Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ourselves called upon to make a frank exposition of our views and motives, to the Christian public.

The Professors say: "It is well known to the public, that a second Theological Seminary has been organized in this state. To the establishment of such an institution, as a means simply of increasing the facilities for theological instruction, we should be the last to object; but this institution, it is well known, was established avowedly on the ground, that the department under our care, has become the seat of dangerous error. Against such an assumption, we feel ourselves bound most solemnly to protest." They say also: "On the ground of our entire conformity to their own standard of orthodoxy, the friends of the Theological Institute are forever precluded from saying, or insinuating, that a new institution was called for to oppose any errors of ours."

The impression which these statements are evidently intended to make on the public mind, is, that the founders and friends of the Theological Institute are labouring under an entire delusion, in supposing that there exists any important the Congregational ministers of ence of this delusion, they have which is not called for, and wh. Christian public. They assume i. is intended to be arrayed in opposi connected; and that the sole object 1. pose certain errors which exist only 1. and supporters. Whether these represe public will judge, when they have carefull, to say in our own defence.

rence of theological views among ecticut; and that under the influforward to establish a seminary ight not to be patronized by the a fact, that the new institution the one with which they are h it was founded, is, to op'magination of its friends

are well founded, the ended to what we have

We do not deny, that there exists serious dissatisfaction in relation to the Theological School at New Haven; and that this is among the reasons which have given rise to the new institution. The grounds of this dissatisfaction, we now feel ourselves called upon frankly to state.

1. Many have been dissatisfied, that the Theological School at New Haven has no more connexion with the ministers and churches of the state. Being an appendage of the College, it is under the entire control of the Corporation; a Board which, as at present constituted, is deemed altogether unsuitable to be the guardians of a Theological Se minary. It is well known, that of the eighteen members who compose this Board, (exclusive of the President,) eight are ex-officio membersthe Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and six Senators. These are annually chosen by the people at large, and are, of course, such men as happen to be elected to these offices. They may, and often do, belong to different religious denominations. There is no certainty that they will not be, occasionally at least, men whose influence, (great as it must be from the stations which they occupy,) will be exerted in opposition to evangelical religion;* yet they have a right, equally with the other

*We shall not be understood to have any reference to the present members of the Corporation-We speak only of what may be. Nor do we complain of the manner in which this Board is constituted, so far as it relates to the Academical Department merely; but only in reference to the Theological School. The principle for which we contend, is, that a Theological Seminary ought to be under the control of a distinct Board of Trustees, composed of ministers and members of churches, who are amenable to some ecclesiastical body. The Trustees of the Theological Institute are appointed by the Pastoral Union, and are amenable to them. There is, of course, a connexion between the Seminary and the ministers and churches, which would not exist, were it under the control of an independent and irresponsible Board.

members of the Board, to act, and vote, in the election and removal of the Theological Professors, in directing the course of studies, and in regulating all the internal concerns of the Institution. That a school, intended for the theological education of Congregational ministers, should be under the entire control of a Board thus constituted, has appeared to many altogether improper; and they have looked forward with no small degree of solicitude to the probable results of such an arrangement.

2. Another ground of dissatisfaction with the New Haven School, as at present organized, is the want of sufficient security against the introduction of heresy. In regard to three of the Theological Professors,* it is not known that they are required to give their assent to any Confession of Faith, or that the Corporation are required, or even authorized, to remove them from office, for any heretical opinions whatever.† In regard to the Professorship of Didactic Theology, the founders do indeed make the following requisition: "Every Professor who shall receive the income or revenue of this fund, shall be examined as to his faith, and be required to make a written declaration thereof, agreeably to the following: 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," i. e. the Saybrook Platform. "If, at any future period, any person who fills the chair of this Professorship, holds or teaches doctrines contrary to those above referred to, then it shall be the duty of the Corporation of the College to dismiss such person from office, forthwith." Yet the Professors say in their statement, that "a subscription to Confessions of Faith," is to be considered " as made for substance of doctrine therein contained, without binding the conscience to every expression used." They say also, that the present incumbent, while Professor elect, "had certain knowledge, from personal intercourse with the founders, that if he had embraced every minute doctrine of the Confession, it would have been considered a decisive disqualification for the office."

In view of these statements, the question naturally arises, on what is this Professorship founded, and for what cause are the Corporation required to dismiss the Professor from office? The founders, so far as appears from their statutes, require an unqualified assent to the Confession of Faith contained in the Platform, and make it the duty of the Corporation to dismiss the Professor from office, if he holds or teaches doctrines contrary to those contained in this Confession. Yet it is admitted, that the present Professor does hold and teach doctrines contrary to those above referred to. But it is contended, that he is not liable, on this account, to impeachment, because he had "certain knowledge, from personal intercourse with the founders," that it is their will that he should hold and teach doctrines contrary to the Confession to which they have required him to "declare his free assent,' in the most unqualified terms. What, then, is the creed by which this Professor is bound? In case of impeachment, by what standard is he to be tried? By the creed which the present Professor submitted to the Corporation? But this is not mentioned by the founders; and if it

The Professors of Divinity, of Biblical Literature, and of Rhetoric.

[ocr errors]

+ Some of the Professors in this department may have given their assent to the Saybrook Platform, at the time when they were inducted into office; but since that time, the test law of the College has been repealed, and, so far as we have been able to learn, no exception was made in regard to the Theological Professors.

had been, in what sense is it to be taken? In the literal and unqualified sense, or only "for substance of doctrine?" Is the Saybrook Platform, "for substance of doctrine," to be considered as the standard? Neither is this mentioned by the founders. And if we may suppose it to have been so understood, how is it to be ascertained what is implied in a subscription to a creed " for substance of doctrine?" How much may be rejected, and still the substance be retained? Who shall draw the line, and where shall the line be drawn? Here, as it appears to us, is room for endless debate; and if the principles laid down by the Professors be admitted, we see not how a charge of heterodoxy could ever be sustained against any person filling the chair of this Professorship. Nor do we see, on these principles, that the requisitions of the founders afford any security against the introduction of dangerous and even fatal error.

The foregoing considerations would have great weight in our minds, if we were perfectly satisfied with the doctrines at present taught in the New Haven School; but,

3. The theological views maintained by the Professors, have given great and extensive dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction has not been produced by vague rumours as to what the Professors are supposed to believe and teach, but by a perusal of their own public statementsstatements which seem to us to be uttterly inconsistent with the creeds to which they still acknowledge their assent; and which make it evident to our minds, that while they adopt the language of these creeds, they must affix to that language a meaning altogether different from that in which it has been commonly received. It is well known, that different individuals may attach a very different meaning to the same forms of expression. The proposition that Jesus is the Christ, is assented to, both by the Calvinist and the Socinian; but how widely different is the construction which they put upon this language, and how utterly at variance are their views of the character of the Saviour! An expressed assent to the same general propositions, by different individuals, is no evidence of harmony of views, when their own explanations of these propositions are irreconcileably at variance. Now it does appear to us, that in the explanations which the Professors have given of some of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, they have adopted principles, which lead, by legitimate consequence, to the utter subversion of those doctrines. This, we think, has been conclusively shown, in publications which have appeared within the last five or six years. To those who have carefully perused these publications, it cannot be necessary, that we should add any thing in proof of the above position. For the benefit of others, it may be necessary to advert briefly to a few examples.

In the first place, The professors have advanced positions, which seem to us to subvert the doctrine of the divine decrees. They maintain that "God prefers, all things considered, holiness to sin, in all instances in which the latter takes place;" and that sin is suffered to exist, because God could not entirely prevent its existence in a moral system. They insist, that it is utterly inconsistent with the goodness of God, to suppose that "he preferred, decreed, and made a universe, comprising sin and its everlasting miseries," when he "could, if he would, have made a universe of perfectly holy and happy beings." Were we to adopt these principles, we should feel ourselves compelled to renounce the doctrine of decrees, as it is taught in the Scriptures. It is matter of fact, that God has made a universe, comprising sin

and its everlasting miseries;" and the Scriptures assert, "As for God, his way is perfect. Who can stay his hand? Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places." How can this be true, if the present universe is not such, as God, on the whole, prefers; and if he would have made a different universe, had it been in his power? Who ever heard, that any being ever purposed, or chose, that a thing should exist, when he preferred, all things considered, that something else should exist in its stead? How is it possible for God to prefer, on any account, the existence of sin in any instance, if, all things considered, that is, on all accounts, he prefers something else in its stead, in all instances? Until this question can be satisfactorily answered, the views of the Professors must be regarded as utterly irreconcileable with the Calvinistic creed.

Again: The principles adopted by the Professors seem to us to subvert the doctrines of special grace, and of particular election. If it be true, that "God, all things considered, prefers holiness to sin, in all instances in which the latter takes place," then it must be his choice, all things considered, that all men should become holy and be saved; and his infinite benevolence will prompt him to do all in his power to bring all men to repentance. What then becomes of the doctrines of special grace, and of particular election? Who maketh thee to differ? Not God, surely; for he prefers, all things considered, holiness to sin in every instance, he will do all in his power to prevent sin, and secure holiness in its stead, in every instance. To say that God chooses not to secure that which he, on the whole, prefers, and which he is able to secure, is a manifest contradiction.

Again: The Professors maintain, "mankind come into the world with the same nature, in kind, as that with which Adam was created;" and that "the only reason that the posterity of Adam do not exhibit the same moral character which Adam exhibited, is not that they have a different nature, but that they are placed in different circumstances." Those positions appear to us, to be utterly inconsistent with the Calvinistic views of the original character of man, and of the consequences of the apostacy. Were we to adopt these principles, we could not believe, that man was originally created holy, or that there is any real connexion between the sin of Adam and that of his posterity; nor could we believe, that infants are, in any sense, sinners, and need to be born again, or to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. If admitted to heaven, they must, according to these principles, for aught that we can see, be accepted on the ground of their own righteousness, and without regeneration, contrary to the express declarations of Christ and the apostle. John, iii. 3: Rom. iii. 20.

Again: The Professors maintain, that self-love, or the desire of happiness, is the grand principle by which all moral beings, whether sinful or holy, are actuated. They say, "Of all specific, voluntary action, the happiness of the agent, in some form, is the ultimate end." Were we to adopt this principle, we should feel ourselves compelled to give up the doctrine of disinterested love, and to deny all radical distinction between holiness and sin. According to this theory, the distinction of moral character which exists among men, does not arise from the fact that they have different ultimate ends, but from the fact that they employ different means to obtain the same ultimate end. The reason that one is holy, and another sinful is, the one seeks his own happiness, by choosing God as his portion, or chief good; the other seeks his own happiness, by choosing the world as his portion, or chief good.

Both have a supreme regard to their own happiness. Consequently, holiness and sin are to be traced to the same principle of action. We cannot but say, what we honestly believe, that the religion which is in accordance with this theory, is a selfish, and, of course, a spurious religion.

Again: The Professors maintain, that antecedent to regeneration, the selfish principle is suspended in the sinner's heart; and that, prompted by self-love, he uses the means of regeneration, with motives which are neither sinful nor holy.

This theory seems to us, to subvert the doctrine of regeneration by the special agency of the Holy Spirit; for it supposes every thing which renders that agency necessary, to be removed, antecedent to a change of heart. How can it be necessary, that God should interpose, by the almighty energy of his Spirit, to effect the conversion of a sinner, after his selfishness is suspended, and his opposition to the motives of the gospel has ceased?

This theory also seems to us, to involve the doctrine of progressive regeneration a doctrine utterly at variance with the Calvinistic sys

tem.

Again: The Professors have advanced principles which seem to us to subvert the doctrine of the Saints' Perseverance. They say, "Free moral agents can do wrong under all possible preventing influence. Using their powers as they may use them, they will sin; and no one can show that some such agents will not use their powers as they may use them. This possibility that free agents will sin, remains, (suppose what else you will,) so long as moral agency remains, and how can it be proved that a thing will not be, when for aught that appears, it may be? When, in view of all the facts and evidence in the case, it remains true that it may be, what evidence or proof can exist that it will not be?"

According to the principles here laid down, what evidence or proof can exist, that God will be able to prevent the total and final apostacy of every saint and every angel? Saints and angels are free moral agents; and, according to the principles here laid down, the possibility that they will apostatize remains, (suppose what else you will,) “ 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 facts and evidence in the case, it remains true that saints may apostatize, what evidence or proof can exist that they will not apostatize?"*

*The publications in which the principles above referred to, and others equally objectionable, may be found, are a Concio ad Clerum, preached in the chapel of Yale College, September 10, 1828; Review of Dr. Spring on the Means of Regeneration, Christian Spectator for March, June, September, and December, 1829; Review of Dr. Tyler's Strictures, Christian Spectator for March, 1830; Review of Dr. Wood's Letters, Christian Spectator for September, 1830; Letter to Dr. Hawes, Christian Spectator for March, 1832; Reply to Dr. Tyler in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, vols. V. and VI.; Review of Dr. Tyler's Remarks, Christian Spectator for September, 1832; Letter to the Editor of the Christian Spectator for September, 1833. Of these publications, Dr. Taylor is either the avowed or reputed author. Review of Taylor and Harvey, Christian Spectator for June, 1829, supposed to be written principally by Professor Goodrich; Review of Dr. Fiske on Predestination, Christian Spectator for December 1831; and a Treatise on the Divine Permission of Sin, Christian Spectator for December, 1832, from the pen of Professor Fitch.

(To be continued.)

« ZurückWeiter »