Letters on the origin and progress of the New Haven theology

Preface

The circumstances which have led to the publication of this little volume, are the following : In the month of February, 1837, the author received a letter from a distinguished clergyman in one of the Southern States, requesting some information respecting the origin and progress of the New Divinity in New England. He probably expected no more than a single letter, in reply. The author, however, in attempting to answer his inquiries, soon perceived that he could not give the desired information in a single letter. He accordingly concluded to write a series of letters, and commit them to the disposal of his correspondent, who judged it expedient to give them to the public through the press. They were first published in the Southern Christian Herald, and have been copied into several other papers in different parts of the country. The interest excited by them is far greater than was anticipated by the writer. They are now collected into a volume, at the earnest request of many who have read them, and with the hope that they may contribute something to the cause of truth.

The object of these letters, is to give a brief, but faithful account of what has sometimes been denominated the New Haven controversy. Considering the

IV PREFACE.

interest awakened by this controversy, it is obviously important that its history should be known ; and that the points of doctrine involved in it, should be clearly understood. And this is the more important at the present time, on account of the pains which have been taken to make the impression that the New Haven Divinity is New England Divinity, and in this way to excite prejudice in the Presbyterian church against the whole of ^New England. Several of the last letters in the series, are intended to set this matter in its true light. By a comparison of the writings of the New Haven divines with those of the standard theological writers of New England, it is shown, that they not only do not harmonize, but are widely at variance ; and that in relation to fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. In revising these letters, the writer has made some slight alterations in the phraseology ; and added a few quotations, for the purpose of giving a more full view of the controversy to those who have had but a limited acquaintance with the public discussions of the last eight or ten years.

Letter I

Although I never had the pleasure of seeing your face, I have for some time felt acquainted with you, having heard so much respecting you from our mutual friend, Mr. Nettleton. I was therefore fully prepared to reciprocate every expression of confidence contained in your kind and friendly letter of the first inst. I can assure you that brother N. remembers with deep interest the season which he spent under your hospitable roof; and that he will ever cherish a grateful sense of the tokens of affection which he received from you and your family. And here permit me to say, that, having been intimately acquainted with him for the last five and twenty years, I can cheerfully subscribe to every word which you have said in testimony of his worth.

But I must proceed to answer your inquiries respecting " the origin and progress of Arminian views in New England." I suppose you refer to the New Haven speculations. I have had opportunity to know something of the history of these 1*

O ORIGIN AND PROGRESS

speculations ; but the story is long, and cannot be told in a single letter. If you will have patience with me, I will attempt to give you a brief history in a series of letters, promising to bring my narrative within as narrow compass as possible.

It is true, as was stated by Dr. Porter in his letter to Dr. Beecher, that " Arminianism received from the hand of Edwards its death blow, of which it lingered more than half a century in New England and died. Our orthodoxy had settled into a solid, tranquil, scriptural state ; and perhaps no body of ministers since the world began have been so united, and so manifestly blessed of God, as the ministers of New England." Such was the state of things, when, as Dr. Porter says — " A battery was opened in Connecticut, a standard raised, and a campaign begun."

The first indications that the New Haven divines were beginning to adopt opinions at variance with those which commonly prevailed among the orthodox, appeared while the controversy between Dr. Woods of Andover, and Dr. Ware of Cambridge, was in progress; which was in 1820, '21. Dr. Taylor expressed to some of his brethren great dissatisfaction with the manner in which Dr. Woods had conducted the controversy, and with the views which he had advanced, particularly on the subject of Native Depravity. He was heard to say, that on that subject Dr. Ware had the better of the argument, and that Dr. Woods had put back the controversy with Unitarians fifty years. Under the impulse of these feelings, he prepared an article for the Christian Spectator, which he submitted to the association of gentlemen, by whom, in connexion with the editor, the work was conducted. The Association decided that it was not expedient to publish the article. Of the character of the piece, and the sentiments which it contained, you may perhaps form some conjecture from the following circumstance. While Dr. Taylor was reading it, one of the gentlemen present composed and wrote with his pencil this .stanza :

Immortal Edwards, whom religion bails Her favorite son/a Taylor overthrew ; A Taylor now the great man's ghost assails, His doctrine doubts, and error vamps anew.

I am not able to fix the precise date of this event. I am not certain whether it was previous or subsequent to the fact which I am about to relate. On Saturday evening, Dec. 15, 1821, Professor Goodrich of Yale College, in his course of lectures to the college students, came to the doctrine of Original Sin. He commenced his lecture by observing that he was about to present a different view of the subject from that which is commonly received; and proceeded to exhibit the views which were afterwards published in the Christian Spectator ; and which I shall have occasion to notice in a future letter. Some of the pious students, who had read the controversy between Dr. Woods and Dr. Ware, thought that the views exhibited in this lecture bore a striking resemblance to those of Dr. Ware. They were grieved and alarmed. Some of them wrote to their friends, and in this way considerable uneasiness was excited. Mr. Nettleton was at this

O ORIGIN AND PROGRESS

time laboring in Litchfield with Dr. Beecher, On hearing what had transpired at New Haven, Dr. Beecher wrote to Dr. Taylor, and some correspondence ensued. Professor Goodrich sent his lecture to Litchfield. About that time Dr. Humphrey, then pastor of the church in Pittsfield, now President of Amherst College, happened to be there on a visit. He and Mr. Nettleton examined it together, and were greatly dissatisfied. Dr. Beecher did not approve of the views expressed by Professor Goodrich and Dr. Taylor ; yet in his correspondence at this time, he made some concessions with which Mr. Nettleton was not satisfied : and in a letter which he (Mr. N.) wrote to Dr. Taylor, he said :

" With all my love and respect for brothers Taylor and Goodrich and Beecher, I must say that neither my judgment, nor concience, nor heart, can acquiesce, and I can go with you no farther. Whatever you may say about infants, for one, I do solemnly believe that God views, and treats them in all respects, just as he would do if they were sinners. To say that animals die, and therefore death can be no proof of sin in infants, is to take infidel ground. The infidel has just as good a right to say, because animals die without being sinners, therefore adults may. If death may reign to such an alarming extent over the human race, and yet be no proof of sin, then you adopt the principle that death may reign to any extent over the universe, and it can never be made a proof of sin in any case. Then what Paul says " Death by sin, and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned," is not true. Infants die either on account of their own sin, or the sin of Adam, or neither. Hence the most that Paul can mean is this, death by sin, if they live long enough; if not, they shall die without it. You may speculate better than I can ; bat I know one thing better than you do. I know better what Christians will, and what they will not receive ; and I forewarn you that whenever you come out, our best Christians will revolt. I felt a deep interest in the controversy between the Orthodox and Unitarians, while it was kept out on the open field of Total Depravity, Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, Divine Sovereignty, and Election. For this was taking the enemy by the heart, and I knew who would conquer. But you are giving the discussion a bad turn, and I have lost all my interest in the subject, and do not wish my fellow sinners to hear it. I do fear it is a trick of the devil to send brother Taylor on a wild goose chase after what he will never find, and which if found would not be worth one straw." These are only short extracts from a long letter. The whole has not been preseived. This letter Mr. Nettleton read to Dr. Beecher.

This was in December, 1821. After this Mr. Nettleton had repeated private discussions with the brethren at New Haven, in which he expressed his dissatisfaction with their peculiar views, and faithfully expostulated with them on the danger of causing division among the ministers and churches of New England. And yet for several years it was currently reported, and extensively believed, that he agreed with the New Haven divines, and the influence of his name was made use of to give currency to their peculiar views.

How unjustly this was done, is evident from the foregoing extracts. The alarm which was occasioned among the pious students, by the lecture of Professor Goodrich, was somewhat allayed by some explanations which he made to them, and for a season the matter was in a great measure hushed. But Mr. Nettleton, and some others who were acquainted with the facts, were not without great solicitude. Meanwhile the Professorship of Didactic Theology was founded in Yale College, Dr. Taylor was appointed Professor, and the Theological School was organized in its present form in 1822. The founders of this Professorship, required the Professor to sign the following declaration : " I hereby declare my free assent to the Confession of Faith and Ecclesiastical Discipline, agreed upon by the churches of the State, in the year 1708." Dr. Taylor signed this declaration and was inducted into office. The Confession of Faith here specified is what has been denominated the Saybrook Platform, and so far as doctrines are concerned, differs scarcely at all from the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church.

In 1826, Professor Fitch preached and published his discourses on the nature of sin, in which he advanced the position that all sin consists in the voluntary transgression of known law. This was regarded by many as a virtual denial of original sin and native depravity as maintained by Calvinists. These discourses were reviewed by Dr. Green in the Christian Advocate. Professor Fitch replied to the Review. Meanwhile young men began to issue from the New Haven school, and to proclaim the discoveries of their teacher. In this way very considerable alarm was created in some quarters. Still those who were dissatisfied dreaded an explosion which should hazard the peace of the churches, and refrained from publishing their views ; and all hope of avoiding a public controversy was not given up till Dr. Taylor published his Concio ad Clerum. Some account of this, and the controvert which it occasioned, I will give you in my next letter.

Letter II

Dr. Taylor's " Concio ad Clerum" was preach^ ed in the Chapel of Yale College on the evening of Commencement, Sept. 10, 1828. It was soon after published. This was the commencement of the public controversy in New England. The object of the sermon was, to exhibit and establish the author's views of the doctrine of native depravity ; it was apparent from the whole strain of the sermon, that the preacher was conscious that the views which he was exhibiting were different from those which were commonly received. He attempted to demolish what he called " very common, but groundless assumptions — assumptions which, so long as they are admitted and reasoned upon, must leave the subject involved in insuperable difficulties." In one of his notes, after stating the different forms of the doctrine of depravity, which he supposed to be held by the orthodox, placing that form of it which he adopted last, he says, " Those who reject the last form of it, and adopt either of the preceding forms, will, it is hoped, favor the world with some better arguments on the subject than have hitherto been furnished."' This was throwing down the gauntlet and challenging a controversy. But I must give you some account of the sermon.

The text was Eph. ii. 3 : And were by nature children of wrath even as others. The doctrine of the text, he stated to be, " that the entire moral depravity of man is by nature." The statement of this doctrine seemed to give promise that he was about to exhibit the common views on this subject. But in his explanations* of the nature of depravity, and of the sense in which it is by nature, he w 7 as understood to advance principles utterly inconsistent with his main proposition — principles which lead to the conclusion that there is in man no natural hereditary propensity to sin, and that there was no real connexion between the sin of Adam and that of his posterity. Moral depravity he defines to be, " a man's own act, consisting of a free choice of some object rather than God, as his chief good ; or a free preference of the world and worldly good, to the will and glory of God." By mankind being depraved by nature, he says, " I do not mean that their nature is itself sinful, nor that their nature is the physical or efficient cause of their sinning; but I mean that their nature is the occasion or reason of their sinning; that such is their nature, that in all the appropriate circumstances of their being, they will sin, and only sin." But he elsewhere maintains, that all men come into the world with the same nature in kind as that with which Adam was created, and which the Child Jesus possessed. 2

If this be true ; it is certainly difficult to see how their nature can be in any sense the cause or reason of their sinning ; or how there can be any hereditary corruption of nature, or any real connexion between the sin of Adam and that of his posterity. Towards the close of the sermon, in reply to the inquiry, why God permitted man to sin, he says, " Do you know that God could have done better, better on the whole, or better, if he gave him existence at all, even for the individual himself! The error lies in the gratuitous assumption, that God could have adopted a moral system, and prevented all sin, or at least, the present degree of sin."

This subject he resumes in a note, and proceeds at some length, to show that the reason why God does not prevent all sin in the moral universe and make all his rational creatures holy and happy, is, that it is not possible for him to do it. He says, " If holiness in a moral system be preferable on the whole to sin in its stead, why did not a benevolent God, were it possible to him, prevent all sin, and secure the prevalence of universal holiness? Would not a moral universe of perfect holiness, be happier and better than one comprising sin and its miseries ? And must not infinite benevolence accomplish all the good it can? Would not a benevolent God then, had it been possible to him in the nature of things, have secured the existence of universal holiness in his moral kingdom?" Again he says, " Who does most reverence to God, he who supposes that God would have prevented all sin in his moral universe, but could not ; or he who affirms that he could have prevented it, but would not?"

This note gave great dissatisfaction, and was extensively regarded as a virtual denial of the Omnipotence, and universal Providence of God, and as being utterly subversive of the Calvinistic doctrine of the divine decrees. It called forth, as I shall have occasion to mention hereafter, the letters of Dr. Woods to Dr. Taylor, which were published in 1830. This sermon was reviewed by the Rev. Dr. Harvey. The reviewer points out what he conceives to be the peculiarities of sentiment contained in the sermon, and attempts to show that they are inconsistent both with the Bible, and with the writings of the standard orthodox New Endand divines. To this review a reply was published in the Christian Spectator, ascribed, at first, to the Rev. Dr. Porter, of Farmington, but ascertained afterwards to have been written principally by Professor Goodrich. It comprised the substance of his lecture to the College Students, in 1821, of which some notice was taken in my last letter.

In this reply the following principles are clearly maintained, viz : That infants possess no moral character — that they sustain precisely the same relation to the moral government of God, as brute animals — that suffering and death are no more proof of sin in them than in brutes — that salvation by Christ in their case denotes deliverance from the future existence of sin and its consequences, and that it is proper to baptize them, not because they need sanctitication, but because they will need it, if they live to become moral agents. The fact that all men become sinners is accounted for in the following manner : " A child enters the world with a variety of appetites lb ORIGIN AND PROGRESS

and desires, which are generally acknowledged to be neither sinful nor holy. Committed in a state of utter helplessness to the assiduity of parental fondness, it commences existence, the object of unceasing care, watchfulness, and concession to those around it. Under such circumstances it is, that the natural appetites are first developed, and each advancing month brings new objects of gratification. The obvious consequence is, that self-indulgence becomes the master principle in the soul of every child, long before it can understand that this self-indulgence will interfere with the rights, or intrench on the happiness of others. Thus by repetition is the force of constitutional propensities accumulating a bias towards self-gratification, which becomes incredibly strong, before a knowledge of duty or a sense of right and wrong, can possibly have entered the mind. That moment, the commencement of moral agency at length arrives."

Thus the universal sinfulness of mankind is accounted for, not from any corruption of nature derived from Adam, but from the circumstances in which mankind are placed in early infancy. An able answer to this article was published, supposed to have been written by Dr. Harvey, to which Dr. Taylor made a short reply. The controversy thus far, was confined principally tofthe doctrine of native depravity, although the note in Dr. Taylor's sermon respecting God's ability to prevent sin, was not passed over without due animadversion.

You will be interested to know what were the views of your friend Mr. Nettleton, at this stage of the controversy. The following extract of a letter written by him to Dr. Beecher at this period, will give you some information. The letter is dated at Enfield, Mass, Sept. 18, 1829.

" While at Amherst, I read through Dr. Taylor of Norwich, and much of Edwards in reply. And I must say, that so far as I understand the subject, the sentiments of our New Haven brethren, are more in accordance with the former, than with the latter. And so far as the interpretation of the Bible is concerned, brother Taylor's students, some of them at least, (whether they are conscious of it or not, I cannot say,) in every important particular, are fully with Dr. Taylor of Norwich, and at war with Edwards. The Reviewer of Taylor and Harvey does not give us the meaning of the texts which seem to cross his path ; but he has adopted principles which are at war with all that Edwards has written on original sin, and the nature of regeneration. If the sentiments contained in that Review be correct, then Edwards was wrong in his interpretation of every text in his piece on original sin. Brother Taylor has not come to the most important part of his work — to give us the meaning of the Bible. After abandoning imputation, and what he calls physical depravity, we shall be compelled to adopt the sentiments of Dr. Taylor of Norwich, and genuine Arminianism, or actual sin from the commencement of the soul, or deny that infants need redemption by Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit; or if they do need redemption, it must be a redemption from something which is not sinful in any sense, and if they need regeneration, it must be a change of something which is not 2* sinful in any sense. If the soul be innocent, it can be redeemed from nothing, and can never join the song of the redeemed, " unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood/' If the soul be innocent, it can be regenerated, only for the worse.

Then, if you doubt, as some are beginning to do, whether the soul commences at birth, would it not be idle to reason about the nature of that which has no existence. To admit the necessity of redemption by the blood of Christ, and of regeneration by the supernatural influences of the Holy Spirit, of something of whose nature we know nothing, and of whose existence we doubt, is bad philosophy as well as bad theology. I say these things to show that brother Taylor cannot stand where he is. His students, some of them at least, do not take the ground assumed in his printed sermon, that infants need redemption and regeneration. When interrogated by ecclesiastical bodies, "Have infants souls?" the answer sometimes is, " I do not know." " Do they need redemption?" " I do not know." " Is it proper to pray for them?" " I do not know." " What is the meaning of such and such texts ?" "I do not know." Now I do not wonder that ministers are alarmed at the New Haven Theology. Interrogatories like those above will always be put to his students, when examined by ecclesiastical bodies. And since the alarm occasioned by the recent publications, I anticipate that ministers will be better prepared, more critical and sensitive than ever, on all these points. And if Dr. Taylor cannot furnish his pupils with plain answers, and answers, too, that shall comport with his printed sermon, I think they will be in a worse predicament than ever.

" I have just received the last number of the Christian Spectator, and Harvey's and Taylor's pamphlets, issued on commencement day. I have read them through, but have not time or room to give my thoughts on paper. Harvey has adopted nearly my views, and Taylor in some places admits, and then again rejects them. Now H he admits that infants are sinners from their birth," p. 30 ; and this is in perfect accordance with his admission that they have souls — Ci need redemption by Christ" — "regeneration by the Holy Spirit." And now why hesitate to admit that death in their case is " by sin ?" But this he will not admit, but tries to evade it, and to prove their innocence refers to Deut. i. 39 : " Moreover, your little ones which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither." These " little ones and children" were all from twenty years old and under. See Num. xxxii. 11. They were not summoned to the field of battle, to go up and take possession of Canaan, and hence it is said, they " had no knowledge between good and evil," quoad hoc. If that proves any thing to brother Taylor's purpose, it proves that all mankind under twenty years of age, are not moral agents, and are, of course, innocent. He quotes, also, and so does Professor Stuart, Jonah, iv. 11. I have formerly heard these same texts quoted for the same purpose by Methodists, and other Arminians, and I feel disposed to give the old answer. 1. It wants proof that they were infants. 2. " Cannot discern between their right hand and their left" is a proverbial expression, denoting great ignorance in adults, and is no where applied to infants. 3. It is incredible that Ninevah should contain 120,000 infants. 4. It would better accord with the book of Jonah, and with our Lord's account of their ignorance, to admit that the 120,000 embraced the entire population who repented at the preaching of Jonah, and that the city was spared on account of their repentance, and not for the sake of infants, thus making void their repentance."

We have now arrived at a period in the history of the New Haven speculations when the dissatisfaction became quite extensive. Several events occurred in the course of this year, which it will be important to notice, and of which I will give you some account in my next letter.

Yours, very affectionately.

Letter III

In the year 1829, while the controversy mentioned in my last letter was going on, a series of articles was published in the Christian Spectator, on the Means of Regeneration, purporting to be a Review of Dr. Spring's dissertation on that subject. In these articles, which were written by Dr. Taylor, the writer maintains, that antecedent to regeneration, the selfish principle is suspended in the sinner's heart, and that then, prompted by self-love, he uses the means of regeneration with motives that are neither sinful nor holy. The manner in which the subject is discussed, seemed to many, to be utterly inconsisent with the views commonly entertained by the orthodox on this fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Mr. Nettleton, in his letter to Dr. Beecher, an extract from which was inserted in my last letter, says in reference to this subject:

" As to Dr. Taylor's last piece on the means of regeneration, it seems to me that he has turned the thing bottom upwards. In his description of the means of regeneration, he includes the exercises or evidences of a new heart. The carnal mind, which is enmity against God, suspends all its enmity, and selfishness, and sin, and then goes to work on the principle of self-love. How long the sinner continues in this state of neutrality he does not inform us. But no matter ; the sinner does not use the means, of a new heart until the old heart is gone, and he is in a state favorably disposed, like the prodigal son after he came to himself. No sinner ever did what brother Taylor considers as using the means of regeneration, until God had first regenerated him. The distinction between supreme selfishness and self-love, in the impenitent, exists only in theory, never in matter of fact. Suppose a sinner should go to brother Taylor and address him as follows : i I have always been dissatisfied with the old doctrine of the entire sinfulness of the doings of the unregenerate, and therefore have done nothing to make a new heart; but when I saw your views I was pleased ; I found that I was right, that sin could never be the means of holiness, but that the exercise of self-love might be. Accordingly, I have suspended all my selfishness, and have not committed a single sin for some time past, and have been to work on your plan, from a desire for happiness, or a principle of self-love. Thus I have made me a new heart. 5 How would Dr. Taylor be pleased with such an account. To me it sounds like the talk of a Pharisee. No sinner ever suspended his selfishness, until subdued by divine grace. The carnal mind, the enmity against God, the heart of stone, remains, until slain, subdued, or taken away, by the Holy Spirit."

This letter was written Sept. 18, 1829. Three numbers of the treatise on the means of regeneration had then been published. A fourth num* ber appeared in December, designed to obviate objections, containing some statements which, in the view of many, were utterly inconsistent with what had been published in the previous numbers. Dr. Porter, of Andover, speaking of this in a letter to a friend, says :

" Dr. Taylor's closing number on means, was a designed modification of the former ones, partly at the suggestion of Dr. Beecher. The latter told him that he had employed terms badly in speaking of the l suspension of selfishness.' All that Dr. Taylor means, said he to me, is that ' the carnal mind is held in check, or does not act, and not that it is extinct/ ' While this carnal mind is thus checked, has it moral qualities V said I. i Doubtless/ he replied. ' Is it sinful, or holy, or neither?' (Pause.) c The man is doubtless a sinner,' said he. ' Can one who pugnaciously and ostentatiously maintains that all sin consists in action, maintain too that a carnal mind is sinful when its action has ceased V (No reply.) "