenor of his remarks. He was simply reasoning with his op- ponents on their own principles ; the argument was exconcessisy * You maintain (what 1 do not) that God prefers sin to holiness in its stead. On your principles then I ask, may not God have chosen to admit the existing sin into the system as the best means of securing his obe- dient kingdom in perpetual allegiance .'' May not Ihis be the good in view of which he chose not to prevent sin .'' Jf so, then the reason of the choice is a different one from that which you assign. And un- til you prove that this was nut the reason, you cannot affirm that sin entered the system as ' the necessary means of the greatest good.' Dr. Woods then has confounded an argument ex concessis, with a statement of Dr. Taylor's opinion on this subject ; and has triumphed greatly in the complete overthrow of his opponent, by that which has no existence, except in the inaccuracy of his own conceptions." " But we have shown (p. .551) that the sup|)osition alluded to by Dr. W., viz. ' that the sin of some might be necessary to secure the holiness of others,' was no part of Dr. T.'s scheme; that he made it merely as an argument ex concesais, which was fatal to his opponent, while he himself places his reliance on a very different supposition." Christian Spectator for September, If!;30, p. 5,'jl, 556. He thus solemnly assures us, that in place of being em- ployed in the passage here referred to, in expressing his own sentiments, he was simply and professedly stating the views of his opponents, and reasoning from them for the purpose of refuting their theory ; and that this was so clearly the fact as to render Dr. Woods' construction of his language and object an inexcusable and most discreditable error. The argument, in respect to which he ofters this asseveration, is that in the last paragraph of the following passage. 71 " Is there then the least particle of evidence, that the entire pre- vention of sin in moral beings is possible to God in the nature of things .'" •' All evidence of the truth of this assumption must be derived either from the nature of the subject, or from known facts. Is there such evidence from the nature of the subject? It is here to be re^ marked, that the prevention of sin by any influence that destroys the power to sin, destroys moral agency. Moral agents then must pos- sess the power to sin. Who then can prove, a prion, or from the na^ ture of the subject, that a being who can sin, will not sin ? How can it be proved, a 2>non, or from the nature of the subject, that a thing will noihe, when, for aught that appears, it may be? On this point is it presumptuous to bid defiance to the powers of humau reason ? " Is there any evidence from facts ? Facts, so far as they are known to us, furnish no support to the assumption that God could, in a moral system, prevent all sin, or even the present degree of pin For we know of no creature of God, whose holiness is secured with- out that influence which results either directly or indirectly from the existence of sin and its punishment. How then can it be shown from facts, that God could secure any of his moral creatures in holi- ness, without this influence; or to what purpose is it to allege in- stances of the prevention of sin under this influence, to prove tliat God could prevent it without this influence ? Rather do not all knov/n facts furnish a strong presumption to the contrary ? If God could prevent all sin without this influence, why has he not done it? Be this, however, as it may, since God has not, so far as we know, prevented sin in a single instance without this influence, how can it be proved from facts, that he could have prevented all sin, or even the present degree of sin in a moral system ? Had his creatures done what they could, then indeed there had been more holiness and less sin. But the question is, vi^hat could God have done to secure such a result ? Had he prevented the sins of one human being to the present time, or had he brought to repentance one sinner more than he has, who can prove that the requisite interposition for the purpose would not result in a vast increase of sin in the system, includino- even the apostacy and augmented guilt of that individual. In a word, who is competent to foretell, or authorized even to surmise the consequences of the least iota of change in the present system of in- fluence to produce holiness and prevent sin ? If no one, then all as- sumptions on the subject, like that under consideration, are wholly 72 uruvarrantetl. It may be true, that God will secure, under the pre- sent systom of" things, the greatest degree of holiness and the least degree of sin, which it is possible to him in the nature of things to secure. Neither the nature of the subject nor known facts, furnish a particle of evidence to the contrary. The assumption, therefore, that God could, in a moral system, have prevented all sin, or the pre- sent degree of sin, is wholly gratuitous and unauthorized, and ought never to be made the basis of an objection or an argument." Ser- mon, p. 32,33. Were tlie language and reasoning of this passage to fonn the sole ground of our judgment respecting his design in it, it would be a matter of some difficidty to find any materials for the conclusion, that he was professedly express- ing in it the sentiments of his opponents in place of his own, and endeavouring to convince them by tracing their system to its legitimate results, that it is fraught with the means of its own subversion ! To appreciate the difficulties which obstruct such a judgment, it should be noticed that no disagreement exists as to the fact that, as Dr. Woods represented, he actually proceeded in the argument on the liypothesis that " sin is the necessary means of the greatest good ;" as this fact he expressly concedes and affirms in the passage in which he disclaims the doctrine itself of that assumption. " He was simply reasoning," he says, " with his opponents on their own principles; the argument was ex roncessis ;^^ and the concession from which he argued, he states, was the doctrine " that God prefers sin to holi- ness in its stead ;" whilst the object of the reasoning from it was, he assures us, to show the possibility that God may " have chosen to admit the existing sin into the system, as the best means of securing his obedient kingdom in per- petual allegiance ;" and the proof which he alleged to de- monstrate that possibility, was the considieration, as he aflirms, " that as God has not, as I'ur as we know, pre- 73 vented sin in a single instance without this influence, i. e. of the punishment of sin," there are no " facts" from which it can be proved " that he could have prevented all sin, or the present degree of sin," nor that " had he prevented the sins of one human being to the present time, or had he brought to repentance one sinner more than he has, the re- quisite interposition for the purpose would not have re- sulted in a vast increase of sin in the system, including even the apostacy and augmented guilt of that individual." The argument itselfj therefore, indisputably from his express re- presentation, proceeded on the assumption that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good. The sole question to be determined respecting it then is, whether any evidences exist in the passage, or its argument will permit the belief, that he was simply reasoning in it trom the principles of his opponents, in distinction from his own, and for the purpose of overthrowing their scheme. To form a just judgment on the subject, it should be re- marked, in the first place, that the passage itself does not exhibit any indication whatever that he was merely arguing in it ex concessis, in the manner he now represents. A reader who should neglect to compare the passages, .would, as a matter of course, infer from the fact that the usual marks of quotation are affixed to the sentences, " You maintain (what I do not)" &.c. — transcribed above from the Spectator, in which he professes to repeat the argument in the note to the sermon, — that they are actually taken as they purport to be, from that argument, and present, accordingly, decisive proof of the truth of his representation respecting it. No such statement, however, or language, nor any thing bear- ing any resemblance to theni, exists in that passage, and the whole pretense that it is a quotation is a deception. " Not 10 7^ a hint is jj^iven" in that part of the note, "that the supposi- tion" on which he there proceeded, "that the sin of some might be necessary to secure the holiness of others, icas no part of Dr. TJ's scheme ; that he made it merely as an argu- ment ex doncessis, which was fatal to his opponent, tohile lie places his reliance on a very different supposition.'''' (p. 536.) The whole aspect of the passage, on the contrary, is ps clearly and exclusively indicative that the views which it expresses are his own, and meant to be exhibited as such, as is that of any other passage in the sermon or note ; and to have attributed to him any other intention in it, M'ould have been as utterly unauthorized and unjustifiable, as it would be arbitrarily to impute to him a false design in any other portion of his discussions. This, however, is one of the least of the difficulties with which his representation is perplexed. A more formidable objection to it is, that the con- clusion which it ascribes to the argument in the note, is essentially different from that which it is in fact the object of his reasoning there to sustain. 'As he represents in his professed quotation of it, the object of that argument is to show, that, on the principles of his opponents, God may have " chosen to admit the existing sin into the system, as the best means of securing his obedient kingdom in per- petual allegiance :" not because he could not prevent the admission of that sin. In place of that, however, the object at which the argument in the note aims is, to show that " the assumption that God could in a moral system have prevented all sin, or the pr£sent degree of sin, is wholly gratuitous and unauthorized, and ought never to be made the basis of an objection or an argument ;" and " the repre- sentation" that no one " can prove that the requisite inter- position for the purpose" of preventing the " sins of one 7.0 human being- to the present lime," or bringing " to repen- tance one sinner more than he has," "would not result in a vast increase of sin in the system," instead of being the ultimate point which it was his efibrt to sustain, was simply the poo/ which he offered to show that it could not be de- monstrated from facts, that God could have prevented all sin, or the present degree of sin. In place of a just exhibi- tion of his reasoning therefore, he has in his pretended quo- tation of it, mistaken his evidence for his conclusion, and substituted the proof of the inference, which he was labour- ing to support, for the inference itself, which that proof was employed to sustaiia ! A still more perplexing objection to his representation is, "that in place of exhibiting the reasoning in the passage as an argument, ex concessis, or of any other species, it con- verts it into a piece of sheer tautology, without either logic or sense ; the inference deduced from the concession, being a mere* repetition of the concession itself, instead of a relative proposition. The position conceded by his op- ponents, from which he professes to reason is, that "God prefers sin to hoUnessin its stead," because it is "the neces- sary means of the greatest good ;" for he admits that they regard that as the ground on which "sin entered the system." But the inference also which he deduces from this position is, that " the7i'' God may " have chosen to admit the existing sin into the system as the best means of securing his obedient kingdom in 'petpetual allegiance f -^ that is, because it is " the necessary means of the greatest good ;" — a mere repetition of the conceded position itself, in place, of a different one obtained from it by logical de- duction ; an argument ex concessis truly ! But his final step in the reasoning is still more extraordina- ry. " May not this,'' he says, " be the good in view of which 7G he chose not to prevent sin ? If so, llien tlie reason of the clioice is a diflcrcnt one from that which voii assign:" that is, if the reason of the choice is in truth what you allege ; then instead of being that, it " is a different one from that which you as- sign !" '* And until you prove that this was not the reason, you cannot affirm that sin entered the system, as ' the neces- sary means of the greatest good :' that is, in other words, initil you prove that the reason which you assign, is not tiie true reason ofnts admission into the system, you cannot affirm that it is the true reason of its admission .! or more succinctly still — you cannot affirm your theory to be true, until you have proved it to be false ! The argument at large is thus equivalent to the following. A being con- , ceded to be A, it follows that A is A. Wherefore, until it' is proved that it is not, it cannot be affirmed that it is ! By most who " deserve the praise which our admiration confers on the highest intellectual attainments," this would proba- bly be thought to be a iion seqidtur. Not so, howeVfer, with " the Dwight professor of theology in Yale College." He solemnly assures us, that. this is his argument in the passage in the note in question ; and " that he made it merely as au argument ex concessis, which was fatal to his opponent.^^ A further difficulty with which his representation is per- plexed, is, that both the essential thoughts, and the reason- ing of the note, which he disclaims, are Ukewise exhibited in the passage itself of the sermon to which the note refers ; where they are indisffutably employed to express his own sentiments. The passage is the following : " Do you then say that God gave man a nature, which, he knew would lead him to sin ? What if he did f Do you know tliat God could havo done better, better on the whole, or better if he gave him exis- tence at all, rve;i for the individual hinipclf The error lies in the 77 gratuitoMs assumption that God could have adopted a moral system, and prevented all sin, or at least the present degree of sin. For no man knows this — no man can prove it. The assumptiontherefore is wholl}' unauthorized as the basis of the present objection, and the objection itself groundless. On the supposition that the .evir which exists is, in respect to divine prevention, incidental to the best po.ssi- ble system, and that notwithstanding the evil,- GcJd will securethe greatest good possible to him to secure, who can impeach either his wisdom or his goodness, because evil exists .'' I say then, that as igno- rance is incompetent to make an objection, and as no one knows that this supposition is not a matter of fact, no one has a right to assert the contrary, or even to think it. Suppose then God had adopted a different system, who is competent to foretell or to conjecture the re- sults— or even the results of one iota of chango in the present .'■ystem ? Suppose God had made you just like Adam, or even like Lucifer,' and placed you in similai; circumstances, do you know that you would nut have sinned as he did? How do you know that had you commenced your'immortal career with such aggravated:.guilt, God would not have found it necessary to send you to hell without an offer of mercy, and that you would not have sunk in deeper wo than that wliic!) now awaits you? How do you know that what might have been true re- pecting yourself, had not been true of any otl^er possible system of accountable beings ? How do you know that had God ordered things otherwise than he has, this very world, now cheered with the palls of mercy and brightened with the hopes of eternal life, yea, that heaven itself would not now be trembling under the thunders of retri- butive vengeance?" Sermon, p. 29 — 33. We have thus, in the s6rmon itself, in the passage to which the note#refers, every important qiierj*, intimation, state- ment, and conchision, that constitutes that part of the note which he now disclaims ! We are not only assured as positively as in the note, that "the assumption that God could have adopted a system and prevented all sin, or at least the present degree of sin," is gratuitous and incapable of proof; but the same consideration is alleged to support that assertion ; the assurance that there is no ground for the conclusion, that bad God pursued any other course of 78 aflmlnlstration than he has, or departed an iota from l^is present system, a far greater sum of shi would not have re- sulted from it, and possibly the general apostacy of his kingdom : in other words, thjit there are no materials for proving that those evils have not been prevented solely by the influence exerted by the punishment of sin ; and that is, that there are no evidences that God may not " have chosen to admit the existing sin into the system, as the best means of securing his obedient kingdom in perpetual allegiance." But the difficulty of assenting to his statement is consum- mated by the fact, that he repeatedly employs'these repre- sentations in the review itself also, in which he disclaims them, and professes that they contain " no part of his scheme !" Thus he says in reference to that part of the note,- and partially quoting its language : " Dr. Taylor asked, on the supposition that God liad prevented «uiy past sin, who can prove that the requisite interposition for the pur- pose would not result in a vast increase of sin in the universe ? Now this is a main question — a question on the face of it, fitted to show how ahsolutely naked ai'e the assumptions of Dr. Woods, and of others. For how do they know, how can they prove — what can au- thorize them to assert that the least iota of change in God's appointed system of moral influence, would not have resulted in a vast increase of sin ? We say man is too ignorant to make assertions to the con- trary." p. 554. ^ The representation here, is thus indisputably fully equi- valent to that which he imputes to his opponents, and dis- claims as expressing his own opinion. Tf no one is autho- rized to assert or assume, that the least iota of change in God's appointed system of moral influence, would not have resulted in a vast increase of sin in the system ; there must be an equal certainty that no one can have any authority for tiip assertion or assumption, that the reason of God's not 79 introducing any such change, is not, that the admission of " the existing sin into the" system," is "the best means of securing his obedient kingdom in perpetual allegiance ;" nor that the permission of " the sin of soine," is not " ne- cessary to secure the holiness of others." I add one more passage : '' We will, however, for the sake of bringing Dr. Woods to the real question, go still further — we will sUppjose that God, if he had pleased, could have prevented all sin in the Jiuvian race for ever. But how does this prove that he cculd have kept all sin out o^h.\s immense moral kingdom 1 No one doubts that God can prevent some moral agents from einning ; but how does this prove that he could have prevented all.' How does it prove that if he had changed the system as he must by other interpositions, in order to have prevented any from sinning whom he has not prevented, there would not have been as the con- sequence immeasurably more sin, than will exist under the present system as it is ? Now this is the question which must be answered, let all subordinate questions be answered as they may. This is the real question as presented by Dr. Taylor, and in the most explicit manner. After saying of one supposition, ' be this as it may' (and thus showing that he did not place his reliance on that,) he says, but the question is — what could God have done to secure more holiness and less sin in a moral system ? This is the task then which devolves on Dr. Woods, viz. to prove that God could have kept all sin, or the present degree of sin, out of a universal moral system." p. 562. The passage in the note to which he here refers and partially quotes, is the following. " If God could prevent all sin without this influence," (i. e. of the punishment of sin,) " why has he not done if ? Be this, however, as it may, since God has not, so far as we know, prevented sin in a single instance without this influence, how can it be proved from facts that be could have prevented all sin, or even the present degree of sin, in a moral system ? Had his creatures done what they could, then in- deed there had been more holiness and less sin. But the question is, what could God have done to secure such a result.'' Had he pre- 80 vented the sins of one human being to the present time, or bad he brought to repentance one sinner mofc tlian lie has, who can prove that the requisite interposition for the purpose, would not result in a vast increase of sin in the system^ including even the apostacy and augmented guilt of that individual?" p. 33. „!• If his language have any just meaning, and his argu- mentation any intelligible object, these passages are indis- putably, in every essential particular, fully equivalent to each other. In place of there being a new and diflerent " supposition" introduced in the latter, between the remark, " be this as it may," and the statement, " but the question is, what could God have done to secure such a result ;" ^e' supposition on which he founds the last inquiry, is ob- viously identically the same as that on which he had be- fore proceeded. The only diflerence is, that the object of his former question is to know how it can be proved from fact^, that God could have prevented all sin, or the present degree of sin, without the influence derived from punish- ment ; and that of the latter, how it can be proved that had he dispensed with that influence, in any degree or instance, by preventing a7ii/ one, or number of the particular sins vihich he note suffers men to commit, it would not have re- 'sidted in an increase, in place of a diminution, of the gene- ral sum of sin. The ground then, and object of his in- quiries, in each of these instances, his terms, his argument, and his meaning, are identically the same ; and in avowing and repeating the latter, as he lias, as presenting the real and whole question at issue between him and Dr. Woods, and affirming' that neither Dr. W. nor any one else can refute the assumption on which he proceeds in it, he has given the most abundant evidence that in penning it origi- nally in the note, in place of reasoning ex concessis, he was 81 as truly and exclusively employed iii exlubiting liis own views, and prompted in it by as perfect a confidence in their accuracy, as he was in the composition of the above pas- sages in th« Spectator, in which he repeats and unequivo- cally sanctions its language and reasoning, as expressing his own opinion ! From these considerations it is apparent, that all the facts and appearances in the case are wholly against his statement, that he offered the queries and assertions of the note in question, " merely as an argument ex concessis," as completely as they can be against a similar pretense in respect to any other passage in his discussions ; and that accordingly, if we are guided in our judgment respecting it by the usual laws of evidence, we shall reject his state- ment, and regard him as having penned the passage for the sole purpose of expressing his own, in place of the opinions of his opponents. If, on the other hand, disregarding these facts, we assent to his statement, we shall then be forced to the conclusion, that no assurance can be felt that his genuine intentions in any of his language can ever with any certainty be known. His own asseverations then)selves obviously can never add any confirmation either to our convictions or doubts respecting his meaning ; as no cer- tainty can be possessed that they may not also be disclaimed, invested with a new signification, or converted into, a statement of his opponents' opinions, whenever the " pres- sure of new objections" may require such a course in order to their " effectual refutation !" Such are the principal characteristics of this gentleman's theoretical and controversial "plan." The essentials of his theoretical system, consist, it is seen, of three great articles : the denial on the one hand, of the possibilitv of God's go- n 82 verning his creatures, or constituting a certainty of the man- ner in which they will act ; and consequently a denial of all the doctrines of reason and revelation which assert or imply his supreme dominion over them, and the causes that influ- ence their agency : the assertion on the other, that a cause is lodged in their physical nature, which, while they remain unregenerate, constitutes an invincible certainty that they will sin in all their agency : and finally the theory of an in- numerable congeries of permanent volitions and perceptions in the mind, as causes of all transient and subordinate voli- tions. His controversial " plan" consists of a single element — the assumption and exercise of the right of ascribing to his own, and the language of others, precisely whatever mean- ing his wants and wishes at any stage of his progress in controversy, may happen to require. From these characteristics, then, of the system, it is suffi- ciently apparent, that its disciples, if it have any, must soon- er or later secede from their present connexions, and form a distinct sect. To imagine that the orthodox can ever con- found this hideous mass of error and absurdity, with what they regard as the essential doctrines of the gospel, or per- suade themselves that the process through which its disciples must pass, in order to become its admirers and propaga- tors, can be best adapted to fit them to be ministers of Christ, were alike an aflront to Christianity and to them. Nothing more can be requisite to accomplish the exclusion of its adherents from the ranks of the orthodox, than a clear discernment of the import and tendency of its doctrines ; nor any thing more to lead its disciples to an open seces- sion from that body, and disavowal of the evangelical sys- tem, than a distinct perception of the conclusions to whick 83 tiieir principles f\re fitted to carry them, and courage and consistency to follow them to their legitimate results. How, if they comprehend the import of their dogmas, can they continue to believe or profess the doctrines of efficacious grace, while they openly deny the possibility of God's ex- erting an influence that shall possess any efficacy in determi- ning the actions of men ? How can they continue to main- tain a real or apparent faith in the doctrines of God's pur- poses, and fore-knowledge, election and perseverance, while they formally deny the possibility of his constituting a cer- tainty of a future event in the agency of his creatures, and thence of his possessing any knowledge of their future char- ter and destiny. It is clearly impossible. They only need intellect and light enough to pass through the simplest and most unavoidable process of which the mind is capable — -the perception of the equality of equal or coincident proposi- tions— to be carried inevitably by their system, if they ad- here to it, to the rejection of every doctrine and declaration of the gospel that relates in any degree to the future char- acter and condition of dependent intelligences. It will carry them likewise with equal certainty to the disbe- lief of most of the natural and moral attributes of the Deity. It denies on the one hand the possibility of God's preventing sin in any instance in which it takes place ; and on the other, that the reason that he permits it, is, that it is better to permit it, than it would be to prevent it, were that practi- cable J and thence exhibits its existence, as the ground of more evil immeasurably, than the good which is made to result from it. These positions therefore, united, represent the Most High as creating and upholding innumerable multitudes of beings, whose existence and agency, after all his efforts to counteract their evil influences, are infinitely 84 detrimental to liis kingdom. Ifsncli however is the fact, it obviously detracts equally from the perfection of his natu- ral attributes and moral character. How in any consisten- cy with them, can it be accounted for, that he creates and sustains those beings, or any of them ? Does he perfectly foresee from the beginning all the events of their existence, their successful resistance of his efforts to govern them, and the immense and lasting injury which they inflict on his em- pire ? For what reason then is it that he gives them being ? Is it from some motive presented by the effects of their exis- tence ? If so, it must obviously be, either from some moral good that can be made to result from their agency, by the counteracting efforts of his wisdom, or else from delight in that agency itself, or its punishment. The former, however, the system expressly denies ; and to assert the latter, is to deny alike the wisdom and benevolence of God. To escape then this detraction of his character, is it assumed — as the scheme necessarily implies — that he does not and cannot foresee the events of their agency, and thence that he gives them existence and upholds them, in total uncertainty of all that is future in their history, but with the intention of ma- king every effort in his power to secure them in holiness and happiness, and with the hope of success ? But this denial of his prescience involves an equally fatal impeachment of his character. For it not only divests all the promises? predictions and threatenings of his word, which have any reference to the actions of his creatures, of every shade of veracity, but denies his knowledge of immeasurably the greatest portion of the future events which most intimately concern his happiness and glory, and thence sweeps from our grasp, every certainty of his wisdom and goodness. What but infinite presumption and folly could it be to create a universe of agents, and maintain them in being, without any power whatever of controlling their conduct, or foresee- ing or conjecturing what consequences were to result from their existence ; and thence without any certainty or proba- bility that they might not be infinitely disastrous to himself and to them! The great principles of the system will thus inevitably carry its disciples, if they follow it to its legiti- mate results, to an open and total denial of the most essen- tial of the natural and moral attributes of God, and all the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. If they admit his pre- science of future events, they must deny his wisdom and goodness ; if they give up his fore-knowledge, they must likewise deny his veracity, and impute to him infinite reck- lessness in place of benevolence, and exhibit him as infinite- ly presumptuous, instead of wise. JEREMIAH EVARTS. Important aids in theological inquiries are often ob- tained, by turning aside from abstract investigations of the sacred volume, to the exemplifications that occur in the providence of God, of the great principles of his administra- tion, and the practical illustrations of the spirit and power of religion that are seen in the lives of his children. A field for such observations, singularly instructive and attract- ing, is presented in the mental endowments, moral charac- teristics, and beneficent career of the late Jeremiah Evarts, Corresponding Secretary of the American Board of Com- missioners for Foreign Missions. He entered on his existence a brief period since, without any extraordinary superiority of endowments or advantages of condition, and had all his knowledge to acquire, his cha- racter to form, and his influence to exert, on the principles that are common to the race at large. While, however, multi- tudes who commenced their career cotemporaneously with him, on the same great theatre, and under the action of essen- tially the same species of causes, are passing, or have passed through life, without making their advantages the means of any important utility to themselves, or themselves the instru- ments of any signal benefit to others, he made the gifts and opportunities with which he was favored, the means of emi- nent good to himself and usefulness to his fellow men, advanced himself to eminence in mental cultivation, useful 87 knowledge and energy and elevation of character, became adequate to the various and important exigencies of his life, and by his wide and benificent influence, made himself a blessing to the church, a benefactor to tbe world, and an ornament to the race. Where then lay the secret of his success ? — a question worthy to attract the attention of every aspirant after excel- lence and usefulness. What are the peculiar causes to which it is to be traced, and the great principles .which con- ducted him to its attainment? Every thing in his career is not indeed to be regarded as the result of some peculiarity in him, or the sole product of his efforts. The chief field of his agency, and thence in a degree the extent of his useful- ness, were not exclusively of his creation ; the contrivance, institution, and support of the great Missionary Enterpise, which formed the principal theatre of his labours, having been common to him with many others ; and the ag6ncy to which he was called by it, having contributed as much per- haps to render him what he was, as he contributed to give to that enterprise its character and efficiency. He doubtless could never have exerted the influence which he did, nor been what he became, had not the hand of Providence placed him in a condition making large demands like that, on his intellect and heart, and oftering powerful excitements to cultivation, and superior facilities for usefulness. Still it is to him that we are to look for the grounds of his having become so eminently qualified for that station, and for his having made so wise and successful a use of the favorable influences which it brought with it. These are doubtless to be seen in his constitutional peculiarities, mental habits, and moral principles. I. Of the former of these, one of the most conspicuous was the felicitous adaptation to each other, of his mental 88 powers and susceptibilities ; or the happy adjustment of the energy of his aftections to the strength of his intellect — a peculiarity of constitution eminently propitious to a success- ful development of the mind, and the formation of a useful character. The diversities in the original constitutions of men in this respect, are perhaps, as numerous and great as in almost any other. Individuals differ vv^idely not only in their susceptibilities of emotion, and the energy of their affections, but also in the proportions which their powers of feeling bear to those of their intellect. As a general fact, the same capacities of knowledge in the female sex are asso- ciated with a far livelier sensibility than in men ; and great differences in this particular exist likewise among those of the same sex. Great quickness and violence of passion are frequently, and perhaps usually the attendants of a weak reason ; while eminent powers of intellect are often seen in conjunction with a phlegmatic temperament. In many, however, there seems to be a fundamental dis- proportion between their intellectual and sensitive nature ; or a want of a fit adjustment of the energy of their emotions, to the nature of the perceptions by which they are excited. They exhibit essentially the same interest in insignificant, as in important themes ; and are raised to much the same excitement by small as by great causes. Almost any class of views carrying them apparently to the extent of their ca- pacity, they have no more interest to expend on the most momentous subjects, tlian they are accustomed to waste on those of the most inferior importance. In Mr. Evarts, there was a propitious adjustment to each other of these branches of his mental constitution ; his susceptibilities of emotion