Letters to Rev. Nathaniel W. Taylor

Front matter

J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ^ r^^ss*

]^ ZIlBl^

J^imi©^

Letter I

Proper manner of conducting- theological discussion. — Duty and danger of theological Professors. — Philosophy of religion made too prominent. Its hurtful effects appear from the history of the church. Importance of conforming exactly to the word of God. — Apology for taking a part in this controversy. How the views here controverted may have been occasioned. — Plan of remarking 5 — 20

I.ETTER II.

Passages in the Concio ad Clerum to be considered. — The two common positions. Reasons for supposing that Dr. Taylor holds the opposite. Interrogative form no objection. — Second position considered. — Meaning of the phrase, God could not prevent sm. — Three senses. Circumstances which indicate the literal sense. — Second sense adopted by the orthodox generally. Third sense inadmissible 21 — 30

Letter III

Does the nature of things make it impossible for God to prevent sin .'' Meaning of the phrase. Nature of created beings. The case of the father and his sons. Analogy supposed does not exist. Does the nature of moral agency limit the power of God .' Representation of the Reviewers. Opinions of the orthodox as to the existence of moral evil compared with Dr. Taylor's. His theory implies the independence of moral agents. Reasoning as to the nature of moral agency. Moral agency the same in all. Want of motives 31 — 48

Letter IV

Dr. Taylor's reasoning on the supposed impossibility arising from moral agency. — Nature of the subject. Can it be proved that a being who can sin, will not sin .' The actual occurrence of any thing depends on appropriate causes. God has a perfect control over human beings. Argument from facts as to God's being able to prevent sin. Influence arising ftom the existence and punishment of sin not absolutely necessary. God's not preventing sin resolved into his unsearchable wisdom. Common theory does not limit the goodness of God. Whether God's creatures have a power which lie has not 49 — 54

IV CONTENTS.

Letter V

The reasoning from moral agency farther examined. The supposition, that God could not wholly prevent its perversion without destroying it. Dr. Dwight's views. The more specific position, that God could not do better for any individual sinner. It has no proof either from facts, or from the nature of the subject. Groundless apprehension of what would result from the interposition requisite for the conversion of more sinners. — Direct proof that God is able to convert more sinners. 1. From his omnipotence. 2. From what he has done. 3. From the requisition of prayer. 4. From the representation of Scripture, that God converts men according to his will or -pleasure 55 — 66

Letter VI

Farther notice of the question, whether God could have secured the holiness of any moral being without the influence of moral evil. The doctrine of moral necessity applied to the subject. — The position, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, particularly considered. — A contradiction. Proper inference from the fact, that God makes use of sin as a means of preserving moral beings in holiness. Same reasoning in regard to the other phrase, i. e. sin so far as it exists prefer able to holiness in its stead. Meaning of the expression, sin is, in respect to divine prevention, incidental to the best moral system 67 — 78

LETTER VIT.

Whether the common position is consistent with the fact that sin is forbidden, and punished ; and with the sincerity of God. Can a person sin with a benevolent intention ? Case of the Canaanites. Objection of the caviller, Rom. III. Dr. Taylor's scheme does not remove difficulties. Virtue founded in utility. Intimation that the orthodox consider sin to be excellent in its nature. Whether the common scheme admits of sorrow for sin. We must regard sin as it is in itself. Distinction between God's agency and man's. Benevolent intention of the sinner. Intention of the sinner and of God distinguished. Conduct of Joseph's brethren, and death of Christ. Results of the theory in relation to Christ's death 79—93

Letter VIII

Practical influence of Dr. Taylor's theory compared with the common, in relation to the power of God, his blessedness, the system of his works, his dominion, the happiness of the good, submission, prayer, humility and dependence. Grounds of disquietude. Coincidence with Pelagians, Arminians, etc. What ought to be done. Suggestions. Particular things to be explained 94 — 107

Appexpis 109— 114

Letter I

Proper manner of conducting theological discussion. — Duty and danger of theological Professors. — Philosophy of religion made too prominent. Its hurtful effects appear from the history of the church. Importance of conforming exactly to the word of God. — Apology for taking a part in this controversy. How the views here controverted may have been occasioned. — Plan of remarking.

I entirely agree with you in considering free discussion on the subject of religion to be of great importance to the cause of divine truth. It is obvious, however, that discussion on such a subject cannot be expected to produce its proper effects, unless it is prompted by a right spirit, and conducted in a right manner. It behooves us, therefore, to inquire very carefully, what is that spirit, and that manner, in which free discussion should be conducted ? In answering this inquiry, we may be essentially aided by many passages of Scripture, and particularly by the following direction of St. Paul, who, as we well know, was far from being deficient either in warmth of natural temper, or in Christian decision. " The servant of the Lord," he says, " must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." Even towards those who are hostile to religion, the Aj)ostle requires that such a disposition and conduct should be exhibited. Now if all men, — if even those who wage war against Christianity, are nevertheless entitled to a treatment from us, marked with meekness and gentleness ; surely these virtues ought to be exercised in all their strength and loveliness towards those who, notwithstanding some differences of opinion, are united with us in the bonds of fraternal affection, and devoted to the same benevolent cause.

My present design, I am well aware, is attended with circumstances of peculiar delicacy. I have undertaken to address myself to a respected and beloved Brother, from whom I am constrained to differ, — a Brother invested with the same sacred office with myself, both as a minister of the gospel, and a Professor of Christian Theology. And I cannot but notice the circumstance also, that this is no common case ; as there has been in our country scarcely an instance, before the present, in which a teacher of Christian Theology in an orthodox Institution has come before the public in his own name, to controvert the opinions of another man placed in a similar station. This circumstance, I confess, makes a touching appeal to my feelings, and excites in me a desire which words cannot fully express, that every thing relative to the manner of the present discussion may be unexceptionable. It cannot be thought improbable that, among the Professors of our numerous Seminaries, there will, from time to time, be diiferences of opinion, more or less important, and that these differences will be made the subject of free investigation. Now, my Dear Brother, as we have been led to think it our duty to engage in the difficult, and shall I say, perilous business of publicly discussing controverted points ; let us consider well what is before us, and guard with sacred care against every thing which would render our example unworthy of imitation, or in any way injure the great interests which we wish to advance. Who can count up the evils which might result to the cause of Christ, if our manner of treating controverted subjects should in any respects be such, as would tend to promote in others around us, and especially in our pupils, feelings of unkindness and acrimony ? On the contrary, may we not hope that important good will result from our example, if, whenever we engage in discussing such subjects, under all the excitements and provocations attending public debate, we may be enabled by divine grace, to copy the meekness and gentleness of Christ? When I dwell on such reflections as these, I cannot avoid the persuasion, that I should commit a less offence against the Christian religion by had reasoning, than by a had spirit ; and therefore that I am bound to take as much pains at least, to cherish xighi feelings , as to frame right arguments. But a Christian disposition pervading our writings is not only required by the spirit of our religion, but is necessary to the success of our cause ; since, without it, our opinions and arguments, especially

LETTER I. 7

those which we may regard as improvements, will not be likely to pass easily and pleasantly into the minds of others ; as we may have frequently found by our own experience.

It will undoubtedly be a question with some good men, whether it can in any circumstances conduce to the welfare of the church, for Christian ministers, and especially for Professors in our Theological Seminaries, to enlist in a public discussion of the topics on which they differ. And I readily acknowledge that controversy, or even the appearance of controversy among Theological Professors, is likely to be attended with peculiar danger, as the feelings of their pupils, and the vital interests of their respective Institutions, must be so much involved. On this account, I have felt a strong reluctance to take any part in the examination of those peculiar opinions which you have exhibited before the public. But after all, is there any sufficient reason why we should be deprived of the right, or rather, exempt from the duty, of bearing testimony against the errors of the day, and especially against whatever we may consider erroneous in one another ? Is it not a matter of special propriety that we should hold ourselves responsible, in a sense, to each other, and to all devout Christians in the community 1 Is there any thing in our situation or employment, which can free us from this responsibility ? Nay, is it not true that we are peculiarly responsible ? And is it not true also that we are, in some respects, peculiarly liable to error ? Now if at any time we are betrayed into wrong opinions ; especially if we make those opinions public ; can we expect to escape animadversion ? Can we justly desire to escape ? I well know what noble sentiments you have expressed in relation to this subject, and how often you have invited your brethren to a thorough and unsparing examination of your opinions. And I trust you will now join with me in saying ; Let the Christian community watch over our Theological Seminaries with an ever wakeful eye. Let these Seminaries extend a kind hut faithful inspection over one another. Let no deviation from sound doctrine pass unnoticed. If any of those who are appointed to give instruction to the rising ministry, shoiD the least signs of error ; — if they only begin to indulge in modes of interpreting the word of God, or in modes of reasoning on moral or metaphysiccd suhjects, which have an unfavorable, or even doubtful tendency in regard to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity ; let all the teachers of religion in our Churches, Colleges and Seminaries be awake to the danger. It is far better for the cause of divine truth that this general wakefulness to danger should rise to an extreme, — better that solicitude, and fear, and even jealousy should be excited, than that those who are appointed to stand as Zion's watchmen, should slumber on their posts.

I cannot but feel that every public teacher of religion needs the vigilant inspection of his brethren. Indeed, where is the pious minister of Christ who has not this feeling in regard to himself, and who does not find reason for it in his own experience ? And where is the intelligent Christian, who has not at times detected in himself the commencement of such habits of thinking, as might lead on to wide departures from the truth as it is in Jesus ? The darkness of the human mind, and the strength of unholy passion is such, even in real Christians, and the causes of error are so various and powerful, and some of them so latent, that it can never be deemed safe to trust the interests of religion implicitly in the hands of any man. No fertility of genius ; no extent of learning ; no metaphysical acumen ; and no degree of piety, as it exists in the present world, can be relied upon as affording full security. Formerly, when I turned my thoughts towards particular ministers of the gospel, and particular Christians, I was ready to think it impossible, that they should ever abandon any of the truths of revelation, or embrace any hurtful error. But what I have seen of the human mind during more than thirty years in the ministry, and more than twenty in my present office, has led me to entertain other views on this subject, and has impressed my mind with a serious conviction, that there is no teacher of religion in our churches, or in our Seminaries, no, not one, who can think himself free from the danger of error, or who has not reason to apprehend that a deceived heart may turn him aside. And if, in these days of adventurous speculation, any of those, who are called by divine providence to instruct in our theological schools, should wholly, or in part renounce the doctrines of revelation, and become advocates of error ; it would only be a repetition of what has often occurred in past ages.

Suffer me now to offer a few suggestions as to the proper use of these remarks.

If every man, however learned and pious, however important or sacred his station, and however many safeguards may be placed around him, is in fact liable to error ; then surely we ought to be

LETTER I. 9

aware of this, and to offer up fervent prayer to God, that he would give us a sound mind, and guide us into all the truth. We ought also to crave it as a privilege, that our Christian brethren would watch over us, and by their fraternal freedom, and their admonition, when necessary, and especially by their prayers, would help to secure us against the wrong tendencies of our minds, and to establish our hearts in divine truth.

Our acknowledged liability to error should lead us to check all undue confidence in our own opinions, and to hold ourselves ready to be instructed and corrected by others. It is no very uncommon thing for a man to manifest such reliance upon the strength of his own mind, and the correctness of his own reasoning, as clearly implies, though he may be unwilling to avow it in words, that he thinks himself infallible ; at least, that he thinks himself much nearer to a state of infallibility, than others. Let us keep ourselves at a great distance from every thing like this; and in all our reasonings, especially if we ever venture on ground which lies beyond the range of common belief and common investigation, let us proceed with slow and cautious steps. And if at any time the friends of Christ, apprehending that we have begun to wander from the right way, suddenly raise the cry of alarm ; instead of complaining of their want of confidence in us, or indulging any suspicions as to the motives which govern them ; we ought to bless God that he has given them a heart to feel so lively an interest in the cause of truth, and to take so quick an alarm at the sight, or even the apprehension of danger. We ought moreover to keep in mind, that however strong our persuasion may be that our present views are right, and the views of those who differ from us, wrong ; a little more time ; more careful and patient inquiry ; a farther exercise of a modest, humble, and pious temper ; and a higher degree of divine teaching, may alter our convictions, and may show us that we have been standing on slippery places.

After the remarks, which I have now made, and which I cannot but consider to be of special importance to those who are concerned in preparing young men for the ministry ; I shall proceed to my particular object, which is, to express to you some of the doubts and difficulties which I feel respecting your recent publications. Allow me then to lay aside all hesitation and reserve, and to give utterance to my thoughts just as they arise in my own mind.

I shall, in the first place, take the liberty to make a few remarks as to the general aspect and tendency of what you have published. I refer particularly to your Concio ad Clerum, and to the several numbers in the Christian Spectator, which are understood to come from your pen, on the means of regeneration.

Though the design of these letters does not require me to remark with the same freedom on what is excellent in your publications, as on what I deem faulty ; yet my esteem for you and my regard to justice require me to say, that I have been gratified in no common degree with the clear and impressive illustrations you give of various important truths, and with the powerful and conclusive arguments which you urge in their support. And I would hope that the friends of evangelical truth and the friends of free inquiry generally, will not overlook what is valuable in the productions of your pen, because on some important points they are constrained to dissent from you. I take pleasure also in acknowledging, that I have derived real benefit from the free discussion of subjects in the private correspondence I have recently had with you.

In regard to the general aspect of your publications ; I have serious doubts, whether the prominence which you give to what is called the philosophy of the Christian religion, is adapted to promote the interests of the church,

I know not that I differ from you as to what constitutes the philosophy of religion. I understand by it something which is aside from the simple doctrines and facts which are set forth in the Scriptures : something which maybe omitted without detracting any thing from the doctrines or facts themselves, or fi-om their practical influence. It is that view of the subjects of revelation, which is suited to gratify the love of abstruse, metaphysical speculation, or what may be called, the curiosity of intellect. If a single example will be of use, I would refer to 1 Cor. 15. The Apostle affirms the simple, momentous truth, that men will be raised from the dead by the power of God. The objector inquires, " How are the dead raised up ?" He was looking after the philosophy of the doctrine. He wished to understand the manner, — the quomodo. The Apostle rebuked him for such a question, though he took occasion from it to give important instruction. Locke and the Bishop of Worcester went into a formal investigation of the doctrine of the resurrection, and furnished a very striking specimen of free discussion on the philosophy of a Christian doctrine.

LETTER I. 11

I could illustrate the meaning I give to the phrase by another example. The Scriptures teach that it is the influence of the divine Spirit and that alone, which sanctifies the heart. Now if a man attempts to explain metaphysically the manner in which the Spirit operates upon the mind, and how his influence is consistent with our accountableness, and with the laws of our intellectual and moral nature ; he enters on the philosophy of the doctrine of regeneration ; — the very thing which our Saviour seems to have discouraged in his conversation with Nicodemus. If I were to select one of the most striking instances of dwelling on the philosophy of Christian doctrines, I should fix upon some parts of your Concio ad Clerum, and of the other publications of yours above referred to. It may in many cases be difficult to draw the line exactly between a Christian doctrine itself, and the philosophy of that doctrine. But that there is a difference between the one and the other is a fact, which you yourself have been forward to affirm as of essential consequence.

I have one more remark by way of explanation ; namely, that there is a wide difference in point of clearness and importance between what would be called the philosophy of evangelical doctrines in one case, and in another. In one case, the investigation may relate to facts in man's intelligent and moral nature, or to principles in the divine government, which are certain and obvious. In another case, it may relate to what is uncertain, conjectural, or obscure ; — in a word, to what lies beyond the limits of our intelligence. I consider Edwards's metaphysical treatises to be, generally, of the former character. And it would be easy to name various works, both ancient and modern, which are of the latter character. Between these two modes of philosophizing, there is a vast difference in respect to utility.

You will perceive from these remarks, that I would not by any means indiscriminately proscribe every form and degree of philosophical investigation on the subjects of religion. I readily allow that such investigation, particularly of the former character above named, may, if rightly directed, and kept in its proper place, be of real use to ministers, and especially to Theological Professors, and may enable them to attain to more profound and consistent views of the doctrines of Christianity, and to illustrate those doctrines more clearly, and defend them more ably and successfully, than they could without it. But every man who applies himself with ardor to the philosophical investigation of Christian doctrines, will probably find it more difficult than he was previously aware of, to confine himself to that investigation which is of the right kind, to give it a right direction, and to keep it in its proper place. He will constantly be in danger of carrying it to an extreme ; and of forming such a habit of mind, that the most essential truths, if stated simply in a scriptural manner, will have no power to give him pleasure. Who that is fond of contemplating the doctrines of religion metaphysically, has not frequently been conscious of a tendency to this faulty habit of mind ? If I mistake not, the circumstances of the present day, particularly the opposition made against the doctrines of revelation on the ground of philosophy, expose us to this danger in a more than ordinary degree. We may deem it a sacred duty to meet our opponents on the ground which they have chosen. And while performing this duty, we may, as a natural consequence, fall into a philosophical manner of thinking, and a philosophical manner of stating and defending the doctrines of the Bible. And we may come at length to make philosophy the main business of the pulpit, both on ordinary, and on special occasions. Now should this in any measure prevail, it would, certainly prove^a calamity to the souls of men. Just as it would be a calamity to persons, who came hungry to a feast to which they were invited, if instead of receiving wholesome food, they should be entertained with a philosophical discourse from the master of the house on the chemical properties of food, or on the theory of digestion. Should the practice I have named prevail generally, and should there be a reign of metaphysical instead of scriptural Theology ; of a truth famine and desolation would spread through the churches of the land.

A minister of distinguished excellence in Connecticut told me, near the close of his sacred work, that during the first years of his ministry, he was in the practice of preaching metaphysically. At length he was led to make some particular inquiry as to the usefiilness of his public instructions. To his surprise and grief he was informed, that his preaching was universally unintelligible and unprofitable, both to the old and the young. He therefore determined that henceforth he would confine metaphysical investigation to his study, and would make it his object to preach the gospel of Christ. This determination, and a correspondent practice, was followed by the most happy consequences.

LETTER I. 13

He who spake as never man spake, has given us a perfect pattern of the manner in which he would have us inculcate and defend the truths of his gospel. And to this is added the example of his apostles. Now if Christ and his apostles had deemed the philosophy of religion of any special consequence, they certainly would have suggested this to us. But did they suggest it ? Did they recommend what I call the philosophy of Christian doctrines, as holding a place among the means to be employed for the salvation of men ? Instead of recommending it, did they not, in several instances, directly discountenance it ? If then the ministers of religion at the present day should cease to receive the simplicity of divine truth, just as it is exhibited in the Bible, or cease to love it and be satisfied with it, and, in their public and private instructions, should give Christianity a metaphysical, instead of a scriptural aspect ; would they not show that they had forgotten the example of their Lord and Master, and of his inspired Apostles ? And as the consequence of this, should we not witness a decay of vital piety, and a dark and ominous cloud spreading over the churches of Christ ?

Whitfield preached the truth with uncommon simplicity and directness, and kept at the greatest distance from philosophical discussion ; and with what unparalleled success is well known to the world. It is indeed true that some very impressive and successful ministers have much to do with the philosophy of Christianity. But in my opinion, this circumstance detracts greatly from the degree of their usefulness. If we could consult the sober experience of the most devout Christians, we should be satisfied that the success of ministers is, under God, owing to the simple truths of the Bible which they preach, and to the spirit of benevolence and piety which they manifest. Whatever they introduce into their ministrations which is abstruse, or metaphysical, or directly polemic in its nature, is generally very unwelcome to the hearts of those who are spiritually minded, and proves a serious hindrance to their growth in grace. Many a Christian, I doubt not, complains to God in secret, that although he is blessed with an able and orthodox minister, he is so seldom fed with '* the sincere milk of the word." And would it not be well for us, and for other ministers, to inquire, whether this has not been the case with some active, devout Christians, who have been placed under our ministry 1

Here, my Brother, we see our high responsibility in relation to 3 the particular work which divine providence has assigned to us. It is a responsibility which may well make us tremble, and which should excite in us an unremitting watchfulness against whatever would injure the piety or usefulness of the rising ministry. God requires us to train up those, whose studies we are called to superintend, to be preachers, not o^ philosophy or metaphysics, but of the Gospel. And in doing this, our chief business must be to teach them the truth in all its scriptural plainness and purity, making the word of God our standard both as to the matter and manner of our instructions. If this is neglected, whatever else is done, our Seminaries will certainly fail of accomplishing the great object for which they were founded. If our love for the Bible, or for divine truth as set forth in the Bible, declines ; if we begin to think that Christianity must be invested with the costume of philosophy ; especially, if we begin to take more interest in this philosophical costume, than in Christianity itself; there will be inevitable loss and injury to that precious cause which it is our first duty to promote ; the God of Zion will be offended ; and it will soon be said of our sacred Seminaries, if not of ministers and churches, — the glory is departed.

Suppose we had good reason to

expect, that at the close of each Academic year, the Blessed Jesus would travel through the land, as he travelled through Judea and Galilee eighteen hundred years ago, and would visit each of those Seminaries which have been consecrated to him. What influence would such an expectation have upon our feelings and conduct ? Would it not in all probability occasion some visible changes in the direction of our studies, in the use of our pens, in our instructions, and in our prayers ? Amid our high and holy efforts to prepare ourselves and our pupils for such a Visitant, would not some of the investigations which we so fondly pursue, and some of the opinions, for which we are apt so warmly to contend, lose their hold upon our minds ? And would not some other things which we are prone to overlook, quickly rise to infinite importance in our view ?