to defend Luther's doctrine of substitution. One quotation from the pamphlet will be sufficient for my present purpose. These are your words. "Since he did not suffer on account of any guilt of his own, on what ground can they reconcile his sufferings with the justice of God, who hold that he is not a substitute for sinners?" Although you advocate an entirely different view from the one just published by your colleague, it is a little remarkable that you do not even allude to his recent production, in your pamphlet published by the request of the students.

A third class profess to believe in the doctrine of satisfaction, so called. This view was maintained by Calvin. I will therefore look to him and his followers for an explanation of the subject. "The burden of damnation, from which we were delivered, was laid upon Christ. It was requisite, that he should feel the severity of the divine vengeance, in order to appease the wrath of God. There is no other satisfaction by which God, being displeased, may be made favorable and appeased." The pious Calvinistic Flavel makes these declarations: "God stood upon full satisfaction, and would not remit one sin without it. The design and end of this oblation was to atone, pacify, and reconcile God, by giving him a full and adequate compensation or satisfaction for the sins of his elect. To wrath, to the wrath of an infinite God without mixture, to the very torments of hell, was Christ delivered, and that by the hand of his own Father." Soon after your discourses on the atonement were well before the public, the Rev. Dr. Dana, of Newburyport, was called upon to deliver an ordination sermon. He took occasion to mention his dissatisfaction with both the theories which had been advocated at your Seminary, and to defend the old Calvinistic notion of satisfaction. An individual then in Andover was induced to write a review of the three productions for the New Haven Spectator. He endeavoured to make the credulous people believe, that there was no essential disagreement between the several writers; and that the apparent difference of opinion on this important doctrine was more in words and phraseology, than in ideas. But all this deception was displeasing not merely to yourself but to Dr. Dana. He accordingly addressed a communication to the directors of the Spectator, which was published with comments of no very satisfactory character. Since that period, great caution has been observed to prevent the unlearned from suspecting the extent of the disagreement.

A fourth class profess to believe in the doctrine of infinite atonement, so called. They pretend, that sin is an infinite evil; and consequently an infinite substitute must suffer to cancel the debt. They therefore declare that the divine nature of the Saviour, that God the Son, actually suffered and died for the sins of men. But would they remember, that God cannot suffer; would they recollect, that if God the Son could so suffer as to satisfy the justice of the Father, still there must be some other God to suffer in order to satisfy the justice of God the Son and

God the Holy Ghost, who were also equally offended with the sinfulness of men, I think they would say nothing further about an infinite

atonement.

A fifth class profess to believe, that nothing but the human nature of the Son suffered. If so, this leaves no atonement at all. For the sufferings of the mere man Jesus could have no more efficacy, than the sufferings of the mere man Stephen. The thinking portion of your denomination are getting upon this ground as fast as possible. This is evidently giving up the whole doctrine, although you may continue to abuse unitarians for their more Scriptural belief. There are others of your party, who know not what to believe on this subject. About the time your publication on the atonement appeared, one of your pupils presented himself to an association of ministers for examination, in order to obtain a license to preach. One of the Reverend gentlemen asked him three several times to state his views on the atonement. He evaded the question each time. Afterwards he came to the questioner and apologized for his apparent rudeness. Said he, "It does not do for us young men to give our opinion on those subjects, upon which the Faculty have not yet come to an agreement." Whether your Faculty have yet come to an agreement on this doctrine, or not, I am unable to determine. I presume, however, the dismission of one of your Professors may have contributed to restore this harmony. If I have departed from the literal truth in any of the statements under this division, the blame must rest on two orthodox ministers, who were members of your institution at the time mentioned. In view of these facts, how could you quote and treat the extract from Dr. Channing as you have done? Did you wish to awaken the prejudices of the ignorant against him? Did you not know, that on this very point you were peculiarly vulnerable? And especially, did you not recollect, that a publication on the doctrine of the atonement, by the Rev. Noah Worcester, D. D., had been before the public more than a year; that it had shaken the faith of some of your most devoted friends; that it had received no notice from orthodox writers; and that it is regarded as a complete refutation of your views of the subject, and altogether unanswerable? Such, then, are the various and contradictory systems of the orthodox on the subject of the atonement. I suppose you will aver, that so long as all classes will agree to use the word atonement, their disagreement in ideas is non-essential.

4. Agreement in Affection. I intended to notice most of the orthodox doctrines in a similar manner, and have made most of the necessary selections from your writers for this purpose. But I find my limits will not permit this. I therefore simply assert, that the disagreement among your leaders is equally great and striking on the subjects of regeneration, original sin, imputation, irresistible grace, election and reprobation, salvation and punishment, the inspiration of the Scriptures,

In religious

and revivals of religion. The literal fact seems to be this. truth Andover is fifty years in advance of Bangor and Princeton; New Haven and New York are twenty-five years in advance of Andover; Cambridge is fifty years in advance of New Haven; although one of your students, who still retains his orthodoxy, assured me that he had no doubt, fifty years would find Andover on precisely the same standing that Cambridge now is, so far as the pupils were concerned.

Now, are the leaders of the orthodox party heartily united in affection? You are divided into various parties, and distinguished by several sectarian names. There are the old, the new, the moderate, and the rigid Calvinists. There are the Hopkinsians, the Presbyterians, and the Congregationalists; and still you wish all to be included in the orthodox denomination. There are among you great envyings, and jealousies, and enmities. Go among the adherents of Bangor and Princeton Theological Seminaries, and you hear the most severe denunciations against Andover and New Haven. I speak from personal acquaintance with this subject. Go among the adherents of Andover, and you hear the New Haven and New York divines severely censured. One of your ministers was asked by a unitarian, what he thought of the New Haven Professors? He returned the following answer: "We think they are perverting the Scriptures much worse than the unitarians." And what does the New Haven Spectator say of your friend, Dr. Woods, on account of his late Letters to Dr. Taylor? I will select a few passages. The reviewer declares, that "Dr. Woods's Letters abound in remarks, which are not only irrelevant to the point at issue, but personal and invidious in a high degree;" that "he has held out to view two opposing parties, Dr. Taylor and his friends on one side, and the orthodox on the other;" that "not content with calling in question the orthodoxy of Dr. Taylor, he has actually held him forth as identified, no one knows to what extent, with the unitarian party; and addresses the man, whom he has thus arraigned before the churches, as an affectionate brother, and a respected and beloved brother;" that "he has, without the shadow of a reason, struck a direct blow at every thing that is valuable in the character of Dr. Taylor, as a man, a minister of the gospel, and an instructer of youth;" that "he has extended the same system of attack, by surmise and insinuation, to the whole body of Dr. Taylor's pupils, and to all, who may agree with him in his theological opinions;" that "he prefers a direct charge against Dr. Taylor and his friends, that their sentiments are likely to result in the utter abandonment of the peculiar doctrines of the gospel, and at last in infidelity;" that "the personal incivility which pervades these Letters is without a parallel in our churches during the last thirty years." And notwithstanding all this, Dr. Beecher could make the observation, to be taken and circulated by the smaller men of the party, that that there was little or no disagreement between Andover and New Haven; but that the friendly discussion related to the philosophy of religion.

And what have the leading Calvinists said of you, Hopkinsians? Take a few extracts which have been published by Dr. Ely of Philadelphia. The Doctor himself observes, when speaking of some Calvinistic creeds, "The Hopkinsians, Sabellians, Arians, and Socinians cannot be expected to like them. Any person who maintains either of these heresies has departed from the faith of the pious fathers of New England." The Rev. Dr. Smith, of Princeton, when speaking of some extracts from Hopkinsian writers, has these words; "This assortment of the religious errors and absurdities of certain writers in our country, who have gained a reputation, far beyond what nonsense and impiety should acquire for a divine. And I am persuaded, that these profound divines are preparing the way for a more extensive diffusion of infidel principles, and even of atheism, in our country." The Rev. Mr. M'Niece, of New York, declares, that Hopkinsian sentiments are at war with the philosophy of the human mind, with common sense, and with the word of the living God." The Rev. Dr. Mason, of New York, declares that Hopkinsianism is "indeed another gospel in some very material points." But there is no end to the quotations I could make to show the real divisions and dissensions which now exist among the leaders of the orthodox. Sir, I must speak with plainness. All this pretended union and harmony among your leaders is a deception. You agree heartily in but three particulars. First, in using certain words, while you attach to them very different ideas. Secondly, in making a human creed instead of the Bible your standard of religious truth. And, thirdly, in denouncing and condemning those who will not yield to your dictation. In truth, there is any thing but agreement among you in sentiment, and, judging from your writings, but little in affection. I will conclude this head with merely one extract from a letter lately written by an orthodox divine of eminence, moderation, and candor. I hope he will not be offended with this liberty, for his remarks seem too important to be withheld from the public. Speaking of yourself, and of the impression received on reading your Letter, he thus ob

serves:

"His theory of religious liberty appeared to me sound and good. But I was surprised, that he should maintain boldly, that the conduct of the orthodox is in full accordance with that theory. For I had known something of his own sufferings from the illiberality of both the South and the North. I knew the long-standing, yet unjust suspicions of his orthodoxy, which have seemed to give him much disquietude; and which perhaps have induced him to stand forth, from time to time, as the bold champion of the orthodox, and to lash the unitarians, especially, with all his might. I recollected his controversy with Dr. Miller on the Sonship of Christ, and with Dr. Carnahan respecting the American Education Society; in both of which, I supposed, Mr. Stuart would feel there was some want of liberality and Christian charity in his adver

saries. The latter, especially, is full proof of the want of harmony and mutual confidence between the North and South. I called to mind the late commotions among the orthodox, respecting the doctrine of the atonement, and the singular part Mr. Stuart himself acted in that dispute. I looked at the existing civil war, respecting the New Haven theology; and the book with Dr. Woods was writing against Dr. Taylor, at the very time Mr. Stuart was publishing his Letter, and in which Dr. Woods is thought to have manifested an unchristian and ungentlemanly spirit. Of that book, and of the whole history of the controversy, Mr. Stuart could hardly be ignorant, as he is known to be claimed by both parties, though he probably has not the full confidence of either. I also recollected the many orthodox and useful ministers, who have felt themselves injured by the illiberal surmises and the secret machinations of certain leading men. These and other topics suggested to my mind numerous facts, which I supposed should have led any man, who was as well acquainted with them as Mr. Stuart, to beware of the broad and unqualified assertions contained in his book."

III. PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES OF THE PILGRIMS. Many individuals of your denomination have endeavoured to make the unlearned part of the community believe the three following statements respecting our Pilgrim fathers. First, that the orthodox observe the same governing principles. Secondly, that they believe the same religious doctrines. And, thirdly, that unitarians have renounced both their principles and doctrines, and are laboring for their destruction. I perceive, much to my astonishment, that you have advanced the same sentiments. Three quotations from your letter will prove the truth of this assertion. My first will relate to the principles of the Pilgrims. Here it is. "The orthodox are not to be diverted from their purpose, by language of severe reproach and unmeasured indignation. The sons of those, who left country and kindred to brave the storms of the ocean in frail barks, to face the gloomy horrors of the wintry blasts and storms, in a savage land and in a boundless forest, and who did all this cheerfully that they might hold fast the orthodox faith, and worship God according to it — the sons of such men, holding to the same principles, and believing them to be the only foundation of their eternal hopes — are not to be diverted from their course by obloquy and denunciation, however eloquent and severe." You here assert that the orthodox hold the principles of the Pilgrim fathers. My next passage will relate to their opinions or religious doctrines. Here it is. "The orthodox do not understand why they have not the liberty of defending the opinions which their ancestors held, in case they do sincerely accord with them. That they do sincerely agree, they openly profess and avow; and neither yourself, nor any man on earth, has a right to call this in question." I, Sir, am the man who will call this agreement in question before I finish this topic. My last quotation will relate to the conduct of unitarians in la